MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603808500 · doi:10.7480/iphs.2016.5.1310

The conservation of Modernist urban ensembles : Case studies from Amsterdam.

2016· article· en· W2603808500 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicholas Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueTU Delft Library (Tu Delft) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanismArchitectureDeclarationUrban planningNeighbourhood (mathematics)GeographyQuarter (Canadian coin)EconomyEconomic historyHistoryPolitical scienceArchaeologyCivil engineeringEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban Conservation, notably in Western Europe, grew from a reaction to the Modernist project; not so much as response to its large monofunctional sub-urban expansion projects, but more so to its attempts at rationalising messy multifunctional historic inner cities. Conservationists responded to these functionally segregated overtures by celebrating the diversity and multi-layered character of the historic city. The urban conservation approach was eventually codified in the 1975 Declaration of Amsterdam. In the Netherlands the urban conservation approach found its most clear expression in the ‘Stads-’ and ‘Stedelijke’ (town- and city renewal) processes of the last quarter of the Twentieth Century. At the time that the ‘Stadsvernieuwing’ reached its peak a new dynamic was emerging: an awakening appreciation of Modernist peri-urban social housing estates, built according to the principles of ‘Het Nieuwe Bouwen’ (The New Building). The period of transition from traditional architecture and urbanism to the complete acceptance of the Modernist project was being reappraised. Many of the projects selected through a governmental inventorying and selection process were located in neighbourhoods, which had by the time of their selection as monuments, become problem areas. In Amsterdam, the western garden suburbs – the Interbellum and post-War housing neighbourhood, designed for the most part by Cornelis van Eesteren, an active participant and chair of the Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM) from 1930–1947 – was such an area. The first break with the Amsterdam tradition of perimeter housing blocks occurred here at Landlust, where three new linear-block social housing projects were constructed between 1932 and 1938. The plan of one of these, designed by architects Gerrit Versteeg sr. and jr., was duplicated during the last years of the Second World War in Bosleeuw, a location in close vicinity to the first Landlust project. How has the urban renewal of these Modernist utopias been attempted? A crucial obstacle to be overcome by conservationists was that of public opinion. The historic city centres have proven their worth as identity-delivery resources that stimulate creative industries, free-time consumption and tourism, obviating the need to justify conservation efforts. These drivers are absent from the Modernist Amsterdam Western Garden Suburbs (‘Westelijke Tuinsteden’). The two Versteeg blocks, owned by two different social housing corporations, have been upgraded in two remarkably different manners during the last 8 years. The first had been listed as municipal monument, the other not. This paper will present the approach to the problem of urban renewal of the areas in which these large-scale, monotone housing projects are located, through firstly creating a socially acceptable narrative and focusing on those qualities that make their areas unique: a re-interpretation and repackaging of their original utopian ambitions in the new social objectives of energetic sustainability. This has taken the place of the incentive for the traditional urban conservation actions. This paper will explore the challenges the conservation of Modernist utopian townscapes present and illustrate some of the similarities and divergent approaches to urban conservation of historic urban centres.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTU Delft Library (Tu Delft)Same topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207