Congratulations on reaching this special milestone: The start of construction for De Teunis, Papaverdriehoek in Amsterdam. This is a beautiful and meaningful step for Europan Netherlands, and a significant moment within the ongoing transformation of Amsterdam-Noord.

As Europan Netherlands, we are exceptionally proud that the vision for this location—originally developed within Europan 14 under the theme Productive Amsterdam—is now evolving into a tangible and future-oriented project. What began as an ambitious and innovative design concept within our European design competition is now taking actual shape, thanks to the expert collaboration between AHAM Vastgoed, Van Os & Van den Berg, and Bot Bouw, based on the design by UP4 (winner E14) and Studio Ninedots.

With De Teunis, a place is being created where urban living, working, and entrepreneurship come together naturally. In this way, the original Europan assignment remains remarkably relevant: developing a productive, mixed-use, and inclusive city that offers space for both economic activity and a high quality of life.

De Teunis proves the unique power of the Europan program. It demonstrates that Europan is not just an ideas competition, but a strategic catalyst that sets complex spatial challenges in motion and connects them to concrete realization. This project is the ultimate proof of how innovative architecture, programmatic renewal, and social impact go hand in hand—from competition idea to built reality.

We wish all parties involved the best of luck with the realization of this special project, and we look forward to the construction and further development of De Teunis!

We are happy to share Papaverwerf, Amsterdam designed by Europan 14 winners, UP4 in collaboration with Studioninedots. The process started in 2017 as the winning proposal of Europan 14 competition.

According to expectations, construction of Papaverwerf in Amsterdam-Noord will start early next year. The project consists of three volumes, which are connected by a six-meter-high concrete support structure that follows the contours of the entire plot. Studioninedots and Up4 are responsible for the design.

https://architectenweb.nl/nieuws/artikel.aspx?ID=54995

Papaverwerf is a mixed-use project located in Amsterdam-Noord, in the Buiksloterham transformation area. Designed by Studioninedots and Up4, the project comprises three volumes connected by a concrete support structure called the Outline. The volumes are divided into a residential block, an office block, and a hybrid block. The concrete structure houses industrial production spaces and a café, while a circle marks a central spot by the water that invites users to make it their own.

The design of Papaverwerf aims to realize the ambitions of the Circular Buiksloterham manifesto, which includes reducing the use of technical installations through architectural design. To achieve this, floors are extended into the facades to act as canopies and prevent overheating of the interior spaces. The building is constructed with recyclable or biobased materials, with all concrete elements consisting largely of recycled material. The window frames and curtain wall construction are made with certified FSC wood.

The project also includes surface vegetation covering 40% of the plot, organized in green “pockets” throughout the site, to reduce heat stress and increase water retention. Additionally, a rooftop terrace between the office building and residential buildings serves as a green buffer and is visible from the Papaverweg. The office building’s glass facade features climbing plants in designated areas, filtering light and creating pleasant workspaces, reducing indoor lighting from the office, and providing a soft facade image at all times.

Construction is expected to start early next year, with completion set for the end of 2025.

Winner – Top Spin

Authors: Miguel Huelga de la Fuenta (ES), Architect
Iria de la Pena (ES), Architect

Project Description

The proposal suggests an evolution towards a more flexible and sustainable urban model, able to respond not only to the current living and working needs but also adaptable to future changes and trends. The proposal is to create a flexible model designed to host both residential and non-residential functions, foreseeing future needs.

Jury Comments

This plan is convincing as it delivers the best organization of the ground floor. The design and organization of the lower levels of the tapered towers bring quality and spatial and functional diversity to the public space. The design enhances porosity and interaction between the plinth and the towers, where the core program is organized. The massing of the high-rise elements and the distribution of different typologies within these elements respond well to the surroundings. The design approach demonstrated in the project could be establish urban design guidelines. The façade design offers a lot of flexibility and creates nice possibilities for gardens to be positioned behind the facades. It’s a clever building scheme with double height units where all kind of uses could be possible. A phased development is easily possible.

The jury is convinced by the strong public space ideas and because the proposal responds well to the brief. There is some discussion on the singular identity of the over-arching superstructure which is a strength but also a potential weakness if applied to the whole site.

Runner-up – Bouwen in Amsterdam

Authors : Reinier Suurenbroek (NL), Architect
Barthold Meijer Timmerman Thijssen (NL), Architect

Project Description –
Our competition entry is an investigation in how to build a new piece of city where the streets and the buildings can really come alive as they change over time. Rather than building on an image we propose to focus on generous, well-proportioned indoor and outdoor spaces that allow for changes in use and shifts in the degree to which they are either public or private. In our proposal we literally sample the proportions of the Amsterdam canal houses. We sample the deep plan, the section with the variation in floor heights, the patterns of window openings, the light wells and the way the buildings meet the street.

Jury Comments

This plan has been discussed extensively by the jury as it is clearly controversial. The jury was not sure if it is a conceptual or naïve proposal on how to deal with density in the city? Or is it a critical reflection on the typology of the tower? The problem of density is solved with a few towers and the rest as it is. This proposal is only a part of an answer to the question and the design brief and more a conceptual scheme than a design mainly focusing on the problem of density and keeping the traditional image of the city center. The thin towers are a statement, containing all the program. The urban fabric in the remaining space is focusing on generous, well-proportioned indoor and outdoor space. There was a lot of debate on the size, orientation and connection of the public space.

The jury chose to give the project a runner-up because of its quality as a conceptual manifesto addressing the lack of quality which the inner city has by using towers to get the needed density as well as themes like using the Amsterdam architecture, being vertical orientated while having a small differentiated plinth with different entrances and a clear relation with the public space. It is also quite clear and strict in its guidelines.

Special mention – The two faces of the landscape

Authors – Agustín Gor Gómez, (ES), Architect
Carlos Gor Gómez (ES), Architect

Antonio Jesús Guiérrez García (ES), Architect
María Fernanda Barquero Barahona (CR), Architect
Anastasia Chaidi (GR), Student in Architecture
Martyna Smolareak (PL), Student in Architecture
Marco Pallaoro (IT), Student in Architecture
Luca Pasquini (IT), Artist

Jury Comments

This scheme is based on the concept of archetypal plots and buildings of the Amsterdam’s city center. The (romantic) idea of using existing typologies is interesting but difficult to realize. The jury is not convinced by the theme of urban farming on the facades. The proposal is very architectural. The guidelines are not very strong or workable for the municipality.

Special mention – Landscape of Making

Authors – Chris Cornelissen (NL), Architect
Saurabh Vaidya (IN), Urban Designer

Jury Comments

This scheme has an interesting mix of working at the outside of the block and living inside combined with the hotel function. The attempt is to organize different kinds of productivity in the vertical dimension which is very interesting but also makes it too complex and difficult. The spatial quality of the yards is not convincing and the orientation of the one-way orientation of the apartments can be problematic.

Special mention – Hybrid City

Authors – Irgen Salianji (GR), Architect
Marina Kounavi (GR), Landscape Architect
Karolina Szóstkiewicz (PL), Architect Urbanist

Charilaos Slaravas (GR), Architect

Jury Comments

The idea of locating workspaces in the towers and creating diagonal sectional relations between buildings by using these spaces is interesting. The stacking of living and working in the towers creates new relations between the lower levels and the upper levels. The project lacks plans and sections to show in detail how spatial and functional elements are organized. The connection with the water is interesting as well as the attempt to establish a ‘heart’ in the neighborhood. On the other hand, the plan has a lot of commercial spaces and atriums and the diagonal relations appear to be only visual, not functional. The project does not really address issues raised by the competition theme.

Winner – Undergrowth

Authors: Federica Andreoni (IT), Architect
Anna Chiara Bonora (IT), Architect
Valeria Lollobattista (IT), Architect
Mattia Biagi (IT), Architect
Marco Mondello (IT), Architect
Valerio Socciarelli (IT), Architect

Project Description

Considering these premises, the proposal consists in a series of operations:
-Liberating the space from cars to imagine a new kind of space for various and variable activities
-Concentrating cars in two strategic points to organize them in a much more efficient way in terms of use of space
-Occupying the space under the high-lines with new volumes to enclose the space and shape the square through solid and active borders
-Modelling the volumes to generate visual and physical permeability, and then intercept flows from the surroundings streets
-Proposing new activities to increase mixité and vibration within the area
-Using open spaces and vegetation to diversify and enrich the inner landscape under the high-line.

Jury Comments

This proposal comes up with a simple solution for a complex situation through creating a public square with clearly defined boundaries under the existing infrastructure structure. The scheme creates a well-dimensioned square with buildings under the tracks without disturbing the flow of the different users. This set-up follows the logic of traditional arches underneath train tracks creating special spaces that offer interesting locations for additional urban programs in a friendly and transparent way. The scheme is smart in the way that it is organising the program at the ground level. The square is a simple gesture offering rest and quietness for this area without direct focus on connection, and by doing so, offers a clear vision and an opposing view to the current messy situation. This openness allows the connection with the station to happen naturally. The jury values this proposal as a solution for the immediate future without blocking a long-term development strategy. There some were discussions in the jury about the transparent building on the reservation for parking and the way future flows of residents are integrated in the plan.

Runner-up – Urban Platform. Digital Work and Placemaking for Piarcoplein

Authors : Michele Angelo Vallicelli (IT), Architect
Giulia Panadisi (IT), Architect
Annalisa Pilati (IT), Architect

Project Description –
This proposal aims to investigate how digital and physical connectivity can recombine an existing transit oriented development into an urban platform. Considering work activities as a core productive factor for cities, workplace digitalization has in fact implications not only for the architectural scale, but for the overall urban space. Firms – previously identifying themselves into office buildings – are turning into platforms – that means the overall complexity of urban environment becomes their main productive resource. Within this framework, we proposed the design for a digital and physical infrastructure that allows local collaboration in space and provides a virtual environment of local connectivity which doesn’t have access to the internet but works as a City Operating System.

Jury Comments

This project creates a very interesting connection between the station and its surrounding by linking the different squares. The design brings together the different movements and flows in the area. By introducing a new mid-level movement system, the project creates a landscape underneath the elevated train tracks of folded footpaths and pavilions with urban program and places to stay. Using the different movements and flux as well as integrating ‘the bypass’ and the parking makes this a proposal worth looking at it seriously. The idea of respecting the existing structure and building underneath the tracks is strong but these new landscapes generate much more space that would need to be animated and programmed.

Special mention – Tropical Garden

Authors – Irene Iglesias Román (ES), Architect
Jacobo Márquez Muela (ES), Architect

Jury Comments

The idea of a tropical garden is a nice image that gives a completely different look at the place. Through this intervention the whole situation is put in a new context in order to create a lively place with a big staircase towards the station hall. This landscape approach with pavilions has a lot of flexibility for the development. The orientation of the public space in relation to the flows of users and the infrastructure is problematic and there are no clear front and backsides.

Special mention – Rooted Landscape

Authors – Jose Luis Munoz (ES), Architect
Román Cordero Tovar (MX), Architect

Daniel Usero Guerrero (ES), Architect
Cristina Medina Valverde (ES), Student in Architecture
Lorenzo Vallone (IT), Student in Architecture
Agnieszka Kepa (PL), Student in Architecture
Yoshimi Horiuchi Gallardo (MX), Student in Architecture

Jury Comments

This proposal is creating a three-dimensional landscape by introducing an artificial structure and additional level of public space. Landscape elements, bridges and voids are used to create a world on its own and at the same time offers a solution for a better atmosphere for the parking spaces on the ground floor. The jury is critical about introducing another public level which creates even more public space and the adding of new tracks which is not temporary at all.

Special mention – Piarco Village

Authors – Tomaso Boano (GB), Architect
Valentine Gruwez (BE), Engineer-Architect
Lieve Smout (BE), Urban Planner

Jury Comments

This plan is adding production space on the ground level where various types of production could take place. By placing new buildings in the middle of the parking area the project will transform the character of the place from mobility to productivity. The jury is rather critical about the historical building references and the orientation of the in-between spaces which look a bit naïve and romantic.

Special mention – Productive People – Happy People

Authors – Rafail Gkaidatzis (GR), Architect
Jonian Silaj (AL), Architect Urbanist

Jury Comments

This proposal was selected for the Europan Cities and Jury Forum, held in Helsinki in October 2017. It lacks the concreteness of a proposal but it can be considered as being honorable because it is a new idea.

Winner – Foam of Production

Authors: Timur Shabaev (NL), Architect
Timur Karimullin (NL), Urban Planner

Sofia Koutsenko (US), Interior Architect
Maria Krasnova (NL), Artist
Kristina Knauf (DE), Urban Planner

Project Description

With our proposal, we aim to address the resulting undefined and fragile site by preparing it for the possibility of a new, nimble and savvy economy to emerge. An economy built on the circular principles of long-lasting design, maintenance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and recycling.

Jury Comments

This project has been unanimously voted the best proposal. The plan is interesting in that it proposes a solution that functions at different scales and with different typologies, with a clear and well defined collective space in the center of the plan. It proposes a clear hierarchy of urban spaces and city blocks, set within an loose organisational structure that allow for different types of uses. The system of flexible blocks is adaptable and can allow for different phasing ideas. This scheme is creating opportunities for entrepreneurs or private ownership situations. The proposed interventions offer undefined space as a reaction to the overly defined space which is considered one of the problems of the Bijlmer. The project is productive because it is ‘forever young’ and focused on the future. It somehow brings optimism and facilitates user participation without being to ‘closed’ to the community.

Runner-up – Buurtmakers

Authors : Arie Gruijters (NL), Architect
Mircea Munteanu (BE), Architect Urbanist
Ryosuke Yago (JP), Architect Urbanist

Project Description – The project is an individualized stepping stone in the sequence of diverse encounters along the metro-line and the adjacent south-west soft axis. Composed of a mix of middle-income housing sitting atop a set of affordable incubators of production, the strip becomes a brand name in Amsterdam, BUURTMAKERS, synonymous with local production in H-Buurt.

Jury Comments

The proposal is interesting at different scales, and the strategy is clear with its modularity and use of green houses that try to bring extra types of buildings and an increased population. A new park connects different public spaces with the existing neighborhood and creates opportunities for new collective spaces. The plan is quite utopian in the way it presupposes how working spaces in open areas can survive. In that sense, the jury feels that the proposal might not meet the needs of the affordable working spaces to the extent the project team claims it can. New living opportunities interact with each other under the over-arching roof. The generic glass structure could be seen as being an answer to the generic structure of the Bijlmer but on the other hand the jury is critical about the amount of glass roofs proposed, and its maintenance. The jury feels that the plan proposes an unrealistic romantic image of society and lacks density

Special mention – There is no place like home

Authors – Ylenia Rose Testore (IT), Architect
Michela Di Saverio (IT), Architect

Valeria Colosetti (IT), Architect

Jury Comments

Interesting concept of habitation as act of production and an attempt for a revival of the domestic workshop with a research on typologies for a productive system based on a circular economy. The aim of the project is to create a community through fostering productivity. The jury is critical about the low density with only two floors of program, a large amount of public space and buildings that lack clarity of orientation and access. The jury felt that is a rather generic urban pattern and lacks explicit relationships to its context.

Special mention – Made in Bijlmer

Authors – Morten Vestberg Hansen (DK), Architect
Christopher Galliano (DK), Architect

Rasmus Wieleman (DK), Architect

Jury Comments

Housing as the moneymaking agent for economic development. The project proposes two blocks of stacked program, with residential accommodation located on the upper levels. The typology is conventional, clear and realistic.

Special mention – In Between

Authors – Alessandro Perotta (IT), Architect
Valeria Iberto (IT), Architect

Filippo Vaijra (IT), Student in Architecture
Giovanni Ratto (IT), Student in Architecture
Alessandro Chilosi (IT), Student in Architecture

Jury Comments

This plan makes an interesting relation to the wider context by introducing an urban strip of specific public spaces that enhances the potential of the area to be productive. The scheme for the H-Buurt is rather schematic and is not very clear in spatial terms and lacks a specific development strategy. The jury thinks that this is a rather conservative plan which does not conform with the current world.

Winner – Media Sloboda

Authors: Aleksandr Zinovev (RU), Architect
Budarin Konstantin (EE), Journalist
Shmeleva Irina (RU), Architect

Dimitrii Andreev (RU), Movie Director
Elmira Kakabeava (KZ), Public Relations and Education

Project Description

MediaHub is a collection of spaces that offer various opportunities for education as well as for work. The architecture of the hub is a combination of the vertical and the horizontal. The horizontal plane contains all productive elements – the university, workplaces, commerce, public spaces. The vertical is a residential plane. It houses apartments of various configuration that can make homes for people of various requirements and opportunities.

Jury Comments

The jury finds this a promising proposal, as it is very specific in terms of program and in the appearance of the building. The project establishes a cluster of new interventions, where existing and new functions are combined in distinct building volumes.

Runner-up – Embracing Technology

Authors : Oscar Linares de la torre (ES), Architect

Bernat Bastardas Llabot (ES), Student in Architecture
Guillem Rius Manuel (ES), Student in Architecture
Maria Del Olmo Gomez (ES), Student in Architecture

Project Description – The proposal is a building that surrounds the existent, embracing the Media College and unifying the whole ensemble through its architecture. The proposal condenses living, working and learning all together in a single building, where the mixture of uses is seen as the main attraction to this area.

Jury Comments

In the emptiness of its surroundings, this proposal is a radical redefinition of the cluster with a perimeter block that defines clear edges, opens up connections to the park and embraces the existing the Media College structure. The proposed tower doesn’t block the views to and from the Transformatorweg. The jury is convinced by the way the building complex opens towards the park and strengthens connections between different kinds of public space and the transitional, differentiated spaces in between. The jury feels that the interaction of new proposal and the ground floor of the Media College is not that clear.

Special mention – Media Epcenter

Authors – Haiko Cornelissen (NL), Architect

Jury Comments

Here, the strategy is to densify the site with small functional and spatial intervention in order to create a campus. The scheme is easy to build in phases. It’s an intriguing project, the organization is smart but the small-scale massing is doubtful and inefficient and the appearance of the proposal seems quite generic. For the jury, it is not evident that the Media College could function well in this scheme due to the lack of spatial hierarchy and clarity

Special mention – Framing Transformation

Authors – Carolina Schippers (NL), Architect

Jury Comments

This project is an interesting modular system that offers a lot of flexibility for the Media College. The voids and glass elements in architecture are vague and lack some degree of hierarchy. It is nice project but it is a bit too generic.

Special mention – Haven Stad Blok 1

Authors – Wouter Keizer (NL), Architect
Ule Koopmans (NL), Architect
Remko van der Vorm (NL), Architect

Jury Comments

This project demonstrates interesting ideas on how to set up a mixed-use, lively urban environment. It proposes to transform the Media College by creating a new building in the center of the site, surrounded by supporting program. For the jury, the connections between spaces in between the buildings are diffuse and not clearly defined

Winner – Makers Neighbourhood

Authors: Alessandro Macaluso (IT), Architect Urbanist
Carlotta Basoli (IT), Landscape Architect
Giovanni Lavanna (IT), Architect
Andrei Deacu (RO), Urban planner

Project Description

Amsterdam’s city centre is expanding and brings along development pressure on areas that possess social qualities. Our exploration starts from the tension between high density (and high rise buildings) needs and the local self built spirit. The site today holds the valuable De Ceuvel project, and gives character to the area. Our aim is to preserve this rugged and self made identity and enrich it through the new development. We have a strong focus on social sustainability and consider this the backbone of our proposal.

Jury Comments

This project stands out by its clear and strong urban strategy and a system of little squares which function well as public spaces that are well oriented on the sun. it is an intriguing structuring scheme which leads to a beautiful urban scheme.An all-round project, which is feasible as a design strategy. Spatially, the development strategy for the transformation of the whole of Papaverdriehoek is very interesting. The feasibility of the proposal and the functioning of the area during the different phases of development, with the possibility to integrate ‘de Ceuvel’ is convincing

Runner-up – Coliving an open neighbourhood

Authors : Vincenzo Tuccillo (IT), Architect
Maria Grazia Panunzio (IT), Architect

Project Description – Within an area often characterized by a highly fragmented ownership that therefore implies bizarre plot shapes in the case of plots groupage, the strategy is to fill the borders this way gaining a double benefit: against a future denser urban environment, built limit operates as an interface through which it is possible establishing meaningful connections between “inside” and “outside”. Inner freed up space is the living core of the settlement: conceived as a semi-public space, but at the same time clearly shaped by the architectural volumes, here highly differentiated activities, both extensions of private spheres and public incursions, take place and discover a fertile meeting point. 

Jury Comments

This proposal is convincing due to its strong, seductive (architectural) image which the jury see as an intelligent statement for ‘marking’ the area with a building which points on the opportunities for further developments. On the other hand, this proposal does not provide a convincing image on the urban scale and is missing a thoughtful development strategy for the site which makes a wider development possible. It is not clearly explained how this scheme could be realised. It’s an intriguing development for the first site to start having an interesting concept system of closed courtyards to be developed in phases. This creates public space which is very introvert, and linked to the quality of the building itself. But this space does not link to the surrounding spaces, which is important for the overall functioning of the area as a whole.

Special mention – Mixxxing Noord

Authors – Jose Ramon Vives (ES), Architect
Jose Nunez Gimeno (ES), Architect
Laura Riaño (ES), Architect

Jury Comments

This project proposes a smart, high-rise development strategy to kick-start the urban redevelopment process, which also means a high return for the one who is first investing in the area. The setup of the urban spaces is interesting, with an emphasis on high density while engaging in productivity and keeping the exiting environment. The jury finds this an intriguing proposal but not a winner, questioning the tower as solution to distribute the components in a smart way as well as it’s effect on availability of sunlight for other parts of the plan area. It can be one off solution with in the plan area. For these reasons, this proposal is not sufficient enough as a building or urban strategy.

Special mention – Produ(A)ctive Papaverdriehoek

Authors – Nash Roy (IT), Architect
Astorri Luca (IT), Architect

Jury Comments

This proposal shows an interesting approach on sustainability and urban green, developed with a focus on productive green. The proposed landscape structure is connected with its surroundings on a larger scale and operates as a biodiversity corridor in relation with the urban water system. The jury values this approach but thinks that the phasing is not realistic. The jury is not convinced by density of the proposal for the site. Despite the fact that the plan is focused on productive green strategies the ground floor hardly shows any synergy with the wider structure of public spaces. Also, there are some doubts if the proposed architectural appearance is fitting in the area

Special mention – SUM+ Papaverdriehoek Kwartier

Authors – Fabrizia Berlingieri (IT), Architect Urbanist
Federica Greco (IT), Architect
Mario Covello (IT), Architect
Elisa Vanzillotta (IT), Architect
Rossella Ciacci (IT), Environmentalist

Jury Comments

This project is interesting in the way the public space and the waterfront are developed and in the way existing buildings are integrated in the different phases. It tries to keep the small scale of the current situation and by doing so introduces good spatial qualities. They use a (romantic) stamp which is not pretentious and matches well with the existing, with a quite low density. The jury has questions if this is enough to give a strong impulse for the development of the whole area.

Special mention – Living and working, a new urban ecology

Authors – Francesca Rizzetto (IT), Architect Urbanist
Marco Galasso (NL), Architect
Chiara Cirrone (IT), Architect

Francesca Vanelli (IT), Architect

Jury Comments

This plan is very convincing in its connection with the neighboring sites, having an interesting urban layout. Although the plan is very detailed in restructuring the whole site with a clear phasing, the development strategy itself is not clear. It is developable, but is this enough? The ‘masterplan’ is very fixed, not intriguing and obvious with much emphasize on the architecture and pretty pictures without thinking about the synergy between the volumes.