Aan 'de Gracht' - Exception in the Amsterdam Canal Ring by Jacquelien Cannoo

Exception

Aan ‘De Gracht’ in the

Amsterdam Canal Ring

JACQUELIEN CANNOO

Exception

Aan ‘De Gracht’ in the

Amsterdam Canal Ring

JACQUELIEN CANNOO

MSc ARCHITECTURE HERITAGE & ARCHITECTURE TUTORS: L. MEIJERS; F. KOOPMAN DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 28 JANUARY 2016

Jacquelien Cannoo MSc Architecture Studio: Heritage & Architecture Graduation tutors: Ir. Lidy Meijers, Ir. Frank Koopman Delft University of Technology 28 January 2016

Abstract The Amsterdam Canal Ring is a very special and unique urban place. At three main canals small scale building blocks with gardens in between were built in the 17th century. The building blocks consists of typical Amsterdam Canal Houses which are all characteristic as Amsterdam building, but at the same time completely different. With one of the main characteristics of trichotomy, which creates a link between all buildings. A row of these buildings can suddenly be interrupted by a wide structure: an exception. The Prinsengracht Hospital is such an exception. By research and analysis of the building this thesis explorers how these exceptions are not desirable but at the same time tolerable. From that research a programme for the reuse of the hospital was found: a relatively small secondary school with a focus on art, combined with a Cultural Centre. The design is explores how these two functions can work separately, to downscale the exception in the Canal Ring, but at the same time work together. This is done with a central hall in the inner world of the building block.

Table

Content

1. Introduction

Part 2 Design

Problem statement

6. Programme

Research Question

Nurses education

Choice

Method

Part 1 Research 2. Amsterdam Canal Ring

School development

Quantitative 13

Qualitative

Development

Programme

7. Process

World Heritage

3. Canal House

Concept

Facade

8. Design

Organisation

Sections Elevations

Prinsengracht Hospital

Case Study: Anne Frank House 49

Floor plans

Development

5. Value Assessment

Starting Points

Restrictions

4. Exceptions

Building technology

Part 3 Reflection

Canal Ring

9. Conclusion

121

Canal House

10. Reflection

123

References

127

Exceptions

Prinsengracht Hospital

List of Illustrations

Bibliography

Appendix Position paper

133

Introduction

Problem Statement 10

The Canal Ring area is build up by very recognisable and

Assignment

symbolic Canal Houses. It contains a uniformity and at

The theme of the studio is â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;tolerance for changeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, mainly

the same time a differentiation that is most appealing

in relation to the Amsterdam UNESCO World Heritage.

to both locals and visitors. Nevertheless there are also

With this theme in mind the answers from the research-

exceptions in the canal area. These exceptions are no

and sub-questions should guide me to an intervention

typical canal buildings, they are relatively big building

design of the Prinsengracht Hospital. Perhaps by finding

complexes. An example is the Prinsengracht Hospital

the tolerance for merging the original plots together or

which is using the space of approximately 20 plots

finding the tolerance for unmerging the building back to

(including the ones at the back side of the complex). I

the typical Amsterdam Canal buildings.

CANAL HOUSE

EXCEPTIONS

CANAL RING (urban) Canal Ring development

Past

World Heritage

Present

am interested in this exception in the seemingly strict parcelisation and rhythm. Therefore I have compiled the following research question:

BUILDING (BLOCK)

Method

(fig. 1.1)

To answer the research question and its sub-questions, research will be done to the Canal House and the

How do relatively big buildings in the Amsterdam Canal Ring, such as the Prinsengracht Hospital, relate to the typical Amsterdam Canal House?

exceptions. As shown in the scheme on the right, the

Development

Appearance

Prinsengracht Hospital

Organisation

Case Study - L + A Anne Frank Huis

method is a parallel research containing both literature research and research through analysis. In the end the outcome should give the values of the two building types. By linking the two value assessments it should give an indication what the position of the architect should be

Sub-questions

toward both types within the Canal Ring. The two value

What is the typical Amsterdam Canal House?

assessments should also be linked with the Outstanding

How did relatively big buildings came to being in the

Universal Value (OUV) of the Canal Ring as world heritage

Canal Ring?

(fig. 1.2). The research will be divided in three themes:

VALUE Value typical Canal House

Value exception (Prinsengracht Hospital)

COMPARISON

What consequences do bigger buildings have on the area?

Canal Ring

The Canal Ring

What should we do with these buildings when they are

The location of the Canal Houses and exceptions is the

subjected to intervention?

Amsterdam Canal Ring. On the urban scale it is therefore necessary to find out why and how the Canal Ring was created. Nowadays the differentiation within the building blocks is appreciated, however this appears to be a

Fig. 1.1 Method (2015)

regulations while building their house. That defined the

canal houses had to make place for one big building. The

appearance and organisation of the houses. With this

Prinsengracht Hospital functions as the main precedent

term it should be taken into account that other cities in The

for the exception in this research. Interestingly, this

Netherlands also have canal houses, therefore the right

building is a combination of a merged building and

term for this research topic would be ‘Typical Amsterdam

a consolidation. The front side consists of two parts,

Canal House’. However since the entire research will be

the red brick part would be the consolidated building,

about the Canal Houses in the Amsterdam Canal Ring, the

whereas the white- grey part on the left side is clearly a

term should suffice. It describes a Canal House as anyone

later addition. From the street one could think the white-

can imagine this building type in Amsterdam, which is

grey part is not part of the hospital. While from the inside

very recognisable and symbolic for the city. Type in the

it is merged together and at some points it is even hard

term in the search engine and it will generate the type

to recognise the transition, this will be elaborated in

this report is about.

chapter four.

Exceptions

Additionally to the three themes, the research will go

There are also exceptions on the Canal House to be found

through four time periods. Beside the present situation

in the third and fourth expansion. These are the ‘big’

research will be done to the 17th century Canal Ring.

buildings within the area. The Canal House is built on one

This is to understand the Canal Ring of today, and the

or two plots as they were intended during the 17 century.

buildings within. However, the Prinsengracht Hospital

With this research a big building is defined as bigger than

was built in 1857, so the developments in the 19th century

the typical Canal House. Since it was common to build one

are very important to understand this exception in the

house on two plots in the 17th century, a building within

area. Finally, the future of the Prinsengracht Hospital will

the Canal Ring is considered as big when it uses three

be elaborated.

Fig.. 1.2 Canal Ring, Canal House, Exception (2015)

complete shift since the 17th century when “uniformity was appreciated” (Abrahamse, 2010, p. 336). Therefore the development of the Canal Ring is also very important to research. The term refers to the third and fourth expansion [derde en vierde uitleg]. In Dutch it is called “de Grachtengordel”, for which there is not a good and literal translation for. Several translations are used in English-written literature, such as Canal Belt or Canal District. This report uses Canal Ring (Area), which is also used in the nomination of the UNESCO World Heritage Amsterdam. Figure 1.2 shows the area that is part of the world heritage in red.

Canal House During the third and fourth expansion of Amsterdam (the Canal Ring expansion) buyers of plots were subjected to

or more plots. In the research these bigger buildings are named ‘exceptions’.

The report is built up by three parts, the first part is

The focus lies on the merged or consolidated buildings:

the part will elaborate on the three themes, Canal Ring,

three or more 17 century plots that have become one

Canal House and Exception. Since the research question

plot over time. Within this term I have distinguished two

will not lead to a programme for the intervention of the

types of exceptions: One is the ‘merged Canal House’,

Prinsengracht Hospital, the second part describes the

where it still seems like several buildings from the street

choice of programme and research into this. The final

perspective, but from the inside it has merged as one.

part gives the value assessment and conclusion of the

Another is the ‘consolidated building’ where several

Research Report.

12 H G EN ER CH RA T

S ER IZ KE G T

H AC

R NG

SE IN

Fig. 1.3 Map of Amsterdam (Brandes & Newman, 2011))

Fig. 1.4 Location of the Prinsengracht Hospital. 1:10000.(Openstreetmap.org, 2015)

PART 1 research

Amsterdam Canal Ring

Development 1625 AD

1625 AD1625 AD1625 AD

200m

100m 100m

200m 0

100m

200m 0

100m

500m 200m

a: 1320 b: 1450 Fig. 2.1 Growth of Amsterdam (Brandes & Newman, 2011)

1320 AD

1450 AD

c: 1597 ‘first’ and ‘second’ expansion

100m

200m

1597 AD

100m

d: 1625 ‘third’ expansion (Canal Ring phase 1)

200m

Before the 18th century, Amsterdam has had four big

The population of Amsterdam was still growing in the

expansions. In the 16th century there was not enough

17th century. Already the map of 1597 shows many activity

space. Consequently, there were many houses just

outside the city walls. Soon a bigger city was necessary,

outside the city wall, even though this was not allowed

which took place around 1610 and 1662. These big

(area A in figure 2.1b). In 1585 and a couple of years later

expansions were known as the ‘Derde en Vierde Uitleg’

the city had built new walls around this area and included

(third and fourth expansion).

some new areas. With this the previous defence canal

What is interesting is that the main ring in both

‘Singel’ was not part of the defence anymore. The Singel

expansions did not follow the ‘polder’ lines. Geometry

became a residential canal and Amsterdam’s first canal

was apparently more important than existing structures

houses were build (Abrahamse, 2010).

and “picturesque variation” (Abrahamse, 2010, p. 15). The

1625 AD

100m

200m

third expansion did follow the the ‘polder’ lines with the Jordaan (B in fig. 2.1d). All expansions are still visible in today’s map. The third and fourth are probably the most characteristic.

a: 1560 Fig. 2.2 Development of the area around the location of the later built Prinsengracht Hospital (City of Amsterdam, 2015)

100m

f: 1877

e: 1675 ‘fourth’ expansion (Canal Ring phase 2) 1675 AD

b: 1774

100m

200m

1877 AD

c: 1876

g: 2010 0

100m

200m

d: 2015

World Heritage That

the

third

and

fourth

expansions

are

very

credibly expressed through a variety of attributes”

characteristic for the city has been acknowledged in 2011

(UNESCO, 2013, p. 22). The integrity of a property is

by the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and

expressed with its “wholeness and intactness” (p. 23).

Cultural Organisation). Already in 1995 the Dutch State

Both of these are clearly represented in the Amsterdam

Party included the Amsterdam Canal Ring in the tentative

Canal Ring. According to the ‘Advisory Body Evaluation’,

list. This means that the state considered it “to be cultural

set up by the UNESCO (ICOMOS, 2010), the Canal Ring

heritage […] of outstanding universal value and therefore

Area in Amsterdam meets three cultural criteria. The

suitable for inscription on the World Heritage List”

requirement that the property should have integrity and

(UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2015, online). 16 years

authenticity is being justified by “the ensemble of streets

later the area had become World Heritage. With this it

and the hydraulic network” (ICOMOS, 2010, p. 262), which

is acknowledged that the property has the Outstanding

is being considered as authentic.

Universal Value (OUV) which is required for the list.

When describing the Ring’s integrity ICOMOS comments on the consolidated buildings: “Few lots have been

OUV was introduced by the World Heritage Committee in

consolidated to provide larger built units. The external

1994. Before this the World Heritage List consisted mainly

appearance of the buildings has been conserved in

of “single architectural monuments”. According to the

the vast majority of cases for this central zone of the

committee it is not just about one tangible object that is

nominated property.” (p. 262).

valuable. World Heritage is about “cultural groupings that were complex and multidimensional, which demonstrated

So the few consolidated plots do not affect the integrity,

in spatial terms the social structures, ways of life, beliefs,

however I think that the word ‘few’ is very important:

systems of knowledge, and representations of different

the integrity might become affected with too many

past and present cultures in the entire world.” (UNESCO,

consolidated properties. This will be elaborated more in

1994, online). The context and aspects mentioned above

chapter 4.

should support the “pieces of evidence”. To proof a property is a ‘piece of evidence’ the UNESCO has set up a list of criteria, to list a property as World Heritage it has to meet at least one of such criteria (fig. 2.4). Beside these criteria a property needs to be authentic and must contain a certain integrity. It is considered to be authentic if the cultural values are “truthfully and

(i) represent a masterpiece of human creative genius (ii) exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design (iii) bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared (iv) be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history (v) be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change (vi) be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria) (vii) contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance (viii) be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth’s history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features; (ix) be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals (x) contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of science or conservation (UNESCO, 2013, pp. 20-21) Fig. 2.3 Criteria for World Heritage selection

Criteria that meets the Canal Ring (i) It is a masterpiece at once of hydraulic engineering, of town planning and of a programme of architectural construction

(ii) The property is testimony to a considerable exchange of ideas over a period of almost two centuries, with respect not only to civil engineering, town planning, and architecture but also in a series of technical, maritime, and cultural fields. (iv) The canal district in Amsterdam built in the 17th century, represents an outstanding type of built urban ensemble that required and illustrated a diverse range of expertise in hydraulics, civil engineering, town planning, building and architectural techniques.

Fig. 2.6 Masterpiece (Middendorp, 2013 & Gemeente Amsterdam, n.d.)

(ICOMOS, 2010, pp. 263-264) Fig. 2.4 World Heritage criteria which the Canal Ring meets

Fig. 2.7 Exchange of ideas. Chairs depict the chairs of the Major, Treasurer, Militairy engineer, City Architect, Engineer, and the Surveyor. Taken in Het Grachtenhuis (2015)

1877 AD

Fig. 2.5 World Heritage and Buffer zone (Gemeente Amsterdam, n.d.)

100m

200m

Fig. 2.8 Expertise in hydraulics, civil engineering, town planning (2015) 0

100m

200m

Canal House

3. Canal House Through time there has been some shifts in the appreciation regarding the Canal Ring and its buildings. In the 17th century, the value was considered to be in the

HERENGRACHT

“big scale and the monumentality” of the Canal Ring. To achieve this it was desirable to achieve a sort of uniformity

between the Canal Houses (fig. 3.1). In the 19th century the individuality of the Canal Houses was appreciated. Present day, the diversity of the Canal Houses within the ensemble is mostly appreciated (Abrahamse, 2010). According to Swart et al. (2012) the “typical ‘Amsterdam canal house’ as building typology forms an important attribute of the OUV of the property” (p. 11). Therefore this chapter focuses on what the Canal House is and how the Canal Ring is build up by these buildings.

KEIZERSRACHT

Fig 3.1. Herengracht 571-581 (Philips, 1768-70)

Restrictions “It is often assumed that the Canal Ring was assigned to be a residential area, where other functions were excluded.” (Abrahamse, 2010, p. 221). J.E. Abrahamse describes in his book ‘The Grote Uitleg van Amsterdam’ that this is not completely right. In the first expansion, there were only a few restrictions. These included the restriction of anvils, which ruled out most of the heavy industry. Beside this,

PRINSENGRACHT

between the Herengracht and Keizersgracht it was not allowed to build on the entire plot. “This was to decrease the building density and to create big city gardens” (p. 218). Fig 3.2 Gardens inside the building blocks (OpenStreetMap contributers, 2015)

function

THIRD

dimension

function

FOURTH

dimension

The city gardens are still present and preserved in the 22 ft (6,226)

HEREN GRACHT

22 ft (6,226m)

sound sound smell smell HEREN GRACHT water polution water polution 30 ft (8.49m) ugliness ugliness

HEREN GRACHT

sound smell water polution ugliness

70 ft (19,81m)

HEREN GRACHT

26 ft (7.358m)

All plots had the same width. If one wanted to build wider than the plot width he had to buy two plots. Since buying two plots was rather expensive, this was only done by

100 ft (28.3 m)

110 v (31.13)

current Canal Ring (fig. 3.2).

the very rich. In the third expansion the plots at the Herengracht were wider than in the fourth expansion. According to Abrahamse this was probably to prevent buyers to build three houses on two adjacent plots.

100 ft (28.3)

KEIZERS GRACHT

sound30 v (8.49m) sound smell smell KEIZERS water polution water polution GRACHT ugliness ugliness 20 v (5.66m)

During and after the realisation of the third expansion

100 ft (28.3m)

KEIZERS GRACHT

sound smell water polution ugliness

it was experienced that more rules would be useful. 26 ft (7.358m) KEIZERS GRACHT

26 ft (7.358m)

regulations. The functional segregation became more strict. At the Herengracht and Keizersgracht industries that produced sound, smell, water pollution or ugliness

100 ft (28.3m)

150 ft (42.45)

Therefore the fourth expansion had some more building

were ruled out. With the last restriction most of the industrial buildings were excluded. In both expansions the Prinsengracht was the more

150 ft (42.45)

industrial canal. Here it was allowed to build industrial KERKSTRAAT

20 ft (5.66m) PRINSEN GRACHT

KERKSTRAAT

build on the entire depth of the plot.

175 ft (49.5m)

PRINSEN GRACHT

buildings, warehouses, and such. It was also allowed to

A big difference between the two expansions is the 22 ft (6.226m) PRINSEN GRACHT

PRINSEN GRACHT

boundary between residential and the more industrial area. In the third expansion the Keizersgracht divided the two areas, while in the fourth expansion it was the new street between the Keizersgracht and the Prinsengracht, Kerkstraat. This street was also introduced to reduce

Dotted line is an assumption Figure 3.3 Guidelines / restrictions during the third and fourth extension (2015)

carriage traffic on the canals. It was a street at which stables could be build.

The

Prinsengracht

Hospital

lies

between

the

Prinsengracht and this Kerkstraat.

municipality provided a design (p. 337). This is interesting, since the Canal Ring of today is associated with differentiation and small scale, the

The architecture of the new buildings was not part of any

opposite of the endeavour of the 17th century. “Still”, the

rule. Although buyers were stimulated to buy two plots

municipality describes, “the combination of common

or to work together to create a uniform architecture.

characteristics within the individuality of the architecture

This was because “the big scale” was “appreciated”

creates a unity of the inner city” (Gemeente Amsterdam,

(Abrahamse, 2010, 336). At certain places in the city

2013, p. 90).

a: Width of the houses

“where monumentality would have a big impact” the

b: Windows

a: 2014

c: Gable tops

b: 1978 by Tim Killiam

Figure 3.5d Canal House characteristics (Maier, n.d.))

c: 1768-71 by Caspar Philips Figure 3.4 Sequence of facades of Keizersgracht 503-543 (Amsterdamse Grachtenhuizen, 2011-2015 & Killiam, et al. 1978)

Figure 3.6 Row of canal houses (Maier, n.d.)

Facade The most visual element of the Canal House is the façade. It was the only part of a Canal House where the architect

gable top

could reflect his style, since the organisation was “based

facadeplane

on the optimal use of the building site”, due to the small

plinth

There are several characteristics that are recognisable

Figure 3.4 Trichotomy (2011-2015)

plots (Ottenheym, 1989, p. 168).

a: Crow-stepped

in almost all houses. The first characteristic is the height of the houses, which are mainly two to four floors. This height, combined with the rather narrow width of the plot results in a verticality in the façade (fig. 3.5a). Secondly, windows are often placed in two or three bays. They emphasise the vertical direction by having a bigger height than width (fig. 3.5b). As a third: the houses contain a trichotomy. The lower part of the façade is called the

b: Spout

c: Tall neck

plinth. This is the part that includes “one or more lower floors […] which have a clear difference in appearance as the other floors” (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2013, p. 90). The roof is hidden behind a gable (fig. 3.5c), this is the top part of the façade. Everything in between the plinth and the gable top is the façade-plane. What struck me of the plinth is that when you walk through the Canal Ring most ground floor windows start

d: Neck

e: Clock

a little above eye level. It is quite hard to look directly inside a house. What you see when you look up inside are the, often, beautiful (renovated) 19th century ceilings. Most houses have small windows at hip height, however, these windows are often blinded. I think the reason it doesn’t get dreary to walk along these ‘eye-blinded’ facades are the constant differentiation between the bel-etage doorsteps, facades, the parked bicycle’s, traffic

f: Tall cornice gable Figure 3.7 Gable tops in the Canal Ring (2015)

g: Cornice

and nature.

Organisation

A last common characteristic is the materials and colour

Bert van Bommel (2014) describes how Dutch houses in a

that are mainly used, which are “traditional and modest”.

row often did not had more than four rooms until the 14th

Materials such as brick give the ring “earth- and stone

century: “a front hall, a kitchen, a sleeping space and an

colours” (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2013, p.105).

attic” (p.13). The front hall was the most important room

Interestingly, if we combine the first three characteristics

where guests were welcomed. Some houses divided this

in one image (figure 3.6), it reveals a recognisable shape

space into two rooms, this side room took in a third or

of a row of Canal Houses. It might mean that these three

less of the front hall (fig. 3.8a). In this way, the door could

elements are the elements that make the Canal House.

still be placed in the middle of the façade. A door in the

However, figure 3.5c shows only the element of the

middle was desired since symmetry in the façade was

gables, also reveals a row of Amsterdam Canal Houses.

preferred over an optimal use of space. The façade was

That might mean that the gable is the most symbolic part

the only part where the architect could reflect his style,

of the Amsterdam facade.

since the organisation was “based on the optimal use

The

gables

seem

have

much

differentiation,

court yard

guest reception / living room

of the building site”, due to the small plots (Ottenheym,

nevertheless, as shown in figure 3.7, there are only seven

1989, p. 168).

types that are used in the Canal Ring (Killiam, 2006):

When the front hall lost its formal function, people

a. Crow-stepped gable [trapgevel]. 1600-1665

choose for a practical use of the spaces and the door was

b. Spout gable [tuitgevel]. 1620-1720

placed to the side (fig. 3.8b). The front hall now became an

c. Tall neck gable [verhoogde halsgevel]. 1640-1670

entrance hall. When the Canal Ring was built, the Dutch

d. Neck gable [halsgevel]. 1640-1770

houses were already higher than in earlier centuries. This

e. Clock gable [klokgevel]. 1660-1790

made it possible to divide the residents from their staff.

f. Tall cornice gable [verhoogde kroonlijst]. 18th century

Vertically the house was built up by a basement, where

g. Cornice gable [lijstgevel]. 19 century

the kitchen could be found and a food storage. The

back house

side room

front room

front hall

entrance hall

street side

staff residents

the office was placed. The first floor was the living and sleeping spaces of the residents. The attic was for staff

visitors / office

and storage. extended towards the back, often behind an inner courtyard. This part is known as the back house [achterhuis], while the original partKeuken is known as the front house [voorhuis].

Storage Sleep Achterkamer Voorkamer

street side

storage

formal ground floor was to welcome visitors and where

After the 14th century many Dutch row houses also

food storage / kitchen

Figure 3.8 (2015) a: ‘traditional’ floor plan of a Canal House; b: ‘practical’ floor plan; d: typical section

corridor between front and back house

back house

The Amsterdam houses were built on â&#x20AC;&#x153;two rows of [wooden] piles parallel to each otherâ&#x20AC;? (Killiam, 2006, p. 10). A brick construction was built on top of the piles, together it formed the foundation of the houses (fig. 3.9). The Canal House main construction consists of two brick walls with wooden beams in between, parallel to the front and back facades. This made it possible to create big windows, which would let light enter into the deep rooms, and flexible spaces. It was especially fit for warehouses which often used the full depth of the building. Presently, the beam which are often visible are characteristic for a Canal House interior.

Figure 3.9 Models of Canal Houses as exhibited in the museum Het Grachtenhuis. Top: foundation; bottom: ground floor (2015)

Exceptions

4. Exceptions As written before, the Canal Ring was build up by similar

the changes behind the façade: the merged buildings.

building plots, which were all equally narrow. Even though

Swart is worried that the monumental status is not

it was possible to build a house on two plots, there were

protecting the buildings in the Canal Ring behind the

hardly any big city palaces build. Mainly due to the

façade. This might lead towards “modern, larger scale

residents, who were middle class traders. This is what

mono-functional urban buildings” and to “facadism and

distinguished Amsterdam from many other big cities

musealization” (p. 11).

in Europe (ICOMOS, 2010). Nevertheless, there are also consolidated plots. The UNESCO Advisory Body Evaluation

a: Inscrease of scale of the facades

acknowledges this. However, they talk about a “few lots”

Development

and they don’t see this as a threat for the integrity and

According to Meischke et al. (2001) “Amsterdam never

authenticity of the area: “The external appearance of

really knew big plots with voluminous houses with

the buildings has been conserved in the vast majority of

courtyards.” (p. 49). Perhaps, due to the fact that

cases for this central zone of the nominated property,

Amsterdam was a middle class city with mostly houses

and the state of the facades is generally good” (ICOMOS,

for merchants. Amsterdam talks about wide houses

2010, p. 262).

when a house is wider than 30 foot (approx. 8.5 meter:

STORAGE

RESIDENTS

SHOP

RESIDENTS

b: trend of mixed function towards mono-function buildings

the widest plot in the third expansion). It was common to This is mainly about the external visualisation of the

buy two plots in the Canal Ring. Meischke et al. describe

buildings. Researchers worry that the focus is perhaps too

that this gave many possibilities: “it could be split vertical

external. Eindhoven University of Technology researched,

in two houses” (p. 49) or the ground floor could be used

in collaboration with the Bureau Monumenten &

for one or two houses while the upper floors could be

Archeologie Amsterdam (BMA) (Swart et al., 2012), the

used for warehouses.

impact of “building merges on the Outstanding Universal Values of [the] World Heritage property”. They mapped

An example of such a double plot house is ‘Het Huis met

the building merge through time (1770 – present) for the

de Hoofden’ [The House with the Heads], according to

Herengracht. They have three conclusions (p.10), which

Zantkuijl (1994) “one of the biggest double houses of its

are schematised in figure 1:

time” (p. 255). It was built in 1621, most likely the last design

a) the increased scale of building facades;

of Hendrick de Keyser before he died, after which one of

b) the trend towards mono-functionality within buildings;

his sons finished it. In 1634 the house was sold to Louis de

c) the decrease in buildings that correspond to the canal

Geer and stayed in his family for almost a century. It is a

district’s historic building typology.

good precedent for double houses in the Canal Ring. The

The conclusions they arrived at are mainly concerning

house, in Dutch Renaissance style, contains five bays plus

c: Decrease of buildings with the historic building typology Figure 4.1 Consolidation conclusion

garden side

one for the open hallway along the building. It owes its name due to the busts on the front façade, which depict

guest reception / living room

Public Tradingschool moved in the building in 1869, which

entrance hall

side room

was housed there until 1901. In organisation, the basis of

alley towards the garden

front room

Apollo, Ceres, Mars, Palas Athene, Bachus and Diana. The

the single Canal House is also used in the double Canal Houses. Vertically, a similar organisation was used. On the ground floor, the ‘Huis met de Hoofden’ has an entrance hall, front room and side room. At the garden side, the house had a big and light room. This was divided from

street side

another, smaller, room by a hallway, leading to a garden

Figure 4.2 Huis met de Hoofden: Floor plan (2015)

door. The double houses often did not have an extension to the back, so it does not have a front and back house. As written in the introduction of this research report, I have defined the bigger buildings as three or more plots. This is because this was much less common than double plots. Figure 4.6 maps the exceptions and their Figure 4.4 Palaca of Justice (2015)

built period around the Prinsengracht Hospital. From this map I conclude there are only two exceptions still existing from the 17th century in this area. These are the orphanage, better known as the Palace of Justice and the other is the Deutzenhofje. The latter were small houses around a courtyard, originally meant for elderly servants and their poor family members, now residing elderly women (Hofjes in Amsterdam, n.d.). The Palace of Justice is perhaps the biggest building in the Canal Ring. It dates back to the 1660s, when a new orphanage was necessary for the poorest children of the city. The building was designed without a location in mind (Abrahamse, 2010). In 1663 Amsterdam allocated several plots at the

Figure 4.3 Huis met de Hoofden (2015)

Fig. 4.5 De Bazel (Kennis- en Projectenbank Herbestemming, n.d.)

G EN ER

CH RA

T S ER IZ KE

S ER IZ KE

RA T

H AC

R NG

SE IN

R NG

SE IN

Palace of Justice

Prinsengracht Hospital >2010 2000-2009 1990-1999 1980-1989 1945-1979 1900-1944 1800-1899 1700-1799 1650-1699 1600-1649 Fig. 4.6 Period built. 1:10000.(2015)

Deutzenhofje

Original big building Consolidated building Merged building (merged later than when built) Fig. 4.7 Big buildings in combination with built period. 1:10000 (2015)

Prinsengracht to the almoner orphanage. The buildingPopulation x 1.000 could house 800 children and with that it was most

500

likely the biggest building of the city at the time. Within 20 years 1300-1600 children resided in the orphanage (1300 according to Gemeente Amsterdam (n.d.-b); 1600

400

according to Abrahamse (2010)). Therefore it merged with an adjacent building. As a result of the terrible living

300

conditions the orphans had to move elsewhere in the 235.000

country in 1822. In the following years the building was

1857

transformed into the Palace of Justice by city architect

200

Jan de Greef. He completely changed the faĂ§ade. In the beginning the building also housed the city library and an

100

emergency hospital. This moved out in the second half of the 19th century, since the Palace of Justice required more and more space. In 2010 the Palace of Justice moved to a

Year

1600

1650

1700

new building at the Westerdokseiland and the building is

As is shown in figure 4.7, many of the consolidated

the 17th century the population hardly grew anymore (fig.

buildings in this area seem to date from the 19th century

4.8). Therefore the 18th century is a calm period regarding

or early 20th century. By the end of the 19th century and

architecture. In the 19th century population started to

beginning of the 20th century Amsterdam also widened

grow again, with a big increase from the second half

radial streets through the Canal Ring: Weesperstraat,

on. According to UNESCO, this has affected â&#x20AC;&#x153;the visual

Vijzelstraat and Raadhuisstraat. At this street many

integrity of this area of the propertyâ&#x20AC;? (ICOMOS, 2010, p.

Canal Houses have consolidated into bigger buildings.

262).

(fig. 4.5), built as a bank, but currently housing the Bureau Monumenten en Archeologie (monumental care) and a World Heritage Platform. This architectural and urbanistic change was probably a consequence of the population change. By the end of

1800

1850

1900

Figure 4.8 Population of Amsterdam 1575 - 1900 (2015)

currently vacant (Gemeente Amsterdam, n.d.-b).

An example of such consolidated building is the Bazel

1750

Prinsengracht Hospital The Prinsengracht Hospital seems to be the biggest

Kerkstraat

a: 1820s

Kerkstraat

b: 1857

exception in its area, beside the Palace of Justice (fig. 4.7). Therefore this is a very good precedent for this research and design. In 1843 ‘de Vereeniging voor Ziekenverpleging’ (Society for Ill-nursing) was founded. The women were educated to become a nurse, which was unusual in The Netherlands in that time. In the beginning the nurses went to the patient’s house. When medical technologies developed

in the 19th century, the use of those technologies were mainly possible in hospital buildings only. Therefore the ‘Vereeniging voor Ziekenverpleging’ opened the first private hospital of Amsterdam in 1857 (Henket &

c: 1872

Prinsengracht

Kerkstraat d: 1882

Prinsengracht

partners architecten, 2009). The location of the hospital was on the Prinsengracht, were 25 years earlier the three warehouses, ‘Serius’, ‘Bordeaux’,

‘Coningsbergen’

burned

down.

‘Serius’

was probably replaced in the meantime, since the ‘Vereeniging’ bought four warehouses in 1853 named

Fig. 4.10 Plot development (2015)

Prinsengracht

Fig. 4.9 Canal Houses on fire, 1829, (Unknown)

Prinsengracht

Kerkstraat

Kerkstraat e: 1889

f: 1890

“’Amersfoort’, ‘Bordeaux’, ‘Coningsbergen’ and ‘Dantzig’” (fig. 4.8). When the architect J.H. Leliman started to design the building “he advised […] to also buy the adjacent dye house ‘De Zon’” (de Boer and Pley, 1993, p.68). When the hospital opened in 1857, five plots had consolidated into one plot (fig. 4.9). The hospital grew in the years after. In 1872 the hospital expanded for the first time, by buying a plot at the Kerkstraat. This became the new residence of the nurses. Two more plots at the Kerkstraat were bought within 20 years (fig. 4.10).

g: 1903

Prinsengracht

Kerkstraat h: 1957

Prinsengracht

Kerkstraat

It kept growing and in the new century another expansion was planned at the Prinsengracht, at the same time, the original building by Leliman was renovated. This made it possible for the hospital to increase the patient capacity “from 235 in 1900 to 719 patients in 1921”. In 1923 there was another alteration: surgery rooms were added. This was possible to do within the existing plot, therefore this alteration is not shown in the schemes on the left. In 1857 the hospital covered five original plots, exactly 100 years later the hospital expanded for the last time, covering 10 plots at the Prinsengracht and six at the Kerkstraat. Beside the six plots at the Kerkstraat another six plots were bought to make way for the parking space. So, the plot of the Prinsengracht Hospital used to be 22

Prinsengracht

individual plots.

Hospital: Facade

Even though the hospital is using 22 plots, the description

a bigger difference between the hospital and the

of the building by Monumental Care of Amsterdam

surrounding canal houses.

(Smit, 2003) describes “despite its size, the hospital fits

A bigger intervention in the façade was done in 1957,

well in the canal façade, probably because the complex

where the architects De Geus & Ingwersen choose to

is not extremely high, maybe even more because of

design a completely new façade, with no visual connection

the use of traditional materials and forms, after all the

to the original at all. There also does not seem to be a

contemporary post-war extension is less ‘at home’ in

connection to the Canal Ring, since it seems to ignore the

the surrounding” (p. 2). Similar to the approach towards

rule of trichotomy in the Canal buildings (fig. 4.11). It has a

the Canal Ring as World Heritage, the municipality

plinth, but it does not have a (gable) top. This part of the

shows here the focus on the external appearance of the

façade seems to be a building on its own.

building. Although, I think it is a clear disruption in the

Nevertheless, the façade of the

differentiation in the facades of the ensemble. Since it is

Prinsengracht Hospital at the canal

missing the differentiation in the common characteristics

side seem to have gone through little

of the Canal Houses it is missing the differentiation at

changes. The façade at the Kerkstraat

eye-level between the ‘bel-etage doorsteps, facades, the

changed a couple of times, due to

parked bicycle’s, traffic and nature’.

several expansions. However, once it

Fig. 4.11a Design of the hospital by Leliman (Unknown)

was changed after becoming part of Looking at the façade development at the Prinsengracht

the hospital complex, the façade did

Hospital (fig. 4.11), the original symmetrical façade

not change much anymore.

was much less wide than it is today. The amount of differentiation was probably still acceptable and the

Fig. 4.11b Design of the extension by Posthumus Meyes Sr. (Posthumus Meyes, 1902)

proportion width-height was more similar to the canal houses. However, in 1903 the hospital almost doubled in width. The architect, Posthumus Meyjes Sr., continued Leliman’s style. He even tried to keep the building symmetrical. At the ground floor level the intervention is shown in the lowered windows, on the first floor the difference is very hard to distinguish, even for the professional eye. He replaced the second floor and added a third floor, both in a similar style as the 1857part. Nevertheless, the proportion width-height created Fig. 4.11c Current situation of the facade (Bierman Henket architecten, 2010)

While most facades in the Canal Houses were subjected

All these small alterations probably created a slightly

to frequent changes, due to the changing fashion. “There

chaotic organisation, which was why there was a big

are many 17th-century houses with 18 - or 19 -century

intervention in 1903, replacing some of the building

facades” (Killiam, 2006).

parts with the aim of “creating a well-functioning, clear

and rational designed building.” (Henket & partners

Hospital: Organisation

architecten, 2009, p.15). In 1994 the Prinsengracht Hospital fused with Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis. This was

The original 1857 building had a very symmetrical layout,

a drastic change, not for the outline of the buildings, but

with two wings around a garden (fig. 4.15). The ground floor

for the internal organisation since the hospital changed

contained slightly less symmetry than the upper floors.

to a policlinic, which meant that there would not be any

Vertically the functions were rather segregated (fig. 4.14):

patients staying overnight anymore.

the ground floor was more or less the representative

Today, the building is vacant, but it still shows many

floor where the direction and a living room were situated.

characteristics of a policlinic hospital. The entire building

The first floor were mainly patient rooms and the upper

contains a similar style of interior (fig. 4.12). In many rooms

floor was where the nurses resided. The first biggest

valuable historic elements are still visible. Unfortunately,

organistation change was in 1872, when a plot at the

the building is hard to ‘read’ since it is hard to see the

Kerkstraat became part of the Prinsengracht Hospital.

different building parts. The clearest transition between

The rooms of the nurses moved from the second floor

one building part and the other is probably between the

at the original building to the Kerkstraat side, where 4

1857 and 1903 part which is divided by a small stairs on

plots became part of the complex in 30 years. In the same

the ground floor. There is also a difference between the

period, there was an expansion at the Prinsengracht side.

Prinsengracht side and the Kerkstraat side, although it is

Fig. 4.12 Current interior images of the Policlinic Hospital (2015)

gable top facadeplane plinth Fig. 4.13 Trichotomy of the Prinsengracht Hospital and adjacent buildings (2011-2015)

hard to find the exact transition point.

attic

nurses

patients rooms

Kerkstraat

patients entrance / direction / kitchen

patients rooms

patients rooms basement

Fig. 4.13 Vertical organisation of the Prinsengracht Hospital 1857 (2015)

kitchen

treatment

patients

nurses

keuken

dining room

Fig. 4.14 Organisation of the Prinsengracht Hospital 1857 (2015)

Prinsengracht

treatment

reception

nurses

entrance hall

treatment

direction

nurses

patients

garden side

Fig. 4.15 Organisation of the Prinsengracht Hospital 2014 (2015)

Prinsengracht

Main entrance

Wheelchair entrance in the 1957-part

Kerkstraat

Parking space, looking from the Kerkstraat

Parking space looking towards the Kerkstraat

Garden, looking towards the Prinsengracht

Garden looking towards the Kerkstraat

1:500 Current situation

Case Study - Anne Frank House Another interesting building to research is the Anne

towards the back house on the second floor was hidden

house was not refurnished, to experience the emptiness

Frank House, since the two small plots are still intact,

behind a book case, which made it possible for the Frank

after the residents and their furniture were removed.”

but they have merged with the plots on and around the

family to go into hiding. This is where Anne Frank wrote

(Gemeente Amsterdam, n.d.-a, online). The walls still

corner which have consolidated into one building.

her famous diary.

show the presence of the two families: the height lines

The house was almost demolished in the 1950’s by the

of Anne and Margot which are drawn on the wall and

een

owner of that time. Fortunately, Anne’s diary was already

pictures of celebrities are still pasted on Anne’s wall.

achterhuis, maar er is er maar één die met een hoofdletter

spread worldwide, so there were many protests against

The front house functioned as exhibition space, whereas

wordt geschreven: het Achterhuis van Anne Frank.”

this. With that the owner donated the house to the

the adjacent house number 265 housed the Anne Frank

[“Many Amsterdam Canal Houses have a back house,

Anne Frank Stichting [foundation]. With donations the

Stichting.

however, there is only one that is being described with a

foundation was also able to buy the adjacent house and

The house opened to the public in 1960. In the 1980s the

capital: The Back House of Anne Frank.”] .

to restore the houses. “At the request of Otto Frank, the

two houses were too small for the amount of visitors. In

(Schoonenberg, 1999).

only member of the family who survived the war, the back

the 1990s architects Benthem Crouwel designed the new

grachtenhuizen

hebben

entrance offices

As written in this quote, the building in which Anne is a typical Amsterdam Canal House. Together with the adjacent house on the right, it was built in 1635. It is located in the first phase of the Canal Ring. The façade and the backhouse were modified in the 18th century. Currently, the ground floor is on the same level as the street, however it contained a bel-etage until the 19th century. This can still be seen with the adjacent building. In 1840, a stable for horses was needed, for which the lower floors had to be

office

office book case door

office

anne’s/margot’s room

office

residents entrance

group room

by the cornice gable it has now (Gemeente Amsterdam,

residence

n.d.-a). In 1940 Anne’s father, Otto Frank, housed his

1 Note that The Backhouse is a literal translation is of ‘Het Achterhuis’, this word is not being used in the English books about Anne Frank where is usually referred to the entire house (Anne Frank House) or to The Secret Annex.

residence central hall

book shop

exhibition space

attic, a storage space, was hardly used. In 1942, the door

communal space residence

storage

modified. At the same time the gable top was replaced

company here at the Prinsengracht. The second floor and

office

mr./mrs. frank room

Prinsengracht 265

Frank and her family hid during the Second World War,

Prinsengracht 263 (hiding place)

Amsterdamse

residence temporary exhibition space

residence Prinsengracht

Figure 4.16 Floor plan of the Anne Frank house and the museum by Benthem Crouwel. Left: ground floor; Right: second floor

Westermarkt

“Vele

Fig. 4.17 Anne Frank House (2015)

building which replaced the apartment flat at the corner

Staggering of The Back House are not the rooms itself,

adjacent to the two canal houses. This new building

but the innocence and casual simplicity which are in no

could house a museum shop, a library, auditorium, café

proportion at all to the inhumanity of the destiny of the

and offices. It also made it possible to restore the Otto

residents” (p. 72). The intention of Benthem Crouwel was

Frank’s company in the front house. This restoration,

to create a new building which is neither subordinate

which included the back house, was possible due to good

nor predominant. As a result, The Back House is

documentation in the 1930s and 1950s. The restoration

“placed alongside equally” [nevengeschikt], rather than

was done by expert Temminck Groll. He choose to restore

becoming a museum piece itself. This is expressed “both

the ambiance of the 1940s rather than a complete

in the interior and the exterior”, in “materialisation, form,

reconstruction (Ector, 1999). The Stichting moved into the

spatiality, which is both modern and traditional” (Ector,

new building and number 265 became exhibition space.

1999, p. 72). Spatially the building is build up with a front

“The design shows that the architects are conscious of

and back part, referring to the front and back house in

the inappropriateness of the architectonic statement.

the Canal Houses. I think this last part, placing the new equally alongside the existing, is very interesting. Although I am not sure whether it has worked out completely as it is described. My attention was constantly drawn to the new corner when I was observing it from the other side of the canal. Beside this, it was not until after my visit that I found out

Fig. 4.18 Anne Frank House (2015)

Fig. 4.20 Sketch of the front side of the Anne Frank House (2015)

the Anne Frank House was not the house directly adjacent to the new building, it was the neighbour of that house. As a result, I did not sketch the house Anne Frank and her family have been hiding, but its neighbours (fig. 4.13). This also meant that I was not able to orientate myself when I was inside the two Canal Houses. To conclude, I think it is a good reference for intervention. The high visitor density in the Canal Houses are solved in a nice way. Benthem Crouwel followed an interesting concept in their new building of front and back house, which is an important characteristic of the hiding place.

Fig. 4.19 Neighbours of the Anne Frank Huis (van Oord-de Pee, 1990)

Fig. 4.21 Prinsengracht 263-269 in earlier times (Unknown, n.d.)

Value Assessment

High

Positive

Canal Ring

1877 AD

100m

200m

Fig. 2.8 World Heritage Criteria iv (2015)

Fig. 2.6 World Heritage Criteria i (Middendorp, 2013 & Gemeente Amsterdam, n.d.

100m

200m

Fig. 2.7 World Heritage Criteria ii (2015) Fig. 6.1 Small scale (2015)

Canal House

Fig. 3.1 Uniformity (Philips, 1768-70)

Fig. 3.6 Differentiation & Characteristic typology (2015)

Fig. 3.4 Facade trichotomy (2011-2015)

Indifferent

Negative The Canal Ring has a high value, which is also acknowledged by the UNESCO World Heritage. The small scale of the urban ensemble is positively appreciated. In contrary, the big scale buildings are less appreciated.

Fig. 6.2 Big scale (2015)

Differentiation and the trichotomy of the building typology has a high value according to the Gemeente Amsterdam (2013). Uniformity is not considered as a negative value, since it was highly desired in the 17th century and because the Canal Houses also have characteristics that form a Fig. 4.1c Decrease of buildings with the historic building typology, according to Swart et al. (2012)

uniformity in the ensemble.

High

Positive sound smell water polution ugliness

HEREN GRACHT

STORAGE RESIDENTS SHOP

Fig. 3.2 ‘Keurtuinen’ are preserved (OpenStreetMap contributers, 2015)

sound smell water polution ugliness

Fig. 6.3 Layering of time in the facade (Killiam, 2006)

KEIZERS GRACHT

Fig. 3.3 & Fig. 4.1b Mixed use (2015)

Exceptions

Indifferent

Negative In addition to the value of the Canal Houses, the city

RESIDENTS RESIDENTS RESIDENTS

gardens and mixed use in the Canal Ring are still considered as a valuable aspect. This stands against the trend towards mono-functionality. Finally, in many Canal Houses the layering of time can be found which has a positive value.

Fig. 4.1b Trend towards monofunction buildings, according to Swart et al. (2012)

The main values of the exceptions (bigger buildings within the Canal Ring) are negative ones. These are the threads described by Swart et al. Although of course every individual exception can have a positive value. Fig. 6.4 Building merges considered as negative (Swart et al., 2012)

Fig. 6.5 Acording to ICOMOS, building merges are not affecting the â&#x20AC;&#x153;external appearanceâ&#x20AC;? (Swart et al., 2012)

High

Positive Overview facades by orientation (1:200)

North West

293-02B-totaal 2B-001

North

293-02B-totaal 2B-002

1 3

4 6

8 13 14

9 11

1 15

Prinsengracht Hospital MVSA bv

project

Renovatie / Nieuwbouw Prinsengrachtziekenhuis Amsterdam

P.O. Box 2737 1000 CS Amsterdam The Netherlands tel +31 20 531 98 00 office@mvsa.nl www.mvsa-architects.com

opdrachtgever

Overview facades by orientation

COD MILLTEN

datum

gewijzigd

onze referentie

gevels

20-11-2014 schaal

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

293-02B-totaal.dwg

onderdeel

onderwerp

aanzichten

1:100

fase

status

Concept

werknummer

14293 tekeningnummer

02B-001

(1:200)

MVSA bv

project

Renovatie / Nieuwbouw Prinsengrachtziekenhuis Amsterdam

P.O. Box 2737 1000 CS Amsterdam The Netherlands

Fig. 6.6 Monumentality of the facade (2011-15)

MVSA bv MVSA bv

Renovatie / Nieuwbouw Prinsengrachtziekenhuis Amsterdam

tel +31 20 531 98 00 office@mvsa.nl www.mvsa-architects.com opdrachtgever

South West North West

293-02B-totaal 2B-001

North East

293-02B-totaal 2B-002

4 14

8 9

8 13

6 13 14

9 11

14293 tekeningnummer

datum

gevels

20-11-2014

onderdeel

schaal

aanzichten

1:100

fase

status

Concept

aanzichten

gewijzigd SO

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

project

Renovatie / Nieuwbouw Prinsengrachtziekenhuis Amsterdam

14293 tel +31 20 531 98 00 tekeningnummer

office@mvsa.nl

www.mvsa-architects.com 02B-002

werknummeropdrachtgever

onderwerp

datum

gewijzigd

onze referentie

COD 14293 MILLTEN

gevels

20-11-2014

onderdeel

schaal

aanzichten

1:100

fase

status

Concept

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

293-02B-totaal.dwg

tekeningnummer

02B-002

werknummer

14293 tekeningnummer

02B-002

293-02B-totaal 2B-001

13 14

Concept

onderwerp

4 5

status

COD MILLTEN

onze referentie MVSA bv 293-02B-totaal.dwg P.O. Box 2737 werknummer1000 CS Amsterdam The Netherlands

fase

werknummer

tel +31 20 531 98 00 office@mvsa.nl project www.mvsa-architects.com Renovatie / Nieuwbouw Prinsengrachtziekenhuis datum gewijzigd Amsterdam 20-11-2014 a. b. schaal c. 1:100 d. e. status f. g. Concept onze referentie 293-02B-totaal.dwg h .

293-02B-totaal 2B-003

onze referentie

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

293-02B-totaal.dwg

1:100

gevels onderdeel

fase

gewijzigd

20-11-2014 schaal

aanzichten

293-02B-totaal 2B-004

onderwerp

MILLTEN tel +31 20 531 98 00 office@mvsa.nl www.mvsa-architects.com

opdrachtgever

datum

gevels onderdeel

onderwerp

COD MILLTEN

P.O. Box 2737 1000 CS Amsterdam opdrachtgever The Netherlands COD

project

P.O. Box 2737 1000 CS Amsterdam The Netherlands

9 11

South

7 12

MVSA bv P.O. Box 2737 1000 CS Amsterdam The Netherlands

MVSA bv

Renovatie / Nieuwbouw Prinsengrachtziekenhuis Amsterdam

COD MILLTEN

datum

gewijzigd

onze referentie

gevels

20-11-2014 schaal

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

293-02B-totaal.dwg

onderdeel

onderwerp

aanzichten

1:100

fase

status

Concept

opdrachtgever

onderwerp

datum

gewijzigd

onze referentie

COD MILLTEN

gevels

20-11-2014

293-02B-totaal.dwg

onderdeel

schaal

aanzichten

1:100

fase

status

Concept

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

onderwerp

COD MILLTEN

tel +31 20 531 98 00 office@mvsa.nl www.mvsa-architects.com

project

tel +31 20 531 98 00 office@mvsa.nl www.mvsa-architects.com opdrachtgever

tel +31 20 531 98 00 office@mvsa.nl www.mvsa-architects.com

project

P.O. Box 2737 1000 CS Amsterdam The Netherlands

MVSA bv P.O. Box 2737 1000 CS Amsterdam The Netherlands

gewij

20-11-2014 schaal

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

aanzichten

1:100

fase

status

Concept

werknummer

14293

293-02B-totaal 2B-003

tekeningnummer

02B-002

werknummer

14293 tekeningnummer

02B-001

293-02B-totaal 2B-001

293-02B-totaal 2B-002

MVSA bv

project

Renovatie / Nieuwbouw Prinsengrachtziekenhuis Amsterdam

P.O. Box 2737 1000 CS Amsterdam The Netherlands

MVSA bv MVSA bv

Renovatie / Nieuwbouw Prinsengrachtziekenhuis Amsterdam

P.O. Box 2737 1000 CS Amsterdam The Netherlands tel +31 20 531 98 00 office@mvsa.nl www.mvsa-architects.com

South West

onderwerp

datum

gewijzigd

onze referentie

gevels

20-11-2014

293-02B-totaal.dwg

onderdeel

schaal

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

1:100

fase

status

Concept

gevels onderdeel

aanzichten fase

COD MILLTEN

293-02B-totaal 2B-004

onderwerp

MILLTEN tel +31 20 531 98 00 office@mvsa.nl www.mvsa-architects.com

opdrachtgever

aanzichten

P.O. Box 2737 1000 CS Amsterdam opdrachtgever The Netherlands COD

project

werknummer

14293 tekeningnummer

02B-002

COD MILLTEN

onderwerp

datum

gevels

20-11-2014

onderdeel

schaal

aanzichten

1:100

fase

status

Concept

gewijzigd SO

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Fig. 6.7 Small scale at the Kerkstraat (2015)

onze referentie MVSA

bv 293-02B-totaal.dwg P.O. Box 2737 werknummer1000 CS Amsterdam The Netherlands

COD MILLTEN

office@mvsa.nl

datum

gewijzigd

onze referentie

gevels

20-11-2014

293-02B-totaal.dwg

tekeningnummer

onderdeel

schaal

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

aanzichten

1:100

fase

status

Concept

project

Renovatie / Nieuwbouw Prinsengrachtziekenhuis Amsterdam

tel +31 20 531 98 00 office@mvsa.nl www.mvsa-architects.com opdrachtgever

tekeningnummer

www.mvsa-architects.com 02B-002 onderwerp

02B-002

MVSA bv P.O. Box 2737 1000 CS Amsterdam The Netherlands

Renovatie / Nieuwbouw Prinsengrachtziekenhuis Amsterdam

14293 tel +31 20 531 98 00

COD 14293 MILLTEN

werknummeropdrachtgever

Fig. 6.8 Time layering visible in the facade (2015)

project

MVSA bv

datum

gewijzigd

onze referentie

gevels

20-11-2014 schaal

aanzichten

1:100

fase

status

Concept

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

293-02B-totaal.dwg

onderdeel

onderwerp

P.O. Box 2737 1000 CS Amsterdam The Netherlands

werknummer

14293

MVSA bv

tekeningnummer

werknummer

14293

MVSA bv

tekeningnummer

project

Renovatie / Nieuwbouw Prinsengrachtziekenhuis Amsterdam

P.O. Box 2737 1000 CS Amsterdam The Netherlands

02B-002

opdrachtgever

COD MILLTEN

1 3

datum

gewijzigd

onze referentie

gevels

20-11-2014 schaal

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

293-02B-totaal.dwg

onderdeel

onderwerp

aanzichten

1:100

fase

status

Concept

onderwerp

gevels

opdrachtgever

onderwerp

datum

gewijzigd

COD MILLTEN

gevels

20-11-2014

onderdeel

schaal

aanzichten

1:100

fase

status

Concept

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

onderdeel

9 11

14293 tekeningnummer

02B-001

werknummer

14293 tekeningnummer

02B-001

7 12

South East

293-02B-totaal 2B-001

MVSA bv

293-02B-totaal 2B-004

project

Renovatie / Nieuwbouw Prinsengrachtziekenhuis Amsterdam

P.O. Box 2737 1000 CS Amsterdam The Netherlands tel +31 20 531 98 00 office@mvsa.nl www.mvsa-architects.com

Concept

werknummer

4 8

1:100 status onze referentie

293-02B-totaal.dwg

13 14

schaal

aanzichten

tel +31 20 531 98 00 office@mvsa.nl www.mvsa-architects.com

Renovatie / Nieuwbouw Prinsengrachtziekenhuis datum Amsterdam 20-11-2014

fase

tel +31 20 531 98 00 office@mvsa.nl www.mvsa-architects.com

project

P.O. Box 2737 opdrachtgever 1000 CS Amsterdam COD The Netherlands MILLTEN tel +31 20 531 98 00 office@mvsa.nl www.mvsa-architects.com

02B-004

opdrachtgever

onderwerp

datum

gewijzigd

onze referentie

COD MILLTEN

gevels

20-11-2014

293-02B-totaal.dwg

onderdeel

schaal

aanzichten

1:100

fase

status

Concept

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

werknummer

14293 tekeningnummer

02B-003

datum

gevels onderdeel

gewijzigd

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Indifferent

Negative

Fig. 4.1a Inscrease of scale of the facades

Kerkstraat

One such individual exception is the Prinsengracht Hospital, which is a very monumental building. Beside this the Kerkstraat side seems to relate to the small scale of the Canal Houses around it. Building parts are also recognisable in that faรงade. However, the building parts and time layering is harder to recognise when walking through the building.

Kerkstraat Prinsengracht Fig. 6.9: 22 plots has consolidated into one building (2015)

These values mainly include the aspects that are important for this research. Obviously the Prinsengracht Hospital has much more values, however those that are mentioned here should function as starting points for the design project.

Prinsengracht Fig. 6.10 Time layering hard to recognise inside the building (2015)

PART 2 design

Programme

City

The research that is done so far in this report can guide me

regulations for the nurses service. Article 20 states that

with an intervention of an exception building in the Canal

the nurses are not “serving” for salary, but for “Christian

Ring, like the Prinsengracht Hospital. However, it does

Love”. “Heartedness, patience, sacrifice and religious

not give me a programme. Therefore I was rather free in

sense should characterize her life and service” (de Boer

the choice of a programme. I have based the programme

and Pley, 1993, p.190).

for the Prinsengracht Hospital on the previous function

A year later the ‘Vereeniging’ found an accommodation

of the building, for which an explanation of that function

to house 12 nurses. In the beginning nurses got their

will be given first. Besides, I have looked at the identity of

practical experience by visiting ill people at their homes.

the area.

Also, a few nurses worked at the Binnengasthuis.

City

Prinsengracht hospital

The ‘Vereeniging” was successful: already over 1500 families were nursed in a short time. “Not only protestants”,

Nurses Education

but ill people of all faiths (p.65). The amount of nurses

In the first half of the 19th century thoughts about ill-

grew and “according to the founders, the achieved

treatment changed. According to Jan Pieter Heije (1809-

progress proved the viability of the Christian nursing

1876), a doctor from Amsterdam, “medicine [geneeskunde]

according to the principles of the ‘Vereeniging’ after ten

should be practiced as science”, which should lead to a

years of experimenting” (p. 67). The success resulted in

change in medical education. He mainly aimed for one

a new building. Five warehouses at the Prinsengracht

education, since at that time there were many classes

were bought to build the hospital there (de Boer and Pley,

or degrees of medical education.

1993). This was the start of the Prinsengracht Hospital as

His vision was not

shared by everyone, so for the time being Heije put his

Prinsengracht hospital

City

we know it until recently.

focus on improving nursing. Most nurses in the hospitals [gasthuizen] were hardly educated, and did not care about aspects like hygiene. Richer ill-people were able

Choice

to be treated at home and were able to afford educated

So, beside the visiting patients and their visitors, an

nurses, however there were not enough educated nurses.

important thrive behind the Prinsengracht Hospital was

During a meeting with prominent men in 1843 Heije

the education of the nurses. I intend to reintroduce the

introduced a plan to set up an education for women to

educational and visiting function (figure 6.1 shows this

nurse ill people. The plan seemed to be “practical and

in a schematic way). The programme will be a secondary

feasible”. So, the ‘Vereeniging voor Ziekenverpleging”

school for havo/vwo with a special programme in art and/

[Society for Nursing] was founded. Officially it had

or theatre. With this art programme, the students can

a protestant foundation, which can be read in the

built up a portfolio which makes it easier for them to apply

Programme

City

Prinsengracht school

Fig. 6.1 Return of some of the programme aspects (2015)

Prinsengracht school

for an art academy. The school will be combined with a

According to Hertzberger (2008) it gave an impression

cultural centre where the school can make use of during

of “openness and accessibility” (p. 16). However, from the

the day. Beside this, students can exhibit or perform for

inside it didn’t change at all: “Few building types have

visitors. With this the school and cultural centre will be a

evolved as little as schools in the past hundred years” (p.

good addition to the cultural area (fig. 6.2).

11). It is all based on the classical classroom. Steijns and Koutamanis (2004) describe that the model classroom

I have also considered a fine arts and/or a theatre

of the beginning of the 19th century was 10 x 7 meter

academy (Hogeschool). However, this will mainly require

and 5 meters high. In most schools the typical layout is

studios, art- and theatre rooms. While most rooms of a

with a corridor and classrooms at the sunny side or on

secondary school mainly needs classrooms. I think class

both sides (fig. 6.6a ). Duiker’s school is perhaps not the

rooms will suit most parts of the existing building better

corridor type school, though it is built up by the classical

than big studios, since many rooms are already the size

classrooms. He added balconies to let light and air

of a class room, although it is often divided into several

enter the school, creating a healthy environment for the

small rooms. Rooms that are suited for bigger studios can

students. By doing so, the outside world was brought into

be transformed into studios or theatre rooms and if there

the school. According to Hertzberger it could have been

are no suitable rooms, it could be built new on the parking

an attempt for a “new approach towards nature” and the

space or in less valuable parts of the existing building. To

outside world (p. 15). The transparency of the façade was

be able to design a good school, research into schools is

highly appreciated, but it did not go much further than

necessary.

the façade.

School Development

school library theatre cinema museum galery Fig. 6.2 Culture in the area of the Prinsengracht Hospital (2015)

From the special schools [bijzondere scholen], such as the Montessori and Waldorf schools, a new building type

The last 150 years school buildings seem to have changed

was developed. These schools are based on learning by

a lot. Originally buildings were rather closed, monumental

exploring and also require more individual workspaces.

and formal to its surrounding due to small windows at the

Therefore, they do not require the classical rectangular

street side and very open towards the inside. An example

classrooms. Also the corridor became more of a learning

is the Gerrit van der Veen College (fig. 6.3), which was

environment. From this the corridor type school evolved

built before the Second World War as a girls school [MMS]

into the hall type (fig. 6.6b). Here “the hall not only

(Gerrit van der Veen College, n.d.). In the 20th century,

functions as connection of the different class rooms, but

the school buildings opened up towards all sides, where

also as a communal space” (Steijns and Koutamanis, 2004,

Duiker’s Open Air school is a good example (fig. 6.4).

p.27). Another more advanced typology of the hall school

is the ‘pavilion school’, where every cluster is created in

team of teachers supervise and if necessary give guidance

their own low-rise pavilion (fig. 6.6c).

or instructions” (p.21). Secondly, Oostdam describes as a starting point ‘space for self-responsible learning’. This

The last two decades more changes in school types are

does not mean independent work, although it could be

starting to appear. As we can see from the example of the

part of it, but a good balance should be found between

St. Nicolaasschool in Amsterdam, built in 2012 (fig. 6.5), it

instruction and a student-focus approach. I interpret

is very different from the previous examples. This is linked

this as that there should be a good balance between

to the introduction of ‘the new learning’ [het nieuwe

instruction work spaces (the classical class rooms), self-

leren] in the 1990s. Where the classical education (or ‘the

responsible work spaces (with supervision of a teacher)

old learning’ as it is sometimes referred to) focussed on

and independent work spaces. ‘Learning in an authentic

‘the transfer of knowledge’ from teacher to students, with

learning surrounding’ is the third starting point. Oostdam

the new learning the focus was placed on the learning

explains this as a surrounding “where students are

process. With this it is supposed to be possible to have a

brought in touch with the world outside the school”

“constant renewed education for every individual” (Steijns

(Oostdam et al., 2007, p. 16). Students should be able to

and Koutamanis, 2004, p. 27). Regular public schools are

participate in the world around them in an active way

now all following the new learning system. In some ways

(fig. 6.7). This has led to the so called Brede Scholen

the general special education systems was perhaps a

(literally: broad schools). The fourth starting point

reference, since the new learning uses both aspects

‘learning as social activity’ focuses on working together,

from the classical education (transfer of knowledge)

by having a project in groups of two or more. This would

and aspects from reform pedagogy (independent and

require places where students can work in a group.

collaboration) (De Jonghe, 2009).

The fifth starting point is rather straight forward,

Fig. 6.3 Gerrit van der Veen College, built: <1930s (Gerard-E, 2015)

Fig. 6.4 Duiker’s Open air school, built: 1930 (Archined, 2011)

‘learning with IT’, which is leading to computer spaces.

Quantitative

Oostdam visited eight secondary schools, from which they concluded the schools have on average one desktop

According to Oostdam et al. (2007) the idea of the new

for every two students. Note that this research has been

learning results in six starting points, which have an effect

done eight years ago and that this kind of technological

on the programme of demands of a school.

development is going very fast. During the research

The first starting point they mention is ‘attention for self-

some schools had the ambition to give a laptop to each

regulation and metacognition’. This could have effect on

students. Laptops would mean that the building would

the classical class rooms, which “are often replaced by a

not require computer rooms, it would rather require work

layout in big multi-functional education spaces where a

spaces with power plugs. Finally, the sixth starting point Fig. 6.5 St. Nicolaasschool, built in: 2012 (DuoGevels, n.d.)

‘use of new assessment methodologies’ does not have effect on the programme.

SCHO

From these starting points, four types of learning spaces could be named, as they are described by Steijns and Koutamanis (2004): - Presentation and demonstration (fig. 6.8a) Information from one person to a group

Fig. 6.7 Learning spaces

With a group of 32-100 students - Instruction (fig. 6.8a/b) Based on interaction Usually 20-32 students - Group work (fig. 6.8c) Small (2-6 students) or big groups (6-12) a: Corridor school type

b: Hall school type

- Individual work (fig. 6.8d)

a: Presentation and demonstration; Instruction

With or without computer work or lab work

1 - 2 students SCHO

SCHO

Qualitative

Beside these more quantitative requirements of a school,

b: Instruction

there are also qualitative requirements. Rodermond et al. (2009) combined the experience of a number of architects who designed schools. Many of them criticises the governments and clients, who are focussing too much SCHO c: Group work OL

SCHO

on money and the quality of the system, rather than the quality of the environment. Many studies have been done in how the student should learn, but until recently not much research was done on where the student should

d: Individual work (left: without pc, right: with pc)

even though this is an integral part of the school

c Pavilion school type Fig. 6.6 School types (2015)

SCHO

learn. “The interior is hardly ever part of the assignment,

Fig. 6.8 Learning spaces

LOOH

concept” (p. 42). A problem for architects is that children,

profile schools” [“begaafdheid- en cultuurscholen”] (p.21).

parents, teachers and clients are barely able to pinpoint

This is elaborated with the reason that “students differ

what kind of environment they desire. Another problem

in talent, speed of development and ambition. This is

is the concept of flexibility which is desired for the new

why good connections and ability for transfer between

learning. “Flexibility is too often a formula with too many

different education types should be possible.” (p.22).

unknowns, with that it is the enemy of quality” (p. 25).

Schools that give the ability to excel in talents and follow

Designing a school in the Prinsengracht Hospital would

certain criteria are allowed to call themselves culture-

mean to think carefully about the quality of the school

profile schools. Criteria entail that students, schools and

environment. Everyone is an expert on schools, since

partners have an active participation in the talent areas.

we have all been users for ten years or more, five days a

A way to achieve this is by creating a ‘broad school’, briefly

week. One of the architects advices to think back to “your

mentioned in the previous sub-chapter. A broad school is

own school environment and the memories that you have

a school with more functions than just the educational. In

from that” (p.33). Another way is to think carefully about

a report about these broad schools Kruiter et al. (2011, p. 6)

aspects such as air, visual relations, climate, acoustics,

give as a definition:

thermal climate, recognisability and usability.

- The school has a wider societal function than just providing education;

According to the Dutch government there are ten

- The school cooperates with facilities for well-being, child

starting points through which good quality schools can be

care, health care, sports and/or culture;

achieved in secondary schools (Wijnhoven and De Ruiter,

- And the school creates a substantial broadening in the

2008, pp. 13-14): ambition, involvement, sustainable basis,

offer of education, well-being, child care, health care,

focus, satisfaction in learning and working, personal

sports and/or culture.

and professional space, collaboration, talents, trust, and

Reason for secondary schools to create a broad school

appreciation.

is “to stimulate the development of talent” (p. 49).

From these starting points the government came to a

According to the report, the broad schools have effect

number of terms on which schools should focus on. Beside

with students, parents, in the area, regarding activities

“math and language; citizenship; professional space;

and with professionals. For students it is mainly their

exams and culture of improvement” there is the term

“enthusiasm and involvement” that creates the success

‘excel’ [uitblinken] (p.15). The government wants students

of the schools. Also “social skills and better atmosphere”

to be able to excel in their talents. This could be technical,

are mentioned.

languages, musical, sports, and creative talents. One of the ways to develop talents is through “talent- and culture-

Programme So, the programme for the design of the Prinsengracht Hospital will be a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;broadâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; secondary school with a focus on culture in combination with a cultural centre. I made a programme of demands to guide me through the

SCHOOL

LIBRARY / HOMEWORK

design (fig. 6.11). The task lies in how to create a learning

presentation class rooms

1 library (c. 5000 books)

environment with the right qualities and in combining

science rooms

2 computer spaces

this with the outcomes of the research and the values of

biology room

the Canal Ring and its buildings.

instruction room

silent study space

group work places

homework tutoring

principal offices (in 1 room)

toilets

(instruction)

reception congierge toilets (1/20 students) atrium/cantine kitchen archive

locker spaces office places for 40 teachers

VISUAL ARTS

PERFORMING ARTS

drawing studios

1 theatre

technical studios

3 rehearsal room

photograph studio photo/film instruction room ict? exhibition space toilets cafe

Fig. 6.11. Programme of demands (2015)

event hall/small theater music studios 2 dans rooms dressing rooms 1 toilets

Fig. 6.12 Room on the first floor, when it was still used as a hospital (unknown, n.d.)

Process

of a

Place

In the search for the design for a school in the centre of the city, questions were raised such as; - What is a route? - What is a place? - What is the experience? - What is the ambiance? To find some (abstract) answers to these questions I assigned myself to make some drawings. Together with some reference pictures I drew around it to envision the place I was aiming to create. In this way I drew spaces of circulation, transition and staying. The skethces on the right page are drawings of the design when it was further developing.

Fig. 7.1. Various sketches (2015)

Kerkstraat

Entrance Prinsengracht

Cultural Cafe

Reception element

Entrance square

Entrance volume

New volumes

Entrance volume Fig. 7.2. Various sketches

Preserve /

demolish

Another step in the process was to figure out what should

be preserved and what can be demolished. In the current situation of the Prinsengracht Hospital the complex contains several buildings of low value. Firstly, there are several low-rise and temporary looking buildings (figure 7.6b-c). Beside this, I had decided to remove the 1950s part

at the Prinsengracht. This is a structure which does not suit the Canal Ring (figure 7.6a). Besides, the construction existed of concrete slab walls which created rather small

Fig. 7.3. Current situation (2015)

rooms. This was not practical for the Cultural Centre. Finally I removed the wing deviding the garden and the bicycle parking space (figure 7.6b). I started desiging with

a part of this wing (ground and first floor). However, it did not seem to fit to create a good circulation for the new programme. The monumental value was not high enough to balance with the user value I was creating, which is why I had decided to also remove it.

This left me with the most essential wings of the Prinsengracht Hospital: the Hospital wing (at the

Fig. 7.4. Building parts to demolish (2015)

Prinsengracht) and the Nurses wing (at the Kerkstraat).

Fig. 7.5. Building parts to preserve (2015)

7.6a

7.6c

7.6b Fig. 7.6 Various images of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;inner worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of the building complex

Accessibility Starting point

The school has several entrances. The original entrance

To reduce bicycle traffic at the Prinsengracht side, which

at the Prinsengracht is preserved, however this entrance

is a one-way street, the main access for cyclists should be

is not wheelchair friendly. Besides, the average distance

at the Kerkstraat. The Gracht-side will be a formal and a

between entrances in the Canal Ring is 5 to 10 meter. This

pedestrian entrance. Both streams will come together in

gives the ring a diversity which makes it interesting to

at a central point of the building complex.

walk through. Since the Prinsengracht hospital is a very wide building, the two entrances are 43 meter apart.

Design

Therefore I have added another extra entrance more

The Cultural Centre contains two main entrances: for

towards the cultural centre. This will be the main formal

the performing arts part of the building, people enter

entrance. Formal, because kids will most likely come to

at the Prinsengracht into a foyer. The visual arts part of

school by bike. The Prinsengracht is a one-way street

the cultural centre is located at the Kerkstraat. This is a

(also for cyclists), while for cyclists the Kerkstraat is a

smaller street and contains several art galleries, which

two-way street. The functional entrance will therefore be

makes visual arts a suiting function at this side. The two

at the Kerkstraat side. Entering through the new part on

parts of the cultural centre are connected with a large

to a square. Cyclists will turn right to go down into the

hallway, which is also connected to the central hall.

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;bicycle-basementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. And they can go up by stairs leading

People who use the cultural centre more frequently and

to the central hall. From here they can go to the school

arrive by bike can enter via the central hall.

part, the school library, the homework tutoring centre or the cultural centre.

Fig. 7.7. Accessibility

43 m

21 m

Fig. 7.8. Various floor plan sketches (left: current; right: proposal)

10 m

18 m

20 m

21 m

Organisation To achieve the right accessibility for the building I first had to search for the right place for the theatre and the central hall. The theatre would become the biggest space which is not flexible in size. To place it at the Kerkstraat would take to much sunlight from the garden adjacent to it. This was one of the reasons the theatre eventually moved to the Prinsengracht. The final result is a combination of the two bottom sketches.

Fig. 7.9. Various floor plan sketches

Central Hall The central hall was the main focus of the design. The sketches on the previous page already showed different volumes for the central hall (/entrance). The challenge was to find a good space for a central hall and have an acceptable play and entrance square. The image below right is the version with which the design was developed further. That volume does not follow any lines of the existing and main volumes. With that it does not have to compete with the existing monument and can be a volume standing on its own.

Fig. 7.10. Various sketches to find the right volume for the central hall

The central hall is perhaps the most important space of the building, since it functions as: - a connection between existing and new - a connection between inside and outside - a connection between the school and the cultural centre - the entrance These functions gave it a well functioning space to Fig. 7.11 Sketches of the central hall in an earlier stage, with on the right the exterior view (2015)

circulate. Howevert it was also supposed to be a place to relax and to study. For that I took inspiration of the Yokohama International Passenger Terminal by Foreign Office Architects (figure 7.13)

Fig. 7.12 Yokohama International Passenger Terminal by Foreign Office Architects (FerrĂŠ, 2002)

Fig. 7.13 Sketches after seeing the images of The Yokohama terminal

The shape of the hall was soon decided. Although I did not decided yet on the form of the roof. This has gone through several changes. It started with a pitched roof lik the existing buildings. Hoewever, the intention of volume itself was that it would not compete with the existing structures or the main structures. Therefore, I have given the roof the same angle as the walls: 8 degrees.

Fig. 7.14. Development of the roof

a: not decided on the shape of the hall

b: flat roof

c: (cross) hipped roof, with the ridge following the bridge on the 1st floor

d: cross gable roof, with the ridge at the centre

e: shed roof

f: final design: shed roof with flat parts at the sides

New

elevations

STUDIO

The following images show the development of the

STUDIO

Prinsengracht facade. This was quite a development. For

ROOF GARDEN

with and combined these with the function that is behind

FOYER

STUDIO

COUNTER

the final result I went back to the basice elevation I started THEATRE

the facade. I revised the materialisation to make it fit a: facade ratio often used by 17th century architect Vingboons

with my starting points. This was that the Cultural Centre would refer to the Canal House construction (wood) and to Canal House facade (stone). Since this part is an exception in the Canal Ring, I also wanted to create a contrast with the Canal Houses. Therefore the final facade is made from brick, which are layed out vertically. The final result can be found in chapter 8 (p.98 and p.100). More about the materialisation can be found in in the paragraph about Building Technology.

b: context lines

STUDIO STUDIO

75 FOYER HALLWAY

THEATRE

c: function behind facade

STUDIO

Fig. 7.15 Analysis of the facades

FOYER THEATRE

HALLWAY

FOYER

THEATRE STUDIO

COUNTER

ROOF GARDEN

d: a, b and c together

STUDIO STUDIO



FOYER

THEATRE STUDIO

COUNTER

ROOF GARDEN



STUDIO STUDIO

DE GRACHT LYCEUM

FOYER

THEATRE STUDIO

COUNTER

ROOF GARDEN

76 GRACHT LYCEUM

A A N C U L T U U R

Fig. 7.16 Elevation development

D E G R A C H T

AAN DE GRACHT LYCEUM

Readability An important starting point was the readability of the building, The complex expanded many times and over time the different building parts merged together. This resulted in a building where it is hard to orientate yourself and where it is hard to recognise the different building parts.

Fig. 7.17 Corridors in the building: difficult to orientate (2015)

Concept Readability is also the key of the concept of the design. I have tried to apply it in many layers of the design.

350x60

375x60 200x35

300x50

325x55

375x60

320x55

200x35

300x50

350x60

375x60

300x50

200x35

home work tutoring

300x50

200x35

library visual arts

320x55

325x55

575x100

IPE200

400x65

IPE200

575x100

IPE200

IPE400

O = 125

IPE330

575x100 IPE400

centre

400x65

central hall

IPE400 HEB280

575x100

400x65

IPE400

400x65

IPE400

275x45

350x60

200x35

school 350x60

275x45

performing arts

350x60

Fig. 7.18 Readability in different layers of the design

IPE400

IPE330

IPE400

IPE330

cultural

400x65

HEB350

central hall

Fig. 7.19 Concept of readability

Design

Floor Plans

+70

-1860

Basement - 1:400 1: bicycle parking 2: draft portal 3: archive 4: storage 5: technical space

4 +180

KERKSTRAAT

+1800

9 28 +1800

+2280

+2485

+2280

28a

+1800

28a 9 +1240

28a +1800

Ground Floor - 1:400

+1150

6: entrance square 7: ‘play’ square 8: garden 9: reception/service point 10: lounge 11: kitchen 12: teacher’s lounge 13: office (a: principal) 14: concierge 15: lockers 16: instruction class room 22: library 23: silent study space 25: foyer 26: exhibition space 27: theatre 28: studio (a: rehearsal)

+2240

+1800

10 27 +1250

+1200

+1230

13a

+960

+2240

+1300

+1230

+960

PRINSENGRACHT

Prinsengracht

Kerkstraat

Entrance square

Central hall, looking towards the Prinsengracht

Central hall, looking towards the Kerkstraat

Cantine, looking towards the Kerkstraat

11 16 21 5

+5670

+5575

23 +5940

30 +5575 +5700

+5700

5 27

First Floor - 1:400 +5470

5: technical space 10: lounge 11: kitchen 13: office (b: teachers) 16: instruction class room 17: group work class room 21: home work centre 22: library 23: silent study space 24: computer room 25: foyer 27: theatre 28: studio 29: cafe 30: cultural roof terrace

13b +5470

+5470

+5575

First floor at the Prinsengracht side, standing in front of the 1903 stairwell looking at the elevator

Central hall on the first floor, looking towards the Prinsengracht

Cultural roof. Standing on the tribune looking towards the Kerkstraat

+8980

+9580

+8900

30 -

+9575

Second Floor - 1:400

13: office 16: instruction class room 17: group work class room 21: home work centre 22: library 23: silent study space 24: computer room 28: studio (b: dance; c: music) 30: cultural roof terrace

16 +9480

28c

13 28b

+9480

+9800

Second floor at the Prinsengracht side, looking towards the Cultural Centre

23 21 5

+8980

28 +9580

28 +12220

Third Floor - 1:400

5: technical space 16: instruction class room 18: science room 19: biology room 20: laboratory 22: library 23: silent study space 28: studio (b: dance; c: music) 30: cultural roof terrace

+9480

28c

20 +13490

28b

+13490

+13380

Roof - 1:400

4-4' (K) copy 1 : 100

18820

Sections

15400

13490 12570

12560

9570

9480

5470

10480

5940

5700

2280

2240 960

1200

1800

1240

18820

Section A-A’ 1 : 400 2

18820

1-1' (D)

15400

1 : 100 13490 15400 12200

13490 9480

12200 8900

9480 5470

5470

8900 5575

5240

5575 1800

1230

960

1800 1230

960

Section B-B’ 1 : 400

2-2' (A)

1 : 100

2-2' (A)

-1860

1 : 100

-1860

2-2' (A) 1 : 100 18400

18400

15400

13380 15400 12200

13380 9800 12200 8900

9800 8900 5575

5575

5575 1800

1300

1800 -1860

Section C-C’ 1 : 400 3-3' (I)

1 : 100

3-3' (I) 1 : 100

3-3' (I)

1 : 100

3-3' (I) 1 : 100

-1860

1300

960

A’

E’ B’

kerkstraat

entran

D’ D

C’

prinsengracht

4-4' (K) copy

Section D-D’ 1 : 400

1 : 100

18820

15400

13490 12570

12560

9570

9480

5470

10480

Section E-E’ 1 : 400

5940

5700

2280

2240

18820

1200

960

1800

1240

15400

13490

1-1' (D)

12200

1 : 100

9480 8900

5240

5470

5575

1800 960

1230

-1860

Elevation CC 1 : 200

Elevations

Elevation Prinsengracht 1 : 400

100 Elevation Kerkstraat 1 : 400

101

Building Technology Materialisation

Fig. 8.1 Barlaeus Gymnasium Amsterdam (Huibers, 2015)

Fig. 8.2 Various images of valueble elements

102

Fig. 8.3-4 Panelling

Cultural Centre The facade of the Cultural centre will be mainly of brick. Most bricks will be brown, at the Prinsengracht it is slightly lighter than at the Kerkstraat. There is a variation in brick colours: the other bricks are in the colours which can be found in neighbouring houses. The plinth and the top are covered with wooden planks. This â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Guariuba woodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; has a brown-red colour (fig. 8.6).

Fig. 8.5 Impression of Prinsengracht (l) and Kerkstraat (r) facade

Fig. 8.6 Guariuba wood (Tracer, n.d) Fig. 8.7 Vertical brick (Vandersanden Group, 2015)

The garden facades of the Prinsengracht Hospital are light coloured. This results in a seemingly brighter and bigger garden. This is also the more informal side and a place to relax. Therefore I have chosen for a light material, both in colour and in weight, for the new facades at the garden. It is covered with the yellowish Ayous wood.

Fig. 8.8 Impression of the garden facade at the Kerkstraat side

Fig. 8.9 Ayous wood (Richters, n.d.)

The construction refers to the wooden construction in the Canal Houses. However, the span is larger than in regular Canal Houses, resulting in bigger (laminated) beams.

Fig. 8.10 Canal House beams

Fig. 8.11 Flooring

103

Fig. 8.12 Impression of the beams in the Cultural Centre

Central Hall The hall is build up by fixed steel portal structures. The portals around the entrance are slightly oversized so it can also absorb wind forces. The bridge is hanging at the beams of the portal and on top of the portals lies a Kalzip aluminium roof system. The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;landscapeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is a wooden stand alone object, allowing the space to be flexible for future purposes.

Fig. 8.13 Portal structure

Fig. 8.14 Landscape and bridge within the portal structure.

Fig. 8.15 Kalzip roof system (Kalzip, 2012)

Fig. 8.16 Kalzip roof (Kalzip, 2012)

104

Construction

105

Fig. 8.17 Construction scheme first floor

106

Fig. 8.18 Construction scheme second floor

18820

Building Physics - Ventilation

13490

The ventilation is based on natural inlet and mechanical

Second floor:

outlet. This is preferable for ‘healthy’ schools (figure 8.19).

- 4 class rooms:

2520 m3/h

- Office (30 m2):

702 m3/h

To calculate the size of the air ducts I have made a

- Toilets (23 m2):

580 m3/h

calculation of the outlet air in the 1857 part for the

3802 m3/h

ground, first and second floor. The third floor is is directly

connected to the air handling unit, therefore this is not

First floor:

important for the calculation of the biggest air duct.

- 3 class rooms:

Duct diameter: 500 mm 1890 m3/h

12570

- Teacher’s office (68 m2): 1591 m3/h Fig. 8.19. Ventilation scheme for ‘healthy schools’ (LBP, n.d.)

- Office (30 m2):

702 m3/h

- Toilets (23 m2):

580 m3/h

47629570 m3/h

9480

Duct diameter: 500 mm

Floor 1 + 2 : 8564 m /h. 3

Diameter main duct to first floor: 630 mm Ground floor:

1260 m3/h

- 2 class rooms:

5470

5700

- Teacher’s lounge (91 m2): 1310.4 m3/h

4-4' (K) copy 1 : 100

18820

- Office (30 m2):

702 m3/h

- Toilets (23 m2):

580 m3/h

3852 m3/h

15400

2240 12570

960

9570

9480

5470

5700

Floor 0 + 1 + 2 : 8564 m /h.

Fig. 8.20. Design of the ventilation scheme

1-1' (D) 1 : 100

12560

1200

1240

Diameter duct to ground floor: 800 mm 1200 main 1240

10480

5940

2280

2240 960

Duct diameter: 500 mm 3

13490

1800

107

The location of the vertical air duct shaft in the 1857 part is beside the toilets. Each building part contains its own air duct system. In figure 8.21 the vertical shafts are circled. The entire building is based on natural inlet and mechanical outlet, except for the middle part of the cultural centre. This part also contains mechanical inlet, which is more desirable for a theatre. DN

The natural air flows in through ventilation grilles above the windows. Alusta has a system called ‘Bingo Cybele Forte’ which I have used in the building. They also produce systems for monumental buildings to be able to have grilles in the facade without destroying its value (Alusta muurdemper ‘Monument’). This system might be nescessary to place beside the windows to ventilate an entire classroom.

108

Fig. 8.21 Scheme of the air ducts

To hide the air ducts I needed to create a lowered ceiling in the hallway. However, I also want users to experience the entire height of the hall way. Therefore I have used a similar way as the University of Maastricht (Zwingelput location) applied in their hallway to hide the ducts.

109

Fig. 8.22 Unviersity of Maastricht (location Zwingelput). (2015)

Fig. 8.23 Lowered ceiling design

1 : 100

18820

Building Physics - Heating The main heating system of the building is through floor heating. The Prinsengracht can be used as a source for the waterpump.

13490

957

9480

5700

5470

2240 1200

960

Fig. 8.24 Heating scheme

The new central hall in the heart of the building has a slightly sloped roof of 8 degrees. I have placed the top at the south east side so that sunlight comes into the hall

110

1-1' (D) 1 : 100

and so that the hall will block minimal sunlight on the play square and building parts behind it.

Fig. 8.25 Path of the sun (in march/september)

Fig. 8.26 Orientation of the roof of the central hall

1240

Detailing 18820

13490

9480

5470

960

1230

V3 V1

2-2' (A) 1 : 100

15400

12200

8900

5575

1800

111 3

Section of the existing structure and extension - 1:75

3-3' (I) 1 : 100

7750 mm V7

1800 mm

6330 mm

V9 V8

Elevation of the extension - 1:75

112 7965 mm

Section extension - 1:75

H10

Floorplan of the connection extension and existing - 1:75

113

V1 - 1:10

• • • •

Renovation glass Extra insulation Existing paneling Ventilation grille Bingo Cybele Forte

• • • • • • •

Kalzip clip Kalzip 50/429 Breather membrane Insulation Air/vapour barrier Trapezoidal steeldeck Finish

114

IPE 400

V2 - 1:10

• Wooden floor finish • CompactFloor Expert (tiles) • CompactFloor Expert insulation with floor heating • Wooden floor (existing) • Wooden beam with added insulation • Stucco on thatch

• • • • • •

Floor finish Profiled steel sheeting IPE 140 IPE 240 (elevation) Armature Finish

115

V3- 1:10

• • • •

Floor covering Screed with floor heating Insulation Airdeck floor system

• Wooden floor finish • CompactFloor Expert (tiles) • CompactFloor Expert insulation with floor heating • Wooden floor (existing) • Wooden beam with added insulation

116

V4 - 1:10

117

• • • • • •

Wooden framework Insulation Wooden framework Window frame Schüco FW60 Duco minimax 36 Window frame Schüco FW60

• • • • • • •

Kalzip 50/429 Breather membrane Insulation Trapezoidal steeldeck Air/vapour barrier Finish IPE 400

V5 & V6 - 1:10

• • • • • • •

Finish of ‘landscape’ Frame for ‘landscape’ Breather Membrane Sandwich panel Air/vapour barrier Frame for ‘landscape’ Finish of ‘landscape’

118

V7 - 1:10

HEB 280 (covered)

• • • • • •

Finish of ‘landscape’ Frame for ‘landscape Floor covering Screed with floor heating Insulation Airdeck floor system

119

• • • • •

Rainwater drainage Breather membrane Ground (sand) Tiles Frame for ‘landscape’

V8 & V9 - 1:10

PART 3

reflection

Conclusion

The research started from my fascination of the typical

This

into

As a conclusion, the exceptions in the Canal Ring– the

buildings in the Amsterdam Canal Ring. These buildings

consideration when intervening in such an exception. It

relatively big buildings – have an acceptable relation

mainly include the Canal Houses, built as residential

is not by definition small scale interventions that should

with the typical Amsterdam Canal Houses, externally. The

buildings for the middle class on narrow but deep plots.

take place with the buildings in the Canal Ring. Rather,

facades of the exceptions are often built op with the same

When the houses were built in the 17th century, uniformity

interventions should be done that enhance or increase

rules that apply for the original buildings. And it might

in the façade was stimulated by the municipality. Today,

the small scale idea of the area. If a function change is

have been highly appreciated in the 17h century, when

the differentiation of the façade is appreciated, although

necessary, a function that adds to the city and the area

uniformity was stimulated. However, the organisation

common characteristics creates the unity of the ensemble

should be desired. If the building is suitable for splitting

often contain a much bigger scale than the Canal Houses.

in the Canal Ring. These characteristics include aspects

up, it might even be desirable to come up with several

And this last aspect is something that should be a concern

like verticality, windows and the trichotomy in the facades.

new functions. This is why this research proposes a small

for Amsterdam and the UNESCO.

Together they create rather small scale buildings.

school and cultural centre which would fit in the cultural

big

and

small

scale

should

taken

area and which could function separately and at the same Beside the Canal Houses, the Canal Ring is built up by

time could work together.

some exceptions. These buildings often may seem to fit

122

in its surroundings, due to the use of traditional materials

Beside this, it would be desirable to keep in mind the

and forms. Nevertheless, behind the facades it does not

typology of the buildings in the Canal Ring when

seem to follow the building typology of the Canal Ring.

intervention is proposed. To enhance the authenticity

Like the Prinsengracht Hospital, the buildings are often

and integrity of the Canal Ring area it seemed to be

not much higher than its neighbours, the bigness is

enough to just focus on the external aspects such as the

more in width and depth. According to the ICOMOS and

façade, according to the UNESCO. However, from this

Amsterdam, these exceptions are not a big threat to the

research it became clear that it is not just the façade

area’s heritage. However, researches fear the ‘increased

that could thread the World Heritage. It is also about the

scale of facades’, the ‘trend of mono-functionality’ and

organisation and the inner world of the Canal Ring. The

the ‘decrease in buildings that correspond to the building

intention has always been small scale buildings in a big

typology’ in the Canal Ring. The Prinsengracht Hospital

scale project and where it is hard to imagine that one

might be a building that could harm the Canal Ring as

finds itself in the middle of the city centre of the capital.

a World Heritage, since it is a building that expanded a lot over time. Compared to the typical Canal Houses it is a rather big scale building, while the small scale is appreciated.

Reflection

The location of the graduation project is a world heritage

(exception) and smaller buildings (Canal Houses). At the

school. The programme fits well in the surrounding, close

site: the Canal Ring of Amsterdam. It became World

same time it gave me the opportunity to research these

to the cultural Leidsebuurt, by giving the school a focus on

Heritage in 2010 because of its very unique type of

scale levels on several time periods. The outcome of the

art. In the second semester this evolved into a secondary

urbanism and architecture. The area contains many canal

research and analysis was supposed to guide me to the

school and a new cultural centre. When I determined the

houses with a strong and characteristic typology. The

design. Besides, the outcome of the research gave me

programme, halfway the first semester, I had to start

typical Amsterdam Canal Houses and its typology was

good starting points which I tried to use during the entire

researching schools as well. This resulted into a ‘Part 2’ in

the basis of my fascination: the buildings are symbolic

design phase.

the research report, which had few relation with ‘Part 1’. By

for Amsterdam, yet all houses are different. They create a strong skin of the Canal Ring, which is sometimes

this time I should have added a new secondary question

interrupted by a building with a different typology, this is often a historical but large building. Due to its wide façade,

My research question is a very context focused question.

these type of buildings are a clear exception in the Ring.

To my idea this was an interesting approach. With the

What architectural aspects made the building fit for

The Prinsengracht Hospital is such exception and it is the

research question I was able to use the building – the

a hospital and educational institute? And how can

building that I have adapted for my graduation project.

Prinsengracht Hospital – as a precedent for the exception

these aspects be of use for a new and different type of

in the Canal Ring. It gave me an analysis for the building

educational institute?

question could have been:

The method of the studio starts with an analysis of the

typology, which I could use both during the research

location. Together with the other students who choose to

and during the design phase. This was an important link

So, during the second semester I had good and solid

use the Prinsengracht Hospital as the building for their

between the two phases. I obtained a good understanding

starting points in relation to the context. This resulted

graduation project, we divided the subjects that needed

of the building and location. Besides, by answering the

in a design project which did not focus on getting the

to be analysed. This started with a more urban approach,

research question and sub-questions I created some

organisation of the school and the cultural centre right.

shifted to an architectural approach and ended with

solid starting points for the design. In the introduction of

It was rather about achieving a good organisation for

the technical aspects of the building. Parallel to the

my research report I had written that “…the answers to

the exception in the Canal Ring. I did this by focusing on

analysis was the research into a subject of interest. Early

the research- and sub-questions should guide me to an

the internal world of the Prinsengracht hospital/school:

observations of the location and the fascination with the

intervention design of the Prinsengracht Hospital”. That

the central space. This is a shared space for the school

buildings in the Canal Ring, resulted in a first formulation

goal of creating a good basis to design with was reached.

and the cultural centre. I think this focus turned out to

of my research question. That question hardly changed

Although, the research should not only have guided me

be a good reflection of the conclusion I made from my

throughout the research and the project. I think this

‘to’ a design, it should also have guided me ‘during’ that

research report that Amsterdam and UNESCO mainly

shows that the interest I had in the topic was sufficient

process.

seem to value “the external aspects such as the façade”, while “the organisation of the inner world of the Canal

and certain. This also contributed in having a rather fluent

124

which would create a bigger connection with ‘part 1’. This

Research - Design

research process.

The new programme for the Prinsengracht Hospital was

Ring” is also an important aspect to value.

The research method that I defined in the introduction of

based on the analysis of the building and its surrounding

I did not immediately came to this conclusion. Before I

my research report was leading me through a research

which I had done in the research. I kept the idea of

came to this point the relation between the research and

of three scale levels: urban (Canal Ring), bigger buildings

education, for many years of the nurses, by creating a

design was not very big, to my idea. I focused on a part

of the Canal Ring that is not visible to people, while many

1950s façade at the Prinsengracht and the parking space

for almost 160 years, there is still reason to keep on

valuable parts of the World Heritage site are visible to

at the Kerkstraat. In the current situation the opening in

developing and to keep on designing. Whether this is for

everyone. I was a little insecure whether my main focus of

the façades of the Kerkstraat is an interruption in the

expansion reasons, re-use reasons or small-scale reasons

the design project should not be on the Cultural Centre,

continuity of the street and with that in the continuity of

such as dividing a room into two.

which is visible from the streets. During the second

the urbanism of the Canal Ring. Thus creating a tolerance

semester I revised parts of the research report, which

for change. According to the Amsterdam monumental

If graduation would take more time I would be able to

gave me the possibility to reread the research I had done

care the 1950s façade is considered as less fitting in its

find room for improvement. The new elevations at the

before. I came to a slightly different conclusion than

context, therefore I think this is a tolerable intervention

Cultural Centre for instance. I struggled with this part of

before the summer break. This was an important moment

to replace this building part with a new contemporary

the design, but I also learned a lot from it. I could also find

in my process because this new conclusion gave me a

structure and façade.

improvement in the organisation of the Cultural Centre.

confirmation that it was actually good that my focus was

With the new additions I have tried to find tolerances that

With more time I would shift my focus from the central

on the central part of the complex, which is part of the

are a combination of personal tolerances and Amsterdam

hall, which is now quite well thought about, to the cultural

internal world of the Canal Ring.

tolerances. Amsterdam tolerances are focused more on

centre. Although this would also mean I would need to do

the monumental care and are often conservative. My

more research into cultural centres. As a third, I would

personal tolerances are progressive and sometimes more

look more into the outdoor spaces, mainly the beautiful

radical. By exploring both tolerances I think I have found

garden.

Theme My fascination had a strong connection with the theme

an interesting design which is perhaps slightly radical for

of the studio Heritage and Design, which was exploring

Amsterdam in practice, but which gave me a challenging

Nevertheless I am very satisfied with my graduation

the ‘tolerance for change’. With that theme the context

and interesting graduation project.

project and I think I have achieved the goals that are

is very important. What does the Core zone of the World Heritage site in Amsterdam tolerate? This is a question I

set up by the university. Personally, I am satisfied with the qualities I could use and emphasize in my design

did not use as a secondary question. It could have been a

Improvement

follow-up question of the last sub-question “What should

Graduation at the TU Delft only takes one year. This

around: I am satisfied and happy with the qualities the

we do with these buildings when they are subjected to

is a very short time to make a design for the entire

Prinsengracht Hospital and my tutors were able to

intervention?” Though I defined ‘tolerance for change’ as

Prinsengracht complex. On the one hand that is a positive

emphasize in me.

part of my assignment.

thing since it forces the student to focus on one part and

The research I had done into the Canal Ring already gives

work that out. On the other hand it feels like the project

an idea of what is tolerated now and what was tolerated

is not finished yet.

when the Canal Ring was built. The Canal Ring is a big

Although I think that even if graduation would take two

urban setting containing small scale buildings. However,

years (or even more), there will still be a lot of elements

the Prinsengracht Hospital is a large building. For this

unfinished. In architecture a design is never finished.

reason I changed the scale of the building. The most

Heritage & Architecture might be the best studio to proof

visual aspect of the complex that I have changed are the

that: even if the building already stands and flourishes

of the Prinsengracht Hospital. But also the other way

125

References

Bibliography In this report all quotes that are used from Dutch sources are my own translations.

KILLIAM, T. 1978; 2006. Amsterdamse Grachtengids, 1st;4th edition, Utrecht/Antwerpen, Het Spectrum.

If I did not find a sufficient translation, the Dutch word is written behind in [...]. KRUITER, J., OOMEN, C. & DUBBELMAN, E. 2011. Jaarbericht Brede Scholen 2011. Ministerie van Onderwijs, ABRAHAMSE, J. E. 2010. De Grote Uitleg van Amsterdam; Stadsontwikkeling in de zeventiende eeuw,

Cultuur & Wetenschap.

Bussum, Thoth. MEISCHKE, R., ZANTKUIJL, H. J., RAUE, W. & ROSENBERG, P. T. E. E. 2001. Huizen in Nederland: Amsterdam,

AERTS, R. & DE ROOY, P. (eds.) 2006. Geschiedenis van Amsterdam 1813-1900; Hoofdstad in aanbouw,

Zwolle, Waanders Uitgevers.

Amsterdam: SUN. OOSTDAM, R., PEETSMA, T. & BLOK, H. 2007. Het nieuwe leren in basisonderwijs en voorgezet onderwijs

DE BOER, H. W. J. & PLEY, G. 1993. Grachten zusters, Dordrecht, ICG Printing.

nader beschouwd: een verkenningsnotities voor het Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en

Wetenschap. In: OCW, M. V. (ed.).

DE JONGHE, R. 2009. Focus op de steinerschool, online, Lulu.com. RODERMOND, J., WALLAGH, G. & VAN DER LEUN, A. (eds.) 2009. Geen meter te veel: agenda scholenbouw, ECTOR, J. 1999. Naast het Achterhuis; verbouwing van museum en kantoren van de Anne Frank Stichting

Rotterdam: Stimuleringsfonds voor Architectuur.

door Benthem Crouwel. De Architect, 30, 72-75. SCHOONENBERG, W. 1999. Restauratie Anne Frank Huis na 12 jaar voltooid. Binnenstad, 33, 101-102.

FRIJHOFF, W. & PRAK, M. (eds.) 2005. Geschiedenis van Amsterdam 1650-1813: Zelfbewuste stadstaat. SMIT, J. 2003. Beschrijving van Prinsengracht 769 (Prinsengrachtziekenhuis). Bureau Monumenten & GEMEENTE AMSTERDAM 2013. De schoonheid van Amsterdam. Bureau van de Commissie voor Welstand en

Archeologie Amsterdam).

Monumenten. STEIJNS, Y. & KOUTAMANIS, A. 2004. Onderwijsvisie & Schoolgebouwen, Amsterdam, SUN. GEMEENTE AMSTERDAM. n.d.-a. Anne Frank Huis [Online]. Available: http://www.amsterdam.nl/ kunstencultuur/monumenten/monumenten-0/gebouwen-gebieden/beschrijvingen/anne_

SWART, J., CLAUS, K. E. A., VELDPAUS, L. & PEREIRA RODERS, A. 2012. World Heritage Cities: Amsterdam’s

Canal District Case Study’. Bureau Monumenten & Archeologie Amsterdam; Eindhoven

University of Technology (TU/e).

frank_huis/ [Accessed 16 April 2015].

GEMEENTE AMSTERDAM. n.d.-b. Paleis van Justitie [Online]. Available: http://www.amsterdam.nl/ kunstencultuur/monumenten/monumenten-0/gebouwen-gebieden/beschrijvingen/paleis_van_

UNESCO 1994. Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Paris:

UNESCO.

justitie/ [Accessed 7 May 2015].

GERRIT VAN DER VEEN COLLEGE. n.d. Het Gebouw [Online]. Available: http://www.gerritvdveen.nl/onze-

UNESCO 2013. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. In:

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND

NATURAL HERITAGE (ed.). Paris: UNESCO.

school/monument.html [Accessed 28 may 2015].

HENKET & PARTNERS ARCHITECTEN 2009. Prinsengrachtziekenhuis Amsterdam; cultuurhistorische

verkenning en opname.

UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE. 2015. Tentative Lists [Online]. Available: http://whc.unesco.org/en/

tentativelists/ [Accessed 3 April 2015].

HERTZBERGER, H. 2008. Ruimte en leren; Lessen in architectuur 3, Rotterdam, 010. VAN BOMMEL, A. J. 2014. The history of residential dwellings. Technische Universiteit Delft. HOFJES IN AMSTERDAM. n.d. Deutzenhofje [Online]. Available: http://www.hofjesinamsterdam.nl/

deutzenhofje.html [Accessed 26 April 2015].

ICOMOS 2010. The Canal Area of Amsterdam (Netherlands) No 1349. Paris: UNESCO.

128

WIJNHOVEN, L. & DE RUITER, G. 2008. In: MINISTERIE VAN ONDERWIJS, C. E. W. (ed.). ZANTKUIJL, H. J. 1994. Bouwen in Amsterdam; het woonhuis in de stad, Amsterdam, Architectura & Natura.

List

of Illustrations

Own illustration:

Figure 1.1 - 1.2; 2.3 - 2.4; 2.7 - 2.8; 3.9; 4.3 - 4.4, 4.12; 4.14 -4.15; 4.17-4.18; 4.20; 5.1 - 5.2; 5.5;

5.9 - 5.10; 6.1; 6.6 - 6.8; 7.1 - 7.7; 7.9 - 7.11; 7.13 - 7.19; 8.2 - 8.5; 8.8; 8.10; 8.13-8.14; 8.17 - 8.18; 8.20 - 8.26 Front page: Amsterdamse Grachtenhuizen (2011-2015). Prinsengracht van Leidsestraat tot de Nieuwe

Spiegelstraat nummer 709 t/m 807. Available at: http://www.amsterdamsegrachtenhuizen.

info/gracht/pgo/pg17/ [Accessed: 23 march 2015]

Figure 1.3 Credits: Brandes & Newman (2011). Amsterdam, New York, Trade Growth & Broadway. Available

at: https://touf2011.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/amsterdam-new-york-trade-growth-broadway/

[Accessed: 23 march 2015]

Figure 1.4 Openstreetmap.org (2015); Basisregistraties Adressen en Gebouwen (2013) Available at: http://

geoplaza.vu.nl/cdm/singleitem/collection/gpz/id/258/rec/2 [Accessed: 8 april 2015]

Figure 2.1 idem figure 1.3 Figure 2.2 City of Amsterdam (2015). Archaeological sites and historic maps and buildings. Available at:

http://maps.amsterdam.nl/archeologie/ [Accessed: 23 march 2015]

Figure 2.5 Gemeente Amsterdam (n.d.). Grachtengordel Amsterdam Werelderfgoed. Available at: http:// www.amsterdam.nl/kunstencultuur/grachtengordel/weten/nederlands/grachtengordel/

[Accessed: 13 march 2015]

Figure 2.6 Credits: Middendorp, O. (2013) De Nachtwacht in de eregalerij. Available at: http://www.

nrcreader.nl/artikel/895/putten-van-licht [Accessed: 20 may 2015]; & figure 2.5

Figure 3.1 Philips, Caspar (1768-70). Herengracht 571-581. Available at: http://www.

amsterdamsebinnenstad.nl/binnenstad/201/h581.html [Accessed: 25 may 2015]

Figure 3.2 Credits: OpenStreetMap contributors (2015). Available at: www.openstreetmap.org [Accessed: 6

april 2015]

Figure 3.3 Own illustration (2015); Source information: Abrahamse, 2010 Figure 3.4 a: Amsterdamse Grachtenhuizen (2011-2015). Keizersgracht, van de Leidsestraat tot de Nieuwe

Spiegelstraat, nummer 463 t/m 543. Available at: http://www.amsterdamsegrachtenhuizen.

info/gracht/pgo/pg17/ [Accessed: 1 november 2015]; b: Killiam, T. (1978). Keizersgracht; c: Philips,

C. (1768-71) Available at: http://www.amsterdamsegrachtenhuizen.info/gracht/pgo/pg17/

[Accessed: 1 november 2015].

Figure 3.5 Credits: Maier, S. (n.d.) Amsterdam Grachtenhuis. Available at: http://www.sebmaier.nl/

[Accessed: 1 april 2015]

Figure 3.6 idem. Figure 3.7 Own illustration (2015). Credits: a: Digitaal Grachtenhuis (n.d.) Available at: http://

digitaalgrachtenhuis.nl/objecten/toon/1725/Herengracht/361; c: Schouten (n.d.) Available at:

http://www.jftschouten.nl/pagina/Gevels%201.htm; e: Amsterdam.info (n.d.) Available at: http://

www.amsterdam.info/nl/prinsengracht/ [All accessed 21 may 2015]

Figure 3.8 Own illustration (2015). Credits: Meischke et al. (2001, p. 308-9) Figure 4.1 Own illustrations (2015). Credits 4.1a/c: idem fig. 3.5 Figure 4.2 Own illustration (2015). Credits: Zantkuijl (1994, p. 255) Figure 4.5 Kennis- en Projectenbank Herbestemming (n.d.) De Bazel, Amsterdam. Available at: http://www.

kennisbankherbestemming.nu/projecten/de-bazel-amsterdam [Accessed: 16 April 2015]

Figure 4.6 Own illustration (2015). Credits: Openstreetmap.org; Basisregistraties Adressen en Gebouwen

(2013) Available at: http://geoplaza.vu.nl/cdm/singleitem/collection/gpz/id/258/rec/2 [Accessed:

8 april 2015]

Figure 4.7 idem Figure 4.8 Own illustration (2015). Credits: Frijhoff and Prak (2005), (Aerts and de Rooy, 2006) Figure 4.9 Unknown. Obtained through TU Delft. Figure 4.10 Own illustrations (2015). Credits: Kadasterkaart (1811-32). Available at: watwaswaar.nl [Accessed:

9 maart 2015]

Figure 4.11 a: Unknown. Obtained through TU Delft; b: Posthumus Mejes (1902), Obtained through TU Delft;

c: Bierman Henket architecten (2010) Gevel.

Figure 4.13 Credits: idem front page figure. Figure 4.16 Own illustrations (2015). Credits: Ector (1999) Figure 4.19 van Oord-de Pee, A. (1990). Prinsengracht 261-267. Available at: http://beeldbank.amsterdam.nl/

beeldbank/indeling/detail?q_searchfield=prinsengracht+267 [Accessed: 16 april 2015]

Figure 4.21 Unknown (n.d.). Prinsengracht 265-269. Available at: http://beeldbank.amsterdam.nl/beeldbank/

indeling/detail/start/9?q_searchfield=prinsengracht+265 [Accessed: 16 april 2015]

Figure 5.3 Credits: Killiam, 2006 (p. 17) Figure 5.4 Swart et al. 2012 (p. 6) Figure 5.5 idem (p.5) Figure 5.6 idem front page Figure 5.8 Illustration from group analysis (2015) Figure 6.2 idem. Credits: OpenStreetMap contributors (2015). Available at: www.openstreetmap.org

[Accessed: 6 april 2015]

Figure 6.3 Gerard-E (2015). Gerrit van der Veen College; 70 Years, to remember. Amsterdam, 20150413.

Available at: https://flic.kr/p/sfSEDH [Accessed: 28 may 2015]

Figure 6.4 Archined (2011). Eerste Openluchtschool voor het Gezonde Kind. Available at: http://www.

archined.nl/reportages/2011/eerste-openluchtschool-voor-het-gezonde-kind/ [Accessed: 28 may

2015] Figure 6.5 DuoGevels (n.d.) St. Nicolaaslyceum, Amsterdam. Available at: http://www.duogevels.nl/

overzicht/projecten [Accessed: 28 may 2015]

Figure 7.8 Amsterdamse Grachtenhuizen (2011-2015). Prinsengracht van Leidsestraat tot de Nieuwe

Spiegelstraat nummer 709 t/m 807. Available at: http://www.amsterdamsegrachtenhuizen.

info/gracht/pgo/pg17/ [Accessed: 23 march 2015]

Figure 7.12 From: Ferré, A. & Sakamoto, Tomoko (2002) Figure 8.1 Huibers (2015), Barlaeus Gymnasium Amsterdam. Available at: http://www.lensvelt.nl/barleus

gymnasium-amsterdam/ [Accessed: 28 october 2015]

Figure 8.6 Tracer (2016), Guariuba, Stranshuse, Havnevigen, Island Brygge. Available at: http://www.tracer. dk/56,220/showroom/type_of_construction/siding#Guariuba%2C+Strandhuse%2C+

Havnevigen%2C+Islands+Brygge-281 [Accessed: 24 january 2016]

Figure 8.7 Vandersanden Group (n.d.). Available at: http://www.vandersandengroup.be/group/nl-be/

taxonomy/term/187 [Accessed: 31 december 2015]

Figure 8.9 Richters, C. (n.d.) Bierings House, Utrecht. Available at: http://www.a10.eu/materials/continuous_

skin.html [Accessed: 31 december 2015]

Figure 8.15 Kalzip (2012), Kalzip aluminium industriedak. From: Kalzip aluminium industriedak IF

65/537 Productinformatie.

Figure 8.16 idem Figure 8.19 LBP (n.d.) From Versteeg H. (n.d). ‘Gezonde school vereist ruime ventilatie’

129

130

Appendix

132

Authenticity, Position Paper

Guide

Museumification former ones.” (p. 40). Thirdly, the past can give us the

(para. 86, p. 22). So reconstruction is authentic and is

Since 2011 the Amsterdam Canal Ring is listed as UNESCO

benefit of “identification with earlier stages of one’s life”

necessary to get a good understanding of the canal ring.

World Heritage. For properties to become listed the

which is “crucial both to integrity and to well being” (p.

Although, imitation could be an authentic way of keeping

UNESCO has set up several criteria. Properties should

42). Personal and shared history give a person a sense

a historic ensemble. As Wim Denslagen (2009) writes in

meet at least one of those criteria. The canal ring meets

of identity, which can give comfort and assurance. As a

his book ‘Romantic Modernism’: “Every architectural style

three, which are shown in the scheme below. Additionally,

forth benefit Lowenthal names guidance: the past can

has been spread by means of imitations or free copies“

a property has to be authentic and must contain a certain

teach us “useful lessons” and that can give us solutions to

(p. 169).

integrity. It is considered to be authentic if the cultural

architectural problems (pp. 46-47). Also, with knowledge

values are “truthfully and credibly expressed through a

of the past we can enrich our lives, because we can link

variety of attributes” (UNESCO, 2013, p. 22). The integrity

our lives with past events and people (pp.47-49). Finally

of a property is expressed with its “wholeness and

we can escape to the past, through dreams we can escape

intactness” (p. 23). I see integrity as relatively straight

to a different time. According to Lowenthal this relieves

forward: it is either whole and intact, or it is not (of course,

stress (this is a paragraph from an earlier essay: (Cannoo,

in reality there are often grey areas). Authenticity, on the

2013)).

Criteria that the Canal Ring meets

other hand, is a very broad definition, which makes it open to interpretation and discussion. The discussions can be

divided into two main approaches on how to preserve

reconstruction

authenticity and integrity of the canal ring.

(Schoonenberg, 2004, p. 148). It would avoid degradation

benefit

from

our

should

heritage, be

restoration “rule

and

thumb”

and fragmentation of “the monumental ensemble”. One approach is what UNESCO (et al., 2013) calls the

Schoonenberg (secretary of the ‘United Friends of the

conventional approach. The focus of this is “placed on the

Inner City of Amsterdam’) even claims “Amsterdam’s

conservation of the materials or the fabric of the past”

historic inner city will eventually be lost”. Bell (2009)

(p. 24). The goal is to preserve heritage for our future

describes how in art (history) authenticity is about

generations, who would benefit of the historic buildings.

“aesthetic, spatial understanding of form”. To reach a

In his book ‘The Past is a Foreign Country’ Lowenthal (1985)

good understanding “missing, damaged or altered parts”

describes several benefits of what “the past can do for

should be replaced. This could be done through “replica,

us” (p. 38). The first is that the past gives us a familiarity

conjectectural recreation or pastiche” (p. 57). Partly this

that is necessary to understand the present context

approach can be applied by architects, although the World

(pp. 39-40). Secondly the past reaffirms and validates

Heritage Operational Guidelines (UNESCO, 2013) only

today’s historical objects, “it validates the present

justify reconstruction when it is based on “complete and

attitudes and actions by affirming their resemblance to

detailed documentation and to no extend on conjecture”

(i) It is a masterpiece at once of hydraulic engineering, of town planning and of a programme of architectural construction (ii) The property is testimony to a considerable exchange of ideas over a period of almost two centuries, with respect not only to civil engineering, town planning, and architecture but also in a series of technical, maritime, and cultural fields. (iv) The canal district in Amsterdam built in the 17th century, represents an outstanding type of built urban ensemble that required and illustrated a diverse range of expertise in hydraulics, civil engineering, town planning, and building and architectural techniques. (ICOMOS, 2010, pp. 263-264)

The Advisory Body Evaluation finds authenticity of the

one note regarding the consolidation of a few lots, however

think not. I think Amsterdam is still leaning towards the

canal ring in its ensemble, its facades, hydraulic and

they quickly jump back to the visual aspect: “the external

conventional approach, but combining it with the values-

urban organisation. However, these are mainly external

appearance of the buildings has been conserved in the

led approach. As UNESCO describes, this is possible since

or visual aspects. When describing, the authenticity

vast majority of cases […] and the state of conservation of

“many management systems contain elements of both

Amsterdam and the International Council on Monuments

the facades is generally good” (p. 262). It shows that the

approaches”. However, I think it is also counteracting in

and Sites (ICOMOS) are mainly talking about the visual

focus of Amsterdam, regarding authenticity and integrity,

Amsterdam’s case. Without a clear decision the strength

values. This makes sense, since almost 40% of the people

mostly lies on the visible aspects of the canal ring, not so

of the canal ring is placed too much on the external

who are present in the Amsterdam city centre during the

much on what is less visible (ICOMOS, 2010).

values.

of them are visiting Amsterdam for its history and canals

This brings us to the second approach: the values-led

Amsterdam is following a values-led approach in

(Gemeente Amsterdam, 2008). Tourists walk, cycle or

approach (UNESCO et al., 2013). With this the “significance

some ways, which helps them to assess the canal ring

float through the canals and only (need to) see the water,

of a place” is assessed. This is done through assessment

on authenticity. But since the term authenticity is so

streets and historical facades. In a way the canal ring

of values, authenticity and integrity. The World Heritage

broad, arguments are easily found to say many aspects

functions as a museum. The growing amount of tourists is

has shifted towards this approach by introducing the

are authentic. I think this is leading to a conventional

partly due to the listing of the area as World Heritage. It

Outstanding Universal Value which every listed World

approach since everything authentic should be kept.

creates “an enormous economic value […] and attraction

Heritage should posess. Therefore, in a way every World

Professor Paul Meurs (2004) describes in his article

of tourists and companies” (Avis and Greter, 2011, p. 14).

Heritage is listed with the values-led approach. According

‘Segregated but united’ how The Netherlands is trotting

Partly for them, the external view of the canal ring will be

to the UNESCO (2013, par. 82, p.22), authenticity should be

on with its heritage. “Everything that is old acquires

exhaustively preserved, even reconstructed.

expressed through the values and significance that are

historic importance” (p. 176). We can no longer see or

part of several aspects:

show what our identity is. He argues that with today’s

week are visitors (ten Berge and Jakobs, 2012). And many

However,

this

what

Amsterdam

afraid

of:

projects “historical identity is designed anew, without any

museumification. The city centre is still very vivid, due

Form and design

connection with the background, underlying functions

to the many locals that are present, 61% of the people

Materials and substance

or regional characteristics.” (p. 177) I think this is what

who are present in the city centre at a certain moment

Use and function

happens in Amsterdam, where sometimes 17th or 18th

are Amsterdam residents (ten Berge and Jakobs, 2012).

Tradition, techniques and management systems

century facades are reconstructed while many of the

Nevertheless, many locals complain about the enormous

Location and settings

current facades in the canal ring date back to the 19th

amount of visitors, and their pressure on the city. What

Language, and other forms of intangible heritage

century. Meurs writes that this was the age when the

if the inhabitants want to move to a quieter place and

Spirit and feeling

Dutch collective memory was created. He gives a solution

move out of the city? The liveliness will move away with

Other internal and external factors.

for people to be able to relate better to their heritage:

them, creating an actual open-air museum. Visually it will

Amsterdam is more or less safeguarding the values of

by creating a bigger cohesion between “old history” and

be the authentic historic city. But functionally it will not

most of these aspects. But is it safeguarding the use

“recent history”. He states there should be “less emphasis

be authentic. Amsterdam and ICOMOS are hardly talking

and function; and the internal form and design? Due to

on isolated monuments” and “more on big structures and

about internal aspects like functionality. They only make

their focus on the external aspects of the canal ring, I

space” (p. 180). This will lead to a better readability of the

134

city. In addition, Jo Coenen (2006) pleas for an approach where past, present and future “relate […] continually to one another” (p.7), instead of seeing them as “separate entities”. He gives five ways to relate to the existing: “continuity, polarity, dialogue, congruence and blending.” Both Meurs and Coenen show a values-led approach, with a big concern towards context. This could mean that a building can be transformed to a more contemporary building. Although with respect and understanding to its context and history, and the values that come from that. To my idea Amsterdam should lean much more to the values-led approach to be able to preserve the authentic canal ring. By following a little bit of both approaches, instead of one, the focus mainly lies on the visual values. But at the same time the enormous tourism flows demands a change behind the façade. If the values of the canal ring behind the facades are being ignored, the relation between the facades and what lies behind it will decrease. This is both unauthentic and it will lead to museumification.

MSc ARCHITECTURE HERITAGE & ARCHITECTURE TUTORS: L. MEIJERS; F. KOOPMAN DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 2016