Cities4PEDs Atlas_November 2021.pdf

Bospolder-Tussendijken in Rotterdam, the Netherlands is an example of a
uniform, locally
supported district with
energy as a lever
A
B
C
Bospolder Tussendijken is a pre-war neighbourhood with some modernist interventions, a
diverse urban typology. In these districts, we recognise a limited number of spatial typologies
that are repeated several times: for example, small row houses with private gardens or
apartments with a collective courtyard, public buildings such as schools or libraries that are
repeated identically, small parks and squares between the dwellings, etc. These repetitive
building blocks are mostly owned by housing corporations. The districts are often located
on the outskirts of the city and are rather outdated, attracting mainly socio-economically
vulnerable residents, resulting in a higher poverty index than average. The streets are caroriented.
Small-scale public transport is fairly well provided for, but the real mobility hubs are
located outside the district.
The location on the edge of the city is usually an opportunity to connect to industrial
activities and their residual heat. As the energy transition is often not the main urgency in
these neighbourhoods, solutions are sought that can simultaneously leverage other societal
challenges, such as improving the quality of living or resolving daily life problems like
draughts, mould and moisture. The uniform character of the district and the rather centralised
form of ownership (via corporations, for example) allows for the implementation of and
connection to centralised infrastructure, such as district heating. The location on the edge
of the state is usually an opportunity to connect to industrial activities and their residual
heat, such as the port in the case of Rotterdam. The energy system to be implemented
is a combination of centralised (residual heat net) and decentralised energy strategies,
with a focus on low-cost, low-tech solutions that are affordable and can be implemented
incrementally (like for example local sustainability coaches, cultural projects, isolation
programmes and collective solar projects).
There are often many self-organised residents’ groups and communities in these
neighbourhoods, which deal with issues such as affordable housing, food distribution, public
space, etc. At the same time, there is a clear national agenda concerning the energy transition
(for example the decision to be gas free by 2030 in the Netherlands). An in-between table that
connects existing local networks with different city departments and national governments
aligns the local with the supra-local interests and facilitates a structural conversation
between them. In the case of BoTu, this matchmaking role was played by a team of the
city administration, a neighbourhood cooperative, a cultural organisation (the Architecture
Biennial), a design agency, technical experts and anthropologists. They set a mutual agenda
that culminated into a Local Energy Action Plan (LEAP). The uniform character of the district
allows to develop a series of case studies that are representative for the district as a whole (a
school, an archetypical apartment building, a street of row houses, etc.).
Working document
This strategy is closest to the other existing districts, in the sense that the support for the
projects comes from the local residents (cf. a.o. Brussels). Energetically, it is similar to Lyon
in terms of the combination of centralised and decentralised energy infrastructure.
Other examples that could (partly) fit this category are: Climate Neighbourhood Mechelen, Sinfonia Innsbruck
47