This website is the result of a research seminar conducted at TU Eindhoven analyzing the exhibition CityPlan Eindhoven held at the Van Abbemuseum in 1969. Enjoy.
Room one is the first room visitors enter in the Cityplan exhibition. Stepping inside, there is an instant sense of scale. The main building, or “backbone” as it is often called, towers over the visitors on one side, only to be dwarfed by an even higher high-rise building on the other side, standing meter over the tops of the heads of the visitors. Walking further into the room, visitors have to pass under the “backbone” building giving a view of the large public spaces created around the walking path.
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 The original pictures of these buildings weren’t preserved so they have been replaced by modern equivalents in the 3D model.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
Some parts of the model were either not clear enough from photographs or
other sources. These parts are shown as a bounding box in red, indicating places where parts of the model probably were, but these could not be reconstructed because of a lack of information
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
The main model takes in almost all of the space in the first room of the exhibition. It is created to give the visitors an idea of the plan for the
Eindhoven city center. It is focused on the main “spine” of the plan and shows the public spaces and the underpass at the eyeheight of the visitor.
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
The model also features a large shopping center including swimming pool and relaxation area. This was to give the impression of luxury and high living in the new building. High rise buildings are often considered to be social housing but this was designed with high living in mind.
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.
Although the room may not have worked well in the context of the exhibit, it fulfilled some functions it was meant to do. It certainly impressed the visitors and gave them a very good idea of the proposed design. Even by critics, its size and scale were mostly received as very positive. Introducing the local population to a significant architectural plan in a way each would understand it was a success. Although the scale might not always have been clear, the main idea behind the building was certainly expressed and received. Although room one may not have been the best choice in relation to the rest of the exhibit, it worked to illustrate the design to a lot of people, most of them with no experience to architecture and this can be called a success.
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.
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
pictures derived from:
- van Abbe Archive, box 51, map 1 | Beeldbank van Abbe Archive
- Bosman, J., Schippers, H., Doevendans, K. (2007) ‘Cityplan, het modernste ontwerp voor de stad.’, Walburg Pers
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.
Picture derived from:
- Bosman, J., Schippers, H., Doevendans, K. (2007) ‘Cityplan, het modernste ontwerp voor de stad.’, Walburg Pers.
Placement in the room:
http://cityplaneindhoven.tumblr.com/post/152636313911/room-4-inventory
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 derived from:
- Archive van Abbe Museum, box 51, map 1
Placement in the room:
http://cityplaneindhoven.tumblr.com/post/152636313911/room-4-inventory
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.
Pictures derived from:
van Abbe Archive, box 51, map 3. | Beeldbank van Abbe Archive
Placement in the room:
http://cityplaneindhoven.tumblr.com/post/152636313911/room-4-inventory
Newspaper articles about the Cityplan hanging on the wall
On this wall, a collection of newspaper clippings about the Cityplan were shown. These were send-in letters, variants and objections. Both positive and negative articles were used to give an impartial image on the plan. In this way, visitors knew several opinions about the plan from the period before the exhibition started. Something particular as well, is the text on the right, saying that people were able to send-in variants, but that they should understand that making a good alternative to the plan is hard and complex. So unless they had much experience in the building industry themselves, they should show it to an architect or urban planner first. This text rises a barrier for the normal citizen to participate.
Pictures derived from:
- Archive van Abbe, box 51, map 1 and 2
- Archive RHCE: Eindhovens Dagblad Collection
Placement in the room:
http://cityplaneindhoven.tumblr.com/post/152636313911/room-4-inventory
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.
Pictures derived from:
- Archive van Abbe, box 51, map 1
- The New Institute, BROX4812, D1632
Placement in the room:
http://cityplaneindhoven.tumblr.com/post/152636313911/room-4-inventory
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
Placement in the room:
http://cityplaneindhoven.tumblr.com/post/152636313911/room-4-inventory
[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)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi.
Though room 2 played a crucial role in conveying the ideas behind the design of the Cityplan, the room is mentioned not even once in any newspaper review. The attention of the press was drawn mainly to the 1:20 scale model in room 1, causing much less to be reported on the other rooms. Perhaps this skewed gravitational point of the exhibition was one of the reasons the interest of Eindhoven's citizens in the Cityplan plummeted after it closed. The one thing everyone remembered after leaving the Van Abbe Museum was a completely fixed, fully detailed model, in lieu of the equally important part of Bakema's vision and arguments. Perhaps a different order of the rooms could have helped, or even a different organization of room 2 in particular. The most important element in the room is the sketches by Jaap Bakema that in the current situation seem overshadowed by the scale models, the drawing by Mart Stam and the many reference projects. Maybe if the sketches were adequately annotated, that is, given a description of the three sketches instead of naming a couple of new ways of connectivity, the exhibition might have been more successful.
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.
Additionally, the models repeatedly obstructed the view of photos displayed in the wall in the back. Because this part of the exhibition was surrounded by reference projects, and the catalogue shows more reference projects that were not found on any of the pictures, we assume the obstructed part also displayed more reference projects.
