J. Verheul Dzn (1860-1948) Born and raised in Rotterdam, Johannes Verheul Dzn. made an essential contribution to the pre-war face of Rotterdam and to the preservation of historic sites in the rapidly changing city. However, the bombing of May 1940 made most of Verheul's work in the inner city disappear forever. The little that remained was demolished after the war, or removed during the demolition frenzy of the 1960s and 1970s. Today, of Verheul's total of eighty projects, less than half remain. Verheul led a very active life as an architect and was responsible for an extremely diverse oeuvre, initially in and around Rotterdam, but later also elsewhere in the Netherlands. To this end, Verheul initially employed a design methodology that was in keeping with the architectural practice of his time but showed the hand of an idiosyncratic craftsman, who set high standards for the quality of the built environment. The fact that Verheul was an inspired and committed person is also evident from his active participation in the club life of his time, including twenty years with the Maatschappij tot Bevordering der Bouwkunst and twenty-five years with the Vereeniging tot Bevordering van Fabrieks- en Handwerksnijverheid. A Rotterdammer with a heart for his city, he played a prominent role in social life and, as a city council member, was involved in the ups and downs of "his" metropolis. Verheul was known to friend and foe alike for his outspoken ideas about modern currents in architectural design and policy regarding historic buildings. He tried until the end of his life to preserve valuable monuments and sites in Rotterdam or at least to protect them from modern influences, this at a time when his architectural views seemed outdated for new generations of architects. Many of these historic sites Verheul immortalized in numerous writings, books and more than 400 watercolor len, with which he was especially concerned in the last phase of his life. This publication aims to provide the first comprehensive overview of Verheul's work.1 Prior to the description of the oeuvre, attention will be paid to Verheul's background and education, his design principles and architectural views, and his relationship with Rotterdam. Based on this information, Verheul's work will be characterized and placed within the larger framework of Dutch architecture in the period 1875-1950.2 Background and education. Johannes (Jan) Verheul was born in Rotterdam on February 14, 1860, the son of the architect-turned-carpenter Dirk Verheul (born 1828) and his wife M.J.C. van Eymeren.3 The Verheul family initially had a hemp beechery and sail-making business. However, Jan's father established himself as an architect carpenter on Weenastraat. The Verheuls had four children, Hendrika Cornelia (1858), Jan and his younger brothers Cornelis (1862) and Dirk (1864). The three boys were all practically trained by their father as carpenter-architects. Cornelis would continue the family business of artisan architect and carpenter in 1892. Jan and Dirk both pursued higher education as architects. In 1869, the family moved to a building at Oppert 130 that faced the Binnenrotte at the back. From this place Jan got to know Rotterdam and saw the city change from old trading town to world port, often at the expense of familiar buildings and cityscapes. In 1888 Jan married Jacomina Anna Pieters and together they moved into a new house at 53 Diergaardelaan three years later. After her death in 1896, he remarried Maria Hoos upon which they moved to Witte de Withstraat where he lived until 1939. He spent the last nine years of his life at 46 Mauritsweg. There is no indication that Verheul had any children, but it is very possible that these records were lost in the bombing of Rotterdam.4 After the practical training with his father, Jan continued his studies at the Rotterdam Academy of Visual Arts and Technical Sciences, where he was taught by, among others, the Rotterdam city architect A.W. van Dam (1816-1890), the builder of the Zuiderkerk in Rotterdam.5 From 1878 you were enrolled at the Polytechnic School in Delft, where he was taught by A. le Comte (1850-1921) and A. Lacomblé. However, the one who had the greatest influence on him in Delft was the German architect Eugen H. Gugel. Gugel was the first professor of architecture at the Polytechnic School, where he taught design, art history and formal theory. For teaching purposes, he wrote a survey of architectural history and a "Formenschatz," a plate collection of architectural parts to be copied, which clearly showed Gugel's preference for Renaissance architecture.6 Gugel also introduced German architectural theory to the Netherlands and provided a practical aesthetic with learnable rules for the composition of buildings, preceded by Carl Bötticher's theory of "Kernform" and "Kunstform" from his Tektonik der Hellenen (1844-1852).7 In short, this theory implied that the constructive and functional aspects of the building such as layout, function and construction led to the correct core form. In addition, the art form had to breathe life into the building and, through the right "covering," express the representative character of the building.8 Verheul knew Gugel closely as he belonged to the then very famous "little room of Prof. Gugel". This company consisted of Gugel's best students, which, in addition to Verheul, included J. Kok, M. Houwer, E. Knuttel, F. Kerkhof and Gardenier.9 Among other things, they made excursions to Belgium to admire the Antwerp school, and architect colleagues who designed in a very exuberant type of Flemish Neo-Renaissance.10 Verheul certainly did not disregard Gugel's lessons. Indeed, early in his career until about 1895, he built predominantly in the Neo-Renaissance style propagated by Gugel.11 This can be seen, for example, in his design for the Grote Schouwburg in Rotterdam, the prestigious Hotel De Twee Steden in The Hague in 1890, D. van der Kuijlen's livery stable, and several capital residential houses in Rotterdam. The justifications of his designs in the Bouwkundig Weekblad, among others, also indicate that Verheul took to heart his teacher's theories on art and core form. Even during his studies, Verheul's talent was recognized. In 1881, he won a public competition launched by the board of the Rotterdam Academy of Arts and Technical Sciences for an "arts and crafts museum with attached school for a substantial community." His design, submitted under the motto 'Minerva', was selected for first prize because "the beautiful, characterful facades perfectly expressed the purpose of the requested building". The building's layout was also praised. Both aspects, a highly functional and practical layout and the expression of purpose, would become a recurring theme in Verheul's work. That same year, he left the Polytechnic School in Delft without a diploma, which was not unusual at the time. Before starting his own practice in Rotterdam, Verheul had the opportunity to go on a study trip. He visited Belgium, France, Austria, Germany and Italy before settling as an architect in Rotterdam in 1883. Verheul's first major project: the 'Groote Schouwburg' (1884-1887) Soon after establishing himself as an architect, Verheul achieved great fame with his design for a new theater in Rotterdam. Verheul received this commission in 1884, after a closed competition to which eight architects were invited.12 It is striking that the young and still inexperienced Verheul was asked for a competition of such allure. This shows that people were aware of his talent, although he did not yet have many works to his name. The jury, consisting of L.H. Eberson, I. Gosschalk, E. Gugel, D.A. Wittop Koning and W. Springer Sr. did not award any of the designs, but suggested that the design by Giese and Weidner of Dresden and that of Verheul be purchased because they felt that these designs were of roughly equal quality. In the end, however, Verheul's design, with the motto Apollo, was awarded the commission.13 At the beginning of his career, Verheul used stylistic motifs borrowed from the Italian, Dutch and Flemish Renaissance for the proper character of a building this no doubt under the influence of his Delft teacher Gugel. The theater on Coolsingel was provided with an exuberant Italian-Renaissance decoration that was in great demand in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, especially for concert halls and theaters.14 Italy at the time of the Renaissance was considered the cultural high point of European history par excellence and was therefore appropriate as a design for the theater. At the same time, Verheul gave the building - as a cultural carrier of the city of Rotterdam and its bourgeois elite - a national cachet by combining natural stone with brick, a visual motif peculiar to the Dutch (and to a lesser extent) Flemish Renaissance. In this way, the facade of the theater reflected not only its function but its appropriate geographical location, as Verheul had already done in 1882 for an unimplemented town hall for Bussum. Verheul wrote: "The facades are designed in the spirit of the Flemish Renaissance, and I have tried as much as possible to remain in the character of a council house for a thriving village. "15 Both the Rotterdam theater and the Bussum town hall give a good indication of how Verheul interpreted the theme of the "art form. The theater was two stories high, with a third for the stage tower, and was constructed of brick wall dams encased in a system of bands, mouldings, corner blocks and a prominent entablature with balustrade made of natural stone. The facades were occupied by alternating round-arched and rectangular windows with pediments and carvings. A slightly staggered and three-bay wide risalite formed the center of the front building and included on the second floor the foyer, parlor and several consulting rooms. In front of the risalite was a drive-through, also three bays wide, whose roof also served as a balcony for the foyer. A decorative frieze with a pediment equipped with carvings and three acroteria formed the crowning feature. The floor plan of the building was widely praised, especially the convenient location of the stairs. These were located against the outer wall and were generous in size so that the 1,300 guests could get out quickly and safely in case of fire. The hall was shaped like a horseshoe with two aisles in the middle and galleries around it. In addition, an annex was designed for the rooms that could no longer fit on the plot. These were connected to the main building by a "walkway" on the second floor. Verheul had housed in this, among other things, the smoking room, which according to the program was to be completely separated from the other salons. Later in his career Verheul designed theaters and concert halls in Dordrecht, Hengelo and Deventer, again using the formal language of the Neo-Renaissance. In collaboration with Roos and Overeijnder, he designed the new Doelenzaal in Rotterdam in 1932, this time with a very modern approach for Verheul. The Rotterdam theater was bombed in 1940 and permanently demolished after the war, much to Verheul's regret. The Maatschappij tot Bevordering der Bouwkunst and Vereniging Bouwkunst en Vriendschap That Verheul was an inspired and committed architect is evident from his active participation in the association life of his time. In 1881 he joined the Society for the Advancement of Architecture, where he served on the board for 20 years and remained a member throughout his life. The society was founded - as its name indicates - to promote architecture in the Netherlands and engaged in various activities to achieve this goal, including holding competitions and exhibitions. In the society's organ, the Bouwkundig Weekblad, architects showed their designs and professional developments were discussed. From 1883, Verheul served regularly on the board of the Society. In 1894, he became editor of the Bouwkundig Weekblad, a position he held until 1909. Verheul himself also regularly used the Bouwkundig Weekblad to air his experiences and ideas and to display his buildings. He was often represented at the Society's annual exhibitions. For example, in 1886 he exhibited his designs for the theater in Rotterdam, a water tower and a dwelling house, and participated further in 1888 and 1889.16 In 1883, Verheul was a juror for the first time in a competition for a bathhouse. In the period 1886-1905 he juried numerous times for the society together with the great master builders of his time: H. Evers, C.H. Peters, A. Salm G.Bzn, P.J.H. Cuypers, W. Kromhout and H.P. Berlage.17 It seems that the Society carefully composed the juries with representatives of the various architectural views and movements. Thus, criticism of the composition of the jury as being too "gothic" or too "classicist" could be avoided. By serving on these juries, Verheul certainly left his mark on the assessment of young talent; after all, he was not one to keep his criticism or thoughts to himself. Also, it brought him into contact with colleagues and their ideas. Verheul also provided the Bouwkundig Weekblad with advice in technical matters and choice of materials in the "Prae-adviezen" section. Here questions could be asked by the various departments of the Society. The Vereniging Bouwkunst en Vriendschap was founded in Rotterdam in 1885 by a number of architects from the Rotterdam branch of the Maatschappij tot Bevordering der Bouwkunst, who disagreed with the Maatschappij over what they saw as the often one-sided composition of juries. Despite the disagreement, Verheul remained involved with both organizations. He was involved with Bouwkunst en Vriendschap from 1886; he was vice president until 1894. The structure of this society was similar to that of the Society. Its members strove to promote architecture and related subjects to which they organized competitions, lectures, excursions and exhibitions. For Bouwkunst en Vriendschap, Verheul also regularly served as a jury member.18 Like the Maatschappij, the society carefully selected the jury according to different 'types' of architects, often also according to city, so that no jury would consist entirely of Rotterdam citizens. Furthermore, as a member of Bouwkunst en Vriendschap, Verheul served on the Committee for Building Regulations in 1898 and 1904. The municipality of Rotterdam wanted to change the building regulations at the time; it was the committee's task to investigate which changes were desirable. Verheul also participated in the committee on cooperation with Architectura et Amicitia, the Amsterdam variant of Bouwkunst en Vriendschap, founded in 1855. The committee issued a negative opinion, which made the board decide not to cooperate.19 Nevertheless, Verheul also became a member of Architectura et Amicitia. However, he cancelled his membership after only two years.20 The Apeldoorn Mutual 1890-1892 In the nineteenth century, competitions for large public buildings were regularly issued. These not infrequently led to heated debate. The juries regularly judged the entries as substandard, and when designs did win awards there was often criticism of a biased jury, an incorrect program, lack of funds, and so on. The architecture magazines were full of angry letters about failed competitions and discussions about the design chosen by the jury. Verheul eagerly participated in these debates. Several competitions in which he participated caused a stir, but none caused as much commotion as the closed competition for a new Dutch Reformed Church in Apeldoorn in 1890. Besides Verheul, well-known architects such as H.P. Berlage, H. Evers and H.J. Jesse were invited to compete in the closed competition. Berlage submitted a Gothic design that strongly recalled the Old Church in Amsterdam, Evers a plan grafted onto the Romanesque style and Jesse a church that closely resembled the Nieuwe Kerk in Katwijk aan Zee that he had built in 1887. Verheul's neo-Renaissance design with the motto "Ormuz" was not awarded a prize by the jury, which consisted of the eminent C. Muysken, the builder of the Grote Kerk in Hoorn and the Oud-Wassenaar Castle, F.J. Nieuwenhuis, who restored the Cathedral Church in Utrecht, and C.B. Posthumus Meyes, whose credits included the Delft railway station. The latter preferred the neo-Renaissance, expensively detailed design "Love is 't fondament" made by Paul du Rieu of The Hague because the other designers were not sufficiently experienced in "delivering Protestant churches," commented De Opmerker. Remarkably, the church custodian, who had issued the competition, disregarded the jury recommendation and preferred Verheul's design. The storm of protest, which then arose, was not bad. It was intensified by the fact that some clumsy manipulation on Verheul's part led to the accusation that he had influenced the jury in an uncooperative manner. In 1892, Verheul's design was realized with only minor changes. But hardly was the church finished when an anonymous critic in De Opmerker devoted a very negative review to Verheul's creation. About the ability of the architect he wrote: "He is then forced to simplicity, the first requirement for character, even if he is not the only one and even if it requires a lot of study and a lot more taste than picking shapes from the sample of Stopno. In the case of the Apeldoorn church the study seems to have been limited to the plan division; for the further solution of the problem there was probably no time. 21 After the completion of the building, it was not until the end of the nineteenth century that Verheul again ventured to design a church, this time with a completely different design. Today, one might appreciate the Apeldoorn church as an imaginatively designed and rare example of late-nineteenth-century historicizing architecture. Verheul and the modern Protestant church building One of the questions that Verheul attempted to answer in the "Prae-adviezen" section of the Bouwkundig Weekblad, together with A.W. Meijneken, was what requirements the modern Protestant church building should meet.22 They provided some simple guidelines. First, they noted that from the nature of the religion and with respect to the manner of the service, such a church should be primarily an auditorium. They found the most suitable shape in connection with the hearing distance from the speakers to the hearers to be the polygonal or round shape. This could then be expanded with, for example, galleries, if many seats were needed. In keeping with the few ceremonies in the Protestant religion, such a church had to have a simple and strict character. This did not exclude that the building could nevertheless be decorated internally; after all, an appropriate painting would contribute to the serious character of the whole. In this respect, Verheul once again showed himself to be a disciple of Gugel, who advocated that the function largely determined the character (decoration) and the appropriate art form of the building. Even in his choice of words simple and strict, Verheul followed the lessons of his teacher.23 After experimenting with the Grote Kerk in Apeldoorn, Verheul first put liturgical and architectural principles into practice with his design for the Regentessekerk in The Hague. Following a closed competition, Verheul's design under the motto "March" was unanimously chosen as the winner in 1894 by the jury consisting of architects C. Muysken, F.J. Nieuwenhuis and C.H. Peters and three members of the church council of the Nederduits hervormde congregation in The Hague. The design was very soberly executed because of the low construction cost. Verheul chose a Gothic silhouette this time, although Gothic was not the obvious architectural style for a Protestant church.24 For the Protestant church in Apeldoorn, he had made a design in imitation of the Dutch Renaissance. However, there had been so much criticism of this at the time that he may have decided not to use this style again for a church building. Gugel had also written in his book that even the greatest advocate of the Renaissance would not build a church in this style. For the time being, however, the community had no money to build the church, and Verheul was not commissioned until 1899. He chose to create a new design, substantially different in design from the first design. The second design for the church had a much more massive silhouette and a design reminiscent of the austere new style of Berlage's Stock Exchange, combined with neo-Romanesque motifs. The facade on Regentesseplein consisted of flanking towers with small spires and a large round-arch window in the center that was also used in the facades of the transept arms. The austerity of this front was emphasized by the huge gabled roof of the transept, which as a dark background allowed the simple façade to speak. The transept arms of the church contained two entrances, which helped ago the main façade. They gradually receded upward, creating an effect of rejuvenation of the building mass, a requirement according to Gugel. The interior was also extremely simple and clear in design with wooden barrel vaults and blank walls. The actual auditorium with accompanying church rooms had the shape of a Greek cross - with arms of equal length - with the administrative rooms for the congregation in line with the main axis. For the decoration of the building, Verheul chose his own interpretation of Nieuwe Kunst, a matter-of-fact Dutch variant of Jugendstil. 25 The difference in conception and treatment of the main facade compared to his earlier buildings is explained by Verheul by the changed requirements and the changed conditions of the time.26 The latter is remarkable and also significant. The final design, the art form that Verheul chose here, he probably thought better suited to the spirit of the times. After 1897, the neo-styles clearly lost ground. The Regentessekerk, now demolished, is an early example of a church plan that was typical of the Dutch Reformed community around the turn of the century and can also be found elsewhere in the Netherlands: a highly efficient and Protestant-oriented design with sober furnishings. Verheul knew how to incorporate current trends in an original and harmonious way. In 1908, Verheul built the Wilhelminakerk, also in The Hague, a building with a similar layout and design as the Regentessekerk, and in 1915 the small English church with seamen's institute in neo-Gothic style on the Rotterdam harbor. His last church Verheul designed in collaboration with J. van Wijngaarden for the Walloon congregation in 1924, also in his hometown, as a replacement for the historic downtown church demolished two years earlier. The 'Jugendstil' in the Netherlands and office building De Utrecht (1900-1902) Verheul had begun his career designing in neo-styles and by the end of the nineteenth century also began to incorporate Berlagian motifs into his buildings. Around the turn of the century, however, Verheul's preference increasingly turned to the internationally oriented Jugendstil. One of the first buildings in which he was able to experiment with this new style was the 1900 shop-office building "Het Witte Huis" on Raadhuisstraat in Amsterdam. Here, Verheul applied a dashing Jugendstil in tile tableaux, reliefs and sculpture and interior paintings and in the interior design of the building. With architects such as W.B. van Liefland (1857-1919), with whom he had already collaborated in The Hague, Joh. Mutters Jr. (1858-1930), L.A.H. de Wolf (1871-1923) and A.W. Bosboom (1860-1926), Verheul is therefore considered one of the most important representatives of this movement in Dutch architecture.27 The directors of the life insurance company 'De Utrecht' decided, after tumultuous growth at the end of the nineteenth century, to build a new and representative office building in Utrecht. Verheul had previously worked for De Utrecht, including an office in Tilburg, and in 1902 he delivered an office building that fitted in perfectly with the image that people had of a modern and chic office building at that time. Art Nouveau was in vogue throughout almost all of Europe at the turn of the century and was a reaction to the historicizing and building of the nineteenth century, using new forms and materials, such as iron and glass. The style was considered very fashionable in the Netherlands and was widely used in buildings intended to exude allure, such as hotels in seaside resorts and posh stores.28 The headquarters was a detached building on a square foundation with a bell floor and two storeys. In the center was a monumental and glass-covered stairwell around which were located offices on the first floor and library and boardrooms on the second floor. At the rear was a spacious garden. The most striking part of the building was the lively front facade equipped with exuberant sculpture. Numerous prominent artists were hired for the interior furniture, wood carvings, paintings and stained glass. In 1908, a separate archive building was erected to the right of the main building to designs by A.J. Kropholler (1882-1973) and J.F. Staal (1879-1940). Both buildings were demolished in 1974. Although the architecture of De Utrecht was lavish by Dutch standards, it was rather austere compared to what was happening in that field elsewhere in Europe. Verheul, especially in the interior where the office was designed as one large space, had clearly been guided by the more businesslike stylistic approach known as "Nieuwe Kunst. "29 De Utrecht's headquarters had thus become a building in which the Dutch sobriety and the more flamboyant of our southern neighbors could both be found. Verheul and his vision of Rotterdam as a residential or global city30 In 1902, Verheul was elected to the Rotterdam City Council, a position he would hold until 1935. He was recommended for the city council by Henri Evers because of his technical and artistic qualities, which the council would greatly need. Verheul was put forward as a candidate by two liberal parties in Rotterdam; his professional skills outweighed his political principles. In this position, he strove to preserve the beauty of historic Rotterdam and develop it into a metropolis with allure, where it was also pleasant to live. He fought for the preservation of historically valuable buildings and for careful urban planning interventions, both in extensions and in interventions in the city center. Verheul's rather romantic-looking image of Rotterdam was closely linked to the beauty of Rotterdam's heyday as an eighteenth-century mercantile city with imposing merchant houses by the architect Jan Giudici and others. The "all-consuming previous [nineteenth] century" had, according to Verheul, brought mainly disfigurements of existing urban beauty.31 Verheul saw the large boulevards and squares (for example, the newly constructed Place de Brouckère in Brussels) and the residential buildings from abroad as contemporary variants of the eighteenth and nineteenth-century urban planning he so admired. Accordingly, in 1905 he called for an amendment to the building and housing ordinance that would promote this development. Typical of this was Verheul's efforts to always use public funds sparingly when beautifying the city and solving urban planning problems. Around World War I, Verheul sided with the socialists on municipal public housing. He believed that the government should encourage these in difficult times, although the liberal in him felt that people should also have the "right" not to live well. Besides office buildings and lavish residences for the well-to-do middle class, Verheul collaborated on public housing and community centers in Rotterdam, often based on private initiatives and with the intention of improving the quality of life and thus the appearance of the city. The English Church and the adjacent Zeemansinstituut from 1915 on Pieter de Hoochweg form a fine picture of Verheul's social building activities. Throughout his political life, Verheul, assisted by the architect P.G. Buskens, worked to develop beauty and welfare requirements that were rejected time and again by the municipality. An important improvement was the establishment of the Municipal Housing Service. Partly at Verheul's insistence, this authority also employed the architects J.J.P. Oud and M.J. Granpré Molière. In 1925, Verheul gave "lessons in aesthetics" in the city council. For example, he called Kruisplein a rundown part of town because of the many disorganized street furnishings and requested clearance 'of the flower stalls present there with their adherents, of the hideously painted milk kiosk, ... of the stone advertising pillars and similar wan products'. With the same fervor he attacked the café 'De Unie' on Coolsingel, designed in 1924 by the 'modern' architect J.J.P. Oud. What particularly stung Verheul was that Oud was in municipal service, and according to him made 'ugly' architecture. Verheul had his first major victory when in 1926 welfare requirements were finally included in the building regulations. Two years later the standards committee was established, of which Verheul - naturally - became chairman. In 1935, Verheul retired from the city council, although he was still vital enough to continue this position. Verheul had never considered himself a real politician, and he appeared disappointed with the municipal apparatus, which had become much more political after 1917. Moreover, the ideas of Het Nieuwe Bouwen, aimed at architectural n social progress, were not his own, and the fact that they had penetrated so forcefully into the ranks of municipal institutions did not please Verheul at all.32 Verheul did, however, continue to publish in the Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad about Rotterdam buildings until a few days before his death, mostly after they had already disappeared. City hall on the Schiekade in Rotterdam (1906-1907) Verheul built numerous town houses and villas for Rotterdam's wealthy. For his large residence on the Schiekade, Verheul expressly chose the so-called "Schiehuis" as the type because it matched the eighteenth-century buildings on the Schiekaden. Instead of a Jugendstil or Berlage-inspired building style, here Verheul preferred the "Um 1800 style," a strict and austere neoclassical style with decorations in the Louis style.33 The building is five bays wide and has a central risalite that juts slightly forward and is emphasized by its execution in natural stone while the adjacent window axes are executed in brick. The whole stands on a pedestal decorated with a grove behind which lies the basement. At the center risalit, the pedestal is interrupted to make room for the huge doorway with a small staircase in front. The door with overhead light has a substantial frame, overflowing into consoles for the French balcony above. Above the door are French doors with again a fanlight. This again has a substantial frame, crowned with a frieze and cornice. Above this, a frieze and cornice run across the entire facade area, above which the transverse gable roof extends. To crown the center risalit, Verheul used a bay window with tympanum and sashes. The rest of the building is very soberly designed. The remaining window axes are separated only by garlands under the windows of the second floor; vertically there is no articulation. The building is terminated by corner blocks of brick from the plinth to the frieze. These are topped by vases on the cornice. Verheul had to smuggle in the composition and dimensions somewhat, because on the left side the building continues slightly beyond the corner blocks. The whole makes a distinguished and sober impression à la Abraham van der Hart. The layout of the house is also conservative; with a central continuous corridor with adjoining rooms and staircase in the middle, Verheul kept to the classical floor plan for a mansion. Restorations Despite Verheul's keen interest in historic properties, his name does not often appear as a restoration architect. Only at the turn of the century did he restore several village churches and supervise two restorations. The first restoration in which Verheul was involved as a supervisor was that of the early-seventeenth-century town hall of Bolsward, completed in 1895. A number of parts were restored to their supposedly original condition. In contrast, the starting point - in writing - was striking: "The guiding principle of the entire restoration was: preserve what can be preserved, repair what can be repaired; no new additions and new forms, no changes...".34 This guideline resembles the restoration principles formulated in 1917 by the Nederlandsche Oudheidkundige Bond, with the slogan "preservation comes before renewal. The idea of preserving what can be preserved appears relatively modern, almost as if reconstructions were to be avoided. The preservation of the sidewalk and bordes, which were added to the building in rococo style only in the eighteenth century, testifies to this modern view. In the nineteenth century, buildings were regularly made stylistically pure during restorations. Here, elements added to the building later were demolished and replaced by reconstructions of older building parts, even if one did not know exactly how these elements looked before. The most high-profile example of this type of intervention is the twenty-year restoration of the Munsterkerk in Roermond, begun in 1863, in which all the unwanted building parts were demolished and new ones added in the old style, so that the monument underwent a total metamorphosis.35 In Bolsward, Verheul and his colleagues chose to retain some of the later additions. The rest of the restoration, however, was much more in the line of Cuypers.36 Despite solid building history research, many of the churches restored by Verheul were returned to their supposedly ancient state.37 The church at Krabbendijke was enlarged by Verheul in "medieval style. "38 In Wemeldinge, he even went so far as to add a controversial Gothic-style entrance in the chancel - the liturgical heart of the church - making the chancel function as the church's vestibule. Yet Verheul's restorations at the time were not out of the ordinary. On the contrary, the restoration of the church in Kapelle was even considered an example and Verheul's appointment in 1902 as a member of the Zeeuwsch Genootschap der Wetenschappen (Zeeland Scientific Society) is a recognition of his merits in the field of restoration. In later times, however, this method of restoration often provoked sharp criticism. For example, the authoritative Kunstreisboek voor Nederland speaks of an "atrocious restoration" of the church at Wemeldinge. 39 Folk house 'Ons Huis' (1909) - sober and social The volkshuis 'Ons Huis' on the Gouvernestraat in Rotterdam was intended as a center for the education and development of the worker and was therefore given an appropriately sober character.40 Verheul designed this building in 1909 and its construction took place during the same year. The front facade of the building is barely articulated. Four windows over four stories form a central risalite, crowned with a simple molding, broken by an even simpler tympanum, if possible, behind which a transverse gable roof is concealed, only over these four bays. This risalite is flanked by two bays that are one-story lower. Verheul uses different window shapes to articulate the building's floors. Both doors are in deep niches, executed as round arches that are rectangularly framed and have sober New Art decorations at the top, carved in stone. Between the first and second floors above the center windows is a tile panel bearing the name of the building. Decorations, although sparsely applied, are carefully designed and are all located in the façade plane. Behind the windows in the main facade are the club rooms. The concert hall, located behind the club rooms, is not reflected in the facade. Further activities In addition to his presidency of the Maatschappij tot bevordering der Bouwkunst, membership in Bouwkunst en Vriendschap and member of the Rotterdam city council, Verheul was also chairman of the Vereeniging tot Bevordering van Fabrieks- en Handwerksnijverheid for 25 years. He was appointed a member of the Hendrick de Keyser Association, the Zeeuwsch Genootschap der Wetenschappen, the Nederlands Comité van Volkskunst, the Historisch Genootschap "de Maze," the Provinciaal Utrechtsch Genootschap and the Openluchtmuseum in Arnhem. In 1893, he was appointed chairman of the Rotterdam Art Society. Even outside the architectural societies in which Verheul was active, he regularly acted as a juror in architectural competitions. For example, he judged facade competitions in Haarlem, (1901, 1902, 1903 and 1907) Rotterdam (1904) and Leiden (1913 and 1916). He also held this position for the competitions of the Rotterdam Academy of Visual Arts and Technical Sciences (1901 and 1902). He also served on the committee for the De Jongh monument and co-judged a competition launched by association "Het Westen" for a monumental fountain in 1907. Also in 1907, Verheul had a seat on a jury to judge a competition issued by "De Amsterdammer" for a residential house, in 1909 to judge the facade designs for the S.G. Haagsche bouwgrondmaatschappij and in 1911 to judge a competition for a society building issued by the board of the Officieren Sociëteit. For the World Exhibitions in Paris (1889), Antwerp (1894) and Brussels (1897), Verheul submitted designs in which he won medals several times.41 For the Dutch section at the World Exhibition in Paris, he submitted the designs for the theater, a number of residential houses, an office building and the interior paneling of the South Holland Coffee House. He won a silver medal for these.42 Verheul also participated in the international architectural congresses abroad including in 1897 in Brussels and in 1908 in Vienna. Industrial complex Stokvis & Sons (1908-1910) - a modern variation on classicism The office building, warehouse and workshop for the firm R.S. Stokvis on Westzeedijk, IJzerstraat and Ruigeplaatweg in Rotterdam, designed by Verheul in collaboration with C.N. van Goord, was completed in 1910. The main façade consists of a rectangle with a central alcove and two side wings with corner pavilions. The whole makes the impression of a highly simplified classicist palace. The base behind which two floors are hidden has been replaced by large windows in pressed arches with wall dams of natural stone in between. This forms, as it were, a stage for the abstract pilasters of brick above it in the colossal order. The upper floors, two in number, also have large windows without frames or crowns. Only above the center risalite and corner pavilions are tile tableaus with the name of the company in the center, and the inscriptions Groningen and Batavia to the left and right. The entrance porch is decorated with a bas-relief by Edema van der Tuuk, a New Art sculptor. The floor plan is divided into squares and thus works uncluttered in design, a requirement given the land area of 8000 m². Noteworthy is the courtyard with a large canopy of glass stones of various colors, the largest that had been executed in that material in the Netherlands at that time.43 The Stokvis management was very satisfied with the design; a few years later, Verheul and Van Goor were commissioned for the company's Amsterdam branch, while they were also entrusted with the supervision of the design of Stokvis' building in Groningen. Years later, in 1928, Verheul and Van Goor would build an equally complicated complex, namely the complex of offices, sawmill, storage and shipping for the Abraham van Stolk lumber yard on the road of the same name. For all these commercial buildings, the architects employed a strict, businesslike facade design, dressed with geometric and Jugendstil motifs. The 1930s: the watercolor as a sign of nostalgia and protest When Van Stolk's lumberyard was completed in 1928, Verheul was 68 and his career as a practicing architect was over. With the exception of the new Walloon Church, he had received few more commissions in the 1920s. He probably satisfied the desires of potential clients to a lesser extent.44 His last work dates from 1933: the rebuilding of De Doelen concert hall in Rotterdam in collaboration with J.H. de Roos and W.F. Overeijnder. However, the orthogonal facade set on the Coolsingel side with geometric and Art Deco motifs suggests that Verheul had a marginal influence on the design. Verheul disliked the progressive architecture advocated by a new generation of architects. Typical was his already mentioned complaint from 1925 about the facade "of the new café De Unie, designed by a municipal architect [J.J.P. Oud], a horrible thing. "45 Verheul found a new occupation in studying and recording on drawings or watercolors historic buildings and old farms, together with his assistant Molendijk. His interest in this was not new. His oldest known drawing of a historic building on Rotterdam's Wijnhaven dates from 1882. Of his Grote Schouwburg he had made Verheul an early watercolor, and on a visit to Middelharnis in 1905 he made an attractive drawing of that town's town hall. It was during the 1920s and 1930s, however, that he produced a large number of watercolors to accompany his historical publications, which he exhibited repeatedly and with great success. His last publication from 1946-1947 was Historische gebouwen van Rotterdam in two volumes in which he also described his own work. Other examples include Oude Boerenhofsteden in Zuid-Holland from 1930, as well as a book on the Rotterdam work of the Italian architect Giudici.46 In recording and publishing on Rotterdam's urban beauty, Verheul focused on influencing public opinion in favor of the preservation of historic buildings rather than attempting to steer the urban development process by administrative, official and architectural means, as he had done previously. 'Architecture with the right character' In his 'In memoriam J. Verheul Dzn.' from 1948, Rotterdam city architect A. van der Steur characterized Verheul's work after 1900 as a kind of 'Berlagian Modernism' and counted his older work among the best that had been built at the end of the nineteenth century.47 Strangely enough, the catalog of the exhibition 'Nederland bouwt in baksteen 1800-1940', held in Rotterdam seven years earlier, included only one work by Verheul: a drawing of his 1887 Rotterdam Schouwburg. None of his numerous residential houses, business premises and office buildings, of which the De Utrecht office building was a highlight that played an important role in the acceptance of Jugendstil in Dutch architecture, was mentioned. Moreover, neither J.C. Ebbinge Wubben nor H.M. Kraayvanger mentioned Verheul in the introduction.48 At the end of the 1920s, Verheul's activity as an architect was nearing its end. With the arrival of a generation of architects who felt more attracted to the ideas of De Stijl and the New Objectivity, Verheul's way of building seemed to have passed. Looking back, a clearly recognizable stylistic development can be seen in Verheul's oeuvre: a successful beginning with various interpretations of the Renaissance, a brief but intensive acquaintance with Jugendstil and, until about 1920, a longer relationship with strict neoclassicism on the one hand and Berlagian modernism on the other. However, this rigid and superficial stylistic classification does not do justice to the versatility and theoretical depth of Verheul's work. The guiding principle in his oeuvre was the vision of design and the closely related theory of core form and art form that he had received from Gugel. Themes that always recur with Verheul are that a building should have the right character, should fit its purpose and function, and should be in harmony with its surroundings and geographical origin. When new forms made their appearance in architecture, Verheul simply added them to his repertoire. With the introduction of Jugendstil and Berlagian motifs into his oeuvre around 1900, Verheul did not so much change his style as increase his options. This indicates that Verheul did not feel bound to one architectural style, but rather adopted a pragmatic approach. Verheul's hand shows itself in the balanced compositions and in the economical use of decoration, even in richly ornamented buildings the feeling prevails that nothing can be taken away without violating the whole. Moreover, the fact that Verheul had a free hand in the design of almost all commissions indicates that clients had great confidence in him.49 Jan Verheul died on Oct. 19. His architectural empire had been successful; he had therefore not lacked for honors.50 As a designer Verheul was not a great innovator, like, for example, his contemporary Berlage, but his work shows great craftsmanship, diversity and commitment. Verheul was attached to traditions, but was not averse to innovation. The destruction of Rotterdam in 1940 and many of the buildings designed by him or co-designed by him obviously caused him great distress. Verheul tried to preserve the beauty of the past, but did not want to stand in the way of its development into a metropolis. Above all, however, he strove for a city where it was pleasant to live, a city with great allure, but without the anonymity that he found in some large cities. That is why he remained involved in reconstruction plans of the inner city and some of his buildings until the very end. He put Verheul's not inconsiderable gifts as an architect, writer, draughtsman and politician at the service of this one great goal, to which he stuck until the end of his long life. Verheul's small number of buildings, together with his historical publications, now constitute an important legacy of a Rotterdam architect and a vanished cityscape. Literature Baalman, D., The first professor of architecture E.H. Gugel, De Sluitsteen, VII (1991) 2/3, p. 43-66 Buch, J., A century of Dutch architecture, 1890/1990, Rotterdam 1993 Gugel, E.H., History of architectural styles in the main periods of architecture, Rotterdam 1886 Ratsma, P., "J. Verheul Dzn and his image of Rotterdam", Rotterdams Jaarboekje, 1992, p. 222-259 Schilt, J. and Werf, J. van der, Genootschap Architectura et Amicitia, Rotterdam, 1992 Schmitz, Dr. H., "A Rotterdam Architect, Jan Verheul Dzn (1860-1948)," Rotterdams Jaarboekje, 1992, p.192-219. Sturgeon, A. van der, "In Memoriam J. Verheul Dzn.", Rotterdams Jaarboekje, 1949, p. 281-287 Verheul Dzn., J., Oude Boerenhofsteden in Zuid-Holland, Rotterdam 1903. Verheul Dzn., J., IJselmonde, Ridderkerk and Barendrecht, alsmede verdwenen en nog bestaande merkwaardigheiden in het oostelijke gedeelte van het eiland IJselmonde, Rotterdam 1935 Verheul Dzn. J., Historical buildings of Rotterdam (second series), Rotterdam 1947. Woud, A. van der, Unspeakable beauty. Truth and character in Dutch architecture, Amsterdam 1993 Woud, A. van der, Truth and character. The debate on architecture 1840-1900, Rotterdam 1997 NOTES 1 Since the construction drawings and records of a large number of projects were also lost during the May 1940 bombing, several works have been described, where possible, on the basis of historical photographic material and contextual data. 2 Two sources in particular have served as a guide in this research. For the pictorial material of Verheul's works up to 1916, A. Voogd, J. Verheul Dzn., architect-Rotterdam; Schouwburg, Concert Halls, Society Buildings, Churches, Bank Buildings, Villas, Residential Houses, Offices, Warehouses, Warehouse Buildings, Bussum 1916, and for the most recent secondary information the article by Schmitz 1992. 3 Rotterdam Municipal Archives (GAR), civil registration department. 4 Smitz 1992, pp. 193-194. 5 This neo-Gothic central building with tower dome on the Gedempte Glashaven was built from 1845-1848 and destroyed in World War II. For a detailed description, see Verheul 1947, pp. 41-53. 6 Gugel wrote his History of Building Styles in the Main Ages of Architecture in two volumes in 1886 and the Architectural Theory of Forms in four volumes in 1886 and 1887. See also Baalman 1991. 7 On the difference between core form and art form and the reception of this theory in Dutch architecture, see Van der Woud 1997, pp. 70, 103 and 274. 8 See Gugel 1886, p. 41. A Dutch variation on Bötticher's theory are the concepts of "truth" and "character" in architecture. On this, see Van der Woud 1993, especially p. 11. 9 J. Verheul Dzn., 'Youth memories', Bouwkundig Weekblad 1937, pp. 210-211. 10 Typical of Verheul's great love for this type of architecture is an article in the 1937 Bouwkundig Weekblad Architectura (pp. 210-211) in which he thought back with melancholy to residential house 'De Passer' in neo-Renaissance style by the Flemish architect Jean Jacques Winders, which was to be demolished. 11 Depending on the type of building and location, this could be Dutch, Flemish or Italian Renaissance. 12 Anonymous, "The Rotterdam Theatre Competition," De Opmerker 1883, pp. 318 and 321-323. 13 De Opmerker 1883, pp. 347-349. 14 Other major projects erected in the Neo-Renaissance style included the Concertgebouw by A.L. van Gendt from 1886-1888 and the Stadsschouwburg by J.L. and J.B. Springer and A.L. van Gendt, both in Amsterdam, and the Stadsgehoorzaal by D.E.C Knuttel in Leiden. 15 Bouwkundig Weekblad 1883, p. 193. 16 Anonymous, 'Exhibition of architecture in the social building, catalog', Bouwkundig Weekblad 1886, p. 90 17 See the years 1886, 1888, 1890, 1892, 1894, 1901, 1902 and 1905 in the Bouwkundig Weekblad. 18 See the years 1894, 1895, 1897, 1900, 1902 and 1906 in The Remarker. 19 Archives of Architecture and Friendship, annual reports 1900-1914. 20 Schilt 1992, appendix membership list. 21 Architectural Weekly 1889, pp. 307 and 317. 22 Architectural Weekly 1892, pp. 303-304. 23 See Gugel 1886, p. 47. 24 Architectural Contributions 1896, pp. 1-2. 25 For a definition, see footnote 27. 26 Architectural Weekly 1899, pp. 341-342 27 For a characterization of Jugendstil in the Netherlands and Belgium, see the introduction of De Bruijn and Schwartz 1992. 28 The umbrella term "Art Nouveau," usually called Jugendstil in the Netherlands, had different designations and stylistic characteristics in different European countries. In Belgium, especially in Brussels, a very flamboyant variant had developed under the influence of Victor Horta. In Vienna and Budapest, on the other hand, more geometric variant called Wiener Sezession was popular. In the Netherlands, the influence of the Belgian variant was most evident with The Hague as its center, however in a moderate form. It is characterized by the use of glazed bricks, details in natural stone and stained glass. 29 This not so significant style designation is characterized by a preference for geometric motifs and influences from historical Middle Eastern architecture, preferably based on theosophical principles. Its main representatives are J.L.M. Lauweriks, K.P.C. de Bazel and W. Kromhout, whose 1902 American Hotel on Amsterdam's Leidseplein is considered the high point of this direction. See also Buch 1993, pp. 27-34. 30 For the most complete description of Verheul's cityscape of Rotterdam, see Ratsma 1992. 31 Verheul 1938, p. 8 32 Smitz 1992, p. 222. 33 Anonymous, "Heerenhuis at Rotterdam," Bouwkundig Weekblad 1907, pp. 239-240. 34 Bouwkundig Weekblad 1893, pp. 157-158 and 1895, pp. 225-227. 35 For an overview of the discussions of restoration ethics in the nineteenth century and the rise of historic preservation, see Van der Woud 1997, pp. 231-236. 36 F.H. Malsen, C. Muysken, J. Verheul Dzn., "The town hall at Bolsward restored," Architectural Weekly 1895, p. 35. 37 Churches restored by Verheul were those at Middelharnis, 's-Heer Arendskerke, Kapelle, Kloetinge, Krabbendijke and Wemeldinge, all on the islands of South Holland and Zeeland. 38 See Ratsma 1992, pp. 225. 39 Kunstreisboek voor Nederland, Amsterdam 1965, p. 522. 40 Jan Gratama, "Ons Huis te Rotterdam," Bouwkundig Weekblad 1909, pp. 551-554. 41 See the relevant years from the Bouwkundig Weekblad. 42 Anonymous, 'Awards at the Paris Exhibition', Bouwkundig Weekblad 1889, p. 233. 43 Anonymous, 'Rotterdam. The Etablissement of the firm R.S. Stokvis & Sons L.T.D.', De Bouwwereld 1911, p. 279. 44 Illustrative of Verheul's changed attitude to his design principles is the remark that 'the exterior, which should be viewed from the point of view of architecture, building materials and whatnot' interested him greatly and that this artistic side appealed to him most as an architect. See for this the introduction of Verheul 1903. 45 De Voorwaarts 13-11-1925, clipping in album IV, GAR, Manuscript Collection, cat. no. 1111. 46 J. Verheul, De architect Jan Giudici 1746-1819: beschouwingen over enkele nog bestaande bouwwerken door Giudici ontworpen tijdens zijn verblijf van 1770-1819 als architect te Rotterdam, Rotterdam 1938. 47 See Van der Steur 1949, pp. 281-287. 48 This exhibition held at Museum Boymans displayed the work of Dutch architects who had used brick as their principal building and decorative material. At the center were P.J.H. Cuypers and H. Berlage and their followers. Consequently, the exhibition also had a manifesto-like character, namely propagating the "traditionalist" camp in architecture at a time when the "moderns" were gaining ground. 49 Only one case of interference by a client is known: The Remonstrantenhaus in Friedrichstadt a/d Eider, Germany, from 1910. Here the clients explicitly set the building style for historical and representative reasons. Verheul also completed some projects in collaboration with other architects who left a certain mark on the design. 50 He was a knight in the Order of Orange Nassau (1908), earned a silver medal from the Maatschappij tot bevordering der Bouwkunst in 1886 for his water tower in Schiedam and his Grote Schouwburg in Rotterdam, a silver medal at the Paris World's Fair of 1889, a gold one at that of 1900; further silver medals at the international exhibitions in Antwerp (1894) and in Brussels (1897 and 1911), as well as at the national exhibitions in Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Education: Rotterdam Academy of Fine Arts and Technical Sciences/;Polytechnic School Delft/1878 Additional positions: Maatschappij tot Bevordering der Bouwkunst/bestuurslid/1881-1901;Maatschappij tot Bevordering der Bouwkunst/lid/1881-1948;Bouwkundig Weekblad/editor/1894-1909;Bouwkunst en Vriendschap/vice-president/1886-1894;Architectura et Amicitia/lid/;Stadenteraad Rotterdam/lid/1902-1935;Vereeniging tot Bevordering van Fabrieks- en Handwerksnijverheid/;Vereniging Hendrick de Keyser/lid/;Zeeuwsch Genootschap der Wetenschappen/lid/;Nederlands Comite van Volkskunst/lid/;Historisch Genootschap "De Maze"/lid/;Provinciaal Utrechts Genootschap/lid/;Openluchtmuseum Arnhem/lid/;Facade competition Haarlem/jurylid/1901-1907;facade competition Rotterdam/jurylid/1904;facade competition/Leiden/1913-1916;competition monument De Jongh/jurylid/1907;competition for house/jurylid/1909 Archives: Rotterdam Municipal Archives/