Belgium and the Netherlands: Two Different Ways of Coping with the Housing Crisis, 1945–70

Abstract

ABSTRACTBelgium and the Netherlands are very different in their spatial outlook and in the way housing is organized. In Belgium individual private dwellings predominate whereas in the Netherlands social housing and planned neighborhoods are much more common. This article aims at unraveling the histories and sensibilities that led to this situation. It argues that the well-known diverging histories of architecture and urbanism make up only one explanation, which needs to be complemented by understanding the different processes of mediation between producers and consumers adopted by both countries. In tackling the postwar housing crisis, Belgium chose to stimulate private initiative by providing tax incentives for home builders. The Netherlands, on the other, hand mitigated the housing crisis by planning new estates of social housing, using new techniques of prefabrication that led to standardized flats. In the Netherlands the process of mediation, oriented towards “correct living,” was dominated by a national organization, which resolutely advocated modernist design as the most rational way to organize the home. In Belgium the task of mediation was taken up by “pillarized” social organizations rather than by a national institution. This resulted in a much stronger bottom-up influence from ordinary dwellers, who convinced their organizations to soften the modernist approach in favor of more traditionally inspired homes and interiors. The Belgian way of organizing home cultures thus came to resemble much more an “American way of living” than its Dutch counterpart—contradicting the prevailing literature that tends to stress the Americanization of Dutch culture while ignoring such patterns in Belgium.