I really enjoyed watching this video session with Joppe Schaaper because I think he did a great job of explaining the progression of Dutch design throughout time. I was surprised to learn that the Amsterdam School movement and the Bauhaus movement were not in reaction to any specific event but rather there was a subtle change from expressionist design to modern utopian design. This progression could even be seen within the work of the same architect. The questions regarding Corbusier design helped me better understand why these high-rise buildings were not successful. Since people were no longer sitting on their stoops or congregating outside their front doors, crime increased because there were no eyes on the street. I found this interesting because open space within a living community is normally beneficial; however, this open space has to be integrated into people’s living spaces to be successful. I wonder if the compartmentalization of work and living space was a contributing factor to the failure of this open area?
Today, people do not want to live in the New Objectivity neighborhoods; however, high-rises are being built in the Eastern Docklands. Unlike Corbusier’s design, these buildings strike a balance between living and working spaces. I was surprised to learn that at the end of the 1990s there was a shift in admiration toward expressionist design. This was around the same time that people started to move back into the city. I wonder what caused this migration back to the city? Although the Bauhaus movement was a significant design period in Dutch history, I don’t foresee people wanting to live in these communities in the future because the design set-up is isolating. On the other hand, the Amsterdam School design is currently popular because people enjoy the connectedness between architecture and the city; the old houses on the canal ring are especially popular. As time goes by, I look forward to seeing how city designers find new ways to incorporate open space into architectural design.