Artikelen

• De correspondentie tussen Rubens en Huygens over architectuur

  Constantijn Huygens, the secretary of the Prince of Orange, kept up a correspondence with P.P. Rubens in the years 1635-'40. One of their main themes was architecture, in connection with the building of Huygens' own house in The Hague in the years 1634-'37 (ill. 3-6). So far, three of Huygens' letters to Rubens are known. Rubens's replies seem to have been lost.

  This article focuses on Huygens' draft for a fourth letter to Rubens, dating from 1640, in which he tried to refute a number of critical remarks apparently made by Rubens in a previous letter, concerning the design of Huygens House (Appendix IV). Eventually, because of Rubens' death in 1640, this letter was never written.

  It is obvious that Rubens thought Huygens House too simple, compared to the monumental architecture developed in Antwerp two decades before. He suggested instead of the simple Doric gate to the street to build a large arch with heavy key stones on top, possibly having the arch of the courtyard of his own house in Antwerp in mind (see ill. 2). Moreover, Rubens had a strong preference for a clustering of pilasters and wrings in the entablature of the facade, as he knew these, for instance, from the Antwerp Jesuit Church (see ill. 1). Instead of too much simplicity (la troppo simplicità) Rubens was of the opinion that such a town palace required greater dignity. According to him in the architecture of the facade this could be achieved by applying more relief and plasticity (maggior dignità e rilievo à tutta la facciata).

  Huygens, on the contrary, emphasized that he deliberately avoided too large a gesture (un effetto di troppo violenza) and that to him simplicity was beautiful enough in itself, provided that here too, the rules of the art would be followed (servitu delle regole antiche). So far, both parties answer the familiar image which historiography has rendered of them, Rubens as the baroque, exuberant mind and Huygens as the puritan guardian of the classical heritage.

  However, in this correspondence both of them also express different views, seemingly in contradiction with the positions defined above. It is Rubens who keeps harping on the need to follow the rules and proportions of Vitruvius very precisely. Remarkably enough, it is Huygens who in his counter-argument puts forward that the rules need not be observed so precisely and that they might as well be adapted to the circumstances (un poco ubedire l'arte al sito), as long as this is not experienced as disturbing (senza incommodita dell'occhio).

  Thus the theory of Vitruvius appears to have been used as the Standard of architecture in Antwerp in 1640, too. In the light of the tradition of the Vitruvian study, which at that time had already been practiced for one century in this city, this is not really surprising. After Coecke van Aelst, Cornelis Floris and Vredeman de Vries, to mention the major propagandists from the 16th century, this tradition of classicism continued to exist in the 17th century, too, among architects such as Cobergher and Francart and among commissioners such as Aguilon.

  All this provides sufficient reason to look for the common reception of the Italian Renaissance and the Vitruvian tradition in the study of 17th century-architecture in both the Netherlands, without being diverted by the striking difference in external appearance of the architecture in both provinces in that period.

  Constantijn Huygens, the secretary of the Prince of Orange, kept up a correspondence with P.P. Rubens in the years 1635-'40. One of their main themes was architecture, in connection with the building of Huygens' own house in The Hague in the years 1634-'37 (ill. 3-6). So far, three of Huygens' letters to Rubens are known. Rubens's replies seem to have been lost.

  This article focuses on Huygens' draft for a fourth letter to Rubens, dating from 1640, in which he tried to refute a number of critical remarks apparently made by Rubens in a previous letter, concerning the design of Huygens House (Appendix IV). Eventually, because of Rubens' death in 1640, this letter was never written.

  It is obvious that Rubens thought Huygens House too simple, compared to the monumental architecture developed in Antwerp two decades before. He suggested instead of the simple Doric gate to the street to build a large arch with heavy key stones on top, possibly having the arch of the...

  Constantijn Huygens, the secretary of the Prince of Orange, kept up a correspondence with P.P. Rubens in the years 1635-'40. One of their main themes was architecture, in connection with the building of Huygens' own house in The Hague in the years 1634-'37 (ill. 3-6). So far, three of Huygens'...

  Koen A. Ottenheym

  1-11

  • Download PDF
• Sassenheim en Arnhem: twee benzinestations naar ontwerp van ir. S. van Ravesteyn (1889-1983)

  Many buildings of architect Sybold van Ravesteyn (1889-1983) have been demolished by now. Most of Van Ravesteyn's buildings for the Dutch Railway were brutally depleted. In the period between 1935 and 1963 he designed twenty-five petrol stations for oil company Purfina (Fina), of which at the moment only eight have survived.

  In this article two petrol stations by Van Ravesteyn will be discussed: one petrol station in Sassenheim (from 1951, recently demolished) and one in Arnhem (from 1957, still existing and protected as a listed building on the municipal historic buildings register). On national highway 44 between Amsterdam and The Hague, 1938, there was a small petrol station by Van Ravesteyn near Sassenheim.

  The building had a minimum of facilities for motorist and pump attendant and was situated at a slight bend in the highway. Because of the soil conditions the architect used concrete upright extensions for the foundations. The design was simple: a ground plan in the form of a stirrup, the straight side with the kiosk directed towards the road and provided with a glass facade, the semicircular rear was closed and contained a few subordinate spaces.

  Pump attendant and motorists were sheltered by a porch built at the front of the petrol station. Van Ravesteyn used the same design more often, e.g. in Zwammerdam (Reeuwijk) on national highway 12 and in IJsselstein, on national highway 2, but both buildings were overtaken by changing standards or requirements of use and, consequently, demolished and replaced.

  The petrol station in Arnhem distinguishes itself by its remarkable appearance. It has a narrow, pointed ground plan and a pent-roof. From the lodge in the peak of the petrol station the pump attendant carried out his work. The remarkable architecture was intended to attract the motorist's attention to the petrol station, so that he would stop and fuel up or buy lubricants.

  It took the architect some trouble to get the striking design through the Urban Aesthetics Committee, but eventually a passionate plea won over conservatism. For several reasons the same design failed to be carried out in Leiden and in Moergestel, whereas in Ede it was executed, but has meanwhile been replaced.

  In Arnhem municipal conservation of monuments resulted in the preservation of the by now unique petrol station. Petrol stations form a specific category in the history of twentieth-century architecture. The conservation department has difficulties in getting a grip on this category, also because the Monuments and Historic Buildings Act 1988 requires a building to be at least fifty years old, a period of time which hardly ever or never appears to apply to petrol stations.

  Changing requirements of use, stricter regulations by environmental legislation and rock-hard competition among the oil companies threaten the continued existence of this specific group of industrial buildings which rightly have a symbolic function for the twentieth century.

  In the light of the increasing interest in and research on the history of industrial and technical monuments, the petrol station deserves greater acknowledgement and appreciation than it received in the past. Here a decisive municipal conservation policy can play a part: a municipal listed buildings order need not be restricted to the said period of at least fifty years. Quick action is required. The twentieth century produced the petrol station but, like Saturn, seems to be consuming its offspring.

  Many buildings of architect Sybold van Ravesteyn (1889-1983) have been demolished by now. Most of Van Ravesteyn's buildings for the Dutch Railway were brutally depleted. In the period between 1935 and 1963 he designed twenty-five petrol stations for oil company Purfina (Fina), of which at the moment only eight have survived.

  In this article two petrol stations by Van Ravesteyn will be discussed: one petrol station in Sassenheim (from 1951, recently demolished) and one in Arnhem (from 1957, still existing and protected as a listed building on the municipal historic buildings register). On national highway 44 between Amsterdam and The Hague, 1938, there was a small petrol station by Van Ravesteyn near Sassenheim.

  The building had a minimum of facilities for motorist and pump attendant and was situated at a slight bend in the highway. Because of the soil conditions the architect used concrete upright extensions for the foundations. The design was simple: a ground...

  Many buildings of architect Sybold van Ravesteyn (1889-1983) have been demolished by now. Most of Van Ravesteyn's buildings for the Dutch Railway were brutally depleted. In the period between 1935 and 1963 he designed twenty-five petrol stations for oil company Purfina (Fina), of which at the...

  Michiel S. Verweij

  12-25

  • Download PDF