This article was downloaded by:[Davidts, Wouter]On: 26 April 2008Access Details: [subscription number 792539098]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Architectural Theory ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t781137234

Nostalgia and pragmatism: Architecture and the newstedelijk Museum, AmsterdamWouter Davidts

Online Publication Date: 01 April 2008To cite this Article: Davidts, Wouter (2008) 'Nostalgia and pragmatism: Architectureand the new stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam ', Architectural Theory Review, 13:1, 97 -111To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/13264820801918314URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13264820801918314

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Dav

idts

, Wou

ter]

At:

08:3

6 26

Apr

il 20

08

Nostalgia and Pragmatism: Architectureand the New Stedelijk Museum,

Amsterdam*

WOUTER DAVIDTS

In April 2007, the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam finally began the

construction of a new extension, designed by the Dutch firm Benthem Crouwel

Architects, after seventeen years of internal and public controversy. In the

context of a global enthusiasm for museum refurbishment or renewal, this

article analyses the new building for the Stedelijk Museum and asks if it will

bring about the long-awaited salvation. Via a detailed analysis of a report of

2003 on the future of the museum on the one hand and of the building brief

on the other, the article demonstrates that the new extension of the Stedelijk is

not so much aimed at defining a new and challenging museum typology, but

is plagued by both pragmatism and nostalgia about a glorious period in its

history, epitomized by the charismatic museum director Willem Sandberg.

Introduction

Don’t push me ‘cause I’m close to the edgeI’m trying not to lose my head.(Grandmaster Flash, The Message, 1982)

For some time, the international museum community has been afflicted by what Stephen E. Weilaptly labeled in the mid 1990s as an ‘‘edifice complex.’’1 In the last decades, just about everymuseum of some stature has at least once renovated, rebuilt, extended or added to its existingbuilding patrimony. No museum seems to be able to resist the pervasive urge to expand, grow andrenew its architectural premises. The option to preserve a museum in a fixed state has little or nocharm, and gains no important media attention. ‘‘When,’’ Weil ironically asked, ‘‘was a museum

Corresponding author: Wouter Davidts, e-mail: wouter.davidts@ugent.be

ATR 13:1/08

ISSN 1326-4826 print/ISSN 1755-0475 onlineª 2008 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13264820801918314

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Dav

idts

, Wou

ter]

At:

08:3

6 26

Apr

il 20

08 director last honored for a twenty-year record of consistent resistance to every expansionary

impulse?’’2 After all, building plans for museums create high expectations, present an exhilaratingchallenge, and offer an opportunity for heroic achievements at both the board and staff levels.Architecture, so we are made to believe, enables institutions to break new ground, not merely in theliteral sense. The countless plans for renovations, additions and extensions are rarely marked by themere ambition to expand the facilities and to provide the museum with supplementary space. Quitethe contrary, every major building campaign is coupled with the ambition to ‘‘tackle’’ the museuminstitution as well, on both a micro and macro level. Architecture is taken up as the appropriatemedium to rethink and remodel both the hosting institution as well as the global concept of themuseum. With a new building, a museum is not only expected, as Glen D. Lowry put it at the startof the building campaign of New York Museum of Modern art, to ‘‘fundamentally alter its space,’’ butto present a blueprint for a museum of the future as well.

But what are the results of this general quest for fundamentally new spatial concepts for themuseum? From the Neue Staatsgalerie, the Groninger Museum, the Guggenheim Bilbao, theMilwaukee Art Museum to Tate Modern, we have been regaled with the most diverse and spectaculararchitectural appearances, ranging from museums that look like hospitals, prisons, jewel boxes,spacecrafts, offices, and even all sorts of fishes. But has this architectural extravaganza offered asimilar amount of thought-provoking institutional structures in exchange? Upon closer scrutiny of thekaleidoscopic collection of new museums and museum extensions of the last three decades, we mustadmit that, despite the euphoric, exhilarated tone of the discourse on museum architecture, very fewgenuinely innovative museum projects have been completed that have the same kind of combinedarchitectural and institutional vigour as the Centre Pompidou. Major institutional aspirations do notalways result in key architectural achievements. All too often, reality turns out otherwise, andeconomic, political and bureaucratic forces oblige institutions to scale down their desires to a morepragmatic level.

The past building campaign of the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam is a good case in point. Widelyheld as one of the five most important collections of modern and contemporary art, next to theCentre Pompidou in Paris, the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Tate Gallery in London andthe Guggenheim Museum and its different international branches, the Stedelijk has been oddlylagging behind in terms of architectural expansions and extravaganza. Its colleagues, however, allplayed key roles over the past decades. Whereas the Centre Pompidou (1977, Renzo Piano andRichard Rogers) is commonly credited as the eminent start of the museum boom in the late 1970s,the Guggenheim in Bilbao (1997, Frank Gehry) caused what is now universally termed as theBilbao effect at the turn of the century. The Tate Gallery in its turn transformed a derelict powerstation into its new branch, the Tate Modern (2000, Herzog and de Meuron), which soon turnedout to be ‘‘the most popular museum of modern art in the world.’’3 While the Museum of ModernArt in New York has extended no less than four times its original building (1939, Philip L. Goodwinand Edward Durell Stone) in central Manhattan, almost doubling its floor space with the latestexpansion (2004, Yoshio Taniguchi). In contrast, the Stedelijk Museum only extended its building

Davidts

98

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Dav

idts

, Wou

ter]

At:

08:3

6 26

Apr

il 20

08 once, with a small wing in at the back of the museum in 1954 (J. Sargentini and F. Eschauzier).

In the past four decades, the museum continued to operate in its given building (1892-1895, A.W.Weissman). In Spring 2007, however, the Stedelijk finally commenced the construction of a newextension, designed by the Dutch firm Benthem Crouwel Architects. After seventeen years of tiresomestruggle, during which two architects fell by the wayside, the museum finally embarked on theexpansion of its premises. With this new scheme, the Stedelijk is believed to close a dramaticchapter in its history and to move swiftly into the future. But does the new building in fact provideenough reasons for optimism? Is this the architecture that will bring about the long-awaitedsalvation?

Back to the Top

The saga began in 1990, when director Wim Beeren launched the idea of an expansion of the buildingbetween the Museumplein and Paulus Potterstraat. Shortly before his retirement in 1992 he organized alimited competition. In March, 1993, a proposal by the Americans Venturi, Scott Brown and Associateswas selected. Although Rudi Fuchs, who had succeeded Beeren in February, 1993, had formally promisedto respect the outcome of the competition, in late 1994 he thanked Venturi for services rendered andbrought in the Portuguese Alvaro Siza. After an exasperatingly slow design process and protracteddeliberations filling seven years, Fuchs resigned in December, 2002. Just as he was heading out the doorhe obtained the approval of the Mayor and Aldermen for a significantly slimmed-down andfundamentally altered version of Siza’s design. The institution, on the other hand, remained behind, intotal despair.4

June 21, 2003, was the turning point in the gloomy history of the new Stedelijk. On that day theCommittee on the Future of the Stedelijk Museum, made up of Martijn Sanders, then director of theAmsterdam Concert Hall, Victor Halberstadt, Professor of Public Finances at the University of Leiden,and John Leighton, then director of the Van Gogh Museum, presented their report, entitled ‘‘Terugnaar de Top’’ or ‘‘Back to the Top.’’ The Committee confirmed the Stedelijk Museum’s state of deepcrisis. The institution was edging toward the point where it could no longer live up to the reputationits name carried.5 The conservation and administration of its collection was inadequate, the buildingwas in a deplorable state, management left a lot to be desired, there was a total lack of vision, andthe museum was plagued by a structural shortage of political support and financial resources. TheCommittee’s devastating judgement concluded that, in 2003, the Museum ‘‘has a first-class but bynow languishing collection, a building that has alas been seriously neglected, and a likewisedemotivated staff.’’ To put this dramatic situation right the Committee proposed a ‘‘new mission’’ forthe Stedelijk on six fronts, with advice regarding the optimal use of the existing collection, the futureexhibition policy, the balance between short-term exhibitions and collection presentation, theMuseum’s public appeal, and the institution’s reputation in art scholarship. The greatest concern ofthe Committee was that the Museum should recover the standing it once had, and once again growto be a ‘‘difficult, controversial and impudent, but thus also always dynamic, adventurous andstimulating’’ institution. In short, their most important recommendation, as the Committee said

ATR 13:1/08

99

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Dav

idts

, Wou

ter]

At:

08:3

6 26

Apr

il 20

08 themselves in the second sentence of the covering letter accompanying their report, could be

‘‘summarized succinctly’’: ‘‘Back to the Top.’’

But this was certainly not their most direct piece of advice; that undoubtedly involved architecture.The plans by Siza that had been approved, the gentlemen wrote, did not ‘‘fit’’ with the ‘‘proposedaspirations and the concrete elements in terms of museal elaboration, area and finances whichaccompany them.’’ The most important reason given for this is that at the time Siza was developing hisplans there had never been ‘‘a clear vision and aspiration for the Stedelijk Museum and a specificprogramme of requirements based on that, drawn up with the assistance of the expertise and knowledgeof the staff.’’6

The consequences of this advice were not long in coming. In January, 2004, the design by Alvaro Sizawas definitively consigned to the wastebasket by Mayor and Aldermen.7 At the same time, on the adviceof the Committee, a new start was made, with a new programme of requirements, this time drawn up inclose cooperation with the staff of the Stedelijk Museum. That package of requirements was ready inJune, and five architectural firms were invited to present a draft scheme for the expansion.

Back to Willem Sandberg

It is striking that both documents—the 2003 ‘‘Terug naar de top’’ (‘‘Back to the Top’’) report andthe 2004 programme of requirements—are rife with words that refer to crisis and recovery. The 2004programme of requirements, however, also strikes a nostalgic note. The introduction, ‘‘Eenheid inTweevoud’’ (‘‘Unity in Duality’’), written by the Dutch essayist and architecture critic Max van Rooy,is entirely pervaded by the golden age of the Stedelijk: ‘‘Unpredictable hub of cultural life: that is theposition that the Stedelijk Museum wants to recapture in the coming years.’’8 Moreover, even morethan the Committee’s report, the programme of requirements makes clear what the benchmark forthat glorious past was: the directorate of the charismatic Willem Sandberg. After all, it was Sandbergwho saw the Stedelijk grow into a ‘‘dynamic Valhalla of modern art’’ in the years between 1945 and1962. Van Rooy tells us that the ‘‘revolutionary tone of the Stedelijk Museum’’ was established when‘‘in a poem [Sandberg declared] ‘his’ museum a ‘focus’ of life.’’ Although his successors have eachleft ‘‘a very personal stamp on the vital house for modern art,’’ it is ‘‘Sandberg’s scintillating avant-garde spirit’’ that once put the Stedelijk at the centre of the contemporary art world.9 According toVan Rooy the future of the Stedelijk will be assured ‘‘when it regains the qualities of its heyday:exciting, controversial, trend-setting, adventurous. The public and artists must be given good groundsfor a new love affair. The museum will again become an inspiring meeting place for allAmsterdam—not just everyone who loves the visual arts and design, but also those who fall for thevain mix of fashion and design that is called lifestyle will feel its attraction. A rendezvous at theStedelijk must again become the thing to do.’’10

At the point where the programme of requirements translates the Committee’s aspirations intoconcrete guidelines for architecture, however, the veneration of Sandberg takes a strange twist.

Davidts

100

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Dav

idts

, Wou

ter]

At:

08:3

6 26

Apr

il 20

08 Respect for what the latter bequeathed to the Stedelijk as a building seems to be inversely

proportional to the regard for his role in the growth and development of the Stedelijk as aninstitution. Suddenly the Sandberg nostalgia vanishes, and everything revolves around the buildingby Weissman. To be sure, in the ‘‘points of departure for the renovation of the old building’’ rubric ofthe programme of requirements we read that, ‘‘after it was established in 1895, there is one period inwhich the museum underwent radical adaptations, the underlying motives of which have defined thedevelopment and position of the museum: the Sandberg era.’’ But what is held to count as theseadaptations turns out to be rather limited: merely Sandberg’s changes to the interior of Weissman’sDutch neo-Renaissance building. Only these small interventions are considered to be ‘‘intrinsic to thehistory of the Stedelijk and its reputation for being in the vanguard’’ and are ‘‘therefore included inthe monument.’’ However, what Sandberg’s early interventions actually consisted of—such aspainting the brickwork in the stair hall white, removing the wainscoting and introducing light wallcoverings in the galleries—goes unmentioned, and is absolutely not interpreted historically. Theauthors merely remember ‘‘the image of airy, austere galleries and pellucid light.’’ This, however,doesn’t inhibit them from suggesting ‘‘a detailing in the spirit of the Sandberg period’’ for therestoration and renovation of the various exhibition galleries. What is more, the programme ofrequirements bluntly decrees that all in-fills and later extensions must be demolished. Any survey ofhow, where, when and at whose initiative the museum building was modified, is lacking.11 The onlyextension which is mentioned is the new wing that Sandberg built on the Van Baerlestraat (1954,J. Sargentini and F. Eschauzier) (Fig. 1). About this so-called Sandberg Wing, the programme israther terse: ‘‘[it] must be demolished.’’ The reason for its demolition is summed up in twoastounding sentences: ‘‘This building is insufficiently functional and is in a poor structural state.Maintaining it would not be justified, and moreover the limitations its presence places on plansfor new construction are too substantial.’’ In the introduction, Van Rooy is equally blunt. TheSandberg Wing, he states, ‘‘is another story. It was intended as an expansion of the exhibitionspace, but because of its long glass facades it has never functioned optimally as such. Inarchitectonic terms the wing is also no high-flier, and this, added to its poor structural condition,justifies demolition.’’

Based on purely practical arguments, and without the least acknowledgment of its architectural,cultural or art-historical significance, a crucial token of the Stedelijk Museum’s architectural past isdiscarded. As Amsterdam’s Department of Monuments and Archaeology, however, had already pointedout as early as May, 2004, in doing so the Stedelijk was employing a blinkered definition of theconcept of ‘‘old building.’’ After all, not only Weissman’s building, but also the adaptations andexpansions under Sandberg—and certainly the Sandberg Wing—can be considered ‘‘essential—andinternationally respected—contributions’’ to museum architecture.12 With its open floor plan andwindows from floor to ceiling the expansion’s discrete volume was undeniably a product ofSandberg’s innovative vision of a democratic, accessible and ‘‘living’’ museum. The 1954 wing, whichhe later invariably labeled as his ‘‘experimental model of a new museum,’’ was at the same time anearly architectural expression of the ideology of flexibility that would become popular in the1970s, and would reach its climax in the Centre Pompidou (Fig. 2).13 In particular, the

ATR 13:1/08

101

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Dav

idts

, Wou

ter]

At:

08:3

6 26

Apr

il 20

08

Figure 1 Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, exterior view of Sandberg wing, 2004. (Photo: Jean-Pierre Le Blanc).

Figure 2 Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, Interior view of the exhibition Modern Art Old and New in new

Sandberg Wing, 1955. (Source: Cor Blok and Riet De Leeuw (reds.), De kunst van het tentoonstellen. Depresentatie van beeldende kunst in Nederland van 1800 tot heden, Amsterdam, Meulenhoff, 1991, p. 129).

Davidts

102

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Dav

idts

, Wou

ter]

At:

08:3

6 26

Apr

il 20

08 diagrammatic articulation of the plan—brilliantly

rendered by the illustration accompanying Sand-berg’s text ‘‘Museums at the Crossroads’’ in the 1979book Museum in ¿Motion?—was pioneering for itstime (Fig. 3).

Like the artwork in a collection or the books in alibrary, buildings are an indispensable part of aninstitution’s patrimony. The memory of the museumnot only takes shape in the collection, but also in andthrough architecture. All too often ambitious plans forrenovation or extension are at the expense of thisarchitectural heritage. As Victoria Newhouse oncecorrectly suggested, museum trustees, directors andstaffs have repeatedly done things to their buildingsthat would be unthinkable if applied to theircollections.14 Still, it doesn’t have to be that way.The recent renovation of the Boijmans Van BeuningenMuseum in Rotterdam (Robbrecht and Daem, 2003)proves that expansion and functional demands do notnecessarily result in symbolic loss. Robbrecht andDaem’s design succeeded in preserving the varioushistoric fragments of a building that was at least ashybrid and silted up as the Stedelijk, restoring themand building on their strengths. The various wings ofthe Boijmans were analysed for their architecturalvalue and spatial identities, in order to then enrolthem within a programmatic and architectural masterplan on the basis of this analysis.15

Architecture and the Museum ofTomorrow

If the programme of requirements shows hardly anyinterest in the Stedelijk’s architectural history, itgives just as little evidence of a vision of the role ofthe future architecture.16 Only two tiny paragraphsare devoted to the points of departure for the new building scheme. The first paragraph deals withurban planning problems, arguing for a solution involving the landscaping of the Museumplein, andin particular for the accursed ‘‘dog-ear,’’ the grass-covered triangle of turf angling upward over theentrance to the Albert Heijn supermarket on the Van Baerlestraat behind the museum. Or, as Van

Figure 3 Willem Sandberg, Schematic floor

plan of new museum wing, 1954. (Source:

Carel Blotkamp et al. (eds.), Museum in¿Motion?, The modern art museum at issue/

Museum in ¿Beweging? Het museum voormoderne kunst ter diskussie, ‘s-Gravenhage,

Govt. Pub. Office, 1979, p. 330).

ATR 13:1/08

103

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Dav

idts

, Wou

ter]

At:

08:3

6 26

Apr

il 20

08 Rooy imploringly says in the preamble, it ‘‘must be possible to settle scores in an aesthetically

responsible manner with this gesture of the park landscape, turning its back on the museum.’’ Thesecond paragraph deals with the function of architecture in relation to the museum’s functions. Hereone cliche follows on the heels of the other. ‘‘The new building is a building which must enable artto be shown to its fullest advantage, and where the public feels at home. The architecture isrestrained and the detailing subtle and minimal. The architecture is in the service of the art. Thevisitor must be carried along the art in a natural way. Over against this reflective atmosphere standsthe fact that the new building also forms the beating heart of the museum, housing the entrancehall, the knowledge centre, the auditorium and the restaurant. An active atmosphere dominates inthese places.’’ Van Rooy phrases the relation between old and new in still another way: ‘‘It would beideal if the architecture critic soon says something to the effect of ‘harmonious contrasts’.’’ Accordingto Van Rooy, the architectural ensemble of the Stedelijk must exude ‘‘unity in duality.’’

Thus the Stedelijk does not touch on anything beyond a couple of predictable briefs for architecture. Anyaspirations to engage architecture in the design of a truly innovative museum for tomorrow are absent.This might not come as a surprise, since the 2004 programme of requirements doesn’t contain abalance of the current state of affairs in the international art and museum world, let alone a vision ofthe museum of the future. The contrast with the rhetoric of foreign institutions like the MoMA or theTate Modern is simply enormous. When the latter began their building campaigns, the architecturalproject was explicitly connected with institutional ambitions. None of this is found in the Stedelijk.Architecture is not enrolled to reinvent the museum, but simply to let it recover. The unabashedSandberg nostalgia combined with the terms referring to regeneration and restoration in the report andprogramme of requirements, clearly reveal that the Stedelijk Museum is above all narcissistically riddenwith its own problems and wallowing in a sense of crisis.17 First and foremost, it wants to get its acttogether, and then to get ‘‘back to the top.’’

Benthem Crouwel’s Bathtub

On September 2, 2004, the Dutch firm, Benthem Crouwel Architects, were proclaimed winners in thearchitectural competition, with a design that was rather quickly nicknamed ‘‘the bathtub’’ in thepopular press (Figs. 4, 5).18 The contrast with the previous design by Alvaro Siza is considerable. InSiza’s design a series of building volumes of various heights were grouped around an inner courtyardwith gardens and patios. Benthem Crouwel trades this careful linking of introverted spaces for onefreestanding sculptural volume, one spectacular Gestalt on the corner of Museumplein. Seen from adistance, their design does everything to score points. The building is a powerful and strikingpresence, yet neither too complex nor affected. It has a recognizable form that easily leaves animpression on one’s memory. The building has everything to become a landmark, and with nofurther ado can be used as an icon and logo on letterheads, shopping bags and other merchandising.In relation to the Museumplein, the building makes a clear and simple statement: it provides a plazathat runs from inside the museum outward—an obligatory gesture since the Centre Pompidou.Finally, the ‘‘bathtub’’ is a specimen of structural innovation, which guarantees the requisite spectacle

Davidts

104

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Dav

idts

, Wou

ter]

At:

08:3

6 26

Apr

il 20

08

and technological bravura. At first, thus, this design fulfils all the standard requirements for a ‘‘newmuseum.’’

But apart from that striking exterior, there is little exciting about Benthem Crouwel’s actual museumscheme. To begin with, the architects have made little effort to put the old and new building in aproductive rapport. The bathtub simply stands next to Weissman’s building, distancing itselfcircumspectly by means of a ‘‘light street’’ (a glassed-over passage) which permits the underlying area tobe appropriately rechristened as an ‘‘orientation space.’’ The old building emerges merely as a decorativefacade in the open vestibule of the new extension. It requires an awful lot of good will to baptise thiscrude juxtaposition as a ‘‘harmonious contrast.’’

Finally, the interior of the new building is marked by a conformist and pragmatic spatial layout. Thetub contains a medium-sized and a small gallery with top light, flanked on the one side by a videospace and on the other by an auditorium. The offices for the museum staff are arranged along thefull length of the roof. There are two medium-sized galleries, a large gallery and a series of spaces inthe basement for technical services. The large public functions, such as the ticket desk, theinformation counter, the museum shop, the educational spaces, the restaurant and the ‘‘knowledge

Figure 4 Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, Exterior view of extension from Van Baerlestraat, Benthem Crouwel

Architects, 2006.

ATR 13:1/08

105

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Dav

idts

, Wou

ter]

At:

08:3

6 26

Apr

il 20

08

centre’’ (a new name for the library, analogous to the ‘‘idea stores’’ in Great Britain) are situated inthe large, transparent lobby on the ground floor (Fig. 6). In theory, the combination of theseprogrammes could produce a fascinating conglomerate, but in practice the parts are tidily delineatedand laid out next to one another. Any interesting links between the distinct functions, excitingparcours or inventive spatial solutions are simply absent. The diversity of the programmes is notarticulated in any meaningful manner, and one is left guessing at the respective functions and theirvarious regimes of use. For the rest, it is difficult to conceive that the knowledge centre and itsaccompanying activities of research and reflection are going to thrive in a hall simultaneously beingused for shopping, dining, get-togethers and lounging. It is highly unlikely that the planned coupleof carrels will offer any solace. The location of the knowledge centre in the glazed void of thevestibule is actually the most flagrant example of undisguised Sandberg nostalgia. The by nowcompletely hackneyed idiom of transparency, accessibility and receptivity—be it noted, translated bySandberg himself into the idea of an ‘‘open’’ museum and materialized in the 1954 expansion—ishere recycled in a new packaging that is at the same time pragmatic and futuristic. It isincomprehensible that the core space of a museum that (according to the 2003 report) should placeits collection back at the heart of its being, holds the middle between an airport terminal, a shoppingmall and an administrative centre (Fig. 7).

Figure 5 Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, Exterior view of extension from Museumplein, Benthem Crouwel

Architects, 2006.

Davidts

106

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Dav

idts

, Wou

ter]

At:

08:3

6 26

Apr

il 20

08

Figure 6 Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, Interior view of vestibule, Benthem Crouwel Architects, 2006.

Figure 7 Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, Interior view of vestibule, Benthem Crouwel Architects, 2006.

ATR 13:1/08

107

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Dav

idts

, Wou

ter]

At:

08:3

6 26

Apr

il 20

08 What more is there to say about this design? Not much, or so it would already seem from the jury’s final

report. In vain one searches for a thoroughly reasoned justification for their choice of BenthemCrouwel.19 While the other submissions are occasionally sharply criticized, the winning project onlyreceives vague and platitudinous praise. Especially the conclusion is surprisingly simple: ‘‘BenthemCrouwel has succeeded in giving shape to the concept of ‘unity in duality’ in a superior manner. That isa question of architecture. Moreover, Benthem Crouwel has succeeded in turning the face of theStedelijk toward the Museumplein. That is a question of urban planning. With this design, BenthemCrouwel have shown themselves masters of their metier in both fields. The realization of the BenthemCrouwel plan is something to be eagerly awaited.’’

Epilogue: The First Stone

On October 9, 2006, the Sandberg Wing was demolished, after the new director Gijs van Tuyl steereda bulldozer into it and Amsterdam’s Alderwoman for Culture, Carolien Gehrels, threw a stone throughone of the windows (Fig. 8). That Gehrels gave this ‘‘festive starting signal’’ at the invitation of theStedelijk Museum itself lent added significance to her remarks afterwards. ‘‘Sandberg himself wasinnovative, controversial, bursting with life. That’s why almost all of the people present threw stones.

Figure 8 Newspaper article on destruction of the Sandberg wing, Stenen gooiennaar het Stedelijk (Throwing Stones at the Stedelijk), in: De Telegraaf, 10 October

2006.

Davidts

108

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Dav

idts

, Wou

ter]

At:

08:3

6 26

Apr

il 20

08 It was precisely out of respect for Sandberg, the innovator. It was perhaps somewhat provocative, but

that’s what the Stedelijk has always been.’’20 The demolition makes painfully clear what role andmeaning the legacy of the legendary museum director is really being given within the overallrenewal process. It is not Sandberg’s wealth of ideas and innovative vision, but the atmosphere ofexcitement and controversy that was associated with the early years of his directorship that isimportant. It is Sandberg the instigator that the Stedelijk pines for. Whether the design by BenthemCrouwel will allow the museum to grow into the ‘‘vibrant place’’ that it was under Sandberg is deeplydoubtful. Outside the bold gesture of the hanging tub and the massive canopy, the design has little tooffer. But in the end that is not surprising; the 2004 programme of requirements had demanded littlefrom the architecture of the Stedelijk anyway, beyond delivering the requisite floor and wall space.Fortunately architectural history has shown that use is often more decisive for a building than itsarchitecture. While in most cases this turns out badly, for the Stedelijk that might still be reason forhope.

Endnotes* This is a revised and extended version of an essay that first appeared in the journal De Witte Raaf, 128

(2007): pp. 15-17. Translation from Dutch to English by Don Mader.

1 Stephen E. Weil, ‘‘A brief meditation on museums and the metaphor of institutional growth,’’ in Stephen E.Weil (ed), A Cabinet Of Curiosities: Inquiries into Museums and their Prospects, Washington: SmithsonianInstitution Press, 1995, p. 42.

2 Weil, ‘‘A brief meditation,’’ p. 42.

3 Tate Modern, Press Release, Transforming Tate Modern: A New Museum for Twenty-First Century Britain,London, 25 July 2006, p. 6. The comparative annual visitor figures for 2005/6 that the Press Release offers areTate Modern (4.1 m), MoMA New York (2.67 m), Centre Pompidou, Paris (2.5 m), Guggenheim New York(0.9 m), Guggenheim Bilbao (0.9 m) and SFMoMA, San Francisco (0.7 m).

4 The first reports about the possible expansion of the Stedelijk appeared in the spring of 1990. See Wim Beeren,‘‘Een mogelijke uitbreiding,’’ Stedelijk Museum Bulletin (January, 1990): p. 6; Hugo Bongers, ‘‘Nieuwbouw

Stedelijk Museum,’’ Stedelijk Museum Bulletin (February, 1990): p. 16. The other participants in the firstcompetition in 1992 were O.M.A (Rem Koolhaas), Wim Quist and Carl Weeber. For more information aboutthis first competition and the ultimate dismissal of Venturi in 1995, see, among others: ‘‘Studie-ontwerpen

nieuwbouw,’’ Stedelijk Museum Bulletin (December 1992-January 1993): p. 11; Martijn vanNieuwenhuyzen, ‘‘Uitbreiding Stedelijk Museum: Venturi, Scott Brown and Associates,’’ Stedelijk MuseumBulletin (March, 1993): pp. 30-32; Hugo Bongers, ‘‘Uitbreiding Stedelijk Museum: Nieuwe ontwikkelingen,’’in Stedelijk Museum Bulletin (April, 1994): p. 50; Arthur Worthman, ‘‘Het Stedelijk Museum:

projectontwikkelaarscachet of undergroundkunst,’’ Archis, 2, (February, 1993): pp. 2-5; Arthur Worthman,‘‘Exit Venturi,’’ Archis, 1 (January, 1995): p. 16. For the situation surrounding the resignation of Rudi Fuchs,see, among others: Sven Lutticken, ‘‘Stedelijk Museum,’’ De Witte Raaf, 101 (January-February, 2003).

5 Advies Commissie Toekomst Stedelijk Museum (Martijn Sanders (chairman), Victor Halberstadt & JohnLeighton), ‘‘Het Stedelijk Museum: Terug Naar de Top (Back to the Top),’’ Amsterdam, June 21, 2003. Sincethis report was only written in Dutch, all quotations in this essay have been translated. All further quotationsare from this report, unless indicated otherwise.

ATR 13:1/08

109

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Dav

idts

, Wou

ter]

At:

08:3

6 26

Apr

il 20

08 6 In 1994 the management consultancy Twijnstra Gudde assembled a programme of requirements that was

rightly described by the committee as purely ‘‘quantitative.’’ See Twijnstra Gudde, Management Consultants,‘‘Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam: Programma van Eisen voor de renovatie en uitbreiding van het Stedelijk

Museum,’’ Amsterdam, March 24, 1994.

7 Despite the committee’s recommendation to ‘‘wrap up the relation with Siza with regard to the existing plansin a respectful manner,’’ the architect heard the news via the media. See Rob Gollin, ‘‘Siza boos over breuk

Stedelij: Architect overweegt juridische stappen,’’ De Volkskrant, (Saturday, January 3, 2004); Anonymous,‘‘Architect Siza boos op Stedelijk en gemeente,’’ NRC Handelsblad (Monday, January 5, 2004).

8 Max van Rooy, ‘‘Eenheid in Tweevoud,’’ in City of Amsterdam, Project Management Bureau, Het nieuwe

Stedelijk Museum. Ruimtelijk, functioneel en technisch Programma van Eisen. Ten behoeve van de

locatie Paulus Potterstraat/Museumplein, Amsterdam (June 11, 2004): pp. ii-v.

9 City of Amsterdam, Project Management Bureau, Het nieuwe Stedelijk Museum.

10 van Rooy, ‘‘Eenheid in Tweevoud,’’ p. 2. In his 1959 manifesto NU (Now), Sandberg argues that he isattempting ‘‘to create surroundings where the vanguard feels at home . . . a real centre for present life.’’ Themuseum needs to turn into a home for ‘‘everything that will brighten the features of the face of our time, forevery contribution to the form of the present . . . [for] all material of today, apt to build the future.’’ It needs tobecome a ‘‘place where people dare to talk, laugh and be themselves.’’ See: Willem Sandberg, NU, Hilversum:Steendrukkerij De Jong & Co, 1959, p. 30. An expanded version of the manifesto appeared under the titlemusea op de tweesprong/museums at the crossroads, in: Carel Blotkamp et al. (eds), Museum in ¿Motion?,The modern art museum at issue/Museum in ¿Beweging? Het museum voor moderne kunst ter diskussie,s-Gravenhage: Govt. Pub. Office, 1979, pp. 321-331.

11 For a detailed description of the interventions by Sandberg, see the chapter ‘‘Het tweede gezicht; hetexperimenteermodel van Sandberg,’’ in Bureau Monumenten & Archeologie Amsterdam, Het Stedelijk

Museum. Architectuur in dienst van de kunst, Amsterdam, 2004, pp. 33-37.

12 Bureau Monumenten & Archeologie Amsterdam, Het Stedelijk Museum, pp. 41-43.

13 When Sandberg expounded his ideas regarding the tasks, functioning and ambiance of a museum forcontemporary or current art in the text ‘‘Reflexions disparates sur l’organisation d’un musee d’art

d’aujourd’hui’’ in the journal Art d’Aujourd’hui in 1950, he observed in the margin that ‘‘[c]es reflexions ontete ecrites par un conservateur de musee qui tache de les realiser dans un vieux batiment.’’ He carried outseveral interventions on the old building to bring it up-to-date or to ‘modernise’ it, but nevertheless stayed in abuilding that was an expression of a nineteenth century museum typology, both with regard to its architecturalambiance and its spatial arrangement. See Willem Sandberg, Reflexions disparates sur l’organisation d’un

musee d’art d’aujourd’hui, Art d’Aujourd’hui 2, 1 (October, 1950): n.p. Later, when Sandberg was a memberof the jury for the architectural competition for the Centre Pompidou, he did not hesitate long before giving hisvote to the project from Piano & Rogers. According to him, it simply fulfilled ‘‘the dream about which I wrote in1950 in the magazine Art d’Aujourd’hui.’’ See: Willem Sandberg, as cited in Ad Petersen & Pieter Brattinga(eds), Sandberg. een documentaire/a documentary, Amsterdam: Kosmos, 1975, p. 108.

14 See the chapter ‘‘Wings That Don’t Fly (And Some That Do),’’ in Victoria Newhouse, Towards a New

Museum, New York: Monacelli Press, 1998, pp. 138-189.

15 For this, see among others, Wouter Davidts, ‘‘Robbrecht & Daem and the Museum Boijmans van

Beuningen. Architectural interventions so that things may overlap,’’ Maandberichten Museum Boijmans

van Beuningen (May 2003): pp. 2-7.

Davidts

110

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Dav

idts

, Wou

ter]

At:

08:3

6 26

Apr

il 20

08 16 Before the demolition the Amsterdam department for Monuments and Archaeology had already drawn the

painful conclusion that, ‘‘The only architectonic interest thus far appears to be the naming of an internationalstar and the dismissal of other international stars.’’ Bureau Monumenten & Archeologie Amsterdam, Het

Stedelijk Museum, p. 41, note 8.

17 Three debates about the future of the Stedelijk were organised in 2002-2003. Reports of these debates are to befound in: Stedelijk Museum Bulletin, 14, 6 (2002); Stedelijk Museum Bulletin 16, 1 (2003); Stedelijk

Museum Bulletin 16, 3 (2003). As Jorinde Seijdel recently demonstrated with her analysis of the policy plan2006-2008, this lack of a broader perspective on the issues surrounding museums today is structural for theStedelijk. See Jorinde Seijdel, ‘‘Het is eenzaam aan de top. De toekomst van het Stedelijk Museum,’’Metropolis M, 1 (2007): pp. 64-70.

18 The participants were Herman Hertzberger Architecture Studio, Benthem Crouwel Architects, Henket & PartnersArchitects, Diederen Dirrix van Wylick Architects and Claus and Kaan Architects. The jurors were Wim Pijbes,Wim Quist, Maarten Klos, Max van Rooy, Toon Verhoef, Hans van Beers, Herman van Vliet and Sjoerd Sjoeters.The jury report explicitly states that the selection committee ‘‘did not intentionally’’ choose Dutch architectsonly. The five firms were selected from over 40 applicants on the basis of ‘‘unconditional suitability for thespecific task in which new construction and renovation of the old building complement one another.’’ SeeJury Rapport architectenselectie Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam (August 31, 2004).

19 For that matter, the jury report fills only three short pages, the first of which is merely a recapitulation of thegeneral points of departure. Although it is not stated, from its tone it appears certain that once again Van Rooywas approached to write this text.

20 Carolien Gehrels, as quoted by Hans van der Beek, ‘‘Een Steen door de Geschiedenis,’’ Het Parool, (October13, 2006). The idea came from Marjolijn Broekhuizen, head of the Marketing and CommunicationsDepartment at the Stedelijk.

ATR 13:1/08

111