This article was downloaded by:[Davidts, Wouter]

On: 26 April 2008

Access Details: [subscription number 792539098]
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Architectural Theory Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t781137234
Nostalgia and pragmatism: Architecture and the new
stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam
Wouter Davidts

Online Publication Date: 01 April 2008

To cite this Article: Davidts, Wouter (2008) 'Nostalgia and pragmatism: Architecture
and the new stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam ', Architectural Theory Review, 13:1, 97 -
111
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/13264820801918314
URL: 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 expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently 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 or
arising out of the use of this material.
 ATR 13:1/08
Downloaded By: [Davidts, Wouter] At: 08:36 26 April 2008

Nostalgia and Pragmatism: Architecture

and 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 edge
I’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. Weil
aptly labeled in the mid 1990s as an ‘‘edifice complex.’’1 In the last decades, just about every
museum of some stature has at least once renovated, rebuilt, extended or added to its existing
building patrimony. No museum seems to be able to resist the pervasive urge to expand, grow and
renew its architectural premises. The option to preserve a museum in a fixed state has little or no
charm, and gains no important media attention. ‘‘When,’’ Weil ironically asked, ‘‘was a museum

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

ISSN 1326-4826 print/ISSN 1755-0475 online

ª 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13264820801918314
 Davidts

director last honored for a twenty-year record of consistent resistance to every expansionary
Downloaded By: [Davidts, Wouter] At: 08:36 26 April 2008

impulse?’’2 After all, building plans for museums create high expectations, present an exhilarating
challenge, 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 the
literal sense. The countless plans for renovations, additions and extensions are rarely marked by the
mere ambition to expand the facilities and to provide the museum with supplementary space. Quite
the contrary, every major building campaign is coupled with the ambition to ‘‘tackle’’ the museum
institution as well, on both a micro and macro level. Architecture is taken up as the appropriate
medium to rethink and remodel both the hosting institution as well as the global concept of the
museum. With a new building, a museum is not only expected, as Glen D. Lowry put it at the start
of the building campaign of New York Museum of Modern art, to ‘‘fundamentally alter its space,’’ but
to 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 the
museum? From the Neue Staatsgalerie, the Groninger Museum, the Guggenheim Bilbao, the
Milwaukee Art Museum to Tate Modern, we have been regaled with the most diverse and spectacular
architectural 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 a
similar amount of thought-provoking institutional structures in exchange? Upon closer scrutiny of the
kaleidoscopic collection of new museums and museum extensions of the last three decades, we must
admit that, despite the euphoric, exhilarated tone of the discourse on museum architecture, very few
genuinely innovative museum projects have been completed that have the same kind of combined
architectural and institutional vigour as the Centre Pompidou. Major institutional aspirations do not
always result in key architectural achievements. All too often, reality turns out otherwise, and
economic, political and bureaucratic forces oblige institutions to scale down their desires to a more
pragmatic level.

The past building campaign of the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam is a good case in point. Widely
held as one of the five most important collections of modern and contemporary art, next to the
Centre Pompidou in Paris, the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Tate Gallery in London and
the Guggenheim Museum and its different international branches, the Stedelijk has been oddly
lagging behind in terms of architectural expansions and extravaganza. Its colleagues, however, all
played key roles over the past decades. Whereas the Centre Pompidou (1977, Renzo Piano and
Richard 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 the
Bilbao effect at the turn of the century. The Tate Gallery in its turn transformed a derelict power
station into its new branch, the Tate Modern (2000, Herzog and de Meuron), which soon turned
out to be ‘‘the most popular museum of modern art in the world.’’3 While the Museum of Modern
Art in New York has extended no less than four times its original building (1939, Philip L. Goodwin
and Edward Durell Stone) in central Manhattan, almost doubling its floor space with the latest
expansion (2004, Yoshio Taniguchi). In contrast, the Stedelijk Museum only extended its building

98
 ATR 13:1/08

once, with a small wing in at the back of the museum in 1954 (J. Sargentini and F. Eschauzier).
Downloaded By: [Davidts, Wouter] At: 08:36 26 April 2008

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 new
extension, designed by the Dutch firm Benthem Crouwel Architects. After seventeen years of tiresome
struggle, during which two architects fell by the wayside, the museum finally embarked on the
expansion of its premises. With this new scheme, the Stedelijk is believed to close a dramatic
chapter in its history and to move swiftly into the future. But does the new building in fact provide
enough reasons for optimism? Is this the architecture that will bring about the long-awaited
salvation?

Back to the Top

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

June 21, 2003, was the turning point in the gloomy history of the new Stedelijk. On that day the
Committee on the Future of the Stedelijk Museum, made up of Martijn Sanders, then director of the
Amsterdam 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 ‘‘Terug
naar de Top’’ or ‘‘Back to the Top.’’ The Committee confirmed the Stedelijk Museum’s state of deep
crisis. The institution was edging toward the point where it could no longer live up to the reputation
its name carried.5 The conservation and administration of its collection was inadequate, the building
was in a deplorable state, management left a lot to be desired, there was a total lack of vision, and
the museum was plagued by a structural shortage of political support and financial resources. The
Committee’s devastating judgement concluded that, in 2003, the Museum ‘‘has a first-class but by
now languishing collection, a building that has alas been seriously neglected, and a likewise
demotivated staff.’’ To put this dramatic situation right the Committee proposed a ‘‘new mission’’ for
the Stedelijk on six fronts, with advice regarding the optimal use of the existing collection, the future
exhibition policy, the balance between short-term exhibitions and collection presentation, the
Museum’s public appeal, and the institution’s reputation in art scholarship. The greatest concern of
the Committee was that the Museum should recover the standing it once had, and once again grow
to be a ‘‘difficult, controversial and impudent, but thus also always dynamic, adventurous and
stimulating’’ institution. In short, their most important recommendation, as the Committee said

99
 Davidts

themselves in the second sentence of the covering letter accompanying their report, could be
Downloaded By: [Davidts, Wouter] At: 08:36 26 April 2008

‘‘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 ‘‘proposed
aspirations and the concrete elements in terms of museal elaboration, area and finances which
accompany them.’’ The most important reason given for this is that at the time Siza was developing his
plans there had never been ‘‘a clear vision and aspiration for the Stedelijk Museum and a specific
programme of requirements based on that, drawn up with the assistance of the expertise and knowledge
of the staff.’’6

The consequences of this advice were not long in coming. In January, 2004, the design by Alvaro Siza
was definitively consigned to the wastebasket by Mayor and Aldermen.7 At the same time, on the advice
of the Committee, a new start was made, with a new programme of requirements, this time drawn up in
close cooperation with the staff of the Stedelijk Museum. That package of requirements was ready in
June, 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 and
the 2004 programme of requirements—are rife with words that refer to crisis and recovery. The 2004
programme of requirements, however, also strikes a nostalgic note. The introduction, ‘‘Eenheid in
Tweevoud’’ (‘‘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 the
position that the Stedelijk Museum wants to recapture in the coming years.’’8 Moreover, even more
than the Committee’s report, the programme of requirements makes clear what the benchmark for
that glorious past was: the directorate of the charismatic Willem Sandberg. After all, it was Sandberg
who saw the Stedelijk grow into a ‘‘dynamic Valhalla of modern art’’ in the years between 1945 and
1962. 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 each
left ‘‘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 to
Van 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 grounds
for a new love affair. The museum will again become an inspiring meeting place for all
Amsterdam—not just everyone who loves the visual arts and design, but also those who fall for the
vain mix of fashion and design that is called lifestyle will feel its attraction. A rendezvous at the
Stedelijk must again become the thing to do.’’10

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

100
 ATR 13:1/08

Respect for what the latter bequeathed to the Stedelijk as a building seems to be inversely
Downloaded By: [Davidts, Wouter] At: 08:36 26 April 2008

proportional to the regard for his role in the growth and development of the Stedelijk as an
institution. Suddenly the Sandberg nostalgia vanishes, and everything revolves around the building
by Weissman. To be sure, in the ‘‘points of departure for the renovation of the old building’’ rubric of
the programme of requirements we read that, ‘‘after it was established in 1895, there is one period in
which the museum underwent radical adaptations, the underlying motives of which have defined the
development and position of the museum: the Sandberg era.’’ But what is held to count as these
adaptations turns out to be rather limited: merely Sandberg’s changes to the interior of Weissman’s
Dutch neo-Renaissance building. Only these small interventions are considered to be ‘‘intrinsic to the
history of the Stedelijk and its reputation for being in the vanguard’’ and are ‘‘therefore included in
the monument.’’ However, what Sandberg’s early interventions actually consisted of—such as
painting the brickwork in the stair hall white, removing the wainscoting and introducing light wall
coverings in the galleries—goes unmentioned, and is absolutely not interpreted historically. The
authors 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 the
restoration and renovation of the various exhibition galleries. What is more, the programme of
requirements bluntly decrees that all in-fills and later extensions must be demolished. Any survey of
how, where, when and at whose initiative the museum building was modified, is lacking.11 The only
extension 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 is
rather terse: ‘‘[it] must be demolished.’’ The reason for its demolition is summed up in two
astounding 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 plans
for new construction are too substantial.’’ In the introduction, Van Rooy is equally blunt. The
Sandberg Wing, he states, ‘‘is another story. It was intended as an expansion of the exhibition
space, but because of its long glass façades it has never functioned optimally as such. In
architectonic 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 is
discarded. As Amsterdam’s Department of Monuments and Archaeology, however, had already pointed
out as early as May, 2004, in doing so the Stedelijk was employing a blinkered definition of the
concept of ‘‘old building.’’ After all, not only Weissman’s building, but also the adaptations and
expansions under Sandberg—and certainly the Sandberg Wing—can be considered ‘‘essential—and
internationally respected—contributions’’ to museum architecture.12 With its open floor plan and
windows from floor to ceiling the expansion’s discrete volume was undeniably a product of
Sandberg’s innovative vision of a democratic, accessible and ‘‘living’’ museum. The 1954 wing, which
he later invariably labeled as his ‘‘experimental model of a new museum,’’ was at the same time an
early architectural expression of the ideology of flexibility that would become popular in the
1970s, and would reach its climax in the Centre Pompidou (Fig. 2).13 In particular, the

101
 Davidts
Downloaded By: [Davidts, Wouter] At: 08:36 26 April 2008

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. De
presentatie van beeldende kunst in Nederland van 1800 tot heden, Amsterdam, Meulenhoff, 1991, p. 129).

102
 ATR 13:1/08

diagrammatic articulation of the plan—brilliantly

Downloaded By: [Davidts, Wouter] At: 08:36 26 April 2008

rendered by the illustration accompanying Sand-

berg’s text ‘‘Museums at the Crossroads’’ in the 1979
book Museum in ¿Motion?—was pioneering for its
time (Fig. 3).

Like the artwork in a collection or the books in a

library, buildings are an indispensable part of an
institution’s patrimony. The memory of the museum
not only takes shape in the collection, but also in and
through architecture. All too often ambitious plans for
renovation or extension are at the expense of this
architectural heritage. As Victoria Newhouse once
correctly suggested, museum trustees, directors and
staffs have repeatedly done things to their buildings
that would be unthinkable if applied to their
collections.14 Still, it doesn’t have to be that way.
The recent renovation of the Boijmans Van Beuningen
Museum in Rotterdam (Robbrecht and Daem, 2003)
proves that expansion and functional demands do not
necessarily result in symbolic loss. Robbrecht and
Daem’s design succeeded in preserving the various
historic fragments of a building that was at least as
hybrid and silted up as the Stedelijk, restoring them
and building on their strengths. The various wings of
the Boijmans were analysed for their architectural
value and spatial identities, in order to then enrol
them within a programmatic and architectural master
plan on the basis of this analysis.15
Figure 3 Willem Sandberg, Schematic floor
plan of new museum wing, 1954. (Source:
Architecture and the Museum of Carel Blotkamp et al. (eds.), Museum in
Tomorrow ¿Motion?, The modern art museum at issue/
Museum in ¿Beweging? Het museum voor
If the programme of requirements shows hardly any moderne kunst ter diskussie, ‘s-Gravenhage,
interest in the Stedelijk’s architectural history, it Govt. Pub. Office, 1979, p. 330).
gives just as little evidence of a vision of the role of
the future architecture.16 Only two tiny paragraphs
are devoted to the points of departure for the new building scheme. The first paragraph deals with
urban planning problems, arguing for a solution involving the landscaping of the Museumplein, and
in particular for the accursed ‘‘dog-ear,’’ the grass-covered triangle of turf angling upward over the
entrance to the Albert Heijn supermarket on the Van Baerlestraat behind the museum. Or, as Van

103
 Davidts

Rooy imploringly says in the preamble, it ‘‘must be possible to settle scores in an aesthetically
Downloaded By: [Davidts, Wouter] At: 08:36 26 April 2008

responsible manner with this gesture of the park landscape, turning its back on the museum.’’ The
second paragraph deals with the function of architecture in relation to the museum’s functions. Here
one cliché follows on the heels of the other. ‘‘The new building is a building which must enable art
to be shown to its fullest advantage, and where the public feels at home. The architecture is
restrained and the detailing subtle and minimal. The architecture is in the service of the art. The
visitor must be carried along the art in a natural way. Over against this reflective atmosphere stands
the fact that the new building also forms the beating heart of the museum, housing the entrance
hall, the knowledge centre, the auditorium and the restaurant. An active atmosphere dominates in
these places.’’ Van Rooy phrases the relation between old and new in still another way: ‘‘It would be
ideal if the architecture critic soon says something to the effect of ‘harmonious contrasts’.’’ According
to 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. Any
aspirations 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 a
balance of the current state of affairs in the international art and museum world, let alone a vision of
the museum of the future. The contrast with the rhetoric of foreign institutions like the MoMA or the
Tate Modern is simply enormous. When the latter began their building campaigns, the architectural
project 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 unabashed
Sandberg nostalgia combined with the terms referring to regeneration and restoration in the report and
programme of requirements, clearly reveal that the Stedelijk Museum is above all narcissistically ridden
with its own problems and wallowing in a sense of crisis.17 First and foremost, it wants to get its act
together, 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 the
architectural competition, with a design that was rather quickly nicknamed ‘‘the bathtub’’ in the
popular press (Figs. 4, 5).18 The contrast with the previous design by Alvaro Siza is considerable. In
Siza’s design a series of building volumes of various heights were grouped around an inner courtyard
with gardens and patios. Benthem Crouwel trades this careful linking of introverted spaces for one
freestanding sculptural volume, one spectacular Gestalt on the corner of Museumplein. Seen from a
distance, their design does everything to score points. The building is a powerful and striking
presence, yet neither too complex nor affected. It has a recognizable form that easily leaves an
impression on one’s memory. The building has everything to become a landmark, and with no
further 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 plaza
that 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

104
 ATR 13:1/08
Downloaded By: [Davidts, Wouter] At: 08:36 26 April 2008

Figure 4 Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, Exterior view of extension from Van Baerlestraat, Benthem Crouwel
Architects, 2006.

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

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

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

105
 Davidts
Downloaded By: [Davidts, Wouter] At: 08:36 26 April 2008

Figure 5 Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, Exterior view of extension from Museumplein, Benthem Crouwel
Architects, 2006.

centre’’ (a new name for the library, analogous to the ‘‘idea stores’’ in Great Britain) are situated in
the large, transparent lobby on the ground floor (Fig. 6). In theory, the combination of these
programmes could produce a fascinating conglomerate, but in practice the parts are tidily delineated
and laid out next to one another. Any interesting links between the distinct functions, exciting
parcours or inventive spatial solutions are simply absent. The diversity of the programmes is not
articulated in any meaningful manner, and one is left guessing at the respective functions and their
various regimes of use. For the rest, it is difficult to conceive that the knowledge centre and its
accompanying activities of research and reflection are going to thrive in a hall simultaneously being
used for shopping, dining, get-togethers and lounging. It is highly unlikely that the planned couple
of carrels will offer any solace. The location of the knowledge centre in the glazed void of the
vestibule is actually the most flagrant example of undisguised Sandberg nostalgia. The by now
completely hackneyed idiom of transparency, accessibility and receptivity—be it noted, translated by
Sandberg himself into the idea of an ‘‘open’’ museum and materialized in the 1954 expansion—is
here recycled in a new packaging that is at the same time pragmatic and futuristic. It is
incomprehensible that the core space of a museum that (according to the 2003 report) should place
its collection back at the heart of its being, holds the middle between an airport terminal, a shopping
mall and an administrative centre (Fig. 7).

106
 ATR 13:1/08
Downloaded By: [Davidts, Wouter] At: 08:36 26 April 2008

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.

107
 Davidts

What more is there to say about this design? Not much, or so it would already seem from the jury’s final
Downloaded By: [Davidts, Wouter] At: 08:36 26 April 2008

report. In vain one searches for a thoroughly reasoned justification for their choice of Benthem
Crouwel.19 While the other submissions are occasionally sharply criticized, the winning project only
receives vague and platitudinous praise. Especially the conclusion is surprisingly simple: ‘‘Benthem
Crouwel has succeeded in giving shape to the concept of ‘unity in duality’ in a superior manner. That is
a question of architecture. Moreover, Benthem Crouwel has succeeded in turning the face of the
Stedelijk toward the Museumplein. That is a question of urban planning. With this design, Benthem
Crouwel have shown themselves masters of their métier in both fields. The realization of the Benthem
Crouwel 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 steered
a bulldozer into it and Amsterdam’s Alderwoman for Culture, Carolien Gehrels, threw a stone through
one of the windows (Fig. 8). That Gehrels gave this ‘‘festive starting signal’’ at the invitation of the
Stedelijk Museum itself lent added significance to her remarks afterwards. ‘‘Sandberg himself was
innovative, 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 gooien

naar het Stedelijk (Throwing Stones at the Stedelijk), in: De Telegraaf, 10 October
2006.

108
 ATR 13:1/08

It was precisely out of respect for Sandberg, the innovator. It was perhaps somewhat provocative, but
Downloaded By: [Davidts, Wouter] At: 08:36 26 April 2008

that’s what the Stedelijk has always been.’’20 The demolition makes painfully clear what role and
meaning the legacy of the legendary museum director is really being given within the overall
renewal process. It is not Sandberg’s wealth of ideas and innovative vision, but the atmosphere of
excitement and controversy that was associated with the early years of his directorship that is
important. It is Sandberg the instigator that the Stedelijk pines for. Whether the design by Benthem
Crouwel will allow the museum to grow into the ‘‘vibrant place’’ that it was under Sandberg is deeply
doubtful. Outside the bold gesture of the hanging tub and the massive canopy, the design has little to
offer. But in the end that is not surprising; the 2004 programme of requirements had demanded little
from 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 its
architecture. While in most cases this turns out badly, for the Stedelijk that might still be reason for
hope.

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: Smithsonian
Institution 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 are
Tate 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 first
competition in 1992 were O.M.A (Rem Koolhaas), Wim Quist and Carl Weeber. For more information about
this 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 van
Nieuwenhuyzen, ‘‘Uitbreiding Stedelijk Museum: Venturi, Scott Brown and Associates,’’ Stedelijk Museum
Bulletin (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 Lütticken, ‘‘Stedelijk Museum,’’ De Witte Raaf, 101 (January-February, 2003).
5 Advies Commissie Toekomst Stedelijk Museum (Martijn Sanders (chairman), Victor Halberstadt & John
Leighton), ‘‘Het Stedelijk Museum: Terug Naar de Top (Back to the Top),’’ Amsterdam, June 21, 2003. Since
this report was only written in Dutch, all quotations in this essay have been translated. All further quotations
are from this report, unless indicated otherwise.

109
 Davidts

6 In 1994 the management consultancy Twijnstra Gudde assembled a programme of requirements that was
Downloaded By: [Davidts, Wouter] At: 08:36 26 April 2008

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 plans
in 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 is
attempting ‘‘to create surroundings where the vanguard feels at home . . . a real centre for present life.’’ The
museum needs to turn into a home for ‘‘everything that will brighten the features of the face of our time, for
every contribution to the form of the present . . . [for] all material of today, apt to build the future.’’ It needs to
become 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 title
musea 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; het
experimenteermodel 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 for
contemporary or current art in the text ‘‘Réflexions disparates sur l’organisation d’un musée d’art
d’aujourd’hui’’ in the journal Art d’Aujourd’hui in 1950, he observed in the margin that ‘‘[c]es réflexions ont
été écrites par un conservateur de musée qui tâche de les réaliser dans un vieux bâtiment.’’ He carried out
several interventions on the old building to bring it up-to-date or to ‘modernise’ it, but nevertheless stayed in a
building that was an expression of a nineteenth century museum typology, both with regard to its architectural
ambiance and its spatial arrangement. See Willem Sandberg, Réflexions disparates sur l’organisation d’un
musée d’art d’aujourd’hui, Art d’Aujourd’hui 2, 1 (October, 1950): n.p. Later, when Sandberg was a member
of the jury for the architectural competition for the Centre Pompidou, he did not hesitate long before giving his
vote to the project from Piano & Rogers. According to him, it simply fulfilled ‘‘the dream about which I wrote in
1950 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.

110
 ATR 13:1/08

16 Before the demolition the Amsterdam department for Monuments and Archaeology had already drawn the
Downloaded By: [Davidts, Wouter] At: 08:36 26 April 2008

painful conclusion that, ‘‘The only architectonic interest thus far appears to be the naming of an international
star 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 be
found 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 plan
2006-2008, this lack of a broader perspective on the issues surrounding museums today is structural for the
Stedelijk. 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 & Partners
Architects, 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 architects
only. The five firms were selected from over 40 applicants on the basis of ‘‘unconditional suitability for the
specific task in which new construction and renovation of the old building complement one another.’’ See
Jury 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 the
general points of departure. Although it is not stated, from its tone it appears certain that once again Van Rooy
was approached to write this text.
20 Carolien Gehrels, as quoted by Hans van der Beek, ‘‘Een Steen door de Geschiedenis,’’ Het Parool, (October
13, 2006). The idea came from Marjolijn Broekhuizen, head of the Marketing and Communications
Department at the Stedelijk.

111