An exploration of the possibilities for a combined community centre

& dementia care facility

Marloes Pieper, 4006194maus.pieper@gmail.comThe Healthy Environment: User Centered Research (Spring 2015)Irene Cieraad Research Seminar AR3Ai155May 2015

Table of contents

Motivation and location

Historical background

Typologies

Who lives here?

What are the surrounding functions?

Potentials for a dementia facility

Threats for a dementia facility

In what way does this affect the interior?

Reference projects

3

3

4

5

7

8

9

9

11

2

Motivation and location

As part of the design process the social context plays a very important role for me. It is one of my strongest argumentations for choosing this site; in fact I think it is the only site with a true social context. For me the graduation studio, within the chair of Interiors, represents the only graduation studio where dealing with a social awareness is brought to focus. Architecture can have such an overwhelming impact on a community. We should use the tools we are given to create functional, supportive and beautiful spaces for vulnerable people, who would otherwise never encounter or experience such places. A standalone program, such as a dementia facility, is something that can have hard time surviving just on its own. The urban context would not benefit from a facility that would be faced inward and not interact with the community. Therefore the social context of my location will hopefully give me the chance to incorporate functions which will beneficial for both the dementia patients as well as the community the facility is based in. At the same time it will be interesting to see what kind of limitations or challenges the social context imposes.

The site of my design location lays within the lively inner city of Rotterdam. As part of the area Kralingen-Crooswijk, it sits just right of the inner city centre. Within the neighbourhood of Rubroek, the area closest to the centre, lays the Rubroek elderly home. The neighbourhood is bordered by the Crooswijksesingel in the north, the Boezemweg in the east, the Goudsesingel in the south and the Rotte in the west. My site is located to the north of Rubroek, along the beautiful Crooswijksesingel.

Historical background

The name Rubroke, the origin of today’s Rubroek, is first mentioned in 1283. It is a small area just east of the tiny settlement of early Rotterdam. Its name indicates an untamed and wet landscape, without much use. The name also comes back in the neighbouring Ruychbroek, and Ruychpolder, where ‘ruych’ means literally ‘rough’ and directly refers to the wild and untouched land. In the mid 16th century the marshes were claimed by the water boards of Schieland and Krimpenerwaard. After having functioned as a one of the larger polders around Rotterdam, respectively named Rubroekpolder now, it was sold to the city in 1865. Rotterdam was growing and the space for housing was scarce. The newly bought polder gave the city some new freedom for developing settlements.1 The city’s architect, W.N. Rose, saw it as this as the perfect opportunity to increase the level of hygiene for the older nearby centre. With the area being naturally wet, he took full potential and built the Crooswijksesingel. The new waterway would transport fresh water to the centre and at the same time serve as a way to support the sewage system. Along the Crooswijksesingel one beautiful stately home arose, after the other. As well as dwellings, large scale companies who were no longer welcome in the city’s centre, moved to the new energetic and lively neighbourhood of Rubroek. These industries included for example the Heineken brewery and the Jamin factory, which was a large candy making factory. Even some functions which have historically and 1 Straatnamen-

archief

Fig. 1, 2, 3: Upper image shows the location of the site within the city of Rotterdam. The second image shows the kettle market in Rubroek, image below shows the office building of the Heineken brewery, which is still there today.

3

2 Municipality 2015

3 Municipality 2011

culturally always been placed within the city’s centre, now found themselves looking for a spot somewhere in Rubroek; the kettle market for example, as well as the slaughterhouse.2 I can imagine the area was known as a lively and modern one, combining a healthy social mix of relatively high-end dwellings and working-class homes (for the medium heavy-industries).

The 1940s bombing of Rotterdam included the southern part of Rubroek which was completely destroyed. The diligence that had once been so typical for this area fully disappeared as industries left. The Heineken brewery was even torn down, today now only the monumental office building still remains. In the years after the war the southern part of Rubroek was not quickly rebuild and left open as vacant land for quite some time. Because of this large and empty stretch of land the Rubroek area became quite detached from the inner city and could not join in with the energy and motivation that came with rebuilding the city. Instead the typical Dutch working-class homes fell into despair. Everything around Rubroek however was coated in the new and fresh 1960s housing concepts of open air floorplans and large amounts of public spaces. By 1975, the original pre-war homes were also demolished to make way for large social housing complexes. Since then the addition of large amounts of dwellings caused any type of industry to move away from Rubroek.3 The Jamin factory moved to Oosterhout in 1957 and the last kettle market was held n 1973, signifying the end of an industrial past and the start of domestic future.

Typologies

The southern part of Rubroek was the most heavily damaged during the war and needed complete rebuilding. The long strip of housing blocks along the Goudsesingel are the original post-war dwellings from 1954. They have recently been re-appreciated, by inhabitants as well as architects and city planners. They consist of 5 floors of apartments in the range of 50-70 m2. All apartments include a balcony and a storage space. On the ground floor the apartment blocks give space to shops and places to eat. Especially the block along the Goudsesingel is really well connected to the inner city of Rotterdam as several tram and bus lines run along it. These apartments are all owner-occupied, there is no possibility (officially) to rent. The blocks which lay just a little further north however are all social housing.Behind the Goudsesingel, moving north, the dwelling types change. Although they still consist of apartments, again including a balcony and storage spaces, they are less high. The blocks bordering the Warande Park have 3 or 4 layers of apartments. Their size also slightly increases, now ranging from 60m2 to 100m2. They were built during the mid 1970s and are both up for rent as well as being sold. Some of the rentals are social housing.The remaining dwellings in the area are of the same apartment block type, but again a little newer. Especially the buildings right next to my location, which were built in the 1980s. They hold large family apartments, each with two balconies and a garage on the ground floor. The blocks create different urban shapes around courtyards and parking spaces. Sometimes the ground floor garage is removed and a cut through the building is made. This creates the possibility of movement from one courtyard to the

4

Fig. 4, 5. 6: The first two images show the social housing typologies around the design site. The first image shows an example of one of the ground floor cuts that are made to create access to different courtyards. The third image shows an indication of the location. The Warande is South, the Crooswijksesingel in the North.

next. The courtyards have a very public atmosphere as they are mostly only bordered by the apartment blocks on two sides, the other sides are open.

The building of the Rubroek elderly home that exists at my location right now is of the same typology and style as that of the family apartments surrounding it. It completely blends in with the normal dwellings. The Rubroek elderly home and clinic holds 198 dwellings together. The elderly can live on their own and get medical support or assistance in their own apartments but if living alone is no longer possible single rooms within the Rubroek clinic are also provided for. The building blocks of the neighbouring dwelling together with that of the normal family apartments shape around one particular lively square, the Goudseplein. At the Goudseplein you can really feel the energy and liveliness of the neighbourhood. There are shops, a large art work, an area for children to play, some benches, all within a simple but functional arrangement of grass patches and bushes.

Who lives here?

Rubroek houses around 8.000 inhabitants. Half of this number consists of single people who live on their own. This is caused by a relative big group of younger (-35) and older (55+) inhabitants.4 The older group dominates and is large compared to other neighbourhoods in Rotterdam. One third of all households in Rubroek has a non-western origin, where the Moroccan and Turkish communities play a large role in the lives of people. Since its location is so ideal, on one side it borders with the city centre and on the other side with the recreational area of the Kralingse Plas, the neighbourhood has always been in high demand. But there seems to be a social division between the inhabitants. Surrounding my design location there are many (social) housing blocks and not one single family home. In fact, half of the homes available in Rubroek are social housing, the other half makes up for 70% normal rent and 30% available for buying. This makes for a population of Kralingen-Crooswijk which has a relatively low income (Only Feyenoord and Charlois of the 15 Rotterdam neighbourhoods, both below the Maas, score lower on income) and people usually find it hard to connect with other people in their direct context. They depend on many services and local programs, initiated mainly by the city council. Along the north side of the Crooswijksesingel, the Goudsesingel and a few main shopping streets however, the stately homes and post-war apartments house a population with a high income who are very independent. This makes for an interesting mixture of different people, different backgrounds and different ambitions. Places such as the Goudesingel shopping street, the schools (both Waldorf and Dalton) and the local community centres are ideal for the meeting and mingling of these groups. Also the religious homes like the Othman Mosque and De Bron for Christian religions is a place of meeting.

For the Gebiedsvisie 2015-2018 the Rubroek area has been analysed by the municipality of Rotterdam into a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threads) analysis5:

4,5 Municipality 2014

5

Fig. 7: The image shows the existing building of the Rubroek elderly home which is at my location right now.

Strengths

• The favourable location between city centre and Kralingse Plas and Park

• The area has relatively affordable housing• There are numerous local public services available• A variety in lifestyles, incomes levels of education• There is a meeting point for elderly at Rubroek care centre• A rich cultural historic background (architecturally

respected ‘wedenoperbouw’ housing blocks)

Weaknesses

• Many monotonous and repetitive housing typologies• Inhabitants have low satisfaction regarding maintenance of

their homes• General low level of education• A high percentage of households who depend on social

welfare compared to other Rotterdam neighbourhoods• Many vacant shop and office spaces in the main shopping

streets (Jonker Fransstraat)• Nuisance and vandalism by youth in the streets• Number of littered streets increases quickly• Connection with surrounding city fabric is not very strong

Opportunities

• Using the capacities and talents of inhabitants to their full capability

• Expansion and maintenance of meeting point for elderly at Rubroek care centre

• Improving maintenance of apartment blocks• Where possible, improve variety of housing typologies• Improve the sustainability of overal neighbourhood• Economic improvement of Jonker Fransstaat

Threats

• An increase in the percentage of economically weak households

• Further reduced numbers of higher levels of education• Poor financial situation of the social housing corporation

(Havensteder) which will have consequences for the maintenance, variety and sustainability of the social apartment blocks

• The possible closing of the meeting point for elderly at Rubroek care centre because of unawareness

• An increase in nuisance and vandalism by youth• Care of public spaces decreases further equalling into more

trash and decay on the streets• Further decrease of economic situation due to vacant lots in

public streets

6

Fig. 8,9: The image on top shows the recreational area around the Kralingse Plas, the lower image one of the many vacant stores in the Jonker Fransstaart

The social economical position of the household is a serious focus points, 20% of the households around my site have an income at or below the minimum wage. This is not an extreme for Rotterdam city standards but still a concern. The percentage of households that depends on social welfare is a 13%. Compared to an average of 11% for the whole of Rotterdam it is relatively high. Concerning education capabilities Rubroek is one of the lowest performing neighbourhoods of Rotterdam. Only 19% of the children in this area attend to a HAVO/VWO level of education. These tie together with the negative values on safety indexes for vandalism and nuisance, mainly caused by problems within the local youth cultures. A staggering 60% of the inhabitants are unsatisfied with the amount of effort the local (social) housing corporations are giving the apartment blocks. Many are in need of renovation and maintenance.4 Even though these aspects are taken serious, the Rubroek area overall is not in such a bad shape, both socially and economically. It just seems the large gap between the rich and the poor is causing an unneeded parallel lifestyles without any interaction. But what’s most important for my assignment is actually to notice that the municipality obviously thinks the Rubroek care centre plays a crucial role in the lives of local elderly, as it is put on the analysis together with much less specific points. For the future developments within the Rubroek area the municipality has been giving a very high priority to sustaining this meeting point. At the Rubroek centre informative meetings are held for example and hobby clubs use the available rooms. It is even noted that it could be more valuable if it were to be expanded into a place for encouraging activity and interaction between elderly and the community. This could be in the activities of reading, gardening, singing, etc.

What are the surrounding functions?

Besides the many dwellings surrounding the site, there are numerous local public services. Most ground floor levels of the apartment blocks along the larger streets house a large variety of shops and organisations. Directly on the site right now there is an Albert Heijn Supermarket, which is a large contributor to the liveliness of the site’s square, the Goudseplein. Within a walking distance of 500 meters, there are several schools. There is a Waldorf school, the Rudolf Steiner College, just one block to the south, the Queen Wilhelmina School is just across the water of the Crooswijksesingel and the Waalse School is down the street. They are a mixture of kindergardens and high schools. Besides schools the site right now houses several separate healthcare institutions, like a physiotherapist centre and doctor’s office. The street surrounding the site hold a mixture of small and local shops such as a hairdresser, flower shop, bakery and a nail salon. The area is quite green, the open areas that the efficiency of the apartment blocks create are all filled with grass, bushes and trees. At the Goudseplein you can see some effort being made to create a small park; however the planting stays very dull. This is continued through the whole Rubroek area. Green areas consist of only a empty lawns, some trees and very simple shrubberies, which are all undoutbly very easy and cheap to maintain.

7

Fig. 10: The image shows the existing schools in the direct surroundings of the Rubroek elderly home.

Potentials for a dementia facility

From these points which the municipality has put forward, combined with my own observations there are a number of positive factors that I could use in my design for the dementia facility. First and foremost, the undeniable support from the municipality for keeping and expanding the meeting point for elderly at the Rubroek care centre. Here activities and interaction between elderly people themselves and towards their community is encouraged. The 55+ group in Rubroek is large, and will only increase due to our aging population. Elderly people who still live on their own are usually looking for safety and comfort, not interacting that much with their surrounding community, especially when they are not of Dutch origin. The dementia facility could play a large role in creating a space for these people to meet and interact. Through facilitating certain hobby ‘clubs’ or simply creating a beautiful and serene garden for recreational purposes, for example. This would greatly improve the standard of the impersonal and blunt green areas that now dominate the area right now. Since these are so public, all the surrounding apartment blocks look down on them, they do not offer a save and calming environment to enjoy.

Combining the dementia program with a community centre program could also improve the economical feasibility of the facility. The renting out of spaces and rooms would increase their income significantly. These spaces would naturally also be used by the dementia patients themselves, maybe going to music or reading club.

By commercially renting out the space to communities in the direct surroundings the facility will be filled with a mixture of people that would normally never be in contact with the dementia patient group. It will offer a varied and ‘normal’ addition to a place where the patients would otherwise never make contact with different people. ‘Making contact’ could already be enjoyable for patients just on the level of seeing and hearing. The patients should not be forced to talk or interact with these groups; it should be possible but not forced.

The area around the site offers so many small and local resources which are easily accessed that they should definitely be used within the daily life of the dementia patients. Resources such as the supermarket, hairdresser, flower shop and nail salon can all be integrated and supported to use by staff. Choosing where to go and having some form of control over what happens will give the dementia patients an increased amount of self-esteem. Even when these functions cannot be used without supervision, they offer a oppotunity to experience the outside world.

The liveliness of the Goudseplein can be used to trigger interest and a space for shared functions of both the dementia facility and the community centre, such as a restaurant or café setting. This would be result in a lively place where lots of different groups of people meet and interact. Some programmatic links to maybe a cooking club or a vegetable garden which is taken care of by the dementia patients can be integrated.

8

Fig. 11, 12, 13: The first figure shows the Goudseplein, the second image shows the local Albert Heijn at the Goudse Rijweg and the final image shows the open lawns which account for all the landscaping in Rubroek.

Since there are such a large numbers of different schools nearby this is really a connection that cannot be forgotten. Students might find it an enjoyable extra-curriculum activity to join in with a reading or walking group of dementia patients. They could also join in with the upkeep of the garden, help cook in the restaurant, this way a truly integrated mix of user groups exists. By creating a relationship with some higher education organizations students might be offered to work in the public functions of the dementia facility, for example the restaurant, but also do interships and practice caregiving. Threats for a dementia facility

For me, this site represents everything a social context has to offer. Writing down and thinking about all the chances it will give me for creating a socially based dementia facility is really inspiring. Yet, naturally it will also impose some challenges. For one, the site is relatively busy. By combining the solely program of Dementia care with a community centre I will only increase the number of people that will be in and around the patients. This could create an environment which is too varied, noisy and too stimulating. This might result in confusion and an increase of anxiety. These factors can trigger aggression and other socially inappropriate behaviour with the patients as well.

As discussed in the previous chapters, the population who directly surrounds the site is of relatively low economic position and might find it hard to be open for contact with a new facility, as it breaks with the world they already know. The interacting of user groups, which I have so utopian thought through, might not result in the mixture I would like. This is the same worry with the student interacting, as they might not feel connected to this group of elderly people and see the tasks they do as a ‘checklist’ school assignment.

One third of the elderly in the area of Rubroek are of non-western origin and might not be interest at all in joining one of these dementia facilities, thus the population of the clinic might become very singular (white, working class, female). This would most likely not have a great effect on the dementia patients themselves but it would make the facility so much less grounded within the community it is located in. This is similar for the meeting point of the clinic; non-western elderly might already have their own communities for social interaction and not feel the need to come to a place like this.

In what way does this affect the interior?

The interior will have to be a place where the contradicting terms of public and private run alongside each other. Especially the shared functions, of a possible community centre and the dementia clinic, will have to be public, yet also give enough privacy. The places for privacy are needed for the dementia patient who will want to enjoy the space but not with an overly stimulating environment. Their contradiction of benefiting from being inside a ‘normal’ environment but at the same time not being able to deal with too many things happening around them will be a central theme in the building.

9

Fig. 14: Locating too many different user groups at the same location might result in overcrowing for dementia patients. Image shows the Goudseplein with the Jamin statue (the candy factory).

10

One of the design decisions, which is also greatly stimulated by our studio, I have already made is incorporating a large garden scheme. The garden lends itself in such a perfect way for creating an environment for meeting and interaction while still giving dementia patients a sense safety and privacy. It can also really add to the overall green experience in Rubroek and give inhabitants a place for recreation. It will for sure be a garden where children and other visitors are also welcome. Again, this will have to be carefully designed with public and private spaces in one.

The role of the interior integrating with the garden can influence the way patients and the public will use the garden. The border between inside and outside can be carefully explored and it might be good to diverse it on the public and community centre programmatic functions. It might encourage people to approach a little closer (because they do not feel like they are intruding) and explore more of what the facility has to offer. With the dementia it is possibly better to have a clearer and obvious border. You’re either inside or outside and nothing in between. This ties to a complicated wayfinding and routing system that in the eye of the dementia patients will have to very natural and easy. The shared functions should be easy accessible, yet not open to patients. But the dementia rooms must also not be separated from the other functions as it might give patients less of a feeling of being ‘normal’ and still functioning.

Fig. 15, 16: The itop image shows the attraction of the Crooswijksesingel and the lower image shows the entrance to the Rubroek elderly care centre the way it is visually expressed right now.

De Hogeweyk - Weesp

De Hogeweyk in Weesp resembles any other care facility with its architecture. However the programmatic divisions and use of different courtyards are all used to underline the ambition to making the nursing home as normal as possible. It has been designed as an urban district with streets, squares, courtyards and parks. Patients are placed according to their lifestyle in one of the 23 homes. Each lifestyle has a slightly different approach to the interior and daily pattern to make the demented user group feel more at home. Every home has its own front door giving immediate access to the courtyards which are free to use for patients. The program includes a publicly semi-public accessible restaurant, café, supermarket, hairdresser and theatre. 7

Focusing on a functions and buidling structure that resembles ‘normal’ life to give patients sense of control and familiarity.

Sinai Centre - Amstelveen

The Sinai Centre in Amstelveen is meant for Jewish residents with a psychiatric or mental handicap. It consists of apartment blocks build around an inner courtyard with front doors leading the homes. Because of the articulation of different volumes it seems like a relatively small scale building, which it is not. Different sections have different gardens, creating miniature worlds inside the bigger plot. The facade and garden design has specifically been done in conversation with the Jewish community, so it would resemble their cultural values. The complex is not designed for exaggerated spectacle; the interiors are simple and cosy and meant to provide a place of comfort, the facades are determined by the use of materials. 6

Creating a facility based on the cultural and religious needs of its user group can be used to create a multicultural centre in Rotterdam.

A collection of four references which can be used as inspiration for the seperation of private and public, the architectural language and the possible combination of user groups.

6, 7, 8 Wagenaar et al. 2010

9 Bergweg 2015

Fig. 17, 18, 19 & 20

11

Berkensteden - Diemen

Within the high density of the town Diemen the Berkenstede finds its place. The basic shape of the building consists of a covered first floor and four higher build up areas on the corners. The architect has deliberately refrained from creating a flat box with towers on top; the ground floor is connected by a flowing green roof underneath which public functions are positioned. Locals are free to use the restaurant, grand café, relaxation area and a physiotherapist. Between the four towers a series of gardens, patios and terraces are placed. Each tower has their own specified user group who are encouraged to interact on the ground floor and in the gardens. 8

By using the public functions along a routing through the dementia home everday life enters the facility. In this way different user groups are more likely to meet and interact.

Humanitas Bergweg - Rotterdam

This dementia focussed collective living building accounts for 195 seperate homes. The centre is architecturally very visible in the neighbourhood which increases awareness of the facility within local communities. It holds a large covered atrium where day activities and hobby clubs are organized. This is where several different user groups meet. The facility also houses a public restaurant, lounge, internetcafé and several offices. Recently it has begun to provide for care which is specified for specific cultures. Right now this is only available for day-care, but in the future the facility would like to introduce this culture-specific care into their dementia homes.9

Using a covered outside/inside space for public activities stimulates the year-round movement of demented elderly outside of their private rooms. Plus this creates the perfect space to interact with different user groups.

Fig. 21, 22, 23 & 24

12

References

Straatnamen archief Rotterdam, http://www.stadsarchief.rotterdam.nl/straatnamen-overzicht/rubroek (25-3-2015)

Bergweg, Stichting Humanitas 2015 Zorg en woningaanbod Humanitas Rotterdam, Rotterdam

Municipality of Rotterdam, 2015 Geschiedenis deelgemeenten, Kralingen-Crooswijk. Rotterdam

Municipality of Rotterdam, 2014 Gebiedsplan Kralingen-Crooswijk 2015-2018. Rotterdam

Municipality of Rotterdam, 2011 Gebiedsvisies Kralingen-Crooswijk 2012-2015. Rotterdam

Wagenaar, C. and N. Mens 2010 Healthcare Architecture in the Netherlands. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers

Images

All retrieved/made on 18.05.2015

Figures 1,5,12: Edited Google Maps

Figures 4,6,7,10:My own image

Figure 2:Geschiedenis van Crooswijk, http://people.zeelandnet.nl/deklaproos/croos.html

Figure 3:Geschiedenis van Crooswijk,http://people.zeelandnet.nl/deklaproos/croos.html

Figure 8:Nederlandse Zwembaden,http://www.nederlandsezwembaden.nl/buitenbad/rotterdam/kralingseplas/

Figure 9:De Kunst van Het Stelen, NRC,http://www.nrc.nl/kunsthal/

Figure 11:SOR Woningen,http://www.sor.nl/sor-woongebouw/rubroek

Figure 13:SOR Woningenhttp://www.sor.nl/sor-woongebouw/jan-van-loon

Figure 14:Jamin Monument,http://cargocollective.com/yasserballemans/Jamin-Monument

Figure 15:NIKON spots,https://www.nikonspots.com/spot/70-crooswijksesingel

Figure 16:BAM Woningbouw,http://www.bamwoningbouw.nl/nl-nl/project/1/40/828/rubroek-serviceflat.aspx

Figure 17;BNA, http://www.bna.nl/project/sinai-centrum-amstelveen/

Figure 18;BNA, http://www.bna.nl/project/sinai-centrum-amstelveen/

Figure 19;Vivum, http://www.vivium.nl/hogewey

Figure 20;Vivum, http://www.vivium.nl/hogewey

Figure 21;Architectenweb, http://www.architectenweb.nl/aweb/projects/project.asp?PID=8744

Figure 22;Architectenweb, http://www.architectenweb.nl/aweb/projects/project.asp?PID=8744

Figure 23;Humanistisch caféhttp://www.humanistischcafe.nl/index.php?page=4

Figure 24;Stichting Humanitas,http://www.stichtinghumanitas.nl/site/index.php/2013/01/page/3/

13