Artikelen

• 

  Reis door een land vol wonderen. Architect Willem Marinus Dudok op lezingentour door Amerika, 19 september-18 december 1953

  In autumn 1953, at the invitation of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), Dutch architect Willem Dudok embarked on an almost three month-long lecture tour of over thirty universities in the United States of America. It was Dudok’s first experience of America. An analysis of the archival material of Dudok’s tour, never previously undertaken, offers starting points for a deeper consideration of Dudok’s reflections on his own career as architect and urban designer, and his view of architecture and urban design in the United States. Since his earliest housing projects in Hilversum around 1920, American architects had taken an interest in Dudok’s work, an interest that only increased after the completion of the Hilversum town hall in 1931. Although Dudok had received several invitations to lecture in America over the years, it only became a reality quite late in life. The programme laid out for him was an exceptionally busy one: in the course of eighty days he covered a large swathe of the eastern and central part of the United States. He lectured to architects, students and other interested parties, was invited to several receptions and dinners, and was taken on guided tours of many buildings and cities. He also stayed for a few days with Frank Lloyd Wright.
              Immediately upon arrival Dudok was impressed by the huge skyscrapers of Manhattan, although it was the engineering that made the greatest impression on him. He did not regard them as architecture for they lacked the ‘beauty of proportion and mutual harmony’.
              Dudok had prepared two lectures for his tour, largely based on a lecture he had already given in Brussels in 1950 for the Société Belge des Urbanistes et Architectes Modernistes. He argued for a spiritual value in architecture that would be reflected in the proper structural proportions. He felt that Americans had little idea of urban design as yet, and he made frequent mention of an ugliness and chaos similar to that in Asian cities. He favoured the development of garden cities, of which Hilversum was his great example, over close-set skyscrapers. In his view, a city’s beauty consisted above all of a well-judged alternation of repetition and variation in buildings.
              For his American audiences of students and young architects, Dudok’s lectures were probably their first encounter with his ideas and reflections on architecture and urban design. He illustrated his lectures with a large number of slides and impressed his audiences with the breadth of his oeuvre, which clearly consisted of much more than his world-famous town hall. After his visit, Dudok’s lectures were published in the Journal of the American Institute of Architects and eighteen months later he was awarded the AIA Gold Medal, the institute’s highest honour. Dudok is still the only Dutch architect to have received this accolade.

  In autumn 1953, at the invitation of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), Dutch architect Willem Dudok embarked on an almost three month-long lecture tour of over thirty universities in the United States of America. It was Dudok’s first experience of America. An analysis of the archival material of Dudok’s tour, never previously undertaken, offers starting points for a deeper consideration of Dudok’s reflections on his own career as architect and urban designer, and his view of architecture and urban design in the United States. Since his earliest housing projects in Hilversum around 1920, American architects had taken an interest in Dudok’s work, an interest that only increased after the completion of the Hilversum town hall in 1931. Although Dudok had received several invitations to lecture in America over the years, it only became a reality quite late in life. The programme laid out for him was an exceptionally busy one: in the course of eighty days he covered a...

  In autumn 1953, at the invitation of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), Dutch architect Willem Dudok embarked on an almost three month-long lecture tour of over thirty universities in the United States of America. It was Dudok’s first experience of America. An analysis of the...

  Joke Reichardt

  1-19

  • Download PDF
• 

  ‘Baukultur’ in Brussel. Kleinschalig industrieel erfgoed van bouwbedrijven als drager van de productieve stad

  Brussels’ urban space, like that of many other cities, is dotted with evidence of a productive industrial past. The activities that took place there were generally not geared to mass production for export, but to small-scale manufacturing aimed at supplying the needs of local city dwellers. That small-scale manufacturing industry included members of the building trade such as contractors, joiners and builders’ merchants who catered to the demand for housing in an ever-expanding city. Their business premises formed a vital link in the creation and renovation of the urban fabric.
              This article focuses on the values of small-scale industrial heritage from the building trade, which is under enormous pressure in a city like Brussels. The dynamics of constantly rising real estate prices make residential redevelopment a lucrative investment. Thanks to gentrification, many workshops are being converted into housing and former warehouses are falling prey to large-scale property development.
              Real estate dynamics, scaling-up and changing market conditions are also contributing to the disappearance of the small-scale, live-work fabric that fosters a beneficial mix of functions. The expertise and skills that for centuries have supplied the basic needs of the city in a sustainable manner are then lost. In light of growing traffic congestion and unemployment, academics and urban planners are becoming increasingly convinced of the need for permanently embedded, city-servicing economic actors like building businesses. Thus, even today, small-scale industrial heritage is vital to the functioning of the urban economy, in that offers the possibility of spatially organizing or reorganizing city-servicing activities within a dense urban fabric.
              Inspired by integrated concepts of heritage, we therefore argue in favour of a broadening of industrial heritage values aimed at anchoring the use of such locations in time and space. We take issue with an exclusively material approach to industrial heritage by pointing out the immaterial heritage value of a continuity of productive use.
              After a brief theoretical reflection on the value of small-scale industrial heritage in the city, we examine the historical evolution of Brussels’ industrial heritage at the macro level between 1890 and 1970, the period in which the development of the suburbs of Brussels was in full swing. We use a series of exemplary cases to illustrate the different trajectories of continuity and discontinuity of heritage on the one hand, and productive use of building trade locations in Brussels on the other. We also try to get to grips with the motivations of businesses that abandon the city, cease to exist or manage to adapt to volatile market conditions.
              This article uses a selection of cases to challenge a purely material approach to industrial heritage and makes the case for further research into the question of how individual heritage legislation might also recognize immaterial heritage values in historical business activity on a particular site or in an industrial building.

  Brussels’ urban space, like that of many other cities, is dotted with evidence of a productive industrial past. The activities that took place there were generally not geared to mass production for export, but to small-scale manufacturing aimed at supplying the needs of local city dwellers. That small-scale manufacturing industry included members of the building trade such as contractors, joiners and builders’ merchants who catered to the demand for housing in an ever-expanding city. Their business premises formed a vital link in the creation and renovation of the urban fabric.
              This article focuses on the values of small-scale industrial heritage from the building trade, which is under enormous pressure in a city like Brussels. The dynamics of constantly rising real estate prices make residential redevelopment a lucrative investment. Thanks to gentrification, many workshops are being converted into housing and former warehouses are...

  Brussels’ urban space, like that of many other cities, is dotted with evidence of a productive industrial past. The activities that took place there were generally not geared to mass production for export, but to small-scale manufacturing aimed at supplying the needs of local city dwellers....

  Frederik Vandyck, Matthijs Degraeve

  20-35

  • Download PDF
  • Download PDF (English)
• 

  Sober Nederlands vlagvertoon. Naoorlogse ambassadegebouwen in Washington en Bonn

  In 1964 the Netherlands inaugurated two new embassy buildings: in Washington DC, designed by the Dutch architect Piet Tauber, and in Bonn, designed by the German architect Ernst van Dorp. During the opening of both buildings, the Dutch dignitaries, who included the respective ambassadors, stressed that the new embassies, while solving existing accommodation problems, were also a symbolic gesture. Embassies, which housed the Netherlands’ foreign diplomatic missions, were political, representative buildings and as such carried symbolic connotations.
  This article relates to part of a doctoral study focusing on the representational role of Dutch embassy buildings from the Second World War to the present day and their all-important symbolism. Archival research was conducted into the history of the origins and reception of two Dutch embassy buildings from the same post-war reconstruction period when the first embassy buildings specifically commissioned by the Dutch government were constructed. The embassies in Washington DC (1960-1964) and Bonn (1962-1964), realized in quick succession, were of comparable political importance and were distinguished by the use of brick, a material often associated with the Netherlands. In addition to the choice of materials, the sober design of both buildings was seen as stereotypical of the national character. Given the representative function of the embassies, which housed the two biggest and most important Dutch diplomatic missions, the relation between political, national identity and architecture seems to have played a role in the realization of both buildings.
  In both Washington and Bonn the Dutch government purchased a plot in a residential area, at a suitable distance from the seat of government. Both designers explicitly took account of the surroundings and opted for an architecture that was modern yet understated. Piet Tauber (1927-2017), for whom this accorded with his own design principles, sought to balance functionality, context and architectural expression, resulting in ‘simplicity and honesty’. Ernst van Dorp (1920-2003) emphasized the specific function of an embassy building. As the symbol of a nation in a foreign country, the design ought to conform to the national character and the context, without drawing undue attention to itself. As well as having an ‘affinity’ with the country being represented, the building should be ‘durable’ and age gracefully. According to the German architect brick and glass were more durable and revealed more ‘character’ as they aged. Both approaches resulted in a highly contextual building that was widely regarded as representative of the home country in the choice of material, sober architectural appearance, and taut, functional design. Although the VIPs at the openings in 1964 referred to the symbolism of the buildings, there is no indication in the archival material that the national significance of the buildings was actually specified in the design commission. Neither style nor material was stipulated. Rather, the embassies in Washington and Bonn demonstrate how a balance was sought with the context of the host country. To what extent this was a deliberate political strategy that was also applied to later Dutch embassy buildings and hence typically Dutch, is a subject for further research.

  In 1964 the Netherlands inaugurated two new embassy buildings: in Washington DC, designed by the Dutch architect Piet Tauber, and in Bonn, designed by the German architect Ernst van Dorp. During the opening of both buildings, the Dutch dignitaries, who included the respective ambassadors, stressed that the new embassies, while solving existing accommodation problems, were also a symbolic gesture. Embassies, which housed the Netherlands’ foreign diplomatic missions, were political, representative buildings and as such carried symbolic connotations.
  This article relates to part of a doctoral study focusing on the representational role of Dutch embassy buildings from the Second World War to the present day and their all-important symbolism. Archival research was conducted into the history of the origins and reception of two Dutch embassy buildings from the same post-war reconstruction period when the first embassy buildings specifically commissioned by the Dutch government were...

  In 1964 the Netherlands inaugurated two new embassy buildings: in Washington DC, designed by the Dutch architect Piet Tauber, and in Bonn, designed by the German architect Ernst van Dorp. During the opening of both buildings, the Dutch dignitaries, who included the respective ambassadors,...

  Hélène Damen

  36-49

  • Download PDF