ROTTERDAM POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION AND THE LIJNBAAN CASE

Exercise 1 | History and Theory of the XXth Century Architecture and Urbanism | Politecnico di Milano VASCO HORTA | November 2013

On the afternoon of the 14th of May, 1940, german Luftwaffe erased Rotterdam XIXth century old town, victimizing more than 800 people and destroying over 25000 homes. It didnt take more than six years before the approval of the ultimate modernist Basic-plan (1946), by the urban planner Cornelis Van Traa. Taking advantage of a completely expropriated city center by the city council, with renewed infrastructures, the new urban design discarded almost every still standing building, regardless of its historical value [A]. A new city, completely drawn from scratch and prepared for sparkling economic progress, industry and prompt transportation, was demanded. In fact, in the 1940s, the mechanization of the port and industrial development urged modern movement planners to struggle to improve car circulation in the pre-war inner city and transform it in an industrial city [Laar, 2000]. However, only the war devastation would let them carry out their plans. That is the reason why, during the discussions, city council would consider Van Traa draft a liberation plan. [Wagenaar, 1993] The utopia of a welfare state, based on swift economic growth was not compatible with an old, inefficient and narrow urban fabric, unprepared for cars circulation, and a dysfunctional mixed-use city. Highways, bridges and tunnels would connect a new metropolis, divided into 3 types of districts, according to the I CIAM (1928)1 statement of urbanism primary functions: dwelling, working and recreation 2 [B]. Traffic was welcome in a renewed industrial city and would connect its world class port with Europe, as, in the meanwhile, cars became symbols of modern civilization, new objects of ritualization, the great gizmo of the modern man3 [C]. Van Traa plan resulted of a belief in urban planning as tool for social and economic progress. One year after the approval of the Rotterdam plan, modern architects in VI CIAM (1947) would write in Reaffirmation of the Aims of CIAM that urbanism must () work for the creation of physical environment that will satisfy mans emotional and material needs and stimulate his spiritual growth and they would add that To achieve an environment of this quality, we [urban planners] must combine social idealism, scientific planning and fullest use of available building techniques. Indeed, it was the believe in an prosper future, provided by industry and commerce, that justified a strict, scientific, separation of city functions, connected by fast lanes, in the pursuit of the efficiency of the city as productive unit. The city center, transformed in an open-air shopping mall would attain modern mans material and spiritual needs of consumption. The reconstruction process will witness urban planners
Compilation from History and Theory of the XXth Century Architecture and Urbanism lectures. Kiefhoek housing project (1933), also in Rotterdam, designed by J. J. P. Oud, is one early example of a housing district, where commerce and services are concentrated in two quarters, separated from the residential cluster. 3 BANHAM, Reyner, Design by Choice , Londres, Academy Editions, 1981.
1 2

outright neutrality before the concerns of architecture. In fact, I CIAM Declaration of La Sarraz (1928) would frame urbanism concerns only on the realm of functional occupation of land, traffic organization and legislations. In this sense, Basic-plan will outline a street grid, design infrastructures and impose functional uses, leaving building design for market tendencies and real estate investors to decide. A similar historical example of public-private shared roles in urban development is Manhattan, which will be theorized by Rem Koolhaas in Delirious New York (1978) 4. In the American case, the combination of a rigid regular grid and total freedom of design inside each lot will result in a flexible, thrilling and enjoyable private city, regardless of being subordinated to real estate speculation. Rotterdams case is also similar to Manhattan in what concerns permissive building regulations and displacement of traditional public spaces in favor of private domain, as we will demonstrate following. Also, new legislation will permit high-rise building enterprises and densification in the name of economic development [Laar, 2000]. Named Lijnbaan (ropewalk), because of an old rope factory, Rotterdams main street was devastated in the 1940 bombings. A new urban design by architects Van Der Broek and Jacob Bakema made tabula rasa of the destroyed fabric, raising a cluster commercial sector, next to a cultural sector and an administrative sector. With stores in ground floors and housing and offices in the towers above, Lijnbaan is a plain example of the outcome of Van Traas plan. Modern, geometrical, with glass surfaces and neon signs announcing each store, this urban ensemble is symbol of a culture of consumption, economic prosperity and welfare [D]. Three years after the Rotterdam plan Sert, Lger and Giedion, in Nine Points on Monumentality (1943)5, state that Monuments are human landmarks which men have created as symbols for their ideals, for their aims, and for their actions . We could affirm that, according the authors theory, Lijnbaan absence of a traditional monumental composition (squares, public buildings, museums, etc.) could be justified by the societys difficulty to create monuments, due to the lack of a unifying consciousness and unifying culture. However, the Modern man revises himself in a culture fostered by the products and images offered by the Modern metropolis. Indeed, Lijnbaan asserts its monumentality in the spectacle of consumption, in the meaning rendered by Guy Debord in Society of Spectacle (1967)6. Lijnbaan has no squares. Its center is a street with pedestrian traffic and in which movement is always suggested, in a consistent transcript of the macro city designed for cars. From the 1960s until today, Rotterdam has been targeted with criticism. The welfare utopia was discredited and the citizens were no longer satisfied with their rationalist city. The lack of livability in an austere clustered and, in a way, nihilist city was the core of the post-modern criticism. A private city without identity symbols, as in Lijnbaan, which center was full of globalized chain stores, no monuments and no traces of history, could no longer serve the spiritual needs of its citizens.

KOOLHAAS, Rem (1978), Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan , New York: Monacelli Press. 5 SERT, J. L.M, LGER, F., GIEDION, S (1943), Nine Points on Monumentality (www.ub.edu/escult/doctorat/html/lecturas/sert1.pdf, on 20/10/12). 6 DEBORD, Guy (2000), Society of Spectacle , London: Black and Red.
4