Exploring Circular Urban Futures in the Low Countries

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

During March 13–20, 2026, students from Morgan State University’s School of Architecture and Planning and design professionals from Baltimore experienced an immersive educational study abroad experience led by Professor Cristina Murphy. Rotterdam stands as a premier destination for an architectural expedition centered on sustainability, upcycling, and radical innovation. This 10-day journey, stretching from Baltimore to dynamic cities in the Netherlands (Rotterdam, Delft, Amsterdam, and Almere) and Belgium (Antwerp), was designed for profound professional and academic engagement. We connected with leading firms, pioneering researchers, and transformative built projects to critically examine advanced placemaking and zero-carbon construction. By integrating principles of the circular economy and social sustainability, we aimed to understand the holistic future of responsible design, a future where architecture actively regenerates communities and ecosystems. What follows is a day-by-day journal documenting our individual experiences within this broader framework: a journey with its heart in Baltimore and its horizons expanded through Rotterdam, Delft, Amsterdam, Almere, and Antwerp.

THU MARCH 12 | Departure from Baltimore – the Journey Begins

As we gather at the airport, a palpable sense of anticipation hums among the group. We’re off, carrying with us the questions, challenges, and aspirations that define our work back home. How do we create architecture that not only minimizes harm but actively regenerates communities and ecosystems? How can we translate the principles of the circular economy from theory into tangible, lived experience? What role does social sustainability play in the creation of lasting urban value? These are the questions propelling us across the Atlantic. We’re students, practitioners, and advocates eager to learn from cities that have embraced innovation as a survival strategy. We are confident that our time here will transform the way we think about, create, and make architecture. Let this journey into possible circular-economy urban futures begin!

FRI MARCH 13 | De Tuin van Bret – A Living Laboratory for Urban Experimentation in Amsterdam

Our first full day immersed us in Amsterdam’s culture of grassroots innovation. We visited De Tuin van Bret, a project that defies easy categorization. Located in a transient commercial area sandwiched between a bustling train station and anonymous office blocks, this “garden” is a vibrant oasis of community, creativity, and circular thinking.

Guided by Khoi Tran, one of its visionary founders, we discovered how a neglected urban corner, a former train depot, has been transformed into a thriving place of work, exchange, and belonging. What makes De Tuin van Bret extraordinary is its embrace of impermanence as a catalyst for creation. Operating on a semi-temporary site, the project demonstrates that profound urban interventions need not wait for massive budgets or permanent permissions. Instead, through collaboration, reuse, and flexible programming, it functions as a living laboratory for urban experimentation.

We walked among structures created from reclaimed materials and learned what the place means for its community, the initiatives that animate the space and the countless small acts of contribution that help shape it. This participatory model demonstrates that social sustainability is not an add-on but the very foundation of lasting urban places.

Standing there, we were reminded that impactful city-making often begins not with grand plans, but with ideas, people, and the courage to experiment. In a region renowned for its bold architecture, this humble, semi-temporary project may be one of its most radical innovations, proof that sustainable creation can emerge from the margins.

SAT MARCH 14 | Exploring Rotterdam by Bike – Innovation, Circularity, and Community on Two Wheels

If Day 2 was about ground-level experimentation, Day 3 lifted our gaze to the skyline. Matteo Bettoni, architect from WRK Architecten, led us on an exhilarating 7-mile bike tour through Rotterdam, and what an incredible experience it was!

There is no better way to understand a city built from resilience and sustainable reinvention than by bicycle. Pedaling through its streets, we felt the rhythm of Rotterdam. Matteo’s dual perspective as both a local and an architect enriched every stop with insights into the city’s relentless drive toward innovation.

From the Central Station, we biked along the old massive Postal Office, through Test Site Rotterdam, a hub of urban prototyping and social and spatial reconnection. From there, we biked to Hofplein and imagined its future of pedestrian accessibility and parkland. Before moving into the guts of the city, we stopped by Nieuwe Delftse Poort (Cor Kraat) and briefly opened the conversation of Rotterdam as a white canvas and a hub of urban and architectural opportunity that rose from wartime destruction with a determination to create something radically new.

Biking along Haagseveer, we reached Timmerhuis by OMA and the newly completed POST Rotterdam, designed by New York-based firm ODA Architecture. Crossing Hoogstraat and along Steigersgracht, we reached MVRDV’s Markthal, the Library, the Pencil Building, and the Cube Houses by the Blaak.

Emerging from the urban core, crossing Wijnhaven, we reached Boompjeskade and cycled along the water, west across the Erasmus Bridge, to reach Kop van Zuid. Here, standing by the KPN Tower by Renzo Piano, we looked back at Rotterdam’s stellar skyline and gained a new appreciation for its composition: a skyline shaped not by competition but by collaboration, where architectural icons stand alongside repurposed warehouses and new sustainable developments. Kop van Zuid, populated by buildings signed by OMA, Mecanoo, MVRDV, Bolles+Wilson, and Powerhouse Company, exemplifies circular urbanism, transforming former port lands into vibrant mixed-use communities.

Kop van Zuid also serves as the gateway to Katendrecht, a historic peninsula once known as a port support infrastructure district, now a laboratory for technological, construction, cultural, and social innovation. This transformation itself is a lesson in adaptive reuse and the power of patient, community-driven creation.

The highlight of our tour was undoubtedly the Fenix building, home to a museum about migration, a repurposed warehouse whose sculptural mirrored capstone was designed by MAD Architects. While the museum’s exhibitions powerfully document the stories of those who passed through Rotterdam’s port seeking new lives, it was the building’s ground-level community component that truly captured our imagination: a profound expression of social sustainability.

This expansive, open space embraces its industrial heritage while serving a profoundly human purpose. At its heart sits a simple, welcoming kiosk, surrounded by an open industrial hall thoughtfully organized with games and activities for all ages. Here, children play alongside elderly neighbors; newcomers to the city share tables with lifelong Rotterdammers; backgrounds blend, and connections form. The space is deliberately open, accessible, and safe, a physical manifestation of social sustainability that prioritizes human connection as the ultimate measure of architectural success.

Matteo shared how the design emerged from deep engagement with local organizations, ensuring that the building would not stand apart from its community but actively empower and reinforce it. In an era when architecture often prioritizes spectacle over substance, the Fenix building offers a powerful counter-narrative: a building that gathers people, nurtures belonging, and participates in the daily life of its city. It demonstrates that true innovation lies not in novel forms alone, but in creating spaces that enable community to flourish.

We wrapped up our journey on two wheels by coasting through Het Park and Museum Park. We hit the south end with Rem Koolhaas’ Kunsthal (fun fact: a few years ago, the museum was cleared of its art, and the architect was blamed for the main entrance location!). We ended the tour at the Art Depot Boijmans Van Beuningen for a great “reflective” group selfie photo.

What a way to continue our journey, and the week has only just begun! We learned that the most enduring creation is often the kind that empowers others to become creators themselves.

SUN MARCH 15 | Today: Open until dinner

Rotterdam treated us well today. By evening, gathered around a generous dinner and refreshing drinks, the stories started flowing, about encounters, discoveries, and quite a few kilometers traveled.

Some of us headed to the stadium to experience the electric atmosphere of a Feyenoord derby game. Others took their bikes for a 26 km ride that led from the first villa by Rem Koolhaas to the lowest point in the Netherlands, looping around two lakes along the way. The students spent their day at the zoo, proudly returning with photos of red pandas as their highlight.

Another group went playground-hopping by bike, with a stop at Superuse Studios’ Mikado, a perfect mix of play and design. Meanwhile, Think Twice Vintage was offering everything starting at €2… which, of course, proved impossible to resist.

As evening settled in, we all reunited at the Bazar restaurant for a generous meal and lively conversations. A few local friends joined us, sharing their own stories and the many different paths that brought them to Rotterdam.

Tomorrow the week begins, and we’re ready to learn more.

MON MARCH 16 | What is New!

Today was an invitation to wonder and imagine what the future will look like. From the adaptive reuse of existing structures to ambitious climate goals, we explored how the built environment can evolve to meet the ecological demands of tomorrow while creating spaces that are more culturally and socially vibrant. In the morning, we visited the Blue City, a former swimming pool and recreation center along the Maas River. What was once a place for leisure now hosts a community of circular economy businesses, entrepreneurs whose mission is to rethink how we recirculate embodied carbon and materials. The building itself is a powerful example of reuse. Its shell and volume have transitioned from a pool hall to a hybrid hub of offices, laboratories, and collaborative work spaces.

Our guide, Florian, an architect whose own design process begins with how plants orient themselves toward the sun to survive, led us through the space. He challenged our imagination by drawing attention to materials that evoked other places and previous uses, a partition wall that once belonged to a hospital, chairs that once where garbage containers…. We were invited to touch new materials made from old ones, and to consider innovative ways of harvesting resources and transforming them into surprisingly new applications. It was a tactile lesson in how nothing in a circular economy needs to be wasted.

After lunch, we reconvened at Keilepand, where GroupA and CarbonLab welcomed us with a lecture on the new “green deal” and the ambitious goals set for all EU countries. Europe is moving quickly toward a drastic reduction of CO₂ emissions, and it aims to do so without sacrificing aesthetics nor comfort. On the contrary, the goal is to improve design by making it more ecologically, culturally, and socially mindful. While the economic transition toward the 2030 Paris Agreement targets is not yet optimal, the country is moving forward. Investments are pointing in the right direction. There is a clear drive to make our cities more livable and to make sustainability economically feasible on one side, yet profitable on the other.

We then participated in a workshop that divided our group into four teams, each focused on a critical theme: Climate Change, Transportation, Economic Impact, and Ecology and Society. The teams engaged deeply, and we learned with full enthusiasm. Beyond the facts and figures, there was great bonding and a shared spirit that these matters must be taken seriously when designing our cities. The collaborative energy in the room reaffirmed that these challenges are not just technical, they are deeply human.

Finally, we had a brief chance to see the work of De Urbanisten by the waterfront. This urban design and landscape architecture office is testing the return to native plants and the restoration of water-land conditions through the Keilehaven Tidal Park. The project combines a city park with a natural estuary system, seeking a delicate balance between cultural park elements and natural, spontaneous processes. It was a fitting end to the day: a living example of how design can work with nature, not against it, to create spaces that are both functional and resilient.

Today reminded us that imagining the future is not an abstract exercise, it is a tangible, collaborative, and hopeful act of building better places to live.

TUES MARCH 17 | How can design practice return to approaches that disregard both environment and people after an experience such as today’s?

Today in Antwerp in Belgium, we were introduced by Endeavour to a design methodology fundamentally grounded in human context. This approach positions narrative and authenticity not as supplementary qualities, but as primary drivers of the design process. Implementation is therefore not an initial objective, but a consequence, emerging only after a rigorous and situated understanding of place has been achieved.

The framework we engaged with activated a heightened sensory awareness. By beginning from an internal perspective, through perception, intuition, and critical observation, we developed an alternative mode of spatial evaluation. This process quickly evolved into an intuitive yet structured spatial exploration. As dialogue and observation deepened, space itself appeared to shift, becoming increasingly legible and contextually embedded.This progression led to the formulation of more precise and intentional questions, aligned with a broader strategic design logic. Within this context, the notion of a master plan was reframed: not as a deterministic or prescriptive tool, but as an aspirational and adaptive guideline. Spatial production, therefore, cannot be imposed externally; it must emerge from a process of careful, situated discovery.

Our exploration of Antwerp provided a tangible case study for this approach. The city revealed a layered spatial narrative, from the eclectic architectural composition of the station, through the historic urban fabric, to its parks and public spaces, and ultimately the waterfront, where varied scales of visibility and perspective, long and short views, are negotiated. Each element contributed to a coherent yet complex urban experience.

The day concluded in proximity to the cathedral, where reflection and conviviality converged. This final moment, though informal, reinforced the central premise of the day: that spatial experience is inseparable from cultural, social, and sensory context.

WED MARCH 18 | Synthesis & Reflection

This morning, we had the privilege of contributing to urgent and ongoing conversations about our built environment. Today’s exchange traversed a remarkable range of scales, from the city at large to the public realm and into the intimate spaces of the domestic sphere.

The Power of Mapping & Manifestos

At TU Delft (Technical University Delft), we renewed our collaboration with Dr. Rocco, returning justice to the map as the central instrument of our design process. The Just City Manifesto once again ignited critical dialogue around urbanity and civic responsibility, privileges we must actively (re)claim at every scale of intervention. Distinguishing between equality, equity, and fairness, and understanding how their implications manifest in the built environment, is no longer optional. For our generation, it has become an integral step in the design process itself.

From Generic City to Responsive Intervention

Moving from discussions of the generic city to the specifics of the built environment, Dr. Parravicini introduced the work of ”Optoppen” and the concept of ”Design by Research.” This platform challenges conventional development by proposing that cities can be transformed through strategic assessment and vertical addition, ”topping off” existing structures.

These lightweight, bio-based timber assemblies are conceived as temporary interventions (with a lifespan of up to 30 years), designed from the outset for disassembly or cyclical maintenance. They function as test beds: when an intervention proves successful, the model demonstrates its viability. This approach points toward a new paradigm for housing, one that achieves densification and greening by retaining and optimizing existing urban texture. Rather than building new high-rises, we can “parasite” or “plug into” current buildings.

In essence, this strategy is about:

• Living, aging, shrinking, and staying in the neighborhood
• Beautifying access points and fostering integration
• Regenerating public space
• Repurposing facades and entire buildings
• Building upon the prior foundation grid

The Conversation Expands: Social & Co-Housing

The discussion then expanded to social housing, more accurately termed “affordable housing” in the Dutch context. These accommodations cover more than one-third of the national market, guaranteeing safe and secure residency for citizens whose income falls slightly below average. This model actively prevents physical and cultural exclusion, remaining an essential resource within the city’s mix and diversity. Key themes that emerged included privacy, ownership, the serendipity of casual encounters, the value of planned interaction, and the need for both continuity and dynamic exchange. The conversation continued at a new venue, focusing on “Co-Wonen” (co-living). This model thrives on experiential learning, co-living and co-designing alongside eventual users. Its key features include inhabiting spaces before designing them, allowing programs to fold into one another, creating cohesion of services while naturally facilitating encounters.

Living together represents the future of our urban landscape, as the planet cannot sustain unchecked real estate expansion. A fitting metaphor is the bus stop: it does not require a bus to function. Its value unfolds through small-scale intervention, people stop, interact, sit, and find shelter. These structures are cost-effective, inherently urban, and centrally located. They serve a purpose that extends far beyond the bus itself.

To become “sexy” to potential users, co-housing requires an attractor factor, a cherished activity typically found in the private sphere. The guiding question becomes: What do you have and do in your private space that could become collective?

This opens a game of discovery: allow people to design their place by gradually unveiling their intimacy. Let them appropriate their spaces through comfort, guiding us on what those spaces should become. Enable groups to discuss and bond while creating together. An open-minded mentality, it seems, translates directly into open-minded floor plans.

THU MARCH 19 | From ground to paper, from grants to direct commissions

On day 8 of our Dutch experience, we explored the Rotterdam neighborhoods of Bospolder-Tussendijken (also known as “BoTu”). We met the community makers at Wijkhub, where we were debriefed on how residents are deeply invested in their neighborhood’s future. Their approach is grounded in simple, powerful principles: work with what you have, and build the program with the residents. The guiding questions are always: What do you want? What do you want to change? And how can we become more socially resilient? During the pandemic, this focus helped the community become stronger together.

The ABCD Approach in Action

Asset-based community development (ABCD) is at the core of their work. One initiative, BoTourism, a social travel agency, showcases the neighborhood by highlighting people’s strengths and building together. An open call invites residents to put their ideas on paper and compete through a community vote. The process is democratic: residents pitch their idea to an action group, which then assesses its feasibility and helps organize the work. A key principle is that resources stay within the neighborhood.

In this context, stories are more important than rigid plans. Ideas must land and harvest in their specific context. The approach is to meet people where they are, there is no prescribed method or theory, only the ideas and energies coming from the people who live there.

During our neighborhood visit, we saw this theory put into practice. ABCD is about harvesting the gifts of the people, which include:

• Skills of residents
• Social connections among residents
• Physical places that are meaningful
• Neighborhood economy (collective, not individual)
• Shared stories and cultures
• Public and private institutions as partners

The philosophy is one of abundance: the glass is half full. There is a lot there, and it is good. That is what should be emphasized. What works needs to be highlighted. The focus is always on asking, “What are your good parts? What are you offering?” — finding the positivity and building from it.

From Community Gardens to the DakPark

We visited a garden that residents helped create to soften the edge of a hardscape playground. The playground itself is supported by a grant to design thematic, age-related zones with moments of shade, water, and relaxation, as well as age- and gender-specific play areas.

Finally, we walked on the DakPark, an elevated park that creates a meaningful buffer between the formal port warehouses and the residential zone, complemented by a sunken mall. The park serves as a powerful extension of the community and clearly demonstrates what it means to create a mixed-income neighborhood where the public good is fairly distributed among all residents.

A Contrast in Practice: MVRDV

The visit to MVRDV offered a different experience. It illustrated how spaces are generated on paper, how design can happen remotely, and how we can design spaces even if we don’t live within them. It is, in many ways, a matter of capital. The resourceful office recognizes the need to veer away from traditional conceptual architecture and acknowledge that climate resilience is no longer an option. To address this, the office has developed guidelines that facilitate designs working with ecological changes while providing resilient programming and flexible usability of space.

The workshop at MVRDV challenged the status quo, allowing climate change to take over the design process as an opportunity for adaptation. The core question posed was: if you were to work on a dismissed, underutilized area with challenges like climate change, housing, flooding, and zero waste… how would you design on the site?

Theory Materialized: Powerhouse Company

We concluded the day at Powerhouse Company with a tour of their FOR (Floating Office Rotterdam).

Enjoying the sunset in this highly developed area between Willeminapier and Katendrecht, the project stood as a testament to how resources and theory can materialize in practice and contribute to the new urban skyline.

FRI MARCH 20 | From M4H to Almere: Transformation is a participated and collected effort

M4H district in Rotterdam

The Keileweg area, part of the broader M4H (Merwe-Vierhavens) district in Rotterdam, is increasingly recognized as one of the city’s most promising economic zones. Its potential lies in its ability to contribute to Rotterdam’s “next economy,” particularly through innovation, making, and new forms of production. At the same time, this promise brings forward a set of complex social and spatial challenges that remain unresolved.

To understand the present situation, it is important to look at the area’s history. For much of the 20th century, M4H was deeply tied to the port economy and energy infrastructure. When port activities left around 1990, the area was left open and undefined. What followed was not immediate redevelopment, but rather a period of informal occupation and experimentation. Artists, makers, and local initiatives gradually took over the space, using it for radical practices, small-scale production, and even urban gardening. Between 1990 and roughly 2015, the area was largely shaped by these bottom-up efforts, which re-imagined its identity outside formal planning structures.

Around 2015, this dynamic began to shift. Institutional actors and design offices started to articulate clearer visions for the area’s future, introducing strategies, branding, and development frameworks. While these top-down approaches helped position M4H within Rotterdam’s long-term economic agenda, they also created a disconnect. The area, despite its new identity, remains insufficiently integrated with its surrounding neighborhoods, both physically and socially.

This raises a central question: how can the emerging economic potential of M4H be made inclusive? As development accelerates, there is a real risk that disadvantaged communities in nearby areas will not benefit from these changes. In fact, there are early signs of gentrification, not only in terms of rising costs, but also in more subtle, “mental” forms of separation. People living nearby are often unaware of what is happening in M4H, reinforcing a sense that the area is evolving into something detached from its context.

Physical connectivity plays a significant role in this divide. Existing infrastructures create clear boundaries, and even successful public spaces contribute to the problem. The DakPark, for example, is both an asset and a barrier. While it provides valuable amenities and has been widely appreciated since its creation, it also acts as a spatial obstacle between neighborhoods and M4H. Together with surrounding roads, it limits accessibility and continuity. Proposed interventions, such as the introduction of new bridges or improved pedestrian routes, aim to address this issue. However, there is an underlying concern that without careful planning, these efforts might simply reinforce the idea of M4H as a distinct “island,” rather than fully integrating it into the urban fabric. The nature of our workshop today at the Hoogeschool Rotterdam with David ter Avest was to re-imagine growth and inclusion using a Justice principle model.

Addressing these challenges requires more than physical solutions. It calls for a deeper integration of functions and communities. Bringing in educational institutions, such as TU Delft, along with work spaces and local amenities, could help create a more inclusive live-work environment. At the same time, there is a need to strengthen social connections and awareness, ensuring that existing residents are not only informed but actively involved in the area’s transformation.

This tension between bottom-up and top-down approaches remains central. The earlier phase of M4H’s development demonstrated the value of community-driven experimentation, while current strategies emphasize structure and scalability. Bridging these two modes of operation is crucial. Examples like Tuin van Bert suggest a more horizontal model, where living, working, and mediating between stakeholders happen simultaneously. In such approaches, local actors play an active role in connecting communities with decision-makers, rather than being passive recipients of development.

WikiHouses in Almere

Within this broader context, alternative housing models such as WikiHouse offer an interesting perspective. WikiHouses in Almere are based on an open-source, self-build concept, where affordability is directly linked to participation. Using digitally fabricated components, cut through CNC machines, houses can be produced locally and assembled by individuals or groups. While certain technical aspects, such as foundations, may still require external contractors, much of the process is collective and accessible. The system allows for both standardization and individuality: structural elements and insulation are shared, while façades and finishes can be customized. In this way, housing becomes not just a product, but a collaborative process that can strengthen community ties.

FRI MARCH 9 | Rotterdam, full circle

Wrapping up our Rotterdam stay at Superuse Studios’ Wikado Playground, a place that captures the spirit of modern Rotterdam: experimental, circular, and forward-thinking. Built from repurposed wind turbine blades, it’s not just a playground; it’s a statement about how the city continuously reinvents itself using what already exists.

Crossing the Maas, we arrived at Pakhuis Santos, a five-story landmark overlooking the Rijnhaven and hinting at Rotterdam Next. Rooted in the early 20th century, Santos has survived waves of change and now houses the Nederlands Fotomuseum. Walking through it feels like stepping into a layered timeline where past and present quietly overlap.

Our 10 Dutch days come to an end here. Rotterdam is one of the few cities where the contrast between pre-war life, the devastation of the Rotterdam Blitz, and bold post-war reconstruction doesn’t just exist, it defines the city. You don’t just see history; you move through it in cycles.

In these 10 days, we traced a full circle:
destruction → rebuilding → reinvention → sustainability.

Not many cities tell that story as clearly.

---

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT

This trip was made possible through the generosity of BluePrint Cafe, Jason Neal, Elaine Asal, Andrew DuFresne, Vectorworks, Joe Cellucci, Laura Thul Penza, Jeffrey Penza, SA+P, Susannah M. Bergmann, Ethan Cohen, John Smutny. Patrick Filbert, coleman jordan, Masha Rosenthal, Dan Bunch, Naomi Rankin, Gabe Kroiz, Max Robinson, Julianne Mehra, Talin, Amy Wang, Sophia Baleeiro, and Baltimore-Rotterdam Sister City Committee.

---

PHOTO CREDITS

CCM = Photos provided by Cristina Cassandra Murphy

BPC = Photos from Blueprint Cafe’s social media posts

---

TRIP PARTICIPANTS

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

In March 14–21, 2025, students from Morgan State University’s School of Architecture and Planning embarked on an eye-opening study abroad journey through Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Delft—an immersive educational experience led by Professor Cristina Murphy. The week-long trip offered students the opportunity to witness firsthand how European cities are tackling pressing urban challenges through sustainable design, participatory planning, and community-centered innovation. A trip report is below. A shorter version of this article is available on Morgan State University’s website. The students were joined by three community planners from the Baltimore City Department of Planning (described on another webpage), and several design professionals. This trip was part of a 2-way Baltimore-Rotterdam exchange in 2025.

MARCH 14: AMSTERDAM

Walking to De Warren was an experience in itself. Amsterdam is growing and conquering the water. Centrumeiland, “Centre Island,” is a newly raised piece of land on Lake IJmeer. The island will accommodate 1,200 to 1,500 new houses and adopt the “Rainproof” strategy, a plan involving the collection, utilization, and drainage of excess rainwater.

De Warren is a cooperative housing project consisting of 36 apartments and a series of common spaces for 20 tenants. At the center of this project is the idea of providing social and affordable rental units for a group of like-minded friends who, in 2020, decided to come together and create a cooperative, De Warren, obtaining a 30-year mortgage, acquiring land, hiring an architect, and collaborating in the construction of a sustainable building. The authentic ideas behind this building are numerous: this group formed their cooperative out of necessity, unable to sustain Amsterdam’s high rents or obtain individual mortgages; their determination led to record actualization despite intensive workshops and engagement sessions; although they hired a general contractor, they worked intensively on-site by providing supplies and physically laboring together; thirty percent of the program consists of shared/communal areas. The building functions as a mini-village that sustains a small community; the building is energy-neutral, energy- producer, and rainproof. Particular attention was paid to material choices, maximizing energy production for heating and electricity, and collecting organic waste, socially, it represents a microcosm of 20 friends who live together and care for each other, the green facades and garden roof welcome insects and birds to eat and nest within its structure; since individuals don’t own the building but rather the cooperative does, it doesn’t follow market-based financial speculations.

Although this is a relatively established social and affordable rental housing concept in Sweden and Germany, De Warren is the first building that operates this way in the Netherlands. Aesthetics were not the priority because the result embodies the intense collective desire of a group of people who developed and manage, together, a building they all call home.

MARCH 15: ROTTERDAM

Today, despite some delays, we departed from Rotterdam Central Train Station for a bike ride around the city. Our ambition was rather high. What we actually accomplished was half of our aspiration – a total of 7.71 miles in 4 hours. Several factors contributed to this change of plan, which Emiel Arends, Senior Advisor on Urban Affairs with the City of Rotterdam and our guide, described as “plan D”: participants’ initial challenges with rental bikes, necessary caffeine intake, and the wind. Yet we persevered and, in my humble opinion, made a great day of it.

The current design for the Central Train Station – including a spacious and well-designed square on the city center side – was conceived in 2004, when ProRail, NS, and the Municipality of Rotterdam awarded the project to Team CS, a cooperative consisting of Benthem Crouwel Architekten, MVSA Meyer & Van Schooten Architects, and West 8. The space accommodates a multitude of events. For us today, it served as the perfect training ground to practice biking and stopping with coaster brakes.

Our first stop was at the Water Square by De Urbanisten. This is the first of a series built in the city and has served as a testing experience for design improvements. Although it is the most complete and ambitious in terms of amenities (square, bleachers, skateboard park, basketball court, water garden, etc.), the ramps leading to the pit were designed too tight, preventing cleaning machines from navigating the curve to reach the lower level. As a consequence, the square is poorly maintained and stained with algae – a normal phenomenon when spaces are frequently humid and/or submerged. Despite this and the chilly weather, young people were populating the space and having a great time!

Just a few steps away, we entered ZOHO Maakkwartier, an area the city has used as a testing ground. Only 5 minutes from the city center, ZOHO is a place to live and work. I remember when I spent most of my days at the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA), which was located at the edge of the site at that time. I recall many innovative projects initiated by the opportunity to reconnect areas and the necessity to guarantee residents a better quality of life. Historically an industrial area, Zomerhofkwartier was for long a segregated and impoverished neighborhood that struggled with vacancies.

Hofbogen is the gigantic suspended infrastructure in the area. The plan for this unused high rail is to transform it into a 2 km (1.24274 mi) pedestrian green boulevard and a hub for amenities catering to the community such as food, arts, culture, and education. Currently, Hofbogen is experimenting with spaces at street level, accommodating various programs and opening the higher level to Dakdag (roof day) and to informal grassroot organizations maintaining it through urban gardens and parks.

In 2015, the city launched a crowdfunding event to support a grand concept addressing the challenge of connecting the center of the city (of which Hofplein was one edge) with Rotterdam North (of which Hofbogen wasa barrier). ZUS architects won the contest and built Luchtsingel, a staircase and bridge allowing citizens to cross undesirable vehicular intersections and safely reach both sides. After 10 years of great success in proving that this connection is needed, this temporary structure will become a permanent element of the city. The plan is to formally connect these urban areas and extend the city boundary through a suspended park designed by De Urbanisten (Hofbogenpark).

We biked around the corner from Heer Bokelweg and stopped by the back entrance of the “Stover” housing complex to see if we could spot woonerven. Cities and mobility are significant themes: often, urban spaces prioritize cars and fast-speed movement through residential and recreational areas that should be more enjoyable for residents to walk and stay in. In the 1970s, Herman Hertzberger recognized the opportunity for most urban streets to become woonerven (residential streets) with mixed-use programs and users (Gameren et al., 2010). Through this process, people became the benchmark for the scale of streets, squares, meeting places, and design elements. This was a response to the demand for public space as a living domain.

After a brief coffee break, we headed down to Hoogstraat, Rotterdam’s oldest street, that, during the pandemic, changed its layout to accommodate less traffic and more pedestrian and bike movement through the introduction of green parklets.

We then reached the Blaak. Here, Emiel described the importance of the site, the Cube Houses, the Public Library, the “farmers” market and, of course, Markthal by MVRDV. We briefly discussed the ambitious concept for the building, the vital importance of the market, the real estate value of the area, temporary voids and/or green spaces for residents, and the soon-to-be-constructed green “band” which will wrap the site and provide a lush extended urban park.

We moved south from Blaak into Wijnhaven and, while standing by CasaNova, reflected on Rotterdam’s high-rise culture. Designed by Barcode Architects, CasaNova is a set of two high-rise mixed-use buildings sharing amenities and services. Located on top of a 30-meter (9,8500 ft) plinth, the two towers look quite different while serving the same purpose: reconnecting Wijnhaven to the city center through residences and amenities. Thanks to the plinth accommodating much of the shared programs, both towers remain slender and essential. The plinth, containing public and semi-public services, supports the urban culture of bringing vitality and purpose to the streets.

Moving to the waterfront was adventurous due to the wind. Once we arrived at the Erasmus Bridge, we admired the view, a spectacular city skyline that never gets old. Biking along the harbor and into Het Park was relaxing and allowed the group to savor the various scales of this city.

The last venue of the tour was Little C (Coolhaven), designed by CULD + Juurlink [+] Geluk. Once again, the intention was to reconnect yet another remote urban area with the city center and, in this case, with the water. The plot is small and densely mixed-use, and the designers were not only charged with creating a new urban neighborhood retaining the original “warehouse” charm of the past. They were also held responsible for redistributing public and accessible space back to the citizens.

MARCH 16: ANTWERP (IN BELGIUM)

Despite the construction work slowing down rail traffic, we made it to Antwerp today. Here, we met Sophie Leroy and Caroline Thaler from Endeavour who were so kind as to accompany us for over 4 hours, covering a 6-mile walk around the city. Our focus was Antwerp Noord, a complex area of the city center that, in recent years, has undergone significant physical transformation of places and social displacement of people.

Antwerp, Belgium’s second largest city, hosts a substantial immigrant community; 13% of the city’s population consists of foreigners, of whom 8% are non-EU nationals. Since 2001, the city has registered an influx of new inhabitants contributing to a positive birth rate. The considerable non-Belgian presence in Antwerp stems from global migration patterns and the harbor’s economic activities. Naturally, the concentration of diverse nationalities within city boundaries has created tensions about the multicultural society, perceptible at all levels of urban life. Within this context and despite these conflicts, the city government’s political agenda aims to ensure Antwerp remains livable where everyone accesses basic rights. Simultaneously, officials acknowledge lacking crucial tools for implementing consistent diversity policies, with dependence on many higher government bodies.

Our tour began at Central Station. From there we walked to the Permeke Library, where Endeavour supports the “Feminine City” garden. This square, once situated outside the first medieval walls, hosts a Sunday book market. The area faces challenges of social and infrastructural integration. Following urban renewal strategies, this area is gradually transforming. One notable new project is the Library, which has established a garden dedicated to women’s gathering, information, and empowerment. Endeavour’s project provides women a weekly meeting space every Thursday. Here, they have co-created a green sanctuary with flowers, vegetables, and herbs while developing ideas about public space and women-friendly environments within the city. Women share stories and talents, feel safe, and engage in teaching and learning. Women come from various parts of the city for these Thursday gatherings. The garden closes at night. Given this place’s success, replicating the concept closer to these women’s homes with extended daytime access should be prioritized. However, such co-creation requires coordinating vacant lots, facilitators, and participants. The garden radiates enthusiasm and empowerment. Women feel safe and confident, though no one commits to specific activities. While this might appear to hinder the place’s evolution, it actually liberates participants from preconceived ideas they didn’t help create initially.

Walking toward Slachthuis, we traversed highly commercial streets offering diverse products. We appreciated the variety of people, goods, and cultures creating vibrant streetscapes. This area, predominantly social housing, is transforming into a speculative real estate market. After crossing the train tracks, we noticed houses becoming larger and amenities less diverse but more expensive.

At Slachthuis, we learned the warehouses are becoming schools and community spaces including parks and playgrounds. Throughout the area, the city renovation plan involves new housing structures, extensive renewal of existing buildings, and enhanced street amenities. These developments target young families and students, bringing different energy to the neighborhood. A central, well-programmed park has united the community, with various local associations collaborating with the city to advocate for such essential community hubs.

From here, we entered Park Spoor Noord, formerly a railroad that underwent massive renewal between 2012 and 2017. The community engages here through various activities: basketball, cricket, playgrounds, sandpits, and teen gathering spaces. Renovated warehouses now house indoor skating and climbing facilities. We are witnessing systematic gentrification: this park has always existed but only now truly serves its community through programs and services supporting the neighborhood’s recreational and educational needs.

Finally, we arrived at Wijk Eilandje, once a blue-collar district characterized by warehouses. Today, these same structures have become premium apartment buildings and services catering to high-income residents. Almost no trace remains of what was once a disconnected, dysfunctional part of town marked by crime and poverty.

MARCH 17: ROTTERDAM

HOGESCHOOL ROTTERDAM

At 10 AM we arrived at the Hogeschool Rotterdam located by Little C. Before entering the building, it was interesting to look back at the urban public space by the river Schie which we visited by bike on day 2 and observe how the space was used by students, residents and businesses on a busy Monday morning. Although much should be attributed to the sun, the urban square at the edge of the river was pulsing with vibrating energy from passersby, people hanging out, individuals busy working in and around buildings, solo runners, groups chatting, and students gathering by the entrance of the University.

Hogeschool Rotterdam, today renamed to University of Rotterdam for Applied Sciences, occupies diverse sites in Rotterdam, each with its own unique scale, program, and connection to the place and community it serves.

Hogeschool Rotterdam is practice and execution-based, looking at the city as the ground in which all knowledge is shared, translated, cultivated, and developed. The city hosts the school, and the school’s curriculum is built up in a way that each class contributes to community engagement and participation.

Rather than looking at solutions and outcomes, students are trained to slow down, redefine and think about urban situations. Fundamental in the education are:

1. Promises to the city: Understanding the scale and role of the Hoogeschool within the city and the many ways it can contribute to its social dynamics.
2. Being there! Having many branches in the city allows the school to be a beacon, an institution that observes the city and reflects on its lively daily activities. The school functions as a community hub.
3. Reciprocity: The act of giving back and getting from. Within the curriculum, students do not limit their interactions with residents through surveys and interviews but establish a systematic process of working together and, collaboratively, resolve daily challenges. Strong is the drive to work together while educating each other toward more transdisciplinary outcomes.
4. Equality — connecting and merging: This implies that students within the city formulate theoretical and critical thinking but also practical and experiential knowledge that allows a full understanding of social situations and spatial dynamics. Everyone is an expert in understanding and providing equality.
5. Continuity — stay there: The process of continuously learning and doing so together is key and supports the subsequent steps into applying and making. Students work with communities, and the next generation of students picks up from where the earlier class started and left off (learning sequence).

My takeaway from David’s lecture and introduction to the Hogeschool Rotterdam is that the education leading students to become functional professionals in the city is the realization that we are all built up from the knowledge that is already there! We are not creating anything new. Yet, we are leveraging knowledge that has been there and is there for us to learn from and roll into a new dimension. Starting any process from observing is key: looking at what is there, learning, and co-creating with the end users. If city designers use and consume the city like the most disadvantaged citizens, the necessity to improve the urban situation would expedite and things would progress much better. The users tell the story of accessibility and inclusivity.

KEILEPAND

Arriving at Keilepand was inspiring. The students biked along the Maas into Delfshaven, one of the few areas that survived Rotterdam’s 1940 bombing.

By 1 PM, we reached Keilepand, a repurposed warehouse in Merwe-Vierhavens (M4H), a district blending start-ups and multinational businesses to foster creativity, entrepreneurship, and technology. Home to De Urbanisten, an urban and landscape office, Keilepand exemplifies innovation through projects like the sponge garden and Tidalpark. M4H is a hub for the innovative manufacturing industry, serving as a testing ground for new products, technologies, and sustainable practices.

By 2050, M4H will see the construction of around 5,000 homes within the Makers District, potentially displacing existing communities. Keilepand’s occupants aim to counter this by promoting collaboration between businesses, residents, and the local ecosystem, ensuring development enhances rather than replaces the area’s identity.

Keilepand, a massive concrete collective space, preserves historical architecture while fostering community cohesion. Transformed between 2015 and 2019 by GROUP A and studioADAMS, it has become a hub for sustainable innovation. Step by step, the building has been renovated to house a diverse array of businesses, actively contributing to the area’s transformation.

Rotterdam envisions M4H as a high-end, sustainable district, aligning with EU climate goals. By 2050, the area must be climate-neutral, in line with the European Green Deal. Achieving this requires energy-neutral design and sustainable practices, principles that drive GroupA/CarbonLab’s work at Keilepand. Material repurposing has also been central to the transformation, balancing innovation with heritage preservation.

Margaret Crawford (2008) wrote that “design within everyday space must start with an understanding and acceptance of the life that takes place there.” Keilepand embodies this by embracing existing realities and supporting community-led efforts to enhance Rotterdam’s vitality.

If co-creation involves engaging end-users in shaping their environment, GroupA/CarbonLab and De Urbanisten exemplify this approach, working with the community to improve and sustain the neighborhood. Their restoration of Keilepand has transformed an obsolete space into an inclusive, accessible hub, demonstrating the power of placekeeping – preserving a neighborhood’s essence while fostering growth and adaptation.

MARCH 18: DELFT

CO-WONEN

To address the question “How can we design co-housing to facilitate community engagement?”, we visited Co-Wonen, where Tijmen and Flip provided insights from their extensive experience with social and spatial negotiation in co-housing projects. Their 25-year age difference offered complementary perspectives: Flip, a retired architect with a PhD and longtime co-housing resident, and Tijmen, an enthusiastic architect focused on experimental approaches.

They walked us through the Dutch co-housing timeline, emphasizing that despite the growing need for more conservative and humble living arrangements, community members must be understood, encouraged, and empowered for co-design projects to become sustainable and successful.

The Dutch co-housing evolution spans centuries:

• Hofje van Bakenes in Haarlem (1395)
• Delft Garden City Social Housing
• Centraal Wonen in Hilversum (1977)
• Gemeenschappelijk Wonen Project in Nieuwgeinse (1982)
• Dutch squatters culture (1980s)
• Collective Self-Build (CPO) (2000s)
• Co-ops emergence (2015)

Co-Wonen now questions what future community combinations might look like. While historical co-housing often followed top-down organizational structures, today’s communities form through more complex and fluid dynamics, making design considerably more challenging.

This complexity has transformed traditional design into co-design—a collaborative creation process that seeks input from all users to ensure functionality and longevity. A key consideration is determining the appropriate balance between collective spaces and social interactions.

Motivations for co-housing:

• Aging populations seeking care solutions
• Rising housing costs
• City benefits (reduced burden on municipal services)
• Improved resident happiness and health
• Environmental advantages through shared spaces and reduced redundancy

Co-Wonen’s framework for successful community engagement centers on:

• Privacy
• Ownership
• Click (compatibility between residents)
• Casual Encounters
• Planned Interactions
• Social Continuity

Designing for such principles requires transition zones; engagement with shared spaces, and circulation is communication: we need to co-create spaces to linger and meet other people.

We concluded our visit with a tour of Flip’s community, which he helped design over 25 years ago, offering a living example of these principles in practice.

TU DELFT

Crossing the Delft University of Technology campus, we arrived at the Bouwkunde (the Department of Architecture) and met with professors Fabiana Toni and Laura Cipriani.

Despite a rather frustrating technical delay, the Morgan team was able to present some ongoing work. Professor Cipriani shared her recent awarded project revolving around engagement, play, and landscape. Finally, Professor Rocco introduced the work been done at the Just City Center. Touching upon tangible, real, and urgent societal matters, Rocco shared his on-going research on understanding City dynamics consisting of spaces that, while they should be designed for people (and with people), prove to constantly fail our expectation and result in disastrous societal relationships and life qualities. At the core of his research is the exploration and promotion of urban justice and equity in city planning and development.

Finally, the group gathered at Vakwerkhuis, a mixed-used community-oriented placekeeping case study a few steps away from the University. Vakwerkhuis is an architecture office (Vakwerk Architecten), a cafe, and a gateway and a connection between the city center and the University of Technology Delft. The old boiler house, once the main source of energy for the University, remained silent for a while. Now it is a significant point of connection and encounter between students and residents of Delft.

MARCH 19: ROTTERDAM

CITY PLANNING PRESENTATIONS

After Hermen Borst, Director of Urban Development at the Municipality of Rotterdam, provided a formal introduction, delegates from the Baltimore Department of Planning presented to city delegates, students, faculty, Baltimore-Rotterdam Sister Cities Committee members and interested citizens.

Citing from Hermen’s opening session, we are aware of the fact that we do not know everything despite our education and worldwide experience, and that we must come together and co-design toward placemaking. This exchange among sister cities offers a moment to learn and share experiences, practical methods, and applications. The invitation is to mutually react to what we see and hear today because, without constructive feedback, we stop the knowledge flow from moving and disseminating across different and similar urban realities.

The initial hour was spent listing the innumerable problems and physical, social, and psychological issues within the city of Baltimore. City representatives expressed that their job is made impossible due to a historical, spatial, and social inheritance they have no responsibility for. According to the data presented, Baltimore is characterized by decline, racial segregation, redlining, blockbusting and suburbanization, and the infamous “Highway to Nowhere.”

The city was presented from an eagle eye perspective, composed of a puzzle of abstract feelings and decontextualized experiences missing the direct relationship to lived realities. Instead of experiencing the city by participating in its numerous community events and through the eyes of the residents who live there, what unfolds before us is a detached and forcibly negative picture of a city that is anything but to be patronized. Aside from the fact that I humbly believe that any space ought to be designed starting from who is the most discriminated individual of the urban chain, Baltimore is creative, inventive and is capable, through collaborative approaches, of reinvesting itself every day.

Institutional memory, generational trauma, and memory around catastrophic past events that continue to impact the everyday lives of residents is a real thing. However, we must move forward from there and embrace the courage to look into a more positive and proactive future. We cannot patronize nor allow negativity to blind our hope for better spaces and lives. Planning for disadvantaged communities cannot happen in survival mode but must embrace a proactive attitude. By being responsible to co-shape places and lives, we support wellness and success, somehow becoming service providers.

Designers must embrace their role with positivity and optimism. They ought to respect residents and acknowledge that residents’ taxes make it possible for designers to work and return resources back to the city and all its residents.

Rotterdam is a privileged city, where resources are available and there is healthy financial capacity to provide what is needed to its citizens.

However, it has not always been like this. Rotterdam was bombed and its planners had to gain the courage to reconstruct it (1950). The process was arduous and not all optimal decisions were made. The historical inner city was never rebuilt and a modern attitude based on the Manhattan vision was adopted. A second fateful decision was made in 2008 when, from a car-oriented city, Rotterdam made the brave choice to slow down and prioritize pedestrians and bicycles.

More recently, the city determined that walking is not enough and that the city urgently needs places to facilitate encounters, encourage exchanges, and provide spaces to relax and learn (placemaking). The way we design and consume our cities ought to factor in climate change and its impact on our daily lives. Likewise, places are not designed but co-designed, hence the process of working together with all people at stake.

Another interesting approach is that Rotterdam is designed after public transportation has been planned out. This clearly creates places that are fully accessible and connected to one another.

DOEPEL STRIJKERS

This essential conversation continued at Doepel Strijkers. Duzan Doepel proposed a conversation with the students and, through storytelling, unfolded their portfolio. At the center of their designs is people, nature, and technology. From Flex Wonen (Flexible Houses) to the Principle of Affordances and the impact of iconic buildings on tourists visiting the city, Doepel Strijkers is an inspiring and energizing experience.

MARCH 20: ROTTERDAM

Today’s visit with MVRDV underscored the urgent need to integrate climate resilience into innovative urban solutions. Their recent publication, the “Sea Level Rise Catalogue,” serves as both a necessary and inspirational toolkit, offering examples of new flood-resilient typologies. This work aligns with the broader framework of climate-resilient cities—urban areas designed to adapt to, withstand, and recover from the impacts of climate change. The catalogue provides design solutions for infrastructure and housing that can endure extreme weather, protecting inhabitants from harm. It also highlights strategies to ensure economic stability by maintaining economic activities even during climate disruptions, safeguarding businesses and livelihoods. Additionally, the catalogue showcases cities that incorporate renewable energy sources, green building materials, and efficient public transportation systems, reducing their overall carbon footprint. By proposing green spaces, clean air, and efficient public services, the designs aim to enhance the quality of life for residents. As climate risks intensify, resilient cities will be better prepared for future challenges, ensuring long-term viability.

A second theme explored during the visit was “What if NL 2100,” a visionary project imagining the Netherlands in the year 2100. Given the country’s unique geography—much of which lies below sea level—this speculative vision is critical for understanding how the nation can adapt and thrive amid climate-related challenges. By embracing innovative solutions, the Netherlands can not only survive but flourish in the face of climate change. MVRDV’s forward-thinking approach plays a significant role in shaping this vision, ensuring a resilient, sustainable, and vibrant future for all.

Finally, Maria Stamati introduced us to MVRDV’s Rooftop Catalog, which reimagines the potential of urban rooftops. This initiative aims to utilize underused spaces for social, environmental, and economic benefits. The catalogue serves as a practical guide, showcasing a variety of rooftop transformations that help cities adapt to climate change, increase biodiversity, and improve urban living.

In the afternoon, we visited SAWA, a project by Mei Architects in Rotterdam’s Lloydkwartier district. Walking from MVRDV’s office to SAWA, we passed through off-the-beaten-path neighborhoods filled with community creations, urban gardens, community hubs, 1:1 installations, and resting spots for people to enjoy. Many of these spaces are repurposed marginal areas that have yet to be developed.

At 3 PM, we arrived at SAWA, a groundbreaking project that exemplifies the future of sustainable urban living. Located in the dynamic Lloydkwartier district, SAWA combines innovative design, environmental responsibility, and community-oriented living to create a model for resilient and inclusive cities. By prioritizing sustainability, health, and social connection, SAWA sets a new benchmark for residential architecture, demonstrating how thoughtful design can address the challenges of urbanization and climate change. Mei Architects has integrated a participatory approach into the design and development process, ensuring the project not only meets the needs of its future residents but also fosters a sense of ownership and connection among them. This participatory element is central to SAWA’s mission of creating a socially inclusive, sustainable, and community-driven living environment.

MARCH 21: AMSTERDAM

During a stop in Amsterdam Sloterdijk, with some free time to spare, we stumbled upon a hidden gem that immediately caught our attention: De Tuin van Bret. Nestled amidst gleaming skyscrapers, this sustainable village is a testament to the ingenuity of a group of visionary entrepreneurs. Here, trade, relaxation, and even tending to chickens and vines coexist harmoniously. It’s an oasis of creativity and sustainability that we were thrilled to discover by chance.

One of the driving forces behind this project is Khoi Tran, a creative mind who, through inclusion and collaboration, is bringing his dream to life. De Tuin van Bret is a space for co-creation, learning, and sharing, with a focus on minimal environmental impact and maximum experiential and community engagement. This initiative is a shining example of a new economic model—one that prioritizes beautiful, high-quality, and sustainable creations over monetary gain. It’s an inspiring project that fosters collective upliftment and points the way toward a better world.

Later that morning, we arrived at wrk architects, where sustainability is not just an afterthought but the foundation of every project. From the outset, we were reminded that architects bear a responsibility to address the environmental and societal damage caused by their profession. The team at wrk architects is committed to minimizing these negative impacts, leveraging the knowledge, technology, and experience available today to create designs that are both pro-environment and pro-people.

The pressing question is: How will architects respond to the urgent need for climate-resilient cities? We are in the midst of a significant transition, and collaboration and sustainability are no longer optional—they are imperative. At wrk architects, the approach is clear: build a compelling narrative and offer no design options that deviate from sustainable principles. The entire office is trained to prioritize energy consumption reduction and understand the impact of every design decision.

The office operates in alignment with the UIA Climate Change Agendas, focusing on designs that prioritize people, circularity, reuse, and reduction. They are rethinking traditional business models and workflows to create a more sustainable future. Their design principles include:

1. Practicing circular design throughout the entire process
2. Using timber and bio-based materials as alternatives
3. Building smarter by optimizing material use
4. Drawing inspiration from the surrounding nature
5. Targeting Paris Proof standards, aiming for carbon dioxide-free construction and zero CO2 emissions over a building’s entire lifecycle

Ben and Matteo from wrk architects took us to the Studentencomplex Amsterdam, a Duwo building originally designed by Dudok. After sitting vacant for years, it was repurposed and reoccupied in 2015. The transformation, led by wrk architects, breathed new life into the space. While it’s not a collective housing project, the design encourages social interaction. By relocating mailboxes to a central area, the architects created a hub for residents to gather, revitalizing previously unused spaces. The washrooms, crafted staircases, elevators, and corridors also serve as additional points of connection.

As a historical monument, the building required minimal intervention. Energy efficiency was improved through wall insulation, lowered ceilings in common areas, and strategically designed apartment layouts. A new row of windows enhanced natural light in the corridors, further elevating the quality of the space.

This experience reinforced the idea that a civilized society must integrate the environment into its design to ensure equity and long-term well-being. The projects we encountered in Amsterdam—De Tuin van Bret and the work of wrk architects—are powerful examples of how creativity, collaboration, and sustainability can come together to shape a better future.

How are you contributing to climate goals?

CONCLUSION

How has this trip helped us grow into more aware, sensitive, and intentional designers? This experience has shifted our perspective, making us more curious and engaged observers of people and places. While we come from a well-resourced country, we often lack critical insights, skills, technologies, and experiences. Most importantly, assuming that our resources will always be available to sustain our privileged lifestyles is an illusion. True growth happens when we open ourselves to different perspectives and engage as part of a collective. This is when design becomes truly meaningful—when we can explore solutions to current challenges in a global and holistic way. By nature, designers are optimistic, believing in their ability to shape a better world. However, this does not mean we are naive about the impact of our profession on the planet. We must make conscious choices, prioritize responsible sourcing, select sustainable materials, and ensure inclusivity. Our role is to co-create a built environment that is not only innovative but also sustainable and equitable for all.

THANK YOU — A special thank goes to the Baltimore Rotterdam Sister City Committee for always supporting Morgan State University School of Architecture + Planning students to participate in yet another successful trip to Rotterdam. Huge kudos to my friends and colleagues who help me discovering inspiring people and places, Matteo Bettoni and Maki Oishi. Thanks to the Gemeente Rotterdam (Rotterdam municipal government) for all the insight and constant support: Danny Nelemans, Emiel Arends, Hermen Borst, Karen van Spek, Marlies van der Maarel. Thanks to the sponsors who have generously provided funds to help cover the travel costs for the students. 2025 Sponsors include: Jeffrey Penza & Laura Thul Penza | BluePrint Café | brennan + company architects | Greenleaf Construction | Vectorworks | Twopoint Studio | Forbes Design Center | Custom Concepts by Greenwalt ArchPlan Inc.

---

References

---

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT:

– 2025 Student Trip Sponsors –

Platinum

Jeff and Laura Thul Penza

GOLD

Blueprint Café

Silver

brennan+company architects

Greenleaf Construction

Vectorworks

BRONZE

Twopoint Studio, LLC

Forbes Design Center

COPPER

Custom Concepts by Greenwalt

ArchPlan, Inc.

– 2025 Student Trip Supporters –