Morgan architecture & urban design student trip to Rotterdam in March 2024

Strengthening International Ties; Addressing Urban Challenges

A travelogue by Professor Cristina Murphy, the curator and coordinator of the trip.

Morgan State University, School of Architecture and Planning (MSU SA+P) students spent 10 days in the Netherlands during March 15–24, 2024. They were joined by Director of the Baltimore City Department of Planning and two of its urban planners, and several Baltimore-Rotterdam Sister City Committee members. This marked another successful trip characterized by a mix of personal, cultural, architectural, and urban experiences.

Figure 1. The Baltimore group has just landed in the Netherlands and meets with RAvB in Rotterdam at the academy’s building. Introductions and fun facts are shared among the participants.

What has set this trip apart from prior trips to Rotterdam with the Morgan SA+P students is the fact that this year the trip occurred within a class for credits. Students participating in the trip had to submit a letter of intention to be admitted to the class. Once in, they had to support the March trip by arranging flight tickets, sorting among various accommodation solutions, and networking to support the fundraising campaign. A fundamental component of the trip to Rotterdam is our ongoing relationship with the Rotterdamse Academie van Bouwkunst (a.k.a. RAvB; Rotterdam Academy of Architecture and Urban Design), a collaboration that started in 2019.

This year, SA+P students had the privilege to engage with RavB Studio10: Hef in eigen handen (I Hef a dream), an ongoing project consisting of creating a vision together with the youth of Feijenoord and, specifically, with the HefHouse community.

Figure 2. Students kept journals of the trip and some of their material fed into the final exhibition in May at the end of the semester.

Set up as a support to the RavB Studio10, Morgan SA+P’s ARCH 738 course is an elective that combines community-based urban development and zero-carbon, circular and resilient architecture.

The SA+P collaboration with RAvB aims to learn from each other. What can Rotterdam-based practices learn from Baltimore practices and vice versa? The program in Rotterdam (and its surroundings) focused on three different components that intended to maximize the exchange of knowledge through:

1. A multi-day workshop with the specific intention of observing the HefHouse community and design through a role-play exercise intended to speed up the knowledge of a place so different and unfamiliar to the students.

Figure 3. Students working at the HefHouse.

2. Several site visits to exhibitions and case studies in Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Brussels, and Antwerp. These trips directly addressed topics studied during the workshop such as disinvestment, gentrification, participatory design, community empowerment, resource preservation, and circular economy.

Figure 4. Students, faculty, professionals, Baltimore City delegates, and Baltimore Rotterdam Sister City Committee members visiting the Colonialism en Rotterdam exhibition at the Wereldmuseum Rotterdam.

3. On different afternoons, we visited inspiring architecture offices and institutions that are actively working on community-based circular and resilient urban developments.

Figure 5. Keilepand, headquarter to so many creative minds among which are GroupA and CarbonLab, the main stakeholders of this place.

The highlight of the trip was the presentation of the workshop findings.

The approach focused on design solutions for a community-based circular and resilient urban development, aimed at generating common visions for the disinvested area and its young community. The students and the communities worked on generating better spaces for the people living there, aspiring at people retention through the design of better public spaces, more jobs, stronger educational programs, people empowerment, and the formation of a common voice advocating for more equitable living conditions. Our attention covered all people within these communities. Our passion addressed the weak ends of the Rotterdamse society that lacks a presence in the higher decision-making administration thus incapable of positioning itself in the grander social and urban scheme of this growing global city.

Figure 6. At the HefHouse, the final presentation was a dynamic dialogue between students, academics, professionals, and the community.

City planning in the Netherlands and the U.S.

In general, the Netherlands is characterized by a social approach to city planning. Yet, the city is frantically growing and gentrifying and does not seem to provide the necessary tools for certain people to navigate its people-centric bureaucracy. If knowledge is not equally distributed among all citizens, some are unequivocally excluded from the benefits.

When it comes to planning cities and program services within the communities (and especially disinvested ones), the Dutch method is often top-down: people’s wellness and basic needs are provided by the State. Decision-makers establish what a community needs to function and overlap generic expectations on its citizens who, in term, can deliver little to no feedback.

Top-down urban development approaches involve centralized planning and decision-making by government agencies and that can be efficient because it expedites projects. Centralized planning allows for coordinated efforts and quicker implementation of large-scale infrastructure projects or urban regeneration initiatives. It also enables authorities to take a holistic view of urban development, considering long-term goals, regional priorities, and broader social, economic, and environmental factors resulting in more comprehensive and integrated urban plans that address multiple dimensions of sustainability and resilience. The advantage of this approach to community development is that services can be provided relatively fast without the community going through the burden of looking for financial means.

This approach also allows for the efficient allocation of resources, including funding, land, and infrastructure, to address pressing urban challenges and meet the needs of diverse populations.

Yet, it’s important to recognize that they also have limitations, including a potential lack of community engagement, reduced flexibility, and the risk of excluding diverse perspectives.

Figure 7. Nato, the community leader, providing feedback on one of the student works at the HefHouse.

On the other hand, and especially for disinvested communities, the United States heavily leverages participatory design, a method of designing for communities, within, and for communities. Participatory design and grassroots processes could be particularly successful when working in segregated neighborhoods because these processes empower residents to actively participate in shaping their environment, giving them a voice in decisions that affect their lives.

Residents of segregated neighborhoods possess invaluable local knowledge about their community’s needs, challenges, and strengths. By involving them in the planning process, planners can tap into this knowledge to develop more contextually appropriate and effective solutions.

Figure 8. After the presentation of the student work, and after sunset (we were meeting during Ramadan observation), the community offered us a delicious Turkish-Moroccan meal.

Historically, marginalized communities may be skeptical of top-down planning approaches and external interventions. Participatory design and grassroots processes help build trust between planners and residents by demonstrating a commitment to collaboration and genuine engagement.

Segregated neighborhoods often have unique cultural identities and social dynamics that should be respected and reflected in planning initiatives. Participatory approaches allow for the co-creation of solutions that are culturally sensitive and responsive to the needs of the community.

Segregated neighborhoods often face systemic inequities in access to resources and opportunities. Participatory approaches enable residents to advocate for solutions that address these inequities and promote social justice.

Projects developed through participatory design and grassroots processes are more likely to be sustainable in the long term because they are driven by the community’s priorities and aspirations. Residents feel a sense of ownership over the outcomes, increasing the likelihood of successful implementation and maintenance.

Figure 9. Different stages of the workshop presentation: after the stakeholders listened to students’ pitches and provided initial feedback through sticky notes, the students had time to assimilate and incorporate the comments and edit their verbal presentation for a second round of the project’s pitches.

These approaches’ downside is that financial sustainability can be difficult to achieve and the implementation time for long-term success can be problematic.

Balancing top-down planning with bottom-up participation and stakeholder engagement can lead to more inclusive, responsive, and sustainable urban development outcomes.

The exchange between the two schools was, therefore, potentially interesting from a community design approach.

Working with RavB is part of an ongoing collaboration between Baltimore and Rotterdam toward a deep investigation of what we can learn from each other.

Next, to be involved in a “real people and place” project, heavily leaning on community-based urban development practices, the focus was on a combination of zero-carbon emission, and circular and resilient architecture. Northern Europe’s approach to the built environment revolves around the carbon emission approach, energy-neutral/positive buildings, maximization of alternative resources, circular economy, reuse, and disassembly techniques.

Figure 10. Students pitching their work at the HefHouse.

Manifestations of the above principles were defined through visits to project sites and architecture offices.

On March 17, our 4th day in Europe, we traveled to Belgium and visited the cities of Brussels and Antwerp.

In Brussels, the walk was part of the Great Transformation, a physical experience that takes the urban explorer on a journey along twelve Future Places in Noordwijk and the Canal Zone of the city.

Conceived on paper in the 1960s and realized in the 1970s, the area is currently undergoing a great transformation that is most visible by the North Station and its surrounding districts.

The built environment offers a glimpse of the future, coming from the past: planning concepts intended to revolve around the necessary shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy, sustainable food accessibility and mobility system, resource-centric circular economy, open and social living environment, and inclusive labor market. The materialization of the great transformation is, however, radically different! At all urban scales (from districts to neighborhoods, streets, and homes), revitalization is an intentional, systematic, institutionalized infrastructural densification prioritizing outdated systems, hyper-programmatic aspiration without resolving any specific social or spatial negotiations, societal separation, spatial exclusivity, packed and ineffective co-housing solutions.

Figure 11. Students, faculty, professionals, and Brussels-based Hedwig van der Linden walk in Noordwijk and the Canal Zone.

From Station North, we made the 30-minute walk to Zinneke, a social and artistic project (Zinneke Parade) bridging the diverse communities of urban Brussels. Every two years, the parade brings together various stakeholders and 60 to 100 residents who, through a participatory creation process lasting more than a year, develop a shared artistic project that fits in with the theme of the Parade.

Throughout this creative process, Zinneke provides space for meetings, collaboration, and creativity, promoting social dynamics between residents, associations, schools, and artists from different neighborhoods in Brussels and surrounding areas.

Within this creative space, new ways of initiating collective actions of solidarity are constantly being worked on: the work of each participant is to highlight the unique cosmopolitan and pluralistic cultural wealth of Brussels.

Figure 12. Visiting Zinneke Association and appreciating their office renovation (two rowhomes merged into one great space).

We left Brussels North at 1 pm and reached Antwerp Central at 2 pm where we met with Jiska Gysels and Caroline Thaler from Endeavour, an architecture office focused on engaging with the final user in imagining and co-creating the environment.

Figure 13. Students and faculty gathering in the courtyard of a community library in Antwerp. The concept for how the space should be organized was conceived by Endeavour and the community.

Jiska and Caroline took us to the northern part of the city where there is less investment in public infrastructure and where the younger generation of immigrants is affected by systematic disinvestment and disservice and the area is perceived as unsafe.

Yet, just like it is happening globally, cities are becoming more attractive, and notoriously segregated neighborhoods are being revitalized. Redevelopment that is spun off from outside investments and that disregards community assets tends to physically and mentally segregate and displace minority groups. Open public spaces, once strongly underserved and neglected yet serving as a social and emotional aid to certain communities, are transformed into assets addressing and attracting richer gentrifiers. On the other hand, these same “open and public” urban realms become boundaries to poorer communities. Although they used to assemble there, these places are now designed to push them away. Hostile design is a reality and it occurs when places are intentionally designed to attract certain residents and, purposefully, make it unsustainable for other, less desirable groups, to hang out in.

Figure 14. Endeavour illustrates the concept of segregation and gentrification along one of the parks we visited in Antwerp.

Unconsidered redevelopment segregates and creates boundaries. What was once an underserved public park becomes a community asset to some and a violent territorial barrier to others.

Between March 18th and March 21st, students and professional guests visited the Municipality of Rotterdam and three architecture offices.

On Day 5, we visited Powerhouse Company situated on a floating building on the River Maas that was nominated best energy-performing building in the Netherlands for several years in a row.

Figure 15. Students, faculty, and professionals visiting Powerhouse Company.

On Day 6, the students and the Baltimore City delegates (the Director of Baltimore City Department of Planning and two of its urban planners) exchanged knowledge related to community engagement, urban growth, mobility, and future city visions. All were relevant points, although conversations on the future of housing typology, urban infrastructure engaging slower, safer, sustainable mobility, participatory and community design, and the challenge of climate change were the most relevant topics.

Cities’ economic, spatial, and social history are key and, after decades of testing sprawl and car-oriented solutions, the idea that smaller is more effective and that cities need to become denser is a fact.

Figure 16. Students, faculty, professionals, Baltimore City delegates, and Baltimore-Rotterdam Sister City Committee members at the Rotterdam Urban Planning department.

On Day 7 the group visited SuperUse Studios and the greater environment they occupy, namely the Blue City circular economy hub. SuperUse Studios is an office we know well.

I have been professing their philosophy and using their projects as Case Studies in my classes for years now. Reclamation and the value of material is their mission and they have introduced a new phase within the construction process named Dynamic definitive design, meaning that the construction team ought to allow the design to change in case the material is not found.

Figure 17. Students, faculty, professionals, and Baltimore City delegates visiting Blue City.

The office sits within the Blue City, former Tropicana, which used to be a wellness center with a large indoor/outdoor swimming pool. The space is occupied by a diversity of entrepreneurs who have the environment at heart. They are inventors using material that has been already used to conceive new creations through the Blue economy system, a holistic view of nature, mankind, and economy with the aim of no longer producing waste, but rather returning everything to the material cycle.

On Day 8 we visited GroupA and CarbonLAB in the Keilepand, an activity-based building deployed for sustainable urban developments. The building is a citadel that is capable of hosting exhibitions, lectures and debates, and young entrepreneurs starting businesses. It promotes and encourages meetings, knowledge exchange, and new collaborations and experiments.

CarbonLAB is GroupA’s Think Thank, a collective that investigates the possibility of designing and building with the environment and for a better quality of living.

It is time that designers lead clients to make fundamentally sustainable choices, from materials, design concepts, technologies, and regulations. GroupA, CarbonLAB focuses on developing and applying sustainable-driven solutions. The sustainability challenge is no longer a privileged choice but a global necessity that ought to be tackled in a transdisciplinary manner. Just like everything that matters, there is no one side to the same story and it is the collective and diverse voice that will, ultimately, reach important outcomes. CarbonLAB recognizes different perspectives and uses them to design better spaces for all people.

Figure 18. Students, faculty, professionals, Baltimore City delegates, and Baltimore-Rotterdam Sister City Committee members visiting GroupA/CarbonLAB.

Wrapping up the workshop

Finally, on Day 9, the students presented their discoveries before a rich audience of local practitioners, academics, and the community. I see, I know, I wonder… community participation and development is about getting there, being in there, discovering the place, talking to its people, co-design, never being afraid of asking questions, and keep on exploring.

Figure 19. The biggest task embraced by the students was a public presentation of their findings at the HefHouse, Rotterdam.

This multi-day workshop was designed for observing and understanding the HefHouse community through role- play exercises. This multi-day brainstorming exercise was highly effective in accelerating students’ knowledge of a new and unfamiliar place.

The workshop took place at the HefHouse community hub and it provided students with background information about the community they were going to explore, including its history, demographics, cultural norms, and any relevant challenges or opportunities.

The workshop facilitated the creation of scenarios or situations that students encountered during the design work. These scenarios were realistic and relevant to the community being studied, allowing students to explore various aspects of daily life, interactions, and challenges within the community.

Key to the workshop was the conduction of guided walking tours of the community, allowing students to observe and interact with real-life situations while staying in character. During the tours, students were encouraged to take notes, ask questions, and document their observations.

Finally, students were encouraged to provide feedback on their experiences and the effectiveness of the role- play exercises.

By combining immersive role-play with field observations and reflective discussions, this workshop provided students with a deep and nuanced understanding of a new and unfamiliar place, fostering empathy, cultural competence, and critical thinking skills.

The way the students operate on the site is from within, through the lens of the community.

While wrapping up the week in Rotterdam, we are already brainstorming on additional events: along with continuing and reinforcing our March program in the Netherlands, there will be a reciprocal exchange in the fall of 2024 with a Dutch delegation coming to Baltimore to learn about community-centered, community-led urban design and development.

Figure 20. Some of the feedback was exchanged directly on the posters the students made.

I believe that Placekeeping is about recognizing spatial and social assets that are already embedded in the community — and the ability to retain them and transform them with and for who lives there.

Sustaining communities means starting with what the neighborhood (spatial) and people (social) have instead of what they do not; it is asking what are the assets present rather than what are the problems within.

A holistic approach toward sustainability is not only an option but a necessity. Sustainably in all its connotations needs to be part of students’ educations and a pragmatic application in the field is mandatory. We need to leap over the gap between theory and practice and our students ought to see the complex yet suitable relationship between research on the built environment.

This is how I intend to lead my teaching and this year’s trip has set the path for an education that is ready to respond to the challenge of our era.

Next steps

The students created a post-trip exhibition about the experience, to showcase all the learning that happened.

A reciprocal exchange is being planned for fall 2024, with a Dutch delegation coming to Baltimore to learn about community-centered, community-led urban design and development. More about the 2024 Baltimore-Rotterdam exchange

References

Morgan State University School of Architecture + Planning: www.morgan.edu/sap

Rotterdamse Academie van Bouwkunst: www.ravb.nl

HefHouse program at Erasmus University: erasmusx.medium.com/hefhouse-discovering-a-new-community-in-alternative-classrooms-fd18141f098a

Brussels North walk: degroteverbouwing.eu/routes/en/building+blocks+for+future+places

Zinneke: www.zinneke.org/nl/contact

Powerhouse Company: www.powerhouse-company.com

SuperUse Studios: www.superuse-studios.com

Blue City: www.bluecity.nl/en

GroupA/CarbonLAB: groupa.nl

All photos in this travelogue were taken by CCM.

Thank you!

A special thanks goes to the Baltimore-Rotterdam Sister City Committee for believing in and actively supporting Morgan State University School of Architecture + Planning students to participate in this March 2024 study trip to Rotterdam and to Marcel Musch for involving the Rotterdamse Academie van Bouwkunst students.

Thanks for the support from the HefHouse (Frieda Franke, Business Developer at Erasmus University Rotterdam, Nato… and Nasra Djorai, District Manager Municipality of Urban Development).

And thanks to the sponsors who have generously provided funds to help cover the travel costs for the students.