##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Buildings today are subject to change. New functions are accommodated in vacant buildings. This is a favorable development from both a sustainability point of view and a cultural-historical perspective. Originally, the volume and form of a building was dictated by its original function: form follows function. We now see that a spatial form is already present. Is it logical to conclude that the new functions adapt to the existing available form and space: function follows form?

In order to gain insight into how the existing form and space relate to the possibilities of reuse, research into a spatial building typology is necessary. Existing typological studies of buildings are usually based on functions. An inventory of research that has already been done with regard to spatial characteristics of buildings and the way of translating it into analyzes is part of this research. Also, on the basis of two comparative spatial analyzes of two groups of buildings (Department Stores V&D’s and Police Stations in The Netherlands), a methodology is explored that maps the spatial characteristics of the locations. Eight locations per group of buildings were explored through analyzes on four scale levels: city, block, object and envelope and on the basis of twelve spatial aspects. After analysis per location the characteristics have been compared per aspect. Parallel twenty-four students worked on the redesign assignments during two graduation studios at Delft University of Technology (Heritage & Architecture). Their final designs were related to the existing spatial types of the locations in order to arrive at a redesign typology per building group in order to answer the question: can statements be made about the redesign possibilities of these buildings based on a Spatial Building Typology of buildings? Finally, some recommendations are made for further research.

References

  1. Bacon, E.N. (1974). Design of Cities. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
     Google Scholar
  2. Barbieri, S. U., Van Duin, L., De Jong, J., Van Wesemael, P. Wilms Floet, W. (1999). Honderd jaar Nederlandse architectuur 1900-2000. Tendensen. Hoogtepunten. Delft: SUN.
     Google Scholar
  3. Carlson, C. (2022). Controversial Oxford Street M&S demolition blocked. Dezeen. https://www.dezeen.com/2022/04/20/ms-oxford-street-demolition-blocked-michael-gove/.
     Google Scholar
  4. Ching, F.D.K. (1979). Architecture: Form, Space and Order. 4th ed. Hoboken: Wiley.
     Google Scholar
  5. Christ, E., Gantenbein, C. (2012). Typology. Review II. Hong Kong – Rome – New York – Buenos Aires. ETH Zürich: Park Books.
     Google Scholar
  6. Christ, E., Gantebein, C. (2015). Typology. Review III. Athens – Paris – Sao Paulo – Dehli. ETH Zürich: Park Books.
     Google Scholar
  7. Clark R.H., Pause, M. (2012). Precedents in Architecture. Analytic Diagrams, Formative Ideas, and Partis. Hoboken: Wiley & Sons.
     Google Scholar
  8. Clarke C., Zijlstra, H., De Jonge W. (2019). Education for Adaptive Reuse – The TU Delft Heritage and Architecture Experience. Docomomo International Journal. 61, 67-75.
     Google Scholar
  9. Craven, J. (2019). The Meaning of ‘Form follow Function’. Thougt Co. https://www.thoughtco.com/form-follows-function-177237
     Google Scholar
  10. Dovey, K., Pafka, E., Ristic, M. (2018). Mapping Urbanaties. Morphologies, Flows, Possibilities. Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  11. Eisenman, P. (2008). Ten Canonical Buildings 1950-2000. New York: Rizzoli.
     Google Scholar
  12. Eisenman, P. (2003). Giuseppe Terragni Transformations Decompositions Critiques. New York: The Monacelli Press.
     Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, L. (2022). Young Urban Classics: A sustainable reuse strategy for administrative office buildings of the 1970s and 1980s. Hertiage & Architecture, Vacant Heritage. https://www.tudelft.nl/en/architecture-and-the-built-environment/study/student-projects/archiprix-preselection-2023/lucca-fischer and http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:f2c9dccf-c777-45bd-8a1c-3c9d452af1c9
     Google Scholar
  14. Fortier, B. (1989). La Metropole Imaginaire. Un Atlas de Paris. Brussels: Pierre Mardaga
     Google Scholar
  15. Foscari, G. (2014). Elements of Venice. Zürich: Lars Müller Publishers.
     Google Scholar
  16. Fonatti, F. (1982). Elementare Gestaltprinzipien in der Architektur. Vienna: Akademie der Bildende Künste.
     Google Scholar
  17. Frampton, P. (2001). Studies in Tectonic Culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     Google Scholar
  18. Graff, Ph. (2000). L’Exception Urbane. Nice: de la Renaissance au Consiglio d’Ornato. Marseille: Editions Paranthèse.
     Google Scholar
  19. Groat L., Wang, D. (2013). Architectural Research Methods. Hoboken: Wiley.
     Google Scholar
  20. Güney, Y.I. (2007). Type and Typology in architectural discourse. BAÜ FBE Dergisi, Temmuz 19, 3-18.
     Google Scholar
  21. Haraguchi, H. (1988). A Comparative Analysis of 20th-Century Houses. New York: Rizzoli.
     Google Scholar
  22. Heene, G. (2004). Baustelle Pantheon. Düsseldorf: Verlag Bau+Technik.
     Google Scholar
  23. Jallon, B., Napolitano, U. (2017). Paris Haussmann. Paris: Park Books.
     Google Scholar
  24. Kiefer, G., Neubauer, A. (2020). Landscape for Architects/Building/Landscape/Park/Use/Qualities. Zürich: Birkhäuser.
     Google Scholar
  25. Komossa, S., Marzot, N., Floris, J. (2011). Tekenboek Stadsgebouwen. Functie-stapelingen, publieke binnenvelden, in één blok. Rotterdam: AIR.
     Google Scholar
  26. Komossa, S., Meyer, H., Risselada, M., Thomaes, S., Jutten., N. (2002). Atlas van het Nederlandse Bouwblok. Bussum: THOTH.
     Google Scholar
  27. Lewis, P., Tsurumaki, D., Lewis, J. (2016). Manual of Section. New York: Princeton Architectural press.
     Google Scholar
  28. Luccarelli, F. (2016). Socks-studio. J.N.L.Durand’s “Divers Édifices publics, d’après le Champ de Mars de Piranese” in “Recueil et parallèle des édifices de tout genre, anciens et modernes” (1800).
     Google Scholar
  29. https://socks-studio.com/2016/07/03/j-n-l-durands-divers-edifices-publics-dapres-le-champ-de-mars-de-piranese-in-recueil-et-parallele-des-edifices-de-tout-genre-anciens-et-modernes-1800.
     Google Scholar
  30. Madrazo, L. (1995). The Concept of Type in Architecture. [PhD’s thesis, ETH Zürich].
     Google Scholar
  31. https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/142221
     Google Scholar
  32. Moneo, R. (1978). On Typology. Oppositions, MIT Press, 13, 22-45.
     Google Scholar
  33. Neufert, E. (1980). Bauentwurfslehre. 30th Ed. Wiesbaden: Vieweg & Sohn Verlag.
     Google Scholar
  34. Pevsner, N. (1979). A History of Building Types. Princeton University Press.
     Google Scholar
  35. Radford, A. (2014). The Elements of Modern Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson.
     Google Scholar
  36. Reinstra, A., Strolenberg, F. (2021). Kerkgebouwen. 88 inspirerende voorbeelden. Wageningen: Blauwdruk.
     Google Scholar
  37. Remøy, H., Clarke, N., Zijlstra, H. (2021). Kerkenvisie of visioen. In: Zijlstra, H., Nijhuis, S. & Quist, W. (Eds.) Karakteristiek Duurzaam Erfgoed in Gelderland. KaDEr-stellingen, pp. 87-100. TU Delft Open.
     Google Scholar
  38. https://books.bk.tudelft.nl/press/catalog/book/797.
     Google Scholar
  39. Rietveld, R., Rietveld, E. (2014). Vacancy Studies. Rotterdam: nai010.
     Google Scholar
  40. Ruby Press. (2022). Never Demolish in Gellerup Museum Aarhus. https://ruby-press.com/projects/never-demolish/
     Google Scholar
  41. Schneider, F. (1994). Floor Plan Atlas. Basel: Birkhaüser.
     Google Scholar
  42. Schultz, A.C. (2010). Carlo Scarpa Layers. Stuttgart: Axel Menges.
     Google Scholar
  43. Spoormans, L., De Jonge, W., Stevenson-Brown, J. (2018). Visiting professor Anne Lacaton. TU Delft Open.
     Google Scholar
  44. https://books.bk.tudelft.nl/press/catalog/book/659
     Google Scholar
  45. Steenbergen, C., Rey, W., (1996). Architecture and Landscape. Bussum: THOTH.
     Google Scholar
  46. Steenbergen, C., Rey, W., (2003). Architectuur en Landschap. Bussum: THOTH.
     Google Scholar
  47. Steenbergen, C., Meeks, S., Nijhuis, S., (2008). Composing Landscapes. Analysis, Typology and Experiments for Design. Basel: Birkhäuser.
     Google Scholar
  48. Unwin, S. (2009). Analysing Architecture. 3rd Ed. London: Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  49. Unwin, S. (2010). Twenty Buildings every Architect should understand. 1st Ed. London: Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  50. Wilms Floet, W. (2014). Het Hofje. 1400-2000 (On)zichtbare bouwstenen van de Hollandse stad. [PhD’s thesis Delft University of Technology]. https://doi.org/10.4233/uuid:4b5712f4-be98-4788-99ad-06f5cd64c318.
     Google Scholar
  51. Wilms Floet, W. (2021). Urban Oases. Dutch Hofjes as Hidden Architectural Gems. Rotterdam: NAi 010 Publishers.
     Google Scholar
  52. Zijlstra, H. (2006). Bouwen in Nederland 1940-1970. [PhD’s thesis Delft University of Technology].
     Google Scholar
  53. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:d0aeab30-dd4f-4ccd-9123-14c2ea220be7.
     Google Scholar
  54. Zijlstra, H. (2009). Analysing Buildings from Context to Detail in time: ABCD (in time) research method. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
     Google Scholar
  55. Zijlstra, H., Versluis, V., Janssen, I., Fischer, L., Apti, A., Van den Hoogen, C., Kim, M., Witkamp, A., Shi, H., Van der Blom, M., Buchner, N., Rietveldt, P., Bernabela, R., Gostelow, S., Meijers, L., Yan, X. (2021). Spatial Building Typology - Vacant Heritage: Department Stores | V&D’s (Volume 1). TU Delft Open. https://books.bk.tudelft.nl/press/catalog/book/790.
     Google Scholar
  56. Zijlstra, H., Fischer, L., Van Asselt, N., De Gouw, T., Boenders, A., Braunius, A., Van den Hoek, M., Klein M., Mankutè, A, Mexis, M., Rakauskaitè, A., Riepema, H., Simons, R., Meijers, L., Eldewieh, S., Schonewille, R. (2022). Spatial Building Typology - Vacant Heritage: Police Real Estate. (Volume 2). TU Delft Open. https://books.open.tudelft.nl/home/catalog/book/29.
     Google Scholar