In Pursuit of Monumentality
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
In Pursuit of Monumentality The acquisition policy of Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser: cause and consequence of the development of monumental care and canonisation of Dutch architecture 26-4-2017 Master Thesis Wouter van Elburg 10360271 Supervisors H. Ronnes T.M.C. van Kessel N. F. Smit Heritage and Memory Studies Faculty of Humanities University of Amsterdam TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction: The importance of architecture 5-11 0.1| the birth of architectural preservation 6 0.2| changing acquisition policies 9 1: The need for Dutch architectural preservation societies 12-22 1.1| the need for a ‘Dutch’ identity 12 1.2| nation building: defining ‘Dutch’ architecture 16 1.3| material memory: houses as ‘lieux de mémoire’ 18 1.4| modern stepped gables: staged authenticity in conservation policy 20 2: Why was Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser established? 23-38 2.1| the rise of nostalgia, changing attitudes 24 2.2| the private and public development of architectural preservation 26 2.3| Amsterdam: leading the nation on heritage preservation 28 2.4| establishing ‘Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser’ 32 3: A century of acquisitions 39-76 3.1| 1918-1919: establishment years 40 3.2| 1920-1923: the first financial struggle 44 3.3| 1924-1939: donations, bestowments and continuing struggles 47 3.4| 1940-1945: World War Two 50 3.5| 1946-1955: rebuilding and new subsidies 53 3.6| 1956-1960: changes in identity 56 3.7| 1961-1970: new policies and the ‘Prins Bernhard Fonds’ 60 3.8| 1971-1980: organisational changes and a stable period 64 3.9| 1981-1993: widening the concepts of monuments 68 3.10| 1994-present: a new direction 73 2 Conclusion: ‘Hendrick de Keyser’, a century of collecting and 77-82 protecting Dutch architecture 4.1| cause 77 4.2| consequence 78 4.3| trends in acquisition 79 4.4| in search of monumentality 81 Epilogue: ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ in international perspective? 83 Bibliography 84-86 Appendix 1: Timeline development monumental care 87 Appendix 2: Acquisitions in numbers 88 Appendix 3: Acquired property by year and age 89 Appendix 4: Acquired property by year and criteria 90-98 3 ‘‘Don’t clap too hard – it’s a very old building’’ John Osborne, Looking Back in Anger (1957) 4 INTRODUCTION The importance of architecture In contemporary Western societies, such as the Netherlands, where it is claimed that the preservation of architecture is of key importance, questions on the validity of this claim appear obsolete. Thus, in a time when the Dutch consider themselves to be among the more prominent advocates for architectural preservation and where architecture is regarded as part of their national heritage and identity, a critical discussion of this concept should not be necessary.1 With nine UNESCO World Heritage Sites, over 60.000 ‘rijksmonumenten’ (national monuments) and more than 40.000 ‘gemeentelijke monumenten’ (municipal monuments), the monumental density in the Netherlands may well be among the highest in the world.1 It is therefore all the more remarkable that a building listed as a ‘rijksmonument’, a status which should protect a building from falling victim to redevelopment or demolition, can still be demolished with apparently relative ease. The KRO-studios on the Emmastraat in Hilversum in 2016 (Courtesy of Google Streetview) A very recent example of such a situation is the demolition of the KRO-studios in Hilversum. These studios were built in 1936-1938 and were listed in 2005 on the index of rijksmonumenten as ‘iconic’, signifying both its architectural and historical importance.2 The building closed in 1996 and after years of abandonment the city council approved its demolishment in 2016, despite its listed status. The KRO-studios were admired by many and their loss was criticised heavily in the press.3 Its demolition in 2016-2017 proved that the supposed ‘shield’ the title ‘rijksmonument’ should serve, is 1 For example, the Netherlands has 1 UNESCO site per roughly 4616 square kilometres, whereas the five countries that hold the most UNESCO sites comparatively have one per approximately 5908 (Italy), 191940 (China), 11244 (Spain), 15328 (France) and 8716 (Germany) square kilometres. 2 Rijksmonumenten.nl. ‘KRO-studio in Hilversum’. 12-10-2014. Web. 07-01-2017. <http://rijksmonumenten.nl/monument/512602/kro-studio/hilversum/>. 3 Beer, K. de. ‘Dieptepunt in geschiedenis monumentenzorg’. HilversumNieuws. 20-10-2016: p. 3; Brandenburg-van de Ven, T. ‘Sloop KRO-complex in Hilversum van start. Villamedia.nl. 28-11-2016. Web. 07- 01-2017. <https://www.villamedia.nl/artikel/sloop-kro-complex-in-hilversum-van-start>. 5 arguably shallow. There is therefore little doubt that ‘preservation societies’, which fight for conservation of our architectural heritage, will remain essential. The medieval castle ‘Popkensburgh’ near Sint Laurens is one of several destroyed monuments mentioned by De Stuers in his essay. It was demolished in 1863. (Courtesy of Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant) 0.1| the birth of architectural preservation The attention for architectural preservation is of relatively recent date. It was not until the middle of the nineteenth century, that the first substantial signs of an interest in the preservation of historic buildings started to appear. Politician Victor de Stuers (1843-1916) is considered to be one of the first Dutch spokespersons for monumental care. In his politically active life, during which he took seat in the House of Representatives, he was a firm advocate of the preservation of historical architecture. He is nowadays considered to be one of the founding fathers of monumental care in the Netherlands. De Stuers strongly disliked contemporary architecture and shared his criticism openly. Although several of his peers shared his point of view on modern architecture and the wide 6 scale destruction of monumental buildings, his activism was not widely supported. De Stuers feared for the consequences of the widespread destruction which was apparent in his time and wrote a critical essay titled Holland op zijn smalst (‘The Netherlands at its narrowest’). In this essay he stated that, although he felt his opinion on preservation of architecture was shared by some government peers, his thoughts had to be put into action in order to bring about a change.4 De Stuers argued that there was simply too little interest in the Dutch history by Dutch citizens and he considered this detrimental to the preservation of historic monuments in general. He felt that most people believed that there was no economic value in preserving the past, stating: ‘’Many think that there is no other profit in the care for our monuments, than that which innkeepers and coachmen manage to squeeze from the pockets of hither lured art lovers. For them every elegantly dressed building is a waste, every museum an expensive pleasantry, every old monument an odd heap of stones for tourists’’.5 He added: ‘‘How is mankind to expect a renewed luster of our art and industry, when around us nearly everything attests to a lack of taste, when our museums are either inconclusive or arranged so badly that study is impossible; when (…) the indifference to art and vandalism will remain to go hand in hand?’’.6 De Stuers held aesthetics in high regard and believed that too little money was spent on the architecture of new construction as well, not because of financial inability, but because there was just no interest.7 Unfortunately, De Stuers’ fears turned out to be well founded as nearly forty years later still little had changed. At the turn of the twentieth century several small and private preservation societies had been established, but a government-based initiative or support for preservation, that De Stuers had wanted to push forward, had not been created. Public disapproval of the rapidly changing Dutch cityscape was nevertheless growing and among the upper class a certain disdain of the ‘new’ was not uncommon. Private initiatives, largely inspired by the restoration works of late-nineteenth century architects such as the French Eugène Viollet-le-Duc and the Dutch Pierre Cuypers, sought to preserve the historic Dutch cityscape. These organisations mostly worked on a relatively small scale and most can probably be best regarded as private undertakings by individuals with a nostalgic mindset, rather than as a centrally planned attempt by a larger group of people. 4 Stuers, V. de. ‘Holland op zijn smalst’ in De Gids, vol. 37, no. 3 (1873): p. 320. 5 Translation by author. Original Dutch text from Stuers, V. de. ‘Holland op zijn smalst’ in De Gids, vol. 37, no. 3 (1873): p. 322. 6 Translation by author. Original Dutch text from Stuers, V. de. ‘Holland op zijn smalst’ in De Gids, vol. 37, no. 3 (1873): p. 323. 7 Stuers, V. de. ‘Holland op zijn smalst’ in De Gids, vol. 37, no. 3 (1873): p. 401. 7 As would later be acknowledged, a notable change came with the establishment of Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser in 1918.8 The foundation of this preservation society was an initiative of several members of the Amsterdam city elite, guided by the wine merchant Jacobus Th. Boelen (1876- 1946).9 They intended to preserve what was left of the seventeenth- and eighteenth century architecture in the Netherlands by acquiring properties that would otherwise fall victim to developers, and thus most likely be demolished. In addition, they considered that preservation could best be done and sustained by the rental of their acquired property. If deemed necessary, they would first renovate or restore such a building. Although the organisation initially aimed at preserving architecture only in Amsterdam, their focus broadened within a year, as they started acquiring properties throughout the whole country. It had quickly dawned on the organisation that, whereas it could be argued that the high quality of architecture in the Dutch capital was significant, Amsterdam was not the only place where architecturally ‘important’ buildings could be found.