The Amsterdam School Ma-Ija Cisdata

010 Publishers

For my dearest friends Enrico Hartsuyker a?d Luzia Curjel

- - - -- - - --

010 Publishers Rotterdam 1996

The architecture of the Amsterdam School: housing and city

The Amsterdam School was not a movement with a clear philosophy laid

down explicitly in a manifesto. As a group it did not have a recognized leader,

nor did any hierarchy prevail within it. The true binding element within the

group was friendship, teamwork and a common approach t o the profession.

The architecture of the Amsterdam School was widely featured in various

periodicals, yet the School protagonists never took the initiative to put in

print their own journal. Wendingen (meaning 'turnings' or 'changes'), which

was published between 1918 and 1931, was commonly considered to be

the magazine of the Amsterdam School, and consequently the group was

sometimes also called the 'Wendingen group'. The magazine was, in fact,

primarily the mouthpiece of its editor-inihief H.Th. Wijdeveld, who actual-

ly did attempt t o spread the School's potentials and ideas by producing

several issues related to i t s designs.

All these unique peculiarities make it difficultto give a complete picture o f

the principles, programmes and architecture of the Amsterdam School.

Furthermore, the School lacked an organized platform, unlike other move-

ments in the early modern period.

At the beginning o f the twentieth century, prevailing circumstances in

Amsterdam fostered a specific cultural climate. There, several architects,

with similar assignments, means of design and expressive forms evolved

an artistic temperament encouraged by comparable beliefs, which in turn

generated a specific, recognizable identity. The outcome was extraordinary.

The face of the city was t o change radically and unforgettably.

When the cultural climate that had been so fertile for the Amsterdam

School altered in the second half of the nineteen-twenties, and the prota-

gonists changed their professional orientation, the most radical qualities

of that architectural vocabulary progressively disappeared and the Amster-

dam School ceased t o flourish.

Group photograph at E Cuypen' practrce. the cradle of

the Arn5terdam School (eariy 20th century), PL Kramer IS

on rhe far rrght, w lh G F La Cmlx be51de hlm M de Klerk

IS the second from the lef t

Sketch for the cover o l Wendm-

gen 1918. no. 2

1.C. van Epen. Sketch for the

poster for an arch~tecture exh~bl-

!!on launched by the BNI (Bond

van Nederlandse Arch~lecten) in

H~lversurn. 1925

Before we can discuss the characteristics o f this architecture, we must first

determine its 'breeding ground', i.e. define the conditions which produced

those architectonic results which led to what is known as the 'Amsterdam

School'.

Praise and criticism of the Amsterdam School For decades i t had

proved difficult to place the Amsterdam School in an objective, historical

context, and consequently criticism of the group's architecture has varied

considerably over the past years. Buildings that had once been designed to

be emotive, themselves became the victims of emotional criticism.

The designation 'Amsterdam School' originated from the architect Jan

Gratama, a fervent champion of this imaginative architecture. It was first

used to describe a group of young architects who, in the years around i g i 5,

were stirring up the already unsettled world o f Amsterdam architecture.

In 1916, for the sixtieth birthday of Hendrik Petrus Berlage, the patriarch of

Dutch architecture, Gratama wrote an extensive criticism on his work, in

which he also examined the connections between designs by some young

novices and those of the master. His comments relating to the new gen-

eration read as follows:

'The young do not have the patience of Moses (sic!); they want to savour

the purple wine of the promised land of architectural beauty now. [ . . . I That i s the reason for the latest architectural movement, the modern Am-

sterdam School, with its expressionism, its modern romanticism, its imagi-

nation. Those who grew up with Berlage's doctrines, now want the blos-

soms of the tree whose trunk and branches are formed by rationalism. In

the general, rational style, they seek a spirited, sensitive, so profoundly

personal beauty. [ . . .I Young architects, like Van der Mey, Kramer, De Klerk

and others, want more freedom; they want to express construction and

embellishment according to their own ability and character."

Gratama was underlining several features of the new approach to build-

9- - -. . - -, -.-. b- - :

M. de Klerk, Design for Friedman's Emigrantenhu~s (house lor emi.

grants). Amsterdam 1920. Perspective drawing and ground plan

Cartoon from De Houten Pomp of 20 May 1927 entitled 'Amsterdam

urban beauty under the sociallsrs'. Th15 humorous weekly was publish-

ed by a pol~t~cal party w~ th a conservative rel~gious background

ing. The architects were young and learnt from Berlage's rationalism, yet

preferred the exuberance of a 'modern romanticism'.

Two years after the name 'Amsterdam School' had been adopted. P.H. Endt

took i t upon himself to deny the existence of a School, in one of the first

issues of Wendingen: 'On closer consideration, nothing remains of the

school-like unity, and so I suggest that the "Amsterdam School" be stifled.

Yet there is between them and others, be they from Amsterdam or not, a far

more profound common ground, which, albeit quite evident, in fact covers

a far wider area than that of their small circle. What they have in common

with modernists throughout the world, is a striving towards spatial archi-

tecture, towards a plastic effect, in a word, they have the feeling for the

three-dimensional, which we Dutch "miniaturists" have so long lacked.'=

The first international recognition came in the years that followed. The

English architectural historian Howard Robertson, who was quick t o point

out the group's social-mindedness, wrote in 1922 in The Architectural Re-

view: 'Inspired by Berlage, but much more extreme in their expression, are

the younger men, such as De Klerk, Kramer, La Croix, Wijdeveld. De Klerk is

certainly one of the newest and brightest stars in the modern constellation.

His influence is so potent as t o have brought into being already a host of

imitators who may, perhaps, copy his mannerisms without comprehending

his ideals. But as De Klerk's mannerisms are as changeable as his technique

is resourceful, it is probable that his work will always remain distinct and

bdl Des~gn (Wlm Crouwel).

ster for the Amsterdam

Scttvol exhibition at the

Stcdelqk Museum. Amsterdam.

'975 The Am$rerdam Schml exhibi-

Iran at the C o o p r - n m t t

M w u m . New York. 1983.

Armchr~r by M. de Klerk

recognizable. The conditions prevailing in Holland as regards the status of

architecture are significant and illuminating. I t i s the greater public inter-

est in building which has made the new manifestations possible, and at

the same time it i s the sponsors of the new school who by their vigour and

personality have helped largely to create this interest.'p

In 1926 Jean Badovici devoted an article in L'Architecture Vivante to the

creative identity of the Amsterdam School: 'The antithesis between the

scientific and the artistic spirit i s no more than an outmoded clichb. [ . . . I And

so the Amsterdam School has refused to make a categorical choice; it prefers

t o keep a place for the old poetic formula among all the new developments:

apparent in the mysterious darkness of some of i t s buildings. The past has

too great a hold on the architects for them t o focus in complete freedom on

taking up and arranging elements according to an entirely new plan. Reason

and instinct are almost in balance, as are the drive t o reform, and tradition.'4

Three yeals later, when the creativity of the Amsterdam School was as good

as extinguished, H.R. Hitchcock discussed the movement in his Modern Archi-

tecture: Romanticism and Reintegration, in a chapter entitled 'The New

Tradition', relegating i t t o local, as opposed t o modern, trends. He referred

t o the vitality and plasticity of De Klerk's and Kramer's buildings, and praised

the work of the architects of the Amsterdam municipal public works depart-

ment. But he also felt that De Klerk's followers had produced a form of

conformism which had no future. And it was precisely against this some-

what persistent conformism that the artists of De Stijl and a few rationalist

architects rebelled. They took issue with the uniformity of the categorical

romanticism that the Amsterdam School had generated.

In 1953, in his Poetica dell'architettura neoplastica Bruno Zevi, echoing the

painter Theo van Doesburg, reiterated a negative opinion which was to be

voiced frequently in subsequent decades: 'The Wendingen group of Amster-

W. Krornhout, Cafe-reslaurant-

hotel 'Arnerlcan'. Amsterdam

1898-igo2. Facade

dam has suffocated all other authentically cultivated voices, with its ambiva-

lent pragmatism', and he went on to say 'The Wendingen group was an

organization of opportunists, of those "modern but with charm" ... - a com-

promise, which, behind the mask of "embrassons nous" and of tolerance,

betrayed its own agnosticism and served t o disrupt the unity of the modern

movement.'s

Following the criticism of international rationalism, the Amsterdam School's

rehabilitation coincided with an article by Guido Canella, which was publish-

ed in 1957 in the Italian periodical Casabella-continuita. Canella described

as the most important feature of the Amsterdam School the close ties be-

tween political and cultural life: 'Great and tragic, like the years it reflected

so perfectly, the Amsterdam School has come face to face with the very trend

to which it did not want to belong, the modern movement. Its face isfurrow-

ed by time, [ . . .I yet it sympathizes with the most progressive aspects of soci-

ety and represents its most humanitarian feelings, in its hunger for freedom

and justice, in its desire for knowledge and truth, in its humanist tradition.'=

Since the seventies, the Amsterdam School is once more being featured in

publications, though no longer in the polemic tones which characterized

past reviews. In 1970 J.J. Vriend published a booklet on the movement. And

two American researchers devoted their theses t o this topic; that same year

Susan Frank took M. de Klerk as her subject, and in the following year Helen

Searing addressed the housing of the Amsterdam School. These two Ameri-

can scholars are responsible for the first systematic, comprehensive approach

H.P Bedqe m w g n f u a r ~ b e t o the complexities o f the Amsterdam School. Many publications followed, plnure ba& m ~llusnanms and i n the changing, more favourable climate, numerous exhibitions once from Ermr H a ~ k e l S Kwlst-

,ormenderNarvr, ,8gg,gy more highlighted the visual expressiveness o f the Amsterdam School.7

n.p eerlagr b s g n for m &c- The revival in interest i s also due t o recent restorations, which have meant

Rn

tet

ch.

trlc chandchm lmde the tm that many important, yet dilapidated housing developments in Amsterdam, clrclesat the lop, the evoorlw

ucNre of an ocropus rela- have once more acquired their original vitality o f form and colour, although

11orheformal1mageof rhe many o f the original, splendidly worked details and ornaments are being ~de l te r replaced by impoverished modern versions, which detract f rom the whole

idea behind this architecture.

Nowadays criticism o f the Amsterdam School no longer centres on the polar-

i ty between traditionalists and modernists, but more especially on the

work itself, the magnificent buildings which are s t i l l inspirational and

valuable. There are, i n addition, other qualities, such as the focus on hous-

ing for large numbers o f new urban residents, the def ini t ion o f the district

as a unit within urban expansion, the attention t o communal amenities

and street furniture, and the desire t o seek a civic and collective identity

for l i fe i n the new city.

Influences and sources At the turn o f the century several factors contri-

buted t o the emergence o f the expressiveness which exemplified the Amster-

dam School. Within the most advanced intellectual milieux, social theories

were being discussed at length, as was the role o f art and architecture.

In that respect Amsterdam set an example. In the field o f planning, the

need for aesthetic control of the city's landscape by the public authorities K.PC. dc Baml. D C S I ~ ~ fors

was seen as a priority after the urban laissez-faire policy of Kalff's 1875 p u b l l c ' l ~ b a c O m p o r m n

qmmd by me rssaclmon expansion plan for Amsterdam. This plan provided for new districts whose

ccAmlcl,ta, r895

image was shaped by uniform, drab houses, quite different from architec-

tonic excellence of the splendid centre wi th its concentric rings of canals

and expressive, varied edifices. In 1898 the Committee for Advice (Commis-

sie van Advies) was set up in Amsterdam. Its task was t o evaluate the aes-

thetic congruity of new construction. About twenty years later this commit-

tee gave birth t o the schoonheidscommissie, the committee for aesthetic

advice (or vetting committee), which was to have a crucial influence on

the spread of Amsterdam School architecture.

The association Architectura et Amicitia, founded in 1855, was seminal for

the architects. Since the late nineteenth century most leading Dutch archi-

tects had equated it with the nidus of the profound transformation taking

place in their professional attitudes. During their meetings, members dis-

cussed major topics concerning architecture, such as theories, their urge

for a figurative representation of the world, and the role of the architect,

who felt a deep need to be an artist. Exhibitions, debates and discussion

groups were organized, aimed at diffusing those issues within a larger

professional public. In the years when first W. Kromhout and later K.P.C. de

Bazel were chairmen, those arguments reached a peak. They both objected

to the tendency to focus design activity on technical and economic issues,

to the detriment of artistic talent. Their goal was t o convince young prac-

titioners that an architect was also an artist. By i g i 7 many of the Amster-

dam School architects had joined the association, and held important

posts in all kinds of administrative and publishing bodies. In that year a

vehement debate took place at Architectura et Amicitia on the conditions

of admission for new members. There were many architects of the Amster-

dam School in the board: J. Gratama was the chairman, and C.J. Blaauw,

M. de Klerk, J.M. van der Mey. J.F. Staal, P. Vorkink and H.Th. Wijdeveld

were all members. They asserted that the only criterion for membership

was artistic talent, to be ascertained by an expert jury.'

During the debate, the formulation of correct, specific professional ethics

was discussed, according to which the relationship between an architect

. and his work could be assessed: 'All the work which is credited to a member

must be his spiritual property, in other words, the conception of the work

W Kmmhour Competttlon

entry for the Peace Palace with

a Ilbrary. The Hague. r go6

M de Klerk Courryard of Hel-

smg0r castle. Denmark, i g i o

5ke1ch

M de Klerk. Belfv In northern

Sweden. iglr Sketch

. . .

must be his, and any details and execution supervised by him. No member

shall permit his name to be omitted or withheld from work which he has

designed, even when he makes this design for a practitioner of architecture

or a related art.'g De Klerk stressed even more forcefully the unity between

the architect and his work, and claimed that an architect should also have

produced his drawings 'with his own hand'.

It is general knowledge that Berlage, wi th his works, writings and lectures,

was a guru for the generation of young Dutch architects of that time. The

young members of the Amsterdam School also owed him a debt of grati-

tude, for his approach to proportions and composition, spatial organiza-

t ion and his use of materials. Berlage had urged a more sincere and direct

contact with building and the unbiased use of innovative techniques. But

at the beginning of the twentieth century Berlage also evolved a moral

view of architecture, adapted to formal restrictions and the purity of the

building form. The idea being to take up the trend towards rationalization

which f i t ted into the new world.

However, this aim did not appeal t o the Amsterdam School. Berlage had

expressed his preference for mediaevalism and north European architec-

ture. He perceived sincere, 'Germanic' edifices with well-arranged spaces

as a clear example of the art of building. The architects of the Amsterdam

School were also fascinated by northern architecture, but when De Klerk

travelled to Scandinavia in 1910, he in fact encountered a vital, folkloristic

architecture, with its carved ornaments and undisguised wooden construc-

tions, and specifically the joints.

De Klerk expounded the difference of opinion in 1916, when the architec-

tural magazine, Bouwkundig Weekblad, asked various architects to give

their opinion on Berlage and his work. De Klerk praised above all the role

Berlage had played as a reformer with his Amsterdam Stock Exchange build-

ing. Yet he went on t o criticize his most recent achievements: 'To my mind,

Berlage has not spearheaded architecture for some ten years now. He fails

t o empathize with the sparkle of the new, the sensationally shocking, the

imposing and impressive which characterize what i s really modern (and

with which mechanical technology surprises us time and again nowadays).

Or at least he has never actually shown that he empathizes with it. [...I In

short, although Berlage's presence has certainly been valuable in purging

the building profession, he has been unable t o exert any influence on

architecture as a manifestation of ~ ty le . ' '~ In that respect Berlage was the

example as regards building method, but was the stepfather, rather than

the father of the Amsterdam School in terms of style.

E. Cuypen: V~lla at Museum-

plern, AmRerdam. 1905.

Penpecfwe rendering by M. de

Klerk

M, de Klerk. Design for a hall

heater, rgog

M, de Klerk: Cornpeflt~on

des~gn for a cafl-restaurant, ro

be made entirely of ferro con-

crere. wrfh the motto

'Monoiith', 1907

M. de Klerk: Comper~r~on

deslgn for a funeral chapel a1 a

public cemetery, with the motto

'Rerwdrnation', igro.

Prehrnlnary sketch of the main

entrance

M.deKlerk Cornpeiittonderrgn Another architect has meanwhile clearly emerged as a trailblazer: Eduard lor aDavirlonataspWtsctllb~ Cuypers. Helen Searing wrote an interesting essay on the subject, entitled

he mono The 4th'. 1907

Kl~~Dnlgn,o,rwln 'Berlage or Cuypers? The father of them all'. She confirmed Hitchcock's

1909 remark that E. Cuypers 'probably has just as much right as Berlage to be

considered a father of the Amsterdam School.'"

Eduard Cuypers was the nephew of the most important representative of the

Gothic revival in the Netherlands, Petrus Josephus Hubertus Cuypers, who

built the Amsterdam Central Station and the Rijksmuseurn in the last quarter

of the nineteenth century." Having first worked in his uncle's practice, young

Cuypers opened his own office in 1878. Three key figures of the Amsterdam

School worked there at the start of their careers: De Klerk, who was discover-

ed and initiated into the profession by E. Cuypers himself, Kramer, who

described the firm as 'the best school you could wish for as a young architect'

and Van der Mey. In addition, many other future stars in the Amsterdam

School's firmament worked for this practice: B.T. Boeyinga, J. Boterenbrood,

D. Greiner, G.F. La Croix, A. Eibink, J.A. Snellebrand and N. Lansdorp.

During the early years of this century, which were characterized by Berlage's

constructive moralism, Cuypers was exercising a personal eclecticism with

several sources of inspiration, such as the English Arts and Crafts and Bel-

gian Art Nouveau. Moreover, he was an authority on Vienna Secession archi-

tecture, and Olbrich in particular (whose influence i s much in evidence in

several of De Klerk's early projects). He combined, or more specifically

integrated these sources in his architecture - especially in single-family

homes - with clear arrangements and great attention to detail and decor-

ation. He had a personal way of combining all kinds of materials, colours

and furniture t o obtain maximum comfort in the domestic space.

In 1903 Cuypers launched the magazine Het Huis (which means the house,

or the home). It was primarily devoted to private housing, as the name sug-

gests. Cuypers' whole practice contributed. Many of the watercolours illus-

trating the projects were clearly the work of the best draughtsman in the

M. de Klerk: Cornpetltlon des~gn

for a railway stzt~on. 1906 , M. de Klerk: Cornpet~l~an desrgn

for four work~ng-dass houses.

wrth the title 'The Promlred

Land', ?go8

office: Michel de Klerk. Cuypers believed that the architect should be a

creator of beauty, something that Berlage considered 'intolerable mani-

festations o f bourgeois individualism'. Unlike Berlage, he emphasized the

characteristic features of individual buildings wi th respect t o their func-

t ion and their surroundings.

Such contextual eclecticism and individualistic conception remained in evi-

dence in the practice of the young Amsterdam School architects. However,

they were not only influenced by the buildings they knew from the office

and from Het Huis, but also by the unrestricted working method, free

from any ideology and formal constraints. This freedom meant that ex-

tremely different influences could penetrate the very distinctive style of

the Amsterdam School.

Another important source of this idiom was exoticism, which was in fashion

at that time, and primarily had an Indonesian flavour in the Netherlands.

There was great admiration for the architecture of the oriental boat-shaped

communal hall-huts, with their sweeping thatched roofs and fine wood

carvings. These influences were much in evidence in the works of the Am-

sterdam School.

Berlege Srock Exchange

dlng, Damrak. Amslerdam.

1898-1903 Gu~dang lanes bared

on geometric f~gures are super-

~mposed on the des~gn of the

maln facade

J L M Lauwer~ks Stem House,

Gbtrmrqen, 7911-1912 The geo-

metric grbd used as a desrgn tool

for rhe elevaf~on

On the other hand, an attempt to give the School a rational background

came from Berlage and J.L.M. Lauweriks. They still propagated, in their

work and writings, the aesthetic value of geometry, while postulating that

the mere application of mathematical rules would achieve harmonious

and spiritual proportions.'3 Lauweriks also had a pronounced preference

for a combination of different building materials, such as stone, brick and

wood. He had experimented with these materials in his houses in Germany,

for instance for the artist J. Thorn Prikker in Hagen (1910) and Professor

W. Stein in Gottingen (1911-1912).

Finally, there was a lively interest in all manner of new forms of visual

information, graphic art, advertising and typography.'4 They served to

emphasize the informative and symbolic character of the buildings with

respect t o the different functions, or else inspired designs for facades,

some of which were reminiscent of typographic lay-out.

The Scheepvaarthuis (Shipping Office Building, see p. 47) was seen as the

first tangible manifesto of the Amsterdam School. This i s almost literally

the case, since the graphic elements are integrated in the design of the

facade: names and symbols of shipping companies, oceans and ports,

representations of people and epic scenes.

In this respect it is worth mentioning the connection between the Amster-

dam School and the almost concurrent German Expressionism. Reyner

Banham summarized it succinctly: 'And it should be emphasised that

despite the tentative alliance of Amsterdam and Berlin in 1919, they were

separate developments, both in origin and character."s

Wijdeveld attempted to achieve an alliance between the two movements, by

means of Wendingen. From 1919 onwards i t featured utopian projects by

Bruno Taut, Poelzig and Mendelsohn and drawings by Finsterlin. But their

influence was limited, since the style of the Amsterdam School had been laid

down, and the contexts in which architects from the two countries worked

were completely different. Only a few projects, particularly Wijdeveld's,

F Cohen Arnsterdam cod[ of

arms, c. 1927

H.Th W~~dweld. T#rLet o f fm

and inner hall a! the Recla exhl- bition. Amsterdam rgaq

demonstrate any affinity with the expressionism of the German architects.

It is more a matter of comparable cultural examples and a similar romantic

feeling in the approach to a project than direct resemblances between the

actual buildings. In addition, there is a radical difference in sensitivity. sep-

arating German expressionism from the Amsterdam School. The former is

heroic, marked by a short, sharp artistic adventure, tragically individualis-

tic and visionary. The latter, though less emotional, has the same degree of

passion, and focuses on shared goals. A language of imaginative, individu-

al solutions which merge in the search for a collective identity. The archi-

tects' unrestricted creativity has given Amsterdam an identity which it had

lacked in preceding de~ades.'~

The Housing Act Arnsterdam School architecture would never have been

able to develop in such a characteristic fashion without the peculiar political

situation of the time. This had created new conditions for administrative

autonomy for the municipal authorities, city expansion and social housing.

The industrial revolution, with i t s concomitant changes, began relatively

late in the Netherlands. Dutch capitalism, based on the boom in commercial

businesses, industrial production and shipbuilding, did not take off until the

eighteen-seventies. And with it came phenomena like industrial concen-

tration, urbanization, the emergence of trade unions and a general political

awareness among the working classes. Migration to the city meant that the

housing shortage, and in its wake speculation, became a pressing problem.

Amsterdam had 270,000 inhabitants in 1870, in 1900 double that number,

and in 1920 there were 68o.000. Parliamentary committees' reports and

pamphlets exposed the miserable living conditions of the urban proletariat

and indicated the social dangers of the situation.'7

In 1881 the SDB (Sociaal Democratische Bond) was founded. Its leader,

An alley ~n Amsterdam city F.N. Domela Nieuwenhuis guided the party t o electoral victory in 1888; the centre. Zwane B~llrleeg. SDB entered the Dutch Parliament and Domela Nieuwenhuis became the Martelaarsgracht. c. i g i i

Basement dwelling. 58 Zeed~jk. first socialist member. Internal divisions between anarchists, trade unionists

Amsterdam. c. igoo and supporters of a more active policy in Parliament culminated in the

founding of the SDAP, Social Democratic Workers Party, in 1894. It was to

become the biggest socialist party, its main preoccupation being housing

for the workers. After the International Socialist Congress held in Paris in

1900, had described municipal reforms as 'the seeds of a collectivist so~iety', '~

the SDAP stepped up its emphasis on its task within the municipal councils.

At the end of the century the housing shortage was dealt with by chari-

table institutions. Benevolent patrons and individuals driven by humani-

tarian socialism established the first housing associations for the working

classes. This was the climate in which, in iqoi, N.G. Pierson, H.G. Borgesius

and P.W.A. Cort van der Linden, members of the liberal government, suc-

ceeded in getting a bill passed which had been submitted in 1899. This was

the Woningwet (Housing Act), which came into effect on 2 July 1902, and

generated tremendous changes - with ramifications for implementation,

standards and legislation. The Housing Act consisted of ten sections, two o f

which (numbers i and 6) were mandatory. The first section, 'Standards

concerning the quality o f dwellings', compelled the municipal councils to

draw up a building code (bouwverordening) formulating regulations for

the quality of new housing. Section 6, 'Growth of towns', stipulated that

municipalities with more than io,ooo inhabitants, or in which the population

had increased by more than one-fifth during the previous five years, had to

draw up an extension plan, to be revised at least once every ten years.

The remaining sections were facilitative. The f i f th section, dealing with

'Expropriation', contained a procedure to facilitate the expropriation of

land for public housing. Section 7, 'Municipal subsidies', stated that mu-

J E van der Pek Hourinq built

for the housing assmiation

Oude Vemniging de Woning

maatschapp~l, Amsterdam 1896

J E van der Pek 'Rochdale'

hour~ng. the first dwellings bu~lt

undec the Hous~nq Act. Van

Beuningenslraat. Amsterdam

'909 PL Kramer. Owlllnsr for the

housing association De

Daoeraad. Amsterdam South

7920-1923

4mnerdam l~ving cond~l~ons.

IUD vadls,', from D? Norm-

krakef. I8 On. 1973

'In a housing shortage: He's luck~ei than we are, he har h~s

*ome on his back!', from De

brenkraker. 18 OC!. lglg

, -- - . - - - I

nicipalities were in turn allowed t o pay government funds t o non-profit

housing associations for public housing. In this way the associations (woning-

bouwverenigingen) became the main bodies t o build the new, subsidized

houses. Section 8, entitled 'Contributions by the State' covered the right t o

municipal financing, to be repaid in fifty years, for mediation in the public

housing sector.'g

The Housing Act was accompanied by a Public Health Act, which in addition

had the job of monitoring the hygienic quality of the new houses, in that

it provided for preventative screening of the plans. The effect of these

acts, rules and financial regulations was considerable, and was also appar-

ent in contemporary architecture.

In 1905 Amsterdam was the first city to impose a building code, which was

to form an example for all large Dutch towns. Among its restrictive regula-

tions, i t required, for instance, that the facades of the residential build-

ings present a different aspect, reflecting the rhythm of the staircases,

which had t o be located at the front. Every dwelling had t o have direct

access t o stairs on every floor, with the least possible dwellings t o each

staircase. That resulted in more staircases and doors at the street side.

The fact that there was a fixed minimum size for courtyards meant that

architects were forced to come up with a new typology for the housing

blocks, the outcome of which was a perimeter block around an inner

court. And an architect might be commissioned to design only one side of

a block. The gardens in the courtyards, with the homes around them, were

sometimes public, but usually private. These elements produced in Amster-

dam, more than in other towns, a unity of type and module which the

Amsterdam School also used for stylistic and constructive unity.1°

In the years between the first and third decades of the twentieth century the

prevailing model for housing was the closed block. Bruno Taut described

this phenomenon, after he had visited the new districts of Amsterdam in

1929, as the most important contribution by the Netherlands t o modern

architecture: 'Arbitrary though many of the details of these constructions

undoubtedly were, the miracle actually did come t o pass, i.e. the creation

of a collective architecture, in which it is no longer the individual house

that was of special importance, but the whole long rows of houses in a

series of streets, and furthermore, the collective reassemblage of many

J.C. van Epen- Housing fm the

hws~ng assaclation Alqemeene

Wan~ngbcuwverenigtng, Amnsl-

dqk and lozef Israe4tkade.

Amsterdam South. 7922-197.4

series of streets into a comprehensive unity, even when such series were

the work of different architects.'"

Collective architecture which maintained the tradition of the individual

- to some extent by characterizing each building as a separate entity -

abounded in the Netherlands. What a contrast with the 'aesthetics of

standardization' which was emerging elsewhere in Europe at that time!

Gaetano Minnucci, who studied this modern Dutch architecture extensively,

was to write about i t : 'And so, as a result of the combining of economic

theories and a traditional urge and desire for independence, we see in the

modern quarters, numerous doorways along the street, in groups of two,

three or four, or poetically hidden between receding walls, in corners, often

with a pleasant, intimate character, suggesting that they give access t o an

independent house. You get the feeling, despite the building's massive-

ness, that each family has i t s own home, rather than several rooms arranged

in a corner of a human cage.'22

The effects of the Woningwet were not immediately apparent in the first

decade after it became law. Partly because funds were limited, and partly

because the liberals had explicit political reasons for not obstructing the

private sector too much. Amsterdam was the only town where substantial

numbers of subsidized new houses had been built before the first world

war. Although the Netherlands did not participate in the war directly, the

cost of building materials and wages trebled between 1915 and 1918. The

post-war economic crisis changed the whole scene. Government interven-

tion in the hard hit housing sector was inevitable. It took the form of 'crisis'

funding for municipal authorities and housing associations to support pub-

lic housing.

During those years of government subsidies the Amsterdam School had

plenty of scope t o build. Helen Searing described the situation as follows:

'From i g i 5 to 1930, that municipality was a veritable laboratory for expe-

W Grew. F~fty-four counc~l

dnell~ngs (Korretbeioh system)

m Ooqstslrut a1 Betomdorp,

Amrtwdcdam-Watqtraafsmcer

ig23-ig25(dernolisb?d In

1954)

J F Stad. Hauwng rnd shaps In

Jan Evertmsrraal. klrm

Mtrralwplcln arrd Adm~ralen-

KM, ~ansterbam wen 1925

Th Wlfdeveld Hous~ng.

a l d w g . Amslrrrlam Wcsr

1 ~ 2 5 - 1 9 2 7

* * a .t,Gpi)'% riments which embraced the full range of 1g05-lglo -I ,I ,, ,, ,,,, socioeconomic, technical and aesthetic fac- l g 11-1 g 1 5 &L~.,~*,&,<"&~.y.,p+i

.I - 1 I 1 @I .I 'I I 1 I 1 I 1

ig16-igzo mfif:;l;; tors which impinge on hous1ng'~3

I I.I 1 1977-1975 ( i t i i i m m ~ ~ : x i m ~ ,, .,,,,, ,,, Between 1910 and 1923 Amsterdam's hous- ~ p a - l g j o :; afi:efi ,,$k$;,;m?m;

A

ing associations built 11,867 homes, and lgjl- lg3s $ftl& 8 " .a -1 " " mlil " @ I " I' *I " , I * I ";##$;'" ~ l * ~ l ~ ~ l ~ # l m l ~ ~ l ~ ~ l ~ ~ l $">" W #I #I#*# a 1 a

city council itself built 4710. Those were the

days of the Amsterdam School and of social democratic success. In 1913 the Horlr~ngprod~,rl~on In the

SDAP took fifteen o f the thirty-nine seats in the municipal council. It was Nefhe"ands.Each houacrepre

5ents ro.000 dwelllnqs The also the time when several charismatic SDAP leaders held important politi-

greyhourer are thme bl,ill by cal and administrative posts. They advanced government intervention in hom~nqayjnc~atrnnr,th~ black

house building schemes. The winning slogan 'Housing i s a national matter, onsm~bul l tby themunic l -

pal avthar~t~es but a municipal task' summed up the social democrats' belief in local

action. In 1914 F.M. Wibaut took over as alderman in charge of public

housing. In 1915 J.W.C. Tellegen, the director of the planning authorities

(Bouw- en Woningtoezicht), became the burgomaster. And in the same

year, A. Keppler, one of Tellegen's staff, was appointed the director of the

newly-established municipal housing agency (Woningdienst).

Keppler, in particular, constantly stimulated the architects and the housing

associations. On various occasions he issued a plea for good architecture.

For instance, at meetings of Architectura et Amicitia, he talked to young

architects, in the hope of making them aware of the importance of public

housing. Keppler realized that such commissions were viewed as less im-

portant than the better paid ones, which he considered socially irrelevant.

In 1912 Keppler told the architects: 'Only i f you are well-disposed towards

the struggle (of the workers), will you be able t o do a good job building

fine working-class houses, the monuments t o their ~truggle. '~4 He wanted

the schoonheidscommissie t o have a greater say, and t o stimulate architects'

interest in expansion plans and public housing: 'Growing numbers are con-

cerned t o find a good solution for workers' homes and not only t o build

~i l las. '~s

Keppler supported the young architects of the Amsterdam School and de-

fended their freedom of expression. In 1920 he replied t o a journalist who

had been sarcastic about the luxuries in some workers' housing that 'no-

thing is fine enough for the working man whose deprivation and suffering

have been so great.'==

notes

i J Grmma. 'Hccvscrk vanBnlege', m K PC C Ba2elct d . h H P Berlagccnzyn w r k . Rotterdam rg16.

PP 4950 2 PH End? 'AmsrerdamseSchod', In W n q m q18. no 7, p 5

3 H Robcttscm, Modwn Dutch Archrlcrture, rn 7hekchrtarurdffcmw. Aug igzz, pp 46 and 50

4 J Badowc~, 'L'molc d'dmsterdam'. m L'AIFfnta7un Ylvane. S u m r97 l , vol IV, p z z

5 B Zen, Pc~t~adF//'drchrtemra ne~plasrr~d. hl~lan 7953. w 72 a d Ba

6 G Cawlla, ' L q m p a barghcsc della 5cuola dl Amsterdam . In CdsabeHa-rffilfrurld, 1957, no 215, p gr

7 Since the w h t l c s varmua extnbrm have brmdemfcd to t h e m k of !he hsrerdam School We refer

in parr~cular to fimsrmtamse Schcd W I a n d s c Arch~t~cfuw rgro-rg30 e ~ h ~ b ~ t ~ m held In the Stedel~lk

Museum, Amsterdam 1975 Also worth mentlonlnq 15 the exh~blt~on trauell~ng through several Itallan cltles

featunnq Dutch darmulc afctnlcctun ard the r t i p r tm t Uraloguc by M Casc~m. F Panzm~. S Polano

(eds ), Funzrone e Senso Arch~rerrurbCass,Crrrh Olanda 1870-rgqo. Mllan 1979 On the Amsterdam

School's protaqm1srs and rhe~r ach~evrmenrr see alra rtre eiih~b~non m the Cmpr-Hewm M u m In Ner*

York, and the cnaloguc W de Wlt, led ) The Amncrdsm %hod Durrh Erprss#mrsl AAtnmm. ~975-

1930, Cambr~dge (Mass )and London 1983

8 W Kromhout was chalrrnan of the axnxlatlon In iBg5lg6md iga81q) K ? de Bare! held the posltlon rn

1899-1901 and igrq'a) See J Srtnh. J van dc Wed, Gcmofxcfqo ArchMrura el AmKrlM. Rvtlerda

1992. PP 32-10?

9 The complete documcntatton r@larlng to t M &bate on th* amendment of Arch~rmura cr Amlclt~a's by-

Id% In 1917 can be found In the archlves of the Nrderlands Arch~recruur~nst~luut In Rotterdam. see also pre-

vrous footnote

l o Thew comnnmswcrepublrskd m Boolukundg W k M 1916, no 4 5 pp 331-332

ii See H Sear~ng, 'Berlagr or Cuypcn, The Farher of Them All In H Sear~ng. led In search of Modern

Arch~recture. A T n b u ~ m m R d I HftRnrl.. Smrbndge I M k s ) and L c d m ig8z. pp 216.344

H~rchcoct scommmt 19 fnmd In H R tbtrhcoch, Arch-rue M h ~ r m r h and Twenr~erh Cemunrs. London

1958. P 357

12 See G Hoogewwd ) Kuyl A Otenaar P I H Cuyprs en Ammrdarn Gebo11wt-n en onwerpn

1860-1898, ThCHague 1985, M Casoaro. 'Le place 11 qatlco~' In Dornus 1985 no 666 pp 12-15

13 The relattonsh~p between des~gn and *metry was researched by J H de Groot. a lu tvnr a1 rhe

Ufilvers~ty of Amsterdam He publrshed several fmportant worlr on the subject Dr&meken br) onlwerpen

van o r n m r wor zelfsrud~e en vow schden. Amnerdam rag6 ltogelhn wrth l a c h a d r Grool)

Kleurharrnon~e Amsterdam ig r i . Vormharmonre. Amslerdam I g i r Dr Groor s nmk ha2 cons~derable ~nf -

luence on Berlage and Lauwer~ks

14 See H Oldewarrls. Cane r~pografrca dl Wendlngen' In G Fsnelf~, n al Wtnd~rrgm rgrg- lgjr Docu-

men11 dell'arre olandere del Nomento. Florence igBz

15 R Banham. ThemyandMan m theF~nrMchmeAge. Lon& 1960 p 163

16 The magazrne Wendrngen regularly fedtured the work of German Expms~onrst arch~tecrs and anksrs,

due to some extent to the peaonal friendsh~p between Mendelsohn and W~rdwcld Apan from two rpeclal

jssues (1111rgz0, no l o devoted to E Mendelsohn and v1ligz4 no 3 on H F~nsterl~n) 11 also conra~ned

des~gns by H Poelzq a d El Taut In addrtron In rhe course of 1972 ArchrrPRura, rhe journal of the daso-

Clatlbn Afchfrectura el AmKlha, publtrhed nwnerous extracts from P Scheerbart's book Wasarch~relrur.

Munth 1gi4. the rhwrrt~cal man~festo of Express~on~sm See D Sharp. Modem A~hl teCt~fe and Expres-

sronrsm. London 1966, W Pehnt. Expresstonfir ArChrrarure. London 1973. M Carcbato. 'Mlchel de Klerk

utopla bu~lc' In The Amnerolarn School, op c ~ t .4 Boyd Whyre. The Crynal Charn levers. Archrrecrural

Fanrases by Bruno Taut and M Circle. Cambridge (Mas ) and London, 1985

17 Among the many compla~n~s and repons on the wretched s!ruatlon of the urban proletartat, one of the

mosl plleous IS by L M Hermans, Kronen en Sloppen. Amsterdam rqor C Schadel Wonrngbouw voor

arbem& m her ~ g d e - m e Amsrerdarn. Amsterdam ,981. contalns a descrlpt~on of work~ng-class homer

In the nineteenrh century A complete plaure of the hous~ng vssue In Amsterdam and 125 years of soc~al hous-

Ing 1s glven In E Ottens. Ik moer naar een kletnere wonlng omzren want mrjn g e m word1 re groor. Amster-

dam 7975

18 F Smtt. 'Nawoord' tn L 1L1 Hermans. op crr . reprlnt 1975, p 111

rg A great deal of research has been carfled out on th~s sublen See H G van Beusekom. Gerrlden der

\blkshulrwsfrng notrfres rnergerchtedenc; van e n halve eeuw, Alph~n a d Rtjn 1955. J Nycolaar. Volbs-

hursvesrrng. Nljmegen 1974. E J Hoogenberk. Her rdee van de Hollandsestad. Delft 1980. P de Ru~jter. Voor

volkshu~~esrmg en n&uw, Utrecht 1987

l o See J Castex. J Ch Depaule and Ph Panera. F m s utbrnes de Irlor a la barre. Pans lgBo, pp 76-log

21 B Taut. Modem Arch~hWurC London and N m York, 1929. p 89

22 G M~nnucc~. 'Moderna arch~tettura olandese', In Ar~hl~eftr~r.3eAffr D m r r w 1924. no 9. pp 518-519

23 H Searlng 'Amsterdam South Soc~al Democtaq's Eluave Houslnq Ideal'. In VIA, rg80, vol Iv, p 59

14 Keppler's statements on the a n h ~ t m and the houslng ~ssue can be found In mlnutes of the rneettng of

Arch~tectura ff Am!crlld. Arnaerdam l o January 1912

25 DeBou-eldx.igii p 73

16 D e B o u w r e I d x ~ ~ 1920 p 365