POWER TO THE PEOPLE? AN INQUIRY INTO THE MULTIPLICITY OF SOCIETAL VALUES OF POST-’65, STRUCTURALISTIC ARCHITECTURE
1
Bram de Jong
Graduate School of Humanities, Master Heritage and Memory Studies 2016-2018.
Petra Brouwer
Hanneke Ronnes
Cover: Fragment of ‘Year 1905’ by Stanislaw Notariusz, 1930, Wikimedia Commons.
“Evenmin kan men iemand, die door aanleg en persoonlijkheid daarvoor niet gevoelig is, dwingen een middeleeuwse kerk, een oud stadje, mooi te vinden. Maar zoals velen, wanneer ze er toe gebracht worden hun drempelvrees te overwinnen, in het zien van beeldende kunst of het beluisteren van een concert een onvermoede verrijking van hun leven vinden, zo zullen er eveneens velen zijn – ik geloof nog steeds in de meerderheid – die, een- en andermaal attent gemaakt op de hen omringende historische schoonheid, hierin nieuwe persoonlijke genieting ontdekken. ‘How strange that is! I never thought of that before’. Wat sluimert kan gewekt worden, en wie onbewust, ontvankelijk is, heeft recht op een wekker.” – J.A.C. Tillema. Schetsen uit de geschiedenis van de monumentenzorg in Nederland, 1975, 617.
2
CONTENTS
Introduction...... 4 Preservation practice ...... 4 Post-1965 Architecture ...... 4 The expert view ...... 5 Methodology ...... 6 Theoretical framework ...... 8 Historical and philosophical framework ...... 8 Schroeder and value theory ...... 9 Aloïs Riegl, age-, historical-, and use-value ...... 10 Randall Mason ...... 11 Case studies ...... 13 Agora De Meerpaal in Dronten ...... 16 Liminal Agora De Meerpaal ...... 16 The flow of the debate ...... 17 Concluding ...... 23 Multifunctional centre ‘t Karregat in Eindhoven ...... 25 Liminal ’t Karregat ...... 25 The flow of the debate ...... 26 Concluding ...... 30 Music Centre Vredenburg ...... 32 Liminal Vredenburg ...... 32 The flow of the debate ...... 33 Concluding ...... 41 Conclusion ...... 43 Bibliography ...... 47 Literature...... 47 Primary sources ...... 48 Meerpaal ...... 48 ‘t Karregat ...... 49 Vredenburg ...... 49
3
INTRODUCTION common in the Netherlands since the beginning of the 20th century. During an internship at heritage organisation Heemschut I was asked to write a policy advice on Monument care in the Netherlands was organised how to treat Dutch architecture from after 1965. nationally for the first time in 1899 with the This set of architecture did not yet appeal to their foundation of the Nederlandse Oudheidkundige members in general, or at least it appealed less to Bond (Dutch Archaeological Association – later it 2 them than older structures. To me the policy would receive the predicate Koninklijk (‘Royal’). advice was not satisfying on an academic level as I The association focused on better legislature for managed to locate the problematic of the monuments as well as the preservation of them appreciation of post-’65 architecture, but not why through better restoration. Next to the built this was so. It became the reason to start this environment, nature in the Netherlands would research, as an inquiry into societal values of post- receive a lobby group as well in 1905, called the ’65 architecture. Consequently the question of Vereniging tot het Behoud van Natuurmonumenten ‘how does society evaluate these structures’ (‘Association for the Preservation of Natural appeared. It became clear that there are many Monuments’) that initially bought areas with reasons and ways for people to do this which valuable nature. During the beginning of the 19th brought up the main inquiry of this research: ‘How century additional organizations were founded can value claims within public debate on post- that challenged the decay of the valuable natural Reconstruction architecture be implemented as a and cultural environment such as Heemschut societal component in value assessments?’ (1911), that took on a role as heritage platform, and Vereniging Hendrick de Keijser (Association PRESERVATION PRACTICE Hendrick de Keyser, 1918) that had a more hands- on approach when it came to built heritage. The past we preserve for ourselves and future generations when we fabricate heritage.1 To forge The differing approaches towards safeguarding the history so that it strengthens a dominant narrative, past, of these monument organisations, signal that or so that it influences memory, is a common each considers different values. For the KNOB practice. Crucial to fabricating a dominant past is restoration is an aim and thus the question of how to monumentalise objects since they can be used far restoration can go in terms of originality. for this purpose. The practice of ‘monumentalising’ Heemschut tries to act as a platform for other is an important tool for the heritageisation of the organisations and stresses education as well as past. With monumentalising I mean ‘the act of campaigning for heritage; they focus more on the making a building or a complex a monument’. A political side of heritage. Hendrick de Keyser saw building that has become a monument is the financial opportunity of maintaining older safeguarded from harm and thus preserved for the architecture (and as of recent newer as well). future (given it is taken care of by the owner and These organisations and their members are in monitored well enough). Furthermore it has gained essence driven by the following questions: why are a judicial status due to a high ranking on the basis these building valuable and how does this value of cultural, historical, architectural and contextual come into being? values. Its ‘monumentality’ – the quality of being a monument – that was already set in stone has now POST-1965 ARCHITECTURE been recorded and written down. Making a After World War II, in the Netherlands, mainly the building a monument is an explainable practice old cities lay in ruins and the Government initiated that fits within the creation of narratives and it is the reconstruction of its damaged industry, cities
1 Lowenthal, D. (1998). ‘Fabricating heritage’. History and 2 There were already associations of architects concerned with Memory 10:1. 5-24. preserving architecture that fell in the category of ‘art’ in the nineteenth century however.
4
and villages, making use of Marshall Plan.3 From of fifty years has been dropped for buildings to 1945 to about 1965 the Netherlands were mostly become eligible as monument. Furthermore there looking at the number of buildings they could are initiatives to look at dynamic and in-between construct with as little resources as possible. 1965 models of assessing that focus on the use of Then can be seen as a turning point from buildings whilst preserving. These models are more quantitative to qualitative reconstruction and and more from a societal perspective since the besides as a period with a more free approach ‘bell jar’ method has become less tenable.5 The towards architecture. Dutch post-Reconstruction method of keeping everything exactly as it was, architecture has this built environment as its with little room for adjustments, works against the scope. functionality of the building. In response to this lack of adaptability and by working from with a In this paper the assumption is that post-’65 more societally influenced evaluating model this architecture is not logically valuable, because the paper looks at the possibility to complement on structures have not aged and lack a certain expert value assessments. monumental air. I assume here that the age of structures is decisive because it implies the In order to add a societal constituent to expert structure is ‘part of history’ or ‘a crucial part of the value assessments, the public debate about three heritage’. Psychologically people weigh the values buildings from this period is analysed. These case of for example age, condition, history and narrative studies are examples of the architecture from 1965 against each other when they consider structures. onwards in the Netherlands. They have been the They see a structure and process for themselves subject of substantial debate when ideas of what is the best value to evaluate it with, be it altering the buildings were proposed. In this public consciously or unconsciously. When the argument debate different points of view on why these of age becomes vague or even disappears other buildings were eligible to preserve or demolish values come to the fore and these, I argue, are came to the fore and those are categorised and composed within the social debate on the analysed further. The multiplicity of how people structure, hence the approach of this paper. value architecture is the most striking result of this research and it shows that it is not something to Combined, the kind of architecture that makes up discard easily. the set of post-Reconstruction structures is constantly in transition. The liminality shifts passed other sets of architecture as time progresses because it follows contemporary human acknowledgement of architecture at a distance.
THE EXPERT VIEW
To assess the value of architecture building historians can carry out a value assessment. The building is then given a ranking based on building historical, and cultural values. Authenticity and intactness are crucial when these specialists assess the buildings.4 Meanwhile the legally set age-limit
assessment of the building that treats the following key points: 3 About the Reconstruction J.A. Bosma says: The Reconstruction general historical values, ensemble values, architectural- can be seen as a full-scale operation, managed by the state. Its historical values, buildings archaeological values, values on the main aim was to construct residential buildings on an industrial basis of the history of use (related to the object of study). scale and to implement a new urban appearance. Mekking, A., Ottenheym, K. (2007). Bouwen in Nederland. Uitgeverij Wbooks. 5 Het Gelders Genootschap for example exmperiments with 601. dynamic preservation:
5
METHODOLOGY research, these phrases have been labelled according to the intention of the value claim, they In order to find a societal constituent, or a ‘voice have been attributed a ‘theme’ if you will. To from the community’, one needs sources that further confine the diversity of the source material, concern for the most part descriptions of society. the regular claims function as label-group in which The regular reports of newspapers provide comparable claims can be clustered. Clustering adequate source material for this purpose. These improves how the labels can be used in analysis newspapers are not the only possible sources as and functions as a rectification of ‘unnecessary online magazines have written on the discussion, labels’. The specific feature of these labels makes or have contributed to it, as well. In general one them useful, but they can function in a larger set. could say the media are used as a source in this paper, but five ‘major’ newspapers called De The most appearing clusters of labels have Telegraaf, Algemeen Dagblad (AD), De Volkskrant, consequently been clarified in the respective NRC Handelsblad, and Trouw, are mainly paragraphs about the case studies. They have been represented.6 In addition to these major grouped according to ‘controversy peaks’. These newspapers some ‘regional/local’ or ‘minor’ peaks are periods in which a public debate was sources are utilized that give some more directed present on an alteration of the case study in information. question. During these periods an intensification of the controversy between opponents and As already mentioned the newspaper articles serve proponents occurs. These periods are based on the as a mouthpiece for the popular voice related to building history and/or contextual influences, the overhaul of the case studies. The sources have combined with the amount of hits from search been selected accordingly, so they treat the engines such as Delpher and Lexis Nexis Academic. overhauls entirely or at least partly. The relation to the overhauls differs per value claim as some When selected, the most appearing claims and assertions stand further away than others. Who their cluster are treated in detail. The relation exactly produced the claim is secondary to the between claim and label is explained as is the aspects of the claim that it relates to the overhaul amount of occurrences. Furthermore a more of the building and that it is a claim about a abstract approach is presented, exploring the more characteristic of the building. Nevertheless, to in depth meaning of the claims. This abstraction is organise the source material, divisions have been made using three theories of Aloïs Riegl, Randall made between national, local and digital media, Mason and Mark Schroeder. Riegl is predominantly and political sources. used because of his theory on the multiplicity of values.7 Mason provides a recent look on values- The sources then are related to the alterations of centred preservation and he provides the idea of the case studies and contain utterances that treat characteristic values as opposed to more abstract characteristics of the building. They attribute a notions of value. Schroeder’s entry in the Stanford certain value to the building and in doing so Encyclopedia of Philosophy theorises important contribute to the general opinion of altering the aspects of these more abstract appearances of building. As the value claims do not all express the ‘value’. More on this in the theoretical framework relation to the alteration directly, some assertions below. stand further from it but remain usable nonetheless. Since these different sections are The following example of selecting value claims is diverse, and in order to conduct quantitative from the case study Music Centre Vredenburg
(2006) ‘Theoretical and practical arguments for values-centered 6 These newspapers can be seen as ‘major’ because of the preservation’. CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship 3:2. amount of prints, ranging from about 400.000 (Telegraaf) to URL: 100.000 (Trouw): Nationiaal Onderzoek Media, URL:
6
(MCV). The selection process has a few criteria that make it possible to ‘become a claim’. When looking through the selected articles I highlighted the phrases that said something about the MCV and were at least contextually related to the overhaul. Quotes such as: “The ambiance was glowing … Vredenburg is our home address … By far the most pleasant of all theatres,”8 could not be selected since the general context was not that of a conversation on the overhaul. The phrase then should be read as: ‘what a pity if the grand theatre would be demolished, the ambiance was glowing … etcetera.’ As disconnected sentences the claims do not make sense as proper source material, but they should be reread embedded into the article.
A value claim in the sense of this article is an utterance in which a certain value is attributed to the building in question. The following phrase contains such an expression: “The junks and the smell of urine that nestled themselves in the cosy nooks and cavities around Hertzberger’s creation are a bigger problem.”9 The value that is attributed to the building is that of a contextual nature. It would have been different if the context of the building was otherwise, namely without deterioration of the station area. In fact, a large portion of the critical claims about the MCV are on the experiences of insecurity around the Centre. The phrase, in this case uttered by the director Peter Smids, becomes a remark on the deplorable situation of the MCV, making it a contextual value as an overarching category.
8 ‘Het bokspaleis met de gloeiende sfeer; schepping van 9 ‘De vislucht rukt op’. (15 March 2001). De Volkskrant. Hertzberger roept alleen uitgesproken reacties op.’ (15 November 2003). De Volkskrant.
7
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK additional factor in their evaluation as modern monuments. 15 The preservation practice in the HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL Netherlands has a longer tradition of community- FRAMEWORK based participation within a system of checks and balances between the government and the The ideas on which this paper is constructed have heritage communities.16 Philosophically this paper deeper historical and philosophical roots. It is an looks to find possibilities of expanding value addition to the discussion on how to preserve assessments with societal contributions.17 architecture in the Netherlands. Organized monument care in the Netherlands exists since the Stemming from this preservation history are three nineteenth century, the practice of value assumptions that serve as a foundation of this assessments since the nineteen-eighties.10 It research. The configuration of these assumptions resulted in the Richtlijnen bouwhistorisch can be summarised in the following sentence: The onderzoek: Lezen en analyseren van categorisation of value claims in public debate on cultuurhistorisch erfgoed that suggests the liminal architecture as an addition to architectural, approach to evaluating the cultural-historical value expert value assessments. Within the field of of buildings.11 In addition some directives have monument care there is always a set of been published on historical interiors and architecture new enough to be overlooked. architectural ensembles.12 The cited Van Emstede Although these buildings are not yet seen as describes how the use of value assessments monuments, one can add ‘preventive value’ to hovered between an unbiased, academic report them by listening to society, by adding a societal and a tool to support the design- and constituent to existing value assessments. First, I development-practice. Consequently she poses the assume that expert value assessments on post- question of what function the experts that do Reconstruction architecture need an additional these assessments and the Government should (societal) constituent; the second is the notion of have in an increasingly democratised, Dutch ‘liminal architecture’ (a set of buildings that has preservation practice.13 This question plays an not aged enough to become ‘logically important role in this research. monumental’); the third is this logical monumentality, that presumes a certain border Historically there has been given attention to when buildings become intrinsically monumental. Dutch historical buildings from before World War II and already a lot has been done on the period To underline these assumptions and to reach a after the War called the Reconstruction (1945- level of abstraction three theories will be explained 1965).14 The even newer period after 1965 has no down below. First is Mark Schroeders entry in the clear policy however. Some municipalities look Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on value ahead and have started appointing monuments, theory (2016).18 From this entry the general some do not. It means these buildings are socially introduction to value theory will be expounded as not yet accepted as extraordinary and need an will the paragraphs on utilitarianist and
albeit at times unknowingly and uncritically: Carpo. M. (2007). 10 Emstede, C.I.C. (2015). Waardestellingen in de Nederlandse ‘The postmodern cult of monuments.’ Future anterior: Journal monumentenzorg 1981-2009. Delft. 24, 47-48. of historic preservation, history, theory and criticism 4:2. 50-60. 11 Ibid. 64. 51. 12 Ibid. 66. 16 Emstede, C.I.C. van,. (2015). Waardestellingen in de Nederlandse monumentenzorg 1981-2009. Delft. 21-32 13 Ibid. 83. 17 Emstede mentions in this respect that the societal meaning of 14 See for example: Blom, A., Vermaat, S., Vries, B. de. (2017). the monument should be stressed more in value assessments: Post-War Reconstruction in the Netherlands 1945-1965. The Waardestellingen. 334. She does not however mention the future of bright and brutal heritage. Nai010 Uitgevers. implications for newer heritage, i.e: how should this meaning be 15 The categories of ‘The modern cult of monuments’, die included? Moderne Denkmalkultus, a concept developed by Aloïs Riegl in 18 For annotation I will use the headers instead of page 1903, can be seen as the beginning of the practice of numbers. Since it is a digital document there are none. monument care. “Riegl’s categories held sway throughout most of the twentieth century, and it appears that they often still do,
8
consequentialist ideas on value. In addition the them. For consequentialists it is not necessary to paragraph on intrinsic/extrinsic value is important hold intrinsic value of states of affairs however as is the paragraph on since these are not collectable, whereas pleasure incommensurability/incomparability. Second, is or knowledge is.23 It means you can have more of Aloïs Riegl’s work The modern cult of monuments these last two and thus increase their value if they (1903) and in particular the paragraphs on age-, would have intrinsic value. historical-, and use value, as well as the distinction between deliberate and unintentional monuments. According to classical consequentialism, or ‘agent- Furthermore Riegl’s stance on the multiplicity of neutral consequentialism’, “every agent ought values will be explained.19 Third, Randall Mason’s always to do whatever action, out of all of the article on values-centred preservation (2006) is actions available to her at that time, is the one 24 used as a modern, corresponding look on Riegl’s such that if she did it, would be best.” It is similar multiplicity of values. The attribution of Mason will to the explanation of consequentialism above, only be the distinction between characteristic values that an agent is explicitly involved and the and more abstract ones, as well as an elucidation explanation is more restrictive (‘always’). of his values-centred approach of preservation. Intuitively, according to this reasoning “one should always do the best action, and actions are only ‘instrumentally’ good or bad – for the sake of what SCHROEDER AND VALUE THEORY they lead to.”25 Schroeder immediately makes the distinction between several ‘senses’ of value theory, namely a It follows that the consequentialism of which broad, narrow and useful sense of the theory. This Schroeder speaks is a very abstract field that last notion a field within moral philosophy that is concerns itself with obtaining the most good in concerned with “theoretical questions about value actions or states of affairs. Moreover and goodness of all varieties.”20 The broadest consequentialism sees the ‘good’ of things in the sense of value theory encompasses almost every consequence it brings about. The above stated are field that has to evaluate anything, in contrast the examples of how consequentialist theories think of narrowest sense is almost similar to axiology that value and how they explain the value attributed to classifies “which things are good, and how good the different situations described. In this research they are.”21 Thus, for this research value theory will a somewhat adjusted, and straightforward version remain in its broad and useful sense. of consequentialist value is used: ‘the value in question is important of what it causes, rather than In Schroeder’s entry two views on value are what is has (intrinsically) as value’. apparent in the form of consequentialism and utilitarianism. On consequentialism Schroeder says Traditional utilitarianism is a form of it “is the view that you ought to do whatever consequentialism that holds the view that the action is such that things would be best if you did morally right action is the action that produces the 26 it.”22 It means the consequence of the thing you do most good. As such, in its traditional form, is most important. When explaining moral theory utilitarianism stresses the utility of the action and on intrinsic value consequentialist can hold a the happiness (often described as welfare or well- value-first theory of states of affairs (instead of a being) that can be achieved by the action. As with good-first theory). Then states of affairs become consequentialism the value of the action, the good or bad according to the amount of value in goodness of the action, lies in the consequence
19 As brought forward in Randall Mason’s article (2006). 23 Schroeder, ‘What is the intrinsic/instrumental distinction among?’ 20 Schroeder, M. (2016 Fall edition). ‘Introduction’. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Zalta, E.N. (ed.) URL: 24 Schroeder, ‘Classical consequentialism’.
9
rather than in the action itself. As will be clear in ALOÏS RIEGL, AGE-, HISTORICAL-, AND USE- the individual paragraphs, many value claims have VALUE constructions of this kind. Again an adjusted and Next to the philosophical depth obtained from more straightforward version of utilitarianism is Schroeder’s value theory much of the practical used. elaboration on the value claims has been done An important question to ask oneself when using Aloïs Riegl’s Modern cult of monuments treating the value of anything is whether the value (1903). The following passage is a summary of the is intrinsic or ‘instrumental’. Some things are good most important points he makes, based on a because they “lead to other things”, as does for translation from 1996, an article by Thordis example money.27 More in general one could ask Arrhenius: The cult of age in mass-society: Alois the question if something is valuable because it is, Riegl’s theory of conservation (2004), and Schetsen or because it is a means to other things. This uit de monumentenzorg from J.A.C. Tillema (1975). intrinsic/instrumental divide can also be the case in Alois Riegl wrote the book Der moderne architectural value. Denkmalkultus in 1903 as a response to the culture Counting this distinction there are four different of restoration in the monument world that tended ways of interpreting value, none of which are to restore in style rather than along original definitive in their reasoning. First, there is the blueprints. His perseverance led to the acceptance consequentialist view on value that holds the best of a restoration practice that advocated result is the reason to go for that action. Then the conservation instead of rebuilding according to utilitarian version of this reasoning stresses the leading styles. Many monuments fell victim to this morally right action that would bring the most practice in the 19th century. The current approach happiness, making the action useful. Furthermore regarding monuments in the Netherlands has its there is the distinction between intrinsic and roots in Riegl’s publication from the beginning of instrumental value by which values can become the 20th century. His book and the discussion in ‘secondary’ as opposed to intrinsic; they become a Austria and Germany led to the publication of the ‘means to’. These distinction describe what value is Grondbeginselen en voorschriften voor het behoud, about related to the carrier of it.28 de herstelling en de uitbreiding van oude bouwwerken (1917). The authors were member of About incomparability Schroeder gives an the Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond (NOB) and interesting example where he compares Mozart to strong supporters of law-making on monuments Salieri and Rodin: Rodin is a better artist than who were active since the late 1800s. Salieri (not, compared to Mozart), although Salieri, like Mozart, is a better composer than Rodin. Value Riegl distinguished two kinds of value regarding pluralist would solve this riddle by pointing out monuments and their restoration: Errinerungswert that Rodin has more value as a sculptor and and Gegenwartswert, or ‘memory-value’ and Mozart and Salieri as composers, but intuitively ‘contemporary-value’. These values separate the Rodin is a better artist (as sculptor) than Salieri past from the present and acknowledge that not all (the composer), while the comparison Rodin- values we attribute to buildings are historically Mozart does not have that intuitive ease.29 The influenced. The commemorative value is then question of whether values are comparable is a subdivided into Alteswert, Historische Wert, and very relevant one as this research builds on many Gewollte Erinnerungswert (‘age-value’, ‘historical- different claims of value. value’, and ‘intentional commemorative-value’). We then have a division between the uninfluenceable ageing of buildings – which,
purposes of this research it is important to understand the 27 Schroeder, ‘What is intrinsic value’. different possibilities nonetheless. 28 To be sure, Schroeder’s entry speaks predominantly of ‘good’ 29 Schroeder, ‘What happens when there is weak when treating these issues, rather than of other values. There is comparability?’ no one-on-one relation with architectural values, but for the
10
according to Riegl, can exist without cover-up – , value. However, further disintegration form the the relative historical value, and the feelings of present day into the future, as age value not only nostalgia people have when buildings crumble or tolerates but even postulates, is , from the disappear completely. The contemporary value has standpoint of historical value, not only pointless as subdivisions the Gebrauchswert and the but simply to be avoided, since any further Kunstwert (‘functional-value’ and ‘art-value’), disintegration hinders the scientific restoration of implicating that functionality and artistic features the original state of a work of man.”33 Add to that form the field in which contemporaries move. The the use-value that has to overcome the restraints last division is that of art value into Neuheitswert of both the other values. and Relatieve Kunstwert (‘novelty-value’ and ‘relative art-value’), a division which gives, again, a RANDALL MASON contemporary and a historical aspect to the A third main article I use for this paper is the value.30 theory of Randall Mason about values-centred The part most used from Riegl’s theory are the approach to preservation. In particular his age-, historical-, and use-value which he describes conceptual differentiation of different kinds of as follows. “Age-value is revealed in imperfection, values related to preservation. He starts from a lack of completeness, a tendency to dissolve Riegl’s theory and works with Stuart Hall’s cultural shape and colour, characteristics that are in studies as well as the Athens, Venice, and Burra complete contrast with those of modern, i.e., Charters (1931, 1964, 1979/2013). From his theory newly created works.”31 Age-value is the amount the differentiation between characteristic values of corrosion that a building undergoes, he explains, and more abstract values can be used as a an how we find this particularly appealing. “The contemporary view on preservation that is based Historical-value of a monument is based on the on values. very specific yet individual stage the monument Mason sees that heritage is a product that is represents in the development of human creation valued by many, in various ways.34 To him in a particular field.”32 This kind of value is “participation – acknowledged widely as one of the represented in all three case studies as they are urgent needs in contemporary preservation extraordinary in the architectural field. Use-value practice – is part and parcel of the values-centred then is the possibility of using a monument so it model of preservation.”35 Riegl signifies for him the can subsist rather than decay completely. beginning of a more extensive preservation To Riegl age-, and historical-value are two worlds practice in which the multiplicity of values is “more in the preservation field that antagonise: “The encompassing, sprawling, and complex.”36 difference in interpretation between age value and In Mason’s eyes values are not fixed, but they “are historical value is most striking whenever in some respect situational, and change over questions arise as to the most suitable treatment time.”37 This explains the diversity of value claims of a monument by the standards of historical in this research and it complements on the vision value. Prior disintegration by the forces of nature of culture ‘as a process’ rather than a ‘set of cannot be undone and should, therefore, not be things’.38 Mason then states how his idea of values- removed even from the point of view of historical
30 Tillema, J.A.C. (1975). Schetsen uit de geschiedenis van de 34 Mason, R. (2006). ‘Theoretical and practical arguments for a Nederlandse monumentenzorg. Den Haag: Staatsuigeverij ‘s values-centered preservation; Culture as a process’. The Journal Gravenhage. 118-119. of Heritage Stewardship 3:2. URL:
11
centred approach is “defined by the central role of significance (comprised of some number of different values) in decision-making, and the participation of a number of different parties – not just the ‘experts’ – in decisions.”39 This research tries to complement on this vision by exploring the possible spatially-, and temporally-bound values around.
Mason notes that the “four-part values typology” that has been proposed by the Burra Charter (1979, 2013) – historical, aesthetic, social, and scientific – has been “well-tested, though an even broader typology may be called for [my emphasis].”40 He adds as an example ecological importance of a site. In this research the societal importance is elaborated. If we were to expand the typology we would come across the incommensurability of values that has “real, epistemologically rooted differences.”41 To overcome the differences Mason suggests broad categories such as ‘heritage values’ or ‘contemporary values’, following Riegl. These two categories are combined in the different value claims of the case studies in this research.
39 Ibid. 41 Ibid. See the parapgraph on Schroeder with a short explanation on incommensurability/incomparability. 40 Ibid.
12
Figure 1 Herhaalde Wooneenheden 1997, Nai, MAQV556
The case studies are selected because of the CASE STUDIES extensive debates that related to their alterations. It is of importance to underline the existence of De Meerpaal, ‘t Karregat and Vredenburg can be societal engagement in post-’65 architecture. In seen as liminal architecture since their short this paragraph three case studies serve as lifespans have not given them logical examples of societal value claims. They are monumentality in the eyes of society. It means for selected because they were well-known as of their passers-by the buildings have not aged enough to completion, but they were subjected to substantial be included in their set of monumental alterations later on. Furthermore these case architecture. It follows that alterations of these studies were public buildings making them part of objects is debated differently than with obvious society. First is Agora De Meerpaal, a monuments since other values are brought up for multifunctional centre constructed in 1967 in discussion. The controversies that revolve around Dronten. Second is Multifunctional Centre ‘t the individual case studies and their alterations Karregat in Eindhoven, in Eindhoven.42 Both these peak during several periods and vibrate differently. buildings were designed by Frank van Klingeren. Below the individual controversy peaks are further The third case study is Music Centre Vredenburg, elaborated. constructed in 1979 in Utrecht and designed by The case studies are, as can be argued, products of architect Herman Hertzberger Dutch structuralistic architecture. It was a
42 For an extensive report on this building see the architectural journal BOUW edition 28 from 1973.
13
philosophy that aimed at building for people again. became one of his main architectural features to It should arouse “the feeling that you are combat this.49 somebody living somewhere.”43 The straightforward way of building by the Modern Van Klingeren’s most important addition to Dutch movement was countered with simple use of architecture however was the zenith of this de- 50 existing structures. Hertzberger made an example segregating ideology: the agora design. with matchboxes that he arranged in different Multifunctional Centre De Meerpaal and ‘t fashions so as to create a rich diversity of possible Karregat were two agorae designed by Van configurations (figure 1), hence the name Klingeren in Dronten and Eindhoven. Both were ‘structuralism’.44 Hertzberger was an influential consecutively erected in 1967 and 1973. They are proponent of structuralism. Architecture was not still in use albeit in deeply changed formats. In for the sake of the aesthetics, but for what gave it 2005 De Meerpaal underwent a drastic renovation purpose:45 “architecture is not art, it demands resulting in only the collective space and social and political awareness.”46 The inhabitants surrounding egg-shaped structure to remain; the give the walls purpose and not the architect, he function was kept the same however, a place proclaimed. where interaction on a cultural level was premised. ‘t Karregat was one of the most successful versions It was this climate of transcending paradigms of of the multifunctional centres that Van Klingeren society, accentuated by structuralism, in which designed and it was used intensively during its Frank van Klingeren developed his ideas on existence. Soon though, it became clear that the architecture.47 Where Dutch architectural open character of the complex was problematic – structuralism was a move towards the human the schools had no walls and its output became a scale, Van Klingeren’s work concentrated on cacophony that overshadowed the other dwellers. bringing together society, on creating community, Connected spaces were thus closed off in order for and on ‘hindering’ community. He saw that the people to have more seclusion. Netherlands had separated groups of people that kept to themselves. These groups had their own Van Klingeren did encourage a transitive character sporting clubs, churches, hobbies, and political of constructions and designed his products in this parties that avoided one another as much as fashion. Both De Meerpaal and ‘t Karregat were possible. For example, a source of irritation for Van ‘unfinished when finished’ so the occupants could Klingeren was the assignment he received for a reconfigure the setting of the interior according to clubhouse for which the principal requested their needs. Van Klingeren’s architectural career separate recreation rooms for the individual began with him being an engineer, a capacity that 51 groups that would use the building. These societal brought him his practical approach. His groups, with differing philosophies, could allegedly philosophy consequently was composed of not be in the same room which struck Van technical themes rather than the modernist, Klingeren’s idea of hindering.48 It amazed Van architectural creed of form, space, design, order 52 Klingeren how Dutch society was segregated and it and structure. Furthermore his approach to architectural development was similar to that of
43 Heuvel, W.J. van, (1992). Structuralisme in de Nederlandse 47 Heuvel. Structuralisme. 134: ’t Karregat is incorporated in a architectuur. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. 13. handbook for structuralism as a building that creates community, De Meerpaal is mentioned. 44 Ibid. Figure 1 source: Het Nieuwe Instituut, object number ‘MAQV556’. 48 Bergen, M. van den., Vollaard, P. (2003). Hinder en ontklontering. Architectuur en maatschappij in het werk van 45 Frank van Klingeren had the same functionalist interpretation Frank van Kingeren. Nai010 Publishers. 66-67. of his work, although he was convinced the building corresponded as a shell with its tenants who could insert any 49 Ibid. function possible. This minimalist-functionalistic approach to 50 Ibid. architecture stands next to Herzberger’s implementation of architecture for the people, and the creed ‘form follows 51 Ibid. 64-65. function.’ 52 Forty, A. (2000). Words and buildings. A vocabulary of modern 46 Hertzberger, H., et al. (2013). The future of architecture. architecture. Thames and Hudson. 19 Rotterdam: Nai010 Publishers. 10.
14
Dutch functionalist architects for whom the form was a result of the function of the building without additions to influence the aesthetics. Van Klingeren’s style was similar but distinctive due to the awareness- and incorporation of the shifting nature of societal function into his designs. Where functionalists cornered function into their buildings – making them less versatile – Van Klingeren reduced his buildings to nearly nothing, (also showing similarities with Buckminster Fuller’s efforts to work with efficient materials and constructions), in order to open them up for a multiplicity of purposes.53
Van Klingeren and Hertzberger are examples of architects that built for the eventual inhabitants of their buildings. It makes their buildings good examples of societally embedded structures that can be used as case studies. I will treat De Meerpaal, ‘t Karregat and Vredenburg chronologically, starting in 1967.
53 Hinder. 146-147.
15
AGORA DE MEERPAAL IN DRONTEN time during the late seventies only four years after its completion.55 Whereas architect Frank van Klingeren did not institute legal proceedings in the LIMINAL AGORA DE MEERPAAL case of ‘t Karregat, he did when the city council of Dronten headed for refurbishment of De Meerpaal. As for ‘age value’ De Meerpaal seems to be the best candidate of the three, especially when in 2000 a new debate erupts on the economic viability of the multifunctional centre which makes the centre historically established for over forty- three years – almost the legal amount of fifty years to become eligible.56
As De Meerpaal is an early object from the set of post-’65 architecture, it becomes another kind of liminal. It had international fame, it was controversial and refreshing and it had relative age. Indeed, it even had the decay and corrosion of which Riegl speaks because of the relative age. To speak of age value at that time however is too premature since Dutch Reconstruction architecture would only be widely explored from the start of the new millennium – the buildings were still fresh in their occupation and age-value does suggest Figure 2 De Meerpaal in 1999, RCE, A.J. van der Wal some form of ruin.57 It could be said that an ideological ruin was caused by the first renovations De Meerpaal in Dronten is the oldest case study in 1988 making the inside fit for use again, but that is treated in this paper as it was erected in smothering the idea of Van Klingeren of an open 1967.54 Logically the building was kept from space that could be subdivided in a large number refurbishment for a long time, because, as with all of possibilities. three cases, the spirit of the times was crucial to the subsistence of the buildings that were erected During the end of the eighties it seemed that only from a resolute ideology. It took the sixties, the the architect protested the drastic changes that seventies and an additional seven years for would be made to the building as he started legal Dronten to start thinking about renovation. As of proceedings by appealing to the author law. Its 1987 we can assume De Meerpaal to be in its seemed as though the idea of an ideological liminal phase as the building entered a field of murder became apparent in the Netherlands only tension between newness, historical worth and twenty years later when the same problems acted approaching demolition. up, but now with a severely aged construction as well.58 The judge eventually agreed on the The original design of De Meerpaal even outlived monumentality of the place, but put heavier that of ‘t Karregat which was rebuilt for the first
See: ‘Raad Dronten stemt in met sloop Meerpaal’. (23 July 54 Agora ’t Karregat was completed in 1973 and Music Centre 1999). NRC. Vredenburg in 1979. 57 From 2000 onwards the Cultural Heritage Agency started 55 Bergen, M. van den, Vollaard, P. (2001) ‘De grootste researching architecture from the Dutch Reconstruction with so huiskamer van Nederland. Frank van Klingerens ’t Karregat in called ‘Categorical Reconstruction Reports’ (Categorische Eindhoven, 1970-1973.’ Oase 57. 70. wederopbouw rapportages). 56 The then chief government architect, Wytze Patyn, 58 See for example: ‘Protesten tegen sloop De Meerpaal’. (20 emphasised multiple times the cultural historical value of De July 1999). NRC. Meerpaal. This of course being a more classical approach to ‘Sloop bedreigt “symbool van het jaar 2000”’. (7 October 1999). assessing values of architecture, but it shows how De Meerpaal De Volkskrant. More characteristic: had ‘landed’ as an architecturally valuable and aged building.
16
emphasis on the use, or the function, of the Karregat) he based the construction on the idea building, ruling that Van Klingeren could not claim that the Dutch needed to bother each other for the this right of authorship. social segregation to be reverted again. The inconvenience became too serious however and THE FLOW OF THE DEBATE tenants complained about the noise, or worse, they stayed away. Year National paper local paper total It was this combination of an inconvenient, open 1987 2 2 design together with the practical lack of closed 1988 11 2 13 spaces which made De Meerpaal financially 1989 4 1 5 unstable. The prospect of an almost vacant, dominant structure in the city centre made the
municipality consider an overhaul. In court it was 1999 17 17 the architect’s reputation (due to the unicity of his 2000 2 2 creation) against the unprofitability of the building 2003 5 5 that resulted from the particular design. The court ruled in favour of the municipality. 2004 8 8 total: 36 16 52 According to the judge the building had
Table 1 De Meerpaal has two clean controversy peaks around monumental value, mainly because of its 1988 and 1999. reputation. However, the practical complaints of Two main peaks in the debate concerning De tenants, who expected different facilities (or at Meerpaal can be distinguished. The first one peaks least secluded ones), was for the judge more around 1988 when Van Klingeren goes to court to important which resulted eventually in the claim his right as an ‘author’ of the building. The alteration of this multifunctional centre. These planned alterations would in his eyes damage his practical complaints ensured a steady decline of De reputation as an architect. It is noteworthy that in Meerpaal’s use and capital. For example possible 1988 a colleague of Van Klingeren, Abe Bonnema, tenants were deterred by the impossibility of the pressed charges against the municipality of multifunctional centre to meet the full spectrum of Tietjerksradeel for altering the design of his requirements for a conference. De Meerpaal had building. He won the case since he warned the enough space to play with, but it could not always municipality beforehand not to cut back on climate offer fully to tenants what they wanted despite control, which they did. In order to prevent the Van Klingeren’s ideological, flexible space. building for becoming too hot the tenants wanted Unprofitability was the reason De Meerpaal had to to add awnings.59 Bonnema and Van Klingeren be renovated. It would be the main argument were acquaintances and were most likely aware of during the first and the second debate peak, each other’s endeavours. followed by practical, heritage, and legal claims. During this first debate peak at the end of the Van Klingeren settled his case against the first 1980s it was mostly Van Klingeren who appeared overhaul of De Meerpaal and passed away in 1999 in the news in defending his reputation. The before the decision was made to overhaul it a opposition was mostly concerned with the second time. Around the beginning of the new economic feasibility of the centre and the millennium there was no court case, but several unpracticality of Van Klingeren’s ‘nuisance- prominent people stepped into the breach for the 60 ideology’. When designing De Meerpaal (and ‘t late architect. The controversy raged more on a
‘Sloop van De Meerpaal was al begonnen’. (22 July 1999). De wet-niet-eenduidig-over-rechten-en-plichten-voor-ontwerper- Volkskrant. en-opdrachtgever-van-wie-is-deze-zuil-101129848 (february 2018). 59 See: ‘Auteurswet niet eenduidig over rechten en plichten ‘Nooit meer slopen’. (15 July 1999). NRC. voor ontwerper en opdrachtgever [sic] Van wie is deze zuil?’ (5 December 1996). Cobouw URL: 60 For example his daughter Nora van Klingeren, Wytze Patijn https://www.cobouw.nl/bouwbreed/nieuws/1996/12/auteurs (chief government architect), Jan Pronk (director of the Ministry
17
national level and within the architectural sphere well as a matter-of-factly treatment of the which meant a more academic approach to the approaching overhaul. The practical label in appreciation of De Meerpaal, resulting in more consequence has as sublabels utterances about the arguments on heritage factors such as unicity of benefit, the ease, the use, and the function of the design and historical fame. Although on a national place. level people were concerned with the building, one inhabitant of Dronten asked: “What exactly is Claims relating to heritage have under them a going on with De Meerpaal?”61 larger set of sublabels that are given more specific names but which fit underneath the umbrella of The most frequent appearing claims were those ‘heritage claims’. These claims were mostly related to finance, in a broad sense. Not only was prominent during the second peak in 1999, but the owner and the municipality concerned about were already mentioned in 1988 as well. In 1988 the profitability of the multifunctional centre, but claims were made about the monumentality of the people were also concerned on how much the place with flowing from it a claim on ageing and on overhaul would cost.62 Concerning the financial design. In 1999, with the abovementioned claims there is a resemblance between the two additional polemic from amongst others Wytze controversy peaks in the fact that both treat the Patijn, the discussion becomes more inclusive as it profitability of the centre. The difference between begins to incorporate claims on historical value, the two peaks however, or the addition during the quality, vulnerability, comparability and second peak, is that the municipality was more authenticity.64 closely looking at their budget, similar to the Utrecht municipality at the time.63 Next to financial, practical and heritage claims De Meerpaal had a substantial debate on legal issues. Practical labels appear to be applicable in the The variety within this set of claims is less majority of the sources of every case study. It spectacular than for example above as it is the seems, deducing from the Dutch structuralist architect trying to stop the overhaul by appealing buildings here treated as case studies, that sixties to his rights as an ‘author’ of the building. It is and seventies architecture was ideologically known that Frank van Klingeren was a talkative difficult to reconcile with the tenants’ experiences. man who was not media-shy and thus the larger Either people could not find their way inside the portion of legal claims are made by him, or are building (in the case of Vredenburg), or they were repetitions of his demands, or the court ruling in complaining about the (ideologically implemented) favour of the municipality. Van Klingeren accepted ‘bother’ they experienced from other tenants. a compensation and did not pursue litigation as he Furthermore, when a conference was held, there suffered from reduced health. One mention of a were no closed of spaces to withdraw into. legal kind is made by the then director of De However, next to these practical complaints Meerpaal in 1999 and it concerns the fact that at commentators on the case studies, and De this point legal proceedings would probably be Meerpaal in particular, were very practical about unsuccessful as the copyright had been bought of how the building was outdated. Practicality thus already eleven years earlier. involves complaints about common obstacles as
of housing, spatial planning, and the environment), the Dutch Volkskrant. Union of Architects, and H. Beunderman, the dean of the faculty Another women proclaimed that she did not follow everything of architecture of the university of Delft. closely, but that she understood the costs had skyrocketed. ‘'Ik heb het allemaal niet zo gevolgd, maar ik heb wel begrepen dat 61 ‘Niet meer te volgen met die Meerpaal’. (21 February 2004). de kosten de pan uit dreigen te rijzen.’ In ‘Niet meer te volgen Stentor/Dagblad Flevoland. met die Meerpaal’. (21 February 2004). De Stentor/Dagblad 62 A B. van der Molen said 1988 that the overhaul is necessary Flevoland. as the building in its present state is not profitable and the 63 See the chapter on Music Centre Vredenburg. yearly losses become higher over time: ‘De verbouwing is nodig, aldus Van der Molen namens de gemeente en De Meerpaal, 64 The comparison being between De Meerpaal and ‘t Karregat – omdat het gebouw in zijn huidige staat niet rendabel is en de Van Klingeren’s other product. In ‘Architect vecht verbouwing jaarlijkse verliezen steeds hoger worden.’ In ‘Architect verlangt van De Meerpaal in Dronten aan’. (20 August 1987). NRC. verbod verbouwing De Meerpaal’. (18 Febrary 1988). De
18
1988, THE FIRST OVERHAUL construct. He furthermore implies that De Meerpaal was intended as a covered square and The first overhaul of De Meerpaal was deemed not (primarily) as something to earn money with. necessary since the building was not profitable He goes on in questioning the attempt to anymore. One newspaper reported that by determine the profitability of something that is in overhauling the centre the reported losses due to essence a public space, comparing the space of De the disappointing exploitation of De Meerpaal, Meerpaal to other successful squares in Holland. It could be reduced.65 In doing so it would keep the brings the question to the fore which value has possibility to exist even. Another article speaks of more weight: a financial value emphasising that De the matter in a similar phrasing which hints that Meerpaal is a commercial construct, meant to be the story was reused.66 his claim is what Mason profitable (which it had been for over fifteen calls a characteristic value as it signifies a years), or an ideological construct, meant as a superficial aspect of the object.67 Within the covered square (which it still was at the time). object’s multiplicity of values this characteristic has 68 social weight. What then is the most important part of the two value claims if taken apart? Assuming De Meerpaal Another article in the NRC writes more in depth is a commercial construct with the goal to gain about the alteration of De Meerpaal in stating that profit. In that way the building becomes a carrier the municipality decided to heighten the walls as a of functionality with an extrinsic aim. However if measure to decrease inconvenience.69 It would De Meerpaal is an ideological construct with the attract more tenants and thus improve the goal to ‘be what it is’, then the material building is financial situation. The ‘coffee-cup sound’ is used not a carrier but the aim itself, a reflexive object. as a measuring device for the amount of The architect’s complaints on the ideological ruin is disturbance that was experienced, similar to the an objection to the address of the broken material situation in Music Centre Vredenburg where the reflexivity of De Meerpaal as a consequence of the spectators could see the buffet employees working retargeted identity-union of the site towards during a show.70 Heightened walls were thus utilitarian purposes. These adjustments reek of essential to the survival of De Meerpaal in the eyes uncreative and uncalled for management of the user. according to Van Klingeren as opposed to the When assessing values of public edifices, rather society-driven argumentation of the municipality than of residential buildings, the possibility of that interprets De Meerpaal as something different survival is strongly connected to how the user in its essence; the reflexivity of the place is never completes the site. To Van Klingeren it was a lack perceived. of creativity that prevented De Meerpaal to be The heritage claims do not come to the fore as filled in properly without losing its original lay-out. much as they do during the second peak. What He complained that although De Meerpaal does happen is the judge ruling in favour of the functioned very well for over fifteen years it now municipality in stating De Meerpaal has had to be turned into a “money-making area”.71 He monumental value, but it also has its (more relates an assertion of ideological nature (namely important) practical value as a multifunctional “an orthodox attack on creative life”)72 to the centre. It is remarkable that a judge, admitting the financial aspect of the centre as a financially stable
65 ‘De Meerpaal mag verbouwd worden’. (3 March 1988). Het 69 ‘Project De Meerpaal uit de jaren ’60 mislukt’. (8 March Nieuwsblad van het Noorden. 1988). NRC. 66 ‘Auteursrecht geldt niet voor architect’. (3 March 1988). Het 70 Ibid. & ‘Smids: Muziekpaleis wordt bijzonder’. (11 March Vrije Volk. 2010). Bouwpututrecht.nl. URL: http://www.bouwpututrecht.nl/2010/03/11/smids- 67 Mason, R., (2006). ‘Theoretical and practical arguments for muziekpaleis-wordt-bijzonder-2/ (February 2018). values-centered preservation.’ The Journal of Heritage Stewardship 3:2. URL: 71 ‘Architect vecht verbouwing van De Meerpaal in Dronten https://www.nps.gov/crmjournal/Summer2006/view2.html aan’. (20 August 1987). NRC. 68 Ibid: Mason 72 “De aanval van de orthodoxie op het creatieve leven.” Ibid.
19
cultural historical value of a place, or the sources is that many newspapers make use of the monumentality of it, still puts more emphasis on Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau (ANP), a bureau the (what Riegl called) use value. To Riegl this use similar to for example Reuters, Associated Press value is so important it could even be compared to and Agence France Presse. These organisations the weight of age value (or the extent to which the deliver dry, ready-to-use news for smaller media to building is corroded).73 To him, if a building is in incorporate into their own range of articles. These use with the preservation of the monumental messages are sometimes exactly copied or aspect, there is a safety net that prohibits it from rewritten and integrated into a larger article. It is swinging too far into corrosion and keeping the very likely that for ‘dry’ news such as the case of historical value intact. It is similar to the situation Van Klingeren many newspapers chose to reuse outlined in the paragraph on Music Centre news from the ANP. Vredenburg where use value could be more influential than the more expected monumental The utterances not treating Van klingeren’s values such as age- and historical value. As a demands do treat the judge’s verdict, namely that general rule for post-’65 architecture one could although the building has monumental values, it take ‘the less age a building has to corrode, the does not counterbalance the practical complaints more the use value of the place matters.’ of the tenants. It is however the composition of the judge’s argument which is interesting. It The copyright law for architects stays interpretable composes of a monumental claim and of a in various ways. Since 1912 the Netherlands has practical claim where the primary function of De the Auteurswet (copyright law) to which several Meerpaal as a multifunctional centre becomes the architects made a claim since the latter half of the decisive factor. And it is this aspect of the twentieth century.74 These legal issues are less conglomerate that is interesting as it stands in line interesting when it comes to finding a societal constituent as it happens in an ‘overlapping’ but different realm and it is usually a consequence of intensive societal controversy. It is noteworthy however that the legal process is mentioned over fourteen times during this controversy peak in the national newspapers, and three times in local news. Although is it not a particularly societal discussion the topicality of the subject is usually high and, therefore, has reach.
The legal statements do have a predominantly uniform character as they either stress the complaints made by Van Klingeren or the verdict of the judge. On the demands many phrases go like this or are similar to: “Van Klingeren demanded a prohibition because an overhaul could lead to mutilation of contamination of De Meerpaal. Herewith he appealed to article 25 of the copyright law.”75 What is noticeable about the national
(persoonlijkheidsrecht or ‘personality-right’). Frank van 73 Riegl, A. (1903). ‘The modern cult of monuments: Its essence Klingeren appealed to the mutilation and contamination many and its development.’ In Price, N.S., Kirby Talley, M., Melucco times when fighting in court. Vaccaro, A. [eds.]. (1996). Historical and philosophical issues in the conservation of cultural heritage. Los Angeles: The Getty 75 ‘Dronten mag van rechter Meerpaal verbouwen’. (3 March Conservation Institute. 69-83. 79. 1988). De Volkskrant: “Van Klingeren eiste een verbod omdat de verbouwing tot misvorming of verminking van De Meerpaal 74 In the Netherlands architects can make a claim to a specific zou leiden Hij beriep zich hierbij op artikel 25 van de part of the copyright law which legally enables the architect to Auteurswet.” counter any “mutilation or contamination” of their design
20
with the abovementioned reflexivity of the place. Whereas above the argument went that De Meerpaal as a carrier (of utilitarian purposes) was the intention of the municipality and De Meerpaal as itself was where Van Klingeren based his demands on, now it is the judge ruling that it is the centre’s primary function as multifunctional centre that is more important than De Meerpaal as itself. In doing so the judge displaces the ideological reflexivity by a utilitarian one. Thus it is rather the material primacy that dictates the value claim as an extrinsic phenomenon.76
1999-2004, END OF THE INTERBELLUM The second controversy peak is in the year 1999 when new plans crystallise on a further overhaul of De Meerpaal. I see it as the end of an interbellum, because during the decade that has passed since 1988 De Meerpaal experiences similar problems as before that spark the second controversy peak. In 1999 it was clear the centre was still in financial Figure 3 Interior of De Meerpaal, 1999, RCE, A.J. van der Wal troubles. At this moment Frank van Klingeren had passed away and the personality rights had been practical claims with as sublabels ‘use’- and bought off, meaning De Meerpaal was on the ‘function’ claims. These practical claims are better verge of being demolished. It was the municipality represented during the second peak. Whereas that in July 1999 wanted to start fresh with the during the first peak legal claims were abundant demolition of De Meerpaal. As a consequence of there is now almost no mention of it neither in this announcement some prominent protesters local or national newspapers with only one person introduced themselves to the debate. Whereas the proclaiming that the copyright was bought off first peak took place on a judicial level (that already in 1988.77 To fill up the gap, ‘claims of eventually ruled in favour of the practical progress’ (sixteen in total) come to the fore during completion of De Meerpaal), now the debate this particular peak with sublabels such as ‘vision’, moved towards a more conceptual level. ‘transitoriness’ and ‘reachability’. These claims fall under progress as they specifically concern the The amount of conceptual value claims is future of the site. Close to these claims stands the noticeable through the increase in heritage labels. label of ‘adaptability’ with as sublabel ‘possibility’, Not only are the phrases that can attributed the but these were more prominently featured during label ‘heritage’ numerous (sixteen), but the peak in 1988. The label of ‘feasibility’ however furthermore there are other labels that can be appears two times in 1999 and can be combined seen as sublabels of this particular one, making it a with progress and its corresponding sublabels. strong cluster of twenty labels. After financial What is certain however is that the claims that are claims (twenty-nine), practical claims are the most numerous with seventeen labels. Next in line are
however also mentioned as extensively in ‘Architect verliest 76 The most inclusive passage, with all the aspects mentioned in geding; verbouwing De Meerpaal mag’. (3 March 1988). De this paragraph is the following: “De rechter stelt in zijn vonnis Volkskrant. And ‘Rechter staat verbouwing Meerpaal toe’. (3 vast dat De Meerpaal als monument moet worden aangemerkt March 1988). NRC. en dat Van Klingeren een groot belang heeft bij het behoud daarvan. Maar dat neemt niet weg dat zijn schepping in de 77 ‘Nooit de beoogde magie gekregen’. (31 July 1999). Elsevier. eerste plaats dient te voorzien in het gebruik dat de Elsevier is not a newspaper but a magazine, signalling a wider opdrachtgever voor ogen staat.” ‘De Meerpaal mag verbouwd coverage in the media. worden’. (3 March 1988). Nieuwsblad van het Noorden. It is
21
made about the centre have become more original state. As a brief advice the author conceptual as the judicial force has waned. proposes how De Meerpaal could retain its original character again by replacing some functions on site Most apparent are yet again financial claims. Let us meaning he sees more opportunity than financial consider three characteristic financial claims for obstructions. He sides with the primordial idea of the period. The first is an example for the eleven adaptability which overrules any financial value of years interlude, the second relates a financial claim the centre.81 to the ideological outlook, and the third elaborates on this relation. Thirdly the same article comments on the possibility to let young architects look at making The first claim reads “In an attempt to reduce the De Meerpaal as it once was, disregarding any costs as much as possible as to make a budgetary additional costs. He then makes the final step by exploitation possible, the city council decided to relating financial worth and ideological value to alter the building in 1986 into a conference centre popular support: “By organising a ideas- with assembly rooms, a theatre and a cinema. This competition, architects could contribute to a change was realised by BDG Architects from renovation and letting the building function anew. 78 Lelystad/Almere.” The context of the article is However, we have to realise that it would add more polemised than this section suggests as the another 40 percent to the existing costs. Neither next phrase condemns the effort to achieve this by the politics nor the population of Dronten supports emphasising how the building has lost its this however.”82 What is interesting is that in an authenticity, or the correspondence of the present article from 2004 (which is five years later) design with the original. Furthermore De Meerpaal inhabitants from Dronten are asked about De has not become any more profitable. These two Meerpaal and only one respondent reacts that the reasons make the author remark cynically that it is money could be used instead to tackle something perhaps better De Meerpaal is scheduled for more relevant than a new centre. The rest is either 79 demolition. To the author the essence of the unaware of the progress that is made concerning building was exchanged for durability, but as the De Meerpaal or already expects that these kind of latter goal failed, the building was then completely projects always go over budget. One respondent ruined. laughs, when asked about “their Meerpaal” and says she has other things to do in life than worry The second claim directly relates financial worth to about the building. Another understands it costs ideological value: “The relatively petty additional more money to rebuild, but thinks the costs will be costs are acceptable if the realisation of the recovered on the new functions the building will program of demands would bring back the original obtain.83 It seems as if the conviction was that the building. It will probably not be the case, the population did not fancy the extra finances, but building will remain a closed off box with little that this complaint was also met with pragmatism. architectural value.”80 The author does not expect The value of getting something worthwhile any good to come from the new overhaul as it will predominated this last article. keep the building in its ruined state as a closed off box, but to him it would not matter how much the costs are were De Meerpaal to be returned to its
verbouwing de oorspronkelijke opzet danig heeft verminkt. En 78 ‘Sloop van De Meerpaal was al begonnen’. (22 July 1999). De het werd erger en erger. Steeds meer glas verdween, ramen Volkskrant. This citation is complemented on in for example werden geblindeerd en de van zijn karakter beroofde Meerpaal ‘Sloop bedreigt “symbool van het jaar 2000”; Architectuur’. (10 werd een geliefd object voor vandalisme.” This quote July 1999). De Volkskrant: ‘De bestuurders van dit land emphasises the damage that has been done already also volharden in hun stijfkoppige hardleersheid. Ze blijven de pointed at in the former quote. dienaren van het 'luisterrijk gierigaardsstelsel' dat Holland op zijn smalst typeert. 81 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 82 Ibid. 80 Ibid. A similar argument is used in ‘Sloop bedreigt “symbool 83 ‘Niet meer te volgen met die Meerpaal’. (21 February 2004). van het jaar 2000”; Architectuur’. (10 July 1999). De Volkskrant: De Stentor/Dagblad Flevoland. “Inmiddels geeft zelfs het bestuur van Dronten toe dat de
22
Second in line in the period 1999-2004 are claims form a counterpoise to the heritage claims put of heritage, monumental, authentic, and historical forward by Patijn, Pronk and Van Klingeren since value. These particular values were particularly progress of contemporary society is more essential disseminated by the prominent champions of Van to the municipality than emphasising ‘past Klingeren’s case against mutilation of his project. progress’. In evaluating the vision of a new They tried to convince the Netherlands that De Dronten and emphasising the transitoriness of the Meerpaal was a piece of heritage since it place the municipality actually exemplify the constituted an essential part of Dronten’s past, and struggle of age against history within the cult of since it would play a similar role for the future of monuments of which Riegl wrote. The label of the city.84 These heritage values remain strong heritage signifying the historical value that prefers arguments and it should be clear the advocates a monument to be as it was, and the label of (like Wytze Patijn, Nora van Klingeren, Jan Pronk, progress to accept the monument as decaying until and others) are influential people that can it fades (with an important side note that it is motivate people to think otherwise or incite predominantly this idea of transitoriness that popular campaigns, but in the end the exact functions as a substitute for age value).87 completion of De Meerpaal remained a matter of practicality and creativity rather than historical CONCLUDING importance. De Meerpaal has had a unfavourable overhaul as Close in line with the financial value of the site are the original design is almost completely the practical claims that remain numerous. To the unrecognisable as an authentic object. Frank van municipality for example De Meerpaal did not Klingeren’s product has been altered to a new meet the requirements a building of this kind Meerpaal of which two idea remain similar: on the should have in 1999.85 The argument from the one hand the multifunctionality of the site and on municipality can be seen as a result of the progress the other the ‘unfinished’ character of the place. of modernity and the only way to counter it would This last remark would need some more be to demolish and rebuild. This argument is then investigation as the architects of Atelier PRO state opposed by the advocates of architectural heritage they have intended to make the new functions who see possibilities in keeping a part of De complement on each other as much as possible Meerpaal intact. Still, the open construction and without the tenants having to bother each other.88 the experienced nuisance remained the reason for In doing so the new design does elaborate on the the municipality to change the building into a new former ideology as much as it is limiting. It is construction that would cost thirty-two million. however the case De Meerpaal still exists to be reused and adapted to newer times. A cluster of claims that is of importance during this second controversy peak are those with the label There were two moments in the history of De ‘progress’.86 These concern the conviction that Meerpaal with drastic consequences. The first was Dronten needs to move forward as opposed to the around 1988 when (after twenty years) it became regression the city would otherwise experience as clear to the management and the municipality that a consequence of the partly empty, unprofitable the centre was unprofitable. Due to Van Meerpaal. In fact these claims are very inclusive as Klingeren’s philosophy that society needed to be in they summarise in a way the abovementioned each other’s way, the tenants experienced one financial, heritage and practical value claims. They another too much, keeping them from using the
84 See for example: ‘De Meerpaal blijft mogelijk toch behouden’. 87 See for example: ‘Meerpaal blijft mogelijk behouden’. (07 (07 September 1999). Trouw. September 1999). Trouw: “Het gebouw is verouderd.” 85 ‘Deel Meerpaal ontsnapt mogelijk aan sloop’. (22 October 88 In a specialist, architectural magazine Ben Maandag proclaims 1999). Algemeen Dagblad. a new multifunctional centre has come into being where, corresponding to the philosophy of Van Klingeren much is 86 See for example: ‘Het verdriet van De Meerpaal; De jaren possible, but no one has to bother one another. Maandag, B. zestig in Dronten zijn voorgoed voorbij. (31 July 1999). (2005). ‘De Meerpaal in Dronten door Atelier PRO. Algemeen Dagblad: “We hebben liever een nieuw centrum.” Hedendaagse multifunctionaliteit. De Architect. 46-51. 48.
23
building. The municipality went for an overhaul, closing off the open spaces in order to give conference goers the opportunity to have secluded meetings and to let spectators of a play enjoy what was in front of them rather than what happened elsewhere in the building.
During this first controversy peak, the newspapers wrote predominantly about the overhaul in terms of financial, judicial, unicity, and practical claims. These labels where mostly appearing because of the abovementioned profitability of the centre and the overhaul that was coming. It was Van Klingeren who reacted with a court case in which he fell back on the copyright law by which he stated De Meerpaal could not be altered as it would contaminate and mutilate the design and stain his reputation as an architect. The overhaul would continue as planned.
From about 1999 to 2004, again the management and the municipality of Dronten saw an unprofitable concept that needed to be replaced this time. Due to the changes of 1988 the building, some people suggested, was already ruined and it would be good to raise it to the ground for good. However, many prominent advocates of De Meerpaal intended to defend the building, which ended up in a competition for ideas.
During this second controversy peak, the judicial claims have no place anymore, but they are replaced by practical claims and claims of heritage. Furthermore the newspapers report on progress and related claims such as transitoriness and vision. It means that whereas the building was altered too much for most people it should not be demolished since it symbolised the sixties. Others could not be bothered with the financial problems, because these kinds of projects always become more expensive. The controversy shifted towards the struggle between age- and historical value with characteristic values as weapons. In the end it seems to be the possibility of De Meerpaal that has made the building exist still.
24
91 MULTIFUNCTIONAL CENTRE ‘T KARREGAT IN riot.” The schools inspector did not allow this EINDHOVEN particular educational programme to continue without a closed off space. Teachers were reported overworked because of the high pressure they LIMINAL ’T KARREGAT experienced due to the noise pollution of the It seems as if Multifunctional centre ‘t Karregat different groups of children and the bother of was a failure since its completion in 1973. Already external factors.92 On the other hand parents of in 1977 there are talks of large scale renovation children that went to primary school ‘t Karregat due to the many practical problems the tenants proclaimed they ended up just fine.93 The shared faced in the building.89 However the distinguishing roof however became ‘shared but separated’ from feature of ‘t Karregat was not its multifunctionality, 1977 onwards. but the incorporation of a school into the complex. Whereas the other ‘agorae’ (in Dronten and in To the municipality the multifunctional centre was Lelystad) had mostly cultural and community not as successful as they hoped it would be. This functions, ‘t Karregat stood out because it was raised new questions on whether ‘t Karregat experimental as well as an educational institute. should remain in function or whether it should be These schools stood under severe supervision by demolished. The complex can be called liminal the inspection because the children could not be because of three main aspects that interlock. First allowed to suffer from the experimental nature of of all the (inter)national attention it received in the 94 ‘t Karregat. (professional) media after its completion. The building was already renowned on completion in Next to the noisy children the particular shape of the 1970s because of its experimental design. ‘t the building was problematic as well. In essence ‘t Karregat can be seen as the most accomplished of Karregat was a large roof that only needed walls three ‘agora’s’ in the Netherlands, at least in terms because of the bleak Dutch climate. Consequently of Van Klingeren’s ideology.95 De Meerpaal did for the inside was almost entirely left open in order to example not have a school and The Agora in create the wanted mixing of different societal Lelystad was less of an open building than the one groups. Similarly to Agora De Meerpaal, ‘t Karregat in Eindhoven.96 Secondly, because of the fame, the was designed to let people bother each other so as attempt to destroy ‘t Karregat was questioned by to untangle Dutch pillarized society.90 people. Next to the fame and the questionability of the demolition stands the third factor of age. In During these experimental times of the sixties, Eindhoven stood a very young complex that was where Van Klingeren could implement his ideas of altered already four years after completion.97 ‘t a ‘shared roof’, ‘t Karregat was built, but soon glass Karregat was a monument from the start but had walls would fence of the school as a measure its age against it, in the end however it was against “a social and architectural idealism run transformed into a complex similar to the one in
(1975). Build International 8. 239-257. 89 Bergen, M. van der, Vollaard, P. (2001). ‘De grootste Erdt, M. (1972). ‘Quartierzentrum ‘t Karregat in Eindhoven’. huiskamer van Nederland. Frank van Klingeren’s ‘t Karregat in Werk. Schweizer Monatsschrift fur Kunst, Architektur, Eindhoven 1970-1973. Oase 57. 62-73. 70 Kunstlerisches Gewerbe 2. 173-175. 90 Dutch society during the twentieth century was segregated in ‘Per il quartiere in Holland, il “centro ’t Karregat” fuori different social groups according to their (overly) political Eindhoven, le centre d’un nouveau quartier’, (1974). Domus: stance: pillarization. arte e stile nella casa, arte e stile nell'industria (industrial design) 5-8. 91 Bergen. ‘Huiskamer’. 62. 95 His ideology being that these social centres should be as open 92 See for example: ‘Overlast door open ruimte maakt einde aan as possible for society to bother each other and mix as a result. experiment ’t Karregat’. (20 March 1981). NRC. 96 Also The Lelystad Agora was not primarily designed by Van 93 See for example: ‘Karregat: mislukking of experiment?’. (2 Klingeren but by his colleague. April 2012). Eindhovens Dagblad. 97 To compare: it took about twenty years in Dronten before 94 See: Magazine Bouw 28:52. (1973) pp 1581-1608, for various there were talks of overhauling the centre. and there are no articles about the centre, its functions and the architect. reports of alteration in Lelystad. The last building was replaced Boer, H. de, Luursema, E. (1974). ‘Het Karregat, op weg naar het completely however in 2004. isolement.’ Wonen TA/BK 7. 23-28. ‘Karregat at Eindhoven (Holland). The development of an idea’.
25
Lelystad: more segregated, but still trying to incite Secondly, the difference in coverage between local mixture. and national media is remarkable. The first peak was predominantly reported by national THE FLOW OF THE DEBATE newspapers with longer articles, whereas the second peak (of the third overhaul) was more a Year National local Online total local matter with twenty-two articles in the local paper paper Sources newspaper Eindhovens Dagblad and only three in national newspapers because of various reasons. 1976 1 1 Firstly it appears that there was less polemic 1977 1 1 against the last overhaul of ‘t Karregat. There were 1980 1 1 no prominent parties that spoke out as was done 1981 4 4 for De Meerpaal. There were of course architects 1989 Missing against the overhaul, but Van Klingeren had passed peak away by the time ‘t Karregat came into the picture 1998 1 1 and no one like Wytse Patijn concerned him- or herself with the complex. 2004 1 1 2005 1 1 It could be that second controversy peak of De 2007 1 1 Meerpaal again overshadowed the one of ‘t Karregat which took place roughly at the same 2008 2 2 time, but not quite. As De Meerpaal’s second peak 2009 2 2 took place from 1999-2004 and ‘t Karregat’s from 2010 2 3 5 1998 to 2014 (with the climax starting only in 2011 5 5 2010), the two controversy peaks are each other’s 2012 4 4 follow-up rather than antagonists in my opinion, although it could very well be that the more 2013 3 3 extensive coverage of De Meerpaal, some years 2014 1 2 3 earlier, saturated the national press. For the local total: 10 22 3 35 press the news value was higher since it took place in their own domain. For the national media it was, Table 2 The peaks for 't Karregat are less steep and clear than those from the other case studies. Furthermore, in 1989 an in the end, a similar project designed by the same expected controversy peak is missing. architect.
The controversy about ‘t Karregat has an unusual During these peaks the value claims can be flow as it does not correspond entirely with the attributed the following labels. Overall societal and overhauls of the complex. It underwent several practical labels have are the most prominent for ‘t changes in 1977, 1990 and eventually 2012-15, but Karregat. The societal label forms a cluster with a the second one, it seems, has slipped under the label of progress during the second peak. ‘Societal’ radar of the media with only one (local) newspaper is a very broad label that comprises of mostly 98 reporting on the matter in 1991. 1977 And 2012- contextual and relational claims that attribute 15 are more prominent in the media with the latter value to the building by making its essence about already being a matter of debate from 1998. It the societal influence it has to the person uttering could be that the court case of Van Klingeren the claim. It can range from internal complaints on against the overhaul of De Meerpaal outshined the how a visit to the doctor was for everyone in the changes of ‘t Karregat during the end of the 1980s neighbourhood to see, giving the building an and outshined the alteration of ‘t Karregat at that aspect of guilt (and making it less valuable to keep time. as an authentic object),99 to people complaining
98 ‘Verslag renovatie wijkcentrum Het Karregat’. (26 November 99 ‘Overlast door open ruimte maakt eind aan experiment ’t 1991). Eindhovens Dagblad. Karregat’. (30 March 1981). NRC.
26
that the ‘idea of the neighbourhood’ is no more the inspection, but the municipality went to court which would cause the building to never flourish to fight the decision. anymore (and therefore ‘t Karregat has less value).100 Two reasonably common labels are those of ‘design’ and ‘exploitation’. Design appears in both The practical labels are less broad, but just as peaks (eight to nine in the first and second peak prominent nonetheless. These value claims respectively), clustering with authenticity, comprise of complaints about dust, noise, heath transitoriness, quality, and unicity in the first peak and their respective consequences for the and nostalgic, experimental and authenticity in the tenants/users of the building. Practical labels are second. Exploitation only appears during the more one-on-one related to the value attributed to second peak with in its cluster function, future, the building, while stemming from a deeper layer urbanistic, and possibility (in total eleven value of discomfort. For example, due to a design flaw claims). Value claims on the design of ‘t Karregat the (characteristic) umbrella pillars that supported and the exploitation of the building are closely the roof and that allowed light to enter the related because the function one gives to the building were difficult to clean. Consequently the building depends for a large part on the design. In local carnival association ‘De Karreknarre’ (who are the case of Van Klingeren’s multifunctional centre always in for a joke) called their band ‘De the options were manifold as the official name Stofhappers’.101 suggests. The design is naturally clustered with authenticity as it is the concept that connects the A common label as well was ‘ideology’, with as a original and contemporary design, it signals the sublabel ‘fame’ (seven during the first peak, eleven resemblance between those states.103 Claims on during the second). The ideological value claims quality are straightforward as they evaluate the concern the philosophy of the architect that perceived goodness of the design. Claims on influences the value of the building for people in transitoriness can be seen as the connecting string some way or another. Claims on the fame of the between authenticity’s original and contemporary building are closely related to those of ideology state. Last is unicity which has a straightforward because it is exactly the idea of the architect that explanation as well. The exploitation cluster has in attracted international attention. An example of a it the label of function, which is the result of claims negative value claim of ideology is one about the on exploitation. The value of good exploitation and “special demands of the building” when it comes therefore good functionality go hand in hand. to the schools housed in ‘t Karregat. The Exploitation then suggests future value since a experimental schools of Van Klingeren were used building is profitable, it is also closely linked managed using “an orthodox formula” which to claims on possibility which evaluate the 102 meant they were doomed to fail. The ideological functionality (due to exploitation) of the building aspect of the design prohibited common ways of for the future. Lastly, value claims on urbanistic management to let the schools run smoothly, (city planning) frame the building in terms of making it a less valuable experiment. As a external chances of exploitation. consequence the schools were declared unfit by
much lighter Dutch version of the expression. The southern 100 ‘Doods Karregat gereïncarneerd’. (3 December 2010). Dutch sentiment and form of humour is a whole other topic Eindhovens Dagblad. however. 101 Karreknarre meaning as much as ‘Cartchaps’. This was a jest 102 ‘Een gebouw dat uitnodigt tot onrust’. (9 March 1977). De with the name of the centre of course as ‘Karregat’ means ‘cart Volkskrant. hole’, a joke made because an original idea of the architect was to have shopping carts that could be used freely around the 103 This is the weaker definition of authenticity as proposed by neighbourhood. Since ‘t Karregat was built on a hill the the Stanford Encyclopaedia, i.e. “being faithful to an original”: inhabitants could use their carts for long hauls and drop them Varga, S., Guignon, C. ‘Authenticity’. The Stanford Encyclopedia off again at ‘the cart hole’. Furthermore the name of the band of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), means something like ‘Dust Eaters’ which (in Dutch) means URL:
27
THE END OF THE SEVENTIES, THE END OF AN impact of the statement and to stress the IDEA devaluating (or praising) consequence of the claim.
The first controversy peak occurred shortly after The value claims of ideology stand in direct the completion of ‘t Karregat, during the end of the opposition to the practical claims mentioned above seventies. It meant the end of the original idea of as they particularly endorse Van Klingeren’s Van Klingeren as the schools were declared unfit experimental philosophy as is shown by the and glass walls would relieve the teachers of the following value claim. “Crijns did not have an noise pollution, which helped them with their aversion from the Karregat as an experiment. ‘I work. During this peak practical, ideological and saw its potential. It is a philosophy well thought societal value claims were the most prominent. out, a school that literally opens up to society. But something went wrong here when ’t Karregat was An example of a value claim that is labelled build first ‘as a building’ and subsequently the ‘practical’ stresses the impossibility to keep the schools had to figure everything out by building clean.104 This decrease in value of the themselves.’”106 This particular value claim praises original design concerns the matter-of-factly the idea behind ‘t Karregat and sees managerial refusal of the sound construction that a newly built problems as the cause of the situation the complex complex should deliver. It is an attack on the was in at the time. Nevertheless the judgement architect’s competence since, something as still does not value the building highly, as implicitly straightforward as ‘keeping a building clean’ should the failure is underlined. It does however negate come naturally with a building. Van Klingeren’s claims on practical issues as the ideological value is philosophy of using as few materials as possible presented as a more encompassing issue. To be and to keep costs low in doing so ensures, sure, later Crijns treats the practical issues, but he according to this claim, the devaluation of the speaks of them in a more casual way, stating that object. Common functionality is not taken into what the centre needs is an “interior decorator”.107 account, the use value (to speak in terms of Riegl) It shows these value claims stand on their own in has become less. only a few cases, but it is the dominance of In addition to the abovementioned claim the different parts proclaimed by the person that following claim of practicality: “Sound wasn’t the makes that particular part more influential (in their only problem. The building was difficult to clean, world). since, for example, there were no drains in the ‘Van Klingeren stressed that the community would lowest part of the building. Cleaning was therefore persistently be occupied with this building and he even harder. It resulted in dust becoming a major was right’ a journalist tells us in his article.108 The problem for the cleaning crew. The climate in the context however shows that this last remark was building is also way to dry. These were all reasons meant sarcastically as the building, despite its good for schools inspectors to, after hesitating a long intentions as an idea, became a topic of concern. time, after postponing repeatedly, to declare the Again the philosophy, the ideology, of Van school unfit.”105 Value claims on practical matters Klingeren is valued, but the characteristic values of are often used cumulatively as to increase the the building become societally influential. It is not
104 ‘Inspecteurs keuren scholen in dienstencentrum Eindhoven 106 Ibid: “Crijns stond niet afkerig tegenover het experiment- af’. (15 December 1976). Nederlands Dagblad: “…terwijl het Karregat. ‘Ik zag er wel wat in. 't Is een heel goeie filosofie, zo’n gebouw daardoor ook nauwelijks is schoon te houden.” school die letterlijk open staat naar de maatschappij. Maar er is hier een omgekeerde weg bewandeld. Het Karregat is in de 105 ‘Een gebouw dat uitnodigt tot onrust’. (9 March 1977). De eerste plaats als gebouw gemaakt en toen moesten de scholen Volkskrant: “Het geluid was echter niet het enige probleem. Het maar zien, dat ze ergens een hoekje vonden.’” gebouw bleek moeilijk schoon te houden, bijvoorbeeld doordat in het laagste gedeelte geen afvoergoten waren aangebracht. 107 Ibid. Schoonmaken met water was daardoor onmogelijk. Gevolg: 108 ‘Overlast door open ruimte maakt eind aan experiment ’t Veel stofoverlast. Het klimaat in het gebouw is ook veel te Karregat’. (20 March 1981). NRC. droog. Allemaal redenen voor de onderwijsinspectie, om het Karregat na lang aarzelen, na herhaald uitstel, af te keuren voor onderwijs.”
28
one time remarked as aesthetically appealing (or negation of the values that in the end would unappealing for that matter); the noise, the dust, preserve the building. In the case of ‘t Karregat the the difficult cleaning, are all aspects, or values of building was saved, as we shall see further on since the building, that conglomerate. They subvert the it was unique as an experiment, not because it historical value of the building by making it enjoyed such a sound construction nor because the unusable. Being able to use a post-’65 object is neighbourhood stayed the same. Those factors crucial to its existence as it lacks the necessary age influenced the appreciation of ‘t Karregat value. negatively, even when someone commented it once functioned well in the community. It was the A value claim with a societal label stand out adaptive reuse of ‘t Karregat, meant to match because it combines deeper value layers in societal needs, whilst keeping the construction as combination with the object-society relation: “The authentic as possible, that facilitated its problem does not lie in the quality of the subsistence. architecture, but it lies in the quality of the appreciation of the architecture and in the quality 2008-2014, ‘T KARREGAT RENEWED of the principal.”109 ‘Quality of architecture’ is in itself already a complex notion that would imply a sound construction as well as an intriguing philosophy and an aesthetic particularity. The workings, the idea, and the expression of the building dictate the norm and can therefore be valued highly. According to the author this quality should not be questioned, but the perception of these qualitative aspects and the influence of the principal he sees as more influential for the compromises that an architect has to make. As is explained further in the article, for Van Klingeren, this meant he had to compromise between the community (that was involved in designing the building) that wanted more luxury, and the principal that wished simplicity. If one then makes a claim of value about a building what about does Figure 4 't Karregat in 2012, Wikimedia Commons it really matter to make the claim? When the process of design and construction is already Since the last correction during the end of the subject to factors unknown or unseen (such as the eighties when even more functions are separated compromises made between involved parties) and in the building and most of the entrances were the intended value attributed is negated by faced outwards, the complex however did not commonalities which make the end-product less flourish. Again there are discussions on how to valuable it perhaps leaves the onlooker with higher improve the building after “years of values only that can mean something. deterioration”.110 In the cited brochure of the architects that would renovate the centre, the The point is that when claims that relate to a author poses the question on how to make the contextual domain (object-surrounding, in a spatial building functional again for the users whilst and social manner) are made in the case of ‘t maintaining the qualities of the building (literally Karregat, De Meerpaal, or Music Centre “respecting the qualities”).111 It corresponds to the Vredenburg, these are almost always placed as a value claims in the newspaper articles that treat
109 ‘Wij maken nog steeds konijnenhokken’. (6 February 1981). 110 Brochure by Architecten|En|En: Nog steeds niet af. NRC. Restauratie en renovatie van ’t Karregat in eindhoven. (2010). 2 111 Ibid.
29
mainly matters of society, practice, finance, and In the meantime the municipality had an agency exploitation. It does not mean ideology has been perform cultural historical research of the building less of a topic, on the contrary, seven claims can be which meant “complete demolition was distinguished, but it means other labels have unthinkable”, this was in 2009.116 It underlines become more prominent. how the monumentality of the umbrella roof was fixed and put in the backseat to wait for the There is less talk of ideological complaints since overhaul. As a mantra the monumentality of the there appears to be a consensus on keeping the roof is repeated in 2010, 2011 and again in 2012.117 building’s idea intact in some way or another. A Issues of exploitation, profitability and societal political party for example “thinks it is important ‘t importance now set the stage for the value debate, Karregat will be used intensively, notably because but the value that brings about preservation had Woonbedrijf has invested a lot of time and been fixed. attention in refurbishing the neighbourhood.”112 This value claim was uttered however when the CONCLUDING construction was happening. If we look back in time we do see a similar claim coming from the ‘t Karregat arguably had a similar reputation as inhabitants themselves, they established in 2009 Music Centre Vredenburg when constructed. Both the study group Behoud ‘t Karregat (‘Preserve ‘t objects were immediately well-known in the Karregat’) with the intention to keep the building Netherlands and abroad. The philosophy around as a centre for the neighbourhood.113 Both which the building itself was created made ‘t attribute value to the centre as a part of society Karregat unique, a space where people had to be although the political party sees the obligation of aware of each other. Eventually the idea did not overhauling the centre as a part of the entire survive, it was only the building’s most prominent refurbishment of the neighbourhood whereas the feature that became a subject of heritageisation. inhabitants themselves are concerned of losing a Indeed the material remains of the building was central place in their community. monumentalised, although the ideological space, at first materialised in minimal physicality, became The idea of demolishing the building had left the its own monument in the form of glass walls. social and political sphere entirely. Still there were complaints on how the ideology of Van Klingeren The controversy on multifunctional centre ‘t rather segregated than united.114 It seems as if the Karregat was always a societal debate and the building was seen as an unauthentic object since value claims stemming from this context clashed “over time even the outer walls were replaced, many times with the ideological ideas of the making the umbrella-roof the only thing original of centre. It was altered quite soon, and altered again ‘t Karregat.”115 Because of this unauthentic state under pressure of practical complaints and the the use of emphasising the heritage values of the idea that shared space was unfavourable to being a place in the form of a claim could have become common centre with various entrances. The less interesting. As a result the embeddedness of intention was for the building to flourish, but the the building in society, or the object as a link in a opposite happened. ‘t Karregat was not the larger project, or even financial troubles develop as community centre anymore, it was instead a dominant claims in the discussion. diffuse cluster of services that shared a roof. Nevertheless the monumentality of the space was
112 ‘Commerciële deel Karregat later ontwikkeld’. (29 March 116 ‘’t Karregat krijgt grote opknapbeurt’. (3 February 2009). 2013). Eindhovens Dagblad. Eindhovens Dagblad. 113 ‘Karregat volledig in bezit van de gemeente’. (21 July 2009). 117 ‘’t Karregat mag karakteristieke parapludak houden’. (27 Eindhovens Dagblad. Feburary 2010)., ‘Renovatie Karregat kost 13,5 miljoen euro’. (2 August 2011)., ‘Vandalen gooien ruiten Karregat eindhoven in’. 114 ‘Doods Karregat gereïncarneerd’. (3 December 2010). (22 february 2012). Eindhovens Dagblad. Eindhovens Dagblad. 115 ‘De harde lessen van een extreem experiment’. (2 August 2011). Eindhovens Dagblad.
30
established over the years by people accepting the building as unique.
In the end ‘t Karregat can be seen as the least radical overhaul of the three case studies treated in this paper: Music Centre Vredenburg kept its grand theatre, but was incorporated into a much larger structure; De Meerpaal kept its idea, but was changed unrecognisably; and ‘t Karregat is very much the same, although its idea is altered and better adjusted to present times.
31
Figure 5 Music Centre Vredenburg 1987, Het Utrechts Archief, 809553 MUSIC CENTRE VREDENBURG during 1969-1971, the actual design during 1973- 1976 and the construction until completion LIMINAL VREDENBURG consequently from 1976 to 1979.118 It was then, to This centre was built during the late seventies and say the least, a building with particular features 119 completed in 1979. The pre-design took place that aroused the emotions of all sorts of groups. It was innovative, modern, elitist and popular at
the same article another ‘positive’ aspect of the centre is 118 Heuvel, W.J. (1992). Structuralisme in de Nederlandse named: the “unmonumental function”: ‘Nieuw Utrechts architectuur. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. 182. muziekcentrum in gebruik genomen.’ (27 January 1979). De 119 For example there was a protest against the elitist air of the Telegraaf. The Centre was however inaugurated by princess Music Centre. Protesters occupied pop stage Tivoli in Utrecht Beatrix of the Netherlands, because of its “modern” design: claiming Vredenburg did not offer a platform for amateur ‘Beatrix opent nieuw muziekcentrum.’ (27 January 1979). De artists: ‘Krakers bezetten Tivoli.’ (27 January 1979). NRC. Telegraaf. Another newspaper article cynically depicts one of the selling points of the MCV, its adaptability, as “forever unfinished”. In
32
the same time. The ideology of the architect Herman Hertzberger made the building even Year National local (Online total paper paper sources) ‘democratic’ and ‘liveable’, or ‘for the people’.120 Hertzberger at the time, built to bring together 1999 1 1 people and hence made the building as accessible 2001 2 1 3 as possible. 2002 7 8 3 18 The building stayed more or less the same until it 2003 6 2 1 9 was completely absorbed into a larger centre 2004 6 2 8 called TivoliVredenburg. This happened from about 2005 2 2 4 2010 until 2015. Earlier during the eighties the 2006 1 2 3 director Peter Smids had already made some adjustments to decrease for example the intrusion 2007 2 3 5 of light in the theatre, covering the windows with 2008 2 2 shutters. He also closed off the outer doors since 2009 1 9 10 the homeless made use of Hertzberger’s endless 2010 1 1 accessibility. total: 19 22 (23) 41(64) As an unmonumental building from the start (in Table 3 In bold and italics the three peaks of Vredenburg's the sense of ‘grandeur’), the rebuilding of Music debate in the newspapers. Centre Vredenburg would be the subject of During its almost 30 years of existence Music circumstantial debate. Because of its young age, Centre Vredenburg (later TivoliVredenburg) has alteration would be more like fine-tuning, rather been the subject of numerous debates. It even than restoring. And alterations had been made evolved out of a debate on what the Music Centre already to the grand theatre. Director Smids should really be like, i.e: ‘classical’ or ‘progressive’. embodies, as prominent champion of rebuilding, the different opinions of the MCV; he was the one During the seventies, when heroin was introduced who argued in favour of reusing Vredenburg rather in the Netherlands, the cities soon experienced than demolishing or replacing it. The age, the extensive drug problematics. The country suffered aesthetics, the practical complaints, the from relative innocence towards drugs which environment, the acoustics, the ideology, the ensured a quick spread of heroin addicts in the city approachability, all these arguments, for and centres. As did any major city in the Netherlands against preserving the building, he pondered over. from the 70s onwards, Utrecht started ‘solving’ the It is exactly this differing discourse which makes problematic of homeless junkies by constantly the Music Centre Vredenburg a part of liminal harassing them to move to the next place. The area architecture. Debate was inherent to the building around shopping mall Hoog Catharijne and the and took on the shape of a two-decade-long adjacent Music Centre Vredenburg remained flowing controversy. attractive places for addicts to return to. The city centre deteriorated and the Music Centre with it. THE FLOW OF THE DEBATE In this period Vredenburg flourished as a music stage in spite of the degenerating city centre and it was incorporated into a larger debate on the revitalization of the entire city centre. What went on inside the walls however did not correspond with the situation outside.
In the 80s and 90s the municipalities started to improve the rehabilitation programmes to bring
120 Structuralisme. 12, 16, 20.
33
addicts back into society rather than moving them near future a new political party Leefbaar Utrecht around in it.121 The Utrecht City Project (UCP) was organised a referendum in which the citizens could an important step in this respect with which the decide how to continue. In 2002 the referendum municipality strove to revitalize the centre thoroughly. It was in this context that the took place with historian Maarten van Rossem Vredenburg board started thinking of expanding (born in Utrecht) saying that even he did not understand at all the differences between the two their capacities.122 At this point, from 1996 plans that were presented to the public.124 In this onwards, Peter Smids started openly propagating particular period many newspaper articles report his message to incorporate a new Centre into the on the case of the Music Centre as it became a UCP and the discussion moved from the Centre to central feature of the individual plans and thus it the city council. became a selling point.
During the nineties the process of decision making Eventually plan A won over plan 1 and the was considerably slow and director of Vredenburg, municipality was keen on incorporating more Peter Smids, grew tired of the endless public input. The Projectorganisatie Stationsgebied conversations on what should happen with the city (Station Area Project Organisation) published the centre. In 1999 he even proposed (“stupidly, in masterplan in 2003 stating that the municipality hindsight”)123 to just demolish the building which would embroider away on the plan with input from resulted in furious comments. It was clear that the public via meetings.125 After the completion of Vredenburg could not simply to be erased out of the masterplan, it will take until 2014 for the new Utrecht’s urban fibre. construction to be completed. The years in between masterplan and construction are As the Utrecht City Project muddled on and with dominated by concerns on the financial liability of no sight of anything substantial happening in the the project, despite the contrasting news earlier of financial feasibility.126 Even in 2010 the city council was still discussing whether the project should continue at all. Besides the financial vigil, another concern was whether the new joined foundation of Vredenburg, Tivoli and Stichting Jazz Utrecht (SJU) was stable. In 2009 there are still talks of Tivoli leaving the foundation because they, unlike Vredenburg, did gain profit.127 One year later the construction of the music palace starts, four years after that TivoliVredenburg opened for the public. As becomes clear of the frequent recurring theme in the Binnenstadskrant Utrecht (Inner-city Newspaper Utrecht), the public was mostly Figure 6 Model of MCV from 1975, Het Utrechts Archief, 401253
included to make the outcome referendum binding if the 121 See: Blok, G. (2011). Ziek of Zwak. Geschiedenis van de turnout was higher than 30 percent, which was the case. verslavingszorg in Nederland. 125 ‘Masterplan Stationsgebied’ (2003). Gemeente Utrecht: 122 The ideas were there from the start, but director Smids Projectorganisatie Stationsgebied. 19. URL: pressed upon his ideas by the municipality from 1996 onwards
34
concerned with the slow progress and the nuisance direct access to claims. The interview is directed the construction would bring about. towards a specific answer the journalist wants to have, or at least guided by a specific question. The VALUE-CLAIMS RELATED TO THE OVERHAUL selection of articles with the criteria that make the OF MUSIC CENTRE VREDENBURG interview gives them an advantage over general The question related to the sources is ‘what value news. claims have been around, given that we know the For example: “The horseshoe that surrounds the grand theatre is incorporated into the current grand theatre operates as isolation. If it were to be TivoliVredenburg?’ From the selected newspaper demolished, then the thin inner walls become the articles phrases have been highlighted that have in outer walls,”128 can be seen as a practical value turn been attributed a label that best describes aimed at obstructing the demolition of the MCV. It how the phrase speaks of a value that relates to was by then clear that the grand theatre was the the overhaul of MCV. It also explains why the ‘who’ most important part of the building to be and ‘why’ questions matter less since the preserved, but by only keeping this part the holistic overruling question here is: what could the impact design would be made undone. The phrase then is have been. We know in fact that a part of the MCV a value claim against demolishing only a part of the (the grand theatre) has been refurbished and building. This particular claim I labelled as incorporated into the building and we only need to ‘practical’ since the utterance is a pragmatic know what value claims have ‘been around’ the response to the possible demolition of the MCV. most. The individual has (as far as this phrase goes) a The publication density of the stories in national neutral stance to other aspects of value, but and local newspapers that have value claims attributes more value to the down-to-earth related to the overhaul of the MCV has one impractical side of removing the grand theatre’s obvious peak around 2002 (table 3). It was the year insolation. In mentioning this the rest of the MCV is of the referendum that brought some extra automatically reduced to mere insolation and the attention to the case of the MCV. The two plans grand theatre becomes what makes the MCV involved more than just the MCV, but in the one it worthy of preservation. would be replaced and in the other retained on the Contextual and practical value claims are two same location. frequently appearing labels in the analysis of the Overall the amount of value claims that could be newspaper articles and frankly two of the most differentiated from the articles were 113 in the colloquial since they are often articulated as mild national newspapers and 70 in the local critique on the MCV opposing another frequent 129 newspapers. However diverse the local label: ‘unicity’. The Centre is seen as one of a newspapers were in their coverage the amount of kind by many, if not all people that have a say in claims that were connected to the overhaul were the articles. Predominantly the practical and significantly less than in the national newspapers. contextual claims are mentioned alongside claims This was partly because the local stories seemed of unicity. These involve for example the unique more standardised and less in depth whereas in aesthetics of the building, the acoustics, the charm, the national newspapers longer interviews made or other characteristics that, according to the for more claims of value to be made. It means that sources, can only be seen, heard or felt in Music when treating these articles there is a disbalance Centre Vredenburg. in the amount of claims due to the phenomenon An example is the phrase: “A unique theatre en that articles in the form of an interview have more ronde,”130 that implies there is only one
128 ‘Straks zwaait hier de sloopbal’ (11 March 1999). De 129 Whereas ‘uniqueness’ emphasises the exceptionality of Volkskrant. something ‘unicity’ implies something is different from something else, without the extra connotation of refinement. 130 ‘Redt Vredenburg van de sloop.’ (4 May 2002). NRC.
35
Vredenburg grand theatre and one should think twice before demolishing it. Again this is a hymn to a singular feature: the grand theatre.131 The perception of the theatre as something unique plays an important role in all the newspaper articles and it could be extrapolated to all case studies her treated. Both De Meerpaal and ‘t Karregat have similar societal unicity which makes the object valuable.
Another frequently appearing label is ‘experience’. Many value claims can be brought back to this particular label as it is one of the most vague and possibly one of the most influential arguments the public has. For example: “Present Vredenburg does not appeal to Kamiel Klaasse of NL Architects: ‘an anti-glamour building.’”132 This is not a value connected to aesthetics or practicality intrinsically Figure 7 The theatre en ronde, 1977, Het Utrechts Archief, 73016 since this architect feels, or experiences, the three music organisations. In 2009 it became clear building as having the characteristic that is one organisation (Tivoli) was not planning on contradictory to glamourous edifices. For him this disturbing the status quo. It marks (next to the particular value is decisive when it comes to referendum and the masterplan) a peak in the preservation: it should not happen. municipal controversy flow. Digital sources on the Municipal involvement in the MCV’s overhaul has overhaul of the MCV seem to cling more to the deep roots as it was the principal that arranged for municipal politics than do national papers for the Centre to be built in the first place. 1996 example. However became the year the MCV was put on the This section is based on the different value-claims agenda again as a part of the revival of the city over time. What claims have been made when and centre. It was not until 2002 that concrete plans how do they correspond to the different ‘peaks’ in were made. A sudden upsurge of populist politics the public discussion. As mentioned before the caused a referendum to be organised by Leefbaar controversy-stage moves as time progresses, Utrecht that year with on the one hand the beginning within the confines of the Vredenburg replacement of the MCV and on the other an board, moving to the city-council and the public overhaul in situ. After the referendum the council realm, and consequently back to the municipality. was busy to fill in the masterplan since it was not There are three main peaks in the debate: around exactly clear for everyone what it meant that plan 2002 when a referendum took place on the station A was chosen, the dividing lines were vague. The area; around 2004, when the final masterplan was MCV awaited its approaching alteration patiently announced and models of the new MCV were and was left for another (temporary) theatre by presented; and 2009, when financial and the organisation. Until 2008 the building stood administrative concerns climaxed. empty and demolition crews started chipping of the exterior of the building. All the while the All in all the value claim that is most widely used municipality argued about the financial feasibility over the entire period were those related to of the project. Furthermore the concept of the new practicality. Practical values being for example music palace was based on a merger between legroom or the ease with which the exit can be
Schepping van Hertzberger roept alleen uitgesproken reacties 131 However some saw the small theatre as a fine product as op. (15 November 2003). De Volkskrant. well: “it is a pity that the fine functioning small theatre will be demolished..” in ‘Het bokspaleis met de gloeiende sfeer. 132 ‘Als het maar geen ratjetoe wordt; Architect Hertzberger ontwerpt Muziekpaleis.’ (15 November 2003). De Volkskrant.
36
found. Furthermore the technical aspects of the context of the alteration of Music Centre centre came to the fore several times. These were Vredenburg in which case they are uttered to judgements on for example the acoustics – often speak out for or against rebuilding. deemed one of a kind. Third were value claims related to an experiential context. These claims are 1999-2002, THE RUN-UP TO THE mostly descriptive of the emotions aroused by the REFERENDUM centre as an object. An example of and experiential From 1999 until 2002, the year of the referendum claim is the feelings the centre created when several articles were published on the situation of listening to a concert, or the experience of the the MCV. What was at stake was the subsistence of ‘domesticity’ of the centre (a by-product of the the centre as a part of the station area of Utrecht. Dutch, sixties ideals of the structuralist school in The 1990s Utrecht City Project did not lead to architecture). anything noteworthy until that moment and a relatively new political party Leefbaar Utrecht – The value claims and their labels, which patterns after gaining a considerable foothold in the city the categorisation of the claims, is arbitrary partly council – organised a referendum to take place.133 because the pluralistic primacy of the labels. There was no shortage of value claims in public Practical values do often consist of evaluated, sources however as Leefbaar Utrecht made the technical aspects and experiential values can debate of the station area more public. likewise be the result of the same evaluated technical aspect. These three can exist in an It was in 1999 that director Peter Smids brought eternal triangle where the technical aspect of the forward the idea to let the wrecking ball devour domestic interior is practically unsuitable, but the MCV whole. He saw demolition as a causes a unique experience, making the centre rectification of the “cosiness” of the centre.134 This valuable. Similarly the practical aspect of legroom particular quotation could be labelled (or themed) is annoying in the grand theatre, but it was in several ways. For example it is a judgement of technically necessary to create the intimate setting the ideals of the centre, of the design by the which causes a particular experience. A architect. It is an emotional and rational comparable configuration is to begin with and consideration against the architectural essence experiential value of, for example, how people that makes the MCV what it is: an ‘accessible’ and perceive the exterior, usually ugly; the ugliness ‘domestic’ building. What kind of value, then, is however comes from the practical measure of attributed to the centre here by Smids? This phrase making the building accessible and the technical I sublabel here with ‘domestic/accesible’, because aspect of reducing the costs (i.e., the grey, concrete bricks that Hertzberger used are aesthetically inferior). In short, the labels are all about interpretation, but also try to be that the least possible.
The choice for one or another label is based however on the essence of the phrase. The first of the abovementioned I would call experiential, as I would the second, and the third technical. Especially when these phrases are put in the
een ferme correctie op de 'knusheidsgedachte' die ten 133 Leefbaar Utrecht was established in 1997 to oppose the grondslag lag aan de bouw van het Muziekcentrum, en die large-scale projects belonging to the Utrecht City Project. The bijvoorbeeld te herkennen is in de talrijke trappetjes, zitjes, unexpected influence they gained in the city council could only doorkijkjes, hoekjes en balkonnetjes in het begin 1979 door lead to a measure such as the 2002 referendum. See: Eeden, E. burgemeester Vonhoff geopende complex.” ‘Straks zwaait hier van. (2008). Leefbaar Utrecht. Acht jaar vernieuwing en de sloopbal’ (11 March 1999). De Volkskrant. beroering in de Utrechtse politiek. Optima. 134 “In 2003 gaat hier de sloopbal door de lucht', zegt directeur Smids haast verlekkerd. De plannen kunnen worden opgevat als
37
peaks, save the last one in 2008-9 when the debate was mostly happening on a municipal level and concerned predominantly issues of exploitation, finances and administration. An example of a technical claim from 2002, the year of the referendum, treats the acoustics of the centre.136 The newspaper reports of a letter – written by eminent people from the cultural sector – to the minister in which demolition of the centre is dissuaded. They, amongst other things, remind the minister of the unique acoustics of the centre that is “praised to the skies, far and wide.”137 Again the possible categorisation of this claim is manifold as it could be labelled as ‘praise-value’ or ‘heritage- value’, but it is in essence the acoustics, the technical aspect, that drives the argument; i.e., it is praised because of the acoustics and it is heritage- Figure 8 The grand theatre in use 1996, Het Utrechts Archief, 823987 worthy because of the acoustics. We could reform of the aforementioned aspects. These sublabel are this value claim into a moral/ethical mould like more characteristic than moral or ethical.135 this: ‘it is bad that the MCV is demolished because of the lauded acoustics.’ In every value claim there Suppose we pose the sentence otherwise and is an underlying consequentialist value of the transform it into: ‘it would be better to demolish speakers proclaiming that the consequences of the the centre to rectify the idea of domesticity.’ This action produce entirely the value of the claim. would increase the capability of analysing this value claim as it provides a consequentialist 2002-2010, COMPLETION MASTERPLAN; version of Smids’ argument. Whereas before the FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE argument was solely emotional and characteristic, ARGUMENTS now it has become ethical, because why would it 2004, COMPLETION OF THE MASTERPLAN indeed be better to demolish the building in order for a rectification to be reached? The value of AND PRESENTATION OF THE NEW MUSIC demolishing is in this case multiplied by the PALACE consequence of rectifying an ideological mistake. After the referendum was held and Utrecht voted The thematic categorisation of the value claims in favour of keeping Music Centre Vredenburg on thus provides a countable and comparable set that its original location, the municipality started can be restructured into moral/ethical values. This working on the masterplan for the station area. To particular value claim however was rather one of a help draft this plan the municipality depended kind during the run-up to the referendum; it can be partly on a public participation program.138 This clustered together with the experiential label. participatory program was not primarily focused on the MCV, but it did antagonise in the ideas on More frequent are the claims that can be labelled Vredenburg square adjacent to the centre. It states as ‘practical’ or ‘technical’. As stated above these for example in the masterplan that the entrance of where the most frequently encountered labels in total and they are present during the several
geworden.” ‘Prominenten op de bres voor Vredenburg’ (14 May 135 See the part on Randall Mason’s article on ‘values-centered 2002). Leeuwarder Courant. preservation’. 137 Ibid. 136 “In de open brief noemen de ondertekenaars de schepping van Herzberg architectonisch erfgoed van de twintigste eeuw. 138 ‘Masterplan stationsgebied.’ (2003). Projectorganisatie Verder wijzen ze op de alom geroemde akoestiek, waardoor het stationsgebied. 19. muziekcentrum ook ver buiten Nederland een begrip is
38
the centre had to be on the square – nowadays it is about the building as it is now: apart from the not the case. grand theatre the building became obsolete in the new plan where new corporations were formed to In 2006 the credit for construction of the new reconfigure the Utrecht music scene. ‘music palace’ was approved by the city council. A declaration of intention is signed by the different A sound-technician of the Music Centre recalls the parties involved and several years later (26 June adaptive nature of the building (that was 2008) they sign a declaration of cooperation. Pop predominantly meant to house classical music) stage Tivoli, an important party, nullifies the this that became the stage for various diverging last declaration at the last moment. At this point performances.144 This is a practical as well as a the parties had agreed upon an integral plan where technical value claim as the worth of the centre is the grand theatre was kept and several other measured by its practical abilities to technically rooms were added.139 The concept of the new survive performances that were originally not music palace however was based on a joint scheduled to happen. In the end however it is the programming which meant a withdrawal of Tivoli combined adaptability of the building, or more would cause financial and administrative concerns. specifically the grand theatre, that gives this value claim its label. In 2009 the municipality decides to confer with Tivoli. The meeting however, on the 4th of Emphasising the adaptability of a building signals November, ends in a refusal by the alderman to let what Aloïs Riegl called ‘use value’.145 This value the pop stage carry on alone. He adheres to the opposes ‘age value’ in the sense that it actively original plan of conceptual unity on which the idea incites maintenance. Age value however is the of the music palace was developed.140 What direct opposite found in buildings that have no use follows is a year of uncertainty on the future of the value at all (e.g., medieval castles).146 A strong music palace, because, if the administrative layout argument to bring forward related to the post-’65 of the music palace would be made pluralistic, “a liminal architecture set is the adaptability and myriad new options would arise.”141 usability of the buildings. Its capacities to be more than just a classical theatre or even more than a Especially 2002 and 2003 are years with extensive theatre creates possibilities. To obstinately go on articles dotted with value claims related to the about certain unique aesthetical features without overhaul of the music centre. In the national even considering the balance between age- and newspapers practically labelled claims appear such use value is a weak approach, as the functionality as critique on the labyrinth of stairs and of these objects are essential for popular support. 142 hallways. The context of this phrase is an It explains the unwillingness to keep the rest of the argument on the architectural finesse of the MCV building afloat since these parts were severely for which “architectural students from all over the devalued (partly due to ideological changes which 143 world come to Utrecht.” These two particular made the sixties structuralistic ideals outdated). claims of practicality and fame are what brought
139 It was even the one architectural aspect around which the 144 “Toen ik bij Vredenburg als licht-en geluidstechnicus begon, new music palace would be shaped: ‘Brief aan de Utrechtse was het Muziekcentrum eigenlijk alleen geschikt voor klassieke gemeenteraad.’ (5 June 2009). 1 muziek. Langzaam maar zeker ben ik ervoor gaan zorgen dat er ook de nodige voorzieningen voor popconcerten kwamen. 140 ‘Brief aan de gemeenteraad over samenwerking Zodat we door de jaren heen de grote bands in huis hebben Muziekpaleis.’ (15 December 2009). 1-2. gehad: U2, Simple Minds, David Bowie, Lenny Kravitz.” ‘Cees 141 “Als je het muziekpaleis fundamenteel zou willen veranderen Freriks: Vredenburg achter de schermen.’ (15 November 2003). - ook daarin heb je weer duizenden varianten, dus dat klinkt De Volkskrant zwart-witter dan in de praktijk het geval is – kost dat al heel snel 145 Riegl, A. (1903). ‘The modern cult of monuments: Its essence heel erg veel geld.” ‘Vergadering gemeenteraad Utrecht.’ and its development.’ In Price, N.S., Kirby Talley, M., Melucco (Afternoon 17 December 2009). 17. Vaccaro, A. [eds.]. (1996). Historical and philosophical issues in 142 “Van meet af aan was er ook veel kritiek op het benauwende the conservation of cultural heritage. Los Angeles: The Getty labyrinth van trappen en gangen.” ‘Van de grote zaal moeten ze Conservation Institute. 69-83. 79-80. afblijven; architectuur.’ (22 March 2002). Trouw. 146 Ibid. 79 143 Ibid.
39
After the referendum in 2002 and the completion character of these claims is questionable as they of the masterplan one year later, the plan was took place within the less accessible walls of city updated in 2004. From 2005 the municipality was politics. Nevertheless the debate is accessible to able to work towards construction. The the public as an inherent part of the Dutch Vredenburg square and its surroundings were the democratic system. Financial arguments against first to be transformed into a construction site in the overhaul of the MCV and the destruction of the 2007. On the twenty-fourth of June 2008, Herman grand theatre, or the viability of the whole project Hertzberger, the overseer-architect of the music could be challenged. Furthermore newspapers palace, gives a presentation on the procedures kept reporting on the MCV and the municipality concerned with the construction of the new made their progress known constantly.150 building. In 2009, Tivoli hesitates and tries to undermine the present plan of the music palace. In the extensive meeting held on the seventeenth of December 2009, one Verhoef said “there’s no 2005-2010, FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE shame in turning back halfway as, otherwise, one CONCERNS could be completely lost.”151 And he was not the only one doubting the successful completion of the In politics, financial arguments always come to the music palace as at this point several things were fore. Already in 2002 a city council member in going less smooth than hoped. Not only was the Utrecht uttered his discontent of the presumed substitute location of Music Centre Vredenburg high costs of the new music palace.147 Financial less profitable than hoped, Tivoli wanted to change unfeasibility can ring the death knell for any the agreements. At his point the council was project, but in the case of the MCV the evaluating the new music palace in two different incorporation of it within the larger station area ways. On the one hand the council weighed the project assured the aldermen’s support. It is useful processual commitment, and on the other the to analyse several financial arguments though. viability of the project – the dynamism of which is After the withdrawal of Tivoli a hearing was mirrored in the proverb by mr. Verhoef. organised in the city council on the twenty-seventh At this point only the grand theatre has survived of 2009 in which the mayor and executive board from Hertzberger’s building. There is no talk underwent a severe questioning of the viability of anymore on preserving it (similar to the situation the MCV: “Politically and administratively speaking, of ‘t Karregat)as the consensus is to build a new it is a monster.”148 The same party that uttered its ‘music palace’ around the old theatre and financial concerns earlier did so as well during this incorporate an integral concept in it. What could meeting in stating it had warned already several wring the neck of this project were financial and times for pouring money down the drain.149 These administrative problems. The aldermen concerned value claims are less direct than for example with the project however saw the value of aesthetic, practical, technical or contextual claims; commitment – they were emerged in this they instead relate directly to the building in construction project beyond the point of no question while financial and return.152 The opposition was less cautious and saw administrative/political claims are secondary the point of researching some alternative conditions that describe the means to reach possibilities or even to stop with the project (if no ‘immediate’ value claims. Second, the public
147 ‘Plan muziekpaleis vrij goed ontvangen.’ (15 March 2004). 151 ‘Vergadering gemeenteraad Utrecht.’ (Afternoon 17 Utrechts Nieuwsblad. December 2009). 14 “Ik denk dat de raad is vergeten goed te mediteren over het Muziekpaleis. Daar ondervinden wij nu de 148 ‘Vergadering gemeenteraad Utrecht.’ (Afternoon 17 gevolgen van. Er is een gezegde: beter ten halve gekeerd dan December 2009). 12. “In politiek en bestuurlijk opzicht is er ten hele gedwaald. Min of meer is dat ook wat de fractie sprake van een gedrocht.” Leefbaar Utrecht stelt.” 149 Ibid. 152 Ibid. 17. “Iedereen weet dat als je eenmaal met een 150 Amongst others on the CU2030 website of the station area. verbouwing begonnen bent en je daarna iets wilt veranderen, dat altijd veel duurder is dan wanneer je dat van tevoren had bedacht.”
40
solution would be reached).153 Antagonizing this It is during this period that a high density of value political discussion was a neighbourhood claims can be found in the media. Practical, committee dedicated to stop the construction technical, contextual and experiential value claims since they feared that TivoliVredenburg would be were the most common in relation to the overhaul too massive and inconveniencing for its of the MCV. These immediate value claims are of a surroundings.154 consequentialist nature; their value comprises of the consequence of the value claim. They balance For the neighbours of the new music palace the however between consequentialist and grandeur and size of the place was in 2009 still a utilitarianist natures since they could be read as problem. They valued small-scale (or even no values that produce the most good (good being to scale) more than what was being built now. A demolish (or not) the MCV). The consensus was parallel can be drawn between the history of the that the grand theatre had its limits but that it still development and opening of the MCV and those of had to be preserved since it had unique acoustics the new music palace: both were part of a larger and was (inter)nationally well-known. It thus was project, their crystallisation took over 20 years, and one of a kind and worthy of preservation (despite 155 in both cases the public weighed in. In 2009 that people saw it as appalling as well), and in however the project was endangered from two relation to the neighbourhood it made sure sides with the neighbourhood committee litigating derelicts had a place to sleep. against the substantial character of the music palace and the trouble it would cause for the This paradoxal situation, appealing-appalling, citizens, sound- and traffic-wise (they did not makes this object liminal architecture. achieve what they wanted however). Tivoli would Furthermore, this dilemma served as a premise for only agree with the terms earlier proposed on 12 the kind of preservation the MCV would go November 2010; their main concern was that they through. The high-valued interior was kept, the would pay for the unprofitable Music Centre, was less-valued exterior was replaced (by the same taken away. The parties agreed to continue architect as a superintendent). Preservation administratively with a dualist exploitation where however was not as certain as one would think the municipality would be responsible for possible because financially, contextually and losses in the field of classical music. administratively new concerns would act up.
The masterplan was completed in 2004 with the CONCLUDING help of participatory meetings. In the end these Music Centre Vredenburg came into being after a meetings served as a confirmation of how the long history and was, back then, already contested. Station Area Project Organisation had envisioned Plans however were made to rebuild the centre as the Vredenburg square and the music centre. As a part of the station area overhaul in Utrecht. other parties were involved in the project (already These plans circulated in the board of the centre, from 2000 onwards), the temporary name became where Peter Smids aroused enthusiasm for his ‘music palace’. From 2004 until 2010, when plans. Consequently the public got hold of the idea construction started, the financial feasibility was a and the discussion became more societally recurring theme in political debate. This was involved. As a disruptive measure, Leefbaar strengthened by pop stage Tivoli that voiced their Utrecht, a municipal political party, organised a concerns on the unprofitable MCV. A third obstacle referendum. The developments in the station area became the neighbourhood committee that was had come to a standstill, but in 2002 people could against the massive character of the music palace choose between two scenario’s, one of which and all the problems it would cause. included the replacement of the MCV.
153 Ibid. 14-15. 155 For a comparison of the situation in 1979, see: ‘Architect Hertzberger weerlegt kritiek: Muziekcentrum is nooit af.’ (25 154 ‘Muziekpaleis van twee kanten onder vuur.’ (14 December January 1979). De Volkskrant. 2009). Het Utrechts Nieuwsblad.
41
These years were led by two ‘value forces’ within city politics: one valued the invested time and commitment more, the other saw the project as a real pain in the neck that would muddle on forever. The committee saw their neighbourhood being taken over by a 45 meter tall, loud building. The grand theatre was constantly part of the new design of the music palace, but could still be prone to dilapidation were this stalemate to continue.
Financially, the aldermen argued constantly that the music centre was in no danger. Administratively, an agreement was signed in 2010 giving Tivoli more space and trust in the music palace. The committee did not get what they wanted as the construction began the same year. The MCV developed from a revolutionary building to liminal architecture, to an incorporated feature of a new building. Several value claims can be filtered from the this history, with most notably: practical, technical, contextual, experiential, financial, and administrative labels.
42
CONCLUSION consequentialist/utilitarian nature of claims can be emphasised in combination with the possibility of How can value claims in public debate on Dutch the value to be intrinsic or instrumental. It means a post-Reconstruction, structuralist architecture be claim could state something about an intrinsic used as a societal constituent in value quality of the building or about something that assessments? functions as a vehicle for something else. Furthermore, value claims are difficult to compare. The question of this paper is whether expert value In Mason’s article the incommensurability of assessments can be enriched by society given the values is mentioned for example. The step towards set of architecture is limited to about the last fifty more abstraction can make characteristic values years. This set I call post-Reconstruction more comparable however. architecture, or the buildings that have been erected after 1965, the end of the quantitative The values in expert assessments are soundly Reconstruction in the Netherlands. What is constructed, but constructed nonetheless. They do particular about this architecture is that it is still not hold the ‘truth’ and have a matter of very much in use. It is fresh in the minds of the subjectivity. To overcome this subjectivity the people and therefore it does not have logical value claims here researched could be looked monumentality that older constructions can closer at in order for them to be used as a direct obtain. The value people attribute to these newer link to society. The findings about the possible buildings is different from how they evaluate value claims can be used to probe the sentiment constructions that have aged or corroded. The on valuable buildings. Several aspects are possibility of an additional societal component combined here: first, experts could list the valuable should be the subject of more research, although buildings from the post-Reconstruction set; this paper suggests there exists the possibility to second, these have an important use value and are add to expert value assessments by looking at the changeable; third, when these buildings are in variety of value claims. function they become far more durable than when simply ‘bell-jar-monumentalised’; fourth, the age These value claims are ‘assertions’, or more value will make the building more valuable over general ‘phrases’, about a certain value that is time. The point is that that liminal architecture has attributed to the building in question. For example: to age first to become entirely logically “Present Vredenburg does not appeal to Kamiel monumental. By preventively probing how people Klaasse of NL Architects: ‘an anti-glamour think (on the basis of the labels here researched) building.’”156 In this case they have to be related to about the building, one can assert if direct an alteration of the treated case studies. A value preservation action is needed. This direct action claim thus speaks of a value that the building has can take place in the form of adaptive reuse or, in that makes it eligible (or not) to be preserved. For perilous situations, as monumentalisation. example: He complains that although De Meerpaal functioned very well for over fifteen years it now There is no need to monumentalise ‘against had to be turned into a “money-making area”.157 society’s will’, but there is an urgent need for He relates an assertion of ideological nature momentum in the realm of liminal architecture. (namely “an orthodox attack on creative life”)158 to The approach of societally influenced, adaptive the financial aspect of the centre as a financially preservation could provide such a momentum as it stable construct. works with the people that make use of the object. Valuable buildings would first have to be The value claims in the examples above are more catalogued as was done earlier with pre-World superficial, but can be more complex War architecture in the Netherlands. Consequently epistemologically. Indeed, the
156 ‘Als het maar geen ratjetoe wordt; Architect Hertzberger 157 ‘Architect vecht verbouwing van De Meerpaal in Dronten ontwerpt Muziekpaleis.’ (15 November 2003). De Volkskrant. aan’. (20 August 1987). NRC. 158 “De aanval van de orthodoxie op het creatieve leven.” Ibid.
43
surveys could probe the sentiment on the common case studies. This theme of unprofitability will labels found in this research. Then buildings can be remain apparent during the two controversy peaks adapted accordingly while keeping key features about De Meerpaal however. Next to financial that make the building valuable in the first place; claims there were value claims labelled practical pre-emptive action is key here. and ‘heritage’. De Meerpaal’s two controversy peaks were around 1988 and around 2000. The labels that have been used in this paper are diverse. They function as a thematic guide in order During the first controversy peak judicial value to provide quantitative research. As one would claims are very present as Van Klingeren tried to order the books in a library so the value claims are prohibit the overhaul of the centre. The value of ordered according to their respective label. Further the object is then decided on a legal level which research into this labelling of value claims would means the copyright law had to be decisive. In need a more elaborate label-system that is more appealing to a part of the law that combatted adjustable and has the possibility to expand. This mutilation of the architect’s design Van Klingeren system could make more use of main- and went to court. The judge ruled however that sublabels in order to improve the versatility of despite the monumental values of the centre the clusters. Of course one would have to think of practical values were more important and De coding the labels to make navigation easier and to Meerpaal is allowed to rebuild. It shows the insert the labels into a digital program. emphasis on the building as a commercial construct or an ideological construct, as a carrier or This paper made use of case studies that as a reflexive object. This last appearance of De represented an iconic architectural ideology of the Meerpaal is deemed inferior by the judge. post-’65 period. The choice was based on their public nature, their undoubted value, and the After a period of stagnation the debate on altering debate the alterations of the buildings brought De Meerpaal again enflames in 1999. Given that about in the public realm. To be able to be more Van Klingeren passed away that year and there comparative all three buildings can be termed was no possibility anymore to appeal to the ‘structuralistic’, a distinguishable architectural copyright law (as he settled in court in 1988), the philosophy. As the buildings were embedded into debate now moved to a more conceptual level the societal fibre there was a steady supply of with value claims of ‘heritage’. These came from value claims, filtered mainly from newspaper prominent advocates of De Meerpaal and were articles. uttered along practical claims and ‘claims of progress’. The latter are concerned with the These newspaper articles have been used as possibility of the place the value of its future state mouthpieces rather than true sources, as a for the ones concerned with the overhaul. Practical thermometer of the public debate on the case claims were about the presence of closed off studies. It makes the utterer less important and spaces for example. But a point of concern was still the amount of corresponding claims all the more. the financial crisis of the centre that stemmed partly from these practical complaints to be sure. As an illustration for the multiplicity of value claims Tenants stayed away as the centre was too three case studies have been analysed above. The versatile to be versatile (i.e., the open character of first case study, multifunctional centre (or Agora) the centre made it impossible to have separation, De Meerpaal in Dronten was built as an adjustable ironically). construction, but, as it appeared, only in its functionality. The architect Frank van Klingeren The second case study is a building from the same soon tried to stop the first alteration the architect as De Meerpaal: Multifunctional Centre ‘t municipality wanted to make to De Meerpaal. The Karregat in Eindhoven. This building had complex was not profitable anymore, a complaint immediate fame due to the progressive education that is used during most of the history of De project under its roof. As ‘t Karregat was little Meerpaal. Notable is the original design of De more than a roof, this wall-less school became the Meerpaal that endured the longest of the three
44
first obstacle for the existence of ‘t Karregat as an The third case study is Music Centre Vredenburg ideological building. Relatively soon after its (MCV) in Utrecht was very much a topic of debate. completion the schools were declared unfit and Not only was the building well-known, it was had to be changed. Furthermore the building was successful in what it offered, and it was part of a difficult to keep clean and provided no privacy long-term process of revitalising the inner city of whatsoever for the medical unit it roofed as well. Utrecht. During its existence three controversy The two controversy peaks do not relate to the peaks can be discerned: one around 2002, one three alterations the complex went through as the around 2004, and one around 2009, the last one second one around 1990 slipped under the radar with a long preamble. (possibly because De Meerpaal received much attention at the time). There were no prominent For the MCV the most apparent label was lawsuits which means other labels came to the ‘practical’ that concerned things like legroom or fore. The most appearing value claims could be the ease with which the exit could be found. labelled as ‘societal’, ‘practical’, and ‘ideology’. Furthermore there were value claims labelled ‘technical’, those concerned the acoustics of the The first controversy peak took place around 1978 centre (often seen as one of the better aspects of and incorporated the abovementioned labels. The the centre). Another frequently appearing label is discussion of ‘t Karregat was for the most part ‘experience’. Many value claims can be brought about the dilemma between the experimental back to this particular label as it is one of the most (ideological) nature of the building and the vague and possibly one of the most influential practical complaints, given the societal importance arguments the public has. For example: “Present the building had. People were aware of that the Vredenburg does not appeal to Kamiel Klaasse of schools for example were a try-out and criticised NL Architects: ‘an anti-glamour building.’” This is the inadequate assistance the new school not a value connected to aesthetics or practicality received. The noise pollution inside the building intrinsically since this architect feels, or was a returning topic however as was the dust the experiences, the building as having the building produced and the difficult climate control. characteristic that is contradictory to glamourous Nonetheless ‘t Karregat managed to perform an edifices. For him this particular value is decisive important role in the lives of the community as a when it comes to preservation: it should not meeting place. During this controversy peak glass happen. walls were built however and during the second During the first controversy peak the practical and alteration around 1990 the entrances were faced technical value claims dominate the debate. These outwards, destroying the essence of the place. value claims however can be read differently or The second controversy peak took place from 2008 rewritten in order to form a more moral/ethical to 2014. This peak is one of the most remarkable value phrase. Practical of technical things like maybe of all the discussions treated here as there legroom or acoustics can be used to back the was a general consensus on the preservation of the perspective that the MCV should be demolished: ‘it building. Similar value claims can be distinguished would be good/bad for the MCV to be demolished as during the first peak, but in the end these were because of the legroom/acoustics.’ It is almost predominantly about what to place inside the never this oversimplified, but in the end the building. The building has become a part of the accumulative worth of the value claims come down community from the point of view of the to this. They constitute a front against or for an inhabitants and from the point of view of the alteration of the object. municipality. The winning idea for the final The second controversy peak that comes to the overhaul of the centre has a central issue to return fore is the unicity and the corresponding special the building as much as possible to its original state features of the building. Vredenburg became a whilst giving it as much functionality as possible. central feature of the referendum about the city centre of Utrecht since in one scenario it would be
45
moved and in the other it would stay in place. It estimated there will not be a project at all. meant the MCV became a central point in the Similarly the administrative value can be related as referendum although it would otherwise be less when on an administrative level (in this case Tivoli significant. It also meant that value claims about wanted to have another managerial model) the the fame of Vredenburg as well as the unicity were concept of the space is incongruent with the more prominent during this controversy peak. required administration there will be no project. When the referendum was held the MCV could remain in the same space and there were claims on This paper starts with the question of ‘power to the adaptability of the centre. the people?’ It should be read as a question relating to whether expert value assessments The third controversy peak peaked in 2009 but was should be more focused on adaptive reuse as a already shaped in the preceding years. This debate method of preservation. Keeping in mind the many took place within the realm of city politics and had values that have been distinguished in the mainly financial and administrative value claims. enclosures and the part that has been further Later a neighbourhood committee formed against analysed in the paper, a more societally influenced the new ‘music palace’ because it would be too preservation practice could most certainly become high. The financial and administrative claims are a reality. less relatable as value claims, but they are nonetheless certain values of the overhaul. If there is less financial value given to the project than
46
BIBLIOGRAPHY
LITERATURE
‘Masterplan Stationsgebied’ (2003). Gemeente Utrecht: Projectorganisatie Stationsgebied. 19. URL:
Brochure by Architecten|En|En: Nog steeds niet af. Restauratie en renovatie van ’t Karregat in Eindhoven. (2010).
Nationaal Onderzoek Media, URL:
Blackburn, S. (2008, 2016). ‘Utilitarianism’. The oxford dictionary of philosophy (2 rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bergen, M. van den, Vollaard, P. (2001) ‘De grootste huiskamer van Nederland. Frank van Klingerens ’t Karregat in Eindhoven, 1970-1973.’ Oase 57
Bergen, M. van den., Vollaard, P. (2003). Hinder en ontklontering. Architectuur en maatschappij in het werk van Frank van Kingeren. Nai010 Publishers.
Blom, A., Vermaat, S., Vries, B. de. (2017). Post-War Reconstruction in the Netherlands 1945-1965. The future of bright and brutal heritage. Nai010 Uitgevers.
Carpo. M. (2007). ‘The postmodern cult of monuments.’ Future Anterior: Journal of historic preservation, history, theory and criticism 4:2. 50-60.
Emstede, C.I.C. (2015). Waardestellingen in de Nederlandse monumentenzorg 1981-2009. Delft.
Forty, A. (2000). Words and Buildings. A vocabulary of modern architecture. Thames and Hudson.
Hertzberger, H., et al. (2013). The future of architecture. Rotterdam: Nai010 Publishers.
Heuvel, W.J. van, (1992). Structuralisme in de Nederlandse architectuur. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010.
Lowenthal, D. (1998). ‘Fabricating Heritage’. History and Memory 10:1. 5-24.
Mason, R. (2006) ‘Theoretical and practical arguments for values-centered preservation’. CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship 3:2. URL:
Mekking, A., Ottenheym, K. (2007). Bouwen in Nederland. Uitgeverij Wbooks.
Riegl, A. (1903). ‘The modern cult of monuments: Its essence and its development.’ In Price, N.S., Kirby Talley, M., Melucco Vaccaro, A. (eds.) (1996). Historical and philosophical issues in the conservation of cultural heritage. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute. 69-83
Schroeder, M. (2016 Fall edition). ‘Introduction’. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Zalta, E.N. (ed.) URL:
Tillema, J.A.C. (1975). Schetsen uit de geschiedenis van de Nederlandse monumentenzorg. Den Haag: Staatsuigeverij ‘s Gravenhage.
47
Varga, S., Guignon, C. (2017). ‘Authenticity’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Zalta, E.N. (ed.), URL:
PRIMARY SOURCES
MEERPAAL ‘Architect vecht verbouwing van De Meerpaal in Dronten aan’. (20 August 1987). NRC.
‘De Meerpaal mag verbouwd worden’. (3 March 1988). Het Nieuwsblad van het Noorden.
‘Auteursrecht geldt niet voor architect’. (3 March 1988). Het Vrije Volk.
‘Project De Meerpaal uit de jaren ’60 mislukt’. (8 March 1988). NRC.
‘Rechter staat verbouwing Meerpaal toe’. (3 March 1988). NRC.
‘Architect verlangt verbod verbouwing De Meerpaal’. (18 Febrary 1988). De Volkskrant.
‘Dronten mag van rechter Meerpaal verbouwen’. (3 March 1988). De Volkskrant
‘Architect verliest geding; verbouwing De Meerpaal mag’. (3 March 1988). De Volkskrant.
‘Auteurswet niet eenduidig over rechten en plichten voor ontwerper en opdrachtgever [sic] Van wie is deze zuil?’ (5 December 1996). Cobouw URL: https://www.cobouw.nl/bouwbreed/nieuws/1996/12/auteurswet- niet-eenduidig-over-rechten-en-plichten-voor-ontwerper-en-opdrachtgever-van-wie-is-deze-zuil-101129848 (february 2018).
‘Raad Dronten stemt in met sloop Meerpaal’. (23 July 1999). NRC.
‘Protesten tegen sloop De Meerpaal’. (20 July 1999). NRC.
‘Nooit meer slopen’. (15 July 1999). NRC.
‘Sloop bedreigt “symbool van het jaar 2000”’. (7 October 1999). De Volkskrant.
‘Sloop van De Meerpaal was al begonnen’. (22 July 1999). De Volkskrant.
‘Sloop van De Meerpaal was al begonnen’. (22 July 1999). De Volkskrant
‘Sloop bedreigt “symbool van het jaar 2000”; Architectuur’. (10 July 1999). De Volkskrant
‘Nooit de beoogde magie gekregen’. (31 July 1999). Elsevier
‘Niet meer te volgen met die Meerpaal’. (21 February 2004). Stentor/Dagblad Flevoland.
‘Niet meer te volgen met die Meerpaal’. (21 February 2004). Stentor/Dagblad Flevoland.
Muziekpaleis wordt bijzonder’. (11 March 2010). Bouwpututrecht.nl. URL:
‘De Meerpaal blijft mogelijk toch behouden’. (07 September 1999). Trouw.
‘Deel Meerpaal ontsnapt mogelijk aan sloop’. (22 October 1999). Algemeen Dagblad.
48
‘Het verdriet van De Meerpaal; De jaren zestig in Dronten zijn voorgoed voorbij. (31 July 1999). Algemeen Dagblad
‘T KARREGAT ‘Inspecteurs keuren scholen in dienstencentrum Eindhoven af’. (15 December 1976). Nederlands Dagblad
‘Een gebouw dat uitnodigt tot onrust’. (9 March 1977). De Volkskrant.
‘Overlast door open ruimte maakt einde aan experiment ’t Karregat’. (20 March 1981). NRC.
‘Verslag renovatie wijkcentrum Het Karregat’. (26 November 1991). Eindhovens Dagblad.
‘Karregat volledig in bezit van de gemeente’. (21 July 2009). Eindhovens Dagblad.
‘’t Karregat krijgt grote opknapbeurt’. (3 February 2009). Eindhovens Dagblad.
‘Doods Karregat gereïncarneerd’. (3 December 2010). Eindhovens Dagblad.
‘’t Karregat mag karakteristieke parapludak houden’. (27 Feburary 2010). Eindhovens Dagblad.
‘De harde lessen van een extreem experiment’. (2 August 2011). Eindhovens Dagblad.
‘Renovatie Karregat kost 13,5 miljoen euro’. (2 August 2011). Eindhovens Dagblad.
‘Karregat: mislukking of experiment?’. (2 April 2012). Eindhovens Dagblad.
‘Vandalen gooien ruiten Karregat eindhoven in’. (22 february 2012). Eindhovens Dagblad.
‘Commerciële deel Karregat later ontwikkeld’. (29 March 2013). Eindhovens Dagblad.
VREDENBURG ‘Krakers bezetten Tivoli’. (27 January 1979). NRC.
‘Architect Hertzberger weerlegt kritiek: Muziekcentrum is nooit af.’ (25 January 1979). De Volkskrant.
‘Nieuw Utrechts muziekcentrum in gebruik genomen’. (27 January 1979). De Telegraaf.
‘Beatrix opent nieuw muziekcentrum’. (27 January 1979). De Telegraaf.
‘Straks zwaait hier de sloopbal’ (11 March 1999). De Volkskrant.
‘Redt Vredenburg van de sloop.’ (4 May 2002). NRC.
‘Prominenten op de bres voor Vredenburg’ (14 May 2002). Leeuwarder Courant.
Van de grote zaal moeten ze afblijven; architectuur.’ (22 March 2002). Trouw.
‘Cees Freriks: Vredenburg achter de schermen.’ (15 November 2003). De Volkskrant
‘Het bokspaleis met de gloeiende sfeer. Schepping van Hertzberger roept alleen uitgesproken reacties op’. (15 November 2003). De Volkskrant.
49
‘Als het maar geen ratjetoe wordt; Architect Hertzberger ontwerpt Muziekpaleis.’ (15 November 2003). De Volkskrant.
‘Plannen Muziekpaleis financieel haalbaar.’ (19 May 2004). 3voor12 VPRO. URL: https://3voor12.vpro.nl/lokaal/utrecht/artikelen/overzicht/2004/mei/plannen-muziekpaleis-financieel- haalbaar.html (January 2018).
‘Plan muziekpaleis vrij goed ontvangen.’ (15 March 2004). Utrechts Nieuwsblad.
‘Muziekpaleis van twee kanten onder vuur.’ (14 December 2009). Het Utrechts Nieuwsblad.
‘Brief aan de Utrechtse gemeenteraad.’ (5 June 2009).
‘Brief aan de gemeenteraad over samenwerking Muziekpaleis.’ (15 December 2009).
‘Vergadering gemeenteraad Utrecht.’ (Afternoon 17 December 2009).
‘Dossier Vredenburg’ (2009-4). Binnenstadkrant Utrecht. 3.
‘Smids: Muziekpaleis wordt bijzonder’. (2010). Bouwpututrecht.nl URL:
‘Van Rossem vertelt: het stationsgebied 15 jaar na het referendum.’ (10 May 2017). RTVUtrecht. URL:
50