Urban regenerationCase Studies:

Kop van Zuid - rotterdamWestergasfabriek - amsterdam

oana baloi, Merel enserink, Karel Matar

Colofon

october 2011

by: o. baloi, M. enserink and K. MatarMLP Students at University of Wageningen

Supervision: Prof. J. KohPart of course: Reflections of Landscape Architecture Practices

5

Introduction 7 Definitions 7 Goals 7 Method 8

Case study 11 Kop van Zuid, rotterdam 11 WestergasfabriekCultuurPark,Amsterdam 17

Conclusion 23 Summarize 23 Comparing the case studies 24

Critics and reflection 27

Sources 31

tabLe of ContentS

6

7

DefinitionsUrban Regenerationthe population that lives in cities has continuously increasing number. now over 80% of the european populations live in towns 1. the expansion of built environment causes consequences such as natural habitats damaged for housing purposes, and often poor environment management. the concept of Ur-ban regeneration was introduced to reform and re-store un-functioning urban areas.

Urban regeneration is a strategy to address urban issues by improving the social, economic, and envi-ronmental settings of an area. Urban regeneration aims to bring quality and vitality back to an urban site.

Around1997,intheNetherlands,UrbanRegenera-tion was a new approach on developing cities with the intent to revive parts of the cities 2. three years later a new urban renewal policy was launched to form the physical aspect of reviving cities. this pol-icy focuses on restructuring industrial sites/harbors, inner cities, and areas affected by the world war. the netherlands has started a long term develop-ment program within the four biggest cities in the netherlands: amsterdam – rotterdam – Utrecht – the Hague 3.

Success and Failure in order to evaluate the result of the project it is necessarytodefinesuccessorfailureofarealizeddesigned landscape and the importance of urban regeneration in contemporary cities.for the success of a project there are three differ-ent sides: people, landscape and impact. the people side is about how it functions, how the space is used. the project is a success when the side is functional for the users and give reason for exercise and movement. the landscape side is about how does it connect with the history, the culture and the surroundings.

this is a success when visitors are reminded of the history of the place when they visit. it is a success when users can identify themselves with the culture of the side and it is a success when the new area is connected environmentally with its surroundings. the third side is the impact of the project on the area and also on the community of users. Does it fitinthepresent?Doesitfitforfuturechanges?Forsuccess the project should have connections with the context and be functional for the users. a project can fail on one of these points but be still a success on other points. for example: the function-ality of a park can be good, while the park has no connections with the history of the side. failure of urban regeneration projects, on one of those three sides means that there is a lack of networks. but it can also indicate a lack of connectivity between those different sides.

When designing a urban regeneration project the architects tries to give new meaning to a space. the architect tries to predict the expectations of users, however the intensions of the architect might be read differently by users. the experience and per-ceptions of the users can be different from those of the architects. if the intensions of the architect and the perception of the users are on the same line, than the project is successful.

GoalsTopic Reasons We have chosen the “Urban regeneration” topic because of its actuality. each country during its de-velopment includes at least some cases in which ur-ban areas were left in ruin during urban or historical evolution. the awareness of these projects is grow-ingfastbutunfortunatelythereislessreflectionandcritics on those projects, thus many of the present and possibly future projects can make same mis-takes instead of leaning from others.

Urban regeneration is a growing trend in contem-

introDUCtionDefinitionsandGoals

8

porary urban expansion, not only into suburbs but also in all the areas inside cities affected by a fail-ure on a certain moment. in the context of present expansion of cities sustainability is a major theme. regeneration means valuing a site`s strengths in order to make it function again 4.

Within the present project we support the develop-ment of urban regeneration unit focusing on special user areas, communities and sustainability projects with a comparison of two important projects through their awareness and impact over society and land-scape: Kop van Zuid in rotterdam and Westergas-fabriek Cultural Park in amsterdam

Choosing casesboth of the sites own similar issues solved with dif-ferent approaches regarding urban regeneration. both Kop van Zuid and Westergasfabriek Cultural Park are sites with history and with a successfully present usage. after a glorious period of industrial usage, the sites were dumped and avoided by de-velopers. for a long period of time the sites were standing in the shadow of the awareness and de-velopment of the cities they belong to, without being integrated into a unitary large scale development plan.

However in the context of sustainable conversion of urban development, the areas un-integrated in the city started to get the attention of municipalities. the new trend was to improve the quality of those ne-glected spaces and also the urban networks within the cities.

the scale of the presented study cases is different; thefinalresultaimstobecategorizedas“success-ful” and both projects to be known as good exam-ples of urban regeneration. in this assignment we will follow the intentions of the architects and the implementation of their solution for a successful us-ageofspacesinordertoreflectthemeaningofthelandscape of today`s society.

MethodTohaveafirmbasesforthecasestudywesearchfor methods. Mark francis created a very accessible method for case studies in landscape architecture. His method is very complete and touches both the bigger outlining of the project as well as details in the project. His method does not only focus on facts about a design but also on user groups, site visit-ing and experience of the site. the combination of these layers gives a good insight in the functioning of the site. With the different answers it gets clear what the intensions were from the designers and

other groups, what the strong points are and also what the weaker points are from the case. in total it gives a nice overview of the quality and what we can learn from the case 5.

________________________________________1 brebbia, Carlos alberto. the Sustainable City: Urban regeneration and Sustainability, Southampton: Wit, 2000. Print.2 Kei Kenniscentrum Stedelijke Vernieuwing. “Urban regeneration in the netherlands.” Kei Kenniscentrum Stedelijke Vernieuwing - Kennis-bank. Unknown, 2011. Web. 21 Sept. 2011. <http://www.kei-centrum.nl/view.cfm?page_id=1949>.,viewedon16Sep2011,16:503 Stouten, Paul, and edward Hulsbergen. “Urban regeneration in a new Context.” Spatial Planning and governance at the regional Level. Proc.ofSustainableUrbanAreas,TheNetherlands,Rotterdam.2007.Web. 21 Sept. 2011. http://www.enhr2007rotterdam.nl/documents/W20_paper_Stouten_Hulsbergen.pdf,viewedon16Sep2011,17:204 Hoek, Marco & Ltd. regeneration in european cities: Making Con-nections, Case Study of Kop van Zuid, UrbeD trust, Joseph rowntree Foundation,April2007,updated/editedMarch20085 francis, Mark. a Case Study Method for Landscape architecture: Landscape architecture foundation, Washington D.C. Davis, Ca: Uni-versity of California, 1998. Print.

9

the erasmusbridge, icon of the Kop van Zuid

iconical in the Westergas Cultuur Park is the new use of the gasometers

10

google aerial view of the Kop van Zuid (www.maps.google.com)

Design of the regeneration of Kop van Zuid by KoW Stedenbouw

11

Location: Kop Van Zuid rotterdam, the netherlands.Designers: KoW Stendenbow.Consultants: City Development Corporation Planning and Housing Department the rotterdam transport Company the Public Works Department the Port authoritiesSize/scale: 125haLand Use type: Residential, Office Employment,entertainment venues, education, retail

ContextKop van Zuid is a new developed neighbourhood situated on the south bank of the nieuwe river Maas, opposed to the city centre. the area used to be an important european gate, occupied by major industrial and shipping actions. During the second world war rotterdam was bombed and the site was destroyed. after the war the harbour was relocated downstream closer to the sea and Kop van Zuid be-came an abandoned isolated space. in 1994 a plan for development was approved by the municipality and the royalty 1.

CaSe StUDyKop van Zuid, rotterdam

the developing of the site is still continuingaerial picture of the Kop van Zuid area

Roles of Key Participantsthe initiator of the regeneration of Kop van Zuid was rotterdam City Development Corporation, which also owned the land. the development of a new plan was made by KoW stedenbouw, head of the project was riek bakker, director of the town Devel-opment Department for rotterdam city. the project was implemented in cooperation with the Planning and Housing Department of the municipality 2.

Decision Making Process.Municipality took initiative to redevelop the area. Multiple designs were presented. the design had to be approved by the rotterdam City Development Corporation. for the implementation of the design they needed approval of the Planning and Housing Department, the rotterdam transport Company, the Public Works Department and the Port authori-ties 3.

How does the project come together?the aim of the project was to convert the area into an urban district and integrate it in the city structure.

12

a goal was to connect Kop van Zuid with the city centre and developing a new city centre next to the old centre. another goal was to unite the northern and southern part of Kop Van Zuid 4.

Problem Definitions and ResponsesProblems of the Kop van Zuid site were:• the area was separated from the city centre.

because there was a lack of transportation pos-sibilities and lack of attracting functions.

• the area has traditionally been of low educa-tional achievement and high unemployment. therefore the site did not had good image. this made it hard to attract private investment.

• When the project started, also the districts around Kop van Zuid, were marked as low-quality for living environment, with fragile social-economic structure.

• the housing stock in these districts was very one-sided and had low home ownership, which helps explain the uneven social structure 5.

the Kop van Zuid project intended to address all these issues, by building the erasmus bridge and new Metro stations created the link between Kop van Zuid, and the city, with creating a lively and strikingmulti-functionaldistrict foroffices, residen-tial, leisure and education. High quality design claimed new landmark building, with a new design of the public space. in order to let surrounding dis-trictsofKopvanZuidbenefit from thesuccessofthe project they launched a program, named ‘Mu-tualBenefit’.

GoalsKey goalsKop van Zuid project aims to develop a new urban

centre for the city of rotterdam 6. in the context of sustainability requirements the social, ecological andeconomiclayershastobefulfilledresultingina new urban centre on functional and aesthetical level7. thus, the urban networks within the city are setting a central point within the Kop van Zuid. the social goal was to assure a higher comfort level for users. Developing a new city centre involves ma-jor changes on the social layer. the project included the reorientation for higher income segment of us-ers, both inhabitants and visitors. Social reconver-sion included new business park, housing, educa-tion and leisure facilities 8.the ecological goal was to decrease the level of pollution and apply sustainability principles.Urban conversion of a highly used industrial needs a strategy for a safe future usage of the site. the project aimed to reconnect safety and ecology through a good resource management and also through usage of materials. in present, ecological strengths of the project are good maintenance and waste management.the aesthetical goal was urban development through innovation and high quality design.architecture occupied a very important role in the project. on the aesthetical level, Kop van Zuid had to be extensively used as a metropolis; its atmos-phere is reinforced by several design elements from the height and massiveness of the buildings, to the details of leisure.

How were they set? the objectives of the project were set in a long-term strategy of implementation. Social and aesthetics werethefirstachievementsoftheproject.Theeco-nomics and sustainability will increase their activity in medium and long term, making the new centre of

Kop van Zuid after the bombing in 1940 (www.entoen.nu) erasmus bridge: new connection with the citty centre

13

the scale of the buildings is not human

the city even more productive 9.

Who defined them? Goalsoftheprojectweredefinedbythemunicipal-ity 10. after technical expertise and research of the area, the project began to be developed by profes-sionals from different domains as architecture, plan-ning, landscape architecture, engineers and techni-cians.

Did the goals change during course of project?Some of the goals have changed during the im-plementation process of the project. Urban regen-eration basically regenerated the entire social layer though the base goal was to improve the life qual-ity of present inhabitants 11. Sustainability was also decreased as importance, thus green landscape in less visible than it should; concrete instead occu-pies a big percentage of the ground surface.

DesignKey design conceptsthe key design approaches were authenticity and innovation. authenticity stands still through architec-tural elements as landmarks and also through the design of public space. the memory of the space is one of the key design concepts. another key design concept was the skyline. the innovation comes into the development of different areas as architecture, transport and public space.

Inspiration for the formform was subordinated to the functional neces-sities and feasibility of goals’ implementation. Asoverall design of the area, the composition of the space was focused on massive blocks of buildings with a skyline close to the water. Most inspirational

models were the new york`s skyscrapers and its tower block architecture. the outdoor reminisce the Kop van Zuid was an important harbour for rotter-dam City.

Translation of goals into formthe main strength of the project was the closure to the old city centre. the connection took shape through a good transport network with the centre but also with the other parts of rotterdam. that was the main point of the development of Kop van Zuid. Social goal took shape through different functions and comfort details in using the space. the new so-cial segment brought on the site has now a certain comfort grate in using the space, such as working offices,housing,leisure,culturaleventsandenter-tainment.aesthetical goal was perfectly implemented through its visual characteristics of deepness of urban front – as the skyline and the visible faraway buildings. every detail has its own contribution in completing the atmosphere of the site though materials used, through accessibility and maintenance.

Site visitWhat does the project look like? Kop van Zuid is big both as form and shape. Dif-ferent textures, the dynamic atmosphere and high buildings make the site appear futuristic.

How does it work ?the modernist feature integrates highlights of his-torical elements into the design of the new urban landscape. the site`s architectural development took shape both on the vertical but also on the horizontal,Kop van Zuid have a large mass of concrete and it

old and new together

14

can be also dynamic. every building has a unique architecture, which makes it recognizable. the details of Kop van Zuid design are related to the history of the site. the details increase the at-tractiveness of the site through different textures and different design for leisure activities.elements reminding about the story of the Kop van Zuid old harbour can be found all over the site.

How does it feel? the feeling of Kop van Zuid is a journey between history and future. belvedere points accentuate the frames of the story. the public space has small pro-portions, being totally opened. Public life in Kop van Zuid is sharing space and images. being of-ten crowded, open space offers leisure and relaxing possibilities, but does not offers privacy. the massive buildings decrease the human experi-ence of the space. While on the inside of the build-ings, the interior is designed for the usage of the people, outside spaces are losing the scale of the users. Lack of visual depth in the site makes the site losing also the social goal of the project.

UseHowistheplaceused?Kop van Zuid is a business centre, having also housing facilities as permanent habitation buildings and hotels. education and leisure are present in the site through education institutes and spare time fa-cilities, as squares, cruses, restaurants and cafes.

Who uses it? the place is mostly used for daily migration from and to work/ school, less for spending free time. However all age classes are have possibilities to use the space, but it is less affordable to consume

the space.Who does not use it? People searching for recreational activities do not use the space, the main reason for being there are not enough facilities for entertainment but also the atmosphere of the site is more corporate than wel-coming.

Describe how the place is perceived and valued.the area is a landmark for rotterdam City, because it is perceived as an innovative urban centre.

CommunityHow is the community served by this project?this project was very important for the community, the image of Kop van Zuid was not good. With the urban regeneration the area got a new impulse. now it is a successful business and cultural district, but also the new housing opportunities are good in-tegrated 12.

What is its social impact? before the regeneration of this site the main social group using the site was with a lower income. in present new people are coming to the site, this means that the image of the area changed. now dif-ferent social groups make use of the area, there is a nice mixture of cultural backgrounds and different incomes 13.

Meaningthe area went from a deprived area to one of the most successful, rich areas. the former industrial site is now a high developed combination between business, culture, recreation and housing 14.

Water is still a big part of the identity of Kop van ZuidWith art pieces the history of the place is remaining

15

the architecture makes every building regonizable

Environmental sensitivity and impactServing the environmentWith the closing of the industrial functions of the harbor the amount of pollution decreased. Still the harbor is in use for passenger ships, water taxis and cruise ships. also with the regeneration of the site the developers worked with sustainable technolo-gies and tried to reuse as many materials and struc-tures as possible 15.

Contribution to sustainabilitythe Kop van Zuid also integrates sustainable de-sign practices where possible. the reuse and rede-sign of materials and structures, and the instalment of modern technologies to reduce waste is a major component at the Kop van Zuid. in many cases the building structures are designed to take advantage of passive solar radiation and incorporate glass atria on the building rooftops to allow for build-ing day lighting. also, the residential building use “wasteheat”fromtheoilrefineriesandheavyindus-try activities at europort to heat the living spaces. Theareahasretaineditsinfluentialseaporthistoryby reusing and renovating existing buildings and re-taining some sea port structures such as the cranes near entrepot. the reuse of paving and construction materials such as concrete and bricks from razed buildings are reused throughout the Kop van Zuid 16.

TimeHow well does the place fare over time? in 1994 the framework for the Kop van Zuid project was accepted and the regeneration of the site start-ed. the approach of rotterdam and the urbanists is very modernistic. the plan for the Kop Van Zuid is to retain some of its maritime history while being on the cutting edge for urban design and mixed use

development with multiple transportation options17.the modern style of the site is integrated in all areas of theKopvanZuid.TheKopvanZuid isnotfin-ished yet, there are still building activities. Momen-tarily the place has not really aged yet, it looks very new and clean.

How does project age incrementally?overtime the buildings that are now very modernist will lose their new edge. there is not that much park area, this makes the side very hard. off course the trees that are there will grow and give the big streets more status, by creating a lane. other parts will be more‘cold’AlsotheparkonthetopoftheWilhelmi-napier did not contain many trees or bushes and will stay very open. this way the site can still look pretty young.

Lessons learnedthe Kop van Zuid project had a big impact on the urban development of rotterdam by creating a great business centre. the project has reached the success through becoming a landmark with a grow-ing economy. However the economy orientation of the project lets behind the success of public usage. Kop van Zuid is less friendly for public life.

________________________________________1 bakker, Pr He. “KoW Stedenbouw (Project) - Masterplan Kop Van Zuid ParkStad - architectenweb.nl, architectenweb bV, 24 Sept. 2002. Web.http://architectenweb.nl/aweb/projects/project.asp?PID=816,viewed on 16 Sept. 2011, 10:202 idem 1, viewed on 16 Sept. 2011, 10:303 idem 1, viewed on 16 Sept. 2011, 10:404 Hoek, Marco & Ltd. regeneration in european cities: Making Con-nections, Case Study of Kop van Zuid, UrbeD trust, Joseph rowntree Foundation,April2007,updated/editedMarch20085 idem 46http://www.hethartvanzuid.nl/english-version.html,viewedon17Sep2011, 12:157 Paul Selman, Department of Landscape, University of Sheffield,WesternBank,SheffieldS102TNUnitedKingdo,http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol4iss2/communityessay.selman.html, viewed on 17Sep 2011, 12:208 Doucet, b.M, rich cities with poor people : Waterfront regeneration in the netherlands and Scotland, Utrecht University, royal Dutch geo-graphical Society, Dissertation 20109 idem 410 idem 411 idem 412http://architectenweb.nl/aweb/projects/project.asp?PID=816,viewed on 20 Sep 2011, 14:0513 http://people.umass.edu/latour/netherlands/hartzell/index.html, viewed on 20 Sep 2011, 14:20 14 idem 1315 idem 13, viewed on 20 Sep 2011, 14:3516 idem 13, viewed on 20 Sep 2011, 14:5017idem13,viewedon20Sep2011,15:15

16

google aerial view of Westergasfabriek Cultuur Park (www.maps.google.com)

Design of the Westergasfabriek Cultuur Park by Kathryn gustafson

17

new meaning to the old structuresaerial photo of the Westergasfabriek Cultural Park

Location: Westergasfabriek Cultuur Park, amsterdam, the netherlands.Designer: Kathryn gustafson, neil Porter, Mary bowmanSize/Scale: 14 haClient(s): Municipality amsterdam Projectbureau Westergasfabriek Westerpark District Council Land use type: recreation, (cultural) events, ecological

the Westergasfabriek was completed in 1885. the buildings were designed by the amsterdam-based architectIsaacGosschalk(1838-1907).Thegasfac-tory was strategically located along the waterways, the rail network and access roads. originally, the gaswasusedforstreetlighting.Inthelate1960’s,gas production was gradually decreased and the factorywasshutdown in1967.Since1970’s,gasproduction stopped and some of the buildings were destroyed, while others were used for storage 1.

Since 1992, underground artistic movement used

the buildings temporarily for cultural activities. When the decision of having a park was taken, it was clear that Westergasfabriek was the ultimate location for occasions such as De Kunstvlaai art fair, the Holland festival and awakenings club events. it became the meeting point for inspired and innova-tive residents 2.

Role of the Key Participantsthe role of the architect was to come up with a de-sign scheme that maintains a suitable new use for a heavily polluted former industrial site with a large number of protected historic and cultural buildings.Theroleofthepublicuserswastobenefitfromthepark as an urban renewal project, an entertainment complex with several places to eat, drink while prof-iting from some of its culture 3.

Decision Making ProcessDifferent toxic substances were released during the production of gas. they were stored on the site and discharged, and later got into the soil, leading to its threatening pollution.

CaSe StUDyWestergasfabriek Cultuur Park, amsterdam

18

it took several years for the City of amsterdam and the central environment Ministry to agree on a clean-up plan. but in 1981, based on the local resi-dents’ demand, theAmsterdamcouncil eventuallydecided that the former site of the Westergasfabriek should be made a park.after a long selection procedure Kathryn gustaf-son’sdesignfortheparkwasultimatelydesignated.

Design processaccessibility was to be improved by integrating a new bridge. also public safety was to be taken into consideration. Multifunctional use was the key ob-jective.the park had to offer room for as many different us-ers as possible. the park is there for sport, relaxa-tion and enjoying nature, and as a meeting place. Cyclists, dog owners, boys playing football, the el-derly and young families can make use of the same spacewithoutgettingineachother’sway.

How does the project come together?Progress: Westergasfabriek succeeded due to the combination of temporary use of the area and the development of strategies for the long term. Moreo-ver,acreative,flexibleandaboveall communica-tive project team proved to be indispensable. the team was following a determined direction, but with-outdetailingorastablefinalaim.approach: research: Designing in landscape is in-clusive of its surroundings.Besidespreserving the site’s cultural significance,public functionality was also a crucial concern. Peo-pleusuallydefinethewayaconstructedlandscapeis occupied. in the park, landscape became a focal point for social integration knitting communities and cities together, providing breathing space and rec-reational opportunities for everyone 4.

Problem Definitions and Responses After its main closure in 1967, Westergasfabriekwas thenconsideredasanabandonedbrownfieldsite.Brownfieldspacesaregenerallyunderusedur-banareas,usuallydatingfromthefirstphaseofin-dustrialization. for instance, industrial technologies changed, rail transportation was replaced by road transportation, and port zones moved seaward. these sites, just like the Westerfabriek, were availa-ble for urban development projects, commonly with negativeeffects–suchasgentrification.Moreover, the closure of the Westergasfabriek left the existing, architecturally impressive buildings in a neglected polluted state 5.

all these issues were tackled by gustafson Porter through these major goals:

• Developmentofarefinedplaninrespecttotheoriginal proposal, relating the existing site ele-ments to its main context.

• Urban regeneration of the gas factory into a vi-brant cultural core and public park.

• revitalize the area into a public park and rede-velopthebuildingsintospacesforartists’studi-os, theatre purposes and other cultural events.

• Soil restoration and re-establishment of water treatments.

• Pumping is employed to generate water move-ment, and maintaining higher water quality throughwaterfiltrationandUVdisinfection.

• the project work included design of earthworks, insertionofartificiallakeandstream,hardland-scaping, provision of utilities, irrigation system, allowance for the existing historical buildings and structural engineering design of a cycle bridge and minor buildings.

• Make the design work with the remains of the old gas factory by opening up basements of for-mer gas holders to create a pond and an aquatic garden 6.

GoalsKey goalsthe key goals of the project were to accomplish both social and cultural needs of the inhabitants of the four surrounding neighbourhoods of the park. the aim was to transform the un-functional space in a social place for groups gathering and art mani-festations 7. However, in order to reuse the area, a secondary goal had to be achieved: the ecological cure regard-ing the pollution of the soil. to improve the quality of the air new vegetation was planted. in addition, the park on area needed to have aes-thetical characteristic attractiveness for all age classes of users, encouraging them to spend spare time in the park.

How were they set? the objectives of the project were set in a feasible landscape project with immediate impact in favour oftheusers.Intermofcommunitythemajorbenefitaims to bring nature along with recreational activities in order to achieve a functional and green outdoor. the issues of pollution and water management had solutions with important aesthetic elements, such as ground-work and valuing the presence of the water. the goals were set on several frames inviting the visitor to discover a story within landscape 8.

Who defined them? Goalsoftheprojectwerefirstlydefinedbythepeo-ple. the municipality launched a competition for

19

Different styles in the park: modern part Different styles in the park: natural part

the design of Westgasfabriek. Kathryn gustafson`s project won the competition due to her innovative changing design reminding the fact that the attitude of people towards nature has changed a lot over time.

Did the goals change during course of project? the project maintained its goals and achieved them in time, being a complete project for the users. the social and cultural goals are achieved in the park design. the park offers the experience of the land-scape changes in different dimensions .

DesignKey design conceptsthe key design concept is gradual transition from old to new and from accessible to inaccessible, re-minding of the enclosure between man and nature. the design aimed to be more nature orientated. Playing with space and surface, the designer an-swered the social and ecological necessities and created an authentic landscape 9.

The inspiration for formthe inspiration for form was given from the bounda-ries by the park. the base-lines were given by the ground works while the shape of the frames was inspired by the present buildings.Howdidthedesignertranslategoalsintoform?the different characteristic of the places played an important role into the composition of the landscape: shadow versus light, dense vegetation versus grass field, togetherwithhided landscapesof thegaso-metres are organised into a time transition of space.

Site visitWhat does the project look like?the entrance of the park is not simple to be found. However inside the park the contrast between the areas with high vegetation are alternating with large areas with short vegetation, this way the human senses are stimulated in a shadow-light play.the frames within the park have four different frameswith different atmosphere: the first part ofthe park presents a romantic landscape. the large softly curved area is used for picnics and for relax-ing. the second part of the park has a modern land-scape with strong intervention points over the archi-tecture: the pool – with a innovative and related to the senses design, the vegetation is also related to human senses through the smell of the plants and through the colour of the species. the third frame was a “surprise“ landscape: a romantic landscape within the gasometres. a landscape with same char-acteristics appears also along the stream that sepa-rates the last frame of the journey. the natural park has an aspect similar with a delta; having a quiet atmosphere with a savage look.the differences between the four frames of the jour-ney are differentiate also through details as furniture and textures and materials used.

How does it work?the parks was initially intended to be a journey that stimulates human senses. but however each frame of the park covers different expectation of a quality spare time in open air. the site works properly as a recreational centre, offering leisure, relaxing and culture opportunities to the users.the connexions between the frames are made through straight access paths – leading the visitor to cover the distance to the other frame through one

20

big open space in the middle of the parkHeavely used romantic part of the park

waydirectiontraffic.the management and maintenance of the park is covered by public. the aim of the project was to not demand for intensive maintenance. in addition to that, the water-nature areas is exclusively main-tained by volunteers.

How does it feel? though the entrance is not so visible and easy to find,afterreachingthefirstpartoftheparktheland-scape is welcoming through the big open space that gives room to free expression of man. you can have a picnic, play or nap. it feels like there is room to externalize your feelings.the differences between the landscape frames pre-sented inside the park follow an experience of the relationbetweenmanandnature.Thefirstpartofthe park is serving the human needs, the nature part has a restrictive access of visitors and the focus lies on the ecology.the “surprise” gardens within the gasometres and along the stream are feeling intimate and romantic, instead of public and exposed like in other frames of the journey.the usage of the water has an important effect on the atmosphere of the places. Dynamic pool, calm water, stream and delta are different elements, each one of them being found in each of the frames in the park.

UseHow is the place used? the place offers opportunities of spending the spare time. there is room for relaxing activities as well as entertaining activities. the park and the buildings offer different environments for festivals, parties and cultural events.

Who uses it? the park`s users are mostly the inhabitants from the surroundings neighbourhoods. the place is used for different activities: parties and concerts, cycling and outdoor games. So the users of the park are all kinds of people without restrictions. there is even a separate area for pets.

CommunityHow is the community served by this project? actually the community asked the municipality to develop a park on this site. the densely populated neighbourhoodsflankingthesite,theSpaarndam-mer and the Staatslieden districts have hardly got any green recreation areas. also for districts as bos en Lommer and Jordaan the Westerpark is the nearest park. the realization of the park made a big impact on the life quality of the surrounding districts, the quality increased. now inhabitants had a place to meet, relax and sport. the Westerpark also give chances for artist and small cultural events 10.

What is its social impact? the park is very intensively used. Due to its acces-sibility from the four dense districts and the main routes connecting the districts with the city centre, the park is busy and alive. there are always people there, walking their dogs, playing games or just en-joying the weather 11.

Meaningthe park increased the quality of a lot of lives. the surrounding districts have a park where is room for many different target groups. Westerpark is now one of the most important parks of amsterdam and one of the best known 12.

21

intimite spots in the park as contrast with wide open spacesbad maintanance makes the park look sloppy

Environmental sensitivity and impactHow is the environment served by this project? the former gas fabric polluted the area intensively. because of this heavy pollution the municipality and the environmental office designeda plan to firstlyisolate the polluted soil 13. there is a high ecological value on the north side, where groundwater comes up. this water has a high quality facilitating a per-fect environment for a nature part, but it is not ac-cessible during the breeding-period.

What is its contribution to sustainability?Westergasfabriek Cultural Park contributes to sus-tainability through a great set-up that unify social, ecological and cultural aspects of usage into a sus-tainable and durable landscape. through usage of soil, water and vegetation, the park achieve a fast regeneration of the ecological qualities of the site. it is easy to maintain and it is used by all categories of people, therefore it is an example of well contrib-uting landscape in sustainable development of the city 14.

TimeHow well does the place fare over time?by visiting the park it became clear that the park needed a higher maintenance level. not only the roads but also the plant borders need more man-agement. the paths were on some places not ac-cessible and the plant borders looked in the modern part a bit sloppy and badly maintained.

How does project age incrementally?because of the bad maintenance the park did not live up to its full potential. Still the park grows over time, especially the nature part. the quality of the ecology grows over time and more special species

can be found. also the modern part will grow further, as the vegetation will grow mature, the place will get more shadow and structure.

Lessons learnedby creating different parts in the park the design-ers created different spots for different users. this is smart but it also divides the park into three or four pieces. that is why we experienced it as separate parts; there was no transition between the different styles.

________________________________________1 Westpark, Stadsdeel. “Project Westergasfabriek.” Project Westergas-fabriek.Web. 2003. <http://www.project-westergasfabriek.nl/english>,viewed on 26 Sep 2011, 12:152 Westergasfabriek bV. “Westergasfabriek.” Cultuurpark Westergas-fabriek. Parkers. Web. oct. 2011. <http://www.westergasfabriek.nl/en/>,viewedon26Sep2011,15:053 idem 1, viewed on 26 Sep 2011, 12:304 idem 1, viewed on 26 Sep 2011, 12:505 idem 2, viewed on 26 Sep 2011, 15:106 idem 1, viewed on 26 Sep 2011, 13:157idem1,viewedon25Sep2011,9:158 idem 1, viewed on 25 Sep 2011, 9:409 idem 1, viewed on 25 Sep 2011, 9:5510 idem 1, viewed on 23 Sep 2011, 11:1511 idem 1, viewed on 23 Sep 2011, 11:2512 idem 1, viewed on 23 Sep 2011, 11:3013 idem 1, viewed on 23 Sep 2011, 11:3514 idem 1, viewed on 23 Sep 2011, 11:45

22

23

new use of the gasometers in Westergasfabriek Cultuur ParkKop van Zuid, old and new combined

ConCLUSionSummarizing and comparing

Westergasfabriek Cultuur Parkafter the closure of the fabric the site was left be-cause of the heavy pollution of the soil. already in thefirstdesignofthefabrictherewasaparkinclud-ed. Mend for the workers. With the regeneration of the site the heavily polluted soil was treated and the whole terrain was reformed to a park. Leaving the old buildings and reusing them for mostly cultural events. the park is 14ha, which provides room for different frame sets in the park. there is a romantic, a modern and a natural part. the key design con-cept for the park was a gradual transition from old to new and from accessible to inaccessible, reminding of the enclosure between man and nature. you can experience this in the park, though the transition are hard. the design is completely implemented on the site, there are no big differences between the draw-ings of the design and the actual site.

Kop van Zuidbefore the second world war the site was intensive-ly used for both economic and social usage. be-ing one of the major harbours of europe. but when the site got relocated to another area Kop van Zuid loses its function. basically the development of the area had to start from zero, creating a new function. this gave the site a new impulse. today the site isagainintensivelyused,butnowthereareofficesandleisure.TheKopvanZuidis720m2.Thatisnota big surface but it can be characterized as large or big, because of the massiveness of the buildings and the intensive usage of the area. the concept for the site was to create a second city centre, but keeping the maritime characteristics. it succeeded to be known as a new city centre with a big suc-cessfromthefinancialpointofview.KopvanZuidis continuously developing site. the project is not finishedyet.

24

Comparing the case study’sApproach in planningUrban regeneration plans have been well imple-mented on urban scale in both of the cases. How-ever the planning approach differs. rotterdam Mu-nicipality concerns land usage in favour of the real estate development, while the Westergasfabriek Cultural Park focuses on environment issues and serving the community.

Decision makingtwo of the differences come from the initiators of theproject. InKopvanZuidthemainbenefitsarethe economic incomes, the initiative came from the municipality. in amsterdam the process of regener-ationfirstlycamefromthecommunityside,throughpublic cultural manifestations in the Westergasfab-riek area, therefore the park is the common place for culture and people.

Issuesthe main issue that needed to be solved was the lack of vitality for both of the sites. on the one hand Kop van Zuid was before the sec-ond world war a dense industrial and populated space. after the relocating of the harbour Kop van Zuid lost its public attraction. the regeneration of the site changed the user groups. on the other hand, in the Westergasfabriek Cultural Park there used to be only industrial workers. With the redeveloping of the site the area became the social attraction of the sur-rounding districts.KopvanZuid identifies itselfwithamajornetworkissue – though it was close to the city centre it repre-sented more a des-industrialised site with no attrac-tion for man and no connection with the surround-ings. the Westergasfabriek area in amsterdam had a similar network issue. it was a dumped gas fac-tory, avoided by visitors and real estate developers. the starting point of the redevelopment of Kop van Zuid was to increase the accessibility of the site and create multi-functional buildings in order to invite investments and people to the site. at the Wester-gasfabriek site the major pollution issue needed to be solved. ground work supposed to eliminate soil pollution, joining the vegetation and new water ele-ments in order to create an ecological system, open to public and cultural manifestations.

Goals of the conceptthe goal of Kop van Zuid was to form a new ur-ban centre, while Westergasfabrieks goal was to become a place where nature comes into the city. the rotterdam site`s concept was urbanisation for economic gain while in amsterdam the concept was to experience man`s closure to nature.

for rotterdam`s old harbour, the goals were im-proving the networks within the site and with the surroundings. focusing on solving real estate and social issues of the area, the site has to be in con-formity with present sustainability requirements.

the goal of Westergasfrabriek Cultural Park was to satisfy the social and cultural needs demanded by the community. in order to build a social place the area had to be cleaned of pollution. the design was made in order to prevent pollution and improve the ecological aspects of a contemporary park. the concept of the park was to underline the closure be-tween man and nature through experiencing differ-ent stages of feelings for nature.

Approach in designattractiveness is given both by functionality and design. Kop van Zuid stated on very low quality design and maintenance before the project was started. through a new design the project focuses on building a modern architecture design of the buildings and increasing the quality of living in the area. for Westergasfabriek Park, the attractiveness ofthesitefirstlyrepresentedbysafetyandsecondlyby design.

Designthe design of Kop van Zuid area meant to increase the real estate development as a strength of the city. the new identity of Kop van Zuid is opposite to the one that used to be there: from a dumped poor har-bour to a boosting economy business centre. Same as in rotterdam`s site, urban regeneration gives a new identity to Westergasfabriek from a polluted gas factory to a park where nature is presented as a very important element in man`s living.

the two major differences in the designs of those sites are their values themselves: sustainability and nature-man closure versus urban real estate devel-opment. therefore in the Kop van Zuid case, the new intervention lines were made over the existent planoftheharbourandthetrafficconnections,fol-lowedby intensificationof functionsandbuilden-vironment. Many of the old buildings were demol-ished, and much more new buildings have arisen. in the Westergasfabriek Park the new project only kept the borders and the buildings, everything else was changed, including the soil. the regeneration process started below ground level in order to im-prove ecologic quality of the park.

Site visit for a visitor, both sites are an experience, although they have a different scale, they have impact over

25

human senses and perception. Kop van Zuid is a site that impresses through the massiveness of concrete, while Westergasfabriek Park impresses through the suddenly appearance of the nature near the city centre.However both sites display reminiscence of their history valued in their actual design. Moreover, the historical elements play an important role in the aesthetics of the sites.on a perceptive level, Kop van Zuid makes man feel small comparing with other elements of land-scape as buildings, the river and the Cruise ship. in Westergasfabriek Park the perception of the space is totally different: the park brings nature closer and tries human senses, with the result of a natural ex-perience of the space. the space gives the man closure with the surroundings, and free space for expression.

Realization of the projectUsageKopVanZuid’sdesignaimedtodevelopandgen-erate a new urban centre for rotterdam city taking into account its historical memory and context. one of the most vital intentions was concentrated on the social segment and how it got translated into usage.KopVanZuid’ssocialgoalswerereachedbyusingdifferent functions and comfortable details in man-aging the overall space. the project is now being used for and by diverse sectors such as working offices,housing,leisureandentertainment,andcul-tural events. therefore the place is mostly used for daily migration from and to work or school, but less for spare time.in comparison with Kop van Zuid, the Westerfabriek Park aimed at accomplishing both social and cul-tural needs for public use and for the surrounding neighbourhoods. the goal was to transform the un-functional space into a social place for gathering, entertainment, cultural activities and art manifesta-tions. the park is basically public used when spare time is available.

Environmental Impactin Kop Van Zuid, when all the industrial work of the harbour came to an end, the extent of pollution grad-ually started to decrease. However minor polluted outcomes are still generated by the use of passen-ger transportation such as public ships, water taxis and cruise ships. but on the general overview the project developers worked with sustainable tech-nologies by reusing as much existing materials and structures as possible.the case is quite similar in the Westergasfabriek Park, but with additional notice on pollution reduc-

tion from all angles because the area used to be intensivelycontaminated.Forinstancethefirststepwas to treat the polluted soil by isolating it.

Maintenance and aging of the projectMaintenance LevelKop Van Zuid has proven that sustainable design practices can be integrated within built environ-ment. for example, building structures play a major role in maintaining the project sustainably, by using solar radiation and soil “waste heat”, incorporating glass atria, retaining sea port structures, reuse of construction materials from razed buildings.also Westergasfabriek is an effective example of project maintenance, unlike Kop Van Zuid, it con-centrates more on natural and ecological features to secure sustainability such as soil, water, vegetation usage. the Westergasfabriek Park is partly main-tained by volunteers from the surrounding districts.

Time Aspectthe regeneration of Kop Van Zuid took place in 1994, therefore the approach of the project is very recentandmodernistic.Theproject’stimeintentionis to preserve its maritime history but is still under production and construction process. thus the site nowadays looks young and fresh. overtime the trees will grow and give the streets an intimate at-mosphere, but the buildings will most probably lose their new edge. the difference in the Westerfabriek Park is that there is more emphasis on its natural characteristic, whichmakesitmoredifficulttomaintainovertime.time will take over and negatively affect the pro-ject’sstructures.Onecantellbylookingatsomeofthe inaccessible paths or the disordered plant bor-ders.

ImpactSocial/Communitythe Kop van Zuid project had a big impact on the community and with the regeneration of the site Kop van Zuid got a new image. this attracted new peo-ple to the site. first there was just one user group with a lower income, now there is a mixture of differ-entgroups.Thesuccessofthesiteisalsoreflectingon the district around it giving those districts a better image as well.

the community around the Westergasfabriek area asked the municipality for the realizing of a parksite. the regeneration here meant a lot to the community because there is not many green outdoor space for recreation in the surrounding districts.

26

Quick transformation between romantic and modern partthe ongoing building activities in Kop van Zuid

Ecological/Sustainabilityby the realization of Kop van Zuid one of the goals was to build sustainable and reuse as many mate-rials as possible. at the Westergasfabriek Cultural park there were a lot of problems with polluted soil. the municipality and other environmental organi-sations cleaned the soil so it can be used for rec-reation. besides the pollution the site also holds an important ecological status. in the northern area groundwater is coming up providing a good envi-ronment for ecological purposes. this area is de-veloped as a natural and ecological park and gives roomtospecialfloraandfauna.

Financial/EconomicKop van Zuid is nowadays an important business and culture centre. it has given the economy of the city of rotterdam a good impulse. in the Wester-gasfabriek Cultural Park multiple events are hold, this brings in money for culture and nature related topics.

Lessons learnedthe Kop van Zuid project had a big impact on the urban development of rotterdam by creating a great business centre. the project has reached the success through becoming a landmark with a grow-ing economy. However the economy orientation of the project lets behind the success of public usage. Kop van Zuid is less friendly for public life.in the Westergasfabriek Culture Park the designers created different parts in the park, therefore there are different spots for different users. this was well thought through but it also divides the park into sev-eral pieces, with no transition between the different styles.

27

Critics Implementation of urban regeneration Kop Van Zuid proved to be an effective interpreta-tion of what is known to be Urban regeneration.Thisisbecausetheproject’sintentionwasnotonlyto“re-image”thesite’sarea,butalsoRotterdamcityonalargerscale.KopvanZuid’surbanregenera-tion and reconstruction was formed through the ex-pansion of new cultural and recreational uses of the site. the area had been used for port-related activities that had recently become out-dated. an urgent cru-cial measure had to be taken to renew and reno-vate the area and give the Kop Van Zuidarea a new impulse. Several project fundamentals indicate how urban regeneration was implemented in the sites, suchastheexpansionofthecity’scentreacrosstheriver, providing of a functional link between the two river sides, integrating the mix of uses: residential, officeandretailspaces,hotels,outdoorpublicar-eas and most importantly the new erasmus bridge and the new metro station that linked the area and the surrounding residential neighbourhoods to the rotterdam international rail network. Urban regen-eration does not only focus on physical character-istic,theprojectalsoaimedtooffersocialbenefitsfor the inhabitants of surrounding districts. this was in linewithRotterdam’s“social renewal”approachto regeneration, which attempted to relate the eco-nomicandsocialwelfarebenefitsofredevelopmentprojects.as for the Westergasfabriek Park in amsterdam, urban regeneration in that project was not physi-cally stated and defined.Westergasfabriek had asocial impact on the surrounding urban areas, that provided from the success of the park.. that is why theproject’s initial intentionwastheestablishmentof an explicit park, more precisely a “cultural” park. the Westergasfabriek Cultural Park is mainly con-sidered as a radical regeneration of a former gas-works, but on the larger context, and because of its strategic location, it is known as a redevelopment

of the whole neighbourhood districts surrounding it. Urban regeneration was implemented by revitaliz-ing the park and giving it a public function through its cultural and natural uses.

How does it work on the sites?SuccessesKop van Zuid is a new centre of rotterdam through its successful development and its awareness. in the Kop van Zuid case, the success counts the economic feature for logistics and the new media business. as a multifunctional area, Kop van Zuid reaches an important stage of urban development for a modern centre that accomplishes both the de-mands for living as for business investments.on aesthetical level, the site is a mix of old and new architectural elements: new buildings were con-structed in the large empty spaces next to the old buildings that were not demolished by the war. rot-terdam city has an architectural character that com-bines old buildings with high massive new construc-tions. However the reconstruction of the city lead to the appearance of several disconnected places as Kop van Zuid used to be. through its regeneration, Kop van Zuid has gained again the connection with the surroundings and attraction for living, business, education and entertainment, and its attractiveness by different users makes it a successful project.Westergasfabriek Cultuur Park had a different ap-proach to urban development since the beginning of planning. transforming an industrial polluted site into a durable ecological park completed success-fully with its opening to the public. the site works well because there are integrated social and cul-tural economic programs. these gained a good functioning of the site from all the points of view as an open manifestation area.the site`s positioning close to the centre of the city increases its popularity and usage, being an impor-tant green space on the map of amsterdam. the re-buildingofthespacetookinconsiderationfirstlythedemands of the community living in the surround-

CritiCS anD refLeCtion

28

ings. the project brought sustainability and encour-aged the usage of the space for leisure and cultural purposes. now the park is one important place for social activities and an example for durable design of the landscape. the impacts for the city is the im-provement of the overall quantity and quality of the public green spaces of amsterdam. the most im-portant indicator of its success is the good usage by all the social categories of people.

failuresthe Urban regeneration process of Kop van Zuid initially had to be based on all three pillars of sus-tainability, including social, economic and environ-mental layers in the development strategies in order to launch a functional new area. the planning ap-proach combined different types of policies based on physical aspects of architecture, social integra-tion and public-private partnerships, but neither of them mentioned the environmental causes of sus-tainability.the design of Kop van Zuid discreetly combines art elements reminding of the time that it was an impor-tant harbour.. the reminiscences of its history are visible if you know what to look for, but if you have no intend to see the hints you probably look over them.Westergasfabriek Cultuur Park is a successfully green public area within the city. However the con-nection with the surroundings is made through three major access points. those do not assure the ac-cessibility of the space and neither the connection with the neighbourhoods around the site. the users might be put into the position of seeing the park, without accessing it.the routes in Westergasfabriek Cultuur are de-signed in one way, all of the areas being in a con-tinuous line of stepping only forward. the straight alleys lead you from one section to another without letting you discover the surroundings and environ-ments that the park offers to human senses. in the park most of the experience is given, visitors cannot discover it themselves.

How can it work better in future practices?this case study shows that there are different strat-egies and approaches to urban regeneration and there are positive and negative effects by both re-searched approaches. Urban renewal does not need strict guidelines but from the successes and failures of other projects we can learn. However, that does not mean that a success on one location also works on another. there are three very important lessons to be learned from this case study about urban re-generation. The first lesson is that every place isunique and has its own history and story, which

shouldnotget lost.Thedesignershouldfirst lookcarefully at the site to see what he can reuse. those materials, buildings, borders or vegetation remind of the history and tell the story of the site. a second point that should be kept in mind is that the new site should connect with the users of the site. When the design is made to attract new user groups, the de-signer should try to predict what those groups want and how it will feel. in the Westergasfabriek Cultural Park the designers played with this aspect. there were spaces that felt comfortable and welcoming, but there were also places that felt oversized. in the Kop van Zuid area the buildings were very tall which felt like the designers forgot about the human scale and experience. the third important lesson that can be learned from this case study is that the area should add value to the site and its surroundings. the site needs additional features to attract new users. the Westergasfabriek Cultuur Park attracts people by organizing cultural events, but more im-portant, it is the only green outdoor space of the surrounding districts and this makes it unique.

ReflectionIntentions of the design Kop Van Zuid project was to be treated on a larger scale: the city level. the redevelopment design plan for the Kop Van Zuid was intended to be no-ticed as an extension of Rotterdam’s city centre.the design isrevitalizing the area and it brings back its ancient vibrant setting. the old maritime history is preserved but with a new urbanized edge, and therefore attracts visitors and residents back to the city. the design development scheme is home to new educational facilities, businesses and enter-tainment venues.the Westergasfabriek design intended to provide space for creativity and cultural businesses. the industrial monuments and the surrounding park were designed to form a multifunctional area with a modern city park of international standard. Vegeta-tion,water,offices,spacesforevents,restaurants,a theatre and much more were provided to have a remediation design plan for the old polluted gas fac-tory. However, it also initiates a new meeting area, anurbangreenlivingintervention,asignificantcitylandmark.

Intentions of Urban RegenerationUrban regeneration of the sites aim to build authen-tic spaces adapted to the local issues that caused lack of functionality. the relevance of intervention for each of the sites is reported to the community of users though shaping strategies that assure better quality of usage and living within the site and in the surroundings. through urban regeneration process,

29

both of the sites have improved not only their own image but the image of the city itself.Kop van Zuid offered benefits to the inhabitantsthrough improved services and creating jobs. Differ-ent approaches of urban regeneration can be suc-cessful as long as areas with lack of activities begin to function and be consumed by people in one way or another. instead, Westergasfabriek Cultuur Park hasdefinitelyreacheditsmainaimofsatisfyingthenecessity of open green space and it is properly used not only by the inhabitants from the surround-ings, but also by other visitors. Urban regeneration of an area should balance in-terventions regarding also the context of the site. Kop van Zuid area was planned individually as a modern new centre. the surroundings of the area were keeping their deprived image as old urban districts. in order to maintain the goal of connect-ing the area with the city, this contrast had to be avoided. the situation was managed through get-ting involved in the project and the neighbourhood associations of the surrounding districts. the social program increased from its initial stage in planning.Westergasfabriek Cultuur Park planning actually started by the way people used the space: as free space for underground cultural exhibition. the rela-tion with the surroundings intended to offer space for the inhabitants of the surrounding districts.Urban regeneration had to bring benefits for bothsocial and economic aspects of the site. With Kop van Zuid project, City of rotterdam wanted to com-pete with large cities within the netherlands. the area was used to build support for future economic activities generating jobs for the inhabitants and of-fering complementary services: housing areas, ed-ucation institutions and entertainment places. the urban regeneration of the Westergasfabriek has a different scale. it mainly offers visitors the experi-ence of green space and public manifestation, more than providing economic incomes from cultural ac-tivities. it is however a intensively used and well knownareathatfunctionsforcommunitybenefits.the image of the site in both of the cases has com-pletely changed. Urban regeneration process val-ues the strengths and opportunities of a site in order to create a new design and to bring new functions. Kop van Zuid has changed its image dramatically from a forsaken old harbour with warehouses and decks to a new modern district with skyscrapers and dynamic atmosphere. Due to Kop van Zuid identity change, the surrounding districts have also started to develop independently, through increasing the number of modern buildings and new facilities for workers and inhabitants. Westergasfabriek Cultuur Park has a new identity from an old dumped fac-tory into a green, public space that aims to be an

example of landscape sustainability. though it did notinfluencedirectlytheimageofthesurroundings,the presence of the park has improved the comfort of the inhabitants.

ConclusionUrban regeneration is getting more important. for example a country like the netherlands, the popu-lation stopped growing and is even decreasing in some parts. While there are a serious problems in other cities such as Heerlen, where whole neigh-bourhoods are being abandoned, schools and other facilities are being demolished. a lot of spaces be-come unattractive, challenging designers to give the places a new impulse and a new meaning, just like the Kop van Zuid area. according to eric Luiten heritage is becoming more and more important and must be preserved by designers. People have an emotional connection with those locations and giv-ing those places a second life is crucial, otherwise these places will disappear. to his opinion heritage is connected with a collective memory and as a de-signer you can use this to attract them to a certain location, more like the Westergasfabriek Cultuur Park, where the memory of the place is contained in the layout of the park.

30

31

Literature1. brebbia, Carlos alberto. the Sustainable City ii: Urban regeneration and Sustainability. Southamp-

ton: Wit, 2000. Print.2. francis, Mark. Summarize. a Case Study Method for Landscape architecture: final report to the

Landscape architecture foundation, Washington D.C. Davis, Ca: University of California, 1998. Print.

Articles1. Hoek, Marco & Ltd. regeneration in european cities: Making Connections, Case Study of Kop van Zuid,

URBEDTrust, JosephRowntree Foundation,April 2007, updated/editedMarch 2008Web. viewedSep/Oct2011.<http://www.urbed.com/cgi-bin/get_binary_doc_object.cgi?doc_id=277>.

Websites1. bakker, Pr He. “KoW Stedenbouw (Project) - Masterplan Kop Van Zuid ParkStad - architectenweb.

nl.” architectenweb, De grootste architectuur Site Van nederland - architectenweb.nl. architecten-web bV, 24 Sept. 2002. Web. viewed Sep/oct 2011. <http://architectenweb.nl/aweb/projects/project.asp?PID=816>.

2. ”BrownfieldGentrificationinAmsterdam.”Web.viewedSep/Oct2011.<http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/gentrification.html>.

3. Doucet, b.M, rich cities with poor people : Waterfront regeneration in the netherlands and Scotland, Utrecht University, royal Dutch geographical Society, Dissertation 2010

4. GoogleMaps,lastupdate2011,viewedon14Oct2011.<http://maps.google.com>5. “Haven Van rotterdam.” De Canon Van nederland | entoen.nu. Stichtibg entoen.nu, Jan. 2006. Web.

viewedSep/Oct2011.<http://www.entoen.nu/havenvanrotterdam>.6. Hartzell, Kevin. “Landscape architecture Study tour with Professor Jack ahern.” oit Web Hosting.

Pr.Jack ahem, 2004. Web. viewed Sep/oct 2011. <http://people.umass.edu/latour/netherlands/hart-zell/index.html>.

7. Kei Kenniscentrum Stedelijke Vernieuwing. “Urban regeneration in the netherlands.” Kei Kenniscen-trum Stedelijke Vernieuwing - Kennisbank. Unknown, 2011. Web. viewed Sep/oct 2011. <http://www.kei-centrum.nl/view.cfm?page_id=1949>.

8. MiMoa. “Westergasfabriek Culturepark.” Http://mimoa.eu/projects/netherlands/amsterdam/Wester-gasfabriek%20Culturepark. 2011. Web. viewed Sep/oct 2011

9. Selman,Paul.DepartmentofLandscape,UniversityofSheffield,WesternBank,SheffieldS102TNUnited Kingdo, http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol4iss2/communityessay.selman.html, viewed Sep/oct 2011

10.Stouten, Paul, and edward Hulsbergen. “Urban regeneration in a new Context.” Spatial Planning and governance at the regional Level. Proc. of Sustainable Urban areas, the netherlands, rotter-dam. 2007.Web. viewedSep/Oct 2011. <http://www.enhr2007rotterdam.nl/documents/W20_paper_Stouten_Hulsbergen.pdf>.

SoUrCeS

32

11.tsenkova, Sasha. Urban regeneration. Publication. Canada: University of Calgary, 2002. Learning from the british experience. faculty of environmental Design - University of Calgary. Web. viewed Sep/oct 2011. <http://www.ucalgary.ca/ev/designresearch/projects/2001/Urban_regeneration/intro-duction.pdf>.

12.Westergasfabriek bV. “Park | Westergasfabriek.” Cultuurpark Westergasfabriek. Westergasfabriek bV, July 2011. Web. viewed Sep/oct 2011. <http://www.westergasfabriek.nl/westergasfabriek/cultuur-park>.

13.Westpark, Stadsdeel. “Project Westergasfabriek.” Project Westergasfabriek. Web. 2003. viewed Sep/Oct2011<http://www.project-westergasfabriek.nl/english>.

14.Westergasfabriek bV. “Westergasfabriek.” Cultuurpark Westergasfabriek. Parkers. Web. viewed Sep/Oct2011.<http://www.westergasfabriek.nl/en/>

33