ARTS

Architecture

Dutch cultural munificence

Gavin Stamp visits the very latest in architectural fashion in the Netherlands Ansterdam is to Rotterdam as Edin- burgh is to Glasgow. The citizens of the

ancient and picturesque principal city of Holland, full of museums and cultural insti- tutions, look down on the brash, industrial, nouveau port which is but an hour's jour- ney to the south-east. Yet it was dynamic Rotterdam which managed to acquire the new Netherlands Architecture Institute — NAI — whose new home opened last Octo- ber. The architectural archives which were once in Amsterdam have now been moved to an extraordinary modern building, and wailing and gnashing of teeth can be heard in the old city. The parallels with the cur- rent row between Edinburgh and Glasgow over the siting of the putative National Gallery of Scottish Art are close.

There are `centres' or 'institutes' or `muse- ums for architecture' — an archive for drawings and photographs combined with a forum for discussion and exhibition — in Frankfurt and Montreal and elsewhere.

. Koolhas's building Is tiresomely affect- ed and gimmicky. Coenen's, similarly, exhibits that interest in deconstruction, in collisions between disparate forms that is usually encountered in flashy drawings for unexecuted projects inextricably associated with such places as the Architectural Asso- ciation in London. Yet it works, and suc- ceeds in creating a convincing urban context. The archive block — raised on stilts and leaning outwards, gently curves along the line of an existing road and ter- minates in sharp ship-like bows. This long structure forms a backdrop to the main library block, faced in glass and metal, which seems to be suspended within a giant pergola rising from water. Another axis is established by relating to the park and the road in front and, characteristically, Coenen exploits the resulting geometrical collision, making interesting shapes to form the entrance foyer and public areas.

The archive block of the Netherlands Architecture Ins titute To be in a building which represents the very latest in architectural fashion can be a little disconcerting. Those with no head for heights will not enjoy walking on metal grilles above the exhibition hall, and a simi- lar indulgence in references to the industri- al aesthetic of the heroic Modern Movement is evident in the extensive use of glass bricks and of flimsy, narrow `bridges' for circulation. That leaping across water from the street is gratuitously emphasised by a trivial concrete arch, so at least we know where the entrance is. Like so many architects today, Coenen is unable to indicate the difference between public and private spaces and, in consequence, visitors seem to get lost in the building. Worst of all is a real blunder. The archive block is connected to the elegantly fitted- out library/study hall by a single bridge. Architectural drawings are wheeled across this on trolleys — which then have to descend some two feet on a mechanical platform as the floor levels fail to corre- spond.

As this bridge can be seen to represent the connection between history and mod- ern practice, perhaps this inept disjunction is symbolic. Certainly the Dutch architec- tural profession — and, indeed, the histori- ans of the 20th century — have tended to identify exclusively with the Modern Move- ment. But, as in Britain, the real picture is more complicated and, just like here, there is also a gulf between the concerns of the architectural profession and the tastes of the public which needs to be bridged. As Adri Duivesteijn, the NAI's first director, writes, `I see stimu- lation of the debate on architecture as the most important task of the NAL . . . Architecture and its

\F ,t,t meaning for culture

and society is being ■ ,_ .it) discussed in

I'v.1 ',1 P extremely diverse ill, / manners and on lvt,0A2 diverse levels, but \

ti A.'■.1 all those separate voices are still too

‘ CI. separated from each

t: other by barriers of 0 incomprehension and timorousness. The NA1 will have to keep attempting to break down those barriers . . .'

History can help here, and a change in the Dutch atti- tude to the built past is evidently talking place. The inaugu- ral exhibition at the NAI is called `Style: Standard and Signature in Dutch architec- ture of the 19th and 20th centuries' and consists of architectural drawings and mod- els (all illustrated in the splendid catalogue edited by Bernard Colenbrander which, NB, is available in English). What is signifi- cant about this is that, for once, the survey is non-partisan and includes the many other styles practised with distinction by 20th-century Dutch architects: the wild eccentricity of the Amsterdam School, the eclecticism of Dudok, the romantic tradi- tionalism of Granpre Moliere, in addition to the grossly over-exposed modernism of Rietveld and Duiker.

This, for the Dutch, is revisionism. A similar exercise is currently being undertak- en in Amsterdam, in the great hall of the Beurs (the Exchange) the solid, rational turn-of-the-century brick masterpiece of H.

P. Berlage which Dutch architects see as the beginning of Dutch modernism (and which Amsterdam had hoped would be the home of the NAI).

Here is an exhibition called 'Jonge archi- tecten in de wederopbouw 1940-1960' which looks at the rebuilding of war-dam- aged Holland and shows how more tradi- tional as well as orthodox modern styles and approaches were employed. English Heritage has been exploring similar themes for a few years now, but for the interested Dutch public this is clearly a revelation.

In Britain, in fact, a debate about the 'real' history of 20th-century architecture began at least 15 years ago, but we have no right to be smug. The newly-formed NAI is, theoretically, independent, yet it was the Dutch government which came up with most of the 37 million guilders — some £13 million — needed to build its new home. Such cultural munificence is, sadly, incon- ceivable here. To our politicians it must be incomprehensible, but their Dutch counter- parts, responsible for a densely-populated country in which good building and plan- ning are inescapable necessities, evidently believe that encouraging architecture is good for the nation. After all, if painted art deserves state support, then why not built art? The Dutch, of course, have long shown themselves to be rather good at architec- ture — but then so are we.

To anyone who has worked at the Royal Institute of British Architect's drawings collection — the doyen of such institutions — the sight of the generous exhibition space, the superb study room and the astonishing perspective of seemingly end- less metal storage shelves curving towards infinity in the archive block in Rotterdam provides a painful contrast. There is talk both in England and Scotland of establish- ing some sort of 'architecture centre' (and we know all too well which of our knight- ed architects would use it for their own purposes), but the reality is that the RIBA is dragging the drawings collection hack from the Heinz Gallery to Portland Place and managed so to offend the munificent Mrs Heinz that she endowed a new architecture centre in Pittsburgh, Pa, instead. The RIBA is, of course, a private institution performing a cultural service for the public through its library and drawings Collection and therefore deserves state support. No hope of that, of course. So go to Rotterdam to learn, to wonder, and despair.