Actors involved Gemeente Amsterdam, Buro Amsterdam
Owner of the site Buro Amsterdam
Post-competition phase Design assignment on project site and urban design assignment for wider area
Team representative Architect
How can the site contribute to the productive city?
A mix of new and traditional manufacturing industries is emerging in the area, which is being transformed from an unsightly industrial district into a ‘Living Lab’ model showcase for the circular economy. The municipality is working with developers, private owners, housing associations, businesses, and utility companies work to create a neighbourhood where raw materials and energy are re-used as much as possible in the same area. Experimentation, research and innovation are actively encouraged and implemented. Activities in the area are very diverse: from new creative industries to a dance school and car repair shops.
The site is located in Amsterdam-Noord, which has a different scale and structure than what most outsiders associate with Amsterdam: it is more open, spacious, industrial and raw. The site offers many opportunities to act as a pivot or hinge point between neighbourhoods in the north and south, and as a gateway to the Buiksloterham. The study area is characterized by spacious commercial buildings that are rapidly turning into living and working areas (ratio 50:50) where the sturdy industrial character remains. The municipality would like to retain many of the existing businesses in the area after the transformation process has been completed.
The location of the site within Amsterdam-Noord plays an important role: it is one of the last areas in the city near the Amsterdam’s Central Station and the city centre, that still has potential for densification with a high urban character. Amsterdam-Noord offers opportunities for expansion of the city centre’s urban environment. This ambition is not restricted to restructuring existing residential areas, but also to constructing new mixed-use live/work quarters. To the west, the study area is bordered by industrial areas; to the north, east and south, the study area is boarded by residential neighbourhoods built following the principles of the Garden City movement.
How is Production Considered in the Urban Diversity Program?
Papaverdriehoek will change in the coming years. The function of housing will be added while most of the work functions will continue to exist. New businesses will be added. The Ceuvel - although temporarily located in the Papaverdriehoek can be seen as inspiration for Papaverdriehoek 2.0 : innovative, sustainable and outward. The small-scale streets and urban grain can be a source of inspiration for creating vibrancy. It is interesting to look for opportunities where traditional and new forms of manufacturing can mingle with housing and the creative sector. The small-scale, organically grown urban fabric offers opportunities for unique and innovative solutions. Proposals for the project site should focus how to combine housing and workspace in new buildings. Existing buildings on the site are to be demolished. The required mix between productive and housing program is 50:50. Innovative ideas are sought that express experimental, sustainable and vibrant solutions. On the study area, phasing scenarios are expected that can support the transformation strategy and desired future image. Various buildings in Papaverdriekhoek are listed to be demolished. There are opportunities to relocate existing businesses or to propose temporary uses. It will be wise to supplement the skills in the design team with knowledge of the circular economy, and an understanding of the local businesses and social geography.
Questions on the site
Project site's limits indicated as property boundaries in the map included in the site's brief do not correspond exactly with the plots' limits on "NL-Amsterdam-SS-M2" (sum of plots 3376, 6482, 7222, 7223). Could you clarify which one of these documents rules or provide us a DWG with the official limits?
The property boundaries in the map "NL-Amsterdam-SS-M2" are the current legal situation, however the buildings on site do not always follow the legal sitiuation. The city of Amsterdam is aquiring the whole area. It is likely that property boundaries will change. Competition particpiants are asked to follow the yellow line as provided in the site brief.
Is there any difference between the two dwg files in the site folder? Both show that the area is going to be renewed with a new road design: should we take that as the definitive road layout of the site or should we consider the existing one?
There is no difference between the two dwg files in the site folder. The new road design should be taken as the definitive road layout. Road reconstruction will start in the near future. The existing road condition is only for informative purposes, and does not need to be considerd.
In the dwg file provided, there is no indication of the existing buildings and there are just Dutch layers. This complicates its comprehension. Shall we have an updated file with existing buildings and English layers?
The dwg uses the standard layer template from the city of Amsterdam. In general it is advised to maintain the layer system, but your request will be discussed with the city of Amsterdam. An anwers to your question will be posted here before June 2.
Could you clarify which are the requests for the whole strategic site(red boundary or violet boundary indicated in NL-Amsterdam-SS-M3 map?)? Should we develop a masterplan for the whole strategic area or we should only design the project area within the yellow boundary line?
You should design your project within the yellow boundary line. A masterplan for the strategic area is encouraged but not required.
The area within the yellow line as provided by the brief when compared to the 1425m2 mentioned in the brief appears to be more than 100m2 larger. Should the graphic version be followed?
The graphic version as provided in the brief should be followed.
Could you provide more specific information about the parking rules that apply in the area for housing, business and visitors, or a link to valid information even if in dutch?
Parking should be situated on the plot or in shared garages. There will be no parking area in the public space nor public parking facilities. We focus on sustainebility by a low car use in favor of bikes. Shops and bus stop are in walking distance (250 meters) and Central station and metrolines are nearby.
In case of overground stacked parking (enclosed), does this count within the expected 5050m2?
Overground, nor underground (stacked) parking space does count within the expected m2.
Shall we respect a distance from the boundary line and / or from the other buildings surrounding the project area? Do we have any limitations designing the facade’s opening of the new building in relations to the boundary line of the project area? Is there any height limit for the project area?
There is a 30m height limit. There are no limitations designing facade's openings in this fase. However, in walls facing a boundary line of a nearby plot windows, balconies e.g. are not permitted within 2 meters of this plot. The entrance of a car garage needs enough space to to get safe in and out and to que. If possible, the entrance to the car park should not be situated on the Papaverweg. will be Your question will be answered by the city of Amsterdam.
1. The CAD file in the site folder seems to be incomplete (i.e. no housing blocks etc). Is there a more complete file available? 2. What is the status of the new road design for the Papaverweg which is included in the cad file. It takes up some of the area of the strategic site.
There is no more complete file available. The new road design should be taken as the definitive road layout. Road reconstruction will start in the near future.
The plot lines in the CAD-file do not seem to match with the plot lines and site perimeter shown on the map on p.24 of the site brief. Which one is correct? Could you provide the project site perimeter in the CAD-file?
The graphic version as provided in the brief should be followed.
Are questions from all other participants not made known to all?
Questions from participants are shown to all other participants