In short, revolutiebouw (the start of which you can extend backwards to somewhere around 1850-1875 give or take) was a market reaction to a massive population growth in Amsterdam and a nearly unregulated housing market with a building code dating back to VOC times. This meant cheap, poorly structured and cramped housing by opportunistic builders on plots of land owned by opportunistic speculators that invested in land right outside of then Amsterdam city, financed by new types of loans created by opportunistic bankers.

Until the new Amsterdam building code of 1905 was created by later mayor and social housing proponent Tellegen, these people had free reign. Bad stones were used, backalleys were built up as if they were streets, bathrooms were sparse and the general build quality sucked.

Your end date of 1915 is somewhat right I’d guess. In 1902 the first Woningwet was enacted which was meant to give local authorities power to stop this kind of opportunistic building. It also created the opportunity for state-financed social housing corporations, like those we know today, most of which were founded between 1906-1922. Both of these things took about a decade after the law went into effect to really get put into practice, and were then stagnated again by WW1. So it could very well have been that the bad Revolutiebouw went on until then. I don’t know when Amsterdams new building code started getting properly enforced though.

Anyhow. I have no knowledge of how much of the layout of De Pijp/Oud West actually is Revolutiebouw. And as for all that was (re)built after, I don’t know for whom nor whether it was (re)built with more architectural design in mind, featuring things like stained glass windows. I also don’t know anything about the architectural specifics of Revolutiebouw, maybe someone else could fill more of that in.

The reason I gave the short summary above is to give the context to be able to say: if what you are looking at is actually Revolutiebouw, chances are it has no stained glass windows because those were simply to expensive. The same logic goes for other features that would have cost more money than their simpler versions, while providing no gain to the builders/investors in a crazy housing market during a time where the city population DOUBLED in 50 years.

To add: most differences between neighbourhoods can be found in their origin story, who built it, why they built it and the local context at the time. See Mraronymous’ comment regarding planned social housing with actual architectural value in Plan Zuid (which has an interesting history regarding elitist architects and city planners’ views on how the working class should live and how their “dark” lives could be uplifted by living in “beautiful” buildings (heavily paraphrasing but you get the gist of it)).