There has been a long tradition in making ice structures, but the development of technical improvements for making ice buildings is a new field with just a handful of researchers. Most of the projects were realized by professors in cooperation with their students as part of their education in architecture and civil engineering. The following professors have realized ice projects in this setting: Heinz Isler realized some experiments since the 1950s; Tsutomu Kokawa created in the past three decades several ice domes in the north of Japan with a span up to 25 m; Lancelot Coar realized a number of fabric formed ice shell structures including fiberglass bars and hanging fabric as a mold for an ice shell in 2011 and in 2015 he produced an fabric-formed ice origami structure in cooperation with MIT (Caitlin Mueller) and VUB (Lars de Laet). Arno Pronk realized several ice projects such as the 2004 artificially cooled igloo, in 2014 and 2015 dome structures with an inflatable mold in Finland and in 2016–2019, an ice dome, several ice towers and a 3D printed gridshell of ice in Harbin (China) as a cooperation between the Universities of Eindhoven & Leuven (Pronk) and Harbin (Wu and Luo). In cooperation between the University of Alberta and Eindhoven two ice beams were realized during a workshop in 2020. In this paper we will present the motivation and learning experiences of students involved in learning-by-doing by realizing one large project in ice. The 2014–2016 projects were evaluated by Sanders and Overtoom; using questionnaires among the participants by mixed cultural teams under extreme conditions. By comparing the results in different situations and cultures we have found common rules for the success of those kinds of educational projects. In this paper we suggest that the synergy among students participating in one main project without a clear individual goal can be very large. The paper will present the success factors for projects to be perceived as a good learning experience.

@en

‘Water-authority Monuments’ do not exist officially though Water-authority artefacts are numerous in existence and they have become important for civilians to feel related to the work of defence against flooding in the Netherlands and related threats, nowadays climate change related mostly. Therefore, it is important to understand better how such artefacts help people to become partly responsible for the work of Water-authorities, their goal-setting and taxation. The conservation of the most noticeable of these artifacts shows not to be organized in the Netherlands; unless Waterauthorities are the oldest governmental bodies in the Dutch situation. Government on the national and lower levels do preserve monuments among which is Water-authority related, even UNESCO world heritage cover some, still numerous of these artefacts are nor preserved yet, which proves a first inventory of exploring nature. Therefore, the conclusion is must to set the monumental status for Water-authority-related artefacts.

@en

Most cities in the world are coastal cities, especially facing accumulating climate-change coupled threats. These cities are precisely the ones that are growing the fastest, what makes this development a risk for millions of people in our world. These accumulating threats happen when seawater-level rise, clustered heavy rainfall, and meltwater river-level rise fall occur simultaneously. Within the H2020 Marie Curie 'SOS Climate Waterfront' 2019-2021 research program, researchers exchanged between coastal cities in Europe to explore whether they are aware of the need for resilience, and how the resilience in these cities is structured systematically. Aiming for the accelerated adjustment of the research methodology, the situation of three EU islands was examined as a sidekick. Thereby Actions/Actors-diagram is developed as a tool. The conclusions are: this diagram helps to make the positions of actors clear, helps to clarify which measures are being worked on, and can help to identify any obstacles to work on resilience. In relation to the situation on the three islands, the diagram also helped to clarify the reason for the blockade. It has been concluded that for this type of research it is important to first properly visualize the local situation, and to make extra efforts to talk to many experts and make extra additions to interview citizens connected to community initiatives.@en

Green roofing in cities is the new development in making cities healthier and more liveable. A striking example is the case of Chicago where air pollution was reduced by creating green roofs on all municipal buildings since 2006. A contrary development is the large-scale growth of cities by which leftover open space by compaction becomes used at the expense of green surface. Cities have enormous differences on green space square meters, not only due municipality policies, citizen initiative is involved too because their choices for greening of open public space and building roofs are decisive for the square meters reached, by individual and group behaviour. Therefor research is done on action-prospects that can create a break-through in greening cities. An inventory is made of greening activities of citizen groups in the Dutch situation; their motivations included. Results from former research on sustainable citizen group participation have been used as foundation of the citizen group dynamics encountered. The conclusions are that: 1. There are more initiatives with more impact in cities then in the countryside, 2. A third of the green initiatives are food production motivated, 3. For the citizen-initiative participants liveability in general is a more important motivator then sustainability, and 4. The square meter impact of green citizen-initiatives in cities is little. Action perspectives are: stimulate food related citizen initiatives [quantitively], and vertical faced greening [qualitatively]. @en

The ‘Jane Jacobs Walk’ organization as one of the Jane Jacobs (1916-2006) heritage initiative supported three Jane Jacobs Walks of certified Fred Sanders in the period 2011 - 2014 in Amsterdam neighbour-hoods. These walks helped residents to explore resident-empowered meeting-places and activities in their own housing environment for the benefit of community living-quality for themselves and others all spirited by Jane Jacobs her thoughts. These walks can methodological be seen as a form action-research by which the participating residents analyze their own data of experiences and insights. From the three Jane Jacob Walks organized (added to the results of my dissertation as the ‘body of knowledge’) (Sanders, 2014) the conclusions are: 1. Residents favor nearby and lifestyle coupled meeting-places, 2. Beside the by the municipality organized meeting-places there are many so called ‘free’ meeting-places available, 3. Less of all these meeting-places suite youngsters, foreign people and unemployed people, and 4. Resi-dents are willing to organize meeting-place even to manage subsidizing still a financial support from the municipality is essential. The effect of the ‘talking by walking’ could be optimized by involving more youngsters. ‘Jane Jacobs Walks’ as example of action-research could methodological be optimized by test-ing the results in a pilot neighbourhood.@en

The Wester coastal Delta zone of the Netherlands is the relatively more crowded area of the country where ten of the seventeen million people live. The governmental prognosis is that this number of people will increase steadily in the coming decennia, unless the threat of climate-change seawater level rising. This is the picture in more Delta zones globally what makes the topic of resiliency for these delta-areas of importance. Approaches of resiliency are often dominated by governmental rescue planning and believe in technology solutions. By comparing the float disasters of the 20015 Katrina and 2012 Sandy thunderstorms that hit respectively New Orleans and New York we can learn that the behaviour of people can make the difference in overcoming climate change impact disasters. Post-PhD research with focus on the Dutch Zaanstreek-Waterland area near the city of Amsterdam where in 1916 a severe flood happened confirmed such. The outcome from focus group sessions was that the disaster from 100 year before still kept the inhabitants of this countryside area alert into resiliency if the memory of the area inhabitants is kept alert. The result is that the definition of resiliency could be improved into: ‘the interplay resistance coping with threats in a triangular relationship of civil servants, technicians and residents’. Therewith the question arose: ‘how alert are the people in cities without such stored memory’. Therefor advanced questionnaire research among Zaanstad citizens is done, special for the IFOU 2018 conference. The result is that these citizens although they are alert to climate change related disasters, do not take precautions and do rely on government to overcome such severe situations.@en

For speeding-up the retrofit1 use of demolished construction materials in new housing instead of focusing on the reuse of new materials at the end of the housing lifecycle, former research led to the conclusion that in the Dutch situation material depots that refurbish2 construction materials are needed. Only then occupied-housing costumers can and will invest in such housing. Refurbishing is needed for uplifting the lifespan of demolished construction materials to the level of new materials for mixed use coupled to insurance conditions. Unless the first pilot development projects like KOMST on the ‘Zeeburger’ Island in Amsterdam have been started-up, the development of ‘construction material depots’ is behind in development. This can lead to a huge delay in circular occupied-housing development. That’s why research on depot conditions and locations in the Netherlands is done, to explore consumer-oriented growth conditions.@en

In recent years collaborative housing has developed into a housing typology for a wide range of households seeking housing solutions that are not offered by mainstream providers. Collaborative housing is very divers, but initiatives share the central similarity that people support each other in creating their living environment together and [often] share facilities together. Because collaborative housing projects are resident-led, there is a need for easy access to knowledge and research about other collaborative housing experiences. Unfortunately, the institutes possessing this knowledge are often as fragmented and diverse as the collaborative housing initiatives themselves. The authors contend that this fragmentation hampers the diffusion of collaborative housing. An analysis of the Dutch collaborative housing initiatives shows that this fragmentation hampers information exchange and learning processes. Using Roger’s framework of ‘Diffusion of innovations’ this paper explores how national and international knowledge networks and shared information resources could support the adoption of collaborative housing.@en

Circular building leads to a different way of thinking and building. BPD development is experimenting with 19 owner-occupied houses on the Zeeburgereiland, to use as many refurbished materials in cooperation with the coming housing owners, so far these are available at the existing materials depots. It is a pilot project because buyers do not know the possibilities sufficiently and do not yet expect the option from a developer. It is interest-ing how buyers deal with this offer and what we learn from this to stimulate this development nationwide (Sanders and Van Timmeren, 2018)@en

There has been a long tradition in making ice structures, but the development of technical improvements for making ice buildings is a new field with just a handful of researchers. Most of the projects were realized by professors in cooperation with their students as part of their education in architecture and civil engineering. The following professors have realized ice projects in this setting: Heinz Isler realized some experiments since the 1950s; Tsutomu Kokawa created in the past three decades several ice domes in the north of Japan with a span up to 25 meters; Lancelot Coar realized a number of fabric formed ice shell structures including fiberglass bars and hanging fabric as a mould for an ice shell in 2011 and in 2015 he produced an fabric-formed ice origami structure in cooperation with MIT (Caitlin Mueller) and VUB (Lars de Laet)[4]. Arno Pronk realized several ice projects such as the 2004 artificially cooled igloo, in 2014[1] and 2015[2] dome structures with an inflatable mould in Finland and in 2016 one ice dome and two ice towers in Harbin (China) as a cooperation between the Universities of Eindhoven & Leuven (Pronk) and Harbin (Wu and Luo). In this paper we will present the motivation and learning experiences of students involved in learning-by-doing by realizing one large project in ice. The 2014-2016 projects were evaluated by Sanders and Overtoom[3] using questionnaires among the participants by mixed cultural teams under extreme conditions. By comparing the results in different situations and cultures we have found common rules for the success of those kinds of educational projects. In this paper we suggest that the synergy among students participating in one main project without a clear individual goal can be very large. The paper will present the success factors for projects to be perceived as a good learning experience.@en

Dutch practice shows that cities will only become UNFCCC 2016 Paris Agreement sus-tainable proof when civilians besides government are willing to take responsibility for these cities too. Motivation feelings and neighbourhood conditions seem the key suc-cess factors. Many of these factors and conditions have become clear in recent years. Feelings of ‘Pride’ though is very often called as the motivation factor of importance alt-hough less is known of this phenomenon. To make the role of ‘pride feelings’ more clear exploring research on feelings of ‘Pride’ is done in the Dutch city of Amsterdam recently. Therefore the 100 council members of the Amsterdam city and its 7 city areas are ques-tioned on their vision on pride as the motivation factor of civilian initiative and responsi-bility. Besides there were asked to give best practices examples actual in Amsterdam. The analysis of literature search show that ‘pride feeling’ knows the four stages: propor-tional pride, shared pride, self-esteem and shared identity. The case-study analysis shows based on homogeneous outcome unless the small sample of data, that civilian initiatives are seen as important (74%) for city development and that ‘pride feeling’ of importance for the success of civilian initiative is (72,5%). Besides the analysis shows that ‘shared pride’ is the most common stage for civilian initiative. Recommended is that civilian initiatives should be more inventoried whereby ‘pride feeling’ can be deeper ex-amined being the important motivator for the participants and factor for success.@en

Dutch best practice shows that greenish Initiatives of the commons are eminently important for the liveability of neighbourhoods, for social cohesion of residents and the personal development of participants (Sanders 2014 dissertation). Secondly greenish initiatives show to contribute to the healthy conditions of city-residents and CO2 emission reduction important for reaching the national sustainable UNFCCC 2016 Paris Agreement targets, of importance for city developments. The SBE16 pre-sented and WSBE17 preparatory research made clear that greenish initiatives of the commons mainly concern investments by which the motivation factors of the partici-pants are related to ‘proud feeling’ and ‘sharing identity’. The character of investment initiatives of the commons though is that government has to draw back, has to re-duce regulation to facilitate these initiatives. A situation that can create a deadlock situation because the municipalities concerned have to change their regulations to embrace these greenish initiatives of the commons. Therefore its of importance to make clear what regulatory changes are success factors. Because greenish initia-tives vary so widely in presentation a control research on the SBE16 and WSBE17 research specific for greenish initiatives of the commons is operational to identify the diversity and proud-feeling factor of greenish initiatives more exactly. The check in progression strikes the two basic questions: 1. Are the most of these greenish initia-tives Commons of the of investment character (The SBE16 research generated a categorizing of initiatives of the commons of thinking-along, joining-in and investing-in) and 2. What are the dominating stages of ‘proud feeling’ (The WSBE17 research distinguishes the phases proportional-pride, sharing-pride, self-esteem and shared identity). By using and checking the for WSBE17 generated identifying diagram. Rotterdam the second city of the Netherlands is chosen as the area of research be-cause of its numerous best practices example from recent years. From the Rotter-dam sample of 45 greenish initiatives of the commons a number of 21 gave enough data for research in the facilitating comfort that the municipality offered and how these helped the successfulness, to identify and categorize these, to distinguish suc-cess factors and failure actions. Therewith a ‘rule of thumb’ for professionals is worked-out to help practicing the commons and municipality practice for the devel-opment and flourishing of greenish initiatives of the commons. The central conclu-sions are: 1. Greenish initiatives of the Commons working without subsidizing of the municipality have a hard existence, and 2. Proud feelings of the Commons are strongly related to the positive attitude towards their projects by others. These were the results of this research in special done for the IASC 2017 Utrecht Congress.@en