A History of Urbanism in Rotterdam

As first-time visitors to Rotterdam, the southernmost port city forming the Netherland's major metropolitan region, what better way to become acquainted with how the city deals with its transportation and land use issues, than to hear from two of Rotterdam's 'plangineers' and professors at the Rotterdam Hoge School. I use this as their job title because of the institution's progressive interdisciplinary curriculum in which civil engineering, planning, and architecture are well  engouh integrated to be taught alongside each other in one lecture.

Rotterdam: A "Brief" History 

70% of Holland is below sea level (shocking, right?). But the Dutch are also notoriously known for having one of the oldest water management regimes-- in fact, it's the oldest of all governance systems in the country-- to deal with this issue. The cities we see along the delta region today were those settlements that managed to drain the silted areas by building dams, hold back seawater through dykes, and gain wealth by trade along the waterways. Rotterdam, among others, succeeded and managed to overtake nearby Delft in trade power as well, mostly due to its strategic location in a less sedimented area.

Rotterdam was shaped historically by a number of planning decisions. Many of these are regarding the city's sanitary condition and grey infrastructure, but also its connectivity with the rest of the region and within the city. Making the decision to build train lines connecting to the north (Amsterdam and the Hague), the east (to Utrecht), and the south (to Antwerp, Belgium), as well as building a train line in the middle of the city, ensure full connectivity to other major economic hubs in nearby and connectivity within the city's bounds. It ensured development would occur in all areas of the city. Bridges also formed a major foundation, in order to avoid one part of the city being solely commercial, and the other side solely residential.  Mixed use land patterns was important to ensure the skyscraper areas did not succumb to the suburban involution, a problem that affects downtown areas of Vancouver today.

Over time, Rotterdam's land use changed from long and narrow meadow blocks, which were eventually subdivided into housing lots still visible today. The urban fabric has changed and been influenced by a number of architectural influences, including classicists- which is why we still see some brick row houses also found in Amsterdam, as well as modernists (like Haussmann) who appreciate grandiose Parisian boulevards, and high rises. One professor called the architecture in the city "eclectic", while another more critical professor believed it to be rather "chaotic".

What differentiates Rotterdam from the other delta cities in the Netherlands is its larger scale, a shift that took place both before and after its destruction in the Second World War.  Rotterdam plays on a global platform, with an outward looking planning approach, visible by its more prominent architecture - a landscape I'd regard as les modest and European and more international (explained by the various international architects whose high-rises dot its skyline).

Image Source: http://www.kunsthal.nl/

In addition, Rotterdam underwent a post-modernist movement, with focus equally being paid to quality of life. Rotterdam still has soft infrastructure in the form of greenspace and emphasizes art in public space as an important amenity, as much as transit infrastructure and connectivity. It boasts an impressive, although industrial, landscape, unlike any other in the Netherlands. In constructing Rotterdam's landscape, planning and engineering process is equally important. For instance, when developers and architects compete to establish a construction project in Rotterdam, planners outweigh both monetary and non-monetary benefits. They do not only consider the costs (bottom line) of the project, but also the social benefit of the project. It is not necessary the lowest cost project that wins the project opportunity. If the benefits are environmental or aesthetic or social, the project has good chances; for instance, if the project promises to hire contract workers from low-education background, extra points will be rewarded for the project's potential non-monetary social benefit.

While definitely understated, Rotterdam is the very cool sister city of Amsterdam and may overtake Amsterdam in popularity in the near future. 

Arranging a city to a symphony

A symphony of algorithms, that is.

Franz Ulm and Roland Pellenc, two MIT specialists in the atomic structure of cement, discovered that the texture of a city can be identical to crystalline patterns of elements in the periodic table. Such a random yet intriguing analogy reiterated something important to them: "that the laws of molecular physics can be applied to the texture of cities".

Using physics and equations to form the perfect city optimizes sustainability by building efficiently. Luis Bettencourt believes that the way to approach this method would be to seek the function of cities, not the form - what purpose does that city serve to the people? This will set the universal parameters for building that city, which works together with what Bettencourt calls "the social reactor" (a.k.a. the social dynamic in cities that produces creative and economic outcomes). Now this is the connection that we are looking for in every successful city, and this is what we need to optimize in every city along with energy efficiency and natural resource conservation. At the moment, the only way this sort of dynamic can be measured is through indicators such as city size and interactions within the population  (i.e. crime rates).

Socialisation, as it turns out, is the key to optimizing not only a city's economy, but an energy efficient city. Take this example - in a high-density city with fairly moderate public transport but high crime rate, people are more likely to avoid taking public transport and will drive individual cars. The more cars there are on the road, the higher the amount of GHG gases are emitted, which only leads to a greater carbon footprints that contributes to the upcoming apocalypse-via-global-warming. In fact, in one of his papers, "A unified theory of urban living", Bettencourt argues that the growth of both good and bad development is actually dependent on the size of the city. Mathematically, both good (e.g. opportunity)and bad (e.g. crime) development will increase by 15% should the city's size increase. Such metric data and mathematical analysis has always been used to guide an urban planner's hand, but using actual equations and universal parameters to help pursue optimal investments is a game changer in that it reduces the chances of unintended catastrophic consequences.

That being said, one wonders what the limitations of such a mathematical approach is. In my personal opinion, using mathematics to maximize municipal investment decisions and thereby spend money in the "right" way can go two ways. It will either benefit taxpayers by spending money where it is needed (assuming that municipal authorities are responsible with tax money...this might be bordering on fantasy for some urban areas), or it will ignore the necessity of what cannot be quantified in terms of dollar bills - for example, the necessity of trees and greenspace. Quantification of such amenities are also sometimes rejected because anything can dwindle in monetary value, and this can cause ramifications in appreciating the value of trees, highlighted as an issue because trees are already experiencing a game of thrones level of death as it is. Also, we need trees to survive.

Then again, this approach looks at the city as a system and goes beyond employing sustainable architecture. Using mathematics to engineer the perfect city allows us to foresee how our decisions can impact the global future with logical, rational eyes. It does not limit growth by developing the perfect city that cannot be tweaked because of its perfection; instead it focuses on keeping the city perfect throughout time - factoring in adaptations that need to constantly be made to accommodate changes in the universal parameters of city design. What interests me about this approach is whether we can use the mathematical concepts here to measure energy inputs and outputs in a natural ecosystem and whether it is therefore worth comparing a city's energy efficiency with nature's.

In the past, we have made several erroneous decisions and several great decisions when it came to urban planning. The point with this approach is to eliminate erroneous possibilities and to assist municipal authorities into making the most fiscally responsible decisions - not only in terms of money, but in terms of social, economic and political sustainability as well. No more planned shrinkages in the Bronx that only resulted in higher crime rates. No more gentrification of Jacobian streets that exclude poorer classes. Though this process may not promise us a threat-free world, it might yet compose a world sweeter to the ear.

Tabinda Shah.

Building Urban Resilience through Social Connectedness (Pt 1)

In the wake of environmental and social disturbances such as sea level rise and mass migration into cities driven by economic, social and political factors alike, many municipal governments around the world have underestimated and neglected a little known sustainability issue: social connectedness. While devising large scale efforts to build resilience through large infrastructure projects and sustainable community design, we forget about this issue that could otherwise enable greater resilience. Even Vancouver, often hailed as an urban planning utopia-- its design has been marketed and replicated worldwide as 'Vancouverism'-- has a long way to go before it achieves social connectedness in the city. Why is social connectedness important for cities? What might it look like and how can we socially engineer cities, especially at the neighborhood and building scale, to foster it?

Despite densification and transit accessibility in its central business district and surrounding downtown residential neighborhoods, Vancouver suffers from a social isolation problem. Some might not consider this a problem; historically, urban sociologists and geographers, such as George Simmel, have long critiqued urban living for its anonymity (read Hubbard's the City). In the modern era, planners and sociologists have warned that not knowing the names or being able to rely on those living across your floor or within your own building, creates vulnerability. After publishing a frightening article in the New Yorker on the big earthquake projected to hit the Pacific Northwest, the author revealed one piece of advice for communities that want to lower their risk of casualties and be prepared: get to know your neighbors.

If natural disasters occur, or even something like the refugee crisis, it is imperative for people to be able to rely on others within their vicinity. In the long term, social cohesion, even if superficial, might offer a sense of stability. This is especially the case for vulnerable populations, for instance, those living in social housing, or in buildings where young families and senior citizens live. Being able to take care of neighbors or receive favors when needed is what cities should begin to imagine under social connectedness. It is what we will require resilience. Fortunately, Vancouver has outlined goals to Cultivate Connections in its Healthiest City Strategy 2014-2025, highlighting that is prioritizes social cohesion as a priority issue.

Stay tuned for Part 2!

Halina Rachelson