Bulletin KNOB
Not a member yet
783 research outputs found
Sort by
Architecten van Hilversum
No full textReview of a book written by Max Cramer, Arie den Dikken, Anton Groot, Annette Koenders, Rob Marx, Ineke Marx-van Daal, Harry van der Voort (eds)Bespreking van een boek van Max Cramer, Arie den Dikken, Anton Groot, Annette Koenders, Rob Marx, Ineke Marx-van Daal, Harry van der Voort (red.)
 
Waardebepaling van jong erfgoed (1970-2000): Het belang van materialiteit in een geïntegreerde benadering
No full textThe recent surge in interest in ‘young’ heritage is coupled with a growing need for a scientifically based framework for dealing with it. This article examines the specific characteristics of ‘young heritage’, how it is evaluated, and the knowledge required for that. The term ‘young heritage’ is not easy to define because the minimum historical distance required for assessing or protecting a building as heritage differs from country to country.More important than an exact definition, however, is increased awareness and greater recognition of the special characteristics of this heritage. One of these characteristics is materiality. This refers not just to the building materials and techniques used but includes its positioning with respect to the wider building culture in which it is rooted. The final decades of the twentieth century were characterized by a distinctive materiality, and this too needs to be included in any value assessment.To work out how this might be done using existing value assessment methods, this article looks at the method used since 2021 by the Brussels-Capital Region in drawing up its Inventory of Architectural Heritage. This method is based on ten heritage values and six heritage criteria. The individual values and criteria are not strictly defined but rather described, so as to allow room for interpretation. And instead of dealing with the values individually, the goal is an integrated approach in which different values and criteria are able to support and reinforce one another. This provides opportunities for recognizing the specificity of young heritage and for emphasizing the importance therein of materiality.The article then applies the Brussels method, with a particular focus on materiality, to two case studies: the ASLK apartment building (engineer and architect Philippe Samyn, Brussels, 1985-1986) and the large-scale housing project ‘De Drevekens’ (AUSIA design office, Sint-Pieters-Woluwe, 1975-1977). The first case study demonstrates that a proper assessment of the technical value requires that the materials used be assessed within the context of the wider building culture. The second case study illustrates the fact that materials without any special technical value can still play an important role in other heritage values. Both case studies attest to the benefits of an integrated approach to heritage values and the importance of materiality in the recognition of young heritage. One major challenge is acquiring sufficient in-depth insight into the materiality to arrive at an accurate and specific interpretation of the heritage values and criteria.Sinds enkele jaren groeit de interesse voor jong erfgoed. Daarmee groeit ook de behoefte aan een wetenschappelijk onderbouwd kader om hiermee om te gaan. Dit artikel gaat in op de eigenheid van ‘jong erfgoed’, de waardebepaling ervan en de kennis die daarvoor nodig is.De term ‘jong erfgoed’ is niet eenvoudig te definiëren, omdat de minimale historische afstand om een gebouw te waarderen of als erfgoed te beschermen van land ot land verschilt. Belangrijker dan een exacte afbakening is het vergroten van het bewustzijn en betere erkenning van de bijzondere eigenschappen van dit erfgoed. Eén van de eigenschappen die aantoont dat het niet alleen relevant maar ook noodzakelijk is om binnen het bredere erfgoedveld bijzondere aandacht te besteden aan jong erfgoed, is materialiteit. Hiermee worden niet louter de toegepaste bouwmaterialen en -technieken aangeduid, maar ook de positionering ten opzichte van de bredere (bouw)cultuur waarin het gebouw is verankerd. De laatste decennia van de twintigste eeuw worden immers gekenmerkt door een eigen materialiteit, die ook meegenomen dient te worden in de waardebepaling.Om na te gaan hoe materialiteit geïmplementeerd kan worden in actuele waardebepalingsmethodes, wordt gekeken naar de methode die sinds 2021 in het Brussels-Hoofdstedelijk Gewest wordt gehanteerd voor het opstellen van de Inventaris van het Bouwkundig Erfgoed. Deze methode gaat uit van tien erfgoedwaarden en zes erfgoedcriteria. Elk van die waarden en criteria wordt niet strikt afgebakend maar beschreven, om zo ruimte voor interpretatie te laten. Bovendien worden de waarden niet afzonderlijk behandeld, maar wordt gestreefd naar een geïntegreerde benadering waarbij verschillende waarden en criteria elkaar kunnen ondersteunen en versterken. Dit biedt mogelijkheden om de specificiteit van jong erfgoed te erkennen en het belang van materialiteit hierin te benadrukken.De Brusselse waardebepalingsmethode wordt vervolgens toegepast op twee casussen, met bijzondere aandacht voor de materialiteit hiervan: het A.S.L.K. appartementsgebouw (architect Philippe Samyn, Brussel, 1985-1986) en het grootschalig huisvestingsproject ‘De Drevekens’ (ontwerpbureau AUSIA, Sint-Pieters-Woluwe, 1975-1977). De eerste casus demonstreert dat een juiste inschatting van de technische waarde vereist dat de toegepaste materialen beoordeeld worden binnen de bredere bouwcultuur. De tweede casus illustreert dat materialen zonder bijzondere technische waarde toch een belangrijke rol kunnen spelen bij andere erfgoedwaarden. Beide casussen tonen de meerwaarde van een geïntegreerde benadering van erfgoedwaarden en het belang van materialiteit bij de erkenning van jong erfgoed. Een belangrijke uitdaging hierbij is het verkrijgen van diepgaand inzicht in de materialiteit om te komen tot een juiste en specifieke interpretatie van de erfgoedwaarden en -criteria
Brown over Rietveld: Het begin van de moderne architectuurgeschiedenis aan het Kunsthistorisch Instituut in Utrecht
Full text linkIn the post-war historiography of Dutch modern architecture, the monograph of Gerrit Rietveld written by the American architectural historian Theodore Morey Brown (1958) played a pioneering role. The Work of G. Rietveld, Architect was the first monograph of a by then already internationally renowned Dutch architect and since it was written in English it was also the only source of detailed information about Rietveld for an international readership. Brown was the first art historian in the Netherlands to write a dissertation on a living architect; as such, his book signalled the start of modern architectural history as practised by art historians. Yet despite the fact that it is almost impossible to overstate the significance of Brown’s study, the book remains until this day a curiosity. Why was the first scholarly work on Rietveld written by an American scholar and published in the English language? Who was Theodore Morey Brown and how did he end up at a Dutch university in the 1950s? This article examines the history of Brown’s book: its genesis from a research initiative by post-war Dutch professors of art history to the contents of the final book. It also discusses the international historiographical debate in which Brown participated. Brown’s book heralded a new era in the relationship between the art historian and the architect, one that was connected with the challenge to write contemporary history from an ideologically engaged attitude. As an ‘operative history’ Brown’s book was distinguished by its collaborative nature. While it was a book about a single architect written by a single historian, in the background there was a ‘team Rietveld’ consisting of, among others, the historian Pieter Singelenberg and the designer Truus Schröder-Schräder, who were vital to its creation. Only with the help of these people could the work of Rietveld be made accessible to a foreign scholar who, upon arrival in the Netherlands, did not speak the Dutch language. This article argues that Brown’s book was important not only for the historiography on Rietveld. The book also had an institutional significance as it ushered in the study of modern architectural history by art historians in the Netherlands.In the post-war historiography of Dutch modern architecture, the monograph of Gerrit Rietveld written by the American architectural historian Theodore Morey Brown (1958) played a pioneering role. The Work of G. Rietveld, Architect was the first monograph of a by then already internationally renowned Dutch architect and since it was written in English it was also the only source of detailed information about Rietveld for an international readership. Brown was the first art historian in the Netherlands to write a dissertation on a living architect; as such, his book signalled the start of modern architectural history as practised by art historians. Yet despite the fact that it is almost impossible to overstate the significance of Brown’s study, the book remains until this day a curiosity. Why was the first scholarly work on Rietveld written by an American scholar and published in the English language? Who was Theodore Morey Brown and how did he end up at a Dutch university in the 1950s? This article examines the history of Brown’s book: its genesis from a research initiative by post-war Dutch professors of art history to the contents of the final book. It also discusses the international historiographical debate in which Brown participated. Brown’s book heralded a new era in the relationship between the art historian and the architect, one that was connected with the challenge to write contemporary history from an ideologically engaged attitude. As an ‘operative history’ Brown’s book was distinguished by its collaborative nature. While it was a book about a single architect written by a single historian, in the background there was a ‘team Rietveld’ consisting of, among others, the historian Pieter Singelenberg and the designer Truus Schröder-Schräder, who were vital to its creation. Only with the help of these people could the work of Rietveld be made accessible to a foreign scholar who, upon arrival in the Netherlands, did not speak the Dutch language. This article argues that Brown’s book was important not only for the historiography on Rietveld. The book also had an institutional significance as it ushered in the study of modern architectural history by art historians in the Netherlands
Inessential Colors: Architecture on Paper in Early Modern Europe
Full text linkReview of a book written by Basile BaudezBespreking van een boek van Basile Baude
Zendingsarchitect Pieter Simon Dijkstra en zijn Nederlandse werken
Full text linkPieter Simon Dijkstra (1884-1968) is regarded as a noted Protestant church designer in South Africa, but his contribution to the built environment in the Netherlands is much less well known. His life and career in the country of his birth are of interest because they are closely aligned with the religious turbulence of the period, in which the anti-revolutionary clergyman-politician Abraham Kuyper played a prominent role. The building of new Reformed churches and schools was a direct expression of the zealous determination to spread the ‘true faith’. The architecture of the new Reformed churches was often modest and restrained, influenced by Kuyper’s view that the church space should serve the ‘gathering of the faithful’ and be arranged in such a way that congregants could see and hear one other and the minister. Dijkstra, born to a clergyman father with a missionary zeal, delivered various designs in this Reformed context.
Although Dijkstra grew up and trained in the northern Netherlands, Zeeland became his main area of operation. In 1908, after time spent working in Groningen (Spijk) and Germany, Dijkstra settled in Vlissingen (Flushing) where he set up his own architectural practice. At the time Vlissingen was an internationally oriented city undergoing a radical transformation under the direction of the liberal alderman of public works, J.G. van Niftrik jr. (1889-1924). Dijkstra designed two new hall-type Reformed churches: one in Geersdijk (1910) and the Eben Haëzer church in Vlissingen (1910). There followed a remarkable inter-denominational collaboration after the English Presbyterian community’s place of worship in the St Jacob’s Church was destroyed by fire in 1911. After Dijkstra’s initial design for a simple hall church was rejected, the authoritative Catholic architect Pierre Cuypers (1827-1921) was commissioned to provide a sketch design for a small yet monumental building. Cuypers’ design for a neogothic church based on an octagonal plan was further elaborated by Dijkstra. The church was inaugurated in 1914.
This unique project was followed by the Vlaswiek Reformed Church in Bovensmilde (Drenthe, 1915) and the Reformed Church in Kamperland (Noord-Beveland, 1923). The design for this robust church with corner tower and amphitheatre arrangement is in line with Kuyper’s views and foreshadows Dijkstra’s later church designs in South Africa.
Dijkstra designed school buildings for the various Reformed communities in and around Vlissingen (in Koudekerke and Arnemuiden) and social housing estates, including three for the Protestant-Christian housing association Gemeenschappelijk Belang (Common Interest), partly in collaboration with P.J. Hamers (1882-1966). Among his commissions for retail spaces is the striking expressionist radio shop he designed for H.J. van der Meer en Zonen (1923 and 1926), still extant. In 1927, all out of the blue, Dijkstra decided to emigrate with his family to South Africa, where he continued to develop as a Reformed church architect. This article not only provides an assessment of his Dutch oeuvre as a prefiguration of his South African work, but it also positions him as an interesting architect within the Dutch context of his day, characterized as it was by verzuiling (lit. ‘pillarization’, a form of compartmentalization along socio-political or religious lines).Pieter Simon Dijkstra (1884-1968) is regarded as a noted Protestant church designer in South Africa, but his contribution to the built environment in the Netherlands is much less well known. His life and career in the country of his birth are of interest because they are closely aligned with the religious turbulence of the period, in which the anti-revolutionary clergyman-politician Abraham Kuyper played a prominent role. The building of new Reformed churches and schools was a direct expression of the zealous determination to spread the ‘true faith’. The architecture of the new Reformed churches was often modest and restrained, influenced by Kuyper’s view that the church space should serve the ‘gathering of the faithful’ and be arranged in such a way that congregants could see and hear one other and the minister. Dijkstra, born to a clergyman father with a missionary zeal, delivered various designs in this Reformed context.
Although Dijkstra grew up and trained in the northern Netherlands, Zeeland became his main area of operation. In 1908, after time spent working in Groningen (Spijk) and Germany, Dijkstra settled in Vlissingen (Flushing) where he set up his own architectural practice. At the time Vlissingen was an internationally oriented city undergoing a radical transformation under the direction of the liberal alderman of public works, J.G. van Niftrik jr. (1889-1924). Dijkstra designed two new hall-type Reformed churches: one in Geersdijk (1910) and the Eben Haëzer church in Vlissingen (1910). There followed a remarkable inter-denominational collaboration after the English Presbyterian community’s place of worship in the St Jacob’s Church was destroyed by fire in 1911. After Dijkstra’s initial design for a simple hall church was rejected, the authoritative Catholic architect Pierre Cuypers (1827-1921) was commissioned to provide a sketch design for a small yet monumental building. Cuypers’ design for a neogothic church based on an octagonal plan was further elaborated by Dijkstra. The church was inaugurated in 1914.
This unique project was followed by the Vlaswiek Reformed Church in Bovensmilde (Drenthe, 1915) and the Reformed Church in Kamperland (Noord-Beveland, 1923). The design for this robust church with corner tower and amphitheatre arrangement is in line with Kuyper’s views and foreshadows Dijkstra’s later church designs in South Africa.
Dijkstra designed school buildings for the various Reformed communities in and around Vlissingen (in Koudekerke and Arnemuiden) and social housing estates, including three for the Protestant-Christian housing association Gemeenschappelijk Belang (Common Interest), partly in collaboration with P.J. Hamers (1882-1966). Among his commissions for retail spaces is the striking expressionist radio shop he designed for H.J. van der Meer en Zonen (1923 and 1926), still extant. In 1927, all out of the blue, Dijkstra decided to emigrate with his family to South Africa, where he continued to develop as a Reformed church architect. This article not only provides an assessment of his Dutch oeuvre as a prefiguration of his South African work, but it also positions him as an interesting architect within the Dutch context of his day, characterized as it was by verzuiling (lit. ‘pillarization’, a form of compartmentalization along socio-political or religious lines)
Historische Atlas van Breda
Full text linkReview of a book written by Ton Kappelhof, Karel Leenders, Jan Willem Messer; Paul Klep (eds)Bespreking van een boek van Ton Kappelhof, Karel Leenders, Jan Willem Messer; Paul Klep (red.
Beperkte kansen op een zorgeloze oude dag: Het lot van gebouwen van na 1965
Full text linkBuildings completed after about 1964 cannot count on surviving into old age, however robust some of them may still be. Any building can perish, irrespective of age, structural condition or architectural quality. Once the idea that a building is in the way has taken hold, its chances of being torn down are considerable. All the more so if the building has lost its original function and been fully written off. This essayistic article takes the position that the functionalist fixation on fitness for purpose has fed through into the way existing buildings are treated and the intellectual reflection on that. Take Stewart Brand’s famous diagram. It distinguishes the various material layers of a building according to their different lifespans, yet that is no guarantee that those lifespans will be respected in practice: a building is by no means always treated justly, let alone the material lifespan of the different layers of a building. Nevertheless, for anyone devoted to the city as cultural project, there is still Aldo Rossi’s renowned theory regarding a city’s ‘permanences’ of cultural value. The lifespan problem of more recent architecture is amplified by the fact that buildings are increasingly categorized as a neutral amenity, in other words, a commodity. As such, they can be manipulated at will and without taking account of any architectural merits they may possess. Two highly regarded buildings by the architect Herman Hertzberger have struggled to survive in recent years: the Centraal Beheer offices in Apeldoorn (1968-1972) and the Ministry of Social Affairs in The Hague (1979-1990). Although both buildings were designed to be functionally flexible, that has not rendered them proof against the whims of the real estate market: the survival of both buildings is still on the line in 2023.Paradoxically, the second case study presented in this article is more hopeful, even though it concerns a building that was most certainly not designed to be adaptable. It is the office of the Kralingen water company in Rotterdam (1973-1979) by Wim Quist. While the initial idea for the extension of this building gave rise to conflict, mediation eventually produced an architecturally convincing solution acceptable to all the parties involved, including the original architect.Gebouwen die na omstreeks 1965 zijn opgeleverd, hebben niet zomaar een goede kans om oud te worden, hoe robuust ze soms ook zijn. Ieder gebouw kan namelijk kapot, ongeacht leeftijd, bouwkundige toestand of architectonische kwaliteit. Zodra het idee postvat dat een gebouw in de weg staat, is de kans dat het plat gaat aanzienlijk. Dat is des te meer het geval als het gebouw zijn oorspronkelijke functie verloren heeft en boekhoudkundig is afgeschreven. In dit essayistische artikel wordt de stelling betrokken dat de functionalistische fixatie op doelmatigheid ook heeft doorgewerkt in de omgang met bestaande gebouwen en de intellectuele reflectie daarop. Zo maakt het welbekende schema van Stewart Brand onderscheid tussen de diverse materiële lagen van een gebouw, die ieder voor zich een verschillende houdbaarheid in de tijd zouden hebben. Dat wil echter in de praktijk niet zeggen dat die houdbaarheid ook gerespecteerd wordt: lang niet altijd wordt over een gebouw in redelijkheid beschikt, laat staan dat recht zou worden gedaan aan de materiële levensduur van de verschillende lagen van een gebouw. Desondanks kan aan Aldo Rossi’s vermaarde betoog omtrent de ‘permanenties’ van culturele waarde van de stad nog steeds gevolg worden gegeven, voor wie aan de stad als cultureel project gehecht is geraakt. Het levensduurprobleem van architectuur uit de meer recente tijd wordt nog aangescherpt doordat gebouwen meer en meer als een neutrale voorziening, oftewel een commodity, worden aangemerkt. Daarmee kan naar believen worden gemanipuleerd, zonder dat de eventuele architectonische verdiensten daarbij in het oog worden gehouden. Twee hooggewaardeerde gebouwen van architect Herman Hertzberger ondervinden in de afgelopen jaren de strijd om het bestaan aan den lijve: het kantoor voor Centraal Beheer in Apeldoorn (1968-1972) en het Ministerie van Sociale Zaken in Den Haag (1979-1990). Beide gebouwen werden functioneel elastisch ontworpen. Dat maakte echter niet dat ze bestand zijn gebleken tegen de grilligheid van de onroerendgoedmarkt: het voortbestaan van beide gebouwen staat in 2023 op het spel. Paradoxaal genoeg is de tweede in dit artikel gepresenteerde casus hoopvoller, terwijl het nota bene een gebouw betreft dat allerminst als aanpasbaar ontworpen werd. Het is het kantoor van het drinkwaterbedrijf Kralingen in Rotterdam (1973-1979) van Wim Quist. Leidde het aanvankelijke idee voor de aanpassing van dit gebouw tot conflict, door bemiddeling kwam naderhand een architectonisch overtuigende oplossing beschikbaar die aanvaardbaar was voor alle betrokken partijen, inclusief de oorspronkelijke architect.  
Utrecht bouwt 1945-1975 | Post 65 - Een turbulente tijd | Experimentele woningbouw in Nederland 1968-1980
No full textReview of the books of:
Arjan den Boer, Bettina van Santen en Ronald WillemsenUtrecht bouwt 1945-1975
Judith van Hoogdalem en Botine KoopmansPost 65 – een turbulente tijdArchitectuur en stedenbouw in Den Haag 1965-1995
Marcel Barzilay, Ruben Ferwerda en Anita BlomExperimentele woningbouw in Nederland 1968-198064 gerealiseerde woonbeloftenBespreking van de boeken van:
Arjan den Boer, Bettina van Santen en Ronald WillemsenUtrecht bouwt 1945-1975
Judith van Hoogdalem en Botine KoopmansPost 65 – een turbulente tijdArchitectuur en stedenbouw in Den Haag 1965-1995
Marcel Barzilay, Ruben Ferwerda en Anita BlomExperimentele woningbouw in Nederland 1968-198064 gerealiseerde woonbelofte
‘Samen doen wat samen kan’: Het begin en de komma van Centraal Wonen in Nederland
Full text linkCentraal Wonen was a form of co-housing that arose in the Netherlands in the 1970s. It involved several households sharing a variety of communal amenities within the same residential development. The housing complexes were intended to accommodate a diverse group of residents of up to 250 individuals and were usually designed in consultation with the prospective residents. The initiators of Centraal Wonen believed that this type of living arrangement offered a solution to various social issues, including the inferior status of women, increasing loneliness and a housing stock biased in favour of single-family houses and apartments. The alternative to Centraal Wonen were residential developments in which a fine-grained mix of dwellings and communal amenities created the conditions for the spontaneous emergence of a tight-knit community. It is estimated that between 1977 and 1991 over sixty Centraal Wonen projects were built, after which co-housing faded into oblivion.Centraal Wonen emerged at a hinge point between two eras, and this is reflected in both the concept and its manifestation. The ideological underpinning was perfectly in tune with the emancipatory and socio-critical movements of the early 1970s, whereas the majority of the projects were not built until the more pragmatic1980s. Centraal Wonen included elements of both eras: ‘doing together what can be done together’, but not at the expense of the individual’s independence. The very first project, the Wandelmeent, was exemplary of the small-scale movement whose adherents strove to capture the essence of a recognizable and homely living environment with a varied streetscape. The vast majority of projects were built in the 1980s, by which time the architectural expression was starting to look a bit lacklustre. Moreover, the design of Centraal Wonen projects was based more on architectural trends and the architect’s choices and less on the results of consultation and communality.The real inventiveness and quality of Centraal Wonen lay not in individual components, such as the consultation process, the design and the floor plan, but in uniting concern for all those components within a single project, guided by a shared vision of how to live.Although Centraal Wonen proved to be relatively short-lived, communal and alternative forms of living have once again been attracting keen interest in recent years. It seems that the motto ‘do together what can be done together’ resonates in today’s world. The Centraal Wonen projects constitute a valuable source for new communal housing projects and as such should not be forgotten.Centraal Wonen is een in de jaren zeventig ontstane woonvorm waarbij meerdere huishoudens verschillende gemeenschappelijke voorzieningen met elkaar delen binnen hetzelfde project. De wooncomplexen waren bedoeld voor een diverse bewonersgroep tot 250 bewoners en werden in de regel in nauwe samenspraak met bewoners ontworpen. De initiatiefnemers van Centraal Wonen geloofden dat deze woonvorm een oplossing bood voor maatschappelijke vraagstukken, zoals de achtergestelde positie van de vrouw, toenemende eenzaamheid en de eenzijdige woningvoorraad van eengezinswoningen en flats. Het alternatief van Centraal Wonen was om woningen fijnmazig te verweven met gemeenschappelijke voorzieningen in projecten, zodat op vrijwillige basis een hechte gemeenschap kon ontstaan. Tussen 1977 en 1991 zijn er naar schatting ruim zestig projecten gebouwd, waarna de woonvorm in de jaren negentig in de vergetelheid raakte.Centraal Wonen ontstond op het scharnierpunt van twee tijdperken, wat tot uiting komt in het concept en de verschijningsvorm. De ideologische inslag sloot naadloos aan op de emancipatoire en maatschappijkritische bewegingen van de vroege jaren zeventig, terwijl het grootste gedeelte van de projecten pas tot stand kwam in de verzakelijkte jaren tachtig. Centraal Wonen bevatte elementen van beide fasen: enerzijds ‘samen doen wat samen kan’, maar de onafhankelijkheid van het individu mocht daar niet aan ten koste gaan. Het allereerste project, de Wandelmeent, past geheel binnen de kleinschaligheidsbeweging, waarin ontwerpers zochten naar de essentie van een herkenbare en huiselijke woonomgeving met een gevarieerd straatbeeld. Veruit de meeste projecten kwamen tot stand in de jaren tachtig, waarin zich de tekens van verschraling in de verschijningsvorm voordeden. Bovendien berustte het ontwerp van Centraal Wonen-projecten voor een groot deel op de trends in de vakgemeenschap en de keuzes van de architect, en minder op de uitkomsten van inspraak en gemeenschappelijkheid. De werkelijke inventiviteit en kwaliteit van Centraal Wonen bevonden zich dan ook niet in de afzonderlijke onderdelen van inspraakprocedures, het ontwerp en de woningplattegrond, maar in het samenbrengen van zorg op alle onderdelen binnen één project, waarbij de gezamenlijke visie op het wonen leidend was. Hoewel Centraal Wonen maar een kort leven beschoren leek, staan gemeenschappelijke en alternatieve woonvormen sinds enkele jaren weer in de belangstelling. De leuze ‘samen doen wat samen kan’ lijkt in de huidige tijd zijn weerklank te vinden. De projecten zijn een waardevolle bron voor nieuwe gemeenschappelijke woonprojecten, die niet mag worden vergeten
Victor Bourgeois 1897-1962: Modernity, Tradition & Neutrality
Full text linkReview of a book written by Iwan StrauvenBespreking van een boek van Iwan Strauve