An interview with one of the Ector Hoogstad Architecten B.V. architects – Stijn Rademakers- conducted by Henrike Kramer on the 11th of May 2023, via Microsoft Teams
“ I think what this project did, is to reclaim the ground floor for pedestrians and for city use. And I think that is a big benefit. At the same time, it enhanced the quality of being able to park your bike, slow traffic and bike traffic, along with that. And in that sense, it really stimulates the use of train and bike in the city overall.“
– Stijn Rademakers, 11.05.2023
On the 29th of April I sent an email to Ector Hoogstad Architecten, in the hopes of speaking to one of the architects who were involved in the project of the mainstation and the biggest bike parking garage in the world in Utrecht. On the 2nd of May one of the architects responded, and we decided to get together on Microsoft team, where the interview would take place on the 11th of May. Stijn Rademakers has worked for Ector Hoogstad BV. architects for over 23 years, and is a project architect, as well as the office manager.
H: Hello Stijn! Thank you so much for doing this interview with me!
S: Hello! Yes no problem!
H: Do you feel comfortable with me recording this interview, so that I can transcribe it later?
S: Yes, that’s fine!
H: Ok, perfect, thank you. So first question: how did you come to the project in the first place?
S: That’s a relatively easy and very difficult question. It was a public assignment, right? So it’s done by the client, who is the municipality of Utrecht, which means it’s public money. In Europe, public money needs to be spent in transparent ways. So that means there was a tender system involved, and we won the public tender, which was hosted by the by the city. That’s the easy question.
The difficult question is, why they chose us? Because, actually, the competition was quite big and also it was a an assignment on an urban scale that we had limited experience in. So why did they pick us? Well, they picked us because we had told them, that we did not have a set agenda beforehand, and that was very important to them. I mean we won with a plan, but it was more like a strategy almost, rather than a design. And we had said that we were very open to discuss every aspect with them and their stakeholders. That actually is what triggered them to give the commission to us, rather than to some of the esteemed colleagues that were also competing, and where they had the feeling that they were going to just decide: we want to do it like that. Is that a sufficient answer for you?
H: Yes, absolutely, thank you. Did you work with any city planners or urban planners? Who were you supported by, if like you say, you didn’t have that much experience with this scale?
S: Well, we worked with their urban planning department, but we weren’t actually the urban planner for this part. So their urban planning department was rather understaffed, so we had a supervisor on their side, that especially helped us with all the procedures that we had to go through, and he managed the lots on their side. But the design part was done by us. However, in this case, our project was part of the total development around the central station, where we were working on the east side of the city center. But there was also work done on the other side, on the on the west side, and there is still stuff going on. As well as the entire station that that needs to be renewed, I’m sure you know, so there was more money involved than simply the municipalities money. They also got a lot of state money and so we had a quality control team, and another external supervisor, which was twofold: first there was the state architect who was involved. And there is, I think you have that in Germany too, where some cities have like a “Stadtbauamt”, like a supervisory architect, a city architect. We have that too, but we also have one on the state level, let’s say the state architect. And there’s also a specific one, which is probably translated best as the railway architect or rail infrastructure architect. So we have an “Reichsbaumeister”, a state architect who deals with all kinds of issues where state is involved so that can be state real estate like things that have to do with the defense, and we have a “Spoorbaumeister”, a specific one who has to do with all the railway infrastructure and all the railway stations.
There’s someone heading them that’s really the architect, but they have a whole team. So we had a supervisory board, basically consisting, among others, of these two let’s say higher level architects or urbanists, right, that we’re looking over our shoulders. The reason for that was of course because the state is investing a lot of money in it, right, so basically they said ‘we’re paying for it, so we want to have a say’.
H: Yes, that makes sense. How did the population feel about the project beforehand? Did they know about the project and did the municipality make it public?
S: The city population?
H: Yes.
S: Yeah. Yes, the whole city, the whole area development, there has been an endless debate on that. Already 20 years before they were doing this, they had several referenda on the city scale on how to do it. So yes, it’s been very much in the public eye. However, when we came aboard, the framework of the whole thing had been established already. So I would think that most of the people in Utrecht were rather happy with the fact that something was happening.
If you look at our project level, we had direct neighbors, right, people just living right next door. They felt slightly different, because, we were adding quite a lot of real estate there, which basically took away their view. I mean, they had a nice advantage of having a view over the whole railway complex, where they had kilometers of free space in front of them sometimes. And, well, one of the reasons why the whole project started is: you are at the biggest and best public transport hub in the Netherlands. You need to make sure that the opportunities that are there, to put offices there, to put housing there, are used. You’re not going to keep this space empty: if people live there, they don’t need a car. If people have an office there, they will come by train. With this hub of connectivity, you need to make sure that it also becomes a destination, so we do the utmost to create the biggest density possible, to use that opportunity well. And that’s good for the people that are coming there, but the people that were already there already had a nice space, they didn’t really like it. So we had a number of meetings with them, and this this was kind of twofold, because they were opposing quite a lot of our proposals, but in the end I think mostly they also understood. And they had a rather weak position, because since we were doing this, their property was getting worth a lot more. So we were actually helping them financially, but still they didn’t really like it.
H: Right. Thank you for like answering so fully, it really helps me! What do you think are the points that helped the project get started the best or the most?
S: I have to say, the way the city had organized it. It was a very complicated situation, where the city wanted to do quite a lot, but the city only owned part of the property. There’s the National Railway company, which was willing to cooperate, but under their own conditions. Then there is, as you know, this huge shopping mall that is owned by the biggest real estate company in in Utrecht in that area. They own that thing and more or less 50% of the inner city, basically most of the shops in the city. So they were very important party. And, as I said, to align all these interests was going to be the most difficult thing about it. A lot of the work had been done beforehand, because like I said, the framework of our project was largely set. But I do think what really helped the thing get along, has been the way the municipality decided to go for this design process in the most transparent way. To not say ‘OK we’re going to make a design and we’re going to show it to you’. Instead, basically every step of the way, everyone was involved. And that’s how they did it. Also, every time someone said ‘yeah, but I’m not sure about this, can we try something else?’, the municipality always said ‘sure, we’re gonna try it! OK, try it, and then we’ll see!`. That of course gave us a lot of work, but on the other hand it helped to see ‘the pros are this, the cons are this’. It was very transparent, how the whole thing came along, and that helped a lot. I mean it’s not a very architectural thing, but let’s say this has to do with how you organize a city. But I thought that was a very interesting way of dealing with it, because often it doesn’t work that way, that you put everyone on the table and you’re 100% open about everything.
H: That’s true. Were there other large projects involved or like the you said that they plan more of the infrastructure, especially around biking, around that time too right? What can you tell me about that?
S: Yes. I must say, it’s already been a while, so I don’t have all the numbers present. But if you think of just bike parking, we made the biggest bike parking in the world with 12 to 12 1/2 thousand bikes. However, that’s just a part of the whole bike storage capacity that is around there. I cannot say exactly, I think in the direct surroundings there’s like a 200 or 300, I don’t know exactly what the radiuses are that that we calculated with, but I think there was some region where we would need to have 30,000 bikes, of which we would do a third. And in a larger circle around it, we would even have 45,000 bikes that were supposed to be stored there, so they had huge ambitions in creating good bike mobility and a good bike infrastructure.
H: Were there any criticisms of that project in advance? Did you have any criticism or doubts about the project before you started? Did anyone else?
S: At this time no, not that much I think. No, there has always been a huge enthusiasm for it. I mean, there have been some difficult and very complicated concerns. Like the place where we build it used to be street, so there was always a question of whether or not any traffic would be able to go through. Just think of police cars or emergency vehicles. Do they need to have to be able to drive through the bike park from one side to the other? As soon as you start to cut the road, these questions pop up. But we deeply investigated those and decisions had been made. I don’t think that there was any criticism beforehand. When we just opened, I think the biggest point of criticism, in terms of the bike parking structure and its functionality, was when we had the temporary opening. Because the whole building process took so long, at some point it was decided that we were going to open half the parking first, and then, about two years later, we would open the second-half. So we had half the structure intact, which also had a big impact on its comfort. Partly we would have ramps, partly would have stairs. People had a lot more difficulty finding their way. So there was a period of about two years, when we were only half open and we were still building the other half. There was quite a lot of critique there, like ‘it’s very difficult to orientate yourself, it doesn’t always feel safe, it’s not always comfortable’. But that had a lot to do with these temporary structures that we needed to do in order to have it function without having the complete system in place. Afterwards I think that kind of disappeared, that kind of vanished. There have still been some safety issues that have to do with for instance the type of flooring. In the end some people slipped when it was wet, even though it was like anti slip floor, it was not rough enough. So yes, there have been some concerns that we had to adjust to, also some signing that needed to be adjusted. In the end when it’s used, then you basically get the test whether everything works perfectly. But beforehand, no, not too much. Not in terms of that. What was difficult, looking at the bike infrastructure, one of the things that was quite critical at some point was that the huge shopping mall had been connected by a wide footbridge with the central station for the last 30-40 years. Meaning really everyone that wanted to go to the city center had to go through that shopping mall. And of course the owners of the shops and the owner of the shopping mall said they were very happy with that. So when the city wanted to open that up, there had been quite a debate. That’s actually the main reason why that huge roof is on top of that square. Because the shopping mall said ‘OK, we’re willing to cut through our, let’s say, our lifeline: that footbridge. But we want to get the same quality back for our clients, so that’s why we need a roof. We need them to be able to enter our shopping mall, without getting wet.’
H: That makes sense. Do you think the construction of the garage has improved the city in retrospect? I mean, probably yes, but what are the points that it improved, how did it improve it?
S: You could say it’s repaired some mistakes that had been made at the outset in the in the 60s. I would really see our project as part of a bigger story, of that development. There’s been a number of things that have been repaired. I think it really was a mistake to make this separation in the middle of this city. That is a concept of architecture, to separate these flows of mobility. So cars and trains on the ground floor and all the people on a different level, and they don’t mix. That kind of created a ground level in the center of your city, which was quite uninhabitable. And another part of it was that there had been all kinds of problems with safety, with security. But that’s also the part where most of the bikes were. So it became a mess and a very unorganized place. I think what this project did, is to reclaim the ground floor for pedestrians and for city use. And I think that is a big benefit. At the same time, it enhanced the quality of being able to park your bike, of slow traffic, of bike traffic, along with that. And in that sense, it really stimulates the use of train and bike in the city overall. And lastly, and I think that’s what makes it super nice, because we were able to do that, the whole area became much more attractive. So it’s very attractive and easy to find developers that want to build there. It’s also pays for itself. I think it’s a really good thing to, as I said before, have this huge mobility hub and try to use the potential also in its in its developments. People should live there, in that area, people should work there. I mean better to do that there, than to build all these houses outside of the city.
H: Absolutely. OK, last question. Can you talk a little bit more about how exactly you reused the building, because it was a shopping mall before. What were the difficulties?
S: Well, the shopping mall still there. What we did is: the thing is very 3D, so partly we built underneath the shopping mall. The shopping mall actually extends slightly on top of our parking garage. We are partly building over a tram station. Everything is kind of interconnected. But the logic of it is basically: you had the shopping mall, you had the railway station, and there was a street in between. And our parking is mostly where that street used to be. And that street basically now goes up, in a cascading landscape, with these stairs, onto an elevated square. We did incorporate some old structures which were on the side of that street, but most of our structure is new.
H: Alright, I think that’s pretty much it. Any anything else you want to add?
S: No, I think I’m good.
H: Perfect. OK. thank you so much, this is going to help me a lot
S: Ok. So I wish you good luck, and if there’s anything I can do for you, let me know and we’ll try to get in touch.
H: Thank you so much!
S: Thanks! Bye bye!
H: Bye!
Hello Stijn! Thank you so much for doing this interview with me!
S: Hello! Yes no problem!
H: Do you feel comfortable with me recording this interview, so that I can transcribe it later?
S: Yes, that’s fine!
H: Ok, perfect, thank you. So first question: how did you come to the project in the first place?
S: That’s a relatively easy and very difficult question. It was a public it’s a public assignment, right, so it’s done by the client, who is the municipality of Utrecht, which means it’s public money. In Europe public money needs to be spent in transparent ways, so that means there was a tender system involved. So we won a we won a public tender, which was hosted by the by the city. That’s the easy question.
The difficult question is, why they chose us? Because actually the competition was quite big and also it was a an assignment on an urban scale that we had limited experience in, I would say. So why did they pick us? Actually they picked us because we had told them, and that was very important to them, that we did not have a set agenda beforehand, I mean we won with a plan, but it was more like a strategy almost, rather than a design. And we had said that we were very open to discuss every aspect with them and their stakeholders. And that actually is what triggered them to give the commission to us rather than to some of the esteemed colleagues that were also competing, and where they had the feeling that they were going to just decide: we want to do it like that. Is that a sufficient answer for you?
H: Yes, absolutely, thank you. Did you work with any city planners or urban planners? Who were you supported by, if like you say, you didn’t have that much experience with this scale?
S: Well, we worked with their urban planning department, but we weren’t actually the urban planner for this part. So their urban planning department was rather understaffed, so we had a supervisor on their side, that especially helped us with all the procedures that we had to go through, and he managed the lots on their side. But the design part was done by us. However, in this case, our project was part of the total development around the central station, where we were working on the east side of the city center. But there was also work done on the other side, on the on the west side, and there is still stuff going on. As well as the entire station that that needs to be renewed, I’m sure you know, so there was more money involved than simply the municipalities money.
They also got a lot of state money and so we had a quality control team, and another external supervisor, which was twofold: first there was the state architect who was involved. And there is, I think you have that in Germany too, where some cities have like a “Stadtbauamt”, like a supervisory architect, a city architect. We have that too, but we also have one on the state level, let’s say the state architect. And there’s also a specific one, which is probably translated best as the railway architect or rail infrastructure architect. So we have an “Reichsbaumeister”, a state architect who deals with all kinds of issues where state is involved so that can be state real estate like things that have to do with the defense, and we have a “Spoorbaumeister”, a specific one who has to do with all the railway infrastructure and all the railway stations.
There’s someone heading them that’s really the architect, but they have a whole team. So we had a supervisory board, basically consisting, among others, of these two let’s say higher level architects or urbanists, right, that we’re looking over our shoulders. The reason for that was of course because the state is investing a lot of money in it, right, so basically they said ‘we’re paying for it, so we want to have a say’.
H: Yes, that makes sense. How did the population feel about the project beforehand? Did they know about the project and did the municipality make it public?
S: The city population?
H: Yes.
S: Yeah. Yes, the whole city, the whole area development, there has been an endless debate on that. Already 20 years before they were doing this, they had several referenda on the city scale on how to do it. So yes, it’s been very much in the public eye. However, when we came aboard, the framework of the whole thing had been established already. So I would think that most of the people in Utrecht were rather happy with the fact that something was happening.
If you look at our project level, we had direct neighbors, right, people just living right next door. They felt slightly different, because, we were adding quite a lot of real estate there, which basically took away their view. I mean, they had a nice advantage of having a view over the whole railway complex, where they had kilometers of free space in front of them sometimes. And, well, one of the reasons why the whole project started is: you are at the biggest and best public transport hub in the Netherlands. You need to make sure that the opportunities that are there, to put offices there, to put housing there, are used. You’re not going to keep this space empty: if people live there, they don’t need a car. If people have an office there, they will come by train. With this hub of connectivity, you need to make sure that it also becomes a destination, so we do the utmost to create the biggest density possible, to use that opportunity well.
And that’s good for the people that are coming there, but the people that were already there already had a nice space, they didn’t really like it. So we had a number of meetings with them, and this this was kind of twofold, because they were opposing quite a lot of our proposals, but in the end I think mostly they also understood. And they had a rather weak position, because since we were doing this, their property was getting worth a lot more. So we were actually helping them financially, but still they didn’t really like it.
H: Right. Thank you for like answering so fully, it really helps me! What do you think are the points that helped the project get started the best or the most?
S: I have to say, the way the city had organized it. It was a very complicated situation, where the city wanted to do quite a lot, but the city only owned part of the property. There’s the National Railway company, which was willing to cooperate, but under their own conditions. Then there is, as you know, this huge shopping mall that is owned by the biggest real estate company in in Utrecht in that area. They own that thing and more or less 50% of the inner city, basically most of the shops in the city. So they were very important party. And, as I said, to align all these interests was going to be the most difficult thing about it.
A lot of the work had been done beforehand, because like I said, the framework of our project was largely set. But I do think what really helped the thing get along, has been the way the municipality decided to go for this design process in the most transparent way. To not say ‘OK we’re going to make a design and we’re going to show it to you’. Instead, basically every step of the way, everyone was involved. And that’s how they did it. Also, every time someone said ‘yeah, but I’m not sure about this, can we try something else?’, the municipality always said ‘sure, we’re gonna try it! OK, try it, and then we’ll see!`. That of course gave us a lot of work, but on the other hand it helped to see ‘the pros are this, the cons are this’. It was very transparent, how the whole thing came along, and that helped a lot. I mean it’s not a very architectural thing, but let’s say this has to do with how you organize a city. But I thought that was a very interesting way of dealing with it, because often it doesn’t work that way, that you put everyone on the table and you’re 100% open about everything.
H: That’s true. Were there other large projects involved or like the you said that they plan more of the infrastructure, especially around biking, around that time too right? What can you tell me about that?
S: Yes. I must say, it’s already been a while, so I don’t have all the numbers present. But if you think of just bike parking, we made the biggest bike parking in the world with 12 to 12 1/2 thousand bikes. However, that’s just a part of the whole bike storage capacity that is around there. I cannot say exactly, I think in the direct surroundings there’s like a 200 or 300, I don’t know exactly what the radiuses are that that we calculated with, but I think there was some region where we would need to have 30,000 bikes, of which we would do a third. And in a larger circle around it, we would even have 45,000 bikes that were supposed to be stored there, so they had huge ambitions in creating good bike mobility and a good bike infrastructure.
H: Were there any criticisms of that project in advance? Did you have any criticism or doubts about the project before you started? Did anyone else?
S: At this time no, not that much I think. No, there has always been a huge enthusiasm for it. I mean, there have been some difficult and very complicated concerns. Like the place where we build it used to be street, so there was always a question of whether or not any traffic would be able to go through. Just think of police cars or emergency vehicles. Do they need to have to be able to drive through the bike park from one side to the other? As soon as you start to cut the road, these questions pop up. But we deeply investigated those and decisions had been made. I don’t think that there was any criticism beforehand.
When we just opened, I think the biggest point of criticism, in terms of the bike parking structure and its functionality, was when we had the temporary opening. Because the whole building process took so long, at some point it was decided that we were going to open half the parking first, and then, about two years later, we would open the second-half. So we had half the structure intact, which also had a big impact on its comfort. Partly we would have ramps, partly would have stairs. People had a lot more difficulty finding their way. So there was a period of about two years, when we were only half open and we were still building the other half. There was quite a lot of critique there, like ‘it’s very difficult to orientate yourself, it doesn’t always feel safe, it’s not always comfortable’. But that had a lot to do with these temporary structures that we needed to do in order to have it function without having the complete system in place.
Afterwards I think that kind of disappeared, that kind of vanished. There have still been some safety issues that have to do with for instance the type of flooring. In the end some people slipped when it was wet, even though it was like anti slip floor, it was not rough enough. So yes, there have been some concerns that we had to adjust to, also some signing that needed to be adjusted. In the end when it’s used, then you basically get the test whether everything works perfectly. But beforehand, no, not too much. Not in terms of that.
What was difficult, looking at the bike infrastructure, one of the things that was quite critical at some point was that the huge shopping mall had been connected by a wide footbridge with the central station for the last 30-40 years. Meaning really everyone that wanted to go to the city center had to go through that shopping mall. And of course the owners of the shops and the owner of the shopping mall said they were very happy with that. So when the city wanted to open that up, there had been quite a debate. That’s actually the main reason why that huge roof is on top of that square. Because the shopping mall said ‘OK, we’re willing to cut through our, let’s say, our lifeline: that footbridge. But we want to get the same quality back for our clients, so that’s why we need a roof. We need them to be able to enter our shopping mall, without getting wet.’
H: That makes sense. Do you think the construction of the garage has improved the city in retrospect? I mean, probably yes, but what are the points that it improved, how did it improve it?
S: You could say it’s repaired some mistakes that had been made at the outset in the in the 60s. I would really see our project as part of a bigger story, of that development. There’s been a number of things that have been repaired. I think it really was a mistake to make this separation in the middle of this city. That is a concept of architecture, to separate these flows of mobility. So cars and trains on the ground floor and all the people on a different level, and they don’t mix. That kind of created a ground level in the center of your city, which was quite uninhabitable. And another part of it was that there had been all kinds of problems with safety, with security. But that’s also the part where most of the bikes were. So it became a mess and a very unorganized place.
I think what this project did, is to reclaim the ground floor for pedestrians and for city use. And I think that is a big benefit. At the same time, it enhanced the quality of being able to park your bike, of slow traffic, of bike traffic, along with that. And in that sense, it really stimulates the use of train and bike in the city overall. And lastly, and I think that’s what makes it super nice, because we were able to do that, the whole area became much more attractive. So it’s very attractive and easy to find developers that want to build there. It’s also pays for itself. I think it’s a really good thing to, as I said before, have this huge mobility hub and try to use the potential also in its in its developments. People should live there, in that area, people should work there. I mean better to do that there, than to build all these houses outside of the city.
H: Absolutely. OK, last question. Can you talk a little bit more about how exactly you reused the building, because it was a shopping mall before. What were the difficulties?
S: Well, the shopping mall still there. What we did is: the thing is very 3D, so partly we built underneath the shopping mall. The shopping mall actually extends slightly on top of our parking garage. We are partly building over a tram station. Everything is kind of interconnected. But the logic of it is basically: you had the shopping mall, you had the railway station, and there was a street in between. And our parking is mostly where that street used to be. And that street basically now goes up, in a cascading landscape, with these stairs, onto an elevated square. We did incorporate some old structures which were on the side of that street, but most of our structure is new.
H: Alright, I think that’s pretty much it. Any anything else you want to add?
S: No, I think I’m good.
H: Perfect. OK. thank you so much, this is going to help me a lot
S: Ok. So I wish you good luck, and if there’s anything I can do for you, let me know and we’ll try to get in touch.
H: Thank you so much!
S: Thanks!
H: Bye!
S: Bye bye!