Built between 1928 and 1931, The Van Nelle factory in Rotterdam is a world-famous example of The New Building movement. In 1999 Architect Wessel de Jonge was responsible for the structural plan for the redevelopment of this listed building complex. His office has subsequently overseen the transformation.
Reuse
Ruowen Gao was lucky, she says, to study the redesign of her favourite building. “The fact that this factory is on the UNESCO World Heritage List, as an icon of functionalist architecture, is very special.” The status of the building meant that there was plenty of documentation available. “About 3,000 pages. Selecting the information relevant to their domains has taken quite some time.” Ruowen
focused on the Reuse domain and looked for versions of floor and construction plans to find out what changes have been made in spatial configuration and spatial functions. “One teammate mapped out the details, right down to the choice of screws, while another investigated how the factory, in old and new condition, compares to the surroundings and the city. So they took in many aspects.”
There was a lot of mathematics involved. “What we clearly learned in this project was that our analyses should be based on solid facts and figures, not on assumptions. For me – and for many others too, I suspect – this is new, I've always seen the significance of cultural heritage as something subjective. I also had to learn to use specific software to do the computing. Quite a challenge, I can tell you.” Ruowen's hard data analysis shows that some spaces are not being used optimally in relation to their intended use. “This is partly due to the restrictions that transformation of cultural heritage entails. The architect cannot make too significant changes.” Ruowen concluded that concerning the domain of Reuse the redesign has not led to any improvement or deterioration. “I assessed a neutral score – yellow.”
Cuts have to be made, but where?
According to Wessel de Jonge – he awarded blue to Reuse – the original design of the course was attractive to both parties. “At the time, we were really pioneering with a design methodology for the transformation of such a huge monumental complex. A new generation asks different questions and assigns different accents. I found it very interesting to see how the students put their finger on things that you once approached yourself from a certain perspective.” The fact that the players were not confronted with each other in the end and were not able to discuss their findings is a pity. “What I especially appreciate is that the students learn to understand that designing is taking a position. An intervention can score well on three domains but less on the fourth and fifth.”
“Built heritage is by no means always cherished or protected by the government,” says De Jonge. If you as a designer get the question whether you can transform an old building, economic motives will soon become more important than, for example, cultural-historical motives. “Cuts have to be made, but where? By firstly revealing the DNA of a building and location, one can determine what is valuable and how one can maintain that value. Then you can explain to the client that the preservation of certain parts reinforces the building’s character. Because the proposed preservation often also favours a circular practice and works out advantageously for the construction budget, it is usually considered acceptable.” De Jonge notes that in Europe more than 55% of all contracts for architects relate to the existing building stock. “While education still pays a lot of attention to design new buildings. This MASTERMIND CRASH course brings the offer more in balance.”