Prison' Housing vs Housing' Prison: A Comparative Analysis of De Koepel and the Oost III Projects by Koolhaas/OMA in the 1980s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article studies small housing following a very particular strategy. The doctoral thesis from which this article arises seeks to provide an answer to the following research question: How is it possible to explore the tensions and contradictions of domesticity? To do so, we propose to study the dwellings of those who have not had a family as a referent, and we consider other forms of the collective living of people who live alone, but within a community. Two study cases designed throughout the 1980s by one of the most influential architects of the last quarter of the 20th century, Rem Koolhaas / Office for Metropolitan Architecture, are placed in relation to each other, exploring unexpected connections. In this article, his proposal for the renovation of a 19th-century panopticon prison is analysed, together with another of his housing project in which the typological variety shows alternative units to the familiar. For various reasons, both can be considered paradigmatic projects. The first is one of only three pure panoptic prisons built in the Netherlands at the end of the 19th century, known as De Koepel (the dome), specifically the one located in the Dutch city of Arnhem, which is a National Monument. The proposal for the renovation of the entire prison complex was developed over almost a decade, between 1979 and 1988, and culminated in the specific proposal for the design of the interior of the cells. The second case is the housing blocks for the IJ-plein urban plan, located in a former harbour area on the banks of the IJ in Amsterdam North, a plan in which all the housing was social housing, which is unique in the Netherlands and unfeasible today. The plan was designed and built between 1980 and 1988, with the Koolhaas/OMA blocks, Oost III, being the last to be completed. Among the housing typologies, HAT units (Huisvesting Alleenstaanden en Tweepersoonshuishoudens), the dwellings for one or two persons, have a predominant presence, which contrasts with others such as community housing for the disabled.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".