Betsky, the Director of the Netherlands Architecture Institute in Rotterdam, was the first of seven speakers from the Netherlands. Speaking in lecture tones and proselytizing more boldly than his peers, Betsky’s American roots perhaps made him more ready to promote the Dutch design format over the lagging American one. However, he was also the first to be reminded of the differences between the two and in particular, between Amsterdam and Northern Ohio.
Consider first that the Netherlands covers a mere 41,526 square kilometers, or roughly two New Jerseys. In addition, only 33,883 square kilometers of that area is land and is home to more than 16 million residents. This total land area may be similar to what comprises Northern Ohio, but the population equates to a density that is nearly the equivalent of, again, New Jersey, our most densely populated state. Amsterdam, the Netherlands’ largest city, has population density that is on par with Chicago, or about twice as dense as Cleveland. This suggests that the demand for land is far greater than what we know here and is one of the reasons for the Dutch innovations in land creation and building design.
Betsky, along with the other Dutch experts in architecture, landscape architecture and urban design, spoke not only to the uniqueness of the buildings that the Dutch have designed over the years, but also to the process of creating them. This refers to the fabrication of large amounts of land below sea level in polders and to adaptive reuse of outdated buildings, as well as to the integration of state-led initiatives to promote good design with the already thriving private market. It alludes to the fact that urban sprawl does exist in this densely populated country, but that it is sprawl done right, within established guidelines and an eye towards the future.
As one fascinating presentation turned to the next, the true heart of this symposium was revealed. It was found in the conversation that came between the presentations, where local residents and practitioners aired questions on the “how to” of the Dutch perspective. Certainly, there were contentious discussions and an understanding that the Dutch representatives could only come to comprehend so much about our city and region in two days before we asked them to make assessments and recommendations. Taken within that context, their criticism was very valuable and poignant.
Fer Felder, an expert on the provision of housing to a broad range of economic classes in Amsterdam, where almost two-thirds of the housing stock belongs to housing associations, curtly (and with apologies) pointed out that our region’s vision may be misguided. Burton Hamfelt, partner at Amsterdam architecture firm S333, agreed. After a presentation of the recently unveiled Lakefront Plan by Cleveland City Planning Director Robert Brown, Hamfelt posited that the Lakefront may not be where we want to focus our attention. Along with what seemed to be the consensus among the Dutch panelists, he said “It took us five minutes” to figure out that the next step for Cleveland is to develop along the Cuyahoga.
It’s easy to see why this would appeal to the Dutch designers. The Flats district and its many oxbows are the closest thing to the canals and intricate waterways of Amsterdam and the rest of the Netherlands. They, too, are lined with off-line industrial structures and other remnants of a bygone era, but the pressure to redevelop and reinvent these places is many degrees higher than in Northern Ohio, where we have what is treated as an endless supply of exurban land to grow into. To draw attention to the glaring potential of the Cuyahoga Valley, the Dutch recommended holding an international competition to draw out ideas for what the valley could be. As for the Lakefront Plan, they lauded the comprehensive effort, but saw it as a “mastodon” of master planning. This suggested more of a need to plan for short-term, practical successes that may involve more risk, but should produce greater long-term results.
Local presenters and attendees pointed out the ways that our federal and state governments have stifled efforts to control growth and create density. They also exhibited that our region has made great strides in building “green” and in luring new housing types back to the city center. Paul Alsenas, Director of the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission, presented the vision of the Cuyahoga Valley Initiative. Chris Bauer, City Planner for the City of Lorain, related the progress of Lorain’s Harbor Master Plan development. Mandy Metcalf, EcoVillage Project Coordinator for the Detroit-Shoreway Community Development Organization, illustrated the progressive growth of sustainable living models on the Near West Side of Cleveland. Tony Troppe, Developer of Sustainability in Akron, described efforts to reinvigorate urban life through reuse of the city’s historic streets and structures.
The “Dutch Experience” may not produce any concrete results for our region. What it provided, though, was a sounding board for our region's big ideas and notions about itself. It was a two-day thought-generator for new ways of approaching problems and opportunities and a wake-up-call for anyone who had a closed mind about who and what will shape the future of this region. It appeared on many levels to be overly pragmatic, design intensive and anti-planning, but the underlying message was that while we must make plans, we must also see them through by taking risks (calculated, of course) to make our future a reality.
Side note: Several of the Dutch visitors continued on to Chicago in the days following the Cleveland symposium. Gathering there were a large number of planners, designers and engineers who would discuss the rebuilding of New Orleans. In this case, the “Dutch Experience” may elicit concrete results in terms of recapturing land and building dikes and dams to prevent disasters like the one brought about by Hurricane Katrina from ever reaching such catastrophic levels again.
From Cool Cleveland reader Chris Bongorno cbongornoAThotmail.com
(:divend:)