The Great Rebuilding of Amsterdam (1521–1578)

Home , History of Amsterdam, Oudezijds Achterburgwal

Urban History, Page 1 of 24 © Cambridge University Press 2018 doi:10.1017/S0963926818000561

The great rebuilding of Amsterdam (1521–1578)

∗ GABRI VAN TUSSENBROEK Heritage Department of the Municipality of Amsterdam, Herengracht 482, 1017 ES Amsterdam, the Netherlands/University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Humanities, Dept of Art History, Turfdraagsterpad 15–17, 1012 XT Amsterdam, the Netherlands

abstract: In 1452, approximately three-quarters of Amsterdam was destroyed by fire. Despite attempts by the city government to encourage citizens tobuild using brick and pan tiles, the city was mainly rebuilt with timber-framed buildings. Only in 1521 did petrification of Amsterdam’s buildings gradually start to become more widespread, coinciding with an enormous increase in the total number of houses. The great rebuilding of Amsterdam led to a sustainable renewal of the housing stock, of which some houses have survived to the present day. This article investigates the reasons for the delay in building with brick, based on building archaeological research, bylaws and investigation of the 1562 tax register. It shows the mechanisms of transforming a wooden city into a brick one and reveals the effects on living conditions in the final stages of the rebuilding process inthe sixteenth century.

Introduction Over the years, the emergence and growth of cities in the Low Countries has been discussed in detail in many publications.1 Political events, economic change and catastrophes affected expansion; once cities had reached a certain size, changes occurred in spatial planning, early timber buildings were gradually turned into stone ones, buildings increased in height and as settlements prospered, more differentiated functions arose.

∗ I would like to thank Heidi Deneweth, Clé Lesger and Ivan Kisjes for their support during the work on this article. I would also like to thank the two anonymous peer reviewers for their supportive and helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. 1 E. Taverne and I. Visser (eds.), Stedebouw. De geschiedenis van de stad in de Nederlanden van 1500 tot heden (Nijmegen, 1993); R. Rutte and J.E. Abrahamse, Atlas of the Dutch Urban Landscape. A Millennium of Spatial Development (Bussum, 2014); R. Rutte en B. Vannieuwenhuyze, ‘Stadswording in de Lage Landen van de tiende tot vijftiende eeuw. Een overzicht aan de hand van vijfhonderd jaar ruimtelijke inrichting’, Bulletin Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond, 113 (2014), 113–31; K.A.-M. Zweerink, Ruimtelijke transformaties van de steden in het Randstadgebied (12de–20ste eeuw). Een vergelijkende analyse van de stadsplattegronden (Delft, 2017). Cf. R. Rutte, ‘Historical atlases, urban monographs, and research on the spatial transformation of Dutch cities’, OverHolland, 8 (2009), 116–31.

2 G. Borger et al., ‘Twaalf eeuwen ruimtelijke transformatie in het westen van Nederland in zes kaartbeelden: landschap, bewoning en infrastructuur in 800, 1200, 1500, 1700, 1900 en 2000’, OverHolland, 10/11 (2011), 5–124. 3 C. Ferragud and J.V. García Marsilla, ‘The great fire of medieval Valencia (1447)’, Urban History, 43 (2016), 500–16; K. De Jonge, ‘“Stedenbouwkundige aspecten”. Verwoesting als motor voor de beheersing van de stedelijke ruimte in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden tot in de achttiende eeuw’, in Destruction et reconstruction de villes, du moyen âge a nos jours/ Verwoesting en wederopbouw van steden, van de Middeleeuwen tot heden. Actes/ handelingen, Gemeentekrediet, historische uitgaven in 8°, 100 (Brussels, 1999), 385–409. 4 D. Schott, ‘Katastrophen, Krisen und städtische Resilienz: Blicke in die Stadtgeschichte’, Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, 4 (2013), 297–308. 5 M. Körner (ed.), Stadtzerstörung und Wiederaufbau. Schlussbericht / Destruction and Reconstruction of Towns. Final Report / Destruction et reconstruction des villes. Rapport final (Bern, Stuttgart and Vienna, 2000), 80. 6 T.R. Slater and S.M.G. Pinto (eds.), Building Regulations and Urban Form, 1200–1900 (London and New York, 2018). 7 G. van Tussenbroek, ‘Timber-framed town houses in the northern Netherlands before 1600: construction and geographical distribution’, Vernacular Architecture, 48 (2017), 44–62. 8 H. Deneweth, ‘Building regulations and urban development in Antwerp and Bruges, 1200– 1700’, in Slater and Pinto (eds.), Building Regulations, 115–38. 9 G.M. de Meyer and E.W.F. van den Elzen, De verstening van Deventer. Huizen en mensen in de 14e eeuw (Groningen, 1982), 2. 10 R. Meischke, ‘Huizen en keuren’, in R. Meischke, De gotische bouwtraditie. Studies over opdrachtgevers en bouwmeesters in de Nederlanden (Amersfoort, 1988), 208–62, at 240; R. Tijs,

Tot Cieraet deser Stadt. Bouwtrant en bouwbeleid te Antwerpen van de middeleeuwen tot heden. Een cultuurhistorische studie over de bouwtrant en de ontwikkeling van het stedebouwkundig beleid te Antwerpen van de 13de tot de 20ste eeuw (Antwerp, 1993), 100. 11 Tijs, Tot Cieraet deser Stadt, 100. 12 B. Speet, ‘Verstening, verdichting en vergroting’, in M. Carasso-Kok (ed.), Geschiedenis van Amsterdam tot 1578. Een stad uit het niets (Amsterdam, 2004), 74–107, at 88. 13 J.C. Breen, ‘Topographische geschiedenis van den Dam te Amsterdam’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum, 7 (1909), 99–196, at 113; J.F.M. Sterck, De Heilige Stede in de geschiedenis van Amsterdam (Amsterdam, 1928), 180; and R. Bessem, Oorkondenboek van het Karthuizerklooster St.-Andries-ter-Zaliger-Haven bij Amsterdam (1352) 1392–1579 (1583) (Amsterdam, 1997), no. 422, 435, 437, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445. 14 J. Dröge, ‘Bauvorschrift, Versteinerung und Subvention. Das Leidener “Ontwerpkeur- boek” von 1607 als Quelle für die Baugeschichte’, in Arbeitskreis für Hausforschung (ed.), Hausbau in Holland. Baugeschichte und Stadtentwicklung, Jahrbuch für Hausforschung 61 (Marburg, 2010), 267–76, at 271. 15 J. Wagenaar, Amsterdam in zyne opkomst, aanwas, geschiedenissen, voorregten, koophandel, gebouwen, kerkenstaat, schoolen, schutterye, gilden en regeeringe, Part I (Amsterdam, 1760), 35– 6; J.C. Breen, ‘De verordeningen op het bouwen te Amsterdam, vóór de negentiende eeuw’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum, 6 (1908), 109–48, at 112. 16 J.C. Breen, Rechtsbronnen der stad Amsterdam. Werken der Vereeniging tot uitgave der bronnen van het oude vaderlandsche recht, second series, no. 4 (’s-Gravenhage, 1902), 49.

Figure 1: (Colour online) Schematic petrification process in the Netherlands, 1500–1650 (drawing author)

date back to the second half of the fifteenth century.17 Although the 1452 bylaw stipulated that nobody was permitted to build houses unless these had brick side walls and hard roofing,18 the regulations proved insufficient

17 Cf. G. van Tussenbroek, ‘Dendrochronologisch onderzoek in Amsterdam (1490–1790). Bouwhout als materiële bron’, Stadsgeschiedenis, 4 (2009), 135–65; G. van Tussenbroek, Historisch hout in Amsterdamse monumenten, Dendrochronologie, houthandel, toepassing, Publicatiereeks Amsterdamse Monumenten 3 (Amsterdam, 2012). 18 Breen, Rechtsbronnen, 49.

Figure 2: (Colour online) Cornelis Anthonisz, bird’s-eye view of Amsterdam from the north-east, 1538 (Amsterdam Museum)

to turn Amsterdam into a brick city. The citizens of Amsterdam were reluctant to build using expensive bricks that, due to Amsterdam’s peaty subsoil, had to be imported from elsewhere. They complained that slates and tiles were hard to obtain, and – time and again – the municipality gave in.19 In addition, building in brick demanded stronger, more expensive foundations, i.e. even more capital investment for citizens. During the rest of the fifteenth and the early sixteenth centuries, building codes were repeatedly issued and expanded, as was the case in 1454, 1478, 1483 and 1491, but to little effect, however.20 Written sources indicate that the municipality was confronted with a fait accompli. Until the beginning of the sixteenth century, Amsterdam was for the most part a wooden city. It appears to have been overwhelmingly difficult to transform the timber-framed houses into more durable ones. The introduction of a prescriptive building code was one thing, but citizens also had to be financially capable of investing in their real estate as wellas be motivated to do so. Eventually, a combination of factors led to a shift in house building techniques in Amsterdam around 1520. This provoked an enormous amount of building activity during the sixteenth century and

19 Breen, ‘De verordeningen’, 113, 115; cf. Breen, Rechtsbronnen, 413, 421–3. 20 Breen, Rechtsbronnen, 52, 128, 186, 251; and Breen, ‘De verordeningen’, 113.

Transformation with imperial support Amsterdam was first mentioned in written sources in the year 1275.In the beginning, the buildings only existed along the dykes behind the river Amstel, but over the course of the fourteenth century the urban area expanded to the east and west with watercourses – the so-called Burgwallen – parallel to the Amstel. After the city-wide fire of 1421 and the completion of the city walls in the final decades of the fifteenth century,the city reached its late medieval size, which encompassed approximately 80 hectares. Around 1500, there still seems to have been an abundance of space within the city walls. The earliest reliable figures about the number of houses in Amsterdam date back to 1494. In that year, an Enqueste was held on behalf of the States of Holland and West Frisia to survey the economic capacities of towns and villages aimed at a more equitable distribution of taxation. This Enqueste recorded 1,919 houses built inside the city.23 About 20 years

21 G. van Tussenbroek and D. Derksen, ‘Oudste huis van Amsterdam ontdekt. Meer dan vijf eeuwen in de Warmoesstraat’, Ons Amsterdam, 64 (2012), 452–7. 22 Cf. G. van Tussenbroek, ‘De datering van het Houten Huys op het Begijnhof. Nieuwe gegevens over het “oudste huis” van Amsterdam’, Maandblad Amstelodamum, 97 (2010), 150–4. 23 Enqueste ende informatie upt stuck van der reductie ende reformatie van den schiltaelen, voertijts getaxeert ende gestelt geweest over de landen van Hollant ende Vrieslant gedaen in den jaere

Figure 3: First page of the Alignment register, 1532 (Amsterdam City Archives, Archive no. 5040, inv.nr. 743)

Figure 4: (Colour online) Warmoesstraat 90, dated 1485 (Amsterdam Office for Monuments and Archaeology, drawing by David Derksen and Jan-Willem de Winter)

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Amsterdam, on 09 Dec 2018 at 10:42:01, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963926818000561 The great rebuilding of Amsterdam (1521–1578) 9 later, in 1514, another survey was carried out, known as the Informacie with the same purpose. The number of houses had increased dramatically by some 50 per cent to 2,907.24 Around 1500, Amsterdam had developed from a regional transfer point to the most important port in Holland, a hub for textiles and herring from the North Sea, grain, stockfish, wood, hemp, flax, pitch and tar from the Baltic Sea region and wine, salt and luxury goods from the south. The number of Amsterdam’s inhabitants rose sharply,from 8,000 to 11,000 in 1514, and increased even further by 1560 to around 27,000 people.25 This raised demographic pressure led to increasing demand for housing. Considering the ever-present danger of fire, Emperor Charles V declared that from 5 October 1521 onwards, no houses with wooden side walls were to be built in Amsterdam. No evidence exists that the decree was issued at the request of the municipality of Amsterdam due to the increasing density of the urban fabric, although this is far from unlikely. With the help of this decree, the way the municipality implemented construction law changed considerably. Existing wooden houses had to be torn down and replaced by brick-walled houses.26 The municipality had formulated new regulations and wanted the emperor to confirm these, in the hope the new law would have some effect.27 From then on, every year a certain number of houses with wooden side walls had to be demolished and replaced. This large building campaign was to begin with the homes of rich, powerful citizens. For those who were financially unable to build with brick, help to the extent of their needs was foreseen.28 Stronger provisions were enacted shortly afterwards. Administrative tools were created by appointing the first municipal building master in 1524, by putting the ‘rooimeesters’ –the predecessors of today’s building inspectors – under his control in 1528, maintaining ledgers and, in 1531, by renewing and clearly expanding the building code that now consisted of 23 articles.29 It had been established that in the past ‘huge and diverse disturbances’ had occurred during construction, and that these disturbances continued to the year 1531.30 Nevertheless, the 1531 building code demonstrates how building with stone side walls had become commonplace and

MCCCCXCIIII, uitgegeven van wege de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde (Leiden, 1876), 118. 24 Informacie up den staet faculteyt ende gelegentheuyt van de steden ende dorpen van Hollant ende Vrieslant om daernae te reguleren de nyeuwe schiltaele gedaen in den jaere mdxiv, uitgegeven van wege de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde (Leiden, 1866), 180–1. 25 H. Kaptein, ‘Poort van Holland. De economische ontwikkeling 1200–1578’, in Carasso-Kok (ed.), Geschiedenis van Amsterdam, 109–73, at 150–1. 26 H. Noordkerk, Handvesten; ofte privilegiën, octroyen en willekeuren; mitsgaders costuimen, ordonnantiën, en handelingen der stad Amstelredam, 2 vols. (Amsterdam, 1748), 978. 27 Ibid., 978–9. 28 Ibid., 978–9. 29 Breen, ‘De verordeningen’, 116–22; J.G. van Dillen, Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van het bedrijfsleven en het gildewezen van Amsterdam, vol. I: 1512–1611, Rijks Geschiedkundige Publicatiën 69 (’s-Gravenhage 1929), 91–3, no. 178. Cf. ibid., 104, no. 197. 30 Breen, ‘De verordeningen’, 116.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Amsterdam, on 09 Dec 2018 at 10:42:01, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963926818000561 10 Urban History building-historical data suggests the city underwent a major transformation process during this period. The ban on the use of wooden walls is no longer to be found in the regulations. However, they do describe how chimneys had to be built. Anyone who wanted to build one had to do so on a stone vault. And no wood could be used in the chimney, with the exception of two small beams at the top on which slats were laid to smoke bacon or other meat.31 As far as the roofs were concerned, no ‘soft’ roofing materials are listed at all any more. Instead, there is a provision concerning the use of tiles and slates.32 All in all, it seems that by 1531 building with brick walls and tile or slate roofs had already been accepted and adopted. The building code prescribed that side walls should have the thickness of at least one ‘Goutse steen’, a brick from the city of Gouda, one of the main production centres for bricks in the sixteenth century.33 The petrification process, however, did not promote the creation of shared partition walls.34 Thatched roofs were no longer mentioned either. Instead, the building code referred to the application of pan tiles and slates.35 This of course did not necessarily mean that wooden houses and buildings would have been banned at once, nor that wooden façades – still legal at the time – would no longer be built (Figure 5). However, in 1536, the owners of some houses in Oude and Nieuwebrug alley were urged to petrify the side walls of their timber-framed houses.36 And in 1548, some homeowners in the expensive Warmoesstraat were exhorted to replace the wooden side walls of their houses with brick.37 The 1531 building code, launched 10 years after Charles V’s decree, was a milestone for Amsterdam’s petrification process. Its effectiveness can be deduced from the fact that houses have been preserved in Amsterdam from that point in time onwards. Building archaeological and dendrochronological investigations have revealed that from around 1530 on many houses have survived. Older houses are virtually absent in Amsterdam’s city centre. Besides that, the rooimeesters recorded great building activity within the already existing urban fabric in their ledgers, which can be attributed to the stricter regulations (Table 1). The rebuilding of countless houses led to hundreds of plot divisions changing within existing blocks.38

31 Ibid., 117. 32 Ibid., 118. 33 Breen, ‘De verordeningen’, 117; Noordkerk, Handvesten, 980. 34 G. van Tussenbroek, ‘Bouwregelgeving en toezicht in de Amsterdamse bouwpraktijk volgens het register van de rooimeesters (1532–1578)’, Jaarboek Amstelodamum, 108 (2016), 138–63. 35 Breen, ‘De verordeningen’, 118. 36 Stadsarchief Amsterdam (SAA), Archief van de Burgemeesters (5023), inv.nr. 1 (Groot Memoriaal), fol. 309v. 37 SAA 5023 (Groot Memoriaal 2), fol. 11. Cf. Breen, ‘De verordeningen’, 126. 38 Not all the modifications were registered by far. 567 have been recorded between 1532 and 1578. Van Tussenbroek, ‘Bouwregelgeving en toezicht’, 142.

Figure 5: Wooden façade of Zeedijk 1, built in 1551 (Monumenten en Archeologie Amsterdam)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1532 1540 1550 1560 1570

A positive side effect of the building activity in Amsterdam was the intensive and high-quality renovation of structures. House building with brick can be considered a consolidation by a resident on a plot, a confirmation of the plot’s value. Private investments by affluent citizens therefore provided the largest increase in housing stock, taking the continuous decrease of space within the urban fabric, rising demographic pressure and real estate prices as a motive to maximize the return on their investments.

Rebuilding Amsterdam In the decades after 1514, the year in which 2,907 houses were recorded, the number of houses seems to have stabilized. A survey of the number of houses in the year 1543 recorded 2,935 dwellings,39 whilst Cornelis Anthonisz’s bird’s-eye view records an approximately equal number.40 Building archaeological evidence combined with dendrochronological data shows how buildings were renewed, often enlarged with one or two extra storeys, and were sometimes built on a larger plot. Between 1543 and 1557, the number of houses rose rapidly by some 68 per cent to 4,943. In 1562, there were no fewer than 6,249 taxable houses, warehouses, cellars, attics and rooms. This amounts to a 325 per cent

39 J. Ter Gouw, Geschiedenis van Amsterdam, vol. III (Amsterdam, 1881), 209. 40 H.J. Zantkuijl, ‘De kaart van Cornelis Antoniszoon als informatiebron voor de studie van het Amsterdamse woonhuis’, Maandblad Amstelodamum, 61 (1974), 6–11, at 10.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Amsterdam, on 09 Dec 2018 at 10:42:01, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963926818000561 The great rebuilding of Amsterdam (1521–1578) 13 increase in comparison to the 1,919 houses in the year 1494.41 The creation of new households through marriage or immigration greatly influenced demand for private housing.42 Thanks to research by Lesger conducted in 1986, we have a good understanding of the Amsterdam rental market from 1550 onwards. Price development was left entirely to the market, which – in turn – was determined by demographics and purchasing power. The data that was recorded from 1550 onwards reveals that rents increased in line with inflation until the end of the 1560s, reaching the highest average rent level in Holland.43 The religious troubles from 1566 on and the increasing economic and political isolation of Amsterdam afterwards forced citizens to leave the city, and demand declined accordingly with prices falling until in 1576 the cheapest types of housing reached the level they had been at in 1552.44 Shortly after that – in the period immediately following the one examined in this article – rents again rose drastically, accompanied by a further increase in the density of the urban fabric.45 The tax register – assessment lists of the tenth penny – shows a sharp increase in the number of main tenants and residents in the alleys on either side of the Nieuwendijk between 1543 and 1562, which sometimes tripled.46 High prices on the housing market were an important reason for well- to-do citizens to invest in real estate. Even before the second quarter of the sixteenth century, it was possible to build houses on good foundations with side walls of brick and several storeys. Those who had money could afford oak timbers, brick, stone and other building materials. But the fact that the houses on the map by Cornelis Anthonisz (1538) are mainly single storey implies that the need or willingness to build up had not been substantial up until then. Private owners, however, could build taller houses if they decided to rebuild their homes. The growing prosperity of part of the population and the economic boom from 1540 onwards created the conditions for a radical overhaul of the city’s housing stock. Encouraged by the urban legislation aimed at eliminating wooden walls and soft roofs, civilians were urged to replace their existing wooden

41 Ibid., 11. Cf. C. Lesger, Huur en conjunctuur. De woningmarkt in Amsterdam, 1550–1850 (Amsterdam, 1986), 42. The number of parcels in the medieval city on the cadastral map of 1832 is 6.076. 42 Lesger, Huur en conjunctuur, 31. 43 L. Soltow and J. Luiten van Zanden, Income and Wealth Inequality in the Netherlands 16th– 20th Century (Amsterdam, 1998), 29. Increasing prices were also seen in Antwerp. P.Maclot, ‘The status of stone. Urban identity and the typological discourse of private houses in the city of Antwerp during the long sixteenth century’, Leuven University Ph.D. thesis, 2014, 84. 44 Lesger, Huur en conjunctuur, 65. 45 Ibid., 38, 42–4. 46 J.W. Verhey, ‘Warmoesstraat, Nieuwendijk en Damrak in het midden van de zestiende eeuw’, in M. Jonker, L. Noordegraaf and M. Wagenaar (eds.), Van stadskern tot stadsgewest. Stedebouwkundige geschiedenis van Amsterdam (Amsterdam, 1984), 63–87, at 78.

47 SAA, Archief van het Stadsfabriekambt en Stadswerken en -gebouwen (5040), inv.nr. 743 (Rooimeestersboek), fol. 24. 48 P.D.J. van Iterson and P.H.J. van der Laan, Resoluties van de vroedschap van Amsterdam 1490– 1550 (Amsterdam, 1986), 82; Van Dillen, Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van het bedrijfsleven, 196, nos. 338 and 339, 233, no. 402, 375, no. 595; P.H.J. van der Laan and R. Bessem, Resoluties van de vroedschap van Amsterdam 1551–1565 (Hilversum, 2008), 61. 49 Van Iterson and Van der Laan, Resoluties van de vroedschap, 56; Van der Laan and Bessem, Resoluties van de vroedschap van Amsterdam 1551–1565, 83, 202, 212 and 247. 50 Ter Gouw, Geschiedenis van Amsterdam, vol. III, 269; Breen, ‘Topographische geschiedenis’, 112; Speet, ‘Verstening, verdichting en vergroting’, 93. 51 Breen, ‘Topographische geschiedenis’, 114–17. Cf. Van Iterson and Van der Laan, Resoluties van de vroedschap, 28; and G. van Tussenbroek, ‘Voor de grote uitleg. Stedelijke transformatie en huisbouw in Amsterdam, 1452–1578’, Stadsgeschiedenis, 10 (2015), 1–23, at 11–18. 52 Van Iterson and Van der Laan, Resoluties van de vroedschap, 43–4, 94, 163. 53 J. Ter Gouw, Geschiedenis van Amsterdam, vol. IV (Amsterdam, 1884), 487; Van Dillen, Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van het bedrijfsleven, xxv; J.E. Abrahamse, De grote uitleg van Amsterdam. Stadsontwikkeling in de zeventiende eeuw (Bussum, 2010), 12. Buildings outside the city walls are recorded in Nationaal Archief (NA), Archief van de Staten van Holland voor 1572, inv.nr. 1206, kohier van de tiende penning te Amsterdam 1562, fols. 1–55. 54 Speet, ‘Verstening, verdichting en vergroting’, 93; Kaptein, ‘Poort van Holland’, 157–73.

Figure 6: (Colour online) Map of the medieval heart of Amsterdam, with new streets, alleys, alignments and quays until 1578 (author/Fryske Akademy)

Figure 7: Anonymous, Dam Square with butter and cheese market, c. 1570 (Amsterdam City Archives, Collection Atlas Splitgerber)

The housing stock in 1562: investors and tenants The petrification process resulted in taller houses and higher rates ofco- habitation. The impact this had on everyday life made some of the citizenry present a petition to Margaret of Parma (governor of the Netherlands) in Brussels in 1564, claiming that the area inside the walls was insufficient to house so many people and that this led to rent instability and many other problems.55 The population density per square kilometre was intense. Antwerp, with 11,856 houses in 1568 had an extremely high density of 52.7 buildings per hectare.56 In Amsterdam, this number was even higher: 5,271 dwellings – though not all houses – stood in an 80 hectare area, a considerable part of which consisted of water as well as public buildings and 14 monasteries. Even without taking these factors into account, the building density in Amsterdam in 1562 was 65.6 per hectare. The situation the citizens complained about can be reconstructed on the basis of the 1562 tax register which is very complete and therefore offers an opportunity to analyse the housing market in Amsterdam in that year.57 Insight into the names, professions and genders of homeowners and tenants is provided by 6,249 entries. The register also gives information about rental values (real and estimated) of houses, rooms, cellars and attics

55 Cf. A.J.M. Brouwer Ancher and J.C. Breen, ‘De doleantie van een deel der burgerij van Amsterdam tegen den magistraat dier stad in 1564 en 1565’, Bijdragen en mededeelingen van het Historisch Genootschap, 24 (1903), 59–200. 56 Deneweth, ‘Building regulations’, 119. 57 NA, Archief van de Staten van Holland, inv.nr. 1206.

Quintile Rental value Average rent (n = 1183) 1562 % per year Owner Rent

Q 1 6,915 3.6% 5.8 31% 69.0% Q 1 12,182 6.3% 10.2 20.5% 79.5% Q 3 20,366 10.5% 17.0 29.5% 70.5% Q 4 38,059 19.6% 32.0 49.7% 50.3% Q 5 116,505 60.0% 99.1 61.9% 38.1% Total 194,027 100% 31.0 41.2% 58.8% Top 10% 81,447 41.9% 138.5 72.0% 28.0% Top 5% 52,578 27.0% 179.4 75.1% 24.9% Top 1% 16,687 8.6% 249.0 65.0% 35.0%

used as dwellings, work spaces, warehouses as well as about the ratio of homeowners to tenants. The average rental value was 31 guilders per year. Divided into quintiles, the poorest 40 per cent of the population were housed in buildings that represented a mere 9.9 per cent of the total rental value in the city. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the wealthiest 20 per cent of the inhabitants occupied 60 per cent of the total rental value. Not surprisingly, the lower incomes were much more dependent on renting a dwelling than the upper quintile was. In Holland in 1561, inequality was worst in Amsterdam, where the highest average rent level was also recorded.58 Only in Q5 were there more owners who lived in their own homes than tenants; 41.2 per cent lived in a house they owned. The other 58.8 per cent were tenants (Table 2). Approximately 80 per cent of the registered homeowners and tenants were male; approximately 20 per cent were female. The register also includes those inhabitants who had no obligation to pay rent and the houses that were rented out by monasteries and institutions. These only possessed 357 dwellings, 5.7 per cent of the housing stock, with an average rental value of 20.7 guilders, representing 3.81 per cent of the total value, so their role as investors seems negligible (Table 3). The impact of the dense housing market on living conditions was enormous, especially for those who could not afford their own home. The seventh house north of the Oude Hoogstraat, situated along the Oudezijds Achterburgwal, was owned by Elbert Reijersz. In 1562, his house provided homes for 12 households; 2 in the cellar, 4 on the first floor, 4 on the second and 2 on the top floor, which means the estimated number of people actually living in this house was around 50 (Figure 8).59 In the Paulusbroeders alley (nowadays Prinsenhofsteeg), a certain Henrick

58 Soltow and Van Zanden, Income and Wealth Inequality, 29. 59 NA, Archief van de Staten van Holland, inv.nr. 1206, fol. 245r–v.

Luijt owned a house with four rented units in it. A ‘nederhuijsken’ cost seven guilders, the chamber above that five guilders a year. Another room cost eight guilders; no price was indicated for the fourth.60 Two of the four rooms were occupied by a linen weaver and a corn carrier with their families. Although the 1562 register scarcely allows us to attempt to calculate the percentage of multi-household houses, it does indicate that this crowding was very common. At the other end of the spectrum, we find the financial elite: tradesmen, entrepreneurs and owners of real estate. A certain Andries Holysloot owned 14 houses with a value of at least 6,780 guilders. People like Andries could afford houses in which every aspect of elite dwelling culture could be created. The commodities recorded in the 1569 inventory of the house at Warmoesstraat 46, which had a rental value of 180 guilders a year, indicate how such a house was used.61 The entrance hall served to receive guests and clients, as an office and to display their wealth. A bed indicates that the hall was also used for sleeping, probably for guests or staff. An extendable table and seven chairs indicate that the heated chamber behind the entrance hall was an extension of the latter where people could

60 SAA, Archief van Burgemeesters: stukken betreffende verscheidene onderwerpen (5028), inv.nr. 550, ‘Kohier van de verhuring van de huizen van fugitieven, geconfisceert in Amsterdam, 1568–1569’ (kohier van de verhuring), [1569], fol. 13r–v. 61 SAA 5028, inv.nr. 550 (Kohier van de verhuring), [1569], fol. 10v.

Figure 8: Schematic elevation of the use of Oudezijds Achterburgwal 139 in 1562, not to scale (drawing author/ David Derksen)

retreat if it became too cold. A corridor down the side of the middle and rear chamber led to a courtyard and a separate annex in the back, where domestic life was concentrated. In the annex, we find a kitchen with a sofa bed (for the maid?), a bracket chair and some kitchenware. The heated room behind it seems to have been the residents’ day room. It housed a counter, a sideboard, an ottoman with cover, a bed and an armchair. The front room on the upper storey contained two bedsteads and served as the master bedroom. The rear chamber was also in use as a bedroom. Although the rear of the annex was built directly over the water of the Damrak,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Amsterdam, on 09 Dec 2018 at 10:42:01, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963926818000561 20 Urban History direct access from the water was limited to the basement. Business visitors entered the house through the main entrance on the Warmoesstraat and were granted access to the entrance hall or the middle chamber. Only visitors closer to the resident were allowed farther into the house, into the annex’s back room, the most intimate space visitors were admitted to and that provided a view over the water. Visitors seem unlikely to have had access to the upper floor. The sleeping quarters were reserved for the inner circle of inhabitants. The fact that there were sofa beds in the entrance hall and kitchen suggests that staff did not sleep on the annex’s upper floor (Figure 9a). Storage rooms are hardly recorded in this inventory. Rye stock was stored in one of the attics of the front house and it seems that not all of the house’s spaces were listed in the inventory. The sequence of spaces in Warmoesstraat 46 indicates a hierarchic partitioning of privacy by the residents. For large homes, where a diversity of functions could be created in different rooms, we can assume such a hierarchy. However, this could differ markedly from house to house. This is illustrated by the inventory of Warmoesstraat 152, drawn up in 1567. Although the structure of the building volume is somewhat similar to Warmoesstraat 46 – large house on the street, followed by a courtyard, then an annex at the back – the rental value amounted to only half, namely 90 guilders. The reason for this must be sought in the fact that the size of the plot on which Warmoesstraat 152 stood was only 76 per cent the size of that at Warmoesstraat 46. On top of that, the cheaper Warmoesstraat 152 might have had one fewer storeys. The use of this house differed enormously from that of Warmoesstraat 46.62 In the entrance hall, we find a counter, a tresoor, some chairs and paintings on the wall, but behind the hall there was no middle room, but a middle kitchen, which – given the large quantity of kitchen utensils – was not accessible to business visitors. Behind this kitchen was a back room and a small back room. The back room on the first floor housed an extendable table, some chairs and paintings, and probably served as a living room; the bedroom was most probably situated on the upper floor at the front. That the owner had other priorities or was perhaps less well off than the owner of Warmoesstraat 46 is evidenced by the fact that he chose to restrict living to the front part of his house.63 The annex on the Damrak overflowed with malt, wheat andFigure rye( 9b).64 Based on the rental values, a clear distinction can be made between cheap and expensive neighbourhoods and a pattern of residential segregation occurs when these rental values are entered into an interpolation map (Figure 10).65 The elite quarters are clearly situated along the waterfront and the main streets Nieuwendijk, Warmoesstraat and Kalverstraat. Direct 62 SAA 5028, inv.nr. 550 (Kohier van de verhuring), fol. 8. 63 Cf. H. de Mare, ‘Domesticity in dispute. A reconsideration of sources’, in I. Cieraad (ed.), At Home. An Anthropology of Domestic Space (New York, 1999), 13–30. 64 SAA 5028, inv.nr. 549 (Annotatiën van de goederen), fols. 2v–6. 65 Based on NA, Archief van de Staten van Holland voor 1572, inv.nr. 1206, kohier van de tiende penning te Amsterdam 1562 (N = 5271).

Figures 9a and b: Schematic elevation of the use of Warmoesstraat 46 and 152, not to scale (drawing author/ David Derksen)

Figure 10: (Colour online) Interpolation map of rental values (real and estimated) in Amsterdam in 1562 (n = 5271) (Gabri van Tussenbroek)

Conclusion Different causes led to the rebuilding of Amsterdam in the sixteenth century. After decades of issuing bylaws without much effect, the city of Amsterdam was supported by Charles V’s imperial decree in 1521, which stated that wooden houses had to be demolished and replaced by stone ones. Municipal policy led to a comprehensive building code in 1531, but whether this policy was maintainable in practice depended on a variety of factors such as the actual demand for houses and the availability 66 C. Lesger and M.H.D. van Leeuwen, ‘Residential segregation from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century: evidence from the Netherlands’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History,42 (2012), 333–69, at 339. 67 Lesger, Huur en conjunctuur, 42. 68 Soltow and Van Zanden, Income and Wealth Inequality, 30. 69 Ibid., 41.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Amsterdam, on 09 Dec 2018 at 10:42:01, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963926818000561 24 Urban History of capital. Due to the ever increasing number of inhabitants, the need for houses grew enormously during the course of the sixteenth century, eventually resulting in an increase of approximately 325 per cent. Capital investment by a relatively small group made the building of new houses financially feasible. Although petrification is considered to be mainlyan effect of fire prevention measures, the biggest incentive for petrification in Amsterdam was demographic pressure and the need to build taller houses. Petrification also seems to have diminished the accessibility of housing, leading to more expensive houses on a market already suffering from demographic pressure and increasing structural density. Amsterdam’s preserved building stock indicates that from about 1530 on houses have survived, whilst older houses are virtually absent. The urban layout at macro level hardly changed during the great rebuilding of Amsterdam. Although new bridges, streets and quays were added to the existing fabric, and efforts were made to improve traffic flow to and from Dam Square, there was no master plan that indicated more radical restructuring. Every decision concerning the urban layout taken by the municipality seems to have been an isolated measure. This leads to the conclusion that the great city fire of 1452 did not result in major changes in layout and use, as was the case in many other European cities during the late medieval period. The fire was followed by a more or less hastily improvised reconstruction with wooden houses, which were only renewed in brick after drastic measures and directives from the municipality in the 1520s. This petrification process was randomly executed house by house and therefore did not lead to a radical renewal of the urban layout. Private and municipal investment policy bit its own tail as demonstrated by examples of the housing conditions of the poor and the rise in the number of inhabitants to approximately 35,000 per square kilometre with Amsterdam’s housing density reaching 65.6 houses per hectare in 1562. The influx of people led to increased demand for housing whilst atthe same time buildings were sacrificed for the benefit of public spaces such as markets, causing even more tension on the market. The less wealthy in particular faced problems surviving and in practice the housing market became prohibitively expensive for a large, growing group of citizens.70 The city council neglected to facilitate and expand the city, allowing functions and people to spread over a larger area. Only with the great expansion of Amsterdam in the seventeenth century was this problem tackled in a structured manner.

70 Cf. E. Kuijpers, Migrantenstad. Immigratie en sociale verhoudingen in 17e- eeuws Amsterdam, Amsterdamse Historische Reeks, Grote serie XXXI (Amsterdam, 2005).