Power to the people? An inquiry into the multiplicity of societal values of post-'65, structuralistic architecture.

(1)

1

POWER TO THE PEOPLE?

AN INQUIRY INTO THE MULTIPLICITY OF SOCIETAL VALUES OF POST-’65, STRUCTURALISTIC ARCHITECTURE

(2)

2 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

(3)

3

INTRODUCTION

During an internship at heritage organisation

Heemschut I was asked to write a policy advice on

how to treat Dutch architecture from after 1965. This set of architecture did not yet appeal to their members in general, or at least it appealed less to them than older structures. To me the policy advice was not satisfying on an academic level as I managed to locate the problematic of the

appreciation of post-’65 architecture, but not why this was so. It became the reason to start this research, as an inquiry into societal values of post-’65 architecture. Consequently the question of ‘how does society evaluate these structures’ appeared. It became clear that there are many reasons and ways for people to do this which brought up the main inquiry of this research: ‘How can value claims within public debate on post-Reconstruction architecture be implemented as a societal component in value assessments?’ PRESERVATION PRACTICE

The past we preserve for ourselves and future generations when we fabricate heritage.1_{To forge}

history so that it strengthens a dominant narrative, or so that it influences memory, is a common practice. Crucial to fabricating a dominant past is to monumentalise objects since they can be used for this purpose. The practice of ‘monumentalising’ is an important tool for the heritageisation of the past. With monumentalising I mean ‘the act of making a building or a complex a monument’. A building that has become a monument is

safeguarded from harm and thus preserved for the future (given it is taken care of by the owner and monitored well enough). Furthermore it has gained a judicial status due to a high ranking on the basis of cultural, historical, architectural and contextual values. Its ‘monumentality’ – the quality of being a monument – that was already set in stone has now been recorded and written down. Making a building a monument is an explainable practice that fits within the creation of narratives and it is

1_{Lowenthal, D. (1998). ‘Fabricating heritage’. History and} Memory 10:1. 5-24.

common in the Netherlands since the beginning of the 20th_century.

Monument care in the Netherlands was organised nationally for the first time in 1899 with the foundation of the Nederlandse Oudheidkundige

Bond (Dutch Archaeological Association – later it

would receive the predicate Koninklijk (‘Royal’).2

The association focused on better legislature for monuments as well as the preservation of them through better restoration. Next to the built environment, nature in the Netherlands would receive a lobby group as well in 1905, called the

Vereniging tot het Behoud van Natuurmonumenten

(‘Association for the Preservation of Natural Monuments’) that initially bought areas with valuable nature. During the beginning of the 19th century additional organizations were founded that challenged the decay of the valuable natural and cultural environment such as Heemschut (1911), that took on a role as heritage platform, and Vereniging Hendrick de Keijser (Association Hendrick de Keyser, 1918) that had a more hands-on approach when it came to built heritage. The differing approaches towards safeguarding the past, of these monument organisations, signal that each considers different values. For the KNOB restoration is an aim and thus the question of how far restoration can go in terms of originality. Heemschut tries to act as a platform for other organisations and stresses education as well as campaigning for heritage; they focus more on the political side of heritage. Hendrick de Keyser saw the financial opportunity of maintaining older architecture (and as of recent newer as well). These organisations and their members are in essence driven by the following questions: why are these building valuable and how does this value come into being?

POST-1965 ARCHITECTU RE

After World War II, in the Netherlands, mainly the old cities lay in ruins and the Government initiated the reconstruction of its damaged industry, cities

2_{There were already associations of architects concerned with}

preserving architecture that fell in the category of ‘art’ in the nineteenth century however.

(5)

5 and villages, making use of Marshall Plan.3_From

1945 to about 1965 the Netherlands were mostly looking at the number of buildings they could construct with as little resources as possible. 1965 Then can be seen as a turning point from

quantitative to qualitative reconstruction and besides as a period with a more free approach towards architecture. Dutch post-Reconstruction architecture has this built environment as its scope.

In this paper the assumption is that post-’65 architecture is not logically valuable, because the structures have not aged and lack a certain monumental air. I assume here that the age of structures is decisive because it implies the structure is ‘part of history’ or ‘a crucial part of the heritage’. Psychologically people weigh the values of for example age, condition, history and narrative against each other when they consider structures. They see a structure and process for themselves what is the best value to evaluate it with, be it consciously or unconsciously. When the argument of age becomes vague or even disappears other values come to the fore and these, I argue, are composed within the social debate on the structure, hence the approach of this paper. Combined, the kind of architecture that makes up 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}

3_{About the Reconstruction J.A. Bosma says: The Reconstruction}

can be seen as a full-scale operation, managed by the state. Its main aim was to construct residential buildings on an industrial scale and to implement a new urban appearance. Mekking, A., Ottenheym, K. (2007). Bouwen in Nederland. Uitgeverij Wbooks. 601.

4_{See: The Cultural Heritage Agency has published a guideline in}

2009, but assessments nationwide seem not to have been standardised entirely. The historian then writes a value

of fifty years has been dropped for buildings to become eligible as monument. Furthermore there are initiatives to look at dynamic and in-between models of assessing that focus on the use of buildings whilst preserving. These models are more and more from a societal perspective since the ‘bell jar’ method has become less tenable.5_The

method of keeping everything exactly as it was, with little room for adjustments, works against the functionality of the building. In response to this lack of adaptability and by working from with a more societally influenced evaluating model this paper looks at the possibility to complement on expert value assessments.

In order to add a societal constituent to expert value assessments, the public debate about three buildings from this period is analysed. These case studies are examples of the architecture from 1965 onwards in the Netherlands. They have been the subject of substantial debate when ideas of altering the buildings were proposed. In this public debate different points of view on why these buildings were eligible to preserve or demolish came to the fore and those are categorised and analysed further. The multiplicity of how people value architecture is the most striking result of this research and it shows that it is not something to discard easily.

assessment of the building that treats the following key points: general historical values, ensemble values, architectural-historical values, buildings archaeological values, values on the basis of the history of use (related to the object of study).

5_{Het Gelders Genootschap for example exmperiments with}

dynamic preservation:

<https://www.geldersgenootschap.nl/wat-wij- doen/herbestemming-en-transformatie-/dynamische-waardestelling.aspx>.

(6)

6

METHODOLOGY

In order to find a societal constituent, or a ‘voice from the community’, one needs sources that concern for the most part descriptions of society. The regular reports of newspapers provide adequate source material for this purpose. These newspapers are not the only possible sources as online magazines have written on the discussion, or have contributed to it, as well. In general one could say the media are used as a source in this paper, but five ‘major’ newspapers called De

Telegraaf, Algemeen Dagblad (AD), De Volkskrant, NRC Handelsblad, and Trouw, are mainly

represented.6_{In addition to these major}

newspapers some ‘regional/local’ or ‘minor’ sources are utilized that give some more directed information.

As already mentioned the newspaper articles serve as a mouthpiece for the popular voice related to the overhaul of the case studies. The sources have been selected accordingly, so they treat the overhauls entirely or at least partly. The relation to the overhauls differs per value claim as some assertions stand further away than others. Who exactly produced the claim is secondary to the aspects of the claim that it relates to the overhaul of the building and that it is a claim about a characteristic of the building. Nevertheless, to organise the source material, divisions have been made between national, local and digital media, and political sources.

The sources then are related to the alterations of the case studies and contain utterances that treat characteristics of the building. They attribute a certain value to the building and in doing so contribute to the general opinion of altering the building. As the value claims do not all express the relation to the alteration directly, some assertions stand further from it but remain usable

nonetheless. Since these different sections are diverse, and in order to conduct quantitative

6_{These newspapers can be seen as ‘major’ because of the}

amount of prints, ranging from about 400.000 (Telegraaf) to 100.000 (Trouw): Nationiaal Onderzoek Media, URL:

https://dundasbi.reports.nl/NOM/Dashboard/Dashboard?guidi nput=be0ecb7e-d7f9-4973-bcdd-08f3d91fdbe0.

7_{As put forward already by David Hume (1777) and underlined}

by the Venice (1964) and Athens Charters (1931): Mason, R.

research, these phrases have been labelled according to the intention of the value claim, they have been attributed a ‘theme’ if you will. To further confine the diversity of the source material, the regular claims function as label-group in which comparable claims can be clustered. Clustering improves how the labels can be used in analysis and functions as a rectification of ‘unnecessary labels’. The specific feature of these labels makes them useful, but they can function in a larger set. The most appearing clusters of labels have consequently been clarified in the respective paragraphs about the case studies. They have been grouped according to ‘controversy peaks’. These peaks are periods in which a public debate was present on an alteration of the case study in question. During these periods an intensification of the controversy between opponents and

proponents occurs. These periods are based on the building history and/or contextual influences, combined with the amount of hits from search engines such as Delpher and Lexis Nexis Academic. When selected, the most appearing claims and their cluster are treated in detail. The relation between claim and label is explained as is the amount of occurrences. Furthermore a more abstract approach is presented, exploring the more in depth meaning of the claims. This abstraction is made using three theories of Aloïs Riegl, Randall Mason and Mark Schroeder. Riegl is predominantly used because of his theory on the multiplicity of values.7_{Mason provides a recent look on}

values-centred preservation and he provides the idea of characteristic values as opposed to more abstract notions of value. Schroeder’s entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy theorises important aspects of these more abstract appearances of ‘value’. More on this in the theoretical framework below.

The following example of selecting value claims is from the case study Music Centre Vredenburg

(2006) ‘Theoretical and practical arguments for values-centered preservation’. CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship 3:2. URL:

<https://home.nps.gov/CRMJournal/Summer2006/view2.html> .

(7)

7 (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}

Hertzberger roept alleen uitgesproken reacties op.’ (15 November 2003). De Volkskrant.

(8)

8

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK

The ideas on which this paper is constructed have deeper historical and philosophical roots. It is an addition to the discussion on how to preserve architecture in the Netherlands. Organized monument care in the Netherlands exists since the nineteenth century, the practice of value

assessments since the nineteen-eighties.10_It

resulted in the Richtlijnen bouwhistorisch

onderzoek: Lezen en analyseren van cultuurhistorisch erfgoed that suggests the

approach to evaluating the cultural-historical value of buildings.11_{In addition some directives have}

been published on historical interiors and architectural ensembles.12_{The cited Van Emstede}

describes how the use of value assessments hovered between an unbiased, academic report and a tool to support the design- and

development-practice. Consequently she poses the question of what function the experts that do these assessments and the Government should have in an increasingly democratised, Dutch preservation practice.13_{This question plays an}

important role in this research.

Historically there has been given attention to Dutch historical buildings from before World War II and already a lot has been done on the period after the War called the Reconstruction (1945-1965).14_{The even newer period after 1965 has no}

clear policy however. Some municipalities look ahead and have started appointing monuments, some do not. It means these buildings are socially not yet accepted as extraordinary and need an

10_{Emstede, C.I.C. (2015). Waardestellingen in de Nederlandse}

monumentenzorg 1981-2009. Delft. 24, 47-48. 11_{Ibid. 64.}

12_{Ibid. 66.} 13_{Ibid. 83.}

14_{See for example: 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.

15_{The categories of ‘The modern cult of monuments’, die}

Moderne Denkmalkultus, a concept developed by Aloïs Riegl in 1903, can be seen as the beginning of the practice of

monument care. “Riegl’s categories held sway throughout most of the twentieth century, and it appears that they often still do,

additional factor in their evaluation as modern monuments. 15_{The preservation practice in the}

Netherlands has a longer tradition of community-based participation within a system of checks and balances between the government and the heritage communities.16_{Philosophically this paper}

looks to find possibilities of expanding value assessments with societal contributions.17

Stemming from this preservation history are three assumptions that serve as a foundation of this research. The configuration of these assumptions can be summarised in the following sentence: The categorisation of value claims in public debate on liminal architecture as an addition to architectural, expert value assessments. Within the field of monument care there is always a set of architecture new enough to be overlooked. Although these buildings are not yet seen as monuments, one can add ‘preventive value’ to them by listening to society, by adding a societal constituent to existing value assessments. First, I assume that expert value assessments on post-Reconstruction architecture need an additional (societal) constituent; the second is the notion of ‘liminal architecture’ (a set of buildings that has not aged enough to become ‘logically

monumental’); the third is this logical

monumentality, that presumes a certain border when buildings become intrinsically monumental. To underline these assumptions and to reach a level of abstraction three theories will be explained down below. First is Mark Schroeders entry in the

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on value

theory (2016).18_{From this entry the general}

introduction to value theory will be expounded as will the paragraphs on utilitarianist and

albeit at times unknowingly and uncritically: Carpo. M. (2007). ‘The postmodern cult of monuments.’ Future anterior: Journal of historic preservation, history, theory and criticism 4:2. 50-60. 51.

16_{Emstede, C.I.C. van,. (2015). Waardestellingen in de}

Nederlandse monumentenzorg 1981-2009. Delft. 21-32

17_{Emstede mentions in this respect that the societal meaning of}

the monument should be stressed more in value assessments: Waardestellingen. 334. She does not however mention the implications for newer heritage, i.e: how should this meaning be included?

18_{For annotation I will use the headers instead of page} numbers. Since it is a digital document there are none.

(9)

9 consequentialist ideas on value. In addition the

paragraph on intrinsic/extrinsic value is important as is the paragraph on

incommensurability/incomparability. Second, is Aloïs Riegl’s work The modern cult of monuments (1903) and in particular the paragraphs on age-, historical-, and use value, as well as the distinction between deliberate and unintentional monuments. Furthermore Riegl’s stance on the multiplicity of values will be explained.19_{Third, Randall Mason’s}

article on values-centred preservation (2006) is used as a modern, corresponding look on Riegl’s multiplicity of values. The attribution of Mason will be the distinction between characteristic values and more abstract ones, as well as an elucidation of his values-centred approach of preservation.

SCHROEDER AND VALUE THEORY

Schroeder immediately makes the distinction between several ‘senses’ of value theory, namely a broad, narrow and useful sense of the theory. This last notion a field within moral philosophy that is concerned with “theoretical questions about value and goodness of all varieties.”20_{The broadest}

sense of value theory encompasses almost every field that has to evaluate anything, in contrast the narrowest sense is almost similar to axiology that classifies “which things are good, and how good they are.”21_{Thus, for this research value theory will}

remain in its broad and useful sense. In Schroeder’s entry two views on value are apparent in the form of consequentialism and utilitarianism. On consequentialism Schroeder says it “is the view that you ought to do whatever action is such that things would be best if you did it.”22_{It means the consequence of the thing you do}

is most important. When explaining moral theory on intrinsic value consequentialist can hold a value-first theory of states of affairs (instead of a good-first theory). Then states of affairs become good or bad according to the amount of value in

19_{As brought forward in Randall Mason’s article (2006).}

20_{Schroeder, M. (2016 Fall edition). ‘Introduction’. Stanford} Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Zalta, E.N. (ed.) URL:

<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/value-theory/>.

21_Ibid.

22_{Schroeder, ‘Varieties of goodness’.}

them. For consequentialists it is not necessary to hold intrinsic value of states of affairs however since these are not collectable, whereas pleasure or knowledge is.23_{It means you can have more of}

these last two and thus increase their value if they would have intrinsic value.

According to classical consequentialism, or ‘agent-neutral consequentialism’, “every agent ought always to do whatever action, out of all of the actions available to her at that time, is the one such that if she did it, would be best.”24_{It is similar}

to the explanation of consequentialism above, only that an agent is explicitly involved and the

explanation is more restrictive (‘always’).

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 they lead to.”25

It follows that the consequentialism of which Schroeder speaks is a very abstract field that concerns itself with obtaining the most good in actions or states of affairs. Moreover

consequentialism sees the ‘good’ of things in the consequence it brings about. The above stated are examples of how consequentialist theories think of value and how they explain the value attributed to the different situations described. In this research a somewhat adjusted, and straightforward version of consequentialist value is used: ‘the value in question is important of what it causes, rather than what is has (intrinsically) as value’.

Traditional utilitarianism is a form of

consequentialism that holds the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good.26_{As such, in its traditional form,}

utilitarianism stresses the utility of the action and the happiness (often described as welfare or well-being) that can be achieved by the action. As with consequentialism the value of the action, the goodness of the action, lies in the consequence

23_{Schroeder, ‘What is the intrinsic/instrumental distinction} among?’

24_{Schroeder, ‘Classical consequentialism’.} 25_Ibid.

26_{See: Blackburn, S. (2008, 2016). ‘Utilitarianism’. The oxford} dictionary of philosophy (2 rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

(10)

10 rather than in the action itself. As will be clear in

the individual paragraphs, many value claims have constructions of this kind. Again an adjusted and more straightforward version of utilitarianism is used.

An important question to ask oneself when treating the value of anything is whether the value is intrinsic or ‘instrumental’. Some things are good because they “lead to other things”, as does for example money.27_{More in general one could ask}

the question if something is valuable because it is, or because it is a means to other things. This intrinsic/instrumental divide can also be the case in architectural value.

Counting this distinction there are four different ways of interpreting value, none of which are definitive in their reasoning. First, there is the consequentialist view on value that holds the best result is the reason to go for that action. Then the utilitarian version of this reasoning stresses the morally right action that would bring the most happiness, making the action useful. Furthermore there is the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value by which values can become ‘secondary’ as opposed to intrinsic; they become a ‘means to’. These distinction describe what value is about related to the carrier of it.28

About incomparability Schroeder gives an

interesting example where he compares Mozart to Salieri and Rodin: Rodin is a better artist than Salieri (not, compared to Mozart), although Salieri, like Mozart, is a better composer than Rodin. Value pluralist would solve this riddle by pointing out that Rodin has more value as a sculptor and Mozart and Salieri as composers, but intuitively Rodin is a better artist (as sculptor) than Salieri (the composer), while the comparison Rodin-Mozart does not have that intuitive ease.29_The

question of whether values are comparable is a very relevant one as this research builds on many different claims of value.

27_{Schroeder, ‘What is intrinsic value’.}

28_{To be sure, Schroeder’s entry speaks predominantly of ‘good’}

when treating these issues, rather than of other values. There is no one-on-one relation with architectural values, but for the

ALOÏS RIEGL, AGE -, HISTORICAL-, AND USE-VALUE

Next to the philosophical depth obtained from Schroeder’s value theory much of the practical elaboration on the value claims has been done using Aloïs Riegl’s Modern cult of monuments (1903). The following passage is a summary of the most important points he makes, based on a translation from 1996, an article by Thordis Arrhenius: The cult of age in mass-society: Alois

Riegl’s theory of conservation (2004), and Schetsen uit de monumentenzorg from J.A.C. Tillema (1975).

Alois Riegl wrote the book Der moderne

Denkmalkultus in 1903 as a response to the culture

of restoration in the monument world that tended to restore in style rather than along original blueprints. His perseverance led to the acceptance of a restoration practice that advocated

conservation instead of rebuilding according to leading styles. Many monuments fell victim to this practice in the 19th_{century. The current approach}

regarding monuments in the Netherlands has its roots in Riegl’s publication from the beginning of the 20th_{century. His book and the discussion in}

Austria and Germany led to the publication of the

Grondbeginselen en voorschriften voor het behoud, de herstelling en de uitbreiding van oude

bouwwerken (1917). The authors were member of

the Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond (NOB) and strong supporters of law-making on monuments who were active since the late 1800s.

Riegl distinguished two kinds of value regarding monuments and their restoration: Errinerungswert and Gegenwartswert, or ‘memory-value’ and ‘contemporary-value’. These values separate the past from the present and acknowledge that not all values we attribute to buildings are historically influenced. The commemorative value is then subdivided into Alteswert, Historische Wert, and

Gewollte Erinnerungswert (‘age-value’,

‘historical-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 different possibilities nonetheless.

29_{Schroeder, ‘What happens when there is weak}

(11)

11 according to Riegl, can exist without cover-up – ,

the relative historical value, and the feelings of nostalgia people have when buildings crumble or disappear completely. The contemporary value has as subdivisions the Gebrauchswert and the

Kunstwert (‘functional-value’ and ‘art-value’),

implicating that functionality and artistic features form the field in which contemporaries move. The last division is that of art value into Neuheitswert and Relatieve Kunstwert (‘novelty-value’ and ‘relative art-value’), a division which gives, again, a contemporary and a historical aspect to the value.30

The part most used from Riegl’s theory are the age-, historical-, and use-value which he describes as follows. “Age-value is revealed in imperfection, a lack of completeness, a tendency to dissolve shape and colour, characteristics that are in complete contrast with those of modern, i.e., newly created works.”31_{Age-value is the amount}

of corrosion that a building undergoes, he explains, an how we find this particularly appealing. “The

Historical-value of a monument is based on the

very specific yet individual stage the monument represents in the development of human creation in a particular field.”32_{This kind of value is}

represented in all three case studies as they are extraordinary in the architectural field. Use-value then is the possibility of using a monument so it can subsist rather than decay completely. To Riegl age-, and historical-value are two worlds in the preservation field that antagonise: “The difference in interpretation between age value and historical value is most striking whenever

questions arise as to the most suitable treatment of a monument by the standards of historical value. Prior disintegration by the forces of nature cannot be undone and should, therefore, not be removed even from the point of view of historical

30_{Tillema, J.A.C. (1975). Schetsen uit de geschiedenis van de} Nederlandse monumentenzorg. Den Haag: Staatsuigeverij ‘s Gravenhage. 118-119.

31_{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. 73.

32_{Ibid. 75.} 33_{Ibid. 75-76.}

value. However, further disintegration form the

present day into the future, as age value not only tolerates but even postulates, is , from the

standpoint of historical value, not only pointless

but simply to be avoided, since any further disintegration hinders the scientific restoration of the original state of a work of man.”33_{Add to that}

the use-value that has to overcome the restraints of both the other values.

RANDALL MASON

A third main article I use for this paper is the theory of Randall Mason about values-centred approach to preservation. In particular his conceptual differentiation of different kinds of values related to preservation. He starts from Riegl’s theory and works with Stuart Hall’s cultural studies as well as the Athens, Venice, and Burra Charters (1931, 1964, 1979/2013). From his theory the differentiation between characteristic values and more abstract values can be used as a contemporary view on preservation that is based on values.

Mason sees that heritage is a product that is valued by many, in various ways.34_{To him}

“participation – acknowledged widely as one of the urgent needs in contemporary preservation practice – is part and parcel of the values-centred model of preservation.”35_{Riegl signifies for him the}

beginning of a more extensive preservation practice in which the multiplicity of values is “more encompassing, sprawling, and complex.”36

In Mason’s eyes values are not fixed, but they “are in some respect situational, and change over time.”37_{This explains the diversity of value claims}

in this research and it complements on the vision of culture ‘as a process’ rather than a ‘set of things’.38_{Mason then states how his idea of}

values-34_{Mason, R. (2006). ‘Theoretical and practical arguments for a}

values-centered preservation; Culture as a process’. The Journal of Heritage Stewardship 3:2. URL:

<https://home.nps.gov/CRMJournal/Summer2006/view2.html> .

35_{Mason, ‘Culture as a process’.} 36_Ibid.

37_{Mason, ‘Theory in practice’.} 38_Ibid.

(12)

12 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.

40_Ibid.

41_{Ibid. See the parapgraph on Schroeder with a short}

(13)

13

CASE STUDIES

It is of importance to underline the existence of societal engagement in post-’65 architecture. In this paragraph three case studies serve as examples of societal value claims. They are selected because they were well-known as of their completion, but they were subjected to substantial alterations later on. Furthermore these case studies were public buildings making them part of society. First is Agora De Meerpaal, a

multifunctional centre constructed in 1967 in Dronten. Second is Multifunctional Centre ‘t Karregat in Eindhoven, in Eindhoven.42_{Both these}

buildings were designed by Frank van Klingeren. The third case study is Music Centre Vredenburg, constructed in 1979 in Utrecht and designed by architect Herman Hertzberger

42_{For an extensive report on this building see the architectural} journal BOUW edition 28 from 1973.

The case studies are selected because of the extensive debates that related to their alterations. De Meerpaal, ‘t Karregat and Vredenburg can be seen as liminal architecture since their short lifespans have not given them logical

monumentality in the eyes of society. It means for passers-by the buildings have not aged enough to be included in their set of monumental

architecture. It follows that alterations of these objects is debated differently than with obvious monuments since other values are brought up for discussion. The controversies that revolve around the individual case studies and their alterations peak during several periods and vibrate differently. Below the individual controversy peaks are further elaborated.

The case studies are, as can be argued, products of Dutch structuralistic architecture. It was a

(14)

14 philosophy that aimed at building for people again.

It should arouse “the feeling that you are somebody living somewhere.”43_The

straightforward way of building by the Modern movement was countered with simple use of existing structures. Hertzberger made an example with matchboxes that he arranged in different fashions so as to create a rich diversity of possible configurations (figure 1), hence the name

‘structuralism’.44_{Hertzberger was an influential}

proponent of structuralism. Architecture was not for the sake of the aesthetics, but for what gave it purpose:45_{“architecture is not art, it demands}

social and political awareness.”46_{The inhabitants}

give the walls purpose and not the architect, he proclaimed.

It was this climate of transcending paradigms of society, accentuated by structuralism, in which Frank van Klingeren developed his ideas on architecture.47_{Where Dutch architectural}

structuralism was a move towards the human scale, Van Klingeren’s work concentrated on bringing together society, on creating community, and on ‘hindering’ community. He saw that the Netherlands had separated groups of people that kept to themselves. These groups had their own sporting clubs, churches, hobbies, and political parties that avoided one another as much as possible. For example, a source of irritation for Van Klingeren was the assignment he received for a clubhouse for which the principal requested separate recreation rooms for the individual groups that would use the building. These societal groups, with differing philosophies, could allegedly not be in the same room which struck Van

Klingeren’s idea of hindering.48_{It amazed Van}

Klingeren how Dutch society was segregated and it

43_{Heuvel, W.J. van, (1992). Structuralisme in de Nederlandse}

architectuur. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. 13.

44_{Ibid. Figure 1 source: Het Nieuwe Instituut, object number}

‘MAQV556’.

45_{Frank van Klingeren had the same functionalist interpretation}

of his work, although he was convinced the building corresponded as a shell with its tenants who could insert any function possible. This minimalist-functionalistic approach to architecture stands next to Herzberger’s implementation of architecture for the people, and the creed ‘form follows function.’

46_{Hertzberger, H., et al. (2013). The future of architecture.} Rotterdam: Nai010 Publishers. 10.

became one of his main architectural features to combat this.49

Van Klingeren’s most important addition to Dutch architecture however was the zenith of this de-segregating ideology: the agora design.50

Multifunctional Centre De Meerpaal and ‘t Karregat were two agorae designed by Van Klingeren in Dronten and Eindhoven. Both were consecutively erected in 1967 and 1973. They are still in use albeit in deeply changed formats. In 2005 De Meerpaal underwent a drastic renovation resulting in only the collective space and

surrounding egg-shaped structure to remain; the function was kept the same however, a place where interaction on a cultural level was premised. ‘t Karregat was one of the most successful versions of the multifunctional centres that Van Klingeren designed and it was used intensively during its existence. Soon though, it became clear that the open character of the complex was problematic – the schools had no walls and its output became a cacophony that overshadowed the other dwellers. Connected spaces were thus closed off in order for people to have more seclusion.

Van Klingeren did encourage a transitive character of constructions and designed his products in this fashion. Both De Meerpaal and ‘t Karregat were ‘unfinished when finished’ so the occupants could reconfigure the setting of the interior according to their needs. Van Klingeren’s architectural career began with him being an engineer, a capacity that brought him his practical approach.51_His

philosophy consequently was composed of technical themes rather than the modernist, architectural creed of form, space, design, order and structure.52_{Furthermore his approach to}

architectural development was similar to that of

47_{Heuvel. Structuralisme. 134: ’t Karregat is incorporated in a} handbook for structuralism as a building that creates community, De Meerpaal is mentioned.

48_{Bergen, M. van den., Vollaard, P. (2003). Hinder en} ontklontering. Architectuur en maatschappij in het werk van Frank van Kingeren. Nai010 Publishers. 66-67.

49_Ibid. 50_Ibid. 51_{Ibid. 64-65.}

52_{Forty, A. (2000). Words and buildings. A vocabulary of modern}

(15)

15 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.}

(16)

16 AGORA DE MEERPAAL IN DRONTEN

LIMINAL AGORA DE MEERPAAL

De Meerpaal in Dronten is the oldest case study that is treated in this paper as it was erected in 1967.54_{Logically the building was kept from}

refurbishment for a long time, because, as with all three cases, the spirit of the times was crucial to the subsistence of the buildings that were erected from a resolute ideology. It took the sixties, the seventies and an additional seven years for Dronten to start thinking about renovation. As of 1987 we can assume De Meerpaal to be in its liminal phase as the building entered a field of tension between newness, historical worth and approaching demolition.

The original design of De Meerpaal even outlived that of ‘t Karregat which was rebuilt for the first

54_{Agora ’t Karregat was completed in 1973 and Music Centre}

Vredenburg in 1979.

55_{Bergen, M. van den, Vollaard, P. (2001) ‘De grootste}

huiskamer van Nederland. Frank van Klingerens ’t Karregat in Eindhoven, 1970-1973.’ Oase 57. 70.

56_{The then chief government architect, Wytze Patyn,}

emphasised multiple times the cultural historical value of De Meerpaal. This of course being a more classical approach to assessing values of architecture, but it shows how De Meerpaal had ‘landed’ as an architecturally valuable and aged building.

time during the late seventies only four years after its completion.55_{Whereas architect Frank van}

Klingeren did not institute legal proceedings in the 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 some form of ruin.57_{It could be said that an}

ideological ruin was caused by the first renovations in 1988 making the inside fit for use again, but smothering the idea of Van Klingeren of an open space that could be subdivided in a large number of possibilities.

During the end of the eighties it seemed that only the architect protested the drastic changes that would be made to the building as he started legal proceedings by appealing to the author law. Its seemed as though the idea of an ideological murder became apparent in the Netherlands only twenty years later when the same problems acted up, but now with a severely aged construction as well.58_{The judge eventually agreed on the}

monumentality of the place, but put heavier

See: ‘Raad Dronten stemt in met sloop Meerpaal’. (23 July 1999). NRC.

57_{From 2000 onwards the Cultural Heritage Agency started}

researching architecture from the Dutch Reconstruction with so called ‘Categorical Reconstruction Reports’ (Categorische wederopbouw rapportages).

58_{See for example: ‘Protesten tegen sloop De Meerpaal’. (20}

July 1999). NRC.

‘Sloop bedreigt “symbool van het jaar 2000”’. (7 October 1999). De Volkskrant. More characteristic:

(17)

17 emphasis on the use, or the function, of the

building, ruling that Van Klingeren could not claim this right of authorship.

THE FLOW OF THE DEBA TE

Two main peaks in the debate concerning De Meerpaal can be distinguished. The first one peaks around 1988 when Van Klingeren goes to court to claim his right as an ‘author’ of the building. The planned alterations would in his eyes damage his reputation as an architect. It is noteworthy that in 1988 a colleague of Van Klingeren, Abe Bonnema, pressed charges against the municipality of Tietjerksradeel for altering the design of his building. He won the case since he warned the municipality beforehand not to cut back on climate control, which they did. In order to prevent the building for becoming too hot the tenants wanted to add awnings.59_{Bonnema and Van Klingeren}

were acquaintances and were most likely aware of each other’s endeavours.

During this first debate peak at the end of the 1980s it was mostly Van Klingeren who appeared in the news in defending his reputation. The opposition was mostly concerned with the economic feasibility of the centre and the unpracticality of Van Klingeren’s ‘nuisance-ideology’. When designing De Meerpaal (and ‘t

‘Sloop van De Meerpaal was al begonnen’. (22 July 1999). De Volkskrant.

59_{See: ‘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/auteurs

Karregat) he based the construction on the idea that the Dutch needed to bother each other for the social segregation to be reverted again. The inconvenience became too serious however and tenants complained about the noise, or worse, they stayed away.

It was this combination of an inconvenient, open design together with the practical lack of closed spaces which made De Meerpaal financially unstable. The prospect of an almost vacant, dominant structure in the city centre made the municipality consider an overhaul. In court it was the architect’s reputation (due to the unicity of his creation) against the unprofitability of the building that resulted from the particular design. The court ruled in favour of the municipality.

According to the judge the building had monumental value, mainly because of its reputation. However, the practical complaints of tenants, who expected different facilities (or at least secluded ones), was for the judge more important which resulted eventually in the alteration of this multifunctional centre. These practical complaints ensured a steady decline of De Meerpaal’s use and capital. For example possible tenants were deterred by the impossibility of the multifunctional centre to meet the full spectrum of requirements for a conference. De Meerpaal had enough space to play with, but it could not always offer fully to tenants what they wanted despite Van Klingeren’s ideological, flexible space. Unprofitability was the reason De Meerpaal had to be renovated. It would be the main argument during the first and the second debate peak, followed by practical, heritage, and legal claims. Van Klingeren settled his case against the first overhaul of De Meerpaal and passed away in 1999 before the decision was made to overhaul it a second time. Around the beginning of the new millennium there was no court case, but several prominent people stepped into the breach for the late architect.60_{The controversy raged more on a}

wet-niet-eenduidig-over-rechten-en-plichten-voor-ontwerper-en-opdrachtgever-van-wie-is-deze-zuil-101129848 (february 2018).

‘Nooit meer slopen’. (15 July 1999). NRC.

60_{For example his daughter Nora van Klingeren, Wytze Patijn}

(chief government architect), Jan Pronk (director of the Ministry Year National paper local paper total

1987 2 2 1988 11 2 13 1989 4 1 5 1999 17 17 2000 2 2 2003 5 5 2004 8 8 total: 36 16 52

Table 1 De Meerpaal has two clean controversy peaks around 1988 and 1999.

(18)

18 national level and within the architectural sphere

which meant a more academic approach to the appreciation of De Meerpaal, resulting in more arguments on heritage factors such as unicity of design and historical fame. Although on a national level people were concerned with the building, one inhabitant of Dronten asked: “What exactly is going on with De Meerpaal?”61

The most frequent appearing claims were those related to finance, in a broad sense. Not only was the owner and the municipality concerned about the profitability of the multifunctional centre, but people were also concerned on how much the overhaul would cost.62_{Concerning the financial}

claims there is a resemblance between the two controversy peaks in the fact that both treat the profitability of the centre. The difference between the two peaks however, or the addition during the second peak, is that the municipality was more closely looking at their budget, similar to the Utrecht municipality at the time.63

Practical labels appear to be applicable in the majority of the sources of every case study. It seems, deducing from the Dutch structuralist buildings here treated as case studies, that sixties and seventies architecture was ideologically difficult to reconcile with the tenants’ experiences. Either people could not find their way inside the building (in the case of Vredenburg), or they were complaining about the (ideologically implemented) ‘bother’ they experienced from other tenants. Furthermore, when a conference was held, there were no closed of spaces to withdraw into. However, next to these practical complaints commentators on the case studies, and De Meerpaal in particular, were very practical about how the building was outdated. Practicality thus involves complaints about common obstacles as

of housing, spatial planning, and the environment), the Dutch Union of Architects, and H. Beunderman, the dean of the faculty of architecture of the university of Delft.

61_{‘Niet meer te volgen met die Meerpaal’. (21 February 2004).}

Stentor/Dagblad Flevoland.

62_{A B. van der Molen said 1988 that the overhaul is necessary}

as the building in its present state is not profitable and the yearly losses become higher over time: ‘De verbouwing is nodig, aldus Van der Molen namens de gemeente en De Meerpaal, omdat het gebouw in zijn huidige staat niet rendabel is en de jaarlijkse verliezen steeds hoger worden.’ In ‘Architect verlangt verbod verbouwing De Meerpaal’. (18 Febrary 1988). De

well as a matter-of-factly treatment of the approaching overhaul. The practical label in consequence has as sublabels utterances about the benefit, the ease, the use, and the function of the place.

Claims relating to heritage have under them a larger set of sublabels that are given more specific names but which fit underneath the umbrella of ‘heritage claims’. These claims were mostly prominent during the second peak in 1999, but were already mentioned in 1988 as well. In 1988 claims were made about the monumentality of the place with flowing from it a claim on ageing and on design. In 1999, with the abovementioned

additional polemic from amongst others Wytze Patijn, the discussion becomes more inclusive as it begins to incorporate claims on historical value, quality, vulnerability, comparability and authenticity.64

Next to financial, practical and heritage claims De Meerpaal had a substantial debate on legal issues. The variety within this set of claims is less

spectacular than for example above as it is the architect trying to stop the overhaul by appealing to his rights as an ‘author’ of the building. It is known that Frank van Klingeren was a talkative man who was not media-shy and thus the larger portion of legal claims are made by him, or are repetitions of his demands, or the court ruling in favour of the municipality. Van Klingeren accepted a compensation and did not pursue litigation as he suffered from reduced health. One mention of a legal kind is made by the then director of De Meerpaal in 1999 and it concerns the fact that at this point legal proceedings would probably be unsuccessful as the copyright had been bought of already eleven years earlier.

Volkskrant.

Another women proclaimed that she did not follow everything closely, but that she understood the costs had skyrocketed. ‘'Ik heb het allemaal niet zo gevolgd, maar ik heb wel begrepen dat de kosten de pan uit dreigen te rijzen.’ In ‘Niet meer te volgen met die Meerpaal’. (21 February 2004). De Stentor/Dagblad Flevoland.

63_{See the chapter on Music Centre Vredenburg.}

64_{The comparison being between De Meerpaal and ‘t Karregat –}

Van Klingeren’s other product. In ‘Architect vecht verbouwing van De Meerpaal in Dronten aan’. (20 August 1987). NRC.

(19)

19 1988, THE FIRST OVERHAUL

The first overhaul of De Meerpaal was deemed necessary since the building was not profitable anymore. One newspaper reported that by overhauling the centre the reported losses due to the disappointing exploitation of De Meerpaal, could be reduced.65_{In doing so it would keep the}

possibility to exist even. Another article speaks of the matter in a similar phrasing which hints that the story was reused.66_{his claim is what Mason}

calls a characteristic value as it signifies a superficial aspect of the object.67_{Within the}

object’s multiplicity of values this characteristic has social weight.68

Another article in the NRC writes more in depth about the alteration of De Meerpaal in stating that the municipality decided to heighten the walls as a measure to decrease inconvenience.69_{It would}

attract more tenants and thus improve the financial situation. The ‘coffee-cup sound’ is used as a measuring device for the amount of

disturbance that was experienced, similar to the situation in Music Centre Vredenburg where the spectators could see the buffet employees working during a show.70_{Heightened walls were thus}

essential to the survival of De Meerpaal in the eyes of the user.

When assessing values of public edifices, rather than of residential buildings, the possibility of survival is strongly connected to how the user completes the site. To Van Klingeren it was a lack of creativity that prevented De Meerpaal to be filled in properly without losing its original lay-out. He complained that although De Meerpaal functioned very well for over fifteen years it now had to be turned into a “money-making area”.71_He

relates an assertion of ideological nature (namely “an orthodox attack on creative life”)72_{to the}

financial aspect of the centre as a financially stable

65_{‘De Meerpaal mag verbouwd worden’. (3 March 1988). Het}

Nieuwsblad van het Noorden.

66_{‘Auteursrecht geldt niet voor architect’. (3 March 1988). Het}

Vrije Volk.

67_{Mason, R., (2006). ‘Theoretical and practical arguments for}

values-centered preservation.’ The Journal of Heritage Stewardship 3:2. URL:

https://www.nps.gov/crmjournal/Summer2006/view2.html 68_{Ibid: Mason}

construct. He furthermore implies that De Meerpaal was intended as a covered square and not (primarily) as something to earn money with. He goes on in questioning the attempt to

determine the profitability of something that is in essence a public space, comparing the space of De Meerpaal to other successful squares in Holland. It brings the question to the fore which value has more weight: a financial value emphasising that De Meerpaal is a commercial construct, meant to be profitable (which it had been for over fifteen years), or an ideological construct, meant as a covered square (which it still was at the time). What then is the most important part of the two value claims if taken apart? Assuming De Meerpaal is a commercial construct with the goal to gain profit. In that way the building becomes a carrier of functionality with an extrinsic aim. However if De Meerpaal is an ideological construct with the goal to ‘be what it is’, then the material building is not a carrier but the aim itself, a reflexive object. The architect’s complaints on the ideological ruin is an objection to the address of the broken material reflexivity of De Meerpaal as a consequence of the retargeted identity-union of the site towards utilitarian purposes. These adjustments reek of uncreative and uncalled for management according to Van Klingeren as opposed to the society-driven argumentation of the municipality that interprets De Meerpaal as something different in its essence; the reflexivity of the place is never perceived.

The heritage claims do not come to the fore as much as they do during the second peak. What does happen is the judge ruling in favour of the municipality in stating De Meerpaal has monumental value, but it also has its (more important) practical value as a multifunctional centre. It is remarkable that a judge, admitting the

69_{‘Project De Meerpaal uit de jaren ’60 mislukt’. (8 March}

1988). NRC.

70_{Ibid. & ‘Smids: Muziekpaleis wordt bijzonder’. (11 March} 2010). Bouwpututrecht.nl. URL:

http://www.bouwpututrecht.nl/2010/03/11/smids-muziekpaleis-wordt-bijzonder-2/ (February 2018).

71_{‘Architect vecht verbouwing van De Meerpaal in Dronten}

aan’. (20 August 1987). NRC.

(20)

20 cultural historical value of a place, or the

monumentality of it, still puts more emphasis on the (what Riegl called) use value. To Riegl this use value is so important it could even be compared to the weight of age value (or the extent to which the building is corroded).73_{To him, if a building is in}

use with the preservation of the monumental aspect, there is a safety net that prohibits it from swinging too far into corrosion and keeping the historical value intact. It is similar to the situation outlined in the paragraph on Music Centre Vredenburg where use value could be more influential than the more expected monumental values such as age- and historical value. As a general rule for post-’65 architecture one could take ‘the less age a building has to corrode, the more the use value of the place matters.’

The copyright law for architects stays interpretable in various ways. Since 1912 the Netherlands has the Auteurswet (copyright law) to which several architects made a claim since the latter half of the twentieth century.74_{These legal issues are less}

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}

73_{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. 79.

74_{In the Netherlands architects can make a claim to a specific} part of the copyright law which legally enables the architect to counter any “mutilation or contamination” of their design

sources is that many newspapers make use of the

Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau (ANP), a bureau

similar to for example Reuters, Associated Press and Agence France Presse. These organisations deliver dry, ready-to-use news for smaller media to incorporate into their own range of articles. These messages are sometimes exactly copied or rewritten and integrated into a larger article. It is very likely that for ‘dry’ news such as the case of Van Klingeren many newspapers chose to reuse news from the ANP.

The utterances not treating Van klingeren’s demands do treat the judge’s verdict, namely that although the building has monumental values, it does not counterbalance the practical complaints of the tenants. It is however the composition of the judge’s argument which is interesting. It composes of a monumental claim and of a practical claim where the primary function of De Meerpaal as a multifunctional centre becomes the decisive factor. And it is this aspect of the

conglomerate that is interesting as it stands in line

(persoonlijkheidsrecht or ‘personality-right’). Frank van Klingeren appealed to the mutilation and contamination many times when fighting in court.

75_{‘Dronten mag van rechter Meerpaal verbouwen’. (3 March}

1988). De Volkskrant: “Van Klingeren eiste een verbod omdat de verbouwing tot misvorming of verminking van De Meerpaal zou leiden Hij beriep zich hierbij op artikel 25 van de

(21)

21 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 troubles. At this moment Frank van Klingeren had passed away and the personality rights had been bought off, meaning De Meerpaal was on the verge of being demolished. It was the municipality that in July 1999 wanted to start fresh with the demolition of De Meerpaal. As a consequence of this announcement some prominent protesters introduced themselves to the debate. Whereas the first peak took place on a judicial level (that eventually ruled in favour of the practical completion of De Meerpaal), now the debate moved towards a more conceptual level. The amount of conceptual value claims is

noticeable through the increase in heritage labels. Not only are the phrases that can attributed the label ‘heritage’ numerous (sixteen), but

furthermore there are other labels that can be seen as sublabels of this particular one, making it a strong cluster of twenty labels. After financial claims (twenty-nine), practical claims are the most numerous with seventeen labels. Next in line are

76_{The most inclusive passage, with all the aspects mentioned in}

this paragraph is the following: “De rechter stelt in zijn vonnis vast dat De Meerpaal als monument moet worden aangemerkt en dat Van Klingeren een groot belang heeft bij het behoud daarvan. Maar dat neemt niet weg dat zijn schepping in de eerste plaats dient te voorzien in het gebruik dat de

opdrachtgever voor ogen staat.” ‘De Meerpaal mag verbouwd worden’. (3 March 1988). Nieuwsblad van het Noorden. It is

practical claims with as sublabels ‘use’- and ‘function’ claims. These practical claims are better represented during the second peak. Whereas during the first peak legal claims were abundant there is now almost no mention of it neither in local or national newspapers with only one person proclaiming that the copyright was bought off already in 1988.77_{To fill up the gap, ‘claims of}

progress’ (sixteen in total) come to the fore during this particular peak with sublabels such as ‘vision’, ‘transitoriness’ and ‘reachability’. These claims fall under progress as they specifically concern the future of the site. Close to these claims stands the label of ‘adaptability’ with as sublabel ‘possibility’, but these were more prominently featured during the peak in 1988. The label of ‘feasibility’ however appears two times in 1999 and can be combined with progress and its corresponding sublabels. What is certain however is that the claims that are

however also mentioned as extensively in ‘Architect verliest geding; verbouwing De Meerpaal mag’. (3 March 1988). De Volkskrant. And ‘Rechter staat verbouwing Meerpaal toe’. (3 March 1988). NRC.

77_{‘Nooit de beoogde magie gekregen’. (31 July 1999). Elsevier.}

Elsevier is not a newspaper but a magazine, signalling a wider coverage in the media.

Power to the people? An inquiry into the multiplicity of societal values of post-'65, structuralistic architecture.