.
t
-
r
. d
-
s -
t h n g
e e
n e e
e in d g s m n n
i c n d
y
a
s e
c n li ct z r se , o li g
e in n the a , t z y e e b a at d ,
i ct a d n is
s e l e n u e
t t e n r m o
l
t y s i d n ct i d tr with a t e e e e t i d v e w n
whi th s e e t or f v a io nam t i e ion
, ’ pe At e n pr i e h t c
rn e e f g
e o t
f t t W ci er
v o
it t i r i an e t d v n o b
in h s e s e e le s
p o s f y H with e p t r b rchi S ’ a s t i G n h e
, n
e e
hie a i l l he includi it dure
p s P e h c t ,
h a n p o rc
o
t e n t the n ov e e n n i
d h c , e
T s C rc w m s e al a e uw c g a
e ct p
k esp a a t
e n do ief x o e s c c
. i s m G a e bemas r e n h s
r ju
e n om ch or p lan (
e e s h o p n an o t 0 t i f h t Kn tri e f ct th on ee or nm t a i c a l a v é o t wi
, e f a
r s ma d
C ure C t hi m e s k L de ati r g pr s h f rc p e s t
M l h a h
00 u S e e 4 d d e ro he proj o m a t ri n Hob t e o s hie r . p n d e A
, i
r t ure 2
v rc
t A e d e ea ore
p T in ew t c e E
u e e mi m l f
d
d e at D o the n a c hie
c w ll l , y i e n pt
, . t n i d
rchi sup y the i u t ch nt e a
. ta e d c t o list
di o e l u e a
y n app ng , i n
G t n a a a i t
r l : s
i n s e d b with an n d
f k i e f n C e ca r ’
f in k gd f z e
e
g s p v n ea om s a o e , k o c t h e ee , s ass ng n s
o o e r ee
i e ta
n a R
is c o m ir ij e an n a or t s L n
ct
h w
nm w re n t l n p
h ct n d rc ct h
e w h haa ma t s r hie o c or v
s e l t w ldi e a
hi io t d p cand e e a e t c p i chief e
a s e T t io e qu F e i t o t or ’ C ou du e f r He e t i V y T i h t de P the the y e l v u b e 5 a i c
ff
h . t oo t r n t b e o b . g oid he h t pea h . e
a o , n c ief s u a us d B o n cc e i n c x t o e t e K ta n i re a
a ld
e T s rc s
ook a
h o c d a - rc a o rc G a m t s r it n av t
a . e c io h
nt
e a r at du J c c io in p t li an rchi t t
a uro a n m ly e h e f ne
d r
s
-
na x i e
p o es r ’ , ot e t E f t th l a a f t a
e e e h E
oe l t
a e t ee w o r
e T c s .
us hoi n n b
f o e t o o h 2 fa h um e
e f n pa R n t t h r C C e m hie . t n .
h the c w r a R n
r f t i o the c f Ea p t Rijksg l ct e s t io
e
e
e e
d t a A e e l a b
h s d u C y . u o ion l o r r t g i n e a r middle
hus io c g t y t
c t ea l e r
t at u s t A
a m o e r or o p i a o n au
t e F t e e n T
a t t 0 17 w r i na e f oi
i y a an v . cl
i e h H c 0 l h h the w n n ude c s s 6 m P f ch f
d t ’ t t n h t n cu a i . e y e or omm h
2 e e e th t
e , f e e r or oun t il t: a o 00
a t n smus l
c n rc a r one o n t c r
h
a onum os y ini
a i
m o s n e b 2 u t li ij t k
e t m a at e ou d r ke i r o j t in
gni
ig
l dir es a i f s h c hang n c M t m s m v n C , h u B ut ea
ch la r
me ta a at
a li d a t qu c n ir d n a g e t I c s . o cu the
R ri r e b
’ t i o e o w
ppro es t cl nt hma x P e
l e c o e u t rch
m it fr d a p l e s s
su n ch a e
d ll a c ’
e
e d um w in c e ve o t
do
the e li ng e lic
ij th i t d l the e i d n a c
d n i e t e n y the gu u y h d
on e m in b d ca n
l rqui
onf l
s rr Ma d d t e i , r m e ng l h e n a d : a l u
e e r ca c a r d D it this o an a s a a d or a the ‘ a a
s At with
hi
- gd, P p f v
rc A r n pl
t F dli e Da f , l
In z c e hn the u di
g e
e s ct
n an sou
i o d . m mus t he a
a r
R e s n o d t t o c a g e . t
f n
h s e e ’ m
e
e s r r nt ct i ubmit pea r up t a o t m e v assessm r g w r e n t the ld o b n s
e li ll o n r e t s the e en m p
h o
ba
O n ear h a e n r t t or C a o a , e
i e
v i i i e t e ga u f f n name
a ct the s
y fr g
t d s s
or o y o
he with ca t g e h d o n s s g e C t r e rchi ions f i e d t n w 0 n
umi i cas
a
7 r t e
in urn n e with z n a o a r e i
oe i
s t C g rc es d g e d s
lo 3 wa cts n o d w u
ss in re an r ri cam k ee . e h h r ore an
e g n w 00 r A C n r
e d t i ) e r o h
with
e ct in i a t e , s t on t d n t b mus e w t 2 d s t l e m
i d rc C e i this o e t d a n
c nd w w he c r s c n ma M the t draw n fe c m u ho n tas dd g z h - i a h ea ld J
l ju
e i a h i
k e e e T a
of s e n u io an s , t a
e t y In t e ion s
e , R
e e d ij b t h
i r
rc ommi e t
w r r 1 e e t c . rds e our n
; a off at s h t or g n . i a h he c h e n m t f om a a l rchi R b l on f ri e umt e a f t a i at
y
t
nm s
n ij t w xt s f l t h h a be a s c re e ’ e t r a Z h rc
p s w as e
ni t
o u e t n ld lit a T m doubt
e p b per e w r a rou . a n t d
id e r m
h mus R f c a r onf s tr ion
e u
m 3 p v t p or f e d w n k P A d w d s . e with fi e o i o c p t f e io n
l desig n o ‘ s e ex o t
o f t t genc
e r m ormi an
o umm rd
v n
ion . ss b i on o n sugges d S f n d ll t
c s v
w o c io s A o A y G is a o , ll c
an h
c t
s f Kn l i e t e rn ou o ma of
l e c s r i e o t m re io e
f ’ Rijk . s mn t a r rm l ign c s t e v N e ca f r p
e o o c k e s i rc w e g e d rat n l n in u e e , e e
g th n le t h an o ca o u l
t e s t n ri e a
t n o e
s A w s e e at e , etit d , n em t
hi ov i e p b t h : a tr e i n u i h or r ommi s 30 r E t r t haa s the d n n
w p f he r
g n
d l e y y d
m
C di ori c a e a h
Span T I
ij n n
il l t e
r e t e s s il es m t e m n d ns n s the p e S r e e r a llow
s o h a a rc u ui a he oo h u or iff nt i f ug nnu e o apa om v io h e o i he n na c d the o mi c th t i the Z w w a T K T w T t a F man B t ex a i c f P an f name A u t the C h m B
103
3 Continue with Cuypers Paul Meurs Renovation of the Rijksmuseum
Intervention
102
104 Intervention 105 Government Architect , Knippers had won an invited competition for the extension although architectural quality was to be the decisive factor. That rider gave the of the Parliament building on the historically charged ‘Plein’ in The Hague. committee the leeway to put aside the score sheets with part-scores and allow Hubert-Jan Henket (b. 1940) could hardly be omitted, if only because of his the architect’s heart to speak. extension of the Teylers Museum in Haarlem. Cees Dam (b. 1932) had not built During the discussions that followed a marathon of seven concept presentations, any museums, but Patijn had dealt with him in relation to the archives building question-and-answer sessions and ‘interludes’, the three Dutch entries fell by the in Middelburg. Dam brought his son Diederik (b. 1966) on board. Paul Chemetov wayside. The reason given was that although the ‘Continue with Cuypers’ notion (b. 1928) had made a name for himself with the Grande Galerie de l’Évolution was evident in their treatment of the existing fabric, they fell short when it came du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle in Paris. The architects added to list at to the request to look at the current functioning of museum from the viewpoint Coenen’s behest had an affinity for building in a historical context. Francesco of Cuypers while exercising ‘maximum care, restraint and calmness’. The Dutch Venezia (b. 1944) had built the Gibellina Vecchia museum in Sicily, around the ruins architects’ additions were too free and contrastive. The committee was of the unani- of the Palazzo di Lorenzo. Heinz Tesar (b. 1939) had designed the Haus am Zwinger mous opinion that ‘the extent of their interventions inside and outside the contours in Dresden and been involved in the renovation of the Museumsinsel in Berlin. of the building . . . were perceived to be too drastic and/or inappropriate’.11 A week Antonio Cruz (b. 1948) and Antonio Ortiz (b. 1947) were from Seville, where they later, at the start of the next round of deliberations, Tesar’s proposal foundered had built extensively in the historical centre. They had also designed the Maritime for the same reason. When Venezia was subsequently disqualified because his Museum in Cadiz. proposal for a Grand Palais on Museumplein exceeded the brief, only two plans remained. Doubts arose over Chemetov’s plan because of his notion of opening up Invited Competition the blind recesses on the main floor and putting a huge media screen in the court- On 28 November, Coenen, by now Chief Government Architect, sent the seven yard. The idea for a continuous basement underneath the courtyards also looked firms the brief for the invited design competition.7 The task was to come up with to be technically unfeasible.12 Which left just Cruz y Ortiz. This did not mean that a future vision for the Rijksmuseum. Four guiding principles were provided: it was a negative choice. The evaluation committee spoke in superlatives about 1) restoration of the spatial structure of the museum in line with Cuypers’ concept the resolution of the entrance, the design for the courtyards and the ‘refined and but with a contemporary ambience; 2) amelioration of the museum’s accessibility restrained subtlety of their intervention and the extremely appealing proposal
13 and circulation structure; 3) restoration of the original interior finish in so far as for a superb pavilion’. compatible with the museum’s public functions; 4) development of a proposal for the garden and the museum’s relationship with its surroundings. These guiding Cruz y Ortiz’s Vision principles were quite prescriptive, in particular with regard to the decision to restore According to Cruz y Ortiz, the original ambition to build the Rijksmuseum as Cuypers’ structure and to reinstate some of the interior finish. The precise intention a gateway to the urban expansion areas had meant that the museum function of this last point was not entirely clear, however. In Cuypers’ interior, the internal finish, was from the very outset subordinate to the urban design gesture.14 The arched decorations, paintings and building fragments coalesced in a Gesamtkunstwerk passageway divides the building in two, resulting in double entrances and main in which the distinction between building and collection ceased to exist. It was left staircases. The architects saw it as a challenge to eliminate that divide while to the architects to interpret the mottos ‘Back to Cuypers’ and ‘Continue with retaining the passageway. Cuypers’ building would finally acquire a satisfactory Cuypers’. The practical challenge for the architects was to solve the problem of layout with the aid of techniques that had not existed a century earlier. In essence, the entrance and circulation. Obviously, the intervention would need to cater to Cruz y Ortiz’s plan consisted of two interventions: the lowering of the central the wide-ranging requirements of the mass public, contemporary presentation passageway and the clearing, lowering and below-grade connection of the two techniques, climate control and security. The competition phase, however, was courtyards to create one big entrance hall (3.01, 3.02, 3.05, 3.06). This sunken plaza primarily about finding the most suitable architect. The architects were asked had space for ticket sales, information desks, the museum shop and café-restaurant. to produce a sketch model of the entrance zone and design proposals for four The lowered passageway provided access to the entrance hall from either
8 spaces in the museum. Stadhouderskade or Museumplein, thereby removing the distinction between the In March 2001, four months after the distribution of the brief, the architects front and rear of the museum. The passageway would become the central entrance presented their visions for the Rijksmuseum. Seated opposite them was the assess- while continuing to function as a pedestrian/cycle route. However, the architects ment committee, consisting of Jo Coenen, Ronald de Leeuw, former Amsterdam doubted whether the bicycle traffic in the passageway (as laid down in the guiding mayor Schelto Patijn, the director of the Rijksdienst voor de Monumentenzorg principles) was appropriate on busy days. They consequently suggested an alter- (Government Agency for the Preservation of Historic Buildings; RDMZ) native cycle path through the garden, which could even become a permanent Fons Asselbergs, representing the State Secretary for Culture and, as independent solution for bicycle traffic. They did not think it was necessary to entirely close off member, writer and journalist Max van Rooy.9 The committee’s task was to come the passageway for bicycle traffic. to a decision based on eight evaluation criteria: respect for Cuypers, the museum’s The main route through the museum was a continuous, chronological operating conditions, the urban context, financial constraints, architectural presentation from the entrance in the west courtyard, past the Middle Ages at the quality, originality, finish and proposed use of materials and energy consumption. bottom of the west wing, ascending to the Golden Age on the main floor and then A technical committee advised the evaluation committee on the implementational descending via the east wing to the twentieth century and finally ending up at the aspects of the various plans.10 The commission was to be awarded to the architect restaurant and shop in the east courtyard. Stairwells and lifts could be used to cut who, in tendering jargon, submitted the ‘most economically advantageous offer’, off parts of the route or to facilitate a quick tour of the Gallery of Honour and the
106 Intervention 107
3.1 Sketch of the lowered 3.3 Impression of the glass entrance area in the central awning attached to the front passageway, Cruz y Ortiz façade. 2001. 3.4 Proposal for toning 3.2 Longitudinal sketch of down the bright colours in the central passageway with the interior. the connection between the
lowered courtyards beneath it. 3.5 Model of the lowered A glass awning has been added courtyards and the entrance on the city side. in the central passageway.
3.01 3.03
3.04
3.02
3.05
108 Intervention 109 Night Watch Gallery. The decision to use the main building almost entirely as exhi-
bition space meant that the offices, storerooms and supporting functions would 3.6 Sketch of the walking have to move to neighbouring buildings or disappear from Amsterdam altogether. routes between the entrance, Three additions completed the ensemble: an awning on Stadhouderskade, the the courtyards and the museum galleries. Asian Pavilion between the main building and the South Wing, and a basement below the courtyards containing an auditorium, educational spaces and service 3.7 Auditorium and service areas (3.03, 3.07, 3.17-3.21). There was no plan for the garden. The architects areas beneath the lowered
courtyards. wanted to restore Cuypers’ decorations in some places, but in muted colours
so that they would not compete with the collection. For the sake of the acoustics they suggested carpet woven with the pattern of Cuypers’ mosaic floors. For the courtyards they designed huge crystal chandeliers to filter the daylight and to give
the entrance hall a ceiling and a sense of coherence (3.29-3.32). The assessment committee spoke (unanimously) of a lucid concept that resolved the logistical
problems of the Rijksmuseum and delivered a fine entrance. The Asian Pavilion was regarded as a stroke of genius. The only ideas rejected by the committee were those for carpet in the galleries and an awning on Stadhouderskade.15 Since the
committee did not consider these elements essential to the design, it assumed that good alternatives could be found at a later date. It is unclear why the idea of
hanging a huge awning on the main facade did not attract the same judgement as many other interventions, namely that ‘inside and outside the contours of the
building . . . [they] were perceived to be too drastic and/or inappropriate’. Of the plans regarding Cuypers’ interior, all that remained was the suggestion to tone down the bright colours and for the rest to make the galleries as light as possible
(3.04).
Preliminary Design Cruz y Ortiz was not unknown in the Netherlands. The firm had previously built housing schemes on Java Island in Amsterdam (1994-1996) and on the Céramique
site in Maastricht (1999-2001). The firm’s nomination as chief architect of the Rijksmuseum on 4 April 2001 brought the architects into contact with what was
for them an as yet largely unknown side of Dutch culture, namely social decision- making. This required a period of ‘familiarization’ with the Dutch reality of multiple
clients, numerous committees, the institutions and other interested parties – each with a seat at the table and their own views on the project.16 Years later Antonio Ortiz commented ruefully: ‘I think you call that “Polder-model”.’17 A week after
3.06 their nomination Cruz y Ortiz joined in the selection of the restoration architect.
This commission went to Van Hoogevest Architecten. Although it was already laid down that this firm would be answerable to the chief architect, what shape that collaboration would take and what tasks and responsibilities it would entail was at that moment still unclear. In February 2002, Cruz y Ortiz completed an integration study that had looked at how all the various wishes for the new Rijksmuseum could be incorporated into the design plan. One of the conclusions was that the Study Centre did not belong in the former library and should be housed elsewhere on the site. In May that year there followed the choice of consultants for structural design (Arcadis), building physics (Arup Madrid and DGMR) and building services (Arup Madrid and Van Heugten).18 Their contribution to the design was to be considerable, given the huge challenges with respect to underground construction and building services. From November 2001 to December 2002, Cruz y Ortiz worked on the Preliminary Design (PD). Such a design establishes the broad outlines of a construction plan, which are then worked out in detail in the Final Design (FD). In the PD the plan for
3.07
110 Intervention 111
3.08-10 Entrance area 3.12 Modified version of designs by Cruz y Ortiz the entrance design, 2005. from the PD, 2002. Here there is no longer a sunken entrance in the 3.11 The PD features central passageway; instead, a continuous glass wall revolving doors provide separating the bicycle path entrance to the museum. and entrance area. This is the version that was ultimately used.
3.13-14 Visualization by Cruz y Ortiz, used by Wim Pijbes and Liesbeth van der Pol from 2008 onwards
in an attempt to win sufficient 3.12 support for the original entrance area concept.
3.09
3.08 3.10
3.13
3.11 3.14
112 Intervention 113 the Rijksmuseum was spelled out, for example with respect to layout and square metres, building services, constructional approach, heritage restoration and archi- 3.15 Model of the Cruz y Ortiz tecture.19 The original concept remained essentially intact: a central entrance in the competition design (2004), passageway with stairs to the sunken entrance hall (3.05). There was a new solution with the Asian Pavilion and involving cables and ducting in an underground services tunnel around the main the Study Centre added to building, from where the entire building could be serviced via vertical shafts. One the ensemble. striking addition was the Study Centre, a tower over 30 m high next to the main 3.16 Plan for window building, between the director’s villa and the Teekenschool (Drawing School, now openings, Cruz y Ortiz 2004. National Print Room) (3.23-3.28). This tower was intended to become an important closed window node, with access to the engine rooms and the energy centre in the basement, – always closed window the staff entrance on the ground floor and on the floors above reading rooms and – not reversible a library tower. The building was conceived in concrete, with large windows and a closed window cladding of Swiss limestone. This was later changed to a Portuguese limestone whose – not easily reversible bluish cast complements the Belgian Blue limestone of the historic building. closed window – easily reversible In the elaboration of the passageway, the cycle path remained in the open air, open window but the entrance zone and the footpath were incorporated into the building. translucent window level The result was that behind both façades a revolving door was placed in three of the four archways and, along the entire length of the passageway, the cycle path was screened by a glass wall (3.08-3.11). To make it possible to access the various routes from the entrance hall through the museum galleries, and to solve the problem of emergency exits, lifts and stairs were added. This resulted in two galleries on the main floor being reduced by one bay.20 The chronological arrange- ment, which pursued a serpentine course through the building, would present an interrelated display of art, applied art and history. The two attic spaces on the north side were reserved for study collections, with thematic displays of ceramics, textiles, ship models and arms. Autonomous sections of the collection were 3.15 housed in separate buildings, such as the so-called Asian Pavilion and the former
Teekenschool. The South Wing was designated for temporary exhibitions, printing and photography. The former library became a reading room and café and was incorporated into the museum route. Cruz y Ortiz’s PD contained one rigorous modification with respect to the museum interior: raised parquet floors concealing pipes and air ducts and double walls for acoustics and climate control. This would change the appearance of the galleries and the detailing of doors, windows, columns and stairs would need to be adapted accordingly.21 The museum also wanted to block a lot of windows in order to gain additional exhibition space and to protect the collection from too much daylight. Where possible the architects tried to retain daylight in the museum to provide orientation towards the courtyards and the city. The external space around the museum was dealt with in summary fashion in the PD. Cruz y Ortiz projected the new buildings of the Asian Pavilion and the Study Centre on the site of the bicycle sheds and car park. Since Cuypers’ time various extensions had been built on Museumplein and together they formed a picturesque silhouette. The new volumes fitted into this picture. The firm was keen to tidy up and redesign the gardens, but first wanted to know for certain whether or not a cycle path would be routed here as an alternative to the passageway. Only then, too, would the possibilities for the forecourt on Stadshouderskade become clear. Remarkably, both Cruz y Ortiz and Van Hoogevest drew up their own restoration criteria during the PD phase. Cruz y Ortiz voiced their preference for preservation of the architectural configuration (volumes and spaces), the typology and the heritage value, at least so long as it did not impede the functional organization. In concrete terms this amounted to the restoration of the spatial layout and the
3.16
114 Intervention 115
3.17-21 Stages in the 3.23-28 Design and design of the Asian Pavilion, integration studies for the 2001-2004. Entrance Building, previously called the Study Centre, with 3.22 The completed successively smaller building Asian Pavilion. volumes, 2002-2013.
3.17
3.25
3.23 3.24
3.18
3.19
3.21 3.26
3.20
3.22 3.27 3.28
116 Intervention 117 reinstatement of Cuypers’ decorations in the entrance hall, the main stairwells, the library and the Aduard Chapel. In the architects’ own words: 3.29-32 Designs for the
Regarding the first floor, the Front Hall should be the main space to be restored, chandeliers over the so we are not thinking in restoring the ‘Gallery of honour and Nachtwacht-zaal courtyards. The original design for two special as well decorated in the same atmosphere’ and we have some doubts regarding models, both in crystal. the ‘Partly reconstruction of paintings in the upper zone of the rooms’, so far those proposals might disturb the explained vision for restoration and the 3.33-34 More detailed
22 version of the chandelier Rijksmuseum exposition layout. design.
That Cruz y Ortiz’s restoration criteria were based on their architectural outlook, 3.35 One of the two final is clear from the explanatory text: identical chandeliers.
In the other spaces inside the building we should not find ‘reminders of colours’, 3.29 3.30 considered as archaeological remains. We think that the conservation criteria of the colours in the basement and intermediate floor must follow the museum’s criteria and the exhibition’s point of view. We insist upon the idea that the original colour grade would be excessive. No ‘patch’ interventions will be done in any case
23 (it means, no singular spots on the walls will be kept or restored).
With this firm pronouncement on the treatment of the historical substance of the museum, the architects underscored the way they intended to approach the 3.31 national monument: in an architectural rather than an archaeological or building- historical manner. In the basic design they approached the existing monument with maximum sensitivity and succeeded in reconstructing Cuypers’ spatial layout and adapting it to the requirements of large crowds of visitors and a controlled climate. At the same time, within this overall design they took the liberty of creating an almost modernist, dazzling light interior – as the ideal decor for the works of art. 3.33 3.34
The history of the building was to be allowed to resonate in a highly measured way, 3.32 as long as this did not disturb the tranquillity and serenity of the museum galleries.
Reaction to the Preliminary Design The PD was submitted for comment to parties directly involved in the new
Rijksmuseum and to external advisory bodies such as the Commissie voor Welstand en Monumenten in Amsterdam (Design Review Board) and RDMZ. Reactions were generally positive with regards to the solution for the entrance and the courtyards, but there was also a sense of unease about the treatment of the conservation aspects and the interior. Broadly speaking, the commentary focused on the Study
Centre, the glass walls in the passageway and the restoration plan. Welstand and RDMZ queried the utility, necessity and appearance of the Study Centre, given the visual impact of this volume on the ensemble.24 The passageway attracted criticism for the combination of the entrance zone with a cycle path, and the consequences it entailed. Asselbergs, for example, thought it a poor idea to block three of the four
25 archways with turnstiles because it disrupted the symmetrical façade arrangement. Coenen objected to the long glass wall in the passageway.26 Both men wanted to move the cycle path and integrate the passageway completely with the museum – as previously conceived by Hans Ruijssenaars in his urban ‘foyer’ idea. Welstand’s opinion was diametrically opposed to this: ‘The envisaged changes in the passageway are in its view a travesty of the propagated public character, 27 which is all but lost.’
The comments about the restoration plan focused on the lack of building archaeological research and of any substantiated statement regarding the essence of the historic building. The restoration plan was in fact a derivative of the museum
3.35
118 Intervention 119 concept, climate control and space requirements. Asselbergs, for example, felt that was missing: the elaboration of the passageway. Since the city council had vetoed 39 too little thought had been given to the reinstatement of the original decor: ‘That the the plan, the architects could only wait for new guidelines from the council. 3.36 pages 120-121: The “Continue with Cuypers” motto should now be interpreted chiefly as the restoration In the FD the intervention in the main building was described as the reinstatement Rijksmuseum complex viewed of the structure, plus decorations in one or two rooms, is an unacceptable principle from the south during the of the ‘original architecture’, interpreted as ‘the original space and the original as far as I’m concerned.’28 Asselbergs thought that the decorations were part of the final stage of construction. connections between different spaces’.40 The proposal to strip the museum of original architecture and that the restoration plan should also take account of the building traces and fragments was underpinned with historical arguments. The significance of the Rijksmuseum as a monument of national identity. These aspects remnants of the ‘Nederlandsch Historisch Museum’ (Netherlands Historical Museum) were not mentioned at all in the PD. De Leeuw stressed that the museum wanted in particular were dismissed as historically and artistically inaccurate. For example, maximum flexibility in the galleries, but was also keen to pass the original building Cuypers had set up columns in the museum as an example of church architecture. on to future generations.29 He therefore suggested restoring Cuypers’ interior The FD explained in meticulous detail that they had no structural meaning, did not in the non-museum spaces, such as the Great Hall, staircases, corner towers and fit in the structural grid and were absent from the foundation drawings.41 Once courtyards. He also wanted to restore the Aduard Chapel as part of the display unmasked as kitsch, the conclusion was that they did not belong to the architecture devoted to the nineteenth century. He went even further and argued for the resto- and should be removed. ration of the high point of Cuypers’ interior – the sequence Great Hall, Gallery of However, in general, we call into question the value of replicas of architectural Honour and Night Watch Gallery – as an art object in itself.30 Antonio Cruz’s initial elements that exist elsewhere. The fact that time has gone by since these replicas reaction to this ‘Cuypers cathedral’ was not necessarily negative, but he wasn’t in the museum were built does not necessarily mean that they have any additional
31 42 overly enthusiastic, either. Coenen wanted to suspend judgement on this idea monumental value than that of being mere replicas. and deal with it in relation to a concept for the entire interior, which was as yet Only the Aduard Chapel in a corner tower of the ground floor would be retained, insufficiently spelled out.32 Programme director Bart van der Pot had different as a relic of an outmoded museum concept. The Great Hall and the Night Watch concerns about the restoration plan. He had flagged a cost overrun and wanted Gallery would be restored as an art object. For the sake of continuity between the no uncertainty regarding similar discoveries in later stages. His preference was two rooms, it was proposed that the paintings on the frieze, the capitals and the for a decision to restore one or two sections of the building to be taken now and pilasters in the intervening Gallery of Honour be reconstructed. to leave it at that.33 This served to introduce cost as a restoration criterion, which strengthened Cruz y Ortiz’s approach. The architects objected to the incidental From Final Design to Construction Plan display of historical fragments and were only prepared to give Cuypers’ interior At around the same time that the first phase of the FD appeared in October 2004, pride of place where this did not compromise the museum display. In fact, there Mels Crouwel was installed as the new Chief Government Architect. His reaction to were already signs here of the compromise arrived at later, whereby, in addition to the FD was positive and included the recommendation to stick with the architectural the non-museum parts of the building, the Night Watch Gallery and the top of the concept for the passageway.43 Crouwel only wanted to be involved in a few imple- Gallery of Honour were restored or reconstructed, and building traces and other mentation aspects, such as the climate separation in the passageway, the insulation decorations elsewhere in the building largely disappeared. of the external façades and the design of new windows. The intervention design was as good as complete, with the exception of the passageway. When the The Final Design Oud-Zuid district council passed the Ruimtelijk Afwegingskader Rijksmuseum The first part of the FD was completed in October 2004, preceded two months (Rijksmuseum Spatial Evaluation Framework) in 2005, the city’s wishes with regard earlier by ‘Intervention and restoration criteria’.34 The FD combined the views of the to the passageway were established: retention of the cycle route and permanent chief architect and the restoration architect, with those of Cruz y Ortiz prevailing.35 public accessibility.44 The design had already been modified accordingly.45 The According to Antonio Ortiz, the proposal could be encapsulated in five principles: passageway remained intact and accessible across its entire width. The climate renovate (not restore), the museum is never finished, new designs for new functions, separation shifted to the wall between the passageway and the courtyards, where balance between architecture and exhibition, and an integrated design instead of the museum entrances with revolving doors, stairs and lifts would be located to a patchwork.36 These principles gave the necessary scope to renovate the museum either side of the passageway. Instead of entering via the passageway, visitors would in detail while giving it a sense of coherence. Typical of the architectural approach descend to the entrance area in the courtyards (3.12). was the decision, regardless of the magnitude of the change, not to cling obstinately The elaboration of the entrance zone cleared the way for the finalizing of the to reinstating the old form. The architects strove for new architectural quality, building application, which was duly completed in March 2006.46 The most important based on their interpretation of the building. modification from this final design phase was the reduction of the towering Study Compared with the PD, some minor changes had been introduced. The height Centre to a subordinate volume next to the Teekenschool (3.28).47 After earlier of the Study Centre was slightly reduced for the sake of the silhouette of the critical remarks about the tower’s impact on the ensemble and under pressure from ensemble. The chandeliers in the courtyards changed from crystal to aluminium The Hague, the project office was evidently not willing to take the risk that this new with perforated MDF with sound absorbent material, ‘a moderately spectacular building might further delay the construction work. The reading rooms, the offices touch’ (3.29-3.35).37 The café in the library disappeared. The architects proposed and the flue gas exhaust moved to another part of the museum complex.48 The new keeping more windows open than the museum had requested (3.16).38 In the section henceforth designated the Entrance Building, contained only entrances galleries they wanted to conjure a contemporary experience of the historical space for the staff, deliveries, the energy centre, the multidisciplinary educational centre, through the use of light and colour. The most striking aspect of the FD was what (underground) storerooms, reading rooms and the National Print Room. 120 lntenA?ntOn 121
3.36
122 Intervention 123 At the end of 2007, with the structure of the courtyard basements already in place, all the necessary permits for the intervention were granted. Yet even after 3.37 The west courtyard this some changes took place, partly owing to the influence of the interior architect, in use. Jean-Michel Wilmotte (chosen in 2004) and the arrival of a new museum director, Wim Pijbes, in 2008. For example, more windows in the main building were blocked up, the Aduard Chapel disappeared behind false walls, Cuypers’ three ‘pastiche’ columns survived the intervention, the colour grey made its appearance in the museum galleries and the chronological presentation according to the ‘serpentine model’ made way for an ‘elective model’ in which the display was tailored to the spatial characteristics of the floor concerned. But the attempt by Pijbes and the next Chief Government Architect , Liesbeth van der Pol, to return to the original idea for the entrance zone in the passageway came to naught (3.13, 3.14).49 The construction process was so far advanced meanwhile that there was neither time nor money for new modifications. The evolution of the design for the new Rijksmuseum reveals very clearly how the Spanish architects introduced a distinction in Cuypers’ legacy, based on an architectural and aesthetic interpretation of the historic building. The structural shell and the exterior were interpreted as heritage architecture. Important decorations, such as those in the Aduard Chapel, the library, the Great Hall and the Night Watch Gallery were designated ‘art’ and restored or reconstructed. In this way, to quote
50 Antonio Cruz, 85 per cent of Cuypers was restored. The remaining building traces, such as building fragments and paintings, were labelled imitation and thus by implication deemed unfit for a top contemporary museum. In 2004, Antonio Cruz wrote despondently to the Programme Board that a historical analysis drawn up by Van Hoogevest on the basis of building archaeological research conducted by the Rgd was imbued with a nostalgic sensi- bility that approbation should be reserved for the situation in 1885. A high heritage value was accorded to every individual element from that period: ‘This report is potentially dangerous because it could be deployed at any moment against our design.’51 It was by splitting Cuypers’ legacy into art and kitsch, that Cruz y Ortiz created space for its architecture. With light walls, wooden floors, newly designed windows and doors, the firm tried to bring tranquillity and coherence into the museum after over a century of cacophony and clutter. In the design, Cruz y Ortiz resolved the logistics of millions of visitors and the complicated building services technology by means of the grand gesture of the atrium and the building services tunnel. In the implementation, old and new were continuously being interwoven in every detail. The replacement of the windows, for example, was seized on to reinstate Cuypers’ dimensions and profiles and en passant to integrate the brass grilles of the climate control system. Putting the building services in the floors and walls made it possible to remove the false ceilings and reveal the vaulting once more. In the end it did not prove necessary to raise the floors, except in the basements. The false walls required for air conditioning and acoustics were individually detailed to ensure an optimal match with the mouldings and coves. Cruz y Ortiz’ ambition to make a serene gesture and bring light into the interior was constantly under pressure throughout the protracted process and the endless consultations with interested parties. Gradually, the design adjusted to Dutch reality. The passageway did not become a foyer or a ramp to the entrance forecourt, but a meeting of city and museum. In many places the design lost colour and texture. Meanwhile, the ensemble – of city and building, shell and collection, and of Cuypers and Cruz y Ortiz – grew.
3.37
. .
r .
d -
s h i . t l
s e g e
s l r e
d
s l
t u
f
o e e b n s
s d d
a e n r ion. ign l hed n ss s l l a s o r o t
d n hig h l n ti
d r e n h
a
o m s
t o w o
ld pi a e s
a n li s e e m b
g p es i u io p ea p g ion
s t is ntr y ot
b an t o k t
n d ee t ruc w n d le e
ll n n a a e i ou t
r the c i m c l n d ex n e s up s pumping
h w c a io or c y me
pi e to d u k
d
t e i u s
u n h bea u r
io ca y t e
h c n s o d w
o s tru t e at d ’ et o by t d l s
at lc b demo h ons
e c a a hig r m n
l s h ature n b t l
a o t o e
ou a n h i c
n t g oi
from r a e uc t nd e d s h h of
e cr
l m r ni o ca r et e d
m
um w , s i i
ee on
tr io u h s s d h t o hange e s t e rg n g
c n t e e t y rd c y r s m 5 o k
ing ee l high c e m
s a f . u at e r f o m
mn
g
w r
a a l c of i
n n g uc e nd d
sa t o 3 d e i e e
ld e a y h r
s on e s ogi a lu l r t r r t n cana t , u l j e g a n h da e ch i du it m l c
r h gu mus o
s a ew t a r s u c as n m t
nd
u u d e e t e e u c e y hi w
ee e g ion ion
ri p s e n nd u r s t ak is sa n h h t t d t in h ks o
a s t
e ag t
on t t n fu t t
e d u e s
ij h s a a c nn s
n el a e , a
s e h
c s t w s ri
l r h nt v
o e le
t v e ys o i a g t R s h f
t of m e m o dvan d tu t e ll g t
b in f ke e s nd s
i of a as nd ta
r l a s g o , e n a f
dr y A . n m o a u m
r
sta p is u r n t te e r
h t n
g h u r bea f n f m
a t as pa o by y old t e li
- h o e e o e
r e sa
ma f n o o e a re r f uri t
ion r io p i p g io n r on d l nd s d T t t e g h o bi i t iz d e
e a c d d be t i the
f y c
g g
r l . a ev c
u d n s e a a a
t
nn r n
t at o d be w i w w s s o o o pas e n s e
g
wil
nt uc
e n
l w e o d e i
st e ce s i e . bo d s wa a s
e s d e e e l
H a r tr c
uc r s e n eas l n
s rr p
f e e la n e h in . i e e he a s r he ll a h g
nd l a o tr l
m i t d t t hi v
uir p ood cro a h e n h n v e T y n ki
e i u While s
, ti r ee rev t t
r pi t
T q d
t . e ion . a o dr um h w s ce r : e ho m p t a in an a u t e .
e e s e s c c ldi
n nd n
p t on
u a e l t i
d; r
, s l l . e o h f d e e k r s o u ess x c re ounding e t o t u
e e io y io r e with t i e da
ion s b r on a h
e h t eng is i e c h s t row s s b h r rr a h u n l
n b n e ue t iz ric d
es r n i t t l at ne T m w h
d i
a o
s d i
w
e e ci e m s q
b e r h f ss
ec a . n i T
t s su rs a o t
b k h t to e w ou
imp on h o s t s a , na o l nd te
h T t s’ .
f t d it ile n a i e
ub a r l
t n r f y m suppo fr e c u p . g t e y i
ee in pr p hn l
e t w u s m h s l
w e o e
e y r r o w n r om t
r t c ov c o b i r f d w e cr eel re
et
ath c re e u A o k t a e t tly e s ev ho ne
, t ck n uilding y la y ype t e R e
r . s e e o e wh l e ne r c
h
l wa
re a u wa a nf
b or a on u al u h f s st c mu p n y
b w hese e e e n
a T w d
r e
o b d o e c
by c gr
circl s t o s
w w
g C i r r d
T . d ge s s is a e
in c d s
r t r l m io t n
n w
d a Fi r . be y dir a t g r w e
n e e
e e
e an e e e t o m in hi . o s ge e e t a t
a o a s sa n t ump t wo s a s n r , l po z tr a by i t c io
ma le T t s i l r ur with ey e -
rs
p w
t
n p
i r e e v x s
E n
d b . e o a k h d nd o d as e la ew ion n wa e d r as
t l r t a e e
t e bea li e c a
id e
u e e p
p uc g t p e t e ns n c h ho u r
a n d assa the n m i t s t eas h
c s t e ion o m c e ee tr x r min e re e rev e f e p s r e n be
s n c it
T U O sa e s
ld ld i r e e m hi d ug la w o
h tl re t t e e e e e d cas r d d s t f t wa n pe t
e o p e e ng e t h h h h h n n e r e dju a f le f y tru l o ou e e h urns i h ound o w T a b a b t b t wa o ga d T can f s b l ex T an ad c t pas r c T b s f T o e
y
d l . e y
ly - in
r
. t e - t
- l d
e
c e
s s s
o e es ing
s x
o d n e
g a
o t d , t t o o t a a g d he h n
h to t e um ee l t c s h t t n of t d a s
e
fa c i c e e of e t
a m ma h is l n c e th i e T h r e is ut ha nt n st
i a g ntly s ig e e
t x d d s t s r u r ion h curi r d uc w y o r h hi g . a tur it
in t m t um m udi e n essa uilding r e d e to h n e an us a b a n o w udg e e wi e a n d ta
s r , o n ex r T d a c l
a T
n t l e e ho c a a ak
ev b ou Fi
i F g low t ea e r s of h
o d
the s io u
uc d t . e l w r , t s w d .
e
i s tl e
d e p . e d rr
g . e
nd des ow omp er n g a io mus ay t t r n t l omple o l
r ff e h ya s n tr l d o d h s oo n in at f n e n i s c he wit t es
hi t be n e pp e t e c d e e on an
t e of e s t ng subsu b n o d e n h
r e the o la r v an
r ng d e loa i w lut
va s
di s n i t r mus a d c ion A ll i l u d lli uring r
h f b e t
e
h s
a m t onn oi p p a c s u i o uild
e s t m s in
s epe
o t a et
n ma . e t ldi t ould n
o m o l un a h t e e d c
lev e u c e e a R i dam e i at D he n o p b f t h a so of
y l e n ya r uildi t s
u c
so t
8
u m m w o t o g o d x
h h av w c s h m v T b c t
t u o
sta l o y e d
r t of e nd e h t x d e
t a b bee n r e s
o g s o i n e . nd f f d. o
a r c e n r b u T g 7 y h dui g lmo r o n r r e e the h a e e o h
T s
h u in n e t u be re r n u c f ntr r o mp
5 ion t d e t . h io e a f r n the n k f t e a T g u
. . o n h
e n h i uch t t e , o ee r x it o
o t o in i o e o o s r f 8 e re , ll th ep , e t h o e ho
r . i t h r io o on s w f d e f
e at s f at t d
h
T pil a c t t
ave e o
t c c l t v t
r a c u n n ldi r a e d f
t it n or
n ove t u c i x g v
i re e in a
i ta a . h
f d s cause s nd s m t , h f b le e g r g u o 18 w e , ma E e n e i e a e e u e w h b io h m n d nd a s t h r re nd e m s l e e e t a uc u u a e ss c ion
i
y t wa e nd n s pt h l i c e oi up t d h r b n i g x t ld e u n g pla e e e i e r c u e w a s o e t owi tly ne ound it e l e i tr i c s t wet d B t l h u i w ss x e
o
T
a f r r r r
o
h p ch h e t . o A h ea ) e s d p h s Wh v io n r f e
t mo pe o e
t s l d ld e . g f ev m t atr nt u r el r pi t r m ov g g ma pru e p ou
i et ru g nd r . s
cu h t . r be
mo
u n e t p f i i a a h e omp n e s n e s a s a d pa e r rs r h p hou n t s u e a tta i e e s nd t s on w n g a P p e m
T r i s cli av w o t s s f r c o
exi h r
y
a be ns l , n wo , h s w io e
y e e e t a r lev
h c u ni io he . , w k
n t h e e t t t i e h t a e d e nt
t hi s
u io nt t y ng s s t ea a e t
c a
v s n r r h a a to
diff
y g d
li n nd e c e
i
c ff
r
on t n g n d g e d e at rg a d T e a i e u NA ) e o or r , n o u
d re r a l r o n u at a h of ve la at l a l p
w n io ly d c d e t f t a w l i of i n a i t a rc n
l e d i e . a d
o h r o o 8 o p
a e i P rev t u s o h p r
ion o num r - n n w t
t e o r p u n n k
ri
nd cr
t h d dwa mm c c g ot s e o c t i i 6 s l
e at
F nd i e e
l inj
e s s
a i ou c s g ou ess th ur s
o m th t l
u l l ha
n i
t nd O re n n n g low
n a 4 e a a t d . h n in dit cab N u r e e i s urr
m p kn ge
i e o afé p NA c nt n o r a e h e w u . u a r v a
d e e h , w s
a ay d (
o f g s , h l ht h ic wi w n c h n t r l 0 dr v
s ee a bea a f ho i e trium c r t t
o a ion u be
s e w e g wa , h
a i s t emper s ing - s d
d nt nt ee on c m
e t r a he
y c a s l l , d s e ig a t ce s
c e d llows n
i le
n y a n y r t e d A c D r n d d e c y at d a d; ion g h f i n cr 00 b n a T in so s hi x is
r n m r n a t d e
t
rgrou th , r c
nd h e d i t . or assa . r . p m a
d n d . e s e m em i a er u g a T ntire
h e n t li d n c t t sta nd e a
h d e e at t e t 8
n e i u s 7 p d i l i t p t ow oa e e an t n nd t e t a r v atum n
. i p
n e e l o l f e wi m u at e
g s e s h e i iu
l n d s r
h e v o , o p ee t u n re inj igni new u te n g i t d io s l e r i u v
t h
o b
r s u r ea on ly h y D n
n a nd m i n at a tr T e s
e as d t
o n t s i e us t illi v r c o
e e nt n B h o a b d w r i wa
e ce wi o n
s e
e us e e c f . D r u
r k u at
s a t f h f i b e
s r rg e
t
e w a l , . n d dr l e t w o th gi h t c s l n .
a h on s cr v o d i ion l
ce t w ntr t t o t t the t m 5 at do e I , p oor t e n i f t i i d ion t rgrou a ny ne re re s
n s an c ld u
c le a rs ri a n f e e ut oo n m n p e h l o . fl
d s r 1 s wi ev r ig s r s e c p in n r l e a e o re e
e c o s m b c t the pr e fl ture h o g r o and r
c ut u e th e a ra a of
e s of d t fr e e e o
t nd o d t e d u a l ig e
x i s be a jo c nt ni w w m w o n p d i a r h a n e xi h n t
b d ni tl e sm to z
la v a
d ly g
e i u
lm n t i o t
i t h n n i e l rk r , d in uc re g w w e h d v c e s e
e o d k s m r a h t h
s an lm a d i n h d e li v io u a s w
p, , rd t l e e a o o n e c e n .
tl tr k t n s r ne e ij u ya lly n t c l , s n r e e o i c c m t n ri a ma t h l of t t r e 10 ur v s , le t h
i s rg y e e d
l i a e a a
w e a O w k a h r e t l e
R u t e e
an r
or m s T p
o c b a t m nv e ppr t ee e of
e s which d
e a he pil p d h
n c be i i pi ea da
t l o u r b ion d l s w
s ncas e h ea a w t e i
l . y r g f p a wa r le d
t
, w up
e u t m o e rl ov T a
w
hidd I n b o ( w o in is
t a s le
ma oi
e v e k
d d io a m y es s
e t k et o e n
c b summer i s cl n s
d l l r nd h . tl t s y a s f e i e if . r c nt i v d a l u n v h t n e n e e t t s cr
e e c r e e ion a ion ions e l d d
ca s n o to e y t u d ul l d a w l n
n d a ou a e t h t a
rd
a ldi f a h l b e g e h r e e d a idab h f ll t i h e m e e uc , lev tab
in a at h a b en t c nd e u d as e du t
a at a
c e w t
n a pi lex , s rd o i s v ut
h e e w e o u ly ot u n ture o t an n
r r f e t ma tr h e f u n t e b m x e t e d d s , f e l jo
d e a t c
fr et bee a lv sp
h n et
T T r d b n e c n , ng e e e s o nn e e s ot s c t sid e ny i n nd n a k ir e h w h i ’ a cr o t t o ho e e
ur d d t s e v uc d v w m o t t t n t a r e a e b u n o i r u e e e e a d l f s ee to t t on
m h h i r i o n e u a ny pe p e u a ow a e uildin a igni a t oor tr tr h on a i ou o ou o h o h n n ng f s sh f d dr to p p wa f v wa o p cr s a T u by wit sa fl T i f a b t t b r al stan ma h inv m ma a o c n h t A s h s b is N th b in i h c c a i
Civil Engineering and Construction Issues
- t r
ou
c . e
om t h te t fr
e 006 n i eas cr 2
ce
r s e
on . e an h l t c t 9
pi 2
n g i 9 g
embe r in 1
v r in , e assis
o t v d i r a r N
ith ,
Pou w D ya r s w
t r e r
d e d r 24 n ou C.2 u ya div 1 C.1 c
02 01 . .
C C
126 127
C.05 Pouring concrete underwater in the east C.3 Pressing the sheet piling courtyard; divers checking prior to excavation of the east connections and joints, courtyard, June 2006. November 2006.
C.03 C.05
C.04 The underwater exca- vation of the east courtyard. C.06 Pouring a layer of sand A temporary work platform onto the hardened under- was constructed on a water concrete at the lowest temporary foundation for this point after draining the east purpose, September 2006. courtyard, December 2006.
C.04 C.06 128 129
C.7 Pouring the new C.8 View of the west concrete sub-floor over courtyard from above; the sand layer in the west the new cellar has been courtyard, view from above, completed. The sheetpiling February 2007. is still clearly visible, 2008.
C.07 C.08
130 131
C.9 Demolishing the floor in the central passageway through the Rijksmuseum. The steel sections encased in concrete in the current foundation are clearly visible, held in place by jacks while the foundation is demolished, September 2009
C.09
C.10 The foundation of the central passageway is demolished, leaving C.11 The foundation the Gallery of Honour of the central passageway ‘suspended’ on top of the is demolished; the blue temporary foundation and jacks are clearly visible, jacks, February 2010. February 2010.
C.10 C.11
132 133
C.13-14 Concrete structure under the east courtyard.
C.13
C.12 The deepest point under the courtyards is reached.
C.12 C.14
134 135
C.16 Work on the energy centre on the east side of the Rijksmuseum, under the future Entrance Building, March 2010.
C.16
C.15 Excavation for the C.17 Work on the energy construction of the Energy centre under the future Ring on the street side Entrance Building; the ducts (east) of the Rijksmuseum, in the sheetpile wall are June 2009. clearly visible, March 2010.
C.15 C.17