Job Floris

Job Floris was an editor of the pioneering, always interesting OASE Journal for Architecture from 2008 until 2018. He is also an architect: one half of the Rotterdam-based practice Monadnock which he founded in the naughties with Sandor Naus. For reasons that Tim explores with Job, Monadnock’s work sits uneasily in their home city although it is popular elsewhere in the Netherlands and in Germany.

 

Podcast transcript

Job Floris: Perhaps this requires a bit of editing afterwards, but I will tell a bit about Rotterdam. 

Tim Abrahams: Hello, Superurbanists, my, you have been busy sharing and listening whilst I’ve been off gadding about the place. Last month I was in Rotterdam where I met up with Job Floris. Since Job edited the always interesting OASE journal from 2008 until 2018, I’ve found his insights into architectural theory, production, vitally production, compelling, nuanced, revealing. Also, vitally again, I really like the work he produces. In the noughties he founded the Rotterdam-based practice Monadnock, named after a building in Chicago, he’ll explain why, with his partner in crime Sander Naus. So, when I went to Rotterdam recently on a separate trip to see the plans of the city for future parks, future developments, I sought out Job, who explained his alternative views on Rotterdam and how they have perhaps informed his architectural vision. 

Job Floris: I have to warn you, we have no project in Rotterdam and I am rather critical about what’s happening in Rotterdam. I live here now for, I think, 30 years, something like that, and it took me about 10 years to get acquainted with the city because I grew up in a typical Dutch provincial city in which you have the three highlights: the town hall, the station and the church, and with your eyes closed, you can walk through virtually every Dutch old city and find them, and then you can locate and orientate yourself.

Rotterdam doesn’t work like that. I’ve been in London and I know that London is also quite different from that, but that makes Rotterdam in the Netherlands a modern city, an unusual city, and the cliché is that everybody tells you, I don’t find it very comfortable, cozy, it has no nostalgic city core. That was bombed and the new city actually was built in a very efficient way with a lot of priority on an infrastructural system, which means on Saturdays I can easily cross the city with my car if I want on high speed, although in the last years that has been restricted a bit, luckily. But it doesn’t make cities. It doesn’t make cities with strong street profiles based on, let’s say, a historical city. It is a city of objects and the city of objects has a completely different language of understanding urban space. 

Tim Abrahams Can I ask you to expand on that idea of the city of objects? 

Job Floris: The idea that you design street architecture. My biggest example would be the mansion blocks in London, where there’s a notion of mass housing in a dense environment and simultaneously responding to an urban fabric or making an urban fabric and always aware of making, also, a street site or a street profile. That is one of the things that a city of objects is not doing and in Rotterdam the city of objects makes it possible that you build objects next to each other that do not respond to each other. And I want to stay away a bit from immediately disqualifying that because I must say after growing up a bit further in life, I also started to appreciate that, but that means that contrast is a sort of idea that goes very well in Rotterdam. So, strong objects next to each other and then what is in between is left over from a, let’s say, conventional viewpoint. That was one issue. The other issue about Rotterdam was that 15 years ago or 20 years ago the city centre was completely desolate after six o’clock so there was not a critical mass of inhabitants that would make a dynamic city.

Tim Abrahams: And that’s largely because the centre was offices. Was this very strongly zoned or did this just happen? 

Job Floris: I think there were a couple of big flats that you might have seen next to the pedestrian shopping area. That’s a part of planning that was really incorporating housing but always from a functionalist viewpoint where it was separated. And I think the whole idea of separating functions made indeed that the Rotterdam Center was less inhabitable and that insight came, let’s say, 20 years ago that was a problem and that if you build an object, you should really take care of the plinth, how it attaches to the street, to the ground level, is a topic of discussion and requires care.I think that gradually started to change a bit and then you saw that the city policy was also heading towards public space so the market square is a good example designed by West 8 and also Schouwburgplein where the cinema is also designed by West 8. A part of whether you think it’s a good square, it shows that there was a policy and that was really an idea of paying attention to a public space, also… 

Tim Abrahams: Sorry, what did those projects replace? What was before? 

Job Floris: In the case of the market square there was a high line and because of the tunnel this was a vacant piece of land on which you could not build and instead of keeping it and there used to be a market under the high line so that was a good reason to develop it as a market square which that market square celebrated actually the emptiness. It was really a long empty square whenever there was no market and when there was a market it was completely crowded and that contrast was very strong and also very much emoted in the design of West 8, I think which was quite beautiful. But nowadays the policy has changed again a bit in making everything more cozy.

On the market square you see now all kinds of islands of green to make it look smaller so this thing changed a bit but that’s just the further development of that theme. But going back to examples of public space this is an example. The museum park is an example and I think that was a sort of vacant land but that was a bit earlier I think that was in the 1980s the museum park and I think the Schauburgplein was another design. It was already a sort of square but I think in the 1990s that really was an idea of making it giving it a bit, yeah, and giving it more attention and that was good, I think.

But it also sometimes still feels nowadays that it’s a sort of band-aid because in the end it remains a city of objects and you can make quite a lot of effort to put green in the streets to make the profiles a bit cozier, add pedestrians instead of cars, give priority to the pedestrians instead of cars and sure it helps but from the view of an urbanist or architect you can still see that the buildings don’t talk to each other. Of course, there are moments when they do but in general, they don’t. And the contrast and that’s something I started to learn by living here and being in the city and also crossing the city is that you have after the bombing there was a big fire and then you have the fire line. So within the border of the fire everything is new outside of the border there was no fire so it’s the original substance of the city. 

Tim Abrahams: And once you become used to the city you can see those.

Job Floris: Exactly. You start to notice where the transitions are and then you feel that you’re in a different type of fabric and a different understanding of making city. And I think that the municipal policy on urbanism has been one of the very good things in making sure that Rotterdam becomes a city that is visible and celebrates architecture and is also really programming it and bringing it outside of the Netherlands. And I think they were rather successful also inmaking it a destination in what is it the Lonely Planet and things like that and that means that tourists that go to Amsterdam automatically now also start to come to Rotterdam which is good for the city of course. 

Simultaneously, this idea of making contrast is still happening everywhere and a lot of visitors find this super spectacular and attractive because it’s one big festival of different voices. But I regret it a bit that sometimes there are moments where you could really give priority to a building that wants to talk to the other buildings and that almost never happens and that’s a bit disappointing for me. And there are moments where you say okay, we’re here along the riverbank and there’s a lot of space, it’s not so bad to have these different languages next to each other but there are also more narrow situations where you think, my goodness this is horrible. And at the moment in our office, we work also in Amsterdam and in Amsterdam there’s more pressure on the market although that’s also changing in Rotterdam. 

And we noticed that there’s much more dominance from the urban department in how they want to develop the city. I think there’s also dominance in Rotterdam and I have to repeat we are not doing a Rotterdam project so I cannot really speak from experience but I think the priorities in the Rotterdam department seem to be on a different table, so to say. And, of course, then if I have discussions about this then one of the things is yes but you’re an architect you’re only concerned with beauty while Rotterdam has developed a high-rise policy which is quite extraordinary for Dutch standards where they also are involved in the programming of the plinths and not only the plinths but also the type of program on top of that so that’s all good. 

But simultaneously it keeps on itching that the City of Objects is the only way that seems to work within this fire line. I don’t believe that because about 10 years ago there was also among architects’ insight that you could read the city center of Rotterdam also in a different way that there’s a whole layer of brick architecture by local heroes that is forgotten. You don’t hear of these people outside of Rotterdam or outside of the Netherlands. And they have made buildings that are truly exotic like Venetian palaces in brick that you think my goodness what is happening here, and how experimental and how daring? And also they are still here the refinement and the beauty but also the expression of sensitivity to urban architecture. And simultaneously making street that’s a complexity that you want not only architects to embrace but also to be part of a policy. And one of the policies could also be it’s too far let’s stick to the City of Objects but that’s also something I don’t hear. It’s quite a specific problem. Still, I live here so I love the city. It has really a lot to offer. 

Tim Abrahams:  You talked about the local heroes, let’s correct that omission. 

Job Floris: The architect who has left some buildings that are still there and also well maintained is van der Steur. He was working till the I think 1950s probably then we have which is not necessarily a Rotterdam architect but that is Out he’s more well known. And then we also have Kreivanger which is actually nowadays still an office but they do completely different work but Kreivanger also was part of these they sometimes are a bit described as traditionalists. I think that’s a word that does not help because it has more to do with, I would say love for craftsmanship and urban architecture. 

Van der Steur made important buildings like an eye hospital and a school next to the New Institute which is still there you immediately see it if you pass it like whoa this is a substantial urban building. I think it’s worth mentioning it. It was also this idea in Rotterdam that because it’s a new city center this offers chances for rewriting the city center and that was done with a functionalist scheme. And ever since this dream gradually grew to make a Manhattan on the River Maas a high-rise city. That actually caused some problems I would say or that adds up to this idea of the City of Objects that we can’t even call skyscrapers but let’s say tall buildings. And this is the city where you can buy an apartment with a view of the river and of course that’s also possible in Amsterdam but this was really part of the policy.

When we had these discussions in the city about what actually happens between these buildings and what is the public space doing then the idea grew that the plinth of the building should get actually the most attention because this is the meeting where the people live and where the people meet and where the dynamics of the city are really celebrated. Then there was quite some sensitivity to look at Vancouver or look at Chicago and where you would also have mid-rise or ground scrapers buildings that are not necessarily tall but are big in a different way apart from more attention for the plinth and the programming that did not become part of a policy that we don’t necessarily need tall buildings. But I think in London you can, you know, better what happens if the whole city doubles in height. That is incredible the impact on the city I think. 

Tim Abrahams: It’d be interesting to relate this to your practice to Monadnock. Now, there’s an interesting story to be told just about the name itself and could you just explain how you got your very interesting name?

Job Floris: Yeah, when we started our office, we wanted to use a word that would have some flexibility for the future, some sustainability if we would change in configuration that would not change the name of our office necessarily. And we bumped into this building, the Monadnock building and started studying because we immediately fell in love with this in Chicago. It was finished in 1894 so it’s really an old building and once you focus on such a building it opens up a book of stories and narratives so it increasingly became more and more interesting for us. 

But the main reason for choosing the name after practicing a bit is because, especially not in Dutch, it’s not easy to pronounce that was that the Monadnock building is there, already for more than 100 years. It performs very well within the city of Chicago. It’s currently occupied by a lot of lawyer firms and the ground level is very, very well programmed with small shops related to handcraft. And it’s actually quite a successful building because of the owner who programs it very well and maintains it very well. But it’s also because of the design of the architects that included a sense of flexibility that makes the building survive because life can actually flow through it and the building just accommodates all these different types of users all these different moments in time. And I think that is something that is very valuable also connected to current discussions we have about ecology and sustainability. 

That is one of the ways to go if you make things that are let’s say resistant and simultaneously sustainable and flexible then we’re doing good things, I think. 

Now, that was one of the reasons that we felt attracted the other aspect that I should mention is that just making a very flexible neutral box is not the answer. This building is also very well made with a lot of very refined details and that makes the building also precious. And I think because of this preciousness it is also able to survive. People really like the building and that is of course very soft material. But I think by now we know that there are tools for architects to embrace to make buildings more or less precious. I think figuration is one detail and plasticity are things that really help. And that is very easy to translate in current times, I think. 

The other thing and that’s a bit more of a conceptual aspect is that the building contains two parts designed by two different pairs of architects and these two architects had a completely different idea about how they had to make a tall office building. The first part was by Burnham and Root and it was a load-bearing brick with some steel enforcement and the other building is a steel structure completely covered with plaster and terracotta. And if we ask people which one is the newest and which part is the oldest then they always point out the oldest one as being the most modern, the newest, and the opposite. So, our perception of time and modernity and what is old and what is new is questioned there and we find that a very interesting phenomenon in architecture. 

It has to do with things like abstraction, and figuration so it’s about vocabulary and the fact that for example Holabird and Roche that make the newest building they had to camouflage the steel structure but they used a lot of figurative elements for that. And that is to our perception then old. And there are buildings in life that are able to perform like that and that is a sort of ambition that we like to follow. So, we thought that this is a good motive and also therefore a good name to use. 

And we were also more or less forced to not take this too literally because one of our first commissions was a temporary wooden beach pavilion. That means that you cannot make a very sturdy heavy brick building that needs to last there forever. And that immediately forced us to either reject the commission or to say oh, we need to perhaps approach this in an abstract way and say it’s actually, the conventions and typologies and examples and ancestors in architecture that we want to study and want to learn from and take a step further into the now and into the future. 

That also opens up the possibility to for example architecture that leaves no traces and has no footprint and that is also another answer to the current discussion about ecology and sustainability which is also open for us. And we in our practice started with buildings of a public character and that gradually changed into or developed I should say into buildings which are more about inhabitation: residential buildings. At the moment we are mainly working on housing in the city in the Netherlands and also in Germany and we are also currently moving back to the public buildings because we miss that a bit. It’s a different conversation, you have a super tailor-made public building that is giving another type of dialogue although we really love housing as well. 

Tim Abrahams: Let’s talk about, before we go back to that, let’s talk about the key projects and when did you start. Maybe we could put that date just very rarely absolutely precise but some kind of vague idea just to give us an outline of the history of the practice.

Job Floris: I would say that’s approximately seven years ago that it started almost half of our age so to say. We have existed now for 15 years so I think it’s yeah, we call this also a second generation of buildings.

Tim Abrahams: Is there a particular project which catalyzed that or which acted as a stepping stone into further projects? 

Job Floris: Well, we always expected to because Sander, my partner in crime, and I had experience in big housing commissions in the offices where we previously worked. Sander worked at MVRDV and I worked at Arup and we were completely convinced that we would continue with being involved in housing but that did not happen. We were perhaps too clumsy in making acquisitions in that direction or there were just other questions that crossed our path so therefore we immediately went to the more public buildings. They were also more experimental. And then seven years ago we also started to miss the let’s say the banality of the everyday rituals that are let’s say connected to housing. 

But also, the impact on the city and how you could actually talk about urbanity which is a lot different and more difficult with the exceptions only of public buildings although they also have a role in this idea. The key projects in the housing there are now two, no, three under construction, no four, actually. Two weeks ago, the fourth one started and in October the fifth one starts. They took quite some time to prepare. One of them, seven years, indeed the others go a bit faster and I would say that the current key one is the one in Hilversum. That’s a social housing project and it’s for a housing corporation which is also a pleasure to work for because you’ll have a different conversation in social housing. I will show it to you in depth. These are more public buildings that I was just talking about. 

This is Hilversum. Hilversum is a bit northeast of Utrecht, the most central city. And this is a very repetitive and simple scheme. And the joy we have is in making a very light and optimistic sustainable brick building where we put a lot of effort in making knots between horizontals and verticals that try to solve everything, meaning water that comes down from the facade and actually weathers the facade in a negative way. But if you actually bring it out of the facade regularly then it won’t weather that much if you use very hard bricks then they won’t absorb the moisture and therefore it remains pristine for, I don’t know, 50 years. Then you always, in Dutch brickwork, you have these dilatation joints. That means that somebody comes by and just makes cuts every 12 meters in the brickwork because the brickwork needs to be able to freely move. We try to actually develop a system in which this can all, let’s say, be tranquilized in a natural way so that it does not hurt or feels like an accident.

Tim Abrahams: You can read it too. 

Job Floris: Yes, exactly. 

Tim Abrahams:  It’s a very quite, a dense site. 

Job Floris: Exactly. 

Tim Abrahams: [cross talking 00:22:47]

Job Floris: This is a densification. It used to be an elderly house or yeah and then they demolished the old complex and densified it by five new buildings and they had to be quite close to each other. Also, for the standards in Hilversum because Hilversum is a very low rise green environment not so dense actually but here they really needed this density also to make the business case work. But for us, it was always really quiet a balancing act because the proximity between the buildings also really forced us to make a very let’s say slender inefficient building but there was a very good reason. 

Tim Abrahams: What do you mean by inefficient? 

Job Floris: Nowadays, if you make a sort of compact block the performance of the compact block is very good concerning heat, daylight, relation between floor, and facade and as soon as you step away from that and start to change that and start to make the volume longer and slender then… 

Tim Abrahams: Then efficiency is lost. 

Job Floris: Exactly. But there are, of course, other efficiencies to then have normal proximity to your neighbors and not a Venetian one in which you can shake hands with your neighbors for example. It also means that within social housing in Dutch social housing, the ingredients you can use as an architect are rather limited. In this case, we are very happy that we make a facade system that is able to cover everything and that the heads of the building they speak and have quite an expressionistic appearance, and the rest in between is more calm. And for us, this is a new step in making brick architecture more optimistic and light instead of heavy and dark and sometimes even a bit monumental. That is what we would like to step away from because we know a lot of Scandinavian examples where the brickwork is approached with a certain spontaneous lightness and simplicity that we really enjoy. 

Tim Abrahams:  Is it a good opportunity for you to talk about something that I find very interesting in your work and also in the writing of yours that I’ve read is the relationship between the specific and the generic? 

Job Floris: Because coming from the explanation of how I read Rotterdam it means that I really think it’s a pity if we just fly around the world and drop buildings everywhere without anchoring them in their context. I think it’s helpful to refer to the architecture for example the Swiss office of Diener and Diener where you can see a balancing act between the autonomy of the building versus the response and sensitivity of the building towards its context. In a lot of cases, this is a very successful marriage between the generic and the specific and we grew up with these buildings visiting them frequently and we were very impressed. 

And I think there’s another figure, for example, Giorgio Grassi that made a library in Groningen that is also sensitive to the graining of the city fabric and simultaneously makes something that is slightly standing out but not shouting completely and making contrast but still blends in. And this is a very beautiful approach in architecture we think that we also embrace. And that means that you don’t make, necessarily, contextual buildings that are a slave or a result of the context because they always need to tell their own story. Sometimes the context can also be a city 50 kilometers further or even in another country that you want to relate to. So the literalness of context is not always necessary and sometimes a building can also make its own context of course and then still be able to be sensitive to what a context brings. 

I’ll give you an example of the building you have seen that is the or at least that you are then already familiar with. That’s the park pavilion that is for example a problem because there is no context there you have to import your own narratives. But one of the first things we did was say, “Oh, here in this park we have a hunting lodge, we have a museum: a very clear typology. Let’s make a country house then as a typology because that seems to be complementary to the other buildings that are there.” And then you start studying legends for example making beautiful country houses but also houses that make a relation to nature to their environment without mimicking it. And that is a very intriguing, I think, answer where, of course, legends place windows in the right spot so that you have a beautiful vista over the landscape but the houses of legends do not try to mimic a mountain or a forest or landscape in any way. So, there’s always a very clear difference between culture and nature. And of course, there is interaction between these two but never a complete blending and that’s also something I don’t believe in honestly. 

Tim Abrahams:  You’re not a biophilist, biophiliiac

Job Floris: No, no. Because it’s always becoming a metaphor. So a building like a mountain or a building like a forest, I think the discipline of architecture is rich enough to tell stories that relate to society and the context in a good way. So, we don’t need that type of help, let’s say. And importing narratives sometimes in the park pavilion we brought quite some narratives there and in a housing scheme like Hilversum there are only two or three so to say or perhaps even two and I think that’s normal and that’s also let’s say about sufficiency and the amount of ingredients you are able to use and I want to embrace in a project. 

The Atlas House is also a small house. It’s full of all kinds of stories and simultaneously we like it very much when it looks very simple and modest and sometimes the project is then stuffed again with narratives perhaps too many. But simultaneously for us, it’s also very clear that one side of the building wants to be large and urban and is along a very big urban road and the other on the left side is connecting to a smaller street leading to the heart of the new centre. 

So, in this sense, it’s very literally context related but simultaneously there are all kinds of references to the architecture of for example the Milanese heroes, Asnago Vender that reference their architecture for several reasons. One of the reasons is that they made urban architecture in a very non-dogmatic way and that is really inspiring for us that they felt that ease making a pitched roof and also flat roofs and you always have the feeling that everything was possible in their practice. And that they also had the virtuoso in their approach and thinking of experimenting, obeying to conventions, simultaneously being daring, making urban buildings which is not too monumental but is also still very humble, and all these things together. 

Not saying that we completely succeeded in that, but it’s just a very inspiring period. And here, for example, it’s in a way a bit similar because here we, this is a newly developed outskirt of a city, an old Roman city, Nijmegen and yeah, this is new land. So here you also have to start from scratch: building up your narratives. By the way, I’ll show you another one. That is here, this is the one you just saw.

Tim Abrahams:  So, this is a completely new district. 

Job Floris: Yeah, completely new. 

Tim Abrahams:  What’s the name of the town again? Sorry. 

Job Floris: Nijmegen.

Tim Abrahams: Asnago Vender  

Job Floris: I can also write it down for you. 

Tim Abrahams:  No, that’s alright. Nijmegen. And so there’s a master plan for it? 

Job Floris: Yeah, that’s done by a big office here in the Netherlands and they designed a perimeter block scheme and we were invited to design a couple of, let’s say, speaking corners which are visible from far away. So that’s this one and then we do this one, that’s a tower. And then another corner is here an elderly housing that’s from a pedestrian entrance on this side, and then we do a short street, that’s these houses. And then a double house, that’s the one here. And they are all under construction now, so this is where the tower is going. 

Tim Abrahams: Lots of pieces. Is that typical of the master plan or did they give you the bits? 

Job Floris: No, that’s an interesting question, especially in relation to the previous conversation, also, we had about Rotterdam, but also about mansion blocks. So, in the Netherlands we first had the tradition of making big plans for districts, very, I would say, very effective, very good. And then all of a sudden there was this idea of trying to develop a district which gives you the feeling that there is variety and that it’s grown.

So, diversity not only in housing types but also in architectural languages was celebrated. I think one of the inventors of this was West 8 and there are some quite successful examples of that, but that became the new standard. So always we would seek for diversity and I would say, and this is also an example of that, but to my opinion this is a bit of a better example, not because we are in, but I think in general there is a quite good understanding of the, let’s say, the accents, the buildings that should really speak and the buildings that should be calm.

And that is not always the case in these mixed plans that just everybody shouts and then you don’t hear, actually, anything anymore. But we feel that it’s time now to switch to another approach type of thinking which is about ensembles. And then we come to the mansion blocks in London, we go to Vienna, we go to Pouillon in France, for example, where making housing contains diversity but simultaneously is made out of one hand, so to say. And, of course, this can also be done by two or three architects, but the general idea is that there is cohesion. This also has a very pragmatic side because in 2030 we need almost one million extra houses in the Netherlands, which sets the bar per year of nearly 100,000 extra houses. But that’s unrealistic, unfortunately, we don’t make that.

But if you want to start thinking on bigger amounts of housing, we also feel that it’s better to perhaps step away from this variety. Also, because sometimes it feels a bit forced to always follow this idea of variety, which sometimes really becomes very depressing when you can really literally read the building system behind it, that all the floors are of the same height and actually the detailing is completely the same. It’s just the roof line that is half a meter higher and the color of the bricks is a bit different and perhaps the entrance door has a different color. That’s sometimes the banality of the variety and that’s something then we think, shouldn’t we better make a beautiful ensemble out of one piece, which just tells that it’s one. Because we used to be able to do that as well. And I think throughout Europe there are beautiful examples of that. One of the more inspiring ones is the one for me in London. And I also see that people like Sergison Bates, Stephen Taylor, WWM are doing this in a, let’s say contemporary way. 

Tim Abrahams:  It’s interesting because it reminds me of something that William Mann said to me about Robert Adam being this great moment in which the palace becomes the form of the people. And I never really appreciated that that historical moment is very important. And it’s very interesting that you tie it to urgency and the need of the now. I think the word that you describe, the condition of this false multiplicity is contrived. That’s interesting. In your own work, you talk about these ensemble pieces, is this something that you are doing, or you’re starting to do? 

Job Floris: We’re starting to do that. We’re now involved in a housing scheme in Amsterdam next to the station, Amstel Station it’s called. And it’s a scheme of 400 units of social housing. And it’s actually a street that we’re designing there. And to control it, you need to have a certain flexibility and idea of urbanity that really is more helped by an ensemble strategy. Of course, we’re in the phase of sketch design, so I can’t show you that much. 

Tim Abrahams:  And you find that there’s a conversation that you’re having with developers and planners, and they’re receptive to this? 

Job Floris: Yeah, especially with urbanists. That’s where it starts. 

Tim Abrahams:  I live in the UK, I forget them. 

Job Floris: Yeah, well, I hear they play quite a … I know that in other countries, the separation between these disciplines is not so strong. But in the Netherlands, we really have people that just focus on the plans of the houses and stacking the bricks, the typical architects. And then we have the urbanists who are also more related and sensitive to the politics and the policy of the city. But normally, everybody helps each other in a good way. But you also start to understand that this might be a good way to go.

Job Floris: Yeah, and he is a voice that grows stronger also in this approach. Time has to show whether this approach is also able to develop in a good way because the bad reading or the bad outcome of that is that you make big buildings that lack a sort of haptic or refinement volume, but also in the architectural appearance. We also have examples of that from the 80s, where here in Rotterdam, you have the paperclip, which is a notorious building because it’s a repetition of one panel that has its beauty, but that’s a beauty that is appreciated by architects. But it is thought of as a big ensemble building. So, in its conceptual approach, it’s actually exactly what we need to do now. I also have the feeling that a whole generation has missed this thinking about ensembles because everybody was occupied with making smaller pieces and bits, so to say. 

Tim Abrahams: It’s a good sign that there is an appetite and a capacity for that level of architectural invention. It’s a good place to be in as a culture and a society that you’re dealing with. 

Job Floris: Yeah. I also want to be critical about one thing, and that is that in the 80s and 90s, I had the feeling that the Netherlands was a progressive voice in Europe when it came to housing typologies. New inventions took place. People took the risk to also try them and realize them. Clients and housing corporations. And that’s a bit of what I miss nowadays. So, when you use the word typology, then people start to stare at you a bit and you lose them in your conversation. 

Tim Abrahams:  So, you’re talking about accommodating different types of people in different types of orientations? 

Job Floris: Yeah. Perhaps you even explain it a bit more openly. Say we want a small house, a mid-sized house, and a big house. We want a big house over two floors or next to each other, and so on. Variety in housing types. And then indeed, you could imagine that a bigger family lives in the bigger house, of course, or an old person lives in the smaller one, but then has a collective space. The conversation is starting up, but I have the feeling that we’re 10 years behind. If I look at what is happening in Germany, what is happening in Switzerland, I think also in Belgium, and also in the UK. I think the conversations about variety in housing types, there are more examples there.

And I find it a bit annoying because there’s pressure on the market. So, there’s a really big need for making big batches of houses. And simultaneously, that seems to kill conversations because everybody just buys the house, they can get instead of being critical. I understand that this is the market mechanism, but I also have the feeling that nowadays it would really help if we would still have a ministry that is occupied with planning in the Netherlands. And I don’t see that happening now. 

Also not with the new government, which is very right-wing. The planning of the country is something that we used to do very well, very committed on all kinds of levels. And now that has disappeared a bit. And that’s a loss. And that there’s actually a need for it, especially when you need one million extra houses, then you need to plan because you can’t just continue in the meadows. 

Tim Abrahams:  It’s not the Dutch way either, really, is it? 

Job Floris: Exactly, exactly, exactly. 

Tim Abrahams: It’s very strange to hear that.

Job Floris: Yeah, there are so many dependencies also because simultaneously, we have to protect ourselves from the water. We have to change the whole idea of having our household on gas and switching towards electricity infrastructure. There are so many questions that I think architects and urbanists really feel the urge that something needs to change. And that a strong government policy will really help us all. That’s something that in the forthcoming years we’ll have to see how that develops. 

Tim Abrahams:  Just to bring it back to Rotterdam, where are the areas where this is playing out? Where are the places the new housing is going to go? And what impact will it have on Rotterdam? 

Job Floris: I think on the south bank of Rotterdam are now real big developments.

Traditionally, the south of Rotterdam was always considered as the poor, neglected area of Rotterdam, while the north was the real center. Actually, it’s a double city, almost, but it has a much more tranquil and relaxed atmosphere. And now it has become, in the last decade, much more popular because it’s more difficult to find a house in the north than in the south. This is also where most of the new projects take place. And one of the biggest examples of that is the new Rijnhaven. That’s where they make new land in an existing harbor. So, a new beach with a skyline, which is good, let’s say, an example of local policy of changing and further developing an area of the south. 

And I think that here this will really help also the further growth and, let’s say, development of the south side of Rotterdam because gradually, the city also starts to turn a bit more towards the river. It used to be always with the back towards the river. And now there’s more traffic and interaction coming. And there are also more reasons to go to the south. So that’s, actually, a line that was developed, I would say, in the 90s and that is still followed and getting stronger. So that’s again an optimistic point. Simultaneously, it’s the same heterogeneous approach of contrast and variety as we see in the North. So that’s again not what I think should be done. But I see that it’s …

Tim Abrahams:  It’s consistently inconsistent. 

Job Floris: Exactly. And that is also where the potential of Rotterdam is. We are here based in a rather strange area because this was developed in the 80s and this is all social housing and it’s facing the river. So, it’s from an era where the policy was also people in social housing need to be on a good spot along the river. But actually there, everything starts to change, starts to gentrify. As you can see there, you see the new residential block being realized from all sides. The city is changing along the river and all the former harbor and industrial sites are starting to be transformed, which is good, of course, because the harbor moves closer to the sea and that means that there’s more space for housing. The further growth of Rotterdam there are no real big obstacles for that, I think. And I think it’s also giving chances for quite beautiful mixtures of, let’s call it, perhaps residential areas where the industrial heritage resonates a bit. And yeah, that’s nice.

Tim Abrahams: Maybe you’ll get some work there. 

Job Floris: Yeah, you never know. 

Tim Abrahams:  Some architects have intimate relationships with their home city in terms of production, in terms of forming our image of it. Alvaro Siza in Porto, perhaps. Herzog & de Meuron with their native Basel, perhaps no better example. Others, though, see their city as a condition they must react against and this is something that I think we understand here in the UK. You take Zaha Hadid in the 1990s, her idea of London and what needed to happen to it. Richard Rodgers, although from a very different perspective and with very different outcomes, also saw London as a condition that needed to be responded to, reacted against. What is so engaging about Job is the way in which he articulates this aesthetic approach, not as a narrow predilection, but as a strategy for solving the problems he’s faced with that he sees in the wider Dutch condition and beyond.

How to build something that makes people feel part of their world, but also unique. How do you relate an industry that provides solutions to a world where people want unique things, special places? I love how he understands what architecture has the capacity to do and what it doesn’t. And I envy the Netherlands that they have the opportunity to build good homes and have people like Job who are ready for the task. Thank you for listening. As ever, please like, share, subscribe. Send it to someone you think would like. More stuff on my travels, further afield next time. Speak to you soon. Bye.

 

Listen to more in the Superurbanism series