CITYPLAN EINDHOVEN

Overview of the 1:20 scale model

Original photograph of room 1

Main part of this exhibition was a model, filling the entire room, 1:20 in scale. Due to this model, the entire exhibition was over budget meaning some other ideas had to be scrapped. This model should be the highlight of the exhibition; giving a good view of the plan. The entire model is interactive in a static way. It takes the visitors on a journey through a conceptual plan. It gives visitors a view of what the Cityplan could look like. Its scale of 1:20 and the raising of the ground level to eye height make sure the model actually feel enormous and towering.

Main model

To get more information about the main model, please click here

Public spaces

To get more information about the public spaces, please click here

Views

Two pictures were displayed with the model to give an idea of location. The first of these was a picture placed at eye height of the current Pullman hotel. The second view was towards the Saint Catherine’s church. The original pictures of these buildings weren’t preserved so they have been replaced by modern equivalents in the 3D model.

Towers

The main towers in the model are actually the only parts of the design which were final. The infill between the towers was just an indication of the architect how they would see the final design of the cityplan.

Unknown model parts

1:20 Main Model Main part of this exhibition was a model, filling the entire room, 1:20 in scale. Due to this model, the entire exhibition was over budget meaning some other ideas had to be scrapped. This model should be the highlight of the exhibition; giving a good view of the plan. The entire model is interactive in a static way. It takes the visitors on a journey through a conceptual plan. It gives visitors a view of what the Cityplan could look like. Its scale of 1:20 and the raising of the ground level to eye height make sure the model actually feel enormous and towering.

Raised groundlevel

Main plaza

A large part of the model consisted of public spaces, including detailed elements like phoneboots, benches and lampposts. This gave the visitors a feeling than it was already a final design but also created a good impression of the public spaces in the future.

Detailed public spaces

Construction of the model

The public response to this room was overwhelming. It played a large role in the discussion about the plan and the exhibit. The main focus in most of the articles was on the large model, even showing pictures of the model in a large part of the news articles. It is mentioned as being impressive and an innovative way to show the plan. Although a lot of reactions were positive, there were also some critics. The large size of the model made it hard to get a feeling for the scale. As one critic mentions “Repeatedly I noticed myself checking the scale; looking for a model car or person..” It was also mentioned to be very instructive and suggestive presentation.

So what were the intentions of room one? In part it was meant to impress. It was to show the visitors how great life could be with this project, but this was secondary. The first objective was to engage the people of Eindhoven with the Cityplan. To give them a way to voice their opinion in a way in which architect and user would come closer together.  This was because Leering had discovered a gap between the visitor and the art he often exhibited in his museum. People had to interact with it, and being an architect himself, he incorporated architecture in his museum.

The model shows the most comprehensive version of the plan, placed in its urban context. The assembly is built up in painted wooden blocks. Existing buildings are presented in a grey tone and the proposed new buildings are painted white with black roofs

The model is placed on a raised platform with an overhanging mirror at the back end.  This arrangement enables the visitor to view the plan from three different perspectives; at eye-level when standing on the ground, from a birds eye-view when standing upon a provided box, and from an airplane perspective when viewed as the reflection in the mirror.

The model in itself offers little by means of physical interactivity, but it does present an interesting situation for its viewers. By inviting the visitors to step up on the white blocks surrounding the model, a semi-exclusive social space is created for those who are willing to participate. Within this space, the visitors are placed opposite of each other with the model standing between them, presenting the model as a subject of discussion.

Pictures derived from:

Overview of the room 

Room 4 of the Cityplan exhibition can be seen as the room in which visitors were invited to give their own opinion about the plan. Several elements placed in this room had the function of facilitating participation of the citizen. This was the wish of Jean Leering (the museum director), van den Broek and Bakema (the architects) as well as the municipality of Eindhoven. Jean Leering is known for his particular ideas about the museum, namely that he wanted the museum to not only be a place showing art, but also a place that makes the visitors aware of their place in society. It should activate people to think about their responsibility for their own environment. Van den Broek and Bakema also wanted to convince people,  by means of this exhibition, that the Cityplan was a needed intervention for Eindhoven. Also, a lot of criticism was given about the flexibility of the plan and the small amount of variants made by the architects. By means of room 4, they wanted to show that it’s a flexible plan and many things are still possible within the given parameters. Also, the municipality asked for this exhibition, because of a lot of objections send in. The tension was sensible at the teach-in, March 1969; the citizens wanted to be involved more. Therefore, the exhibition - and especially room 4 - should facilitate participation for the visitors and make it able to continue the discussion. 

Inside room 4, the following elements can be found: - a slide projector  http://cityplaneindhoven.tumblr.com/post/152636242136/room-4-slide-projector

- a flexible model  http://cityplaneindhoven.tumblr.com/post/152636195021/room-4-participation-model

- 11 pictures of variants  http://cityplaneindhoven.tumblr.com/post/152636125031/room-4-11-variants

- a collection of press clippings http://cityplaneindhoven.tumblr.com/post/152636075641/room-4-collection-of-press-clippings

- a box next to the entrance http://cityplaneindhoven.tumblr.com/post/152636013241/room-4-box

- a concept sketch by van den Broek and Bakema  - a picture of Brutalist Architecture - a picture of children climbing a stairs  http://cityplaneindhoven.tumblr.com/post/152635921991/room-4-wall-with-unknown-purpose-and-uncertain

A big slide projector in the corner of the room 

The slide projector would be the first thing that catches your eye when entering room 4. At first, this slide projector was meant to show drawings by van den Broek and Bakema, as well as showing variants made by visitors by means of the flexible model or by handing in the form of the catalogue. After a while however, the variants made by visitors weren’t shown anymore because of little response or a too chaotic use of the model. After that, the projector showed comparable images as already shown on the walls of this room. 

Table with a flexible model in the middle of room 4

This model is referred to as the ‘variants model’ or the ‘participation model’ both by Bakema and Leering. The model contained of fixed elements representing the minimum conditions of the plan, (set up by van den Broek and Bakema), as well as flexible elements that could be used to design your own ‘cityplan’. A picture of your plan would be made and shown on the slide projector. Also children liked to play with it. However, after a while the organizers found it too chaotic and decided to replace the model with a fixed one. But before this took place, they asked model builders to make variants from the minimum amount till the maximum amount of buildings. Pictures were taken of these variants and shown on the slide projector. 

Pictures of variants hanging on the wall 

On this wall, 11 variants made by van den Broek and Bakema were shown. They kind of look the same, but the idea is to show that both a minimum amount of buildings can be placed as well as a maximum amount and everything in between. Comparable images were shown on the slide projector, after a while.

Newspaper articles about the Cityplan hanging on the wall 

Sent-in forms by 6 visitors 

Box next to the entrance 

Next to the entrance of this room, there was a box hanging on the wall. This box was probably used to hand in the filled-in forms in the catalogue. This form invited the visitors to design their own cityplan and give comments on the current one. However, there were a lot of limitations to that, because you had to use a defined grid, you had to include a parking garage in a certain given area, the dimensions of the shopping street was already given, as well as the square meters per function and the placement of the elevation points. So one could say it was a limited form of participation. Eventually, 15.000 people visited the Cityplan exhibition, of which 1500 people bought a catalogue. Only 6 people reacted on it by filling in the form, shown by the picture above.

Mystery wall within room 4

On this wall, several pictures were placed, but the catalogue only refers to it as pictures of ‘building activities’. There’s a sketch of van den Broek and Bakema, showing the concept in the early stages. It could be the case that this was shown in order to take it as a starting point for designing your own city plan. Also, there was a picture of children playing on a stairs. Maybe this referred to the playful aspect of participation in this room. Also, a picture of Brutalist Architecture is shown, which could be the Yamanashi Broadcasting and Press centre, Kofu, Japan. Maybe this was shown as an inspiration for making your own design.

Pictures derived from: - Archive van Abbe, box 51, map 1 - The New Intitute, Archive - Bosman, J., Schippers, H., Doevendans, K. (2007) ‘Cityplan, het modernste ontwerp voor de stad.’, Walburg Pers

caption for the image (bold, lower case)

[notice the “keep reading” break, so that only the image and the title show up on the main page]

add your text here and include images in between it.

Aenean vulputate eleifend tellus. Aenean leo ligula, porttitor eu, consequat vitae, eleifend ac, enim. Aliquam lorem ante, dapibus in, viverra quis, feugiat a, tellus. Phasellus viverra nulla ut metus varius laoreet. Quisque rutrum. Aenean imperdiet. Etiam ultricies nisi vel augue. Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi. Nam eget dui. Etiam rhoncus. Maecenas tempus, tellus eget condimentum rhoncus, sem quam semper libero, sit amet adipiscing sem neque sed ipsum. Nam quam nunc, blandit vel, luctus pulvinar, hendrerit id, lorem. Maecenas nec odio et ante tincidunt tempus. Donec vitae sapien ut libero venenatis faucibus. Nullam quis ante. Etiam sit amet orci eget eros faucibus tincidunt. Duis leo. Sed fringilla mauris sit amet nibh. Donec sodales sagittis magna. Sed consequat, leo eget bibendum sodales, augue velit cursus nunc,

caption for the image (bold, lower case)

Van Nelle factory, drawing by Mart Stam (1925)

Complex routing, horizontally and vertically

Independent ascension points

New types of connectivity

Example of Van Nelle Factory

Illustrations of other projects, by Bakema and others

Implementation of complex routing in Cityplan

Final design of the all-important ascension point

Peek into the future

The above eight elements that Bakema uses to convey his argument and their organization in the room imply that visitors were expected to move clockwise along the walls of the room, starting at the entrance and finishing at the exit to the third room. There were no pictures available of the fourth wall, leaving three options. First, the wall might not have been photogenic enough to be included in the photos released to the press. Secondly, the wall could have been unimportant and fairly irrelevant for the content of the exhibition. Thirdly, the wall could have been blank. The routing leads us to believe that the fourth wall might be blank. If there would have been items displayed on the wall the clockwise routing would not have been self-evident, and viewers would obstruct the view into the third room.