Luchtbal: changing definitions of modern architecture Part 3

To give an impression of Luchtbal that does the area justice, it is necessary to make a distinction between the oldest part consisting of a garden village that was developed in several building campaigns, the open CIAM-inspired development and the recent alterations. This third and final part will focus on the new buildings in the garden village and the parts of the CIAM development that have been redeveloped. In some places redevelopment has been nicely done, in most cases however, redevelopment has meant an even more pronounced fragmentation of the urban landscape without any interaction between its component parts.

The corner shops fell into disuse during the 1980s and 90s. Most stood empty for years. As part of revitalisation of the area the expressive buildings are being restored and changed into normal family houses, often with a home office or practice room. This is a loving way of treating the buildings in the garden village Luchtbal.

This lovely block of apartments above a row of shops still stands empty and will be redeveloped. The city of Antwerp also allows tearing the building down and replacing it with a new-build. That would be a shame as the facade sits very comfortably in the context of the garden village.

What can happen when a corner plot is redeveloped is visible on the corner of the Grimsbystraat with the Dublinstraat. Even if you find this attractive architecture (which I certainly don't) the building makes no effort to relate to its surroundings. The whole quality of its setting is the approach of the streets and buildings as an ensemble. Interventions like this degrade the urban landscape to the all too common incoherent hotchpotch of buildings seen everywhere in Belgium. Any intervention should be an improvement to the spatial system and not disjoin it so blatantly!

The northeastern Darsen-blocks are being redeveloped. The three high-rise buildings have been given a makeover by recladding the outside with this purple-grey skin of bricks with colourful panels. The entrances have also been redesigned. The outside space will also be re-laid after the so-called Brooklyn Project -that also comprises of new middle-rise blocks of flats- has been built.

The revamped flat buildings have been given a fashionable new look. I don't mind the architecture. However, the contrast with the neighbouring terraces of the garden village is not mitigated by this new outer skin, but reinforced by the dark monolithic new look. The very dark facades sadly make no attempt to relate to their surroundings. This fractured approach is further exacerbated by the new-builds that are now being constructed behind that have been design in yet another architectural expression. The urban fragment of the Darsen-blokcs is thus subdivided as a prime example of non-situational urban design.

Privatisation combined with singular redevelopment can completely destroy an ensemble of building, as can be seen on the left. A lack of building regulations and redevelopment rules have lead to situations like this all over Antwerp, where few garden villages survive as intact examples of ensemble architecture. The southern part of the garden village Luchtbal has been torn down to make way for these new apartments and townhouses.

These low towers have been designed to mitigate the height difference between the low houses in the garden village and the neighbouring tower blocks. I suppose this is also the reason for the backwards slant of the roofline. The facades are being built in brick in a mix of colours, something that is not seen anywhere else in Luchtbal, thus creating yet another fragment within the spatial context of the garden village. The architecture of the buildings I like, but again not in this context as the design is without context and denies the opposition of the two ideas on social housing that used to be visible where the garden village and the CIAM-inspired tower blocks met along the Manchesterstraat.

The rows of parallel parcelled terraces that were built in the 1950s along the railway have been torn down and replaced with these new-builds on the same footprint. Not all rows have been rebuilt. This works out well with nice new housing with both a front and back garden. The lack of green boundaries around the back garden diminishes the attractiveness however as the back of one row of terraces is the view from the front of the row behind. A green hedge should have been made mandatory.

This dark and uninviting cube forms the entrance to the activity centre that has been built on the Tampicoplein south of the tower blocks. The square has been greened-up by covering the new building with a green roof on the side of the park. This facade faces the six high-rises, thus completely denying the idea of continuous space flowing around the residential towers. I would have liked to have seen a greened-up facade on this side as well. Yet another chance missed to add something that is also an improvement for the existing structures!