Bulletin KNOB
Not a member yet
783 research outputs found
Sort by
Het architectonisch werk van A.J. Kropholler (1881-1973): De zwaarte van de materie
Full text linkReview of a book written by Herman van Bergeijk
Bespreking van een boek van Herman van Bergeij
Eise Eisinga was hier: De afnemende authenticiteit van het Planetarium in Franeker rond 1900
Full text linkBetween 1774 and 1781, Eise Eisinga built an orrery in his house in Franeker. This instrument was and is commonly referred to as a planetarium, although it also gives information about the sun, the moon and the main constellations. I use the term ‘instrument’ for the machinery above the ‘planetarium room’ and the boxbed together with the dials on the ceiling and the wall containing the box-bed (bedsteewand). I use the term ‘Planetarium’ for the institution, that is the building with everything in it. The machinery, the ceiling, and the bedsteewand have been nominated for UNESCO world heritage status this year.
The aim of this article is to discuss the authenticity of the Planetarium: which parts are authentic – that is, from the time of Eisinga – which have been altered, and how were any alterations supervised? The article concentrates on the period around 1900, when the conservation of monuments had just been institutionalized, but the general principle of preferring ‘preservation over alteration’ had not yet been widely accepted. The primary sources are the annual reports on the state of maintenance by government architect Jacobus van Lokhorst.
Eisinga had sold the Planetarium to the national government in 1826. In order to save money, the government gave it to the municipality of Franeker in 1859. When it was suspected that the municipality was not meeting the first condition of the agreement – to maintain the instrument at all times – Van Lokhorst was tasked with the supervision of the Planetarium by the Minister of the Interior in 1882.
We know that the instrument was repaired a couple of times, but the exact nature of the alterations is unknown, because Van Lokhorst barely mentions them in his reports. He had to leave the supervision of the instrument to the caretaker and a clockmaker, because he was out of his depth. The only parts of the ‘planetarium room’ that remained authentic around 1900 are the ceiling and the bedsteewand. After the instrument had come to a standstill several times, a stove had to be installed to decrease the humidity in the room. That is why in 1890 the windows were replaced to make room for a chimney. The rest of the room was turned into a period room on the advice of Van Lokhorst and with permission of the Minister of the Interior: the walls were whitewashed and, a year later, the floor was tiled. The tile wainscoting dates from 1895.
The conclusion is that the authenticity of the Planetarium decreased around 1900. This should not affect the UNESCO nomination. Repairs to the machinery were only to be expected, and the ceiling and the bedsteewand appear to be authentic. However, a world heritage site attracts more visitors, all of whom have to be facilitated. How will this affect the authenticity of the Planetarium in the future?Between 1774 and 1781, Eise Eisinga built an orrery in his house in Franeker. This instrument was and is commonly referred to as a planetarium, although it also gives information about the sun, the moon and the main constellations. I use the term ‘instrument’ for the machinery above the ‘planetarium room’ and the boxbed together with the dials on the ceiling and the wall containing the box-bed (bedsteewand). I use the term ‘Planetarium’ for the institution, that is the building with everything in it. The machinery, the ceiling, and the bedsteewand have been nominated for UNESCO world heritage status this year.
The aim of this article is to discuss the authenticity of the Planetarium: which parts are authentic – that is, from the time of Eisinga – which have been altered, and how were any alterations supervised? The article concentrates on the period around 1900, when the conservation of monuments had just been institutionalized, but the general principle of preferring ‘preservation over alteration’ had not yet been widely accepted. The primary sources are the annual reports on the state of maintenance by government architect Jacobus van Lokhorst.
Eisinga had sold the Planetarium to the national government in 1826. In order to save money, the government gave it to the municipality of Franeker in 1859. When it was suspected that the municipality was not meeting the first condition of the agreement – to maintain the instrument at all times – Van Lokhorst was tasked with the supervision of the Planetarium by the Minister of the Interior in 1882.
We know that the instrument was repaired a couple of times, but the exact nature of the alterations is unknown, because Van Lokhorst barely mentions them in his reports. He had to leave the supervision of the instrument to the caretaker and a clockmaker, because he was out of his depth. The only parts of the ‘planetarium room’ that remained authentic around 1900 are the ceiling and the bedsteewand. After the instrument had come to a standstill several times, a stove had to be installed to decrease the humidity in the room. That is why in 1890 the windows were replaced to make room for a chimney. The rest of the room was turned into a period room on the advice of Van Lokhorst and with permission of the Minister of the Interior: the walls were whitewashed and, a year later, the floor was tiled. The tile wainscoting dates from 1895.
The conclusion is that the authenticity of the Planetarium decreased around 1900. This should not affect the UNESCO nomination. Repairs to the machinery were only to be expected, and the ceiling and the bedsteewand appear to be authentic. However, a world heritage site attracts more visitors, all of whom have to be facilitated. How will this affect the authenticity of the Planetarium in the future
Ir. Johanna Eleanor Ferguson : Internationale vrouw in de bouw en de theosofie
Full text linkThe multi-talented Johanna Eleanor Ferguson (1900-1982), born in Shanghai but trained at the Delft Institute of Technology, was one of the first female architects in the Netherlands. From her self-designed flat-roofed house near Breda she obtained her engineer’s degree in 1926 as an already married woman.
Subsequently she designed the reed-covered house De Huif in Wageningen for her mother (1927) and two almost identical flat-roofed houses near Utrecht for her father (1928 and 1935).
Meanwhile she had given birth to two children and divorced her first husband, and in late 1932 she relocated to the Gooi region to join a theosophist community. It was while here that she married her second husband. Looking for better perspectives, the young family emigrated to Johannesburg at the end of 1935. One year later, Eleanor Ferguson was formally registered as an architect in South Africa. In 1938, after another divorce, she started a joint practice together with a local architect, Stakesby-Lewis who became her third husband and shared her interest in theosophy. She worked under her maiden name as the principal designer and he as the builder.
The firm was responsible not only for various ‘Wrightian’ cottages and houses in the suburbs (for example, for A.J. Du Plessis at Cottesloe), but also for typically modern commercial buildings in the business districts, such as August House with its conical mushroom columns. In 1948 Conrad Sayce became a partner in the practice, which was based in Washington House. The expansion of the firm was presumably prompted by Eleanor’s increasing social activities alongside the design work. Following in the footsteps of Clara Codd and Jan Kruisheer, she was appointed National President of the Theosophical Society in southern Africa (1946–53) in which capacity she lectured widely. She also made an elaborate pro bono design for a new Lodge in Johannesburg, but this was never executed. Instead, the Stakesby-Lewises converted an existing villa into a ‘theosophical temple’, inaugurated in 1951.
Two years later, they migrated to Salisbury (now Harare) in former Rhodesia to start a new joint practice, mainly focused on building private bungalows, and to extend the theosophical network.
In mid-1961, in response to the growing political and economic uncertainty, the couple finally settled in England where they lived amongst a theosophist community on the Tekels Park Estate in Camberley. The estate was accordingly expanded by two neighbouring houses designed by Ferguson, one for herself and her husband, the other for her eldest daughter’s family (Loveday). In 1972 the Stakesby-Lewises moved to another self-designed bungalow on the estate (further away from the motorway) where Eleanor passed away in 1982 after a long and eventful life. Until the very end she remained proud on her Delft engineer’s title.The multi-talented Johanna Eleanor Ferguson (1900-1982), born in Shanghai but trained at the Delft Institute of Technology, was one of the first female architects in the Netherlands. From her self-designed flat-roofed house near Breda she obtained her engineer’s degree in 1926 as an already married woman.
Subsequently she designed the reed-covered house De Huif in Wageningen for her mother (1927) and two almost identical flat-roofed houses near Utrecht for her father (1928 and 1935).
Meanwhile she had given birth to two children and divorced her first husband, and in late 1932 she relocated to the Gooi region to join a theosophist community. It was while here that she married her second husband. Looking for better perspectives, the young family emigrated to Johannesburg at the end of 1935. One year later, Eleanor Ferguson was formally registered as an architect in South Africa. In 1938, after another divorce, she started a joint practice together with a local architect, Stakesby-Lewis who became her third husband and shared her interest in theosophy. She worked under her maiden name as the principal designer and he as the builder.
The firm was responsible not only for various ‘Wrightian’ cottages and houses in the suburbs (for example, for A.J. Du Plessis at Cottesloe), but also for typically modern commercial buildings in the business districts, such as August House with its conical mushroom columns. In 1948 Conrad Sayce became a partner in the practice, which was based in Washington House. The expansion of the firm was presumably prompted by Eleanor’s increasing social activities alongside the design work. Following in the footsteps of Clara Codd and Jan Kruisheer, she was appointed National President of the Theosophical Society in southern Africa (1946–53) in which capacity she lectured widely. She also made an elaborate pro bono design for a new Lodge in Johannesburg, but this was never executed. Instead, the Stakesby-Lewises converted an existing villa into a ‘theosophical temple’, inaugurated in 1951.
Two years later, they migrated to Salisbury (now Harare) in former Rhodesia to start a new joint practice, mainly focused on building private bungalows, and to extend the theosophical network.
In mid-1961, in response to the growing political and economic uncertainty, the couple finally settled in England where they lived amongst a theosophist community on the Tekels Park Estate in Camberley. The estate was accordingly expanded by two neighbouring houses designed by Ferguson, one for herself and her husband, the other for her eldest daughter’s family (Loveday). In 1972 the Stakesby-Lewises moved to another self-designed bungalow on the estate (further away from the motorway) where Eleanor passed away in 1982 after a long and eventful life. Until the very end she remained proud on her Delft engineer’s title
Metamorfose van stad en devotie: Ontstaan en conjunctuur van kerkelijke, religieuze en charitatieve instellingen in Amsterdam in het licht van de stedelijke ontwikkeling, 1385-1435
Full text linkReview of a book written by Bas de MelkerBespreking van een boek van Bas de Melke
Een Jagthuys in Die Haghe: Een zoektocht naar het Haagse hof van Floris IV
Full text linkSince 1730 the origins of The Hague and the Binnenhof have been traced back to a hunting lodge supposed to have been built by Count Floris IV (1210-1234). That ‘hunting lodge of Floris IV’ is the focus of this study. It explains, based on terminological research, why the Dutch term jachthuis/jachtslot is not applicable to the earliest phase of the Binnenhof since the term did not come into use until the nineteenth century, when the newly rich started to take up hunting. Besides, the thirteenth-century power structure was such that rulers travelled constantly around their dominions, and so the need for hunting lodges did not yet exist; every relocation provided fresh hunting grounds. It seems unlikely that there would have been residences for a specific function like hunting or formal entertaining as early as the thirteenth century; the one did not necessarily exclude the other.
This article explores the origins of the ‘hunting lodge story’. The first mention of The Hague is in a charter dating from 1242. It refers to ‘die Haga’ (haag = hedge), meaning an enclosed area for hunting. According to the chronicler Jan Beke, Willem II of Holland (1227-1256) established a ‘palace’ in The Hague after being crowned King of Germany in 1248. So there was already a count’s hunting ground in this area before then. At the beginning of the seventeenth century The Hague changed its name to ’s-Gravenhage, presumably because the aristocratic connotations (graaf = count) enhanced its status. The Hague had no city charter and consequently sought other ways of raising its profile. In subsequent centuries hunting, and the possession of a hunting lodge, was the preserve of the wealthy elite.
Seeking to redefine the Binnenhof’s origins, I investigatedwhether the typologicalcharacteristics of hallconstruction in the thirteenth century matched thoseof the first phase of construction. In the event it proveddifficult to reconstruct that initial construction phasesince all that survives from the period is the middlebasement below the Ridderzaal of the Counts’ Chambers.A comparison with other residences showed thatthis space was originally also used for storage.
Comparative research into other courts within and beyond the County of Holland appears to confirm that from as early as the end of the thirteenth century there were houses that served chiefly as a base for hunting. One such was Bosvoorde, which was already designated a domus venatorum (hunting lodge) in 1270. The presence of the count’s hunting ground suggests that the Binnenhof was in all likelihood also used for hunting, although not exclusively; official business was also conducted here. From 1248 onwards the Binnenhof’s ceremonial function took precedence since the term ‘palace’ was almost always used for a principal residence.Vanaf 1730 wordt het ontstaan van Den Haag en het Binnenhof toegeschreven aan een jachthuis dat zou zijn gebouwd door graaf Floris IV (1210-1234). In dit onderzoek staat dit ‘jachthuis van Floris IV’ centraal. Op basis van terminologisch onderzoek wordt uiteengezet waarom het begrip jachthuis/jachtslot niet passend is voor de vroegste fase van het Binnenhof. Dit begrip kwam pas vanaf de negentiende eeuw in zwang, toen nieuwe rijken gingen deelnemen aan de jacht. Daarnaast was er in het dertiende-eeuwse machtssysteem, waarbinnen heersers rondtrokken door hun gebied, nog geen behoefte aan jachthuizen; elke verplaatsing zorgde voor verse jachtgronden. Het lijkt onwaarschijnlijk dat in de dertiende eeuw al sprake was van verblijfplaatsen voor een specifieke functie zoals jacht of representatie; vaak sloot het één het ander niet uit.
In dit artikel wordt ingegaan op de origine van het ‘jachthuisverhaal’. De eerste vermelding van Den Haag komt uit een oorkonde uit 1242. Hierin wordt gesproken van ‘die Haga’ (de haag), wat duidt op een omheind gebied voor de jacht. Volgens de chroniquer Jan Beke stichtte Willem II (1227-1256) in Den Haag een ‘paleis’ nadat hij in 1248 was gekroond tot rooms-koning. Hiervoor was er dus al een grafelijk jachtterrein in dit gebied. Begin zeventiende eeuw liet Den Haag zijn naam veranderen in ’s-Gravenhage, vermoedelijk werkte de connectie met de grafelijke jacht statusverhogend. Den Haag had geen stadsrechten en zocht daarom andere manieren om zich te profileren. In de eeuwen daarna was de jacht, en het bezit van een jachthuis, alleen bereikbaar voor de allerrijksten.
Om tot een nieuwe definiëring te komen van het begin van het Binnenhof is onderzocht of de typologische kenmerken van zaalbouwen uit deze periode toepasbaar zijn op de eerste bouwfase. Het blijkt lastig de eerste bouwfase te reconstrueren. De middelste kelder onder de ‘Ridderzaal’ van het Grafelijke Zalencomplex is het enige overblijfsel uit deze periode. Door deze te vergelijken met andere verblijfplaatsen wordt duidelijk dat deze ruimte oorspronkelijk ook in gebruik is geweest voor opslag.
Vergelijkend onderzoek naar andere hoven in en buiten het graafschap Holland lijkt te bevestigen dat er eind dertiende eeuw al huizen waren die grotendeels dienden als uitvalsbasis voor de jacht, zoals Bosvoorde dat al in 1270 als domus veneratorum (jachthuis) werd aangeduid. De aanwezigheid van het grafelijke jachtterrein maakt het waarschijnlijk dat het Binnenhof ook voor de jacht werd gebruikt, maar aan dit vroege hof werden ook officiële zaken afgehandeld. Vanaf 1248 werd de representatieve functie van het Binnenhof waarschijnlijk de belangrijkste, aangezien de term ‘paleis’ vaak alleen werd gebruikt voor een hoofdresidentie
De kamer van een koopvrouw: Achttiende-eeuwse interieurschilderingen in een Rotterdams huis
Full text linkIn the middle of the eighteenth century, the so-called Koopmanshuis (Merchant’s House) at Rechter Rottekade 405-407 in Rotterdam underwent a substantial renovation that resulted in the present facade, staircase, and first-floor reception room with decorative paintings. The iconography of the paintings raises questions about their meaning, maker and client. In order to elucidate the artistic programme this article investigates the house, the painter, the client and the political-economic context. The research provides insight into the deeper meaning of the paintings while also increasing our knowledge of Rotterdam’s middle-class architectural and domestic culture in this period.
Built largely in the period 1718-1735, the house has the typical layout of Rotterdam merchant houses, with business operations at street level and living spaces on the floors above. In 1756 the front elevation was rebuilt. The same period saw the installation of a rococo staircase and the creation of an elegant reception room, also in rococo style. It is here that the artworks – an overmantel painting and a ceiling painting – are to be found.
The overmantel painting is an allegory on the virtues of Fidelity and Prudence. The ceiling painting consists of four corner tableaus depicting personifications of the four continents and a central tableau featuring personifications of Trade and Freedom and a composite personification of Victory, Plenty, Peace and Munificence. The iconography is derived in part from the emblem books of Cesare Ripa and Hubert Poot. They are neither signed nor dated.
Stylistic and iconographic similarities with two paintings by Dirk Anthony Bisschop (1708-1785) suggest that this artist was also responsible for the paintings in the Koopmanshuis. Bisschop made decorative artworks, paintings, topographical drawings, armorials and family trees, and decorated carriages and jewellery. Several of his works display the same idiosyncratic kind of iconography as found in the Koopmanshuis. Bisschop was a highly regarded painter whose clients included many prominent families.
The paintings and the rococo interior were done at the behest of the Remonstrant merchant Antonetta Verkanten (1702-1774). She traded in tea, coffee, wool and furs, products sourced in part from the Dutch colonies. The new interior was a reflection of her growing affluence and social ambitions. The subject matter of the paintings refers not just to Verkanten’s commercial activities, but was also influenced by contemporary international, political and economic threats to commerce, such as the Seven Years’ War and international competition in overseas trade.
Based on this, the ceiling painting can be interpreted as an allegory of intercontinental free trade, and an appeal for peace in order that trade might flourish and generate prosperity. It also encourages the sharing of the resulting abundance. The virtues depicted in the overmantel work are crucial to successful commerce. The paintings and the interior demonstrate that it was not just the elite, but also the well-to-do middle class who commissioned elegant salons furnished in accordance with the latest fashion and decorated with allegorical figurations. The totality expressed the economic position, ambitions and ideas of the client. The painter, Bisschop, possessed the intellectual capacity to render the message in a unique iconography. Paintings like those in the Koopmanshuis, which can be difficult to interpret without knowing their background, are both interesting and relevant to the history of Dutch decorative painting.Het zogenoemde Koopmanshuis aan de Rechter Rottekade 405-407 in Rotterdam onderging in het midden van de achttiende eeuw een verbouwing, waarbij de huidige gevel, trap en ontvangstkamer met interieurschilderingen op de verdieping tot stand kwamen. De iconografie van de schilderingen roept vragen op over betekenis, maker en opdrachtgever. In dit artikel worden het huis, de schilder, de opdrachtgever en de politiek-economische context onderzocht om tot een duiding van het schilderkunstige programma te komen. Het onderzoek geeft inzicht in de diepere betekenis van de schilderstukken en vergroot daarnaast ook onze kennis van de Rotterdamse burgerlijke bouw- en wooncultuur in deze periode.
Het huis kwam grotendeels tot stand in de periode 1718-1735 en heeft de kenmerkende opzet van het Rotterdamse koopmanshuistype met bedrijfsfuncties beneden en woonfuncties op de verdiepingen. In 1756 werd de voorgevel vernieuwd. In diezelfde periode werd een rococo-trap geplaatst en kreeg de eerste verdieping een representatief ontvangstvertrek in rococostijl. Hier bevinden zich de schilderingen: een schoorsteenstuk en een plafondschildering.
Het schoorsteenstuk is een allegorie op de deugden Trouw en Voorzichtigheid. De plafondschildering bestaat uit vier hoekstukken met personificaties van de vier continenten en een middenstuk met personificaties van de Handel en Vrijheid en een gecombineerde personificatie van de Overwinning, Overvloed, Vrede en Milddadigheid (vrijgevigheid). De iconografie is gedeeltelijk ontleend aan de handboeken van Cesare Ripa en Hubert Poot. Een signatuur of datering ontbreekt.
Op basis van stilistische en iconografische overeenkomsten met twee schilderstukken van Dirk Anthony Bisschop (1708-1785) kunnen de schilderingen in het Koopmanshuis aan hem worden toegeschreven. Bisschop vervaardigde interieurschilderstukken, schilderijen, topografische tekeningenn, wapenboeken en stambomen en beschilderde rijtuigen en sieraden. Enkele werken tonen net zo’n eigenzinnige iconografie als in het Koopmanshuis. Bisschop was een gewaardeerd schilder met vooraanstaande families als opdrachtgevers.
De schilderingen en het rococo-interieur zijn aangebracht in opdracht van de remonstrantse Antonetta Verkanten (1702-1774). Zij dreef een handel in thee, koffie, wol en bont, producten die onder meer uit de koloniën werden betrokken. Het nieuwe interieur weerspiegelde haar toegenomen welvaart en sociale ambitie. De thematiek van de schilderingen refereert niet alleen aan de zakelijke activiteiten van Verkanten, maar is ook beïnvloed door de toenmalige internationale, politieke en economische bedreigingen voor de handel, zoals de Zevenjarige Oorlog en internationale concurrentie in de overzeese handel.
Op basis hiervan is het plafondstuk te interpreteren als een allegorie op de intercontinentale handelsvrijheid en een oproep tot vrede, opdat de handel kan gedijen en zorgen voor welvaart. Ook spoort het aan de verworven overvloed te delen. De deugden op het schoorsteenstuk zijn noodzakelijke eigenschappen voor een succesvolle handel.
De schilderingen en het interieur tonen dat niet alleen de elite, maar ook de gegoede burgerklasse representatieve vertrekken liet bouwen volgens de laatste mode en deze liet decoreren met betekenisvolle voorstellingen. Het geheel gaf uitdrukking aan de economische positie, ambities en denkbeelden van de opdrachtgeefster. De schilder Bisschop bezat de intellectuele capaciteit om de boodschap in een bijzondere iconografie uit te werken. Schilderingen als in het Koopmanshuis – zonder kennis van deze achtergrond niet eenvoudig te begrijpen – zijn interessant en relevant voor de geschiedenis van de Nederlandse decoratieschilderkunst.
Sporen van stadhouders: Verblijven en besturen in het westelijke deel van het Binnenhof
Full text linkIn anticipation of the current major restoration of the Binnenhof, the home of the Dutch parliament, building historians conducted research into this historically important complex of buildings in The Hague. This article focuses on the western part of the complex and the role played there by the stadholder and the States of Holland. In the northwest corner of the Binnenhof, an L-shaped Knights’ House arose in the middle of the fourteenth century with a residence for the stadholder on the first floor while the ground floor was used by the States of Holland.
In 1585 Prince Maurits took up residence in this part of the Binnenhof and to underline his status had a tower built on the northwest corner (completed 1604). Later he had his accommodation expanded (1620-1621). His successor Frederik Hendrik further expanded the accommodation with an extruded corner containing private quarters for his son William’s wife (Mary Stuart). With the death of William II in 1650, the first stadholderless period (1650-1672) began. The States of Holland seized on this opportunity to reinforce their claim to the buildings by demolishing part of the recent expansion on the Hofvijver side and building a prominent new meeting place.
As a consequence of the war with the French in 1672, William III became stadholder and to compensate for the lost space he commissioned an expansion of the complex on the south side (1677-1678). After the death of his wife Mary II Stuart, he had a stately house built for his favourite, the 1st Earl of Albemarle, on the south edge of the Prinsentuin in circa 1695. William’s death in 1702 ushered in the second stadholderless period until the threat of war in 1747 led to the appointment of William IV as stadholder. At this point the accommodation at the Binnenhof was deemed to be too small for the court and plans for a new palace were drawn up. What his father had been unable to achieve, William V accomplished. Existing buildings in the southwest corner made way for new stadholder quarters, but not until the States of Holland had built a new Comptoir-Generaal (money office) a little further away in 1777. In 1779 work on new quarters commenced. They consisted of a representative section in the Binnenhof, an apartment for the stadholder with an entrance on the Buitenhof and a service wing – the Cingelhuis – on the south side. The latter replaced the service wing of the Court of Albemarle. The new accommodation was finished by 1792, but just three years later William V was forced into exile, after which the newly formed Batavian Republic turned the ballroom into a meeting room, which served as the chamber of the House of Representatives from 1814 to 1992. The chamber of the States of Holland has been in use by the Senate since 1849.In anticipation of the current major restoration of the Binnenhof, the home of the Dutch parliament, building historians conducted research into this historically important complex of buildings in The Hague. This article focuses on the western part of the complex and the role played there by the stadholder and the States of Holland. In the northwest corner of the Binnenhof, an L-shaped Knights’ House arose in the middle of the fourteenth century with a residence for the stadholder on the first floor while the ground floor was used by the States of Holland.
In 1585 Prince Maurits took up residence in this part of the Binnenhof and to underline his status had a tower built on the northwest corner (completed 1604). Later he had his accommodation expanded (1620-1621). His successor Frederik Hendrik further expanded the accommodation with an extruded corner containing private quarters for his son William’s wife (Mary Stuart). With the death of William II in 1650, the first stadholderless period (1650-1672) began. The States of Holland seized on this opportunity to reinforce their claim to the buildings by demolishing part of the recent expansion on the Hofvijver side and building a prominent new meeting place.
As a consequence of the war with the French in 1672, William III became stadholder and to compensate for the lost space he commissioned an expansion of the complex on the south side (1677-1678). After the death of his wife Mary II Stuart, he had a stately house built for his favourite, the 1st Earl of Albemarle, on the south edge of the Prinsentuin in circa 1695. William’s death in 1702 ushered in the second stadholderless period until the threat of war in 1747 led to the appointment of William IV as stadholder. At this point the accommodation at the Binnenhof was deemed to be too small for the court and plans for a new palace were drawn up. What his father had been unable to achieve, William V accomplished. Existing buildings in the southwest corner made way for new stadholder quarters, but not until the States of Holland had built a new Comptoir-Generaal (money office) a little further away in 1777. In 1779 work on new quarters commenced. They consisted of a representative section in the Binnenhof, an apartment for the stadholder with an entrance on the Buitenhof and a service wing – the Cingelhuis – on the south side. The latter replaced the service wing of the Court of Albemarle. The new accommodation was finished by 1792, but just three years later William V was forced into exile, after which the newly formed Batavian Republic turned the ballroom into a meeting room, which served as the chamber of the House of Representatives from 1814 to 1992. The chamber of the States of Holland has been in use by the Senate since 1849.
 
M.J. Granpré Molière: Architectuur en stedenbouw als beroep en als culturele opdracht in de 20ste eeuw
Full text linkReview of a book written by Sjettie Bruins
Bespreking van een boek van Sjettie Bruin
Stedenpatronen rondom de Noordzee van de dertiende tot en met de eenentwintigste eeuw
Full text linkContemporary urbanization patterns around the North Sea can only be understood by looking at their long-term development and studying how these patterns arose and evolved over the centuries. If we look no further back than the Industrial Revolution, we get a distorted picture. The fact is that urbanization patterns were for the most part already established before that period, as can be clearly seen in the composite map showing all the cities and all reference years.
Major port cities like Hamburg, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp emerged during the late Middle Ages. Many other cities of importance today also date back to that period. The Industrial Revolution was decisive for only two groups of cities: those in the English Midlands and in Germany’s Ruhr area.
The maps reflecting the situation in 1300 and 2015 reveal that the type of landscape had a huge impact on the urbanization patterns. Landscape provides continuity. In reaction to dramatic changes wrought by political and economic processes, the areas around the North Sea behaved like communicating vessels: the cities in the Southern Netherlands contracted, those in the Northern Netherlands expanded, Holland declined, England prospered.
A succession of major economic and political processes is crucial to our understanding of the position, function and significance of today’s key North Sea cities. The foundations of urban patterns around the North Sea were established in the period before 1500. It is noteworthy that for centuries the epicentre of major port cities lay in the politically fragmented areas along the eastern shore of the North Sea here powerful and enterprising townsmen ensured an intensive exchange of goods.
In the decades before and after 1600, the far-reaching political changes that occurred during the Dutch Revolt resulted in a shift in prosperity from the southern to the northern provinces, which subsequently experienced the Golden Age. While the southern provinces were constrained by their Spanish rulers, in the newly formed Republic where wealthy citizens were in charge, the cities of Holland flourished as transhipment and trading centres.
During the eighteenth century, there were more dramatic shifts: the centre of gravity moved to the other side of the North Sea, to England, where the character of the economy was completely transformed by the Industrial Revolution and the main port cities were now part of a kingdom that evolved into the British Empire in which both government and entrepreneurs played an important role.
Ever since industrialization took hold in northern France, Belgium and the Ruhr in the early nineteenth century, the North Sea region has been characterized by several economic epicentres that have managed to survive further far-reaching economic changes in the twentieth century. A consolidation of the pattern of cities around the North Sea occurred, seemingly due to the fact that, since the birth of the welfare state and the European Union, national governments have concentrated on the development of the economy, the population and the cities.Contemporary urbanization patterns around the North Sea can only be understood by looking at their long-term development and studying how these patterns arose and evolved over the centuries. If we look no further back than the Industrial Revolution, we get a distorted picture. The fact is that urbanization patterns were for the most part already established before that period, as can be clearly seen in the composite map showing all the cities and all reference years.
Major port cities like Hamburg, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp emerged during the late Middle Ages. Many other cities of importance today also date back to that period. The Industrial Revolution was decisive for only two groups of cities: those in the English Midlands and in Germany’s Ruhr area.
The maps reflecting the situation in 1300 and 2015 reveal that the type of landscape had a huge impact on the urbanization patterns. Landscape provides continuity. In reaction to dramatic changes wrought by political and economic processes, the areas around the North Sea behaved like communicating vessels: the cities in the Southern Netherlands contracted, those in the Northern Netherlands expanded, Holland declined, England prospered.
A succession of major economic and political processes is crucial to our understanding of the position, function and significance of today’s key North Sea cities. The foundations of urban patterns around the North Sea were established in the period before 1500. It is noteworthy that for centuries the epicentre of major port cities lay in the politically fragmented areas along the eastern shore of the North Sea here powerful and enterprising townsmen ensured an intensive exchange of goods.
In the decades before and after 1600, the far-reaching political changes that occurred during the Dutch Revolt resulted in a shift in prosperity from the southern to the northern provinces, which subsequently experienced the Golden Age. While the southern provinces were constrained by their Spanish rulers, in the newly formed Republic where wealthy citizens were in charge, the cities of Holland flourished as transhipment and trading centres.
During the eighteenth century, there were more dramatic shifts: the centre of gravity moved to the other side of the North Sea, to England, where the character of the economy was completely transformed by the Industrial Revolution and the main port cities were now part of a kingdom that evolved into the British Empire in which both government and entrepreneurs played an important role.
Ever since industrialization took hold in northern France, Belgium and the Ruhr in the early nineteenth century, the North Sea region has been characterized by several economic epicentres that have managed to survive further far-reaching economic changes in the twentieth century. A consolidation of the pattern of cities around the North Sea occurred, seemingly due to the fact that, since the birth of the welfare state and the European Union, national governments have concentrated on the development of the economy, the population and the cities
Opstand in architectenland: De restauratie van de Grafelijke Zalen en de strijd over de monumentenzorg
Full text linkIn late 1895, in response to an ostensibly innocuous budget debate in the Lower House, a public war of words erupted over the prospective restoration and conversion of the Grafelijke Zalen (Counts’ Chambers) in the Binnenhof. Its desirability was not in dispute. However, in a matter of weeks, the discussion about which course to pursue and who should assume responsibility for the project escalated into a full-scale duel. On one side of the debate stood the Ministry of the Interior, led by the chief civil servant of the Department of Arts and Sciences (Kunsten en Wetenschappen or K&W), Victor de Stuers, and the architect Pierre Cuypers. Opposing them were the Ministry of Water, Trade and Industry (Waterstaat, for short) and the Society for the Advancement of Architecture (Maatschappij tot Bevordering der Bouwkunst). After De Stuers and Cuypers had implicitly claimed the project for the Ministry of the Interior, the Society registered a highly critical protest: it demanded that the Lower House leave responsibility for this ‘national treasure’ with the Ministry of Water, Trade & Industry and break with the fifteen-year-long approach to restorations dictated by K&W. The ‘stylistic purity’ demanded by De Stuers and Cuypers, based on their rather linear view of architectural history, left little scope for the Society’s somewhat more relativist approach, which combined restoration of a building’s artistic and historical values with the possibility of preserving multiple chronological layers. In the past De Stuers and Cuypers had nearly always managed, with the help of a few political intrigues, to impose their architectural vision, but on this occasion they were blocked by the Lower House.
The Minister of Water, Trade & Industry set up a four-member restoration commission – his own government architects, D.E.C. Knuttel and C.H. Peters, plus C. Muyskens and F.J. Nieuwenhuis from the Society – and invited his colleague from the Ministry of the Interior to appoint a fifth member. It was not until eighteen months later that Cuypers was duly appointed to the position and the restoration commission could set to work. The normally assertive Cuypers appears to have exerted very little influence over the course pursued by the commission. Instead of his highly developed appreciation for the gothic style, it was the concrete building history research of Peters and Nieuwenhuis that underpinned the commission’s choices. De Stuers and Cuypers continued to wield influence, but their near total dominance of government policy was a thing of the past and after the completion of the restoration in 1905 there was gradually more scope for other views on heritage restoration ethics.Eind 1895 ontstond naar aanleiding van een schijnbaar onschuldige budgetbespreking in de Tweede Kamer een publiek debat over de eventuele restauratie en herbestemming van de Grafelijke Zalen op het Binnenhof. Over de wenselijkheid daarvan was iedereen het wel eens. De discussie over welke koers daarbij moest worden aangehouden, en onder wiens verantwoordelijkheid het project zou dienen te vallen, escaleerde echter binnen een aantal weken volledig. In het debat stonden aan de ene kant het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken, met voorop de hoofdambtenaar van de afdeling Kunsten en Wetenschappen (K&W) Victor de Stuers en architect Pierre Cuypers. Daar tegenover stonden het ministerie van Waterstaat en de Maatschappij tot Bevordering der Bouwkunst. Nadat De Stuers en Cuypers het project impliciet hadden opgeëist voor het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken, kwam vanuit de Maatschappij een uiterst kritisch protest: de Tweede Kamer werd dringend verzocht de verantwoordelijkheid voor dit ‘landsgebouw’ bij Waterstaat te laten en te breken met de vanuit de afdeling K&W al vijftien jaar gedicteerde koers bij restauraties. De eisen die De Stuers en Cuypers vanuit hun nogal lineaire benadering van de architectuurgeschiedenis aan ‘stijlzuiverheid’ stelden, lieten weinig ruimte over voor de wat meer relativistische benadering van de Maatschappij, waarin naast herstel van de artistieke en historische waarde van een gebouw ook het behouden van meerdere tijdlagen mogelijk was. Tot dan waren De Stuers en Cuypers vrijwel altijd in staat geweest met de nodige politieke intriges hun architectuurhistorische visie door te drukken, maar nu werden ze door de Tweede Kamer geblokkeerd.
De minister van Waterstaat stelde een restauratiecommissie in van vier leden – de eigen rijksbouwmeesters Knuttel en Peters en vanuit de Maatschappij Muysken en Nieuwenhuis – en nodigde zijn collega van Binnenlandse Zaken uit om daar een vijfde lid aan toe te voegen. Pas anderhalf jaar later werd Cuypers als zodanig benoemd en kon de restauratiecommissie starten. De invloed van de doorgaans zeer dominante Cuypers op de koers van de commissie lijkt zeer beperkt te zijn geweest. Niet diens hoogontwikkelde gevoel voor de gotische stijl, maar het concrete bouwhistorische onderzoek van Peters en Nieuwenhuis vormde de basis voor de gemaakte keuzes. De Stuers en Cuypers bleven invloedrijk, maar hun vrijwel totale dominantie van het overheidsbeleid was voorbij en na de afronding van de restauratie in 1905 ontstond langzaam meer ruimte voor andere visies op restauratie-ethiek