Spikvoorde II / René van Zuuk Architekten

What excatly is the advantage of this shape?? The one peace gives the other one shadow….??…

The bitterness of the commentary never fails to startle me. Do they teach this pervasive negativism in some school? What is the point of it?

If I gather correctly the purpose of the shape is to respond to the site by creating a level of visual interest from multiple axis. The second advantage of the shape is that it increases the glazed area of the apartments and school rooms in an area of the world where light, especially in winter, is at a premium. Therefore, from what I can see the rotation of the structure dramatically increases both views and available light.

The huge expense and fuss seems to be about providing people with housing and schooling together in a country with a very high population density. The model implies that families are closer together and that the neighborhood is better integrated.

These models of civic planning are an area where the Netherlands has consistently demonstrated itself to lead in creating alternative and innovative solutions.

There is one thing I find extremely bothersome in the 20 odd architectural forums that I follow these days. It seems that architecture has been reduced to an act of twisting polygons using computer modeling software. In rare cases this glittering sculptural egoism can be demonstrated to serve a practical purpose. For example, in the case of the Gherkin in London the rotational axis of the internal floor plate and the wind modeling of the tower are intended to achieve convective cooling through internal atria (even if Swiss Re have yet to utilize this function). However, in most cases it seems to me that we are left with very little architecture and a lot of folded cardboard or bad digital sculpture.

In the case of this building it would be a stretch to call it beautiful. However, in its modesty and resolution of actual problems there is architecture going on. This isn’t a look-at-me bit of impractical sculpture stuck on the cityscape. For that I give a project like this credit and admiration. There use to be a term, workmanlike, that connoted something done well for the sake of doing things well. I find this very workmanlike.

Terry:
I appreciate your insight. What other forums do you follow?

As for the building, the plans aren’t too particularly interesting, but for what the facades are, they’re actually a bit interesting, only because of the depth of the sills and window frames. That cool saturated grey is interesting too.

Looking at the building itself (closing eyes to a vicinity) – it’s a kind of a pleasant experience although I am not very enthusiastic about architecture composed of typical elements repeated as per needs. It’s a “Lego” type of architecture for 5 year old’s. For the same reason I do not like “mirror” glass cubes as they are not much different from medicine cabinets stuck in well aligned piles pretending they are the buildings.
Deficiencies of this particular design consists of:
1. Not very successful attempt to fit apartments into spaces that work well for the ground floor school. It would likely be better if the architect dropped an idea of a fan-like plan, though I can understand it breaks a boredom of a simple box.
2. A context is not very clear… it appears that the building is constructed in a low density residential area. If so… I am afraid that, by it’s height, it doesn’t fit into the place.