Amsterdam Plans A Distinctly American High-Rise Island

[M II A II R II K]

Amsterdam Plans A Distinctly American High-Rise Island


SEP 26, 2018

By FEARGUS O'SULLIVAN

Read More: https://www.citylab.com/design/2018/...s-plan/571258/

We hear a lot about how Europe’s more progressive cities might act as models for development in North America, but not so much about influence passing in the other direction. A major upcoming project in Amsterdam is a rare example of this—one that will see the city break from its previous architectural traditions to create something new and of North American inspiration.

- High-rise towers aren’t unusual in Europe, but this plan is unprecedented in Amsterdam, where only one existing building exceeds the 125-meter mark. Also unprecedented, to an extent, is the inspiration: The idea was developed by planners after visits to high-rise residential neighborhoods in Toronto, Chicago, and Vancouver. — The plan is so clearly influenced by Canadian urban models with its tall, densely packed residential towers close to a major body of water that one media outlet has dubbed the plan “Toronto on the IJ,” referring to the city’s rapid construction of a heavy concentration of residential towers to alleviate its housing crisis. The plans have, as you might expect, sparked a heated debate about what should and shouldn’t be considered as viable models for a low-rise European city like Amsterdam.

- The idea of building on artificial islands is already familiar in Amsterdam. Indeed the island in question isn’t even new: Zeeburgereiland was first created at the beginning of the 20th century when silt and earth were dumped there during the construction of the city’s Eastern Harbor. The island nonetheless remained uninhabited, used mainly as a naval training site, then as the location of a sewage works. — As pressure built up on inner Amsterdam, the island attracted notice as a brownfield site close to the city centre, and there has already been some development on its southern tip, in an area near where it is already bisected by Amsterdam’s beltway. The northern section of the triangular island, however, remains unbuilt.

- This area, called Sluisbuurt (“Lock District” in English) will soon be home to 5,500 homes—40 percent of them public housing, another 40 percent specifically intended for middle-income residents, and the final 20 percent destined for market-rate rental. The area will also host a new campus for Inholland University and shops and offices on lower floors, all connected to the rest of the harbor islands by a pedestrian and cycling bridge. According to the area’s already agreed masterplan, the new neighborhood would, however, be completely car-free. — As you can expect, the plan has not gone down easily in low-rise Amsterdam. “Have we forgotten who we are?” architect and planner Sjoerd Soeters asks aloud in magazine Groene Amsterdam. “We are a flat country with a flat society,” he continues.

- Are Amsterdam’s new island towers really destined to be so intrusive? While low by international standards, they will certainly be a striking insertion to an environment that, when it comes to layout, is visually more landscape, less portrait. But sequestered on an island, the high-rises will not be throwing anyone into shadow, and its location in the far-flung reaches of the Eastern Harbor will not be overshadowing the historic canals at the city’s heart. Indeed, they might even complement their surroundings. — In a cityscape that is generally detailed, narrow and miniaturist, the broad open spaces and relatively larger scale of Amsterdam’s harbor district can come as a refreshing breath of air on leaving the city’s claustrophobic core.

.....

[10023]

That’s all great, but who on earth wants to be part of the 20% paying market rate in a neighborhood that’s 40% public housing and 40% subsidised? They definitely need to flip those percentages, especially if they want it to look like that first render.

[Doady]

The Vancouver style is skinny high rise towers upon low rise or mid-rise podiums to give a low-rise or mid-rise experience at street level. Building high-rise in Amsterdam doesn't need to be such a break from its low-rise tradition.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by 10023

That’s all great, but who on earth wants to be part of the 20% paying market rate in a neighborhood that’s 40% public housing and 40% subsidised? They definitely need to flip those percentages, especially if they want it to look like that first render.

Is public/subsidized housing common in Amsterdam? In some cities public housing/subsidized is looked down upon while in other cities it's so common that few people view it will much negativity. Singapore is an example. The vast majority of Singaporeans live in subsidized housing. I don't think it has the same connotation there as it would in London where that kind of housing is almost always terrible. Only 20% market rate in Amsterdam might not necessarily be a problem.

In Canada our view of public/subsidized housing is similar to how it's perceived in London: negative. Toronto's Regent Park was an attempt to turn a public housing estate into an appealing neighbourhood; and to change perceptions. The old buildings were demolished and new ones built to replace them. Market rate units look identical to subsidized units and these residents live side by side. Many people had the same criticism as you. When the project launched people did buy into market rate units because of the quality and price points.

Regents Park has been a huge success and those Dutch planners almost certainly toured Regents Park when they were here. When the article talks about Canadian urban planning being an inspiration for the Dutch project they're quite obviously referring to Regents Park.

Regents Park, Toronto



Courtesy of fwd


Courtesy of pbs

[urbanlife]

Great, now the Dutch want to prove they can build a better American city than America. We get it guys, the Dutch are clearly superior to the Americans when it comes to building cities.

[10023]

Public housing in the Netherlands may not have the stigma of public housing in America, and makes up like half the rentals in cities like Amsterdam, but (and I can check with my Dutch friends, but I have a sense) it’s still not desirable for someone more affluent and paying rents to live in a predominantly “social housing” neighborhood.

Americans tend to idealize European cities but it’s not as if they don’t have ghettos. Look at Paris. Few French people who can afford market property in Paris want to live in the banlieue, or even in a new neighborhood with better housing stock that is populated by the people who live in the banlieue.

And one of the problems, which that Toronto project does not yet prove can be addressed, is that public housing often starts nice and degrades over time, because of either lack of government funding (which is redirected to new, shiny things) or perhaps more unavoidably, a lack of resources and motivation among its residents to maintain their neighborhood. It’s not as if the “projects” in America or the UK or France were terrible ghettos from day one. These places fall apart over time.

Anyway, you can add some of that to a predominantly more prosperous neighborhood, and the poverty is “diluted” sufficiently to not change the character or economic prospects of the place, but it seems very risky to try to flip that ratio.

[urbanlife]

From the sounds of it, Amsterdam does their public housing much different than it is done in the states. So the ratio of 40/40/20 would probably work well there.

https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/housing/rental-prices/

[10023]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

From the sounds of it, Amsterdam does their public housing much different than it is done in the states. So the ratio of 40/40/20 would probably work well there.

https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/housing/rental-prices/

I don’t see what one has to do with the other. Public housing is a lottery but reserved for people who earn less than the median income. People who can pay Amsterdam’s market house prices (and earn at least several times the median income) would I’m sure prefer not to live in a neighborhood which is 80% people at the median income or below.

Gentrifying neighborhoods are of course a different matter. There is a transitional phase where the more adventurous, looking for space/vibrancy at lower cost, move in. But people moving to neighborhoods in transition always point to the direction of travel - they buy because the neighborhood is changing and will continue to, not because it will stay as is forever.

In places where there is a large percentage of public housing, the gentrification never really comes. There are central neighborhoods in London (Pimlico is a great example) that have been called “up and coming” by real estate agents for decades and never get there because there’s just so much council housing in the area. And so the amenities aren’t as nice (because there isn’t a market for higher end restaurants, groceries or local shops), a bit more crime, etc.

One of the great myths engaged in by people who grew up with gentrification is that truly mixed income neighborhoods are either possible or desirable. They’re really not - where they exist it’s usually because the neighborhood is transitioning in one direction or the other. And that’s because the wealthy residents and the low income residents don’t want the same things. The wealthier ones might go to a dive bar or taqueria for a cheap meal here and there, and the lower income ones might occasionally splurge on an $8 IPA or items from Whole Foods, but for the most part the local amenities need to be different. This is course is using a narrower definition of “neighborhood” (e.g., not treating the whole of the UES as a single one); there can certainly be wealthier streets and then the opposite a couple of blocks away.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 10023

I don’t see what one has to do with the other. Public housing is a lottery but reserved for people who earn less than the median income. People who can pay Amsterdam’s market house prices (and earn at least several times the median income) would I’m sure prefer not to live in a neighborhood which is 80% people at the median income or below.

Gentrifying neighborhoods are of course a different matter. There is a transitional phase where the more adventurous, looking for space/vibrancy at lower cost, move in. But people moving to neighborhoods in transition always point to the direction of travel - they buy because the neighborhood is changing and will continue to, not because it will stay as is forever.

In places where there is a large percentage of public housing, the gentrification never really comes. There are central neighborhoods in London (Pimlico is a great example) that have been called “up and coming” by real estate agents for decades and never get there because there’s just so much council housing in the area. And so the amenities aren’t as nice (because there isn’t a market for higher end restaurants, groceries or local shops), a bit more crime, etc.

One of the great myths engaged in by people who grew up with gentrification is that truly mixed income neighborhoods are either possible or desirable. They’re really not - where they exist it’s usually because the neighborhood is transitioning in one direction or the other. And that’s because the wealthy residents and the low income residents don’t want the same things. The wealthier ones might go to a dive bar or taqueria for a cheap meal here and there, and the lower income ones might occasionally splurge on an $8 IPA or items from Whole Foods, but for the most part the local amenities need to be different. This is course is using a narrower definition of “neighborhood” (e.g., not treating the whole of the UES as a single one); there can certainly be wealthier streets and then the opposite a couple of blocks away.

Well that's like complaining about living in a middle class neighborhood. I think most people would be fine with an urban neighborhood that is 80% middle class. I know I would love for them to build something like this in Portland that catered to working class people.

Your post focuses on lower incomes vs higher incomes but completely ignores middle incomes, which should make up the bulk of the people in a city.

[10023]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Well that's like complaining about living in a middle class neighborhood. I think most people would be fine with an urban neighborhood that is 80% middle class. I know I would love for them to build something like this in Portland that catered to working class people.

Your post focuses on lower incomes vs higher incomes but completely ignores middle incomes, which should make up the bulk of the people in a city.

But people with middle incomes don’t make up the bulk of the people in a city, and they don’t qualify for Dutch public housing.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 10023

But people with middle incomes don’t make up the bulk of the people in a city, and they don’t qualify for Dutch public housing.

The average income for those in Amsterdam do fall just below the cut off for public housing, which would suggest at least half, especially since they have a wait list for public housing to suggest even with what they have built so far still isn't enough. So it would make sense for a development like this to be 40% public housing and 40% middle income housing.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by 10023

And one of the problems, which that Toronto project does not yet prove can be addressed, is that public housing often starts nice and degrades over time, because of either lack of government funding (which is redirected to new, shiny things) or perhaps more unavoidably, a lack of resources and motivation among its residents to maintain their neighborhood. It’s not as if the “projects” in America or the UK or France were terrible ghettos from day one. These places fall apart over time.

It often degrades, but not always. The problems with Regent Park were partly the physical design of the neighbourhood - the street grid was severed and the area consisted of dead end lanes, green space that wasn't really public or private, and buildings that had no real relationship with the streets or the green spaces. The other problem was the fact that it was exclusively subsidized housing, a ghetto almost by design. The idea behind the redevelopment was to fix both problems by reintroducing the street grid, designing buildings and parks in a more traditionally urban way, and have market rate condos mixed in with the subsidized housing (I believe it's something like 50/50). It's not a new concept. The nearby St. Lawrence area was built with the same principles back in the 1970s and it's been so successful that it's considered a model neighbourhood.

[10023]

^ A neighborhood that’s 40% public housing and 40% subsidised is also a ghetto by design. That’s my point. If it were 50% market rate, 30% subsidised and 20% public housing, it would be more appealing to people who can afford market rate housing and the public housing aspect could go relatively unnoticed.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

The average income for those in Amsterdam do fall just below the cut off for public housing, which would suggest at least half, especially since they have a wait list for public housing to suggest even with what they have built so far still isn't enough. So it would make sense for a development like this to be 40% public housing and 40% middle income housing.

I am going to say for the 100th time in as many threads:

People who earn the median income are not “middle income”.

I know this sounds odd until you actually think about it. But income distributions skew to the low end; it looks like a pyramid, with more low income people than middle income people, and more middle income people than high income people. A person earning the median income is a lower income person. And no, even if 50% of society is made up of lower income people, that does not mean that people who can afford €1+ million flats in Amsterdam want to live near the “average” income person.

The point I’m making is that the local amenities that both groups require and desire are completely different. Either that more affluent person is not going to find the amenities of the neighbourhood appealing, or the larger numbers of lower income people aren’t going to be able to afford them. A person earning €30k per year and one earning €150k per year don’t even shop at the same grocery store. This is actually a struggle for people like Section 8 residents in Manhattan. You have a subsidised apartment in Chelsea, but all the amenities nearby are too expensive.

[10023]

Anyway, my point is that these planned “mixed-income developments” are trying to create a dynamic that really only naturally exists temporarily because a neighborhood is in a state of flux. I don’t see how they make everyone happy.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ A neighborhood that’s 40% public housing and 40% subsidised is also a ghetto by design. That’s my point. If it were 50% market rate, 30% subsidised and 20% public housing, it would be more appealing to people who can afford market rate housing and the public housing aspect could go relatively unnoticed.

You're ignoring the example of St. Lawrence, which has existed for 40 years with no sign of it being temporary or in any sort of flux. It's a stable, highly desirable neighbourhood. False Creek in Vancouver was built on a similar model and has been referred to as the best neighbourhood in the city.

I looked it up; the subsidized housing mix in Regent Park will be 30% when it's complete.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Mister F

You're ignoring the example of St. Lawrence, which has existed for 40 years with no sign of it being temporary or in any sort of flux. It's a stable, highly desirable neighbourhood. False Creek in Vancouver was built on a similar model and has been referred to as the best neighbourhood in the city.

I looked it up; the subsidized housing mix in Regent Park will be 30% when it's complete.

I don’t know these neighborhoods. But if Regent’s Park (and the others) are only 30% subsidised housing, then that supports my point.

I am arguing that a mostly market rate neighborhood can absorb a 20-30% share of subsidised or public housing (although these residents will have to contend with generally high cost local amenities), but that a neighborhood where the vast majority (in this case, 80%) of housing is subsidised or public will not appeal to those private market rate residents.

That might mean cheaper market rate housing, which is fine. But you don’t create some utopia by mixing everyone together. People of different socioeconomic classes don’t naturally mix together. They have different lifestyles and need and want different amenities. The difference between cities and suburbs is more proximity than diversity - an expensive street might be really close (within walking distance) of a much less expensive street. Housing stock varies. Things like L tracks in Chicago keep adjacent apartments cheaper. But this doesn’t really work as a model, especially when I know for sure that as a market rate buyer/renter, I am overpaying to provide the subsidies.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ A neighborhood that’s 40% public housing and 40% subsidised is also a ghetto by design. That’s my point. If it were 50% market rate, 30% subsidised and 20% public housing, it would be more appealing to people who can afford market rate housing and the public housing aspect could go relatively unnoticed.


I am going to say for the 100th time in as many threads:

People who earn the median income are not “middle income”.

I know this sounds odd until you actually think about it. But income distributions skew to the low end; it looks like a pyramid, with more low income people than middle income people, and more middle income people than high income people. A person earning the median income is a lower income person. And no, even if 50% of society is made up of lower income people, that does not mean that people who can afford €1+ million flats in Amsterdam want to live near the “average” income person.

The point I’m making is that the local amenities that both groups require and desire are completely different. Either that more affluent person is not going to find the amenities of the neighbourhood appealing, or the larger numbers of lower income people aren’t going to be able to afford them. A person earning €30k per year and one earning €150k per year don’t even shop at the same grocery store. This is actually a struggle for people like Section 8 residents in Manhattan. You have a subsidised apartment in Chelsea, but all the amenities nearby are too expensive.

You still ignore those that are middle class, which we all agree is a broad description. Though I highly doubt what Amsterdam will be building would be considered a ghetto by any terms. Also regardless of incomes, people enjoy many of the same basic needs so there is always going to be a large overlap in amenities.

[10023]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

You still ignore those that are middle class, which we all agree is a broad description. Though I highly doubt what Amsterdam will be building would be considered a ghetto by any terms. Also regardless of incomes, people enjoy many of the same basic needs so there is always going to be a large overlap in amenities.

I ignore that what is middle class? A person earning €30k per year?

Unless they are quite young (in their 20s and just out of university), then no, that person is definitely not middle class.

I would refer you to this thread rather than beating the horse any more: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=235830&page=4

And you’re making a meaningless generalisation. Yes everyone buys groceries. People earning €30k and people earning €150k don’t buy the same groceries. They definitely don’t eat at the same restaurants, or even go to the same bars.

[Doady]

Wow, so this development will have residents from many different income levels. That is the very definition of "ghetto".

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 10023

I ignore that what is middle class? A person earning €30k per year?

Unless they are quite young (in their 20s and just out of university), then no, that person is definitely not middle class.

I would refer you to this thread rather than beating the horse any more: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=235830&page=4

And you’re making a meaningless generalisation. Yes everyone buys groceries. People earning €30k and people earning €150k don’t buy the same groceries. They definitely don’t eat at the same restaurants, or even go to the same bars.

To qualify for public housing in Amsterdam, the income has to be below $42K US, in the US, that is definitely classified as middle class in most places. I don't know what classifies as middle class in the Netherlands, but it seems like a large chunk of people who make lower and middle incomes will benefit from this.

I disagree about what people buy at grocery stores, someone making little or someone making a lot still buy the same vegetables, same meats, same basic products. As for restaurants, not everyone who makes a lot only eats at expensive places and those that don't make a lot do sometimes treat themselves to an expensive restaurant. As for bars, you are going to find that preference to have more to do with age than income.

So again, I don't see why a neighborhood can't have a mix of both and this one in particular seems to cater to those that are more lower and middle incomes. From what I am hearing about Amsterdam, this will be a very needed development.