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 t o put in print their own journal. Wendingen (meaning 'turnings' or 'changes'), which was published between 1918 and 1931, was commonly considered t o 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 actually did attempt t o spread the School's potentials and ideas by producing several issues related t o 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 movements in the early modern period. A t 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 protagonists changed their professional orientation, the most radical qualities of that architectural vocabulary progressively disappeared and the Amsterdam School ceased t o flourish.

Group photograph at E

the Arn5terdam School (eariy 20th on rhe far rrght, w l h

IS

Cuypen' practrce. the cradle of century), PL Kramer IS

G F La Cmlx be51de hlm M de Klerk

the second from t h e left

Sketch for the cover o l Wendmgen 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 t o what is known as the 'Amsterdam School'. Praise and criticism of the Amsterdam School For decades i t had

proved difficult t o 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 t o 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 t o 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 generation read as follows: 'The young do not have the patience of Moses (sic!); they want t o 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 Amsterdam School, with its expressionism, its modern romanticism, its imagination. Those who grew up with Berlage's doctrines, now want the blossoms 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 t o express construction and embellishment according t o their own ability and character." Gratama was underlining several features of the new approach t o build-

9 b-

-. .

-.-.

-,

M. de Klerk, Design for Friedman's Emigrantenhu~s (houselor 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'. Th15humorous weekly was published by a pol~t~cal party w ~ t h 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 t o 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 architecture, 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 i n 1922 i n The Architectural Review: '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$rerdamSchml exhibiIran at the C o o p r - n m t t

M w u m . New York. 1983.

Armchr~rby 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 interest 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 t o 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 t o 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 t o 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 Architecture: 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 department. 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 somewhat 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-reslauranthotel 'Arnerlcan'. Amsterdam

1898-igo2. Facade

dam has suffocated all other authentically cultivated voices, with its ambivalent pragmatism', and he went on t o say 'The Wendingen group was an organization of opportunists, of those "modern but with charm" ... - a compromise, 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 published in 1957 in the Italian periodical Casabella-continuita. Canella described as the most important feature of the Amsterdam School the close ties between political and cultural life: 'Great and tragic, like the years it reflected so perfectly, the Amsterdam School has come face t o face with the very trend to which it did not want to belong, the modern movement. Its face isfurrowed 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 i n 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 t w o American 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, and i n t h e changing, more favourable climate, numerous exhibitions once more highlighted the visual expressiveness o f the Amsterdam School.7 The revival i n interest i s also due t o recent restorations, which have meant that many important, yet dilapidated housing developments i n Amsterdam, have once more acquired their original vitality o f form and colour, although many o f the original, splendidly worked details and ornaments are being replaced by impoverished modern versions, which detract f r o m the whole idea behind this architecture. Nowadays criticism o f the Amsterdam School no longer centres on the polarity between traditionalists and modernists, b u t 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 housing for large numbers o f new urban residents, the definition 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 f o r life i n the new city. Influences and sources A t the t u r n o f the century several factors contri-

plnure ba&

m ~llusnanms

from Ermr H a ~ k e l S Kwlst,ormenderNarvr, ,8gg,gy n.p eerlagr b s g n for m &cm trlc chandchm lmde the t

clrclesat the lop, the evoorlw

RnucNre of an ocropus relatet11orheformal1mageof rhe

ch.~ d e l t e r

buted t o the emergence o f the expressivenesswhich exemplified the Amsterdam 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 was seen as a priority after the urban laissez-faire policy of Kalff's 1875 expansion plan for Amsterdam. This plan provided for new districts whose image was shaped by uniform, drab houses, quite different from architectonic excellence of the splendid centre w i t h its concentric rings of canals and expressive, varied edifices. In 1898 the Committee for Advice (Commissie van Advies) was set up in Amsterdam. Its task was t o evaluate the aesthetic congruity of new construction. About twenty years later this committee gave birth t o the schoonheidscommissie, the committee for aesthetic advice (or vetting committee), which was t o 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 architects had equated it with the nidus of the profound transformation taking place in their professional attitudes. During their meetings, members discussed 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 t o the tendency t o focus design activity on technical and economic issues, t o the detriment of artistic talent. Their goal was t o convince young practitioners that an architect was also an artist. By i g i 7 many of the Amsterdam 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 Amsterdam School in the board: J. Gratama was the chairman, and C.J. Blaauw,

K.PC. dc Baml. D C S I ~fors ~ publlc'l~bacOmpormn qmmd by me rssaclmon

ccAmlcl,ta, r895

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 t o which the relationship between an architect

and his work could be assessed: 'All the work which is credited t o a member must be his spiritual property, . . . in other words, the conception of the work must be his, and any details and execution supervised by him. No member shall permit his name t o 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, w i t h his works, writings and lectures,

W Kmmhour Competttlon entry for the Peace Palace with

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 gratitude, for his approach t o proportions and composition, spatial organization 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 t o formal restrictions and the purity of the building form. The idea being t o take up the trend towards rationalization which fitted 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 architecture. 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 t o Scandinavia in 1910, he in fact encountered a vital, folkloristic

a Ilbrary. The Hague. r go6

M de Klerk Courryard of Helsmg0r castle. Denmark, i g i o
5ke1ch

M de Klerk. Belfv In northern

Sweden. iglr Sketch

E. Cuypen: V~lla at Museumplern, 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 concrere. 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. Prehrnlnarysketch of the main entrance

architecture, with its carved ornaments and undisguised wooden constructions, and specifically the joints. De Klerk expounded the difference of opinion in 1916, when the architectural magazine, Bouwkundig Weekblad, asked various architects t o 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 building. 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 ~ t y l e . ' '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.

M.deKlerk Cornpeiittonderrgn lor aDavirlonataspWtsctllb~ h e mono The 4th'. 1907

Kl~~Dnlgn,o,rwln

Another architect has meanwhile clearly emerged as a trailblazer: Eduard Cuypers. Helen Searing wrote an interesting essay on the subject, entitled 'Berlage or Cuypers? The father of them all'. She confirmed Hitchcock's remark that E. Cuypers 'probably has just as much right as Berlage t o 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 discovered 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 Belgian Art Nouveau. Moreover, he was an authority on Vienna Secession architecture, 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

1909

- especially in single-family

homes - with clear arrangements and great attention t o detail and decoration. 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 t o private housing, as the name suggests. Cuypers' whole practice contributed. Many of the watercolours illustrating the projects were clearly the work of the best draughtsman in the

M.de Klerk: Cornpetltlondes~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 manifestations o f bourgeois individualism'. Unlike Berlage, he emphasized the characteristic features of individual buildings w i t h respect t o their function and their surroundings. Such contextual eclecticism and individualistic conception remained in evidence 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 extremely 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 i n the works of the Amsterdam School.

Berlege Srock Exchange

dlng, Damrak. Amslerdam.
1898-1903 Gu~dang lanes bared

On the other hand, an attempt t o 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 t o 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 Amsterdam 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 t w o countries worked were completely different. Only a few projects, particularly Wijdeveld's,

on geometric f~gures are super~mposed on the des~gn of the maln facade

J L M Lauwer~ksStem House,

Gbtrmrqen, 7911-1912 The geometric grbd used as a desrgn tool

for rhe elevaf~on

F Cohen Arnsterdam cod[ of

arms, c.
1927

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

and inner hall a! the Recla exhlbition. 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 t o a project than direct resemblances between the actual buildings. In addition, there is a radical difference in sensitivity. separating German expressionism from the Amsterdam School. The former is heroic, marked by a short, sharp artistic adventure, tragically individualistic and visionary. The latter, though less emotional, has the same degree of passion, and focuses on shared goals. A language of imaginative, individual solutions which merge in the search for a collective identity. The architects' 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 concentration, urbanization, the emergence of trade unions and a general political awareness among the working classes. Migration t o 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 i n 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 ~nAmsterdam city

F.N. Domela Nieuwenhuis guided the party t o electoral victory in 1888; the
SDB

centre. Zwane B~llrleeg. Martelaarsgracht. c. i g i i Basement dwelling. 58 Zeed~jk. Amsterdam. c. igoo

entered the Dutch Parliament and Domela Nieuwenhuis became the

first socialist member. Internal divisions between anarchists, trade unionists and supporters of a more active policy in Parliament culminated in the founding of the
SDAP,

Social Democratic Workers Party, in 1894. It was t o

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 charitable institutions. Benevolent patrons and individuals driven by humanitarian 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, succeeded i n 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 t o 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, t o be revised at least once every ten years. The remaining sections were facilitative. The fifth section, dealing with 'Expropriation', contained a procedure t o 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. I 8 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

--

.- - -

nicipalities were in turn allowed t o pay government funds t o non-profit housing associations for public housing. In this way the associations (woningbouwverenigingen) 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, t o 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 apparent in contemporary architecture. In 1905 Amsterdam was the first city t o impose a building code, which was t o form an example for all large Dutch towns. Among its restrictive regulations, i t required, for instance, that the facades of the residential buildings 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 i n more staircases and doors at the street side. The fact that there was a fixed minimum size for courtyards meant that architects were forced t o 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 t o 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 Amsterdam, 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, i n which it is no longer the individual house that was of special importance, but the whole long rows of houses i n a series of streets, and furthermore, the collective reassemblage of many

J.C. van Epen- Housing fm the

hws~ng assaclation Alqemeene Wan~ngbcuwverenigtng, Amnsldqk 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

- t o 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 t o write about it: '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 massiveness, 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 intervention in the hard hit housing sector was inevitable. It took the form of 'crisis' funding for municipal authorities and housing associations t o support public 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 t o 1930, that municipality was a veritable laboratory for expe-

W Grew. F~fty-four counc~l

(Korretbeioh system) dnell~ngs

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~ralenKM, ~ansterbam w e n 1925

T h Wlfdeveld Hous~ng.

a l d w g . Amslrrrlam Wcsr
1~25-1927

riments which embraced the full range of socioeconomic, technical and aesthetic factors which impinge on hous1ng'~3 Between 1910 and 1923 Amsterdam's housing associations built 11,867 homes, and

1g05-lglo l g 11-1g 1 5 ig16-igzo

&L~.,~*,&,<"&~.y.,p+i .I @I .I 'I I1I1

-1 I 1 I1

I -

**

.t,Gpi)'% ,I ,, ,, ,,,,

mfif:;l;;

1 9 7 7 - 1 9 7 5( ~pa-lgjo lgjl-lg3s

1 i t i i i m m ~ ~ : x i ,, m ~.,,,,, ,,, :; A $ftl& 8 " .a " m "" li @ " l I I' " ,I *I ~ l * ~ l ~ m $">" ~ ll~~ # #I l ~ l ~ a 1 a~ l ~ ~
I

afi:efi

-1

*I

,,$k$
I.I
# " ;# $ "';
W #I#*#

city council itself built 4710. Those were the days of the Amsterdam School and of social democratic success. In 1913 the
SDAP

Horlr~ngprod~,rl~on In the Nefhe"ands.Each houacrepre 5ents ro.000 dwelllnqs The

greyhourer are thme bl,ill by

took fifteen o f the thirty-nine seats in the municipal council. It was

SDAP leaders

also the time when several charismatic

held important politi-

cal and administrative posts. They advanced government intervention in house building schemes. The winning slogan 'Housing i s a national matter, 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 t o young architects, in the hope of making them aware of the importance of public housing. Keppler realized that such commissions were viewed as less important than the better paid ones, which he considered socially irrelevant. In 1912 Keppler told the architects: 'Only if 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 schoonheidscommissiet o have a greater say, and t o stimulate architects' interest i n expansion plans and public housing: 'Growing numbers are concerned t o find a good solution for workers' homes and not only t o build ~illas.'~s Keppler supported the young architects of the Amsterdam School and defended their freedom of expression. In 1920 he replied t o a journalist who had been sarcastic about the luxuries in some workers' housing that 'nothing is fine enough for the working man whose deprivation and suffering have been so great.'==
notes
i

hom~nqayjnc~atrnnr,th~ black onsm~bulltbythemuniclpal avthar~t~es

J Grmma. 'Hccvscrk

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

PP 4 9 5 0 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
J Badowc~, 'L'molcd'dmsterdam'. m L'AIFfnta7un Ylvane. S u m r 9 7 l , vol IV, p

4
5 7

zz 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

Since the w h t l c s varmua e x t n b r m have brmdemfcdt o t h e m k of !he hsrerdam School We refer

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

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 t m 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#mrslA A t n m m . ~9751930, Cambr~dge (Mass )and London 1983 8 W Kromhout was chalrrnan of the axnxlatlon In iBg5lg6md iga81q) K ? de Bare! held the posltlonrn 1899-1901 and igrq'a) See J Srtnh. J van dc Wed, GcmofxcfqoArchMrura e l 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 byId% In 1917 can be found In the archlves of the Nrderlands Arch~recruur~nst~luut In Rotterdam. see also prevrous footnote lo
i i

Thew comnnmswcrepublrskd m Boolukundg W k M 1916, no 4 5 pp 331-332 See H Sear~ng, 'Berlagr or Cuypcn, The Farher of Them All In H Sear~ng. led In search of Modern R d I HftRnrl.. Smrbndge I M k s ) and L c d m ig8z. pp 216.344 M h ~ r m r and h Twenr~erh Cemunrs. London fnmd In H R tbtrhcoch, Arch-rue

mm Arch~recture.A T n b u ~
H~rchcoct scommmt
19

1958. P 357 12 See G Hoogewwd

Kuyl A Otenaar P I H C u y p r s en Ammrdarn Gebo11wt-nen onwerpn was researched by J H de Groot. a l u t v n r a1 rhe

l a c h a d r Grool)

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 Ufilvers~ty of Amsterdam He publrshed several fmportant worlr o n the subject Dr&meken br) onlwerpen van o r n m r wor zelfsrud~een luence on Berlage and Lauwer~ks dl Wendlngen' In G Fsnelf~, n al Wtnd~rrgm r g r g - l g j r Docu14 See H Oldewarrls. Cane r~pografrca men11 dell'arre olandere del Nomento. Florence igBz
Lon& 1960 p 163 15 R Banham. ThemyandMan m theF~nrMchmeAge. 16 The magazrne Wendrngen regularly fedtured the work of German Expms~onrst arch~tecrs and anksrs,

vow schden. Amnerdam rag6 ltogelhn wrth

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

due to some extent to the peaonal friendsh~p between Mendelsohnand W~rdwcldApan from two rpeclal
jssues (1111rgz0, no l o devoted to E Mendelsohn and v1ligz4 no 3 on H F~nsterl~n) 11also conra~ned des~gns by H Poelzq a d El Taut In addrtron In rhe course of 1972 ArchrrPRura, rhe journal of the dasoClatlbn Afchfrectura el AmKlha, publtrhed nwnerous extracts from P Scheerbart's book Wasarch~relrur. M u n t h 1gi4. the rhwrrt~cal man~festo of Express~on~sm See D Sharp. Modem A ~ h l t e C t ~and f e Expressronrsm. London 1966, W Pehnt. Expresstonfir ArChrrarure. London 1973. M Carcbato. 'Mlchel de Klerk utopla bu~lc'In The Amnerolarn School, op c ~.4 t Boyd Whyre. The Crynal Charn levers. Archrrecrural Fanrases by Bruno Taut and M 17

Circle. Cambridge (Mas ) and London, 1985

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 Amsrerdarn. e Amsterdam ,981. contalns a descrlpt~on of work~ng-class homer vssue In Amsterdam and 125 years of soc~al housIn the nineteenrhcentury A complete plaure of the hous~ng Ing 1 s glven In E Ottens. Ik moer naar een kletnere wonlng omzren want mrjn g e m word1 re groor. Amsterdam 7975 L 1 Hermans. op crr reprlnt 1975, p 18 F Smtt. 'Nawoord' tn L 1

111

sublen See H G van Beusekom. Gerrlden der r g A great deal of research has been carfled out on th~s \blkshulrwsfrng notrfres rnergerchtedenc;van e n halve eeuw, Alph~n a d Rtjn 1955. J Nycolaar. Volbshursvesrrng. Nljmegen 1974. E J Hoogenberk. Her rdee van de Hollandsestad. Delft 1980. P de Ru~jter. Voor volkshu~~esrmg en n&uw, 21
22

Utrecht 1987

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

B Taut. Modem Arch~hWurCLondon and N m York, 1929. p 89

G M~nnucc~. 'Moderna arch~tettura olandese', In Ar~hl~eftr~r.3eAffr D m r r w 1924. no 9. pp 518-519
H Searlng 'Amsterdam South Soc~al Democtaq's Eluave Houslnq Ideal'. In VIA, rg80, vol Iv, p 59

23 14 25

Keppler's statements on the a n h ~ t m and the houslng ~ssue can be found In mlnutes of the rneettngof DeBou-eldx.igii p 73

Arch~tectura ff Am!crlld. Arnaerdam l o January 1912 16 D e B o u w r e I d x ~1920 ~ p 365