Designing with ‘direct democracy’
Authors: Albers Aimée 
Published: July 2021

In the 1970s and ’80s residents and architects in Amsterdam worked together to shape the renewal of their neighbourhood. Working outside traditional planning constraints they initiated a process for designing ‘neighbourhood plans’ that gave priority to affordable housing and minimized disruption to the existing social and urban design structure. Although these neighbourhood plans stood in stark contrast to prevailing political and urban planning ideas, they formed the basis on which urban renewal was realized from the middle of the 1970s. While the focus in the historiography of urban renewal is usually on politics and policy, this article provides insight into the design process itself and the ideas behind urban renewal architecture based on numerous consultation documents generated by the collaboration between local residents and architects. The Dapperbuurt area serves as an exemplary case study.
The example of the Dapperbuurt shows that locals and architects formed energetic and effective coalitions. After the residents of the Dapperbuurt had won far-reaching control over the design process, including a say in the choice of architect, they entered into a collaboration with the architects Hans Borkent, Rob Blom van Assendelft and Hein de Haan. During the extensive consultation process the architects acted as equal discussion partners rather than all-knowing experts, while local residents provided creativity and spontaneous initiatives and had the final say. Together they designed with ‘direct democracy’. In this article those collaborative arrangements are referred to as ‘creative housing coalitions’. This term expresses both their main aim and their greatest strength. It also shows who initiated the urban renewal housing projects and how grass-roots initiatives were ultimately translated into policy.
In the course of the design process, local residents and their architects sought creative ways of reconciling the apparent antithesis between the historically evolved city and modern architecture and urban design. Instead of taking a blank slate as their starting point, they proceeded on the basis of the qualities of the existing environment and the interests and wishes of the residents. This resulted in the retention of the existing morphology and functional diversity. However, the housing projects were on a much larger scale than the
individual buildings that had previously made up the neighbourhood, because while the local residents were unwilling to give up their familiar living environment, they did want modern home comforts. This study has revealed that the replacement construction was required to combine the best of both worlds. In order to suggest a smaller scale, the external walls were vertically articulated, and their height demarcated by means of balconies, bay windows, hoisting beams, eaves and staggered building lines. So both contrast to and compatibility with the context are relevant criteria for evaluating urban renewal architecture. In addition, it turns out that a key merit of this urban renewal was its function, namely to deliver affordable and comfortable housing on centrally located sites with high land values. The architecture gives expression to that function.