After the unconditional surrender of the Third Reich in May 1945, Germany no longer existed as a sovereign, independent nation. It was occupied by the four Allied powers: France, Great Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union. When it came to the postwar European recovery, the biggest obstacle was that the economy in Germany, the dominant continental economic power before the Second World War, was at an almost complete standstill. This not only had severe consequences for Germany itself, but also had strong economic repercussions for surrounding countries, especially the Netherlands. As Germany had been the former’s most important trading partner since the middle of the nineteenth century, it was clear that the Netherlands would be unable to recover economically without a healthy Germany. However, Allied policy, especially that of the British and the Americans, made this impossible for years. This article therefore focuses on the early postwar Dutch-German trade relations and the consequences of Allied policy. While much has been written about the occupation of Germany, far less attention has been paid to the results of this policy on neighbouring countries. Moreover, the main claim of this article is that it was not Marshall Aid which was responsible for the quick and remarkable Dutch economic growth as of 1949, but the opening of the German market for Dutch exports that same year. https://doi.org/10.1515/jbwg-2018-0009 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/martijn-lak-71793013/
MULTIFILE
In the Netherlands, almost everyone has an image of 1930s neighborhoods, post-war neighborhoods, and Vinex locations. That is very different for the neighborhoods with social housing apartments from the 1970s and 1980s. They are forgotten, hardly known, even professionally. And that is a problem because a wave of restructuring and densification projects is imminent for these areas. They are related to the post-war neighborhoods, but also have fundamentally different spatial characteristics. Moreover, within the fragmented practice of spatial development, there is little shared knowledge on plans in other municipalities or housing associations. Even less is known whether these neighborhoods offer space for tackling the persistent housing shortage and solving other major social challenges, such as energy, biodiversity, circularity and inclusion. It is time for an inventory, and this project undertakes the challenge.In the planning for these residential areas, municipalities, developers and housing corporations set the framework, but it is the urban development and architecture firms that have to translate this into concrete design solutions. We focus on these SMEs. With this research project, we map out the ambitions, challenges and opportunities of the restructuring of these residential areas in three steps: What type of plans and ambitions are there for these residential areas? To this end, we investigate cases by means of policy analyses of the environmental visions and area visions. What characterizes the spatial-social structure of these neighborhoods? To this end, we make a comparative spatial-social analysis of several cases, also in relation to pre-war and early post-war ones. What opportunities and challenges does their restructuring offer? To this end, we use the acquired insights to explore strategies in co-creation sessions with external partners. In this presentation, we will share some of the outputs of this process.
MULTIFILE
„Der Druck auf die alliierten und deutschen Autoritäten, den Transfer von Kapitalerträgen aus Deutschland zu erlauben, darf den Versuchen, die Exporte nach Deutschland zu erhöhen, definitiv nicht untergeordnet werden“, schrieb der niederländische Ökonom P. J. van den Burg in der ökonomischen Wochenzeitschrift Economisch-Statistische Berichten Anfang 1949.1 Seine Beobachtung war nur zu verständlich: In der niederländischen Politik gegenüber Deutschland bestand eine deutliche Ambivalenz zwischen Versuchen, Vorkriegsvermögen zurückzuerhalten, und den Versuchen, niederländisch-deutsche Handels- und Wirtschaftsbeziehungen wiederherzustellen. In den Niederlanden war dieser Dualismus besonders akut, weil Deutschland, seit dem späten 19.Jahrhundert die dominante Wirtschaftsmacht Kontinentaleuropas, seit etwa 1850 der wichtigste Handelspartner der Niederlande gewesen war.2 Zudem hatten niederländische Unternehmen, Banken und Privatpersonen in der ersten Dekade nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg in Deutschland im Allgemeinen und im Ruhrgebiet im Besonderen große Investitionen getätigt. Jedoch verloren niederländische Eigentümer und Firmen 1931, als die Konvertibilität der Reichsmark aufgegeben wurde, die Kontrolle über ihre Besitzungen und Investitionen im Dritten Reich. Die deutsche Besetzung der Niederlande zwischen 1940 und 1945 verschlimmerte diesen Zustand noch. https://doi.org/10.1515/hzhz-2018-0035 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/martijn-lak-71793013/
MULTIFILE
