1.

Intro

Make it anew is a book dedicated to diederendirrix architects, Bert Dirrix and Paul
Diederen, and their design ideology.

2. Overview of book and architects

In the next few minutes, we are going to present the inspirations and starting points
of their work, as well as their architectural influences. Regarding their background,
both architects were students in the Technical University of Eindhoven, a decision
that had a great impact on the formation of their architectural identity. In 2005 they
established their architectural practice, as it is now known, in Eindhoven. The
concurrent urban growth and downsizing of Philips that took place in Eindhoven set
the grounds for a creative experimentation on the redesign of vacant buildings and
sites, which are the main source of their realised projects. 

3.Theory, starting points, concepts - Connection to other theories

Dirrix and Diederen’s approach on interventions is based on a set of tools that derive
from diverse case studies and references which they interpret and transliterate
through their own perspective. 

One of their main influences was the comparative research of one of their professors,
Bekaert, on three redesign cases: Scarpa’s Castelvecchio, Vandenhove’s Hotel
Torrentius and Valode and Pistre’s Museum of Contemporary Art in Bordeaux. These
three examples indicate three ways of dealing with heritage under the scope of
transformative continuity and continual transformation: fusing old and new,
juxtaposing old with new and detaching one from the other.

Another academic that had an impact on their design approach is Habraken and his
“open building” concept. Habraken viewed the building as an open-ended project that
always allows for later changes. The building is seen as a combination of two distinct
parts with different lifespans: the support, which is rather permanent and the infill
which can be more easily replaced or adjusted. Diederen and Dirrix reinterpreted the
open building theory and extended it to the urban scale with reference to Rossi’s
“Architecture of the City”, creating the notions of “open architecture” and “open urban
development”.

As stated by the architects: “If a building is vacant for a long time, there is usually
something wrong with the place where it stands.” (p.127)

Thus, in all cases of transformation, they support that the broader context should be
taken into consideration in order for the redesign to be deemed successful or not.
The context, now determined by the current transition from expendability and
obsolescence towards sustainability, is mainly defined by two factors that should
always be considered: the economic and cultural one. Even though the economic
value seems to be of more importance, it is the cultural that appoints a lasting
significance to the project.

The architects’ position within the field is a result of all these theories and concepts
combined. This is the way through which they acknowledge where they stand and
how they view the world in which they operate.
After the completion of some of their projects, they created a theoretical background
on how they operate that consists of 4 approaches related to how they deal with each
building and the respective program. These approaches are restore, repurpose,
restructure and regenerate. The degree in which a building is preserved or modified
and its programme is retained or converted define each time the approach.

4. Approaches

The first approach is Restore: 

Preserve as much of the original building as possible and retain the original program
while reinterpreting it to fit contemporary needs. Interventions are minimum and
sensible and mainly focused on updating the building’s physics and energy
performance.

An example of this approach is ‘t Karregat community center in Eindhoven. The

building, originally designed by Frank van Klingeren, was built in 1970-73 and used
to function as an open-plan multifunctional center. However, this configuration did not
serve its purpose as intended and that’s why the architects inserted a reversible
system of flexible internal walls. In general, the original design remained mostly
intact, with few changes. The umbrella skylights, as a key architectural element, were
restored while a part of the roof was dismantled to create a central atrium. Due to
economical and municipality decisions, the redesign is still partly unfinished.

The second approach is Repurpose:

Preserve the original building and convert the program to fit contemporary needs.
Interventions are noticeable and prompted by the incompatibility between the
existing built form and the new program.

A case in point is Witte Dame in Eindhoven, originally built in 1926-28. It is the firm’s
first large transformation of a Philps factory to a multiple-use complex
accommodating the Design Academy and the public library. The building’s skin
remained unaltered, while the interior was somewhat modified. A new central
element was added serving as a circulation hub. 
20 years after the redesign, the architects were appointed to design the masterplan
of the surrounding area, where, later on, the Lighting building was incorporated.

The third approach is Restructure: 

Modify the original building and retain the original program while reinterpreting it to fit
contemporary needs. Interventions are drastic and alter the building’s image and
atmosphere, while updating the building’s physics and energy performance.

Vertigo in Eindhoven, built in 1961 as the faculty of chemistry of TU Eindhoven, is a

representative case of this approach. It is the firm’s second largest transformation
project. Even though the building maintained its educational program, now
functioning as a faculty of Architecture, it was completely transformed. Both the
exterior and the interior were radically altered. New glass facades were attached to
the concrete structure, while the floor slabs were penetrated so as to create a large
carved void. All the educational spaces formed by non-load bearing, movable and
demountable partitions were organized around this central atrium, designed to
stimulate social interaction and encounters.  
The fourth and final approach is Regenerate: 

Modify the original building and convert the program to fit contemporary needs.
Interventions are radical, allowing for new users’ appropriation and potential further
changes.

Lighting in Eindhoven, originally designed as offices and labs for Philips in 1973-
1984, is a typical example of this approach. The building and its program drastically
changed, since the offices were converted into residential units with respective
collective services. The architects used the existing floors’ height into their advantage
by designing entresols inside the apartments. Regarding the building’s volume, two
extra floors were added in order to incorporate penthouses and increase its overall
market value. The facades were completely redone; glazed with a tripartite horizontal
division for each unit. The Lighting’s redesign complemented the urban development
of the area that was initiated with Witte Dame’s transformation.

5. Conclusion

Overall, the aim of all these approaches is to reach an equilibrium between the
building’s past and the current and future demands and therefore, make the building
more sustainable socially, economically and ecologically and endow it with new
values.

To conclude, even though the four strategies were presented as distinct ones,
traceable on a building scale, on every other scale a multiplicity of interconnected
strategies can be detected. However, despite this categorization, in all redesign
cases the difference essentially lies on the degree of intervention.