Plan Documentation

Plan Documentation Interiors on Display

The project documentation for this eleventh edition of DASH shows 15 style rooms that cover a time span of more than 100 years. These home interiors, which were never inhabited, were explicitly designed to illustrate a contemporary or futuristic form of dwelling at exhibitions and fairs. This distinguishes them from the traditional style rooms or period rooms in museums that depict a historic domestic style. The interiors shown here demonstrate how certain themes from the past 100 years continue to play a role in the debate on architecture, design and dwelling.
In selecting the style rooms, an attempt was made to find a certain variation in design philosophies, without striving for completeness. The rooms from the first decade of the twentieth century made by Peter Behrens and Hendrik Petrus Berlage for Wertheim, the department store in Berlin, show two different approaches: the Gesamtkunstwerk and the composed interior. The home furnishing of Behrens became well known and was reconstructed in Darmstadt, whereas Berlage’s room has been forgotten. The three exhibited interiors from the 1920s illustrate the great importance that architects from this period gave to the phenomenon of ‘dwelling’, as well as the important position that housing exhibitions (and the interiors they featured) played in a debate about space, materials, standardization and domestic culture. Noteworthy of the two interiors documented here by the great Modern masters Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier is the essential role of two women, respectively Lilly Reich and Charlotte Perriand, whose names have remained somewhat in the shadows until recently. In comparison to these two installations, the furniture arrangement of Heinrich Tessenow shows a completely different approach: here, a link was sought to the conventions of a natural domestic culture. In their 1930 installation for the Triennale di Milano, Luigi Figini and Gino Pollini took an intermediary position between Mies and Tessenow: in a spatial arrangement that was clearly indebted to Mies, they placed furniture as ready-mades, referring to traditions from the Italian countryside. From the same period, we also included a furniture arrangement by Josef Frank for Svenskt Tenn, which was exhibited with great commercial success at the World’s Fair in New York: the home interior had become a global market.

After the Second World War, the relationship between architecture and the home interior changed. The ambition to educate the dwelling consumer about good taste took off significantly during the reconstruction period. In the early 1950s, Finn Juhl was asked by the Trondheim museum to give shape to this particular kind of taste, in a modern period room. Likewise, at Expo 58 in Brussels, Karl Augustinus Bieber and Ernst Althoff showed the interior of a more ordinary but still modern model apartment. A specific way of exhibiting distinguished this pavilion from the many model homes and arrangements that, for example, the Goed Wonen foundation had furnished in the Netherlands.

The shift from architecture to (product) design, or more accurately the gradual disappearance of the strong interest that architects had shown for home interiors during the pre-war years, was perhaps best seen in the 1972 MoMA exhibition ‘Italy: The New Domestic Landscape’. Two completely different projects by Joe Colombo and Super-studio, both related to this exhibition, showed how the architecture of the home dissolved respectively into an all-inclusive object and a series of neutral furniture pieces in a landscape. Product design, encouraged by the spirit of postmodernism, threw itself wholeheartedly into the domestic interior, by depicting trends like the rise of the media, as can be seen in the project by Ugo La Pietra from the 1980s. Apparently, in the current consumer society, product designers have recently been better than architects at giving shape to their ideas about dwelling: Jasper Morrison and Hella Jongerius created installations that critically questioned their own profession, whereas Kengo Kuma seemed to be looking for a reinterpretation of an ancient culture. But at the same time, this also illustrates a fundamental and at least 100-year-old debate among architects and designers about the role of innovation and tradition in home interiors.
All of these interiors on display were specially redrawn for this issue. In so doing, we looked for a drawing technique that specifically worked for interiors. Showing the floor plan with unfolded walls (known as ‘developed surface drawing’) is a technique that has traditionally been used by those who focus on the treatment of the surfaces of the inner walls, such as painters and other craftsmen. In the England and the Netherlands of the eighteenth century, this technique achieved a certain popularity among architects in the design of interiors. Because this drawing technique allows the relationship between the floor plan and the elevations of the room to be united in a single drawing, we have consistently used it in this project documentation, and we have thus drawn the 15 style rooms in a similar fashion. This inevitably led to a number of complications. As a drawing technique, developed surface drawing is particularly suitable for ‘classic’ rooms with a flat floor, walls and ceiling. But with this technique, steps or projections in these surfaces lead to interruptions in the uniform depiction of the figure, as can be seen in the drawings of the rooms by Behrens, Figini and Pollini, and Juhl. Despite these interruptions, these drawings still create the illusion of a model cut-out, which only needs to be folded together to be viewed from above. This becomes difficult, however, with exhibited home interiors that are not so much rooms or spaces but objects, such as the model apartment by Bieber and Althoff, the Total Furniture Unit by Colombo, or the Ideal House by Jongerius. Here we have used a variant of this drawing technique, where the outer walls of the object are grouped around the floor plan, so that you look from the outside to the inside. This variant of the floor plan with unfolded elevations has also been used in what is perhaps the most outspoken ‘anti-style room’, namely Superstudio’s placement of the Misura furniture in an open space.

Interiors that were once displayed at fairs or exhibitions have not always been well described or documented. For the most part, the new drawings shown here are therefore reconstructions of the project, based on the available (historical) material: sketches, drawings and photographs.


With contributions by:
Frederique van Andel, Rika Devos, Fredie Floré, Dick van Gameren,
Julia Hegenwald, Paul Kuitenbrouwer, Peter Lang, Pierijn van der Putt,
Louise Schouwenberg, Hans Teerds & Jurjen Zeinstra

Guido Greijdanus, Carlyn Simoen & Davida Rauch

Plan Documentation

Plan Documentation Housing the Student

The plan documentation for this tenth edition of DASH includes ten examples of student housing projects that have actually been built. Spread across Europe and North America, the projects give a panoramic overview of models for student housing that have been developed over the past 500 years. The architecture of the student dwelling has a rich and dynamic history, and the selection shows a number of projects that illustrate the most important traditions and innovations.

St John’s College in Cambridge exemplifies the college, developed in the Middle Ages: a collective residential building for teachers and students. The residents share a set of communal facilities, the most important of which are the dining room, library and chapel. This type of construction is known from the old British university cities, but can also be found on the continent. In the 500 years since its founding, St John’s College has been expanded again and again; it demonstrates how the residential units in the college have developed over the course of time.

The Residencia de Estudiantes in Madrid exemplifies the student house of the twentieth-century: a rationally designed accommodation building with a linear repetition of identical rooms, without any extensive collective programme. The first Dutch example of housing built specifically for students is the Collège néerlandais in Paris. The design harkens back to the past: with its courtyard shape and community facilities, the building follows the college model rather literally.

The explosive growth of universities in Europe and North America after the Second World War led to many student housing projects, and several special experiments can be found in this abundance. In the patio student residences on the first Dutch campus in Twente, units are clustered around collective patios, forming a unique ‘mat-building’ in terms of landscape. In the Maison d’Iran in Paris, the expression of the construction is the crucial starting point. Box-shaped volumes that contain the simple main design of corridors with repeating units are hung on colossal and visible steel portals. The space that remains under and between the volumes is used for collective functions.

Interesting experiments have also taken place in traditional university towns, where distinctly modernist architecture has been embedded in the historical buildings. The Cripps Building, an extension of St John’s College in Cambridge, and the Morse and Stiles Colleges for Yale University in New Haven are virtuoso examples of this. Meandering and curved volumes, built up of rooms that are clustered around portico stairwells, attempt to fit into the existing spatial structures.

Much like in the regular housing industry, the large-scale approach dominated over the smaller-scale, individual approach to student housing in the 1970s. The large student housing complex called Hoogveldt, in Nijmegen, is a typical example of the large and often anonymous complexes that arose in the Dutch university towns, in which repeating clusters of student rooms shared a communal bathroom and kitchen with dining area.

From the new boom in student housing projects that were built during the last two decades, two examples have been chosen that show the new forms of housing. The Svartlamoen project in Trondheim introduces a striking informality in a small residential building for students and young people. The collective housing programme dominates, and the student rooms have been minimized almost to the point of being closets in a large communal space. A greater contrast between this building and the Anna van Bueren Toren in The Hague is almost unthinkable. In a single building, this latter example in the plan documentation combines the classrooms of Leiden University’s bachelor-degree programme with the residences of the students who study there. In terms of appearance, the building fits into the anonymous office and apartment complexes that surround it, and only reveals its special function after being entered.

To make the plans transparent and comparable, the projects have been redrawn in a uniform drawing style. First, the urban-planning design of the project has been drawn in a broader context. In a more detailed site plan of the ground level, the connection between the living space, the collective indoor and outdoor spaces, and the public space has been visualized (in the typical way that DASH does this). For each plan, the most characteristic floors have been drawn in their entirety, with one or more cross sections. The exception here is St John’s College, for which only the complex of courtyards at ground level has been drawn.

The drawings are based on archival and published material taken from the time when the project was built. For St John’s College, the drawings were based on the drawings in the Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of Cambridge, published by the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.

For the majority of these projects, new DASH photo reportages have been created. For the College néerlandais, which is currently being renovated, we used photographs that were taken several years before the start of the renovation. The project in Trondheim is illustrated using photographs provided by the architect.


With contributions by:
Sergio Martín Blas, Piet Vollaard & Jurjen Zeinstra

Guido Greijdanus, Cederick Ingen-Housz, Carlyn Simoen


Plan Documentation

Plan Documentation Housing Exhibitions

The plan documentation for this ninth issue of DASH contains ten exhibition projects that give an overview of the different approaches to, and motivations behind, housing exhibitions during the past 100 years. All of the documented examples featured homes exhibited on a 1:1 scale. With the exception of the exhibition ‘Die Wohnung unserer Zeit’, which was meant to be temporary, the homes in the other nine projects remained even after the exhibition period was finished, and have since been permanently inhabited. Each of these ten exhibitions forms a mirror of the prevailing Zeitgeist. They call for change, expose shortcomings, form a platform for experimentation, offer a stage for political propaganda, or attempt to initiate urban renewal. ‘Ein Dokument deutscher Kunst’ (Darmstadt, 1901) was the first architecture exhibition that consisted entirely of homes and buildings, which themselves formed the objects that were on display. ‘Die Wohnung unserer Zeit’ (Berlin 1931) represents a highpoint in the series of exhibitions from the interwar period. As a result of the exhibition’s temporary nature (all of the exhibited homes or parts of the residential buildings were constructed on a 1:1 scale inside of an exhibition hall), it has since fallen into oblivion. The ‘Wiener Werkbundsiedlung’ (Vienna, 1932) was the last in the series of Werkbund exhibitions, and it focused primarily on the ground-floor, single-family home as a counterpart to the urban superblocks that dominated Vienna’s municipal housing programme. On the eve of the Second World War, ‘Schaffendes Volk’ (Düsseldorf, 1937) was the first exhibition in which the political system used a (housing) building exhibition as a propaganda tool.

The substantial efforts made in terms of post-war reconstruction and housing led anew to a number of important and influential housing exhibitions. For example, ‘Q.T.8 – Quartiere Sperimentale di Triennale di Milano VIII’ (Milan, 1947) was the first major post-war exhibition in Europe, and wound up covering an entire city district. The first projects in Q.T.8 displayed experiments that were meant to find efficient solutions for high-rise and compact low-rise construction. ‘Plan Internationaal’ (Doorwerth, 1967) took place in a period where new voices against the modernist ideals of mass housing began to be heard. The exhibition’s mostly detached prefab homes from abroad, along with several houses designed by Dutch architects, were meant to give the public the opportunity to compare the Dutch residential style to that of other countries.
In ‘Documenta Urbana’ (Kassel, 1982), an appeal was made for small, compact housing in a variety of housing types. In this way, the exhibition critiqued both post-war, large-scale residential architecture and the later sprawling, low-rise neighbourhoods and the exodus from the city. The ‘Internationale Bauausstellung’ (Berlin, 1987) continued these themes, and was the first exhibition to deal not only with new construction, but also with urban renewal and renovation. The exhibition seemed to want to definitively break away from post-war modernism in urban planning and housing, as seen in the 1957 ‘Interbau’ exhibition, which also took place in Berlin (in the Hansaviertel). The exhibition ‘Bo01 City of Tomorrow’ (Malmö, 2001) introduced, alongside a wide variety of housing types, several principles and ideas for a more ecological and sustainable kind of urban development. And finally, the ‘Internationale Bauausstellung’ in Hamburg cannot go unmentioned. It is the most recent building exhibition to have finished (on 3 November 2013), after six years of construction and exhibition activities. The IBA Hamburg addressed the themes of ‘ecology, sustainability, and climate’, ‘the multicultural city’, and ‘inner-city peripheries’.
To make these plans transparent and comparable, the projects have been redrawn in a uniform style. The starting point for these scale drawings was to be the original urban planning diagram, but it proved impossible to achieve this in a uniform way for all of the projects. That is why it was decided to present the project ‘Ein Dokument Deutscher Kunst’ (1901) in the form of two maps. The ‘Wohnung unserer Zeit’ took place in a hall; a diagram of this has been drawn, with the floor plans of the individual homes placed on top of it. For ‘Schaffendes Volk’, the exhibition’s 1937 plan was used as a kind of structural grid, with the current urban situation added on top of it: today, in 2013, the exhibition grounds are mainly used as a park (called Nordpark), and the residential areas from the exhibition have been partially expanded. For ‘Quartiere Sperimentale’ (Q.T.8.) in Milan the third plan by Piero Bottoni, was drawn (III piano, 1953), again set in the current context. In ‘Plan Internationaal’, several homes have since been converted or even demolished; the drawing here shows the plan that was originally realized, based on the exhibition brochure.
The plans for ‘Documenta Urbana’ were ambitious, and were only partially implemented. The drawing in this issue of DASH shows the designers’ original intent. The IBA Berlin of 1987 was the first exhibition that took place across several areas. At various locations in the city, work was done on the reconstruction programme that had been drawn up. Instead of a new overview diagram, what has been drawn here is the situation of the two documented projects. In Malmö, the area in Västra Hamnen (Western Harbour) where construction was to take place had not yet been finished at the time of the ‘Bo01 City of Tomorrow’ exhibition. For this project, DASH shows the final (current) situation. The IBA Hamburg ended in late 2013, and many of the projects that it encompassed will be continued in the coming years. For this issue of DASH, a section of the exhibition in Wilhelmsburg-Mitte (known as ‘the building exhibition within a building exhibition’) has been drawn. All of these projects have since been completed, and are open to visitors.

Several characteristic homes or residential buildings from each of these exhibitions have been elaborated upon. For each of these projects, the most essential floor plans and profiles are shown. The drawings are based on historical publications and archival material. The recent projects in Malmö and Hamburg have been drawn up on the basis of documentation that was provided by the designers who were involved. For this issue, new photo reportages have been made of the projects in Vienna, Düsseldorf, Doorwerth, Milan, Kassel, Berlin, Malmö and Hamburg. For Darmstadt, existing photo footage was used, which is also the case for Berlin, 1931. Old photographs and archival materials were also used for the other projects in order to give an image of these projects during the actual exhibition.


With contributions by:
Paul Kuitenbrouwer, Nelson Mota, Pierijn van der Putt & Karin Theunissen

Guido Greijdanus, Cederick Ingen-Housz, Carlyn Simoen & Wing Yung


Plan Documentation

Plan Documentation Building Together

The plan documentation of this eighth edition of DASH includes 11 projects that were realized on the basis of collective private commissions. Spread over Europe and North America, the projects provide a panoramic overview of the last 100 years. It shows the results of people’s private initiatives to build their own homes together with associates. The projects often avoid standard housing production in a number of different ways. The motives of the initiators are extremely diverse and never straightforward. Romantic ideals of a life in the countryside can go hand-in-hand with the notion of achieving financial advantage by working as partners.

In chronological order of completion, the documentation encompasses the following projects:

  • Harmoniehof, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 1919-1922 – J.C. van Epen (in collaboration with M.J.E. Lippits)
  • Usonia, Pleasantville, NY, USA, 1947-1952 – Frank Lloyd Wright and others
  • Thalmatt 1, Herrenschwanden, Switzerland, 1967-1974 – Atelier 5 (Erwin Fritz, Samuel Gerber, Rolf Hesterberg, Hans Hostettler and Alfredo Pini)
  • Calle de Arturo Soria, Madrid, Spain, 1976-1978 – Bayon, Aroca, Bisquert y Martin
  • Egelwier, Leusden, the Netherlands, 1975-1982 – Hans Ruijssenaars
  • WindSong Cohousing, Langley, Canada, 1998 – Davidson, Yuen, Simpson architecture (dys architecture)
  • Miss Sargfabrik, Vienna, Austria, 1998-2000 – BKK-3
  • Egebakken, Nødebo, Denmark, 2002-2004 – Tegnestuen Vandkunsten
  • Vrijburcht, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2005-2007 – CASA architecten
  • Zelterstrasse, Berlijn-Prenzlauerberg, Germany, 2008-2010 – Zanderroth Architekten
  • Elandshof, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2004-2012 – Bastiaan Jongerius architecten

The selection was largely determined by the question whether collective private commissioning also leads to new housing typologies. These could relate to the floor plans of the houses themselves, but also to the inclusion of communal facilities or unusual collective external and internal spaces. In order to realize the best-matched house for the future occupants, various strategies are apparently possible: 1) significant variation in types of houses, designed in advance; 2) a structure that makes it possible to elaborate each house individually; and 3) the development of types that can be adapted afterwards by the residents.

For the first variant, the Harmoniehof and the Vrijburcht, both in Amsterdam, are exemplary. The Harmoniehof came into being as a result of the opportunity provided to private individuals in the National Housing Act of 1902 to establish their own cooperatives. The initiative taken by a few senior civil servants to provide better houses for themselves and other kindred spirits turned out to be so successful in the 1910s and 1920s that it led to follow-up projects. The Harmoniehof represents a milestone in this development in housing architecture in the Netherlands. Some 100 years on, the established housing corporations are the ones that facilitate initiatives like this. The Vrijburcht in IJburg in Amsterdam is a good example of this.

Plans that allow the members of the collective each to realize their own interpretation of the individual dwelling (variant 2), differ more significantly from standard housing than those in the first category. Examples are Thalmatt 1 near Bern, where Atelier 5 elaborated on a number of principles from its famous design for the nearby Siedlung Halen to create an even more compact, extremely differentiated complex of terrace houses, and the residential complex Arturo Soria in Madrid, which is a fine demonstration of Habraken’s concept of support and infill. A remarkable Dutch example of this strategy are the 11 houses in the Egelwier in Leusden.

An example of variant 3 is provided by Egebakken in Nødebo, where each house was made to measure during the design, but where adaptations and extensions could be realized at a later stage.

Miss Sargfabrik in Vienna, Zelterstrasse in Berlin and the Elandshof in Amsterdam provide housing types in centrally located urban areas, types that are hardly to be found at all or are lacking altogether. The two projects from North America are perhaps the most driven by ideals. WindSong in Canada places a great deal of collectivity in the housing block and the residential setting compared to the traditional and apparently unavoidable reality of the detached, individual house. In contrast, Pleasantville in the state of New York is based on the ideal of one’s own, detached house, and can be seen as a reaction to the forced communality of living in apartment buildings in the city.

In order to provide insight into the plans and make comparison possible, the projects have been redrawn in a uniform style. To begin with, the urban design of the project has been sketched in a wider context. The difference between living space, private exterior space, communal interior and exterior space and public space is portrayed in the usual DASH way. For each plan, all the building levels have been drawn in their entirety, with one or more cross sections, apart from the relatively large Harmoniehof; here, the most common house types are illustrated separately.

Axonometric projections show the three-dimensional composition of the project, with the position of the communal areas and facilities. Where relevant, the communal space has been drawn in a second projection as a connecting exterior or interior space.

The drawings of the Harmoniehof are based on the drawings in the municipal archives of the City of Amsterdam. The houses in Usonia Pleasantville are drawn as the realized situation, which deviates from the floor plans drawn by Wright himself and shown in virtually every publication. The other projects are based on the drawings by the architecture firms in question.

For this edition of DASH, photo reportages have been made of several older projects: Harmoniehof, Pleasantville, Thalmatt, Egelwier and Miss Sargfabrik. For Arturo Soria, WindSong, Egebakken, Vrijburcht, Zelterstrasse and Elands-hof, photography by residents and designers has been used.


With contributions by: Frederique van Andel, Olv Klijn, Vincent Kompier, Eva Storgaard & Karin Theunissen

Drawings: Guido Greijdanus, Robbert Guis, Cederick Ingen-Housz & Carlyn Simoen


Plan Documentation

Plan Documentation The Eco House

The plan documentation for the seventh issue of DASH presents a series of exemplary ecological houses. The majority of them are detached or situated in rural areas or suburbs; two are townhouses, one of which is even an example of stacked individual dwellings. Together they demonstrate how architectural design can contribute to solving the problem of sustainability.

Although sustainability is a relatively new issue within architecture, one can find various historical examples that reveal an especial awareness about climate solutions in regard to creating a comfortable living environment, like the Jacobs House 2 by Frank Lloyd Wright, or the entire oeuvre of a pioneer like Ralph Erskine. When environmental awareness began to penetrate to politics and the general public in the late 1960s and early 1970s, we also see the first answers appearing in architecture – for instance, the well-known domes in North America, of which the Zome House by Steve Baer is a special exponent. Later examples of sustainable architecture coupled with an aware manner of living focused on ecological and social values instead of consumption are mainly found in Germany, which has been a trendsetter in this regard since the 1980s. Of these, the Baumhäuser designed by Frei Otto, Hermann Kendel and collaborating architects is a radical experiment that holds many lessons for the future. The Solarhaus in Switzerland by Otto Kolb, also from the 1980s, combines a holistic, psycho-ecological approach with a generous, almost glossy interior design that we recognize from lifestyle magazines. As of the 1990s, residential architecture has become almost inseparably connected with lifestyle and sustainability, something which, by the way, already happened in the USA in the 1940s in the pages of the Ladies’ Home Journal, which presented the first experiments with solar houses, including designs by Frank Lloyd Wright and Philip Johnson.

The most recent houses in this series each demonstrate an idiosyncratic solution to this combination of lifestyle, the home and sustainable architecture. In the Latapie House by Lacaton & Vassal, a generous living space was realized on an extremely limited budget through the creation of a two-storey high conservatory in a rough-and-ready architectural idiom. The Hoogland Living-Working House and Casa Weeber are examples of owner/builders and of an owner/architect, situations which made it possible to realize extremely expressive and powerful architecture. The three final houses, Villa Welpeloo by 2012Architecten, the Loblolly House by KieranTimberlake Associates and Casa Muro by FAR Frohn & Rojas, are examples of contemporary dwellings that combine a modernistic design idiom with an remarkably inventive use of materials to reveal new, unexpected qualities.

All of the selected houses were realized under special commissioning circumstances: four houses were built by the architects for themselves (Zome House, Solarhaus, Casa Weeber, Loblolly House), three are real do-it-yourself houses built or developed by the owners/residents (Zome House, the Baumhäuser, Hoogland Living-Working House), while the rest of the houses were commissioned by someone who is either a direct family member of the architect or who maintained a special tie with the architect. This was not a criterion for including them in this series, but an observation after the fact. It does, however, go a long way in explaining the freedom that the architects were given (or took them-selves) to radically implement all sorts of experiments and build exceptional architecture far beyond the conventional in order to test and demonstrate new possibilities.

To make the plans easily decipherable and comparable, the projects were redrawn in a uniform style. The floor plan and cross section are the two most important drawings for demonstrating the connection between the architecture, layout and sustainability. A series of diagrams summarizes the ecological principles of the design of each house. Photo reportages compiled from historical and new visual material show the qualities of the living spaces in relation to climate zones, orientation and materials, among other things. Where relevant, other sustainability aspects of a project are also explained, such as the ‘harvest map’ for Villa Welpeloo, or the geometry of the Zome House.

The project data include the following general ecological principles and climate aspects, depending on the dwelling design:

1. design principles (including collective commission, autarky, superuse)
2. landscape principles (such as earth shelter principle)
3. general form and insulation
4. passive solar energy, natural ventilation and natural light measures
5. active solar energy and heat storage
6. conventional energy (only if innovative, efficient or smart)
7. water
8. materials used

Points 3 to 6 concern energy (subdivided according to the trias energetica):

step 1: prevention (3)

step 2: use of sustainable energy sources, divided into passive and active (4 and 5)

step 3: use of efficient conventional (fossil fuel) systems (6)

The drawings for the Zome House, Latapie House, Hoogland Living-Working House, Casa Weeber, Loblolly House, Casa Muro and Villa Welpeloo are based on documentation made available by the architects, for which we are very grateful. The houses designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and Ralph Erskine and the Solarhaus by Otto Kolb are based on archival material placed at our disposal by, among others, the Swedish Architecture Museum and researcher Rahel Hartmann-Schweizer, who devoted her thesis, Otto Kolb (1921-1996): Architekt und Designer, to this architect. The documentation for Frei Otto’s Baumhäuser was acquired with the generous help of Günther Ludewig, one of the participating architects, and Beate Lendt, who made the documentary Traum vom Baumhaus in 2011.


Edited by: Dick van Gameren, Dirk van den Heuvel, Frederique van Andel, Jacques Vink & Piet Vollaard

With contributions by: Klaske Havik, Olv Klijn, Harald Mooij & Pierijn van der Putt

Drawings by: Guido Greijdanus, Cederick Ingen-Housz & Imke van Leuken


Plan Documentation

Plan Documentation Living in a New Past

The plan documentation of the sixth issue of DASH features a series of historic and more recent projects that provide a panorama of the way in which, over the past 100 years, traditional housing forms have been used as the basis for new projects. Each project is illustrated with new analytical drawings and with photographs taken especially for this study. The connections between the chosen designs and the exemplary aspects of the projects are outlined in the introduction to this issue of DASH on pages 4 -15.

In chronological order, the documentation features the following ten projects:

  • Waterlow Court, Hampstead Garden Suburb, London, 1908-1910 – M.H. Baillie Scott
  • Gartenstadt Staaken, Spandau, Berlin, 1914-1917 – Paul Schmitthenner
  • Frisia houses, Amersfoort, 1920-1922 – A.H. van Wamelen
  • Merelhof, Bergen (North Holland), 1949-1950 – J.H. Roggeveen
  • Tiburtino, Rome, 1949-1954 – Ludovico Quaroni and Mario Ridolfi
  • Port Grimaud, Saint-Tropez, 1963-1974 – François Spoerry
  • Ringvaartplas neighbourhood, Rotterdam, 1989-1993 – Mecanoo
  • Poundbury, Dorchester, 1988-2024 – master plan Leon Krier and Ken Morgan
  • Bosrijk, Eindhoven, 2004-2007 – Thomas Bedaux, Bedaux De Brouwer
  • Cronenburgh, Loenen aan de Vecht, 2001-2009 – master plan West 8 and AWG

To facilitate comparative analysis, the projects shown here have been redrawn in a uniform style. To begin with, the urban design scheme of the project as a whole is shown in a broader context. The larger projects are supplemented with a detail showing the documented dwelling types.

The differences between living quarters, private outdoor areas, collective indoor and outdoor spaces and the public space are documented in the familiar DASH house style.

For each plan, one or two representative dwelling types are shown in more detail. Drawings include the floor plans and cross section, as well as the entrance façade of the block containing the dwelling type in question. A bigger drawing of the elevation and a detail of the section are included for one type. This section gives an insight into the materials used and the detailing of the selected type.

The drawings of the first five projects are based on archive materials and try to render the original situation as accurately as possible.

Where available, old photographs also show the projects in their original state, while the DASH photo reports document the current situation.

The descriptions of the five more recent projects are based on material made available by their designers.


Cederick Ingen-Housz, Michiel van Hennik & Imke van Leuken


Plan Documentation

Plan Documentation The Urban Enclave

In the plan documentation for this fifth edition of DASH, ten urban enclaves have been mapped and illustrated using new analytic drawings and photo reportages specially commissioned for this study. These ten projects, spanning some 800 years, show how new residential areas have been designed and created within existing towns and cities. Together they reveal the continuing process of reacting to, and updating, existing models for city living. The connection between the chosen series and the exemplary aspects of these projects is explained in the introductory article in this edition of DASH on pages 4 to 11.

In chronological order the documentation comprises the following ten projects:

  • The Groot Begijnhof, Leuven (Louvain), founded circa 1230
  • The Adelphi complex, London, 1768-1772 − Robert, John, James and William Adam, London
  • The Linnaeushof, Amsterdam, 1924-1928 − A.J Kropholler
  • The Rabenhof, Vienna, 1925-1929 − Herman Aichinger and Heinrich Schmid
  • Résidence du Point-du-Jour, Boulogne-Billancourt, Paris, 1957-1963 − Fernand Pouillon
  • The Barbican, London, 1955-1982 − Chamberlin Powell & Bon
  • Oude Haven, Rotterdam, 1978-1984 − Piet Blom
  • The Noorderhof, Amsterdam, 1995-1999 − Rob Krier
  • Chassé Park, Breda, 1997-2007 − OMA et al.
  • Funenpark, Amsterdam, 1998-2005 − Frits van Dongen (de Architekten Cie.) et al.

The ten plans have been redrawn in an identical style to enhance insight and facilitate comparison. In the first series of drawings each project’s building volumes have been drawn in a substantial section of the surrounding city. These overviews are followed by more detailed drawings of the project’s ground level. The relationship between residential space, private outdoor space, collective indoor and outdoor spaces, and the public domain is emphasized in the manner now customary in DASH. The private residential spaces in these drawings are represented as solid, while the collective openings and facilities are ‘open’ in plan, in a similar approach to that of the celebrated Nolli map of eighteenth-century Rome. In the case of the two projects with a second public (deck) level, the Adelphi and the Barbican, both ‘ground’ levels have been drawn. The dwelling floor plans have also been included in the drawings of the relatively small Adelphi project, along with one or more vertical sections. Detailed floor plans of one or more characteristic dwelling types are always included in the project documentation, with the exception of the final two projects which are notable for their enormous variety in dwelling type. Given the availability of this information in all existing publications, references to literature are considered sufficient in these two instances. An analytical, spatial diagram of the public space, internal and external connections and iconic structures supports understanding of the spatial design of each enclave.

The overview drawings are always based on topographical maps of the relevant cities in the most up-to-date version available. The detailed maps represent the original layout as far as possible, with the exception of the Groot Begijnhof, where the present situation, created after large-scale restoration works took place in the 1980s, forms the basis for the drawings.

Illustrations in Bolton’s publication were used as the starting point for drawings of the Adelphi project, while the plans incorporate Christopher Woodward’s more precise reconstruction, produced for the exhibition and publication of the project in Sir John Soane’s Museum in 2007, curated by Alistair Rowan.

Documentation for the Linnaeushof, the Rabenhof, Résidence du Point du Jour and the Noorderhof is based on drawings attached to planning permission applications in the archives of the relevant government planning offices. Material from the designers and from earlier publications was used for the Barbican, Oude Haven, Chassé Park and Funenpark.

Local historical archives furnished supplementary historical maps and photos.


Drawings by: Cederick Ingen-Housz, Michiel van Hennik & Imke van Leuken


Plan Documentation

Plan Documentation of the Woonerf

The plan documentation for the woonerf in this third edition of DASH presents a series of projects, historical and recent, national and international, that the editorial team regard as exemplary in any discussion of living on a woonerf.

The core of the selection comprises a series of exceptional Dutch housing estates, dating from the heyday of the woonerf in the 1960s and 1970s. In the wake of strict regulation of post-war reconstruction, it was a period in which a new spirit seemed to infuse the Netherlands, giving birth throughout the country to new ideas regarding ways of living and different ideals for the design of housing estates. In the search to improve the connection between dwelling and residential environment, estates were developed in which a significant role was played by small scale, informality, soft boundaries and communal amenities.

This is apparent in the documentation for the Emmerhout estate in Emmen, the first neighbourhood in Nederland to be associated with the designation woonerf. An explicit objective was the segregation of dwelling area and parked cars, in order to make the space in front of dwellings once more suitable for encounters between residents and relaxed neighbourhood life; another was great attention to the privacy of the individual dwelling. Less well-know, but exceptional in its clear layout and structure is the small De Negen Nessen estate in Bergen (NH), where car and woonerf are combined in a zone with a relatively low density. Park Rozendaal in Leusden and the Krekenbuurt in Zwolle represent the period of a decade later, in which the woonerf concept had been further developed and adapted to provide solutions for higher densities. Here too, residential area and parking were interwoven, by allocating extra dimensions and functions such as children’s play areas to the outside space. On both estates there is a second, communal zone behind the houses, serving as green areas between the various sections of the neighbourhood. In its strict yet far from monotonous repetition, Park Rozendaal displays the qualities of structuralism, which the woonerf parallels and relates to in its development. Krekenbuurt, however, shows how variation in dwelling type and the way in which dwellings are attached can achieve a communal appearance in combination with a unique situation for each individual dwelling.

Developments in the Netherlands did not occur in isolation. In other northern European countries renewed attention was also being paid to communal living forms and the quality of the outside space, or continued as part of more long-standing traditions. In Scandinavia and Finland interesting examples of woonerf-style living appeared long before Dutch initiatives, inspired in their turn by early twentieth-century influences from England and the USA. An early forerunner of the woonerf, where the outside area was laid out quite literally as a wooded garden or yard, is the attractive Puu-Käpyläestate, situated to the north of Helsinki. Influences from English garden cities and a northern neo-classicism were combined here in a small estate for blue-collar workers from the then adjacent port industry. In Malmö, Sweden, a bold building contractor developed the Friluftstadenestate, a blend of modern strip building, the openness of American front gardens and an inventive attachment of dwellings.

At the same time as the Dutch woonerf was appearing, the progressive English developer SPAN was creating various estates conspicuous for their strong interweaving of houses with communal and green surroundings. SPAN’s most appealing plan was for the new village of New Ash Green; the Punch Croft estate, built entirely to plan specifications, is documented here. Two projects in Denmark show that the Scandinavian tradition of radical communal living continues almost without interruption. In Fuglsangsparken the communal character is reinforced by a range of gardens and collective inner areas. The Kvistgårdhusene estate shows that these traditional ideas effectively combine with contemporary architecture. Finally, renewed interest in the quality of shared outside space in the Netherlands is represented by the Veranda Homesproject in Almere, where an architectural reference to old barns gives a new dimension to the woonerf concept.

The documentation comprises the following ten projects:

  • Martti Välikangas, Puu Käpylä, Helsinki 1920-1925
  • Eric Sigfrid Persson, Friluftstaden, Malmö 1942-1948
  • Niek de Boer, Emmerhout, Emmen 1960-1965
  • Hein Klarenbeek, De Negen Nessen, Bergen (NH) 1965-1968
  • Eric Lyons & SPAN, Punch Croft, New Ash Green 1966-1968
  • David Zuiderhoek/Henk Klunder, Park Rozendaal, Leusden 1970-1971
  • Benno Stegeman, Krekenbuurt, Zwolle 1974-1975
  • Tegnestuen Vandkunsten, Fuglsangsparken, Farum 1980-1983
  • Onix Architecten, Verandawoningen, Almere 2002-2006
  • Tegnestuen Vandkunsten, Kvistgårdhusene, Kvistgård 2004-2008

All the plans have been redrawn in a similar drawing style to allow comparative analysis. Attention has principally focused on the relationships between private dwelling, private outside space, communal green space and public outside space. The ground-floor plans for dwellings have been inserted in a section from every estate, and the various kinds of green indicated in gray tints. Elevations of characteristic façades and estate sections provide a picture of the spatial cohesion. The drawing work is based on original drawings from architects’ collections and archives kept by local authorities and other institutions. Wherever possible they represent the original situation, which does not always correspond with the present. The floor plans, sections and elevations of characteristic dwellings are drawn separately, to make clear the variation in dwelling size and type. These are on the same scale for all projects, to facilitate comparison.

Analysis diagrams of buildings, motorized and slow traffic and communal green structure have also been included, to aid the understanding of each estate’s overall layout and structure. Some of the images consist of panoramic collages, whose aim is to represent the spatial quality of the various collective areas. In the case of historical projects old photos provide a picture of the situation shortly after an estate was completed or during the early years of its use.

The following sources and archives were used in the process of creating the drawings and tracking down photos: Helsingin rakennusvalvonta, Helsinki; Museum of Finnish Architecture (MFA), Helsinki; Ulla Hårde, Eric Sigfrid Persson: 1898-1983: skånsk funktionalist, byggmästare och uppfinnare, 2008 (1986) Holmbergs, Malmö; the municipal archives of Emmen; the municipal archives of Bergen (NH); the image collection of the regional archives of Alkmaar; Eric Lyons archive, RIBA Archives, London; the municipal archives of Leusden; the municipal archives of Zwolle; digitale byggesagsarkiv Furesø Kommune; Onix Architecten; Tegnestuen Vandkunsten.


Drawings by: Michiel van Hennik & Imke van Leuken

Plan Documentation

Plan Documentation The Luxury City Apartment

The plan documentation for the luxury city apartments in this second issue of DASH consists of a series of historic and recent, national and international projects, which we believe are representative and classical examples of the luxury apartment building.

We looked abroad for the majority of our selections. In cities such as Chicago, New York, Paris and Berlin, the erection of apartment buildings is inextricably linked with the turbulent growth of the metropolis and the Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century. Remarkably, this development never really took off in the Netherlands, so the country has no tradition of luxury city apartments.

Examples of the international tradition of apartment building that we have included are the Albert Hall Mansions in London and the Parisian apartment building by the Perret brothers at Avenue Wagram 119. More recent, modernist projects are Lake Point Tower in Chicago and the Torres Blancas in Madrid. Brazil has its own tradition of apartment buildings. Parque Cidade Jardim from São Paulo, which we document here, is typical of the recent developments also seen in other emerging economies: an enclave of luxury and exclusivity. Meanwhile, 40 Bond Street in New York epitomizes a contemporary combination of private luxury and hotel services.

A number of special, though relatively unknown projects were built in the Netherlands in the 1930s, in part to provide comfortable housing for returnees from the Dutch East Indies. Residential hotel Duinwyck in The Hague is a case in point.

Noteworthy are the luxury apartments built during the interwar years by the Amsterdam-based architect Warners, who not only designed them, but also developed these projects. Westhove, one of his most striking creations just off Valeriusplein in Amsterdam, is documented here for the first time.

Since the 1990s, the globalizing economy and new urban lifestyles have led to the construction of apartment buildings for new groups of city dwellers in the Netherlands. An example is Detroit in Amsterdam, which offers tenants a relatively modest set of extra services.

The documentation features the following nine projects:

  • Parque Cidade Jardim, São Paulo – Escritório Técnico Julio Neves; Pablo Slemenson Arquitetura (2006-2013)
  • 40 Bond Street, New York – Herzog & de Meuron (2004-2007)
  • Detroit, Amsterdam – AWG Architecten, Bob van Reeth and Christine de Ruijter (1998-2005)
  • Lake Point Tower, Chicago – George Schipporeit & John Heinrich Associates (in collaboration with Graham Anderson Probst & White Ass. Architects) (1965-1968)
  • Torres Blancas, Madrid – Francisco Javier Sáenz de Oiza (1961-1968)
  • Residential hotel Duinwyck, The Hague – L.M. van den Berg and J.J. Groenema (1929- 1932)
  • Multi-storeyed house Westhove, Amsterdam – F.A. Warners (1920-1923)
  • Avenue de Wagram 119, Paris – Auguste & Gustave Perret (1902)
  • Albert Hall Mansions, London – Richard Norman Shaw (1879-1886)

To facilitate a comparative analysis, the drawings focus on the building’s structure in relation to collective access and the individual apartment. Through the use of colour coding and numbering the plans highlight the key features of the luxury city apartments. For example, they distinguish between the apartments themselves and the communal areas, such as entrances and circulation areas, as well as restaurants, porter’s lodges and guest rooms. Inside the apartments the plans indicate which circuits and rooms are designated for residents and which for staff. Because many of them are historic, the buildings have a long history of users and successive renovations. The plans drawn here hark back to the original situation, in so far as this could be reconstructed from archival material.

The documentation is complemented with a site drawing and, where necessary, a cross section of the block structure.

The project photography focuses primarily on façades and settings. Most of the photographs are contemporary, sometimes in combination with historic material, depending on availability. Photographs of the interiors have also been included. But given the limited access to the apartments, here too availability played a part in determining the selection.

To make the drawings and locate the photographs we have drawn on the following sources and archives: Royal Academy Archive, London; Cité d’Architecture et de Patrimoine, Centre d’archives d’architecture du XXe siècle, Paris; Warners archief NAi Rotterdam; Archief Bouw- en Woningtoezicht, Amsterdam Oud Zuid; Dienst Stedelijke Ontwikkeling, Monumentenzorg, The Hague and the Haags Gemeentearchief; Lake Point Tower Condominium Association, Chicago; AWG Architecten, Antwerp; Herzog & de Meuron, Basel; Profession Comunicações, São Paulo.


Drawings by: Sebastiaan Kaal


Editorial DASH #01

New Open Space for Living

This inaugural issue of DASH is dedicated to a relatively new phenomenon in the Netherlands: the introduction of public space inside the housing block. In itself, the combination of housing and public or collective space has a long history. The Dutch almshouses of the 17th and 18th centuries are a beautiful, historic example.
But it was not until the advent of the car in the 20th century and the demise of the street as an urban meeting place that the quality of the immediate surroundings became an issue in debates on the modern city. What is new about the projects assembled here is the deliberate deployment of a pedestrian, public space with a dis­tinctive, architectural identity that paves the way for a con­ temporary style of building and living. Not only does this new open space meet the demand for a high-quality public space, it is also a response to various autonomous developments, such as new life­ styles, market-oriented project development by private parties and a demand for high-density construction coupled with ground-accessed homes.

Besides historical continuities in the discourse on the modern city and living, we can also see some clear differences and ruptures. For example, the projects discussed here no longer revolve around the collective courtyards that sought to emancipate the working classes, such as those known from the Amsterdam School or archi­ tect Michiel Brinkman’s well-known Spangen block in Rotterdam. Nor do they revolve around the classless, informal atmosphere of the residential street, home zones and the urban renewal from the 1970s. But perhaps the greatest rupture lies in the transformation of the Dutch residential block. Whereas its traditional typology creates a strict division between private and public space – between the courtyard with its private gardens, balconies and clotheslines and the street with its repetitive patterns of houses, windows and entrances – the new open space actually opens up the block. But this time the intervention is not aimed at creating room for a collective domain, as in the aforementioned historic examples, but at accommodating a new relationship between the public and the private. The strict division between public and private disappears and makes way for a new ambiguity within the housing block: a tension between the public and private domains. The open spaces of these blocks are now accessible to various groups of urbanites as well as to the residents. And the developments are no longer only focused on the interior, the collective, but also engage with the adjacent public domain. The tension between the individuality of the homes, the collective and the ‘outside world’ lends this new open space an ambiguous character.

In each new project this tension between the public and the private calls for different, often inventive solutions. The architectural expres­sion of the new open space therefore changes with each project. That said, a number of recurring issues suggest solutions for this new open space. These are the triad ‘home – public space – city’, in conjunction with such everyday things as parking spaces, front doors, the design of front and rear and the way in which the blocks engage with their surrounding urban fabric. But paramount here is the architectural articulation of the transitions between public and private.

Although sociological and economic planning aspects play an important role in the deployment and meaning of the new open space, this study aims to formulate the architectural questions at stake. DASH thus inserts itself into the tradition of design analysis as developed at Delft University of Technology since the 1970s. Two of the leading publications to come out of this research tradition are Raumplan versus Plan Libre by Max Risselada, which was republished recently, and the Atlas of the Dutch Urban Block by Susanne Komossa et al. Both contain the main ingredients of the Delft-based research into design analysis: careful comparative analysis of the architectural design within its historic and theoretical context. This way DASH hopes to enrich and expand the architect’s design tools, and boost the day-to-day practice of design.


Plan Documenation

Plan Documentation for the New Open Space

The plan documentation for the new open space in the housing ensemble comprises a set of recent projects and some historical reference points. The documentation sets out to facilitate a comparative analysis of the various projects. For this purpose the projects have all been newly drawn and photographed, using both documentation supplied by the architecture offices involved and archival material. The characteristic features and the internal cohesion of the new open space within these developments have been the guiding principle here. The drawing technique is based on the method used in the Atlas of the Dutch Urban Block. The emphasis within this documentation lies on the form and the meaning of the open space within the housing block or ensemble. The principal plan depicts the ground-floor level, showing the interiors of the ground-floor dwellings as well as the design of the new open space. The focus is on the relationship between the dwellings and their place within the development and the relationship between the block structure and the dwelling typology. Both the archi­tect­ural coherence and the wider context have been mapped. The morphological unity of the projects has been sketched within the wider urban structure to show the relationship with the city.

The set of contemporary residential ensembles comprises the widest possible range of variations on the new open space. The examples in question can be found at very distinct locations: the city centre, special settings such as former industrial sites and outside the city, either as part of Vinex neighbourhoods or in rural areas. This collection also illustrates the differences in density, the mix of target groups, typology and architecture. We look at the following 8 projects:

  • De Grote Hof, Pijnacker-Nootdorp – Rapp + Rapp (1998-2006)
  • Block 23 IJburg, Amsterdam – various architects: De Architecten Cie., Dick van Gameren architecten, VMX architects (2000-2005)
  • Block 24 IJburg, Amsterdam – various architects: Meyer en Van Schooten Architecten, Claus en Kaan architecten, ANA architecten (1999-2005)
  • Schuttersveld, Delft – Geurst & Schulze Architecten (2001-2003)
  • Monnikhof, Groningen – S333 Architecture + Urbanism (1998-2002)
  • Zwanenwoud, Heerenveen – Soeters Van Eldonk Architecten (1998-2002)
  • Rietlanden, Amsterdam – Venhoeven CS (1995-2001)
  • Mariaplaats, Utrecht – Bob van Reeth AWG (1994-1998)

The characteristics of this collection of contemporary projects are discussed at length in the articles by Karin Theunissen and by Like Bijlsma and Nynke Jutten. The articles are accompanied by analytical drawings that were produced in conjunction with this plan documentation. Each of these series of analytical drawings considers the new open space from different angles. The autonomous series have been printed alongside the texts.

These series of drawings can also be seen as mapping out the sequence from the large scale of the city to the smallest scale of the architectural detail:

1. The new open space within the network of the urban space

2. The new open space within the network of internal spaces in the city

3. The shape of the new open space – two-dimensional

4. The shape of the new open space – three-dimensional

5. The living space and the transitional zone vis-à-vis the new open space

6. The architectural design of the collective elements

7. Formal versus informal: cross sections and views across the new open space and adjacent buildings

The set of recent projects has been supplemented with four historical projects, which have been documented in the same way. They may be seen as epitomizing moments in the debate about the relationship between housing, public space and the city. The four projects are in no way intended to present
an exhaustive overview of the historical experiments with the closed perimeter block and the collective or public space; however, they do provide starting points for the process of identifying the continuity and the differences between past and more recent projects. The following projects are included:

  • Het Pentagon, Amsterdam – Theo Bosch and Aldo van Eyck (1975-1983)
  • De Kasbah, Hengelo – Piet Blom (1966-1974)
  • Veronesestraat, Amsterdam – Bureau Eduard Cuypers, K. van Geijn and H.J.A. Bijlard (1928-1929)
  • Tuinwijk-Zuid, Haarlem – J.B. van Loghem (1918-1922)