Rapport 15 Strijp S Eindhoven

Vernieuwend Ruimtegebruik

Arun JainHuibert HaccoûVolkmar PamerMichiel Dol and others

Strijp-S Eindhoven

Summary Report MILUnet Implementation Lab

Habi_deel_omslag strijp-S 29-1-2007 17:09 Pagina 1

ContentsMILU (Multi-Functional & Intensive Land Use) was established to tackle the twin problemsof urban sprawl and the development dysfunctions of urban, suburban and rural areas. Its purpose is to promote and encourage the combination of land uses in time and spacewith the objective of obtaining the best quality possible from the built environment and toimprove the social ecology of places. MILUnet is an INTEREGG IIIC funded project with a wide ranging agenda to accomplishMILU objectives. This agenda has also helped refine methods by which small groups ofinternational experts can participate in short, concentrated workshops (ImplementationLabs) to help strategize specific local and regional problems of host cities. On May 7 & 8,2006 the City of Eindhoven hosted such a MILU Implementation Lab to examine the PhilipsStrijp-S site. This document summarizes the proceedings of the meeting.

AcknowledgementThe MILUnet Eindhoven meeting was organized by MILUnet and Habiforum upon specialrequest of the City of Eindhoven. MILUnet is an INTERREG IIIC funded project. It is thesuccessor of the working party on MILU of the IFHP, International Federation for Housingand Planning. Members of MILUnet are European cities and leading European researchinstitutions. Lead partner in the network is Habiforum. The International Institute for theUrban Environment (IIUE) assists Habiforum as secretariat to the network.

HabiforumThis publication is produced within the framework of the Habiforum-programme InnovativeLand Use. Habiforum is a Dutch network organisation connecting over 2000 experts whodevelop new concepts of multiple and intensive land use, and bring them into practice. The Innovative Land Use programme comprises a practitioners’ programme and a researchprogramme. It is being carried out in close cooperation with InnovatieNetwerk and theuniversities of Delft, Rotterdam, Amsterdam (VU and UvA), Utrecht and Wageningen. Thus, synergy between science, practice and governance is being reached. Habiforum is financed both by the Dutch national government and various privateorganisations. More information on: www.habiforum.nl

Habi_deel_omslag strijp-S 29-1-2007 17:09 Pagina 2

Rapport_Strijp-S Eindhoven

MILUnet IMPLEMENTATION LAB

MILU

Multifunctional and Intensive Land Use

STRIJP-S EINDHOVEN Summary Report

May 7 & 8, 2006

A Habiforum Report by:

Arun Jain, Chief Urban Designer Portland, OR, USA

Preparations:

International Institute for the Urban Environment Delft, The Netherlands

Contributing Authors

Huibert Haccoû Volkmar Pamer

Michiel Dol

Expert Team João F. Basto

Tjeerd Deelstra Michiel Dol

Huibert A. Haccoû Arun Jain

Heinrich Klose Cate Le Grice-Mack

Volkmar Pamer Annette Thierry

Rudi Thomas Rob de Waard S

TRIJ

P-S

E

IND

HO

VE

N

MILUnet Implementation Lab Summary Report Page 2 of 17 May 7-8, 2006

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION �

1.1 CONTEXT

On May 7& 8, 2006 the City of Eindhoven hosted a MILU Implementation Lab to examine the Philips Strijp-S site. The purpose of MILU implementation labs or workshops is to investigate, as a group, both new and persistent urban problems as they relate to Multi-Functional and Intensive Land Use (MILU).

MILU (Multi-Functional & Intensive Land Use) was established to tackle the twin problems of urban sprawl and the development dysfunctions of urban, suburban and rural areas. Its purpose is to promote and encourage the combination of land uses in time and space with the objective of obtaining the best quality possible from the built environment and to improve the social ecology of places. It seeks to provide an international forum for sharing information on mixed-use (multi-functional) and high-density (intensive) development and acquiring deeper insight into their potential. Besides pursuing a wide-ranging research agenda, the group’s work aims to provide cities with practical suggestions for dealing with local and regional problems in urban and urban-edge areas.

MILUnet is an INTEREGG IIIC funded project with a wide ranging agenda to accomplish MILU objectives. This agenda has also helped refine methods by which small groups of international experts can participate in short, concentrated workshops (Implementation Labs) to help strategize specific local and regional problems of host cities. It is the intent of each implementation lab to leave both participants and hosts with new insights as well as shared and learned experiences. It is highly desirable that the outcome of each meeting provide the host city useful and practical suggestions on dealing with the problem cases discussed. Upon special request from Park Strijp Beheer, MILUnet together with the Habiforum Foundation of the Netherlands agreed to undertake a short two-day workshop. This meeting of experts was to specifically address ongoing concerns around the redevelopment of the innovations laboratory complex of the Philips Company. This site was recently acquired by the City of Eindhoven and has been the subject of a study and subsequent plans that include adaptive re-use and redevelopment. This document summarizes the proceedings of the above meeting.

1.2 PROGRAM STRUCTURE & METHODOLOGY

The MILUnet Eindhoven meeting was held in keeping with the general format of the group’s previous meetings and in the spirit of the group’s theoretical framework established during its founding meeting held May 2000 in Amsterdam.

Typically, MILU meeting attendees consist of consultants, scholars, engineers, politicians and policy makers that collectively embrace a wide variety of related fields. These include urban design and regional planning, architecture, environmental affairs, construction, traffic engineering, economics, law as well as public policy and administration.

Participants In response to the request from the City of Eindhoven, MILUnet and the Habiforum Foundation assembled a team of experts. Accordingly, the following participants (in alphabetical order) attended the deliberations held on May 7th and 8th: João F. Basto Architect, Urban Planner, Strategic Department of the City of Lisbon, Portugal. Tjeerd Deelstra Director, International Institute for the Urban Environment, Delft, The Netherlands

Thijs van Dieren Credo Integrale Planontwikkeling BV


Michiel Dol Architect, Project Manager, MILUnet and Project Manager, IIUE Huibert A. Haccoû Program Manager, Habiforum Foundation; Associate Professor Urban and Regional

Planning Saxion University for Professional Education Deventer, The Netherlands and Project Director INTERREG IIIC project: MILUnet

Arun Jain Chief Urban Designer, City of Portland, Oregon, USA Heinrich Klose Professor Urban and Regional Planning, University of Kassel, Germany

Cate Le Grice-Mack Member, Regional Planning + Transport Group, SW England Regional Assembly of Bath, UK

Volkmar Pamer Architect and City Planner, Planning Department, City of Vienna, Austria

Barry Storm Park Strijp Beheer BV, Eindhoven, The Netherlands Annette Thierry Urban Planner, Danish Planning Society, Copenhagen, Denmark

Rudi Thomas Habiforum Associate, senior consultant and mediator, Atrive Consultants, The Netherlands

Rob de Waard Director, Nieuwland Landscape Architects, Researcher, Technical University Eindhoven Marianne Willemsen City of Eindhoven

Each MILU meeting is the result of carefully coordinated efforts between the host city and MILUnet organizers. To maximize participation and interactivity, these meetings are typically organized as open-panel discussions. The format adopted for the Eindhoven meeting was as follows: PRE-MEETING PREPARATIONS � Preparation of background material for the Strijp-S site � Distribution of background material to experts prior to

arrival DAY 1 (May 7, 2006)

� Arrival of participants and welcome dinner � Introductory presentation of the Strijp-S site (Adriaan

Geuze, West 8, Chief Urban Planner for Strijp-S) � Relevant case study presentations (Cable & Wire

Factory, Vienna – Volkmar Pamer, Creative Institution Development Approaches in Portland – Arun Jain)

DAY 2 (May 8, 2006) � Site tour and aerial reconnaissance � Working sessions � Presentation of final results


The meeting’s working sessions were conducted by dividing attendees into two teams to distribute professional expertise as evenly as possible. Two host planners familiar with the project moderated each team’s efforts to help maintain focus as well as facilitate the concise compilation of issues and concerns. The issues and concerns identified in the panel discussions and observations were conducted in an open-panel discussion format. The primary objective was to have comprehensive lists of concerns for the project categorized by the end of the work sessions. Final deliberations focused on simplifying the diverse comments produced by each team. As has been typical, differences in opinion ensured lively and interesting debate. To wrap up the effort, expert team designates and the hosts made summary comments. These wrap-up presentations were also attended by city staff, developer and design team members who had not participated in the sessions themselves. All the above deliberations were held on the Strijp-S Philips site in an available vacant warehouse.


CHAPTER TWO – PROCEEDINGS 2.1 BACKGROUND LOCATION & SETTING

The city of Eindhoven is the fifth largest in the Netherlands with a population of 200,000. Much of its recognition has come from being the headquarters of major international companies such as Philips, DAF, and Campina. Further, the University of Technology at Eindhoven’s large number of colleges and design academy contribute greatly to the city as a center of technological expertise and talent. Eindhoven is strategically located in The Netherlands close to the German and Belgian borders. It is linked via the A2 motorway with Amsterdam, the A50 with Arnhem and Nijmegen, the A58 with Tilburg and the A67 with Venlo. An extensive regional transit system includes two major railway stations connecting the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. One of these (the Beukenlaan station) is in close proximity to the Philips Strijp-S site. Always innovating, Eindhoven continues to experiment with new forms of transit automation – a driverless city bus system connects the central station and the airport with the Strijp-S (the Philips site study area). Finally, Eindhoven airport has become international and now handles over 700,000 passengers annually. STRIJP-S: THE PHILIPS EINDHOVEN SITE

The Philips Company was founded in 1891 by Gerard Philips in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. Its first products were electric light bulbs and 'other electro-technical equipment'. Continued success resulted in the 1914 establishment of the internationally renowned research laboratory “NatLab” which in turn helped start Philips Research Laboratories. Albert Einstein was a guest at this facility, and in 1927, Queen Wilhelmina spoke there in a first radio broadcast. Over time the Philips Eindhoven facilities saw many innovations that influenced the consumer world. The radio vacuum tube, the music cassette, the compact disc and the more recent Senseo coffee maker are only a few.

During WWII the Philips Company directors relocated to the United States from where they successfully ran operations. After the war the company moved back to the Netherlands, keeping their headquarters in Eindhoven. In 1997 a decision was made to move the company to Amsterdam. This move was completed in 2001 with the company’s occupation of the famous Breitner tower. The company’s move to Amsterdam can be considered a return to its roots, since Gerard Philips lived in Amsterdam when he came up with the idea of building a light bulb factory. Philips Lighting, Philips Research, Philips Semiconductors and Philips Design, continue to be based in Eindhoven. As part of its relocation plan to Amsterdam in 2000


the Philips Company decided to release its 27 hectare historic Eindhoven campus for redevelopment. Relocating to three smaller campuses surrounding Eindhoven, the company sold its original site to the City of Eindhoven for approximately 144 million Euros. In 2001 BVR was hired, by VolkerWessels, the municipality of Eindhoven and Philips, to establish the Masterplan for the Philips site also known as the Strijp-S. Following the acquisition of the Strijp-S site in 2002, a consulting firm “West 8” was hired to further refine this masterplan into a Final Urban Development plan, which was subsequently approved by Eindhoven’s Municipal Council in 2004. Following this approval, new concerns regarding the successful integration of the Strijp-S site Urban Development Plan with its surrounding urban fabric were raised. In response to this the site’s development company: “Park Strijp Beheer” approached MILUnet to conduct an Implementation Lab to comment on the related development challenges. 2.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT It is important to note that MILUnet Implementation Lab participants spend considerable effort first considering, and then refining the problem statements provided by host cities. This is because often, the problems as initially stated frequently describe only the symptoms of deeper issues and causes that are at the heart of potential solutions or appropriate responses. Participants quickly determined that a predominant issue would be the redevelopment area’s future connectivity with its surrounding urban fabric. Additional issues such as the viability of the development program, phasing, and ability to sustain adequate levels of activity in proposed public areas emerged after more substantive inquiry. These and related issues are further expanded upon later in this summary report. EXISTING SITE & DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

A brief summary of the current development proposal for the Philips Strijp-S site is as follows: Total site area: 66 Acres (27 Hectares) Existing Site Development: Office & warehouse/production: 333,000 m2 (120,000 m2 is within listed historic structures) Parking: 2,300 Spaces Proposed Site Development Program: (Park Strijp Beheer) Residential: 2,500-3,000 homes (285,000 m2) – studio flats, flats, town homes & lofts Office: 90,000 m2 Commercial/Cultural: 30,000 m2

Other: 30,000 m2

Parking: 4,800 Spaces


CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

The now abandoned Philips R+D gated campus Strijp-S encloses some 27 hectares just inside the ring road to the north-west of Eindhoven. The proposed site development program and development concept retains the site’s historical buildings and proposes a new urban district intended to complement the city centre while offering new forms of mixed use development. A new civic square (Ketelhuisplein) intends to become an entrance piazza that connects the development proposal with its surrounding urban fabric. The area connects to the city centre by bus and rail and overlooked by a prominent residential tower (Triangle). A public green open space with a water feature will further compliment this urban gathering place. Anticipated cafes, an art gallery, a kindergarten and sports facilities will add public interest and encourage active social interaction to this area. These public spaces would seek to integrate the site’s environmental systems and provide a new setting for the converted warehouse buildings. Links with the historical Philips Clock Tower building, (a landmark structure on the ring road and railway junction will further enrich this area. It is hoped that rehabilitated and new structures will attract start-up businesses, specialist retail outlets and a cultural centre. The development strategy for the site is to give it a new identity and for the area to become a new destination for visitors while improving links with surrounding neighbourhoods. The proposal hopes to encourage pedestrian and bicycle movement throughout the developed site.

2.3 OBSERVATIONS & SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Prior to breaking up into two discussion groups, the expert team collectively deliberated on the significant issues faced by redevelopment of the Strijp-S site. Diverse comments were gathered and then bundled into larger headings. These broad observations and questions are as follows:


CONNECTIONS & RELATIONSHIP WITH SURROUNDING URBAN STRUCTURE � Unclear relationship between the development program and

redevelopment emphasis and the site’s surrounding infrastructure and scale.

� Is the site development strategy to enhance its past “island” nature? If so, this is unclear.

� No clear scale and use transition (from large buildings and structures on the site) to smaller scale urban conditions (along its edges) is apparent.

� Poor social integration with surrounding neighbourhoods (i.e. compatible development edge uses are not clear).

� Poor public transit extensions from within the site to its surrounding urban areas and region.

� The development proposal and design implies a sense of exclusivity which contradicts a desire for open and public access. Strategies to tear down past and present barriers are not clear.

IDENTITY � Should the site’s existing history and identity be retained

or replaced? � Current development concepts are ambiguous (i.e. is the

proposal a village, a campus or a collection of discrete development blocks?)

� Should the development’s architectural identity reflect Eindhoven’s uniqueness?

PLACE MAKING � The project planning seems to have a top-down approach

which expects good social places to happen from design alone.

� The design of the new community should be driven by “place making” strategies not excessive reliance on architecture and design.

� Finding and pursuing the highest and best use of the site is not a driving consideration, but should be.

� The reasons to design and develop the site (in whole or part) should be clear prior to planning or design.

� Should the new development be liveable for all ages: families, children and the elderly, or should this be an exclusive community with more focused demographics?

� Should the large scale of existing structures should be broken down to a more human scale? Consider the importance of ground level activity, links to the city centre, accessibility to surrounding neighbourhoods and sustainability.

� The community should be designed around a well defined vision of integrated urban life

� How can a lively urban atmosphere and environment be created and maintained?

DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES � The proposed development program does not relate well to the huge amount of existing built area on the

site. The proposed development program and related economics seem unrealistic.


� The site’s development strategies to manage excess built area are oriented to reducing ground level activity (i.e. reducing critical mass) rather than increasing or concentrating it. Active ground level uses are critical to ensuring active public spaces.

� The project’s phased development does not consider likely changes in market conditions or orient towards creating momentum and interest through strategic place making or identity.

� Maintaining a continuous focus of interest and an attractive site to outsiders is important for success and good sociology. Strategies for this are not clear.

� The reasons for the current development approach are unclear. Is it anticipated that the market will respond to increased/improved site development, or are there clear market needs that the design and development program are responding to? Are there other (non-design oriented) strategies to attract necessary regional and local interest in the spaces that will be developed?

OTHER OBSERVATIONS � The inability to encourage adaptive reuse of existing urban infrastructure has contributed to increased urban

sprawl around Eindhoven. � The lack of immediate market demand for any new developed space creates a development challenge

requiring larger and perhaps more regional interventions. � An ambivalent attitude towards land development suggests passive leadership on development issues. After developing the above problem statements the expert team was split into two groups with the following specific areas of focus: Group 1 Identity & Place making Group 2 Connections and their positive effects


GROUP 1: IDENTITY AND PLACE MAKING Participants: Heinrich Klose, Tjeerd Deelstra, Arun Jain, Cate Mack, Rob de Waard Source person: Thijs van Dieren Facilitator: Michiel Dol GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

� The developed site feels empty. � The drivers for development are not clear! � What are the (short and long term) consequences of not

developing some or the entire site? � The attitude towards conservation is confusing– particularly the

architectural approaches to monument protection and overall heritage of the site.

� A clear framework that defines the future community then explains how this vision is supported is missing.

� There is a poor link between adaptive reuse strategies for existing structures and the development program.

� Using light as a theme to reflect the site’s history is good, but this approach should not ignore energy conservation (i.e. solar energy) in order to remain relevant.

� The social life of the result of the proposed development plan depends too much upon the quality of the architecture and not upon careful placement and design of community building elements.

� Poorly addressed issues: o Adaptability o Development Program o Economic realities o Historic character

SUGGESTIONS � Leave relevant and difficult areas (i.e. currently un-programmable

uses) of the site for future phases of development � Understand the adaptability of buildings better and find more

appropriate uses that fit. � Consider making the new community a showcase of local and

regional art talent (i.e. consider hiring an art curator). � Consider opening up new spaces for public uses. � Consider developing think tanks (or knowledge based industries) in

the most important monuments. � Examine the feasibility of an on-site solar energy factory. � Develop energy conserving strategies (i.e. solar housing). � Consider the site’s scientific contributions (i.e the light bulb) as a recurring theme

(or symbol) of the new community. � Design the site to tell a story to all who live, work and visit. � Further refine the scale of development to make socially usable places � Explore the Strijp-S. ‘Annals’ and pursue ideas like “we are what we have

achieved”. � Adapt existing unique structures to new uses without losing ground level activity. � Create “fun” and interesting movement patterns and pathways � Make clear and distinctive focal points. � Move the railway stop to the middle of the site and make it locally accessible and an attraction. � Make the development program adaptable to market conditions and future phases adaptable to changing

development needs.


SITE IDENTITY & PLACEMAKING CONCEPT

OVERALL CONCEPT: The group concluded that the current development proposal did not focus on community building within the site and linkages outside, but relied instead on regional growth initiatives (outside the control of the project) and good building architecture as the primary basis for integrating new development with its surroundings. The group did not consider this to be the best strategy for redeveloping the Strijp-S site. A number of approaches were considered to correct this situation. The first was to break the scale of large existing buildings down at the ground level to create a series of linked open spaces that would weave opportunistically through existing spaces and through new and adaptively redesigned existing buildings to form a system of linked courts and corridors. This open space system would link historic buildings and icons such as the Clock Tower. The size and configuration of these open spaces would vary in size and purpose to provide a rich public experience. Relying too much on the proposed primary green (or Ramblas”) to create an active corridor was not considered adequate since it reinforced the existing poor inherited introverted site organization. A new north-south spine perpendicular to this proposed green corridor was suggested to connect the existing urban infrastructure along the south of the site with a relocated railway station at the north end. This formal Boulevard would better integrate adjacent communities, break down the length of the proposed east-west green axis and create a formal processional path with a finely nuanced system of public and private open spaces. The proposed width of the green “Ramblas” was also considered too wide and uniform to create active social spaces. The group decided that varying the width along its length and creating wider spaces and larger public squares at each intersection would greatly help create interesting scaled experiences, special places and variety. The proposal to remove ground floor area leaving only lobbies, utilities and vertical circulation (i.e. staircases and elevators) was considered counterproductive to activating adjacent public spaces. Although the proposed removal of lowered floors is a mechanism to reduce the total developed floor area, maximizing the interplay between public and private uses at the ground level is a well established principle for good social spaces. Other means to reduce total developed built area must be found. The group also felt it necessary to enhance both the eastern and western entrances to the site by creating formal gateways at either end of the site.


The group felt was convinced that proper programming and development of active ground floor uses around all major open spaces should be a first priority and integrated into the overall development strategy for the site.

POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT FOCUS 1A: Develop housing along the site edges and relate it to the surrounding urban structure. 1B: Start a test PV Laboratory or education/design academy. 1C: Develop an interim use of open space through a tree nursery/plants/park – the products may be

used to plant the site as it develops. (Example: Ballymun tree adoption plan, Dublin) 1D: Consider a covered food market or related public amenity along railway line and around the station

area if relocated to the middle of the site.

2: Introduce high quality art in the larger buildings (new and adapted). PHASE ONE (EARLY) SITE DEVELOPMENT FOCUS � Develop only the residential portion most connected to existing urban infrastructure (southern edge).

� Create open space network (courts and corridors) & visual links to the Clock Tower

� Develop interim green areas (i.e. nurseries) & solar farm

� Develop N/S Boulevard to new station location


GROUP 2: CONNECTIONS & THEIR POSITIVE EFFECTS Participants: Annette Thiery, João Basto, Volkmar Pamer, Rudi Thomas Source person: Marianne Willemsen Facilitator: Huib Haccoû

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS � Site development concept has too rigid boundaries, North (Double carriageway), South (Football stadium) � The surrounding urban fabric does offer a chance for proposed development to extend beyond its 3 ‘strong’

boundaries � There are still fences that isolate the proposed development from its surroundings. � Art. 461 (no go area) � Barriers: railway and ring road � Public on 3 borders with “public” views � No walking public in neighbouring areas � Empty open spaces can be even attractive in Strijp-S area � Plenty of open spaces (open to a variety of uses � create ‘breathing’ and ‘resting’ areas � The whole area has a lot of places + spaces easily connectible � There is no axis x from A-B � From helicopter: Strijp-S is not an island! It can fit into Eindhoven’s

urban fabric with the right approach. � Rigid and monolithic built blocks (variety of functions) � Traditional physical links � Boundary buildings look out of site, inner buildings relate to core

open spaces � A concentration of architecture signature � Ordinary (traditional) activities – no real demand from the cities part � Does the city need space for new (special) functions? � Links to the site’s history and past are not clear � “Everybody” has worked here � The existing site has a “strong” and “comfortable” identity � Site is both a repository of memories and an experimental ground for

future usages � Site allows for integration of emblematic signs/devices � Non-committed ‘monumental’ architecture � Fabulous indoor & outdoor spaces � Where to start with ‘germ-cells’? � One mayor starting point if –where? For connections


SUGGESTIONS Site Demands: Start with low budget lofts/incubator and facilities allowing for experiments

Site – identity – potential: Involve creative schools/design academy to create a constituency of future users Involve university students as makers of spaces (in –situ workshops) Connect: � demands from outside with the identity/special opportunities of the site Use the future users: � (Students) University of Technology � (Students) Design School � others

Other: � Examine what future demands might be, and the site’s future potential (example: integration, anti-ghetto

- residential areas) � explore ideas & suggestions � consider implementation approaches � Create pedestrian links/corridors to neighbouring areas � Create interesting routes from the city centre to the spots where your development starts (New ‘roads’

from the city) � Low level entrances (special market/bazaar) � Create ‘light’ paths to attract citizens after dark � Explore the site in phases � “Grand” public spaces should be in juxtaposition with intimate/contemplative cores � Start tearing down all existing fences early and see what happens � Start with quality public spaces, mature greens and children playgrounds � Create different atmospheres in public spaces to capture seasonal changes � Create a variety of spaces/experiences instead of a boulevard � Create a nucleus of leisure areas for all ages: from children to old people � Poles of attraction for handicapped citizens � Create multiple use indoor areas and outdoor spaces � Development by ‘accident’ (in some parts) � No island but connections needed � Connections for all types of ‘transport’ � Residential use of old buildings � anchor � Use existing building resources to maximum � Residential area – south has to be continued north � Make Strijp-S exiting to explore new elements � Create multi-cultural and ethnic cores � Cultural permanent use � small scale, scattered all over the place � Ephemeral outdoor/indoor activities (festival, etc) local/regional/national � Landmark’s yearly competition (a dynamic environment) � Keep the bulb-factory! � 24 hours, year-round fashion: Hollywood – Hollandwood � Unique attractive centre (national) � Central Square!!! � Mayor – focus- starting point � Communication strategy in place: focus on special groups


OVERALL CONCEPT: The group made a quick and unanimous conclusion that the proposed parkway would be too large in scale for the Strijp-S and perhaps even for the whole city of Eindhoven. There is no need for it, but the parkway area itself provides a wide range of opportunities to create wonderful and diversified public spaces. Instead of one big green spine, a chain of different designed areas – parks, squares and even ‘self developing’ zones should be established. The advantage is the possibility of a step-by-step growth, which allows also a reaction to the development of the area, which does not happen at once. There is, even though some buildings are massive in their appearance, a human scale. It is not disproportionate to the existing elements; the dominance of the old and protected factory buildings has something majestic that is not intimidating. It is a necessity to think intensively about the reuse of the buildings. Although many buildings do not seem adaptable for several uses (e.g. residential use), the group reflected that creative solutions could be made to work. This might mean greater focus on efforts to create special apartment types, and promote new ways of living together. This could take the form of a competition to get ideas. Solutions should be unique and attractive enough to provide added incentive to populate this development site. The group also felt that cultural activities on small scale should be started early to create positive energy that could be expanded. Finding ways to attract settlement and/or cultural places for diverse ethic communities (e.g. African, Asian, Arab and Jewish elements) distributed throughout the site might “bundle” synergistic uses like ethnic restaurants, bookstores, cinemas and specialty groceries. Ground floor levels are a crucial areas requiring further investigation. Indoor markets to ephemeral outdoor/indoor activities suggest a wide range of possibilities. Ground floor relationships throughout the site are the heart of successful social connections for this site. Ensuring good dialogue between all indoor and outdoor spaces is of utmost importance. Connections with the site’s adjacent urban fabric should be enhanced particularly around existing residential buildings. It seems appropriate to ’allow’ these areas to extend into the Strijp-S site, either with compatible residential buildings or with community connecting playgrounds or sporting fields. The laboratories, which need to be abandoned early, appear to be of high architectural quality and might be of added interest to new university institutes, libraries or similar uses. Such structures would be also attractive for creative industries, yet another source for urban life and economic growth. The need to overcome the busy road along the site’s western edge is a not valid concern. The whole area is already oriented to the East and South and by extension to Eindhoven’s city centre. The expense involved


in doing so would not readily justify the gains. A new landmark at the very end of the open space zone (parkway) would be more than adequate to give prominence to the Strip S site. The existing railway line sits on what functions as an impenetrable wall. Multiple punctures through this wall would begin to connect to the green areas immediately north of the tracks. It would also be worth noting that relocating the station closer to the center of the Strijp-S would greatly provide the site with unique identity. Good public transport access is crucial for positive development. The access street running in front of the protected factory buildings should be reconsidered as this would potentially interfere with the desire to create highly complimentary and interactive ground floor uses. The potential of the area is enormous and if proposed and existing site infrastructure is only slightly modified (i.e. with more focus on activity, design and process), Eindhoven will have a solid base for a fully functional urban quarter for the future.


CHAPTER THREE – SUMMARY FINDINGS 3.1 LESSONS LEARNT Arun Jain There are both inherent problems and advantages to examining development issues on short notice and within limited time. The problems, to name just a few, are the fear of missing important context, not understanding all the hidden agendas and marginalizing carefully managed planning processes.

The best response to these concerns is to remain clear on the reasons for pursuing outside analysis and critique. The advantages in doing so more than compensate the shortcomings. The ability to step back and look at projects from “outside the box” permits freedom from the collective weight of small details, prevailing bureaucracies, and the inevitable limitations of the local planning process. Often, such an approach also stimulates reinterpretation of the prevailing paradigm, resulting in renewed energy and excitement towards the development effort.�

MILUnet Implementation Labs have all been held with this intent and spirit. The format of these group sessions is a deliberate attempt to stir up often stagnating efforts to generate new perspectives, confirm lingering doubts and suggest creative strategies to tackle tough issues. The deliberations in Eindhoven reflected the shared extent of our common concerns. The large diversity of experience, culture and background of its participants only contributed to the maturity of perspective and quality of final recommendations.

SHARED ISSUES The study of the Strijp-S site reinforced the importance of the following:

� The importance of not forgetting the context in which change is desired and staying focused on the original intent during the problem solving process.

� Avoiding the reflex to examine planning issues within predetermined boundaries, marginalizing or ignoring the larger impacts beyond them.

� Planning or allowing development without considering natural evolution or transitions to new uses or constructs – both within a project over time, and in relationship to its edges and surrounding impacted areas.

� Not forgetting the importance of matching development emphasis with desired identity early in the planning process and keeping the relationship dynamic.

� Avoiding the tendency to separate the architecture of buildings from the design of public spaces. Active, vibrant social life depends upon the integrated design of the public-private interface.

� Unclear and problematic distribution of a project’s development program stemming from poor clarity of purpose and disregard for long-term economic sustainability.

� The mistake of allowing architecture to lead or determine urban design, social, environmental and economic considerations rather than follow, or be the natural outcome of such shared concerns.

� Failing to consider the changing context of urban fabric and the need for flexible and responsive strategies to accommodate existing conditions as well as creative responses to future potential.

It is the expert team’s hope that this short exercise will result in positive changes and success in the continuing development of the Strijp-S site in Eindhoven.

Rapport 15 Strijp S Eindhoven

Documents

Transcript of Rapport 15 Strijp S Eindhoven