In Pursuit of
Monumentality
The acquisition policy of Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser: cause and consequence of the development of monumental care and canonisation of Dutch architecture
26-4-2017 Master Thesis Wouter van Elburg 10360271 Supervisors H. Ronnes T.M.C. van Kessel N. F. Smit Heritage and Memory Studies
Faculty of Humanities
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction: The importance of architecture
5-11
0.1| the birth of architectural preservation 6
0.2| changing acquisition policies 9
1: The need for Dutch architectural preservation societies
12-22
1.1| the need for a ‘Dutch’ identity 12
1.2| nation building: defining ‘Dutch’ architecture 16
1.3| material memory: houses as ‘lieux de mémoire’ 18
1.4| modern stepped gables: staged authenticity in conservation policy 20
2: Why was Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser established?
23-38
2.1| the rise of nostalgia, changing attitudes 24
2.2| the private and public development of architectural preservation 26
2.3| Amsterdam: leading the nation on heritage preservation 28
2.4| establishing ‘Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser’ 32
3: A century of acquisitions
39-76
3.1| 1918-1919: establishment years 40
3.2| 1920-1923: the first financial struggle 44
3.3| 1924-1939: donations, bestowments and continuing struggles 47
3.4| 1940-1945: World War Two 50
3.5| 1946-1955: rebuilding and new subsidies 53
3.6| 1956-1960: changes in identity 56
3.7| 1961-1970: new policies and the ‘Prins Bernhard Fonds’ 60
3.8| 1971-1980: organisational changes and a stable period 64
3.9| 1981-1993: widening the concepts of monuments 68
3
Conclusion: ‘Hendrick de Keyser’, a century of collecting and
77-82
protecting Dutch architecture
4.1| cause 77
4.2| consequence 78
4.3| trends in acquisition 79
4.4| in search of monumentality 81
Epilogue: ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ in international perspective?
83
Bibliography
84-86
Appendix 1: Timeline development monumental care
87
Appendix 2: Acquisitions in numbers
88
Appendix 3: Acquired property by year and age
89
4
‘‘Don’t clap too hard – it’s a very old building’’
5
The KRO-studios on the Emmastraat in Hilversum in 2016 (Courtesy of Google Streetview)
INTRODUCTION
The importance of architecture
In contemporary Western societies, such as the Netherlands, where it is claimed that the preservation of architecture is of key importance, questions on the validity of this claim appear obsolete. Thus, in a time when the Dutch consider themselves to be among the more prominent advocates for architectural preservation and where architecture is regarded as part of their national heritage and identity, a critical discussion of this concept should not be necessary.1 With nine
UNESCO World Heritage Sites, over 60.000 ‘rijksmonumenten’ (national monuments) and more than 40.000 ‘gemeentelijke monumenten’ (municipal monuments), the monumental density in the Netherlands may well be among the highest in the world.1 It is therefore all the more remarkable
that a building listed as a ‘rijksmonument’, a status which should protect a building from falling victim to redevelopment or demolition, can still be demolished with apparently relative ease.
A very recent example of such a situation is the demolition of the KRO-studios in Hilversum. These studios were built in 1936-1938 and were listed in 2005 on the index of rijksmonumenten as ‘iconic’, signifying both its architectural and historical importance.2 The building closed in 1996 and after
years of abandonment the city council approved its demolishment in 2016, despite its listed status. The KRO-studios were admired by many and their loss was criticised heavily in the press.3 Its
demolition in 2016-2017 proved that the supposed ‘shield’ the title ‘rijksmonument’ should serve, is
1 For example, the Netherlands has 1 UNESCO site per roughly 4616 square kilometres, whereas the five
countries that hold the most UNESCO sites comparatively have one per approximately 5908 (Italy), 191940 (China), 11244 (Spain), 15328 (France) and 8716 (Germany) square kilometres.
2 Rijksmonumenten.nl. ‘KRO-studio in Hilversum’. 12-10-2014. Web. 07-01-2017.
<http://rijksmonumenten.nl/monument/512602/kro-studio/hilversum/>.
3 Beer, K. de. ‘Dieptepunt in geschiedenis monumentenzorg’. HilversumNieuws. 20-10-2016: p. 3;
Brandenburg-van de Ven, T. ‘Sloop KRO-complex in Hilversum van start. Villamedia.nl. 28-11-2016. Web. 07-01-2017. <https://www.villamedia.nl/artikel/sloop-kro-complex-in-hilversum-van-start>.
6
The medieval castle ‘Popkensburgh’ near Sint Laurens is one of several destroyed monuments mentioned by De Stuers in his essay. It was demolished in 1863. (Courtesy of Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant)
arguably shallow. There is therefore little doubt that ‘preservation societies’, which fight for conservation of our architectural heritage, will remain essential.
0.1| the birth of architectural preservation
The attention for architectural preservation is of relatively recent date. It was not until the middle of the nineteenth century, that the first substantial signs of an interest in the preservation of historic buildings started to appear. Politician Victor de Stuers (1843-1916) is considered to be one of the first Dutch spokespersons for monumental care. In his politically active life, during which he took seat in the House of Representatives, he was a firm advocate of the preservation of historical architecture. He is nowadays considered to be one of the founding fathers of monumental care in the Netherlands. De Stuers strongly disliked contemporary architecture and shared his criticism openly. Although several of his peers shared his point of view on modern architecture and the wide
7 scale destruction of monumental buildings, his activism was not widely supported. De Stuers feared for the consequences of the widespread destruction which was apparent in his time and wrote a critical essay titled Holland op zijn smalst (‘The Netherlands at its narrowest’). In this essay he stated that, although he felt his opinion on preservation of architecture was shared by some government peers, his thoughts had to be put into action in order to bring about a change.4
De Stuers argued that there was simply too little interest in the Dutch history by Dutch citizens and he considered this detrimental to the preservation of historic monuments in general. He felt that most people believed that there was no economic value in preserving the past, stating: ‘’Many think that there is no other profit in the care for our monuments, than that which innkeepers and
coachmen manage to squeeze from the pockets of hither lured art lovers. For them every elegantly dressed building is a waste, every museum an expensive pleasantry, every old monument an odd heap of stones for tourists’’.5 He added: ‘‘How is mankind to expect a renewed luster of our art and
industry, when around us nearly everything attests to a lack of taste, when our museums are either inconclusive or arranged so badly that study is impossible; when (…) the indifference to art and vandalism will remain to go hand in hand?’’.6 De Stuers held aesthetics in high regard and believed
that too little money was spent on the architecture of new construction as well, not because of financial inability, but because there was just no interest.7
Unfortunately, De Stuers’ fears turned out to be well founded as nearly forty years later still little had changed. At the turn of the twentieth century several small and private preservation societies had been established, but a government-based initiative or support for preservation, that De Stuers had wanted to push forward, had not been created. Public disapproval of the rapidly changing Dutch cityscape was nevertheless growing and among the upper class a certain disdain of the ‘new’ was not uncommon. Private initiatives, largely inspired by the restoration works of late-nineteenth century architects such as the French Eugène Viollet-le-Duc and the Dutch Pierre Cuypers, sought to preserve the historic Dutch cityscape. These organisations mostly worked on a relatively small scale and most can probably be best regarded as private undertakings by individuals with a nostalgic mindset, rather than as a centrally planned attempt by a larger group of people.
4 Stuers, V. de. ‘Holland op zijn smalst’ in De Gids, vol. 37, no. 3 (1873): p. 320.
5 Translation by author. Original Dutch text from Stuers, V. de. ‘Holland op zijn smalst’ in De Gids, vol. 37, no. 3
(1873): p. 322.
6 Translation by author. Original Dutch text from Stuers, V. de. ‘Holland op zijn smalst’ in De Gids, vol. 37, no. 3
(1873): p. 323.
8 As would later be acknowledged, a notable change came with the establishment of Vereniging
Hendrick de Keyser in 1918.8 The foundation of this preservation society was an initiative of several
members of the Amsterdam city elite, guided by the wine merchant Jacobus Th. Boelen (1876-1946).9 They intended to preserve what was left of the seventeenth- and eighteenth century
architecture in the Netherlands by acquiring properties that would otherwise fall victim to
developers, and thus most likely be demolished. In addition, they considered that preservation could best be done and sustained by the rental of their acquired property. If deemed necessary, they would first renovate or restore such a building. Although the organisation initially aimed at preserving architecture only in Amsterdam, their focus broadened within a year, as they started acquiring properties throughout the whole country. It had quickly dawned on the organisation that, whereas it could be argued that the high quality of architecture in the Dutch capital was significant, Amsterdam was not the only place where architecturally ‘important’ buildings could be found. The establishment of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ was unique and innovative in their approach of architectural preservation through acquisition. In this method they structurally differed from other preservation societies that had been established earlier. In a book published upon the centennial of monumental care in 1975, engineer Jan Tillema wrote that ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ was the first organisation that took the responsibility to acquire and restore historic property in the Netherlands, which the government failed to recognise as a governmental task. He classifies this as a new approach in monumental care that was to have a large impact on the heritage field.10
By 2018, ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ will have been active for a century. From their humble beginnings the association over time has grown to be one of the leading organisations in the Dutch field of
monumental care and preservation. Managing over 400 properties throughout the Netherlands and employing roughly thirty people, it is by now one of the largest private organisations in thisfield. Its initial definition of ‘historic houses’ has changed and broadened significantly over the years. While at first the aim of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ was to preserve houses of the seventeenth- and eighteenth century, it now seeks to preserve architecture that is exemplary of the development of Dutch
residential architecture.11 This approach has led to the inclusion of architecture from the nineteenth-
and twentieth century in the acquisition policy. Hence, the association now owns various properties
8 Tillema, J.A.C. Schetsen uit de geschiedenis van de Monumentenzorg in Nederland. Den Haag, Staatsuitgeverij,
1975: p. 590.
9 Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser. ‘Achtergrond – Strijd tegen sloop en verpaupering’. No date. Web.
20-10-2016. <http://hendrickdekeyser.nl/site/4/8/achtergrond.html>.
10 Tillema, J.A.C. Schetsen uit de geschiedenis van de Monumentenzorg in Nederland. Den Haag,
Staatsuitgeverij, 1975: p. 592.
11Huijts, C. Continuüm of nieuw beleid?. Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser – Drieënnegentigste Jaarverslag 2012.
9
Huis Bartolotti, Herengracht 170-172 in Amsterdam is one of the many properties owned by ‘Hendrick de Keyser’. Photograph by C. Steenbergh, early twentieth century. (Courtesy of Geheugen van Nederland)
characteristic for these centuries too. Even ‘younger’ architecture has been acquired in recent years, with the youngest house in the collection currently dating from 1982. This broadening of the
‘architectural range’ can be traced back to the mid-1980s. In conclusion, the collection of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ nowadays encompasses a fairly representational overview of the development of Dutch architecture from the late fifteenth century up to the latter decades of the twentieth century. How ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ turned into a unique player by its acquisition methods and the effect their policy has had on the Dutch architectural preservation field is the subject of this thesis.
0.2| changing acquisition policies
As described above, the acquisition policy of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ has been subject to changes. It is interesting to review what factors played a decisive role in the changing policy of acquisition by the association. There are many possible factors that influenced this change. For example not only have
10 national and inter-organisational policies changed, but the organisational structure of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ has been significantly altered and the organization has expanded as well. Whereas
acquisitions are nowadays decided upon by a Board of Directors (‘Raad van Bestuur’) and some are bestowed free of charge, motives in the past may well have varied. Is it for instance possible to observe what caused the shift to a more representative ‘collection’ of Dutch architecture? In recent years national governmental organisations such as the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (‘national department for cultural heritage’) have broadened their approach, now paying specific attention to post-WWII architecture, this may have affected acquisition policy of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ as well.12 It could also be considered whether the organisation was influenced by other
players in the field of monumental care. Furthermore, what were the selection criteria? It is sometimes stated that ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ used to focus mainly on exteriors. However, interiors, appear to have become more important over time as well. Why and how this was realised is yet unclear.13
Another interesting issue are the financial criteria for acquisition by ‘Hendrik de Keyser’. Have buildings been ignored or forgotten, or was decided against acquisition, because the General Board felt that they might not be financially fit as their upkeep may be too costly? Furthermore, during the twentieth century, laws on monumental care, preservation and restoration were defined and altered several times, and the policies of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ have most likely been subsequently adjusted.
It is possible that opinions and trends in monumental care may clarify the acquisition policy of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’. However, it is also possible that the policy of the organisation has influenced trends in the national heritage field likewise. In the wake of late-nineteenth century ideas of ‘nation building’, creating a ‘national identity’ became apparent and building that identity in part upon ‘national’ art and architecture, seems likely. By creating a national identity based upon material culture, that what is preserved of art and architecture automatically becomes part of that what formed the identity. By claiming to collect an overview of Dutch residential architecture ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ may have contributed to the creation of a Dutch architectural identity. By selecting property ‘Hendrick de Keyser’, in general terms, also decided what was worth preserving. Conversely the acquisition policy of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ can also have been influenced by what would later be established as the ‘Dutch architectural canon’. Canonisation of architecture means that a certain
12 Tweede Kamer. ‘Toelichting op de voordracht van circa 100 topmonumenten uit de periode 1940-1958’.
2007. Web. 20-10-2016.
<http://cultureelerfgoed.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/dossiers/toelichtingtweedekamer.pdf>.
13 Huijts, C. Continuüm of nieuw beleid?. Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser – Drieënnegentigste Jaarverslag 2012.
11 hierarchy is established among architects or buildings by motives as styles and technique. A
hierarchy may lead to preferences. Influenced by such a hierarchy ‘Hendrick de Keyser’s’ aim at collecting may have been influenced by the established architectural canon. It was most likely a process of cross-pollination in following and forming of an architectural canon that will have influenced acquisition strategies.
To summarise, this thesis will explore how ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ turned into a significant player in the Dutch preservation field by analysing how its acquisition policy has changed over time and why. By looking at the historical and political context of the last century and relating this to specific
acquisition periods, will be defined why certain buildings were obtained and others were not. Individual power roles and distribution, national tendencies, individual and national taste, financial criteria and even fate may have had an influence. By combining these factors and relating them to the theories of nationality, identity and authenticity, an explanation on the acquisition policy will of ‘Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser’ will be given, which may serve as a statement on the importance of the preservation of architecture.
12
CHAPTER 1
The need for Dutch architectural preservation societies
Around the turn of the twentieth century several changes in attitudes regarding the field of monumental care and preservation spawned the creation of architectural preservation societies such as ‘Hendrick de Keyser’. The changing attitudes generated public support that would allow these societies to prosper. There are several theoretic concepts that may help to understand why it was specifically at this time in history that ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ was established, which will be discussed in this chapter.
1.1| the need for a ‘Dutch’ identity
In the nineteenth century numerous country borders in Europe shifted which would, especially in Western Europe, be decisive in the formation of many nations as they still exist today. After the definite separation of Belgium and the Netherlands in 1830, both countries polarised opinions in the need for the creation of an own national identity. Multiple aspects of culture, such as food, music and art would be deemed specifically ‘Dutch’ or ‘Belgian’. In terms of architecture this served to be rather problematic, given the cultural exchanges between the two countries before the separation in combination with the historical international influence. For instance, as far as Poland and Russia, examples of what one might consider ‘Dutch’ or ‘Hollandish’ architecture can be found. Moreover, the difference between sixteenth century architecture in the Belgian city of Antwerp and the Dutch cities in North Brabant and Zeeland is negligible. Dividing architectural ‘types’ and ‘styles’ by modern country borders was historically inaccurate.
It is most likely that where Belgian cities prospered relatively early compared to their northern counterparts, more late medieval and baroque styles would be attributed to Belgium, whereas the regional styles of the seventeenth- and eighteenth century would become ‘Dutch’. This was probably less a real decision and definition, but more the result of regional availability of architectural styles. It is also in this time period, around the middle of the nineteenth century, that the capital city of Amsterdam became the textbook example of Dutch architecture.14 This may explain why ‘Hendrick
de Keyser’ initially wanted to focus on Amsterdam in particular. This might, however, also have been influenced by the fact that all founding members of the organisation lived in or near the capital city.
14For a more detailed description and explantion on the development see Tillema, J.A.C. Schetsen uit de
13 The need, or desire, for a clearly defined unique ‘architectural identity’ probably influenced the strong dislike of the architectural styles of the nineteenth century. As these styles represented an architectural fashion that differed only slightly between all regions of Europe. The strong similarities in usage of its typology made that these architectural styles were not easily ascribable to one certain nation. Older architecture, dating from medieval times, or the sixteenth- or seventeenth century, was more often bound by regional availability of materials and local taste, thereby representing and defining the local characteristics.15 The rapid transformation and modernisation of cities that started
in the nineteenth century probably fuelled the need for a national identity out of a fear for losing identity.16 A fear of loss of identity may explain why in the first years after 1918, board members at
‘Hendrick de Keyser’ had a strong preference for the acquisition of houses that were fronted by seventeenth century stepped gables, as these were seen as ‘typical’ for Dutch architecture. Although the stepped gable became ‘Dutch’ and the more intricate, highly decorated ‘curved’ gables became ‘Belgian’, this division is problematic as both can be found in the Netherlands as well is in Belgium.
15The criticism of nineteenth century architecture was still strongly present in the Netherlands in the middle
of the twentieth century, see for instance Houten, E. van. Amsterdamsche Merkwaardigheden. Amsterdam: Heemschut, 1942: p. 9.
16 Hirsch, M. ‘The Generation of Postmemory’ Poetics Today, vol. 29, no. 1 (2008): pp. 103-105.
Zuiderspui 4 in Enkhuizen was acquired in 1918 and is characteristic of the ‘typically Dutch’ stepped gable architecture. (Courtesy of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’)
14 Stepped gables can even be found in France and Germany and considering them to be exclusively Dutch is therefore incorrect. It was nonetheless the result of the inevitable polarisation of Belgian and Dutch identities that the characteristics of gable types were ascribed to either culture. At the turn of the twentieth century the ‘Dutch’ stepped gable, heavily associated with the Dutch age of prosperity known as the ‘Golden Age’, was a fait accompli. It probably enhanced the acquisition of well over forty houses with stepped gables by ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ before World War II (see appendix 4) and resulted in the dedication of an entire chapter on stepped gables in their first commemorative book in 1928.17 It is interesting to note that the organisation in their early years did
not aspire to acquire properties in the style of ‘Dutch classicism’, a fashion of architecture that is equally associated with the Dutch Golden Age. In this it is most likely that ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ followed contemporary taste, which favoured the stepped gable.
‘Hendrick de Keyser’ initially specifically acquired houses which were considered to be on characteristic spots in cities. These sites would frequently feature as ‘postcards images’ of these cities, shaping the Dutch identity of a town or city. Examples of such ‘postcard architecture’ owned by the organisation can be found in Amsterdam (Prinsengracht 2), Delft (Markt 2-4) and Hoorn (Hoofd 2 or Rode Steen 8). One of the most frequently photographed spots in Amsterdam, often shown as an example of the city’s canal house identity and architecture, is the corner of the Brouwersgracht and Prinsengracht. This corner prominently features Prinsengracht 2, a house owned by ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ since 1918. The building, with its two stepped gables, bright red brickwork and small windows is almost stereotypically ‘Dutch’. It can therefore be considered
17 Kok, A.A. ‘De bakstenen trapgevels’ in Gedenkboek van de Vereeniging Hendrick de Keyser 1918-1928 –
Oud-Hollandsche Bouwkunst en Haar Behoud: pp. 59-92.
The corner of the Prinsengracht and Brouwersgracht prominently featuring Prinsengracht 2, owned by ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ since 1918. (Courtesy of Drimble.com)
15 contradictory that the building was heavily restored and altered twice, in 1929 and 1954, only regaining its stepped gables in the restoration of the 1950s. Questions on the authenticity of the building can therefore be asked, but it nevertheless serves as a textbook example of Dutch architecture. That it served as such an example is underlined in publications by the organisation itself as well.18 A further elaboration on this form of ‘staged’ authenticity will be discussed at the end
of this chapter.
It can be considered time-bound that ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ aimed at preserving residential
architecture. In relation to the bigger public monuments in countries such as churches, castles and marketplaces it was residential architecture that at the time would often disappear without public debate. Residential architecture may however, even better illustrate a local or national identity, as it is more bound to local taste and customs. Churches in the Netherlands in Gothic and Romanesque styles, are influenced by international designs from France, Spain, Italy and Germany and are, although appropriated by regional taste, less telling of specific local preferences. That residential architecture shaped the nation was already observed by writer J.A. Alberdingk Thijm (1820-1889), who in the middle of the nineteenth century wrote extensively about its value. He stated that houses in cities were more important than the cathedrals amidst them, as they showcased
prosperity from earlier times.19 Afterwards, residential structures appeared to become increasingly
admired for their uniqueness and locality and their characteristic Dutch elements. The admiration is reflected in the acquisition policy of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ upon establishment, as all but one
structure acquired in 1918 were of residential origin. The latter was the chapel of Gageldonk, which was only attained because the national government had asked the organisation to do so.
The uniqueness found in residential architecture is important for the architectural identity. This was less applicable to churches as these were the result of an international vogue and more shaped by religion than by local people. ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ elaborated this line of thought by including all residential architecture, ranging from the little working class houses in often dilapidated
neighbourhoods, to the splendorous canal houses belonging to the wealthy. It was always the intention to collect both, as these were all part of the Dutch identity.20 Upon establishment it was
18 Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser. ‘Prinsengracht 2-4’. No date. Web. 08-01-2017.
<http://hendrickdekeyser.nl/panddetail/146/.html>.
19 Krabbe, C.P. ‘Monumenten: architectonische overblijfselen’, in F. Grijzenhout. Erfgoed - de geschiedenis van
een begrip. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007: pp. 161-162.
Meischke, R. Het Nederlandse Woonhuis van 1300-1800. Vijftig jaar Vereniging ‘Hendrick de Keyser’. Haarlem: H.D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon N.V., 1969: p. 4.
20 Westermann, H. ‘De Vereeniging ‘’Hendrick de Keyser’’’ in Gedenkboek van de Vereeniging Hendrick de
16 written: ‘’The reckless demolition and injudicious alteration of elegant and intimate façades - as much in prominent city areas as in the less significant neighbourhoods, where so much peculiar remains – continues nearly undisturbed. Instead of the good, which is wildly demolished, characterless houses arise nearly without exception that further corrupt the environment’’.21
Defining the ‘new’ as characterless is of great importance, as the organisation takes a stand on the supposed identity that radiates from historic houses as opposed to the apparent communalist internationalism of new construction. By including a passage on the peculiarity of architecture in what were considered as less significant neighbourhoods, they signify that it is not just the aesthetics, but also the sentiment and character in architecture that matters. Upon the 20-year anniversary of the organisation in 1938 this thought was further intensified by Daily Board member and prominent architectural historian Frans Vermeulen who wrote: ‘’ (…) the essential of our
nation’s own architecture is to be found in the guileless expressions, that our nation brought forth in its village churches, its commoner’s and farmer’s residential architecture, its simple works of utility, shaped after own wish and desire, from own spirit and tradition.’’.22 After stating that large
cathedrals and other prominent structures had most likely mainly arisen under foreign royals and those who had been taught abroad, this quote may explicitly show that the Dutch architectural identity was mainly to be found in the regional and residential.
1.2| nation building: defining ‘Dutch’ architecture
As Belgium and the Netherlands were both constructing a nation, culture was used as a vehicle to define the new national identity. Part of a culture were famous artists recognisable as characteristic figures of a nation. As a counteraction against Belgium which claimed Peter Paul Rubens as their national painter, the Dutch chose Rembrandt. Following this line of thought, a national painter asks for a national architect as counterpart. This thought was apparently picked up by the organisation as upon establishment the board members chose the name of someone who they considered to be a typically Dutch architect. By picking ‘Hendrick de Keyser’, a seventeenth century architect, who was considered to be an archetype of Dutch architects, it gave itself a ‘Dutch’ identity. Specifically stating that it was established to protect Dutch architecture, it seamlessly fits the described cultural
polarisation of its policy. ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ is therefore a product of its time but it can equally be seen as a vehicle for the strengthening of nation building.
21 Translation by author. Anonymous. Voorkoming van verdere Stedenschennis. Amsterdam, 1918: no page
numbers.
22 Vermeulen, F. ‘De geschiedenis der Nederlandse bouwkunst weerspiegeld in het bezit van Vereeniging
Hendrick de Keyser’ in Gedenkboek Vereeniging Hendrick de Keyser 1918-1938. Amsterdam: J.H. de Bussy, 1939: p. 7.
17 The defining of ‘Dutch’ architecture can furthermore be observed in retrospect when the
organisation later claimed to have ‘collected’ an overview of residential architecture, specifically highlighting the Dutch nature of the collection.23 Collecting leads to canonisation, in this form
specifically canonising Dutch architecture. By collecting ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ has invigorated the early twentieth century ideas of nation building. The organisation enhanced the polarisation by defining acquired historic houses as Dutch. Although this statement is in nature framing the architectural identity, it is not further fortified by the descriptions of the houses that were made each year by the secretary for the annual report and later the descriptions that were made for the publication of the Huizen in Nederland series. In the house descriptions, international influences in architectural design are often cited. Especially in descriptions of interiors, stucco workers, painters and designers are not exclusively Dutch, they relatively often stem from other nations in Europe.24 It
can be discussed whether the presumed polarisation propagated by ‘Hendrick de Keyser’
contributed to the nation building policies of the early twentieth century or not. In terms of their name choice, ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ is a product of the historical time period. However, taking into consideration to what extent the organisation was able to shape the world of monumental care in the Netherlands, as will be explained in more detail in chapter 3, it is hard not to acknowledge the significant impact the organisation must have had on the formation and institutionalisation of monumental care. Monumental care can be seen as a desire to create an architectural identity. Thus, by shaping the field of monumental care, ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ facilitated the shaping of the Dutch architectural identity.
23 This was for instance underlined in Huijts, C. ‘Notitie Beleid Lange Termijnperiode 2003-2007’. December
2002
18
1.3| material memory: houses as ‘lieux de mémoire’
In its quest for architectural preservation, ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ restores and maintains properties that are considered to be characteristic of Dutch architecture, creating what can be considered as ‘lieux de mémoire’ of Dutch architecture. The houses may ‘tell’ a story of Dutch history, both in tangible and intangible aspects, as many of the houses in the collection not only hold architectural value but historical value equally, a value that may be lost if the houses are not preserved.25 This
‘storytelling’ is further enhanced as the organisation continually gave many tours through its properties, highlighting history, inhabitants and construction. The properties may actually have contributed to the first definitions of the word ‘monument’, in the sense that they contribute to our understanding of history.26 For example, ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ owns several medieval defence towers
such as the Campveerse Toren in Veere and the Mariatoren and Hoofdtoren in Hoorn. These towers are remnants of old city walls and defence mechanisms and are exemplary of how Dutch cities functioned in the past. The towers do thereby not only consist of architectural value in the typology
25Nora, P. ‘Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire’ Representations, no. 26 (1989): pp. 12, 19.
26 Krabbe, C.P. ‘Monumenten: architectonische overblijfselen’, in F. Grijzenhout. Erfgoed - de geschiedenis van
een begrip. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007: pp. 151-152.
The ‘Campveerse Toren’ in Veere is a rare surviving example of the defence tower architecture that could be found all over the Netherlands. (Courtesy of HOBB.nl)
19 of defence structures, but are ‘lieux de mémoire’ of the defence system of the Netherlands in the past as well. As a result they fulfil an intangible historic memory but also tangible material memory.
The houses of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ furthermore facilitate the material memory of the Netherlands as a prosperous nation. In the wake of nineteenth-century nostalgia for the economic successes that the country had seen in the past, it was often reflected upon how architecture could serve as a reminder of the rich(er) past. It was therefore even propagated that contemporary architecture should imitate architecture from this time period as a way of ‘imitating’ its success.27 Although this
prosperity and relation to a preference for architectural styles is most likely not what motivated the members of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ in acquisition policy, the acquired architecture does serve as an example of it. The remnants of a specific architectural past could, in educational terms, be considered as serving the memory of the past and preserving that what was still there and could thus illustrate the (prosperous) history of the country. As architecture can be seen as a vehicle for historical explanation and interpretation, the houses were once more crucial to Dutch identity.
27 Krabbe, C.P. ‘Monumenten: architectonische overblijfselen’, in F. Grijzenhout. Erfgoed - de geschiedenis van
een begrip. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007: pp. 165-171.
Markt 2 (with reconstructed stepped gable) and 4 (without) in Delft before (1965) and after restoration. (Courtesy of ‘Achter de Gevels van Delft’ and Drimble.com)
20
1.4| modern stepped gables: staged authenticity in conservation
policy
After acquisition, houses owned by ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ are never sold and are often painstakingly restored to their ‘original’ state. Although restoration policies at the organisation have changed over the decades, the aim to preserve has not.28 In its goal to protect Dutch architecture, ‘Hendrick de
Keyser’ often seeks to preserve or restore the characteristics that are, or were, essential or unique to a certain property. Although current restoration trends call for ‘reversible’ restoration, meaning that what has been added or restored can easily be removed again, this strikingly contrasts former policies. An example of this can be found in Markt 2-4 in Delft. These adjoining properties were acquired in 1962 and thoroughly reconstructed in 1965-1966. The buildings had been modernised in the nineteenth century and the sixteenth century structures had lost many of their ‘Dutch’
characteristics in the process. In the restoration Markt 2 was nearly completely reconstructed, re-receiving its double stepped gables based on old drawings. Its exterior was transformed completely and before and after pictures exemplify how the property was nearly unrecognisably altered. It is a textbook example of sixteenth century architecture in the same manner as Prinsengracht 2 in Amsterdam, even if both images rely heavily on restored version of the property.29 These properties
serve as examples of a staged authenticity, largely portraying something that was once there, lost over time and only reappeared in the hands of the organisation. Its ‘staging’, however, enables us to experience seventeenth century architecture thereby educating us in architectural history.30
Whether or not this education on history using ‘fakes’ is what is nowadays considered as desirable, the restoration of property policy serves as an interesting marker for a specific period in
monumental care and restoration.
Under the reign of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ properties are largely ‘frozen in time’, as they will not be sold again and it is highly unlikely that they will be altered significantly after restoration. The houses may therefore form a certain fabricated heritage as they sometimes seek to portray what was historically no longer present.31 However, as restoration policies change, the technique and
execution of a restoration can be heavily debated. Due to current trends, the reconstruction of an entire stepped gable is very unlikely. Markt 2-4 serves as an excellent example in this argument as Markt 4 in contrast to Markt 2, was much less radically overhauled. The building would have had a
28 For more on the restoration policies by ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ see archival documentation.
29Pine II, J., J. Gilmore. ‘Museums & Authenticity’ Museum News (May/June 2007): p. 78.
30 Pine II, J., J. Gilmore. ‘Museums & Authenticity’ Museum News (May/June 2007): pp. 80, 91-92.
21 stepped gable in the past as well, but it was decided that the building would appear awkward in its proportions had it regained this gable, as its appearance relied more heavily on its nineteenth century renovation than its neighbour. Markt 2-4 can therefore be seen as an intermediate between two restoration beliefs: one where a full restoration of the original appearance is favoured, and one where later additions are seen as part of a building’s history and identity. The latter theory
surpassed the other in the following decades and ‘total reconstruction’ is no longer undertaken. This surpassing of restoration policy is not unique to ‘Hendrick de Keyser’, it followed a national trend.
As it is essential for the survival of the organisation, a property has to be or become rentable, and thus needed modern additions are (sparingly) applied. Such a modern addition could for instance be the addition of a bathroom or the dividing of a building into multiple rentable units. These additions, or alterations, are only permitted if they do not interfere with the most important historical and architectural elements of a building. It can be discussed that they do interfere with the historical usage of a building and therefore are slightly destructive to smaller parts of its authenticity. The additions or renovations could, however, also be seen as the addition of another ‘layer’ to an already existing property. A lengthier, more elaborate discussion on restoration policies and the impact on the authenticity of a building would better explain the effect, but as this thesis is focused on acquisition policy it is of less importance in this discussion. Relevant is that some properties are acquired with the aim of restoring said property, with an expertise level that regular developers would less likely attain. In acquisition criteria, selection is therefore made more in light of preservation and expertise than restoration per se.
In conclusion, ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ can equally be seen as ‘influenced’ as well as ‘influencer’ in the field of national identity. National identity, nation building and polarisation resulted in a climate that called for preservation societies as ‘Hendrick de Keyser’. It was the historical need for a framed identity that made that nations became interested in the preservation of local architecture.
‘Hendrick de Keyser’ can be seen as a vehicle in the preservation of architecture, as it is exactly what the organisation did: preserving local and historical architecture that was and is time- and regionally bound. As it was established as one of the first preservation organisations, it may well have
influenced the polarisation of the Dutch architectural identity, even if unintended. Acquisition of historic architecture further shaped the nation as other, non-acquired historical constructions continued to be demolished, whereas property owned by ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ subsisted. That what subsisted is that what was preserved and effectively forms the architectural heritage of the
22
Herengracht 284 in Amsterdam, also known as ‘Huis Van Brienen’. It served as an office for ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ for several decades. (Courtesy of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’)
Netherlands.32 It may therefore be stated that the organisation served as an actor in canonisation of
historical architecture, this thought will further be elaborated in the next chapters.
32Ashworth, G.J., J.E. Turnbridge. ‘Old Cities, New Pasts: Heritage Planning in Selected Cities of Central Europe’
23
CHAPTER 2
Why was Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser established?
De Stuers’ criticism in his article ‘Holland op zijn Smalst’ did not lead to the progress in the field of monumental care he had envisioned, but his political involvement and activism did nourish an interest in historical architecture that led to small development in this field. His publication may be seen as an instigator for events that would follow. Several occurrences that are of importance to the general development of monumental preservation as well, however, predated the publication of De Stuers’ article.33 These may have influenced the founders of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ equally. In order to
give a clear overview of what eventually contributed to the establishment of the association ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ in 1918 these will be discussed first.
The importance and influence of De Stuers has often been cited, but what he considered to be an act of ‘vandalism’, a term that had been proven popular among advocates for architectural
preservation, was noted before.34 In the mid-nineteenth century, the definition of the concept of a
‘monument’ started to widen along with the changing popular opinion. Contrary to a more contemporary thought that a monument is defined as something of historical worth in material terms, it was initially conceived as related to containing a ‘memory’, a place where a historical event had taken place or to which a historical person could be linked. This gradually changed in the nineteenth century as the word for monument became linked to ‘aesthetics’ as well.35 No longer
were just cathedrals and castles considered monuments, but the old houses around them could be considered of just as much worth. Thus, the visual aesthetics of architecture could serve as a memory of the past, as a part of a certain art historical past and thereby certain buildings were considered worth preserving.36
33For a more detailed description on the history of monumental care in the Netherlands see Tillema, J.A.C.
Schetsen uit de geschiedenis van de Monumentenzorg in Nederland. Den Haag, Staatsuitgeverij, 1975.
34 Krabbe, C.P. ‘Monumenten: architectonische overblijfselen’, in F. Grijzenhout. Erfgoed - de geschiedenis van
een begrip. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007: pp. 159-160.
35 Krabbe, C.P. ‘Monumenten: architectonische overblijfselen’, in F. Grijzenhout. Erfgoed - de geschiedenis van
een begrip. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007: pp. 151-152.
36 Roenhorst, W. ‘Monumenten van Natuur en Schoonheid’, in F. Grijzenhout. Erfgoed - de geschiedenis van
24
Pieter Oosterhuis, Waag op de Westermarkt te Amsterdam, 1857. (Courtesy of the Rijksmuseum)
2.1| the rise of nostalgia, changing attitudes
Even though the small-scale private and individual preservation of historical architecture was not a new phenomenon in the Netherlands, the destruction of architecture had until the middle of the nineteenth century never caused large concern in the eyes of the public. The city of Amsterdam was historically focused on progress and modernisation, which was considered to be in the general interest of the population. Around 1800 this attitude started to change, due to the rise of the movement of ‘romanticism’, which in turn ushered in a sentiment of nostalgia. Romanticism formed as a reaction against the rapid transitions that were brought along with industrialisation and it favored the pre-industrialised past. The preference for the past related to a feeling that the world was becoming increasingly anonymous and individualistic and asked for a return of local communal identity. Although this movement initially focused on history in general and remained limited to the written word, the preference for the historic and local identity broadened to architectural fashion as well in latter decades. This first emerged in the middle of the nineteenth century by the usage of the neo-styles in new construction, sometimes even imitating older construction, although it very often
25 replaced them. This process, which architects considered to be architectural emulation, was
inevitably met by criticism as well. It contributed to the process of redevelopment that erased large parts of the historical fabric of cities, following an international trend, therefore ignoring the sought-after desire for locality in architectural styles.
The criticism on demolition in the Netherlands usually did not reach far beyond the scope of academics and architects. It was not until the proposed demolition of the Westerhal by the City Council of Amsterdam, that a public awareness emerged. In 1856 the City Council decided that the old weigh house at the Westermarkt, the so-called Westerhal was to be dismantled. The Council argued that the raising costs for the maintenance of the seventeenth century structure made it a burden. Furthermore, the building had lost its historical function, was superfluous and keeping it was redundant. This proposition would not have been unusual at the time, since the city had already demolished two weigh houses several years earlier. Although these losses had been criticised and mourned by citizens, they were not met by large-scale protest.37 The proposed destruction of the Westerhal, however, did. On the eleventh of August 1856 a letter of a concerned citizen (signing
with ‘M’) was published in the newspaper ‘Algemeen Handelsblad’. M was appalled by the
destruction at hand and considered the building to be one of the few remaining examples of a Dutch architectural style, which the author considered to be ‘quirky’, thereby almost affectionately calling the building beautiful. One of the arguments used by the city council in favor of the demolition of the Westerhal, was that the Council considered the building to not hold any historical memory.38 To
this statement ‘M’ replied: ‘’is the establishment of such a building not a historical fact itself? What more does one need?’’.39 ‘M’, whose identity has never been established, by his critical reply,
constituted a prime example of the changing attitudes concerning historical architecture. ‘M’ was backed by several prominent figures, such as the author J.A. Alberdingk Thijm, who issued a statement calling for the preservation of the Westerhal. In the end, their attempts were unsuccessful and the building was demolished on the orders of the City Council in 1857. The demolition sparked outrage, and writers such as E.J. Potgieter and others asked for a broader approach to the term ‘monument’, contemplating whether the term might not refer solely to those buildings that were remnants of the art and history of the past.40
37 Hell, M. ‘De Waag die niet won (1561-1808)’, Ons Amsterdam, no. 4 (April 2008): p. 7.
38 For a more detailed description of the demolition of the Westerhal see Denslagen, W. Romantisch
Modernisme. Amsterdam: Sun, 2004.
39 Translated from Dutch by author. Anonymous, using ‘M’. ‘Amotie der Westerhal’, Algemeen Handelsblad,
11-08-1856: p. 3.
40 Roenhorst, W. ‘Monumenten van Natuur en Schoonheid’, in Grijzenhout, F. Erfgoed - de geschiedenis van
26
2.2| the private and public development of architectural
preservation
Around the middle of the nineteenth century, several initiatives for monumental care were taken within governmental departments. In 1844 the Dutch Minister of State for Binnenlandse Zaken (‘the Home Office’) designed a missive directed to governors of the provinces of the Netherlands, asking them to protect monuments in their province, albeit to little success. Thirty years later, the
government of the Netherlands set up the College van Rijksadviseurs voor de Monumenten van
Geschiedenis en Kunst (‘Governmental Committee of Advisors for the Monuments of History and
Art’). The committee was meant to advise architects on proposed conservation projects. It rarely found any support as most restorations were still private undertakings in which no government interference was appreciated. De Stuers was appointed as secretary but left within the year because of dissatisfaction. A year later De Stuers became advisor of a new department which was established within the Home Office called Kunsten en Wetenschappen (‘Arts and Sciences’), also meant to protect architecture. This ‘protection’ was met with public resistance, and it was considered
detrimental to the admired ‘progress’-mindset of the country and the supposed intention and need for a ‘meddling’ of the government in cultural preservation was doubted. Therefore the department was abolished in 1879.41
In the years after the destruction of the Westerhal, the public support for the preservation of historic architecture in the Netherlands started to grow.42 Nearly a century and a half later,
architectural historian Ruud Meischke, a board member of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’, noted that this was first fueled by travel journals of foreigners such as Henry Havard (1838-1921). In his travel book ‘La
Hollande pittoresque’ (1876) Havard wrote about his admiration of the Dutch cityscape and its
historic architecture.43 The travel journals proved very popular and Havard was the first of many
describing visits to the country. Previously, in architectural-historical studies the Netherlands had exclusively been discussed in combination with countries such as Germany and Belgium, but at the end of the nineteenth century the value of Dutch architecture was acknowledged, likely influenced by other travel journals and the quest for a national identity. Exemplary is a book Georg Galland (1857-1915) wrote, called Geschichte der holländischen Baukunst und Bildnerei (1890). In the
41 Duparc, F.J. Een eeuw strijd voor Nederlands cultureel erfgoed. Den Haag: Staatsuitgeverij, 1975: pp. 12-14. 42 Meischke, R. ‘Beschouwingen rond de huizencollectie van de Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser’. Bulletin KNOB,
no. 6 (2000): p. 213. Other observations are made in Meischke, R. Het Nederlandse Woonhuis van 1300-1800.
Vijftig jaar Vereniging ‘Hendrick de Keyser’. Haarlem: H.D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon N.V., 1969: pp. 5-10.
27 introduction of this book Galland stressed how recently published novels (probably referring to the likes of Havard) had helped him discover the unique cosmopolitan character of Dutch seventeenth century architecture, which for him justified the detailed description of its development in his publication.44 The almost picturesque image that was created by Galland and his contemporaries,
will have influenced Sydney Robert Jones’s publication of Old Houses in Holland (1913). In his introduction he wrote: ‘’ (…) but it is the extraordinary number of old buildings still existing, unchanged in form since the days they were erected and mellowed by ages of sun and rain, that ever appeal to the eye and imagination.’’.45
The romanticised, historical and ‘unaltered’ view of the Dutch cityscape starkly contrasts with the opinion of Dutch contemporaries such as De Stuers. Large scale city remodeling and the continuous threat of renewed urbanisation, had led to an increasing amount of historic buildings disappearing in favor of newer construction. With the adaption of the Woningwet in 1901 the situation worsened for the preservation of old houses. The new law stated that a certain new building standard had to be maintained, in new and old constructions alike. A newly established department, the Dienst
Bouw- en Woningtoezicht (‘Construction and Building Control’) was given the task of routinely
checking tenement houses in Amsterdam, to see if they were up to the described standards and if they were not, they would be declared ‘onbewoonbaar’ (uninhabitable). When this happened, the owner either had to make alterations to his building to make sure that it was up to the standard, or had to vacate the property. Since alterations were generally more expensive than complete
rebuilding, many houses fell victim to demolishment.
As more photographs of historic architecture were published in widely distributed newspapers and magazines, knowledge and awareness of historic architecture grew. Magazines such as Buiten (published weekly starting in 1907), which was modeled after the English Country Life, will have helped to create a larger podium for the appreciation of historical architecture.46 Changing attitudes
towards architecture are also noticeable in the national historical societies that were established at this time. One of the first of its kind was the Koninklijk Oudheidkundig Genootschap (‘Royal Historical Society’) in 1858, which aimed to broaden the academic field of historical research, thereby
enhancing the knowledge of Dutch history. This in turn led to an enlarged historical awareness
44 Galland, G. Geschichte der holländischen Baukunst und Bildnerei – im Zeitalter der Renaissance, der
nationalen Blüte und des Klasscismus. Frankfurt am Mein: Verlag von Heinrich Keller, 1890: pp. VI-VII.
45 Jones, S.R. Old Houses in Holland. New York: ‘The Studio’ LTD, 1913: p. 3.
46 Meischke, R. ‘Beschouwingen rond de huizencollectie van Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser’, Bulletin KNOB, no.
6 (2000): p. 213; Krabbe, C.P. ‘Monumenten: architectonische overblijfselen’, in F. Grijzenhout. Erfgoed - de
28 within society. The Koninklijk Oudheidkundig Genootschap was followed in 1899 by the
establishment of the Nederlandse Oudheidkundigen Bond (‘Dutch Bond of Historians’) that sought to contribute and collaborate in the maintenance of Dutch monuments. In 1911 another society was formed called Bond Heemschut, which aimed to watch over the material ‘beauty’ of the
Netherlands. Many local initiatives, such as Oudheidkundig Genootschap Niftarlake (1912) and
Vereniging Oud Hoorn (1917) also found their start in this period. The widespread destruction of
historical architecture was, however, still not brought to a halt.47
In response to these new societies, the government set out for a similar progressive change. This started in 1903 when a new commission was established tasked with making an inventory of what was worth preserving within the Netherlands. This would lead to the development of the Voorlopige
Lijsten der Nederlandsche Monumenten van Geschiedenis en Kunst (‘Provisional Lists of Dutch
Monuments of History and Art’) between 1908 and 1933. Although numerous buildings throughout the country were now ‘listed’, the listings were not legally binding for preservation and therefore did not lead to a new method of preservation or protection. Although an owner could now be notified of the ‘listed’ status his property had, if he decided to demolish his property, there was nothing
preservationists could do. In 1918, the commission would become the Rijksbureau voor
Monumentenzorg (‘National Bureau for Monumental Care’). Several decades later this bureau was
criticised for their carelessness in listing properties. In many cases, the inspectors who would decide what would become listed, solely based their decision upon a building’s façade. Little research was done into a building’s history. Because these lists would serve as a basis for the eventual first official national list of monuments, several buildings that would in retrospective nowadays be considered historically important could and would not be placed, based exclusively upon their (sometimes heavily modernised) façades and some would be destroyed well after the Second World War.48
2.3| Amsterdam: leading the nation on heritage preservation
Nationally, progress in the field of monumental preservation before 1918 was slow. Locally, mainly in Amsterdam, development in the public sector on preservation would take its own turn.
Amsterdam was leading, because at the turn of the twentieth century it was living through a second ‘Golden Age’. Because of the economic prosperity, new construction, rebuilding and expansion of
47 Westermann, H. ‘Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser’, Spiegel der Historie, vol. 3, no. 3 (March 1968): p. 73. 48 Westermann, H. ‘Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser’, Spiegel der Historie, vol. 3, no. 3 (March 1968): p. 73.
29
The Rokin is (partially) filled with sand from the Grimburgwal to the Dam Square, around 1937. (Courtesy of Stadsarchief Amsterdam)
the city was at the order of the day.49 Whereas in other cities in the Netherlands, small-scale
preservation was undertaken by individuals, Amsterdam had fallen behind. Large economic benefits, skyrocketing plot value and local thrift for redevelopment led to a cluttered, expensive city where preservation undertaking was most likely too costly.50 With the local government attempting to
‘modernise’ the city following the examples of world capitals such as Paris, it had been decided that the canals of Amsterdam had to be filled in order to sanitise the city and make way for large avenues that could accommodate the growing amount of traffic.
As a result, in succession the Goudsbloemgracht (current Willemsstraat), Nieuwezijds Achterburgwal (current Spuistraat), Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal, Rozengracht, Warmoesgracht (current
Raadhuisstraat), Spui and Rokin lost their canals. When the city government announced plans to close the Reguliersgracht in 1901, local inhabitants protested. Fronted by painter and art critic Jan Veth (1864-1925), the inhabitants published a document called Stedenschennis (‘city profanation’) criticising the ever forward pacing development of the city. They argued that the local council had no respect for local history and that the material memory of Amsterdam would be completely erased if the current demolition pace was kept up. In the end their actions were successful and the
Reguliersgracht was saved. Their success would lead to the founding of local historical society
49 Rosenberg, P.T.E.E. ‘Een greep uit de geschiedenis: oprichting en eerste jaren’, Monumentaal, vol. 19, no.
1-2 (January/February 1998): p. 6.
50 Meischke, R. Het Nederlandse Woonhuis van 1300-1800. Vijftig jaar Vereniging ‘Hendrick de Keyser’.
30
The destruction of the ‘Nieuwezijds Kapel’ in Amsterdam in 1906 was one of many that sparked public outrage at the time. (Courtesy of Stadsarchief Amsterdam)
Amstelodamum in 1900, with Veth as its front man.51 The Dienst Bouw- en Woningtoezicht in
Amsterdam had taken it as its task, besides surveying building construction and inspecting older construction on basis of the Woningwet of 1901, to try and convince private developers to refrain from demolishing historic houses. It did so after Amstelodamum had contacted them in 1909 expressing their concerns about the destruction of the city. In its annual reports, the Dienst Bouw-
en Woningtoezicht would conclude that it was sometimes able to keep historic architecture from
disappearing by the success of their negotiations.52 From 1911 onwards, it was assisted in this
process by the newly created Commissie voor het Stadsschoon (Commission for City Beauty), which is most closely related to modern-day ‘welstandcommissies’ (aesthetic committees). Aside from negotiating with homeowners, a second objective of the Commissie was the review of new construction designs.53
51 Veth, J. Stedenschennis: naar aanleiding van de Reguliersgracht-kwestie. Amsterdam: Ten Brink en De Vries,
1901. Zantkuyl, H. ‘De Stad Verzorgt Haar Erfdeel’ in Roegholt, R. Levend Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Stichting Amsterdam Monumentenstad, 1987: p. 12
52 Rossem, V. van. ‘Moderne architectuur in de schaduw van het Modernisme’ Bulletin KNOB, nr. 4 (2008): p.
140.
31
Cornelis Johannes Steenbergh, Keizersgracht 198, ca. 1910. Attributed to architect Hendrick de Keyser. Probably photographed for the magazine ‘Buiten’. (Courtesy of ‘Geheugen van Nederland’)
That the events of the past and the process that had been made in the field of monumental care had not led to stricter control preventing further demolition, can be illustrated by the loss of a house that some considered to be one of the finest examples of ‘Hollandish’ renaissance. In the summer of 1917, a large house at the corner of the Westermarkt and Keizersgracht (next to where the
Westerhal had been demolished some fifty years earlier) was offered for sale. The house, adorned
with a double stepped gable topped with tympanums, red brick façade and classically inspired elements was attributed to the architect Hendrick de Keyser and was often cited to be essential in
32 illustrating the development of Dutch architecture.54 When the house was ultimately sold, the new
owner initially promised to keep the structure. This promise was needed, because a fear had already emerged that the house might be demolished.55 Since the house was privately owned and in the
absence of monumental law or listing, there was little preservationists could do. If an owner wanted to demolish a house, all they could undertake was attempting to persuade him to keep the structure intact.56 They apparently did not succeed and on the 12th of October 1917, the ‘Algemeen
Handelsblad’ published an advert for the demolition of Keizersgracht 198. Crucial in this event is that
it was not entirely impossible to prevent the destruction of monuments. The Commissie voor het
Stadsschoon, established in 1911, held some authority on handling building applications as it was
responsible for reviewing and deciding upon all public construction, but in private undertakings it could only give advice. For Keizersgracht 198, their support was probably ill-conceived since the architect employed for the new design at the site, Gerrit van Arkel, was also a member of their Commission. Thus, due to the private nature of the undertaking, the building was dismantled in 1918 despite large public protest. Ironically, the Van Arkel-designed successor of the building is now a listed ‘gemeentelijk monument’.57
2.4| establishing ‘Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser’
The demolition of Keizersgracht 198 is sometimes hailed as a direct motivation for the establishment of Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser in January of 1918. Although it is certain that the founders of the association were aware of the demolition and most likely criticised it, another building in Amsterdam is equally associated with the initiation of the organisation. The so-called ‘Wijnkopersgildehuis’ (wine merchants guild house) at Koestraat 10-12 was preserved, unlike Keizersgracht 198 and the way this preservation was obtained probably constituted the origin of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’. Its preservation is often mentioned upon the jubilees of the association as an early example of success in architectural preservation. It is a seventeenth century building, fronted by three neck gables which are
characteristic for Amsterdam. The house was originally constructed as three separate houses. It was thereafter used as a tavern, but became most well-known as a guild house for the Amsterdam wine
54 Posthumus Meyjes, F.E. Verslag van den Secretaris. Vereeniging Hendrick de Keyser – Eerste Jaarverslag
1918. Amsterdam, 1919: p. 7.
55 Anonymous. ‘Een oud huis verkocht’. Algemeen Handelsblad, 25-09-1917: p. 2; Anonymous. ‘Verdwijnende
Oude Huizen’. Algemeen Handelsblad, 24-10-1917: p. 3.
56 Posthumus Meyjes, F.E. Verslag van den Secretaris. Vereeniging Hendrick de Keyser – Eerste Jaarverslag
1918. Amsterdam, 1919: p. 7.
57 Amsterdamse Grachtenhuizen. ‘Keizersgracht 198 / Westermarkt 2’. No date. Web. 12-1-2017.
33
Logo designed for ‘Hendrick de Keyser’ by Tine Baanders (1890-1971) in 1948. (Courtesy of Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser)
merchants. After the wine guild left at the end of the eighteenth century, the building decayed and became overcrowded when it was inhabited by 13 families in the early twentieth century. It was eventually bought in 1917 by Jacobus Theodorus Boelen (1876-1946). Boelen was the owner of a family business that had imported foreign wines since the eighteenth century and bought the building as a sign of respect to the family tradition of being wine merchants.58 He subsequently
rented it out and discovered that he was able to maintain and restore the structure from rental income alone.59 That this seemed a sensible solution for architectural preservation brought him to
conclude that this might be applicable to more property. Together with several likeminded friends he subsequently outlined the idea of acquisition and preservation by renting buildings. This concept served as the basis for the establishment of ‘Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser’.60 The founders took the
name of city architect De Keyser on the suggestion of Jan Veth. It was most likely one of the few names of architects from the seventeenth century to be still well-known at the turn of the twentieth century, in large part due to several contemporary publications.61 Moreover, he could compete as
the architectural counterpart to the recently bombarded ‘national painter’ Rembrandt.62 In the first
annual report of ‘Hendrick de Keyser’, Boelen’s acquisition of the Wijnkopersgildehuis is mentioned as the direct motivation for the establishment of the association.63 The building itself was however
not the first to be owned by Hendrick de Keyser’, it was only bought out of his inheritance by the organisation after the death of Boelen in 1946.
58 Boelen, J.Th. ‘Het voormalig wijnkopersgildehuis’. Maandblad Amstelodamum, no. 14 (1927): p. 83-84;
Meischke, R. e.a. Huizen in Nederland: Amsterdam. Zwolle: Waanders, 1995: pp. 190-193.
59 Ozinga, M.D. ‘Bij het Gouden Jubileum der Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser’, Spiegel der Historie, vol. 3, no. 3
(March 1968): p. 80.
60 Westermann, H. ‘De Vereeniging ‘’Hendrick de Keyser’’’ in Gedenkboek van de Vereeniging Hendrick de
Keyser 1918-1928 – Oud-Hollandsche Bouwkunst en Haar Behoud: pp. 11-12.
61 Neurdenburg, E. Hendrick de Keyser – beeldhouwer en bouwmeester van Amsterdam. Amsterdam:
Scheltema & Holkema, 1930: pp. 1-3; Ottenheym, K., P. Rosenberg and N. Smit. Hendrick de Keyser –
architectura moderna. Amsterdam: Sun, 2008: pp. 6-7.
62 Rosenberg, P.T.E.E. ‘Een greep uit de geschiedenis: oprichting en eerste jaren’, Monumentaal, vol. 19, no.
1-2 (January/February 1998): p. 7.
63 Posthumus Meyes, F.E. Verslag van den Secretaris. Eerste Jaarverslag Vereeniging Hendrick de Keyser.
