Revisiting Mass Housing in The Netherlands Through Planting Culture: People, Nature, Empowerment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the late 1960s, The Netherlands saw to mounting criticism vis-à-vis mass housing schemes. Resonant of wider international critiques of mass housing, the Dutch critics addressed both social and ecological issues. Because the social engineering of mass housing schemes was considered inadequate (e.g., because they produced unlivable environments for specific groups), they called for participation in the design of the living environment. At the same time, under the influence of the environmental movement, modernist green public spaces were criticized for lacking in biodiversity, and new design ideas based on ecological variation and incremental growth were implemented. In the paper, questions will be opened up about the legacies and evaluations of mass housing projects in the light of this merging of ecological and social concerns, through a focus on two cases. A first case focuses on the development of green spaces by Louis Le Roy, a radical landscape designer who questioned conventional ways of governing the city by introducing both inhabitants and ecological processes, in the design and governance of urban space. This paper particularly focuses on his combined anarchist-ecological approach evinced by struggles with existing power dynamics, and on the back of a more widely emerging resistance towards a hegemonic capital-led and/or technocratic planning system. A second case study is the Bijlmermeer mass housing scheme, a postwar housing project developed in the 1960s with ample green, ecologically managed space, but which was criticized for its inhumane scale. Over time, the project became the home of immigrant communities from former Dutch colonies who creatively reshaped the neglected environment. Both cases allow us to revisit the sociopolitics of inclusive design through a lens of intersectional environmentalism, posthumanism and decolonialism and to provide further insight into the struggle against monotonous and monofunctional green spaces produced by postwar technocratic modes of planning. Session The Unresolved Tensions of Mass Housing (Montréal)
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".