NL // EN
- Blok VI
- Vreewijk
- Rottekwartier
- Justus van Effenblok
- Charloisse Hoofd
- De Peperklip
- Schiemond
- Stampioendwarsstraten
(click the maps to see open the location!)
How do residents of social housing live? How were the buildings conceived, and how are they experienced? Eight Rotterdam residential buildings provide a portrait of the social ideals of social housing.
In Rotterdam, there are more than 120,000 social housing units. These homes are on average 40% smaller than a privately-owned home, and the residents earn on average 40% less than a median income. As a result, residents of social housing are more often dependent on public outdoor spaces: for recreation, for relaxation, for parties, for socializing. At the same time, the public space in neighborhoods with a high proportion of social housing is often of poor quality.
In the past, several massive social housing complexes were built in Rotterdam, where the public outdoor space was integrated into the building in the form of communal gardens. The roots of this large-scale housing development lie in the place where you are now standing, in Tussendijken. Here, in 1923, the 1005-Woningenplan was constructed: eight municipal housing blocks, each with a communal courtyard, a safe place of tranquility in the middle of the busy city.
Social Housing, Social Spaces showcases eight Rotterdam social housing complexes where such public spaces play a role for the community. The exhibition tells a history of Rotterdam’s public housing, of the large-scale residential complexes that often appear intimidating to outsiders, and shows the social ideals embedded within them.
1.Block VI (1923) The corner shop where you are now standing was built during a wave of large-scale social housing complexes in Rotterdam during the Roaring Twenties. It was part of the ‘Woningbouw Tussendijken’ for 1005 homes divided into eight blocks, each with a communal courtyard. Since the forgotten bombing, only this one courtyard remains, the social focal point of the housing block. 2.Vreewijk (1919) Before the large-scale residential buildings in Tussendijken, the municipality built large garden villages in the South. In Vreewijk, collective gardens are hidden behind the small houses, accessible only through narrow alleys used by the residents. 3.Rottekwartier (1979) In the 1970s and 1980s, Rotterdam once again built large-scale social housing complexes for residents who had to move due to the demolition of old city districts (urban renewal). Residents were involved in the design, and the homes were arranged around communal gardens and courtyards. The shared entrance hall was the link between the home and the garden. 4.Charloisse Hoofd (1980) During this urban renewal, residential buildings were built for the first time on various old harbor sites along the Maas. In Charlois, huge residential flats arose in a large park, where residents can reach their homes via galleries. 5.Justus van Effenblok (1922) The residential gallery was first built in Spangen, where social housing also for the first time contained bedrooms. The large Justus van Effenblok encloses a series of collective courtyards connected by large gates and small passages. On the second floor, residents overlook the gardens from their gallery. 6.De Peperklip (1982) The ideas from Spangen and Tussendijken were not forgotten in the 1980s. In the middle of the harbor in Feyenoord, a massive social housing complex in the shape of a paperclip was built. The endless repetition of homes encloses an elongated courtyard that ends in semicircular gallery flats. 7.Schiemond (1983) Delfshaven also received a gigantic residential complex with nearly a thousand homes. This 500-meter-long building is shaped like a comb: between the ‘teeth’ are hidden green communal gardens that extend to the Maas. A footpath runs through these teeth, connecting all the gardens via low, wide passages. 8.Stampioendwarsstraten (1895) It is a stark contrast to what was built in the past. In the Stampioendwarsstraatjes in the South, there is still a row of back-to-back houses with daylight from only one side. During the current housing crisis, many of these themes are resurfacing. What kind of housing suits the present time? Can we create communal gardens again? Do we really need separate bedrooms? Is there still room for social housing in the expensive city, and who is the city actually for?
1. Blok VI
Het herstelde woongebouw na de oorlog, (bron: Gemeente Rotterdam (Stadsarchief))
The models capture parts of a building that aimed to create a village-like atmosphere within the city of Rotterdam, block VI. With its closed-block layout and spacious courtyard, Block VI carries a rich history, having been partially rebuilt over time. The models aim to show this character by highlighting both the residential and commercial spaces within the block. The courtyard, a green haven within the block, contrasts with the rigid, uniform façades facing the streets. However, by visualizing the limited accessibility to the courtyard, the models also reflect the challenges that have reduced its social potential.
2. Vreewijk
Steeg tussen twee rijtjeshuizen, foto: Lennart Arpots
Vreewijk considers the functions of the green area very carefully by dividing them into public and private areas. There are public greenery areas where residents/non-residents mix together and private greenery areas where only residents use. We expressed the relationship between the public/private green areas by using the alley as a connection.
3. Het Rottekwartier
Binnenterrein tussen de huizen aan de Rottestraat, foto: Alex de Herder (bron: Gemeente Rotterdam (Stadsarchief))
The Rottekwartier, located in the Oude Noorden neighbourhood northeast of the central station, combines portico apartments and family dwellings. Developed in the 1970s and completed in the early 1980s, it was a response to declining housing standards and built on the site of a former biscuit factory. Social housing projects of the time were characterised by resident participation, which at Rottekwartier resulted in green public spaces and a collective garden. Model 1 highlights the relation between the building block and the surrounding area. Model 2 focuses on the portico entrance, emphasising the involvement and diversity of the residents.
4. Charloisse Hoofd
De woningen aan de Sint-Janshaven in 1985, foto: Fototechnische Dienst Rotterdam (bron: Gemeente Rotterdam (Stadsarchief))
This study looks at how the design of Charloisse Hoofd, a social housing complex in Rotterdam, redeveloped in the 1980s, affects social interaction and community feel. By comparing two buildings the “barrier” (Kop Sint-Janshaven) and the “snake” (Charloisse Hoofd), it explores how different layouts impact how residents connect and use shared spaces. Through model-making, the study shows that the open design of the “snake” building encourages interaction, while the closed layout of the “barrier” building limits it. These findings highlight how thoughtful design can improve social connections and quality of life in urban neighborhoods.
5. Justus van Effenblok
Het Justus van Effenblok toen het wit geschilderd was in de jaren ’80 (arch. Michiel Brinkman), (bron: Rotterdam Woont)
The Justus van Effenblok stands out as an innovative and ambitious development; the central heating, common bath house, elevated street and waste disposal system were unprecedented amenities for a housing complex of 1922. At this time, when most residential developments mainly focused on clever facade designs, Michiel Brinkman focused on creating user-based design. Direct and visual connections to the collective spaces and the variety of those spaces
encourage social interaction and allow for activities in front of the homes. Gateways and symmetry give the building a monumental nature and make it easy to understand.
6. De Peperklip
Courtyard of the Peperklip in the 1990s (arch. Carel Weeber), photo by Joop Reingoud
The Peperklip is situated in the neighbourhood Feyenoord, in Rotterdam. Designed by Carl Weeber in 1979, the building was completed in 1982 existing out of 549 homes with a variety in size.
The houses are arranged in one long continuous line with three curves, creating an encolesed space, the courtyard. The buildings’ social aspect had a rocky start, but with the transformation of Vestia the building arose from this character.
However, the courtyard parts in the curves are in such extend enclosed and filled with greenery it negatively affected the liveability of the space and became even more enclosed for outsides by closing the passages.
Which contrasts with liveliness on the galleries of the maisonettes houses in the curves.
7. Schiemond
Schiemond in 2002 (Dienst Stadsontwikkeling, arch. Carel Weeber), (bron: Love 80s Architecture)
Every place is remembered through feelings. A person may not recall the appearance of a place, the color of its buildings, their shape, or even where they saw it—but they will remember the sensations it evoked.
Look at this model. What feelings emerge as you gaze through these arches?
To us, this space felt both vast, with its immense scale and proximity to the water, and intimate, capturing the private lives of those who inhabit it. It was industrial by the roadside among parked cars, yet cozy in the nearby parks where children played. It was shielded from the bustling city by buildings that formed a wall, yet entirely open to the water.
This place is filled with contrasts—between sounds and silence, light and shadow, the private and the public, openness and mystery. These sensations are what we aimed to convey through the model.
What do you feel?
8. Stampioen-dwarsstraten
Stampioendwarsstraat, vóór de sloop en reconstructie (bron: Bewoners Vereniging Stampioendwarsstraten)
This model aims to illustrate the social context of the Stampioendwarsstraten and the way the use of the public space has drastically changed over time. The left ‘half’ of the model shows the current use of the space, with an abundance of greenery that is maintained by the inhabitants of the apartments. Where the right side shows the Stampioendwarsstraten in 1970, before the renovations where the street was accessible by cars and is not used as a common space for the inhabitants. When comparing the streets, the architecture has not changed, which is the reason for the usage of the street.