INTRODUCTION The work of architect Jan Verhoeven has a distinct character. His great interest in and feeling for human relationships are reflected in the care with which he surrounded the users of his architecture. This earned him admirers, but also many who found his expressive forms and constructions too oppressive. Over the years, he was inspired both by the formal rigor in Palladio's works and by the playfulness and emotional approach of Cobra artists. With this foundation, he realized spaces that were both aesthetically and functionally extraordinary in his time. At that time, starting in the 1960s, the certainties of the Nieuwe Bouwen, which prevailed in architecture and urban planning, were shaken by the resistance of architects operating around the Forum magazine. Verhoeven's teacher Aldo van Eyck played an important role in this. In his wake, Verhoeven developed his own structuralist design method with which he designed a world that turned both inward and outward. His orientation in doing so was primarily on the Dutch building tradition. Main idea, inspirations and quotes, themes The main idea in Verhoeven's works is that the "individual parts"-for example, a number of residential houses-are situated around a "common part," the square, which is open to the public space. In terms of content, the houses and the square complement each other, forming a duality.'Ordering is establishing relationships also between people' was Verhoeven's approach.(1) This can be seen in his homes, residential neighborhoods, schools and larger social buildings. In his houses along Kyftenbeltlaan in Hoevelaken, the individual rooms are arranged around the living room with a void; in this and other residential neighborhoods, the residential houses have direct access to a multi-cornered square. At his schools, the classrooms are grouped around a large meeting area, and at his National Fire Academy in Schaarsbergen, the blocks of student rooms and classrooms were originally located around the central storage area for the fire engines. Verhoeven's central idea that individual and community are equally important and mutually reinforcing is one that probably reached him in the late 1950s early 1960s through his inspirational teacher Aldo van Eyck. The latter studied in Zurich during World War II and became friends with the art historian Carola Giedion.(2) She and others formed a group of modern abstract and surrealist artists who had fled to Switzerland in connection with the war. She stood for the approach that opposites can reinforce each other.(3) Verhoeven later sought to express the concept of opposites in his designs in several ways.(4) Within Verhoeven's buildings there are inspirations, quotes and also themes to be discovered. The inspirations come from architectural history as well as foreign and indigenous construction. From Palladio to Louis Kahn and from Islamic tile patterns to Dutch farmhouses. These inspirations are used when they fit the main idea. The themes in the designs are functional components that usually also reinforce the main idea and are implemented differently each time. Examples include: the roof shapes, often expressive wooden structures, durable materials (5), spaces with higher and lower sections often with voids, skylights and windows with special layouts, staircases with exceptional gradients, straight and intersecting axes and fireplaces. The latter are an example of a component that in use can be very stimulating to togetherness. Not only did the multicolored environment in Zurich inspire Van Eyck and thus indirectly Verhoeven, but he also transmitted to his students the ideas of people around the Cobra art movement, whom Van Eyck had met personally. The particular free expressive and emotional approach to man and nature in their motifs is recognizable in Verhoeven's intentions and statements. The social situation after World War II is important to understand the reaction of younger architects such as Piet Blom, Herman Hertzberger and Verhoeven. They turned against the general approach of Reconstruction. In their view, the rational, functionalist building projects were focused primarily on functions and the economy, and took too little account of human or more psychological needs. These young architects sought new forms of expression, basing themselves on structuralist design methods. Furthermore, government policy, which in the 1966 Second Memorandum on Spatial Planning in the Netherlands switched to bundled deconcentration (6) in small growth centers, contributed greatly to a different climate regarding public housing and spatial planning. With regard to housing itself, it advocated more choices, more attractive living environments and less uniformity. The then Minister of Housing and Spatial Planning Wim Schut played a stimulating role in this. Verhoeven's working method The basis of Verhoeven's designs, structures or configurations as he preferred to call them, is a classical grid of squares in which diagonals also play a role. The dimensions of the grid are adapted to form and function and not the other way around. The floor plans are usually created by mirroring and rotating units in the plan around a central polygonal, regular polygonal space, such as an octagon, hexagon and even a pentagon. Herman Hertzberger admires Verhoeven's ability to design with the latter figure, for example.(7) The basic pattern can also be expanded to include irregular shapes. There are also examples of fitting figures between a few basic units. His designs were experienced by some as organic, or reminiscent of flowers or crystals (8), others recognized beneath the surface the strict geometric configuration in which Verhoeven's great spatial giftedness is expressed: with a strict grid as a basis, he manages to seemingly playfully pretend that it was created without a grid. "Cluttered, but actually a complicated order."(9) His goal was to create an environment in which people, as individuals and belonging to a community, would feel comfortable and at home.(10) Verhoeven stood in his studio as a "composer and conductor" in the midst of his collaborators. He listened to their stories between work. A former employee told him that the boss wielded the thick pencil and that the collaborators were otherwise on their own for elaboration. This was only possible because Verhoeven's sketches were very correctly put together. Musicians talk about absolute hearing, Verhoeven had a very good spatial insight, otherwise such a working method would not have been possible. He often started with maquettes made of corrugated cardboard that he put together with painter's tape before a first sketch was made. As the design became more elaborate, the neatness of the maquette increased up to and including the presentation maquette.(11) The latter was often produced at the last minute with the help of his wife and children. (12) Verhoeven's primary spaces in residential homes and schools are often organic in form, positioned where buildings in southern Europe have an atrium. Beneath this surface, however, lies a strict geometric structure that Verhoeven playfully juggles with. As in a mill or on the part of a farm, the mostly substantial wooden structures are emphatically visible, and thus characteristic of his work. He has realized the spaces with feeling and respect for the human scale. Architect Jan Verhoeven Verhoeven grew up in Amersfoort. His father J.A. Verhoeven(1895-1971) had become co-director of the Amersfoort installation firm Installatiewerk through the trade school in the late 1920s. From 1933 he started his own agency under the name of Warmte- en Elektronisch Adviesbureau J.A. Verhoeven Amersfoort, which became very successful in the years Jan grew up. Thanks to Verhoeven sr.'s friendship with architect J.F. Staal (1879-1940), one of his first commissions was the air and technical installations in the Beursgebouw on the Coolsingel in Rotterdam. Other larger commissions in the early period included the Avro studio in Hilversum, the Jewish Invalide in Amsterdam - also by Staal - , the Twentse Bank in Rotterdam and the Pension Council in The Hague. In a jubilee edition of the staff magazine Komma (13), published on the occasion of the company's fiftieth anniversary in 1983, his technical insight and gifted negotiating skills were mentioned, in which he (...) displayed a high degree of inventiveness and artistry, always searching behind his drawing board for those technical solutions that were most in harmony with the design and architecture of the building. In doing so, he was averse to following well-trodden paths and fixed schemes.(14) Jan Verhoeven was able to develop his down-to-earth attitude to the value and limitation of technology from home.(15) Over the years, Jan Verhoeven's father worked for architects who belonged to the direction of the Nieuwe Bouwen, such as Staal, J.J.P. Oud (1890-1963), B. Merkelbach (1901-1961), P.J. Elling (1897-1962) and A. Bodon (1906-1990).(16) In his student days, Verhoeven was a collaborator with Merkelbach and Elling, probably thanks to his father. He and others would strongly agitate against some projects and some approaches of these architects. Jan Verhoeven lived in Amersfoort from his birth on May 26, 1926 until his move to Hoevelaken in the 1960s, with interruptions for study and work in Amsterdam and Paris. The parental home with office was located just outside the medieval city. This oldest part of the city is full of interesting spatial experiences: lower residential houses, large churches between alleys and canals and curved streets.(17) Its morphological and hierarchical structure is reminiscent of the structure of Verhoeven's later executed works. A circular street, the northwestern part of Breestraat, was built on the foundations of Amersfoort's first circular city wall. Verhoeven's residential neighborhoods, often with polygonal squares and streets, experienced as circular, are reminiscent of this part of the Breestraat. For the spaces around the school in Heumen and squares in a residential area in Hoevelaken, the triangular Appelmarkt could have served as a model. Verhoeven attended the Rijks-HBS from 1943 to 1948.(18) A chronic asthmatic bronchitis (19) played tricks on him then and also later in his life. This did not hinder the passion to practice his craft. After HBS, Verhoeven considered becoming an architect, as evidenced by a letter from a friend who was temporarily living in America. The latter wrote the following in a letter of reply: (...) Jan, your plan to become an architect seems huge to me. I believe, that this is really something that will suit you. As far as I can judge, your strong side, apart from your drawing skills, is your cultural and aesthetic interest, which will serve you very well in architecture. I really hope that you will be able to follow the course, as you have mapped out for the following years, to the end. (...) I believe that with architecture you have really found something very good. (As for your piano playing, I envy you very much. While you apparently advance with reasonably large steps, I decline with unreasonably large steps."(20) Verhoeven's parents were both from Zwolle, his mother Bep was progressive and was engaged in alternative, healthy eating, among other things. Striking in their modernly furnished home that included Bertoia furniture was a large cabinet full of gramophone records. These were probably played by Jan and his sister Tine, since, unlike their parents, they were both very interested in music.(21) From 1949 to 1950, Verhoeven worked for the Amersfoort architect G. Pothoven (1915-1997). The latter later said of him, "he was quite stubborn then ... he became a bit more practical. In reference to Verhoeven's pyramid-shaped residential building in Dorrestein, Amersfoort, Pothoven said, 'constructively he was not practical then, but his ideas were fine.'(22) In 1950, Verhoeven began his studies as an architect in Amsterdam by attending evening classes at the Middelbare Technische School in Amsterdam. During his years at the evening school between 1950-1953, he worked at the office of Merkelbach and Elling. During his time at this firm, Verhoeven spoke very critically of the draftsmen with great technical insight. He himself was then much more concerned with "the realization that architecture is art."(23) During these years, Verhoeven still felt uncertain about his attitude toward architecture. He tended toward the understanding that architecture is an art, but this intuitive approach was not shared by the draftsmen at the said firm: "The guys who worked there were all very good draftsmen with solid technical experience. So they said : 'Ah you shouldn't go to the Academy, you must first master building technique properly'."(24) Verhoeven opted in 1954 for the course Voortgezet Bouwkundig Onderricht (VBO) at the Academy of Architecture in Amsterdam, where he received his diploma VHBO in 1961.(25) In the years 1955-1960, he worked in various formations with the architects H. van Meer (*1928), D.L. Sterenberg (*1921) and D. van de Pol (*1930). On May 3, 1958, it was notarized that they had entered into a partnership with each other since 1956, which, however, was only fully effective from January 1, 1958. They called themselves BUOR (BUro voor Orde en Regelmaat) and were based in Laren.(26) At the Academy in 1960, as a third year, he made a design for an aquarium under the guidance of Aldo van Eyck. The design was published the same year in the architecture magazine Forum, of which Van Eyck was editor; for a student, something very special. (27) The aquarium, placed in the sea, is pyramid-shaped with one half above the sea surface and one half below. Along stairs you reach the floors that stagger up and down half a floor from the entrance level. The elongated first floor from which everything is reached and the main structure described are reminiscent of the 1961 design for the expansion plan for the De Koppel Lower Technical School in Amersfoort and its later implementation in 1973. In the Forum article mentioned above, Aldo van Eyck writes in his review of the aquarium design among other things: (...) If the visitor is receptive to some degree of association, he will be able to experience through fish and architecture the phenomena: sea - sea depth and seabed - current and more (...) From the demiscus, this miraculous dividing line, the building sinks down into the water as organically as it bulges up into the air space. The aquarium is very soberly constructed and is still indebted to the New Building. The character of Verhoeven's works from the mid-sixties in the previous century is already recognizable in these three designs: a rich play of experiences with a spatial giftedness formed around a central space. (28) In 1959, Verhoeven married Eva Wensing. They had met several years earlier in Amsterdam. Eva, born in 1927 and died in 2011, had trained in bound graphics from 1946 at the Institute for Art Education in Amsterdam, later the Gerrit Rietveld Akademie. As a 25-year-old, she lived in Paris for some time. Her father was the stage actor Lucas Wensing; her mother, Eva Beck, had trained in dance and music in Geneva, which was unusual for the time, and she later also played the stage.(29) Eva always worked along at Verhoeven's studio, as he called his architectural firm. Her duties included administration and shaping windows and facades, choosing colors. Eva was the most important interlocutor for Jan. Her judgment weighed heavily for him.(30) Jan and Eva made music together; Jan had had lessons in Amsterdam from a singing teacher. He sang songs by Schubert, for example, and Eva accompanied on the piano. Moreover, singing was good for Jan's lungs. At periods he took singing lessons from Eva's sister, Hetty Wensing. Their first home in Amersfoort was a flat on Bachweg where the architect family Heijdenrijk also lived, with whom they had a lot of contact. In 1966 Jan and Eva moved to the Jan-designed house Park Weldam in Hoevelaken. In their home there was almost always music on; operas, symphonies and chamber music alternated. Music from other cultures was also listened to. Special house concerts took place here. The acoustics in the high beam-covered living room were excellent.(31) Music came into its own in Verhoeven's houses with beams, girders and support beams, both in his house on Park Weldam and in the houses along Kyftenbeltlaan in Hoevelaken, as the author himself was privileged to experience. From the late 1960s, the Verhoeven family - by now their daughter Caroline had been born - went summer camping in Faucon, near Vaison la Romaine. Each year they visited several Cistercian abbeys including Senanque, Silvance, Le Thoronet, Fontfroide and Fontenay. The austerity, materials and spirituality of these abbeys were an important source of inspiration for Verhoeven.(32) The original design of the neighborhood and houses along Kyftenbelt Avenue in Hoevelaken reflected those qualities. Aldo van Eyck At the time that Verhoeven was training with Aldo van Eyck and receiving his first commissions, the influence of the Nieuwe Bouwen movement was particularly strong in the Netherlands. Architects sympathetic to this movement had already organized congresses starting in 1928 to promote modern architecture and provide it with a theoretical framework. The meetings of the Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne (CIAM) began in 1928 in La Sarraz, Switzerland and continued until its dissolution in 1959 in Otterlo with an interruption due to World War II. The Fourth Congress in 1933 (33) produced the Charte d'Athene which, with the separation of functions of living, working, traffic and recreation, became a guideline for urban planning at the time, and would be widely applied after World War II. A new generation of architects ran against this. At the 10th Congress in Dubrovnik in 1956, which was led by J.B. Bakema and prepared by the younger Team Ten architects including Van Eyck and Peter and Alison Smithson, new recommendations were made which were recorded in the Charte d'Habitat.(34) This sought to analyze the spatial relationships for individuals and families through all stages of life, the relationships between individuals and communities and our relationship with nature. Van Eyck and Bakema, with others, formed a group that sought a new course: 'They no longer wanted to focus on purely rational and functional aspects but also on promoting a sense of community and rich urban life.'(35) The approach, which was new for the time, later made a great impression on Verhoeven when he encountered it as a student of Van Eyck at the Academy of Architecture. An important source for following these developments was the magazine Forum, published from 1946 by the Genootschap Architectura et Amicitia. Van Eyck was editor between 1959-1963, and his key contributors included H. Hertzberger (*1932) and Bakema. (36) Several architects who felt at home with the Forum idea were inspired in terms of content by Van Eyck's approach to architecture as an art direction and by his knowledge of other cultures, including from Africa. This was particularly true of Verhoeven, P. Blom (1934-1994) and Hertzberger. The first two worked out their designs mainly in traditional materials, wood structures and brick walls, Hertzberger mainly with concrete structures. In his own words, his designs are based on a grid, cells in a row that you can see through. He compared Verhoeven's designs to "a forest of trees," i.e. spaces with a limited view through. Verhoeven was not convinced of the qualities of the Nieuwe Bouwen, apart from some work by Le Corbusier and Rietveld.37 Apart from the early work for BUOR, his design for an aquarium (1960) and the executed design for the LTS school De Koppel (1973), there is no trace of this either. Modernists and traditionalists Simultaneously with the developments resulting from the meetings within CIAM, where functionalism, with emphasis on technology, economy and social content was the dominant objective, movements with similar intentions arose within groups of Dutch architects. Here these architects were called functionalists or characterized as the Nieuwe Bouwen group (1920-1960).(38) Directly opposed to these groups at the time, as in France at the founding of CIAM, was a group of traditionalist architects headed by M.J. Granpré Molière (1883-1972). These were "searching for clear guidelines for an architecture, which should bear witness not only to human dignity but also somewhat to Divine Majesty."(39) As early as 1920, the association 'Opbouw' was founded in Rotterdam by W. Kromhout and M. Brinkman. Later architects such as Oud, Van Eesteren, W. van Tijen (1894-1974), M. Stam (1899-1986) and J.B. van Loghem (1881-1940) joined in; the latter two stood for outspoken socialist views.(40) In 1927 in Amsterdam architects' group 'De 8' was founded by B. Merkelbach and Ch.J.F. Karsten (1904-1979) among others. Their founding manifesto stated that they worked "more for building science than for architecture."(41) From 1930, some members of 'Opbouw' and 'De 8' together formed the Dutch group representing the country at CIAM. From 1932 to 1943, these Dutch architect groups together published the magazine De 8 and Opbouw. Rotterdam examples of the Nieuwe Bouwen are Oud's Kiefhoek neighborhood, Brinkman and Van der Vlugt's Van Nelle Factory and Van Tijen's Bergpolderflat, the first Dutch gallery apartment building.(42) The work and efforts of this functionalist group of architects had a great influence on the Dutch development of architecture. Some members would participate in the reconstruction after the end of World War II, critically followed by younger architects such as Bakema and Van Eyck. In order to actually influence the upcoming reconstruction, the study group "Architectural care of postwar housing" was formed as early as 1942 under the chairmanship of Van Tijen, which developed various sketch plans.(43) Reconstruction Since peace had been concluded in 1945, the reconstruction of the Netherlands was vigorously pursued by the government. The infrastructure of roads and ports was restored, businesses and cities rebuilt. Many homes had been destroyed by war, housing production had been at a standstill for four years, and a boom in new-found families was emerging. To deal with the acute housing shortage, public enemy number one, from the aforementioned years onwards, the government implemented economic policies with the provision of subsidies, which helped determine the level of rents. The speed of the flow of money was planned so as to try to avoid unemployment in the construction industry that might arise when the housing shortage was over.(44) Partly due to "Voorschriften en Wenken" valid from 1951, a certain uniformity was recognizable in the new neighborhoods.(45) From 1965, the Minister of Public Housing P.C.W.M. Bogaers (1924-2008), with his policy of increasing housing production, stimulated industrial building methods. The Bijlmermeer is an example of such a neighborhood.(46) The architects did not keep quiet. Discussion had already begun in the war years with protagonists such as architect Granpré Molière, belonging to the traditional "Delft School," G.Th. Rietveld (1888-1964) belonging to the progressive "De Stijl," and van Tijen belonging to the functionalist group the "Nieuwe Bouwen. In the discussions during and after the war between the group around Granpré Molière and the group around Van Tijen, the influence of the traditionalists was characterized by the functionalists as a "Delft dictatorship."(47) The reaction to these economic, technical and architectural developments came in the fifties, sixties with Van Eyck as the great inspiration and later also by architects such as Hertzberger Blom and Verhoeven. In connection with the housing shortage, for example, in Amsterdam many high-rise buildings were built, strongly determined by the possibilities of construction cranes. As for low-rise buildings, the many rows of similar family homes were a particular thorn in the side of these critically minded architects. Regarding the latter house type, Blom spoke of "the diarrhea of rows of houses."(48) Aldo van Eyck and Jan Verhoeven When Verhoeven started at the Academy of Architecture in Amsterdam in 1954 (or 1955), he was 28 years old. As a third-year student, he made a design for the aforementioned aquarium in which Van Eyck was his design teacher. The latter brought about the publication of said project.(49) In 1960 Jan had his practical year with Van Eyck. Before his academy studies in the evening, Jan had completed an evening course at a technical school and had gained work experience at a large architectural firm, among others. Verhoeven often referred to Van Eyck because he could tell so many interesting stories and also because he put little pressure on the students to make their designs. Verhoeven must have absorbed his explanations and stories like a sponge. He enjoyed the contact with Van Eyck, and talked about it throughout the rest of his life.(50) Van Eyck's experiences, conveyed through his teaching and conversations, had a great influence on Verhoeven's development. Just around Verhoeven's time of study, Van Eyck had completed the execution of the Civic Orphanage on Amstelveenseweg in Amsterdam (1957-1960). It was a nationally and internationally much-discussed project.(51) Under smaller domes with a module size of 3.36 x 3.36 m., the Burgerweeshuis housed four smaller "dwelling houses" and communal spaces, all one floor high. Beneath four larger dominant domes were two-story "residential houses. The latter are easily visible from the outside. A two-story wing with teachers' rooms without domes marked the entrance. Contact on the first floor was not along straight dark corridors as used to be common in orphanages, but through a corridor with recessed corners (polygonal). This corridor overlooks outdoor spaces and provides cohesion for the entire floor plan. This plan geometry is called configurational (52) and will often be recognized later in Verhoeven's works. This orphanage could accommodate a large number of children but because of the division into distinctly small units, massiveness is avoided and the human scale is always present. This principle is also recognizable in later houses by Verhoeven. With Verhoeven's statements in interviews about the importance of fantasy, emotions, freedom and nature, it seems clear that these concepts, known from the Cobra movement, meant a lot to him. (53) Again, Van Eyck must have been an inspiration; he had designed the first Cobra exhibition in 1949 and maintained contact with some of the artists of this group afterwards. (54) The exhibition represented an interesting transition for Van Eyck. For the artist Else Alfelt, a member of Cobra, it was special that art was also exhibited on low stages, without space-restricting partitions, but an "open continuous space," one of the aims of De Stijl, which at that time was still an inspiration for Van Eyck. His design still exuded modernism, including paintings made especially for the spaces. (55) All the paintings and sculptures of the Cobra artists told of another world, a world full of fantasy, spirit of freedom and nature. A second important commitment of Van Eyck was his presence as the Dutch delegate at the international congresses between 1947 - 1957 of CIAM. The first secretary of these congresses was the architectural historian Sigfried Giedion, an acquaintance of Van Eyck. Van Eyck argued at CIAM for "a more comprehensive conception of architecture," in contrast to the view of many Dutch architects who believed that architecture was a rational profession. At a meeting of "De 8 en Opbouw," he had previously made this plea. (56) Such a clear view was a clear guideline for young still uncertain architects like Verhoeven. Van Eyck studied in Zurich from 1942-1946, where he met his future wife Hannie van Royen. Together they became acquainted with the art historian Carola Giedion, married to Sigfried Giedion. Their home in Zurich was a center for early twentieth-century avant-garde artists. For Carola Giedion, the meaning of avant-garde art came down to (...) "the pairing of counterparts that already emerge at the dawn of Western thought (...) as the basic structure of existence: counterparts such as unity-mass, matter-mind, subject-object, cerebral-sensual, dream-reality, universal-individual, rest-movement. (57) This insight also recurs with Van Eyck, as in his writings on the twin phenomenon.(58) Verhoeven, like his fellow architect Blom, seems to have been influenced by this. This can be seen, for example, in their urban plans and houses, where equal attention to the individual as well as the community is paramount. Structuralism The significance of Van Eyck's knowledge of Cobra ties in with his interest in other cultures. In the work of Van Eyck as well as Verhoeven and others, this interest contributed to the architecture and ordering principles we know as structuralism. This movement promoted primarily by Van Eyck advocated an architecture that saw built structures as the counterform of social structures. The composition of buildings from small recognizable and repeatable elements meant an order in juxtaposition, which for that reason fitted in well with the need felt at the time to give shape to democratic structures; the similarity and uniformity of the elements made a hierarchical structure impossible. This applied not only to the design but also to the division of functions between the spaces.(59) One of the first projects in the Netherlands to be considered structuralist designs is the Civic Orphanage on Amstelveenseweg in Amsterdam by architect Van Eyck. Two other outstanding examples of structuralist works are the housing complex in Hoevelaken along Kyftenbeltlaan by Verhoeven and the Centraal Beheer building in Apeldoorn by Hertzberger. Aldo van Eyck's first contact with non-Western European housing culture came about during trips to the Dogon Valley in Mali in February 1960 and to Taos Pueblo in New Mexico in December 1961. Travel to primitive peoples was very much in vogue among architects at that time. He had prepared himself thoroughly through literature.(60) The experiences from the country itself would have a strong influence on his works and on his articles in the journal Forum, among others, in which he described the thoughts underlying the structure and configuration of his work. The significance for Van Eyck of said experiences with cultures far away for him is the "formal expressiveness of their building forms" and "the psycho-social reality they expressed with them."(61) Without these sources of inspiration, a structure such as the Civil Orphanage would probably never have been built. This structure is characterized by its construction based on a grid whose equal units are intended by function, construction and form. The building is not confined as a closed block but appears dynamic through its moved exterior wall and roof, which closely follow the chosen grid.(62) The "playing and juggling" with the grid in plan and space is peculiar to structuralism. The repeated sizes are a necessity in a world where industry and also craft demand simplification because of the economy. This building had a great influence in the Netherlands and abroad on the aforementioned, then younger architects, who came into contact with Van Eyck, not least on Verhoeven.(63) Characteristic of Verhoeven's later work is the use of two grids; the second grid follows the diagonals of the first, an aid in designing his polygonal spaces. 'Verhoeven's structure, by interweaving structural grids, shows the possibility of a diagonal connection. An ordering principle that we recognize in several of Verhoeven's projects.'(64) None of the three younger architects mentioned here blindly adopted Van Eyck's influence. All managed to reflect their personal approach in their buildings, while at the same time recognizing the build-up in a structure. The facades of Hertzberger's houses usually have a relationship to New Building. Hertzberger said that after studying at Delft University of Technology, he "couldn't see any more brick,"(65) so he chose clear concrete structures and often flat roofs. Houses by Verhoeven and Blom, however different in construction from standardized house plans, still spoke the language of traditional Dutch architecture with their use of brick, wood and roof tiles.(66) Occupants central While dissatisfaction with the uniformity of Dutch postwar housing production was first voiced by architects, including in Forum magazine, it was certainly not voiced by them alone. Common building practice was dominated by industrial mass construction, aimed at using crane high-rise and uniform single-family row houses to help solve the existing housing shortage. Only a few years after the completion of the 1 millionth postwar home in 1961 did ideas about a more qualitative approach to housing emerge even among social movements such as Provo, among public housing professionals, political parties and the business community. There was a great interest in renewing and developing the dwelling, both substantively and technically. Common goals for the future home were formulated such as: co-determination, transparency, variety and experience of space. The first two concepts are known, among others, from the programs of the political party D'66, founded in 1966, and the group New Left within the Labour Party at the time. Organizationally, these ideas took shape in a number of foundations that would propagate new forms of building, living and living together in various ways. The rapidly increasing prosperity from the mid-sixties would act as a catalyst for this. Foundation for Architects Research SAR However, it was architects who took the lead in using the industrial possibilities in construction to create a more differentiated supply on the housing market. The Stichting Architecten Research was founded in 1964 by the nine largest architectural firms in the Netherlands and the Bond van Nederlandse Architecten (BNA).(67) The board consisted of representatives from each of the nine firms, two from the BNA and a president. At its inception, this was the lawyer P. Sanders of Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Other board members were the architects J.B. Bakema, J.H. van den Broek, J.C.L. Choisy, S.J. van Embden, E.F. Groosman, L.J. de Jonge, E.H. Kraayvanger, H.A. Maaskant and W. van Tijen. The firm had its headquarters in Eindhoven and was headed by architect N.J. Habraken. The special interest in the development of housing construction is evident from the objective of the foundation: 'The aim is to develop a system in which at different times good houses for different wishes and offers can be built in and changed'.(68) In the introduction to the book 'The carriers and the people the end of mass housing, Habraken describes the problem in housing construction as early as 1961: 'Could it be that the housing shortage, or rather its apparent insolubility, is caused by this controversy between man and method'? (69) Furthermore, Habraken argues for a strong reaction to the realized mass housing and barracks construction, where participation and initiative of the residents have been eliminated. An alternative to "the armadas of housing blocks stranded around city centers '(70) is Habraken's goal. His idea is to place industrially manufactured built-in elements within a structure of load-bearing parts in collaboration with the residents. In a colorful brochure, whose design and colors are reminiscent of Le Corbusier, The Development of a Structure, published by research firm SAR in 1967, an example of the twin residential structure is described with drawings and text.(71) Two parallel structures, the supports suitable for the location consisting of load-bearing walls and floors with standard breakthroughs such as doors and with cantilevers for galleries and balconies, can be placed at different distances from each other. The spaces of a dwelling arise in width between the load-bearing structures. Pipe ducts are placed in the middle area; the distance between them determines the width of the house. The depth of the supporting structure plus that of the variable center area determines the depth of the house. In the center of the house, the omission of load-bearing floors enables maisonettes, spatially enriching the house with a void. The proposed structure with cantilevered sections for galleries and balconies gives great variation possibilities horizontally and vertically. All non-bearing parts -light walls, kitchen and plumbing- belong to the built-in package. This built-in package would be designed at the initiative of the Wood Information Institute using the SAR design methodology as a basis. The numerous combination options would encourage residents' participation in furnishing their homes. In 1973, the Foundation introduced a third concept, "the fabric," which meant the interrelationship between residential buildings and surrounding space. Beginning in the early 1970s, housing was built according to the principles of the SAR.(72) Habraken's basic desire, which is still current today, he describes with the following words: 'It must be possible to find a way of working, which gives man and machine, natural relationship and mass production hand in hand the opportunity to develop to their full potential.'(73) The foundation was dissolved in 1990.(74) National Foundation for New Forms of Living Founded in 1968, the National New Housing Forms Foundation aimed to be an intermediary between designers, builders and other relevant disciplines. 'The National New Housing Forms Foundation wants to contribute to the livability of our country. It wants to assist in the realization of housing forms that offer more space for human development than is the case with conventional building,' reads the objective in an undated red leaflet with the above title, probably written by Ab van Dien, initiator and later director of the Foundation and also neighbor of Verhoeven in Hoevelaken. The Foundation aimed to be an umbrella body, cooperating with all those involved in building in the Netherlands. The Foundation wants to integrate the functions of "living, working, recreation and social interaction. It wants to "confront the population with more thoughtful forms of housing, and also support and propagate progressive "projects. "75 Immediately upon its establishment, the foundation received support from the government. Minister of Housing and Spatial Planning Wim Schut immediately signed up as a sympathizer. The foundation organized itself into a number of groups: a working group, a board of directors, an advisory board, a supervisory board and a contact group. The working group, where everyone was welcome, included the following architects: Dick Apon, Piet Blom, Willem Brinkman, Gerrit Boon, Aldo van Eyck, Max Risselada, Wiek Röling, Joop van Stigt, Jan Verhoeven, Nico Witstok and Carel Weeber. The latter soon withdrew as a member and was later very critical of the foundation's results. The board consisted of director Ab van Dien, secretary Leslie Hurlebath, director of Hurlebath & Co importer of Finnish fabrics, and treasurer Dick Schwarz, partner at design firm Total Design. The member advisory board consisted of the following: Hedy d'Ancona, sociographer; Dick Apon, architect; Aldo van Eyck, architect; Ph.H. Fiedelij Dop, pediatrician; N.H. Frijda, professor of psychology; L. Wijers, National Planning Service; Karel Wiekart, architectural critic (member from 1970). The professions of these members tell something about the ideals and intentions of the foundation; they accentuate the importance of other professional groups for housing construction. The supervisory board was formed after 1969 to review the financial policies of the foundation. At the time of the foundation's presentation, there were sufficient commitments from the business community for a base capital. Sympathizers paid a symbolic contribution of 2.5 guilders per year.(76) In the magazine Stedebouw en Volkshuisvesting, the pediatrician Fiedeldij Dop wrote an inspiring essay on SNW that captures well the thoughts of the early days. 'One thing we have in common: We want our children and grandchildren to be able to understand why the houses and neighborhoods, to which our foundation gave its signature, are different from the conventional housing and urban extensions of the last decades. To which, incidentally, we readily acknowledge that much has been done for the citizenry, that a housing shortage had to be eliminated.' (...) To other groups who want to promote the livability of the Netherlands, we are open. For the way in which the government is approaching us we have great appreciation: on November 19 next (1968) the residents of a new neighborhood in Hoevelaken (meant is the first phase of Verhoeven's little neighborhood along Kyftenbeltlaan, MZ) will receive Minister Schut at home. (...) After all, the Charter of Athens of 1933, divided the city into functions: working, living, recreation and traffic. My observations taught me that this also split the family: the woman lives, the man leaves for work (...) the residential city became a dormitory city. (...) Later I understood that CIAM (the International Congress of Modern Architecture) had chosen this practical solution for the rapid accommodation of the agricultural population, which was going to be engaged in service professions, because it was believed that the man of the future had to be first and foremost a community man. There was insufficient awareness of the fact that every need is bipolar: in addition to contact with others, man wants to be able to be alone.'(77) The Dutch branch of CIAM represented functionalist ideas in the Netherlands; it believed in industrial development as determining city plans and houses. Subareas for living, working, recreation and traffic were created. Approaches that defined postwar neighborhoods in the Netherlands. Members of the New Housing Forms Foundation reacted against this. One of the conditions for achieving the foundation's goal was to increase the housing density in single-family housing districts. The residential neighborhood along Verhoeven's Kyftenbelt Avenue in Hoevelaken is an example of this effort. In the yard of the first and second phases, 24 houses were initially planned. On the same area, 35 houses could be built with meandering rows of houses. The district was not created or supervised under the umbrella of the foundation, but was the first to live up to the ideals: small scale, sense of identity, individual houses around smaller polygonal communal squares were recognizable.(78) The district was opened in November 1968 by the Minister of Housing and Spatial Planning Schut. The minister installed the Advisory Committee for Experimental Housing in the same year. This was a very important step for the work of the New Housing Foundation. Designs approved by the advisory committee received economic support per house. The projects Sterrenbuurt (1971) in Berkel en Rodenrijs with 535 premium rental houses and 't Koggeschip (1973) in Den Helder with houses under the housing law were both built with the support of this advisory committee and were both realized through cooperation between the architects Brinkman, Klunder, Verhoeven and Witstok. Both neighborhoods integrated living quarters for the elderly and young people. The building density per hectare in Berkel en Rodenrijs and Den Helder was 52 and 55 , respectively, twice the national average at the time. The urban plan in Den Helder came into its own partly because the positioning of the houses offered protection from the frequent cold northwest wind. The four architects therefore received a follow-up commission in the same city on Sluisdijkerstraat. To his disappointment, despite efforts by the director Ab van Dien, SNW was not involved in this.(79) However, the foundation was involved in organizing information and public participation evenings, and made an accompanying exhibition for each project upon completion. Two more general exhibitions, "Wonen is meer" (1970) and "Wonen in Nederland" (1974), toured the country. Ab van Dien enthusiastically attended such evenings. In the second half of the 1970s, contacts between Verhoeven and the New Housing Forms Foundation diminished, partly because the plan for the Tathorst neighborhood in Wageningen, designed by the architects Van den Berg, Boon, Sterenberg and Verhoeven, did not come to fruition. For Verhoeven, the cooperation with SNW, especially with his neighbor Ab van Dien, during the years from 1968 to the early 1970s, was of great importance. Building projects were carried out with several architects, in which his main ideas were realized. The foundation caused a breath of fresh air in the Netherlands with substantive new ideas and a lot of contact between architects and residents thanks to discussions and exhibitions. The foundation received the support of the state, the press and trade magazines: Wonen (laterWonen/TABK) and Plan wrote a lot about public participation, urban regeneration, building for the neighborhood and at the same time against the developments in the Bijlmermeer and similar housing estates where too similar high-rise buildings were implemented mainly in terms of content and form. Criticism was bound to follow. The style of Verhoeven and others was characterized with a term such as Nieuwe Truttigheid (according to Van Dale: sarcastic term for a certain 'nerdy' building style in the seventies). The more expressive architectural style that can be seen as a reaction to the style of the previous generation of modernist architects was not appreciated by everyone. These critics did not address the content of Verhoeven's buildings but mainly the forms. As a result, his houses with different roof shapes and traditional materials were unfairly dismissed. Carel Weeber, an original member of the working group, spoke of the "foundation of new roof forms. Verhoeven's ingenious design with a substantive purpose, as for example in the neighborhood along Kyftenbelt Avenue, has been much discussed but rarely described in detail. Traditional materials were applied in a manner peculiar to the time. Verhoeven had no illusion that everyone would live in his houses, but he viewed them as an alternative, part of a greater possibility of housing choice, a possibility that was lacking in the 1960s and 1970s.(80) Failing to realize projects and later due to problems of an organizational nature, The New Housing Foundation joined COWOM, Stichting Coördinatie Ontwikkeling Woning en Omgeving, in 1974 until 1977, the foundation's closing year.(81) Foundation for Experimental Housing Construction (SEW). Thanks to an initiative of the Bouwfonds Nederlandse Gemeenten, the Stichting Experimentele Woningbouw (SEW) was created in 1968. That year, a group of companies raised funds for a guarantee fund. The participating companies were Brederode, Bruynzeel, De Ploeg, Eternit N.V., Koninklijke Nederlandse Hoogovens en Staalbedrijven, Linoleum Krommenie and De Vries Robbé. The purpose of the foundation was "the promotion of experimental housing construction by designing, cq. realizing or commissioning the realization of experimental housing types, in order to contribute to the development of housing construction and housing."(82) It is noteworthy that large private Dutch companies were also concerned about the development of housing construction at that time. Although Verhoeven had nothing to do with this foundation, its establishment and the goal it pursued tell something about the widely shared commitment to experimental construction at the time.(83) The first project chosen by SEW was Hertzberger's plan "DIAGOON," Delft (1967 -1969), built just around the time that Verhoeven's neighborhood along Kyftenbeltlaan was being built. The eight houses in Delft, of which there are several types, is a variation on a single-family row house. Similar in size to Verhoeven's houses, in appearance and form are clear roots of the Rietveld Schröder house and houses from the period of the Nieuwe Bouwen. A brochure (84) published on the occasion of a viewing day at a house in 1971 outlines the ideas behind the design. Two blocks form the house, horizontally in depth the houses can be shifted to form a variation of forecourts outside the house. The house has a central narrow open space, a void surrounded by two fixed cores, one with stairs and one with washroom and living spaces. The living spaces are open as balconies toward the void, toward the void. The spaces on either side of the void stagger half a floor height in relation to each other. The void allows for contact with all floors. Hertzberger wrote about these houses: (85) "What is intended here is to try to make prototypes which offer substantially more room for individual differences in housing and living styles and which give the residents the opportunity to think for themselves and to discover what is usually imposed on them without question. The openness between spaces with the quoted purpose in mind is consistent with Verhoeven's thought. The subtitle House = Carcass + infill is reminiscent of the ideas of N.J. Habraken. Kollektieve Woonvormen en Buurteconomische ontwikkeling KWOBEO From 1980, Verhoeven started working for KWOBEO, which connected to the ideas of Centraal Wonen, but also linked neighborhood economic development to it. KWOBEO, which stands for Kollektieve WOonvormen en BuurtEkonomische Ontwikkeling (Collective Housing Forms and Neighborhood Economic Development), originated from an initiative group of administrators who wanted to promote innovation in the field of public housing. It sought to establish cohesion between housing and residential environment and economic functions for community development on a small scale, respectively. (86) KWOBEO developed the projects and upon completion transferred them to a legal entity specially created for this purpose: a cooperative. These cooperatives were set up as BEEKs (Neighborhood Economic Operating Cooperatives). In addition to integrated project development, KWOBEO also organized the network between the various BEEKs, such as Romolenbeek Haarlem and Ecobeek Delft. In addition to this network in the areas of project development, organizational development, legal design, public housing innovation and neighborhood economic advice, a network was established with the existing BEEKs for general operating framework, risk sharing and benefit pattern. The core of this new network was formed by the SOlidary Neighborhood Economic Risk Spread Foundation (SOBER). Verhoeven developed a total of 5 projects with KWOBEO: Woonkollektief Purmerend (1985, implemented), Romolenbeek II Haarlem (1989, implemented), Woonkollektief Ecobeek Delft (1992, implemented), Beek-Rijkerswoerd Arnhem (1990, not implemented) and Huis te Vliet (1991, not implemented). Verhoeven had many problems with KWOBEO over payments. In the process, the projects that did get implemented often came with financial problems. For example, the municipality of Haarlem, which had issued a municipal guarantee, sold the building to housing association Pre-wonen when things went wrong financially, while the residents who had already paid a premium for the purchase were bombarded as tenants without compensation. In Delft, the municipality also intervened, finally abandoning the collective ideal and creating an Owners' Association. In Purmerend, the project consisted of 29 houses for sale and 42 houses for rent. Those owner-occupied homes were there because the municipality only wanted to build the housing law portion if the Woonkollektief also contributed a portion of its own homes. This fit well with the objective of the collective: "pay according to ability, live according to need." You didn't decide yourself whether you got a rental or owner-occupied house; the association did that. Those above a certain income threshold were allocated a house to buy; those below a certain income threshold were allocated a house to rent. Director Henk van Schaijk (agog) was the then chairman and leader of the Purmerend housing collective. To make the project financeable, he devised complicated fiscal constructions, about which he later commented, "It was a wonderfully ingenious system-which unfortunately turned out differently than expected at a number of points. As a result, after a while many began to experience it as a burden. One burden was immediately clear: this required relentless effort by an alert and knowledgeable Finance Working Group. Yet he ended with: 'What has remained is a beautiful building with a decidedly alternative way of living together.'(87) Residential complex Kyftenbeltlaan and Van Dedemlaan in Hoevelaken In the residential complex on Kyftenbeltlaan in Hoevelaken, Verhoeven realized his ideals for the first time in a larger neighborhood with a total of 47 houses. Kyftenbeltlaan follows a stylized S, as it were, in which houses were built in three phases. The individual houses are arranged around communal squares and garden spaces. This layout stimulates togetherness and also a sense of identity, as each house has a different view and light thanks to the subdivision. Importantly for the realization, the economically desirable density in neighborhoods with four-story apartment buildings was matched. The complex is located east of Amersfoort as part of the typical low-lying stroke landscape. The original plots had varying lengths and widths and were bordered by ditches. A willow-covered ditch west of the first and second phases has been preserved. The first and second phases of construction with a total of 35 houses came about between 1968 and 1972, the third phase with 12 houses in 1975. Characteristic in the plan for phase one are the reflections and rotations of the houses, in phase two the compact construction in "cloverleaves" and for phase three the houses built in two stories. A loft is present in all the living rooms. In the first and second phases these are illuminated by a lantern, this lantern is located diagonally above the living room and illuminates a tower room above the garage. In the third phase, with two-story houses, daylight enters through a dome. Houses less favorable to the sun receive sunlight during the day and moonlight at night, especially in winter, through the lantern or dome. Gardens were small but very useful because all ground-floor rooms and kitchens had access to the outside with doors. Gardens and vegetation on the square side gave the through Kyftenbelt Avenue a green face. In all phases, the houses in the plan follow the shape of a meander board, so to speak. The squares with access for up to six houses together form part of an octagon. At the rear of the houses are garden spaces for up to four houses; these too are part of an octagon. In phase two, central to the "cloverleaf" is an atrium for each house; in phase three, four houses have courtyards. First phase house plan The houses in all three phases are drawn on a geometric module system.(88) Double module lines were used on which the walls are placed. The module is 150 cm with a distance between the module lines of 25 cm. The first floor plan is basically 6x6 modules. Characteristic of all houses is the central living room with small rooms, bathroom and kitchen around it. The corridor in the houses of the first and second phases gave access to all rooms in Verhoeven's basic proposal. The urban plan is created by reflections, partly along a diagonal, the garage wall, parallel to the two extreme diagonals in a corner of the geometric plan, partly along a six-module interior wall. The aforementioned lantern, placed diagonally above the living room, forms a loft in the living room and the roof in a "tower room" over the garage, much loved by children. The lantern with a combined flat and pitched roof, rises above the flat roof of the house, making it a striking spatial element in the neighborhood. This experience is special at night when light radiates outside. In all three phases, interior beams, tracks and wall plates are visible. To absorb the pressure of the sloping parts of the lantern roofs and of the tower room, there is a non-visible steel beam along the base of the roof in the living room. Second phase floor plan house The second phase house, with a characteristic atrium on the first floor, is 7x7 modules in size and is placed in groups of 3 or 4 houses between diagonally placed intermediate walls where atriums are placed in the center of the intersecting walls. A conservatory in front of the atrium is a widening of the corridor that originally gave access to the rooms and bathroom on the first floor. The urban plan was formed by mirroring a group of four houses with the four atria in the center of the sheet along a diagonal of a house. Third phase floor plan house The urban plan consists of two main groups of six houses, two x three houses in each group. Two of three houses lean against the third house with a courtyard. The main group is basically created by a rotation of three houses around the wall in the middle of the six houses. This phase has two types of houses, one larger and one smaller, both two stories high with a mansard-like roof. On the first floor there is a living room with a loft with a balcony, kitchen and garage. In the larger house, a compartment for a larger room is added. On the second floor are two rooms and the bathroom reached through the balcony in the loft of the living room. This second floor is reached in both types of houses by a staircase, which divides into two in the middle. One part to the balcony and one part to the corridor with access to the other rooms on the second floor. A room on the second floor has five corners and was chosen by a girl because she found the many corners so cozy. A boy chose the room with a window to the square because then he could talk to the boys from across the street through the square. The staircase is one of Verhoeven's themes and is reminiscent of a dance where you first dance together and then separately. From the loft you can see your own life "from above," so to speak. The houses in this phase all have a fireplace with two brick walls, centrally placed in the living room. The triangular chimney is also part of those enriching objects, which you see repeatedly in different forms in Verhoeven's buildings. It is instructive to compare the floor plans in Hoevelaken with a floor plan drawn by Adolf Meyer, the later associate of W. Gropius, during his studies at the School of Arts and Crafts in Düsseldorf. The module system is similar. The form of "Wohnzimmer," and "Eingang" can be recognized respectively in the living rooms in Hoevelaken, and in the conservatory in the houses of the second phase. Forms created by using the diagonal in the module system. Adolf Meyer's teacher was J.L.M. Lauweriks (1878-1932), who taught him to work on system. This drawing was shown to Verhoeven much later, but he did not know the design. The author himself lived in a house of the first and third phases. The polygonal squares and garden spaces give an enclosed feeling; you are "embraced," so to speak, when you arrive or sit in a garden, for example. With very small children, the squares with some extra amenities were a safe place, and for everyone an unavoidable meeting place Verhoeven assumed that everyone feels lonely and should be forced, as it were, to meet others. Material applications in the interior were striking. All wooden beams, rails, underlayments (double beams) in ceilings and roof were visible; the interior walls were of rustic concrete bricks without stucco. Painted with white paint, you could see a lively relief here. The floors were of wooden planks. Venetian red double-baked tiles in hallway, kitchen, toilet and bathroom could endure much wear and tear from dirty shoes. On the outside with its brick walls of matte red clinkers, the facades, punctuated by doors combined with narrow windows, looked alternately open and closed. Architecturally impressive is the living room with lots of light from the void, more limited light between void and facade, and finally wider light through doors and windows. When Herman Hertzberger first visited here with Verhoeven, he said "Jan, have you built a church again!"(89) An intense spatial feeling is achieved when you turn your eyes toward lantern or dome in the living room, because the sky with moving clouds seems to be your roof. Involvement The first residents of the houses had great opportunities for participation before the house was built. Each resident had a detailed conversation with the architect about possible modifications. For example, the author's wish to place the upper cabinets in the kitchen 45 cm above the countertop instead of 30 cm was respected. The idea of a window where the sun can come in from the west was also echoed. Another resident drew an important correction to the stairs in the third-phase houses on an initial sketch by Verhoeven. This proposal inspired Verhoeven's final solution.(90) The sense of belonging in the neighborhood, which had grown in part due to public participation, was greatly appreciated by the residents. For example, André van der Louw, a New Leftist before he became mayor of Rotterdam, lived in a house owned by Verhoeven on Kyftenbeltlaan. Verhoeven's goals with that neighborhood were echoed by him with the words: politics is also about friendship, politics is life itself.(91) Eternit Prize 1976 For the final phase in Hoevelaken, which consisted of twelve two-story houses, Verhoeven received the Eternit Prize for architecture in London in 1976. The biennial prize was organized by building materials firm Eternit S.A. and first awarded in 1970. There were 153 entries in 1974 and 256 in 1976. The competition was open to many categories of buildings and enjoyed prestige. The works to be judged had to have been realized in the United Kingdom, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Netherlands or Belgium. Works were submitted anonymously.(92) Jurors came from the aforementioned countries and France. Enrico Hartsuyker (*1925) had been appointed as a Dutch jury member by the Bond Nederlandse Architecten BNA. The jury also included two representatives of the Eternit group.(93) Among other things, the jury report stated the following about Verhoeven's entry: 'The houses, always assembled in three units according to an exemplary plan, are arranged between diagonally crossed intermediate walls in a square, the fourth space of which is laid out as a patio. It pleased the jury to note in this model plan the subtlety with which the designer solved the problem of the use of space.' Furthermore, the jury wrote about (...) 'the conceived universal plane system' (...), (...) 'different orientations for each residential unit'(...) 'indoor and outdoor spaces that ensure a new way of life.'(94) For Verhoeven, this was a very gratifying event. Eva and Jan Verhoeven traveled together (95) to London to receive the award, which was presented on April 27, 1976, at a festive gathering at the Royal Institute of British Architects (R.I.B.A.) by Reginald Freeson MP, then minister for housing and structures. Speaking on the occasion, the then director of Eternit A.N. Ensens said, among other things: 'As major manufacturers of building materials we believe that we have a duty to encourage the highest possible standards of building and design'.(96) Koöperatief Woonkollektief Purmerend Whoever arrives from the Veenweidestraat or one of the other three surrounding access roads or the bicycle path will see the Purmerend Housing Cooperative (WKP) from afar. It is a clustering of residential blocks that resemble North American wooden granaries. A characteristic feature is the hipped roof with wooden clad dormers in the middle. The twelve buildings are each two-story with a cap floor, and contain dwellings over one or two stories. The buildings are linked with the two-story entry wings, forming a J-shaped housing complex around a garden. The residents were chosen by the WKP association. This cooperates with the housing foundation Wherestad, Purmerend. 42 homes of the total 71 are owned by this foundation. The remaining 29 homes are owned by Foundation 28. The board of this foundation includes the board of the association WKP and people from outside. The 29 homes are premium A homes, homes for sale with subsidy, the 42 homes are housing law homes, rental homes built with subsidy. According to Verhoeven (97), the whole forms "a broken closed building block," around a communal garden, consisting of ten housing groups, each encompassing seven homes. The block along Lisdoddestraat when it opened, was initially intended for communal functions such as café, laundry, etc., but has since been sold to Wherestad housing foundation. Disabled people now live there; the rooftop apartment is still owned by Foundation 28. The middle wall in a building (granary) is the dividing wall between two housing groups. From the door in the entrance you reach the connecting corridor. From here there is access to seven dwellings, two maisonettes on the first floor, two maisonettes and one dwelling on the first floor and two dwellings on the roof floor. The single connecting corridor runs through the entire block, providing access to all front doors via twelve octagonal stairwells. Between the two dwellings on the first floor, the residential group kitchen is centrally located directly opposite the entrance door. In contrast to the living kitchen, the stairs leading upstairs are located between two living groups, and therefore also have their own connecting function. In a very special way, the maisonettes with front doors are designed on the connecting corridor and on the second floor, respectively. The first with a living room on the garden with a private terrace; via an interior staircase you reach the bedrooms on the street side on the second floor. The second with living room on a balcony running through all buildings on the garden side. One reaches the bedrooms on the first floor on the street side via an interior staircase. The houses with entrance on the first floor and the houses with entrance on the second floor are thus crosswise above the continuous connecting corridor found only on the first floor. A structure comparable to Le Corbusier's Unité d'Habitation in Marseille. This solution means that the connecting corridor can open up the whole. One dwelling above the living kitchen is reached by its own "private" staircase from the connecting corridor. The two dwellings on the second floor under the impressive and asymmetrical roof with visible purlins and rafters face a continuous roof terrace on the garden side. Today, the living group kitchen is no longer used in all living groups according to the original plan. Some have recently proposed using the space for a library or play area. A more passive form of something communal than, for example, preparing a meal together while planning together. In an anniversary book (98) to mark the 20th anniversary, the 1984 ideals of the "Establishment Cooperative Association" are reiterated in terms of concepts such as income-dependent housing, collectivizing child rearing and household services, and eventually employment initiatives. In the book, a resident commented, "Idealism and miscalculations are not a good basis for a substantial package of communal services."(99) In the now functioning residential community, everyone contributes by doing chores for two days a year; in the beginning it was 200 hours. Less and less has come of the original ideals, but people still enjoy living there and look for things to do together. At an open day in May 2010, residents enthusiastically demonstrated what is possible: maintaining the redesigned garden together and holding several celebrations each year. After one celebration, a resident wrote in the anniversary book, "When you look at it all like that, a day like this is really just a gift. Neither Jan Verhoeven nor his wife ever commented positively on this project, quite the contrary. Correspondence in Verhoeven's archive now reveals that there were perils surrounding the fee.(100) After visiting the housing collective and through the drawings, one gains admiration for the content and form, the architecture. The housing collective is an example of a house in which Verhoeven's vision of individual and community is powerfully expressed; with a communal garden, surrounded by private terraces, a connecting corridor continuous on the first floor, with continuous terraces on the floor and on the roof, originally with living group kitchens, with stairs as access for two different living groups, all spaces to encourage human cohesion. In terms of content, it forms one of the keystones in Verhoeven's work; here experiences, gained in various degrees of living in community, were tried out. Residence K. Buhre Wieringen The Buhre house, built in 1975 for a sailor, is located on the former island of Wieringen, an area full of life around and in boats. The floor plan of the house forms a cross, this shape probably inspired by an Iranian, Islamic tile. From the house, terraces are accessible on the four corners, so you can always find a place in the lee in this windy region. The four equally sized wings on the floor plan end in four prisms. Central is a flat roof over the second floor with four pitched roofs, one for each wing. The north wing houses a hall, toilet and storage room, the west wing a shower and kitchen. Where the wings intersect are on the first floor the living room with a south wing and an east wing three steps lower. On the second floor is the quadrangular bedroom connected to the living room on the east side by a loft. The bedroom is tailored to the sailor: three walls are convex, (101) two are interrupted by closets, but because of these curved walls the room is experienced as a ship's cabin. This ship association is reinforced by the fact that the ceiling, together with the sloping roof above the void, is reminiscent of a large tarpaulin. Inside, the rafters form a beautiful ornament; these are regularly arranged in a quadrangle rotated 45 degrees with respect to the side walls. The resulting four triangles also feature regularly spaced beams parallel to the largest side. The house with the four characteristic corners has eight triangular windows under the sloping part of the roof, two of them illuminating the living room and loft. In the kitchen and shower, in the south wing of the living area, in the hall and staircase on the first floor, and in the upstairs bedroom, because of the special walls on the second floor, light only enters through these triangular windows. The house has differentiated light penetration: limited in the living room from the second floor triangular windows, and ample through the doors in the four corners, and medium light from the four windows placed in the two spires of the living room. The latter could provide additional illumination of the distribution of beams in the first-floor floor, and at the same time could be an eye-opener for the sailor: "you're not at sea, but ashore! The four recessed facades are reminiscent of the barn door facade so typical of a West Frisian farmhouse, the shape of which was determined by the fact that a highly loaded horse-and-carriage could drive in under the roof. A small house full of sources of inspiration: from an Islamic tile form, from local architecture but especially from the everyday environment the builder was surrounded by as a sailor. All playfully arranged within a chosen configuration. Here you experience architecture that is Verhoeven's own. Schools designed by Jan Verhoeven From the early 1970s, Verhoeven also began building schools. The basic principles he realized in his housing complexes he also applied in the design for this building task. The main idea of the eight elementary school that Verhoeven built between 1973-1984 is thus familiar. Around a common polygonal meeting space, the so important space for Montessori, Jenaplan and other types of education, individual and also polygonal classes were placed.(102) Two of the schools designed by Verhoeven are Jenaplan schools, two are Montessori schools, and the remaining four are public or Christian schools. Within the classrooms there are again corners for independent work, "useless corners" that mean variations in form and lighting, "I love that" said Verhoeven.(103) Each school has its own main form, its own forms of community room, classrooms and other spaces, depending on plot and consultation with the client. In all of his elementary schools, the primary spaces, classrooms and the largest rooms are placed on the first floor, to bring nature as close as possible to the child.(104) Between classrooms and community space, there is the possibility to work individually and in smaller groups. In the two Montessori schools, in Leusden and Kralingen, there is room for these activities on a balcony in the community room. The interaction that occurs as the group works separately in the classroom and several older and younger groups meet occasionally at communal performances in the school's largest room is the goal of his main idea. Individual and community are considered mutually reinforcing concepts in Verhoeven's works.(105) "From the individual I want to try to arrive at a community. After all, we cannot live without each other. There are countless possible variations on this theme, not only in terms of content: you can portray it through the form.'(106) After the construction of Verhoeven's first elementary school in Rozendaal in 1973, an important article about this school appears, written by the then director of the Christian Pedagogical Study Center (CPS), H.G. van den Doel.(107) No doubt a positive and inspiring response for Verhoeven, his office and the future school pupils. H.G. van den Doel writes that "this architect is able to give concrete form to certain thoughts, philosophies, in wood and stone."(108) He praises the development shown by Verhoeven's schools at that time through their close relationship with nature. This was made possible with a small school with mostly eight classrooms on one floor. Actually, Van den Doel writes about the process that preceded the village school in Rozendaal, a process that is positively cited in connection with the construction of Verhoeven's later schools: 'Before this building was on paper and then on the earth, a rather lengthy process of awareness was supervised by the architect among all those involved: staff, competent authority and parents, regarding objectives and design.'(109) Thanks to this process, he writes that 'the school was such that all those involved learned to experience it not only as the work of the architect, but also as the work of themselves, which in itself is a great motivation to work in such a building.'(110) Van den Doel concludes, 'But above all, this work teaches us, how educational innovation - in this case as far as the "means" building is concerned - could and should be done.'(111) Jenaplan school 'the Firebird' Heumen The 'Firebird' is a Jena-plan school, a school type where work is encouraged both individually, and also in groups between students of different ages. The founder of this school model, Peter Petersen (1884-1952) from Jena, established four fundamental activities: conversation, play, work and celebration. The "Firebird" is a design where there is room for the individual, small groups, base groups and for communal celebrations for the whole school. An ecumenical school was planned from the beginning to be built next door; it was also to be designed by Verhoeven but was later designed and built by another architect. The Jenaplan school (112) was built in 1979 and consists of four blocks, an architectural form to which another school of similar form could fit well. The four blocks are the central meeting area surrounded by an intermediate area with library and workstations for more individual instruction. In a ring around this are the eight classrooms with small pentagonal toilet blocks in between. South of this block is a play area. On the north side of the largest block and on the west side are respectively a storage room with a hexagonal floor plan and rooms for the management. Marked axes run from west across the meeting area to east and from the play area through the largest room to the storage rooms, towards the ecumenical school. The space for communal celebrations in "the Firebird" is a tall 16-sided room, covered with a dome, spatially a climax. The canopy structure allows light to enter at different heights, so that the space is experienced as a theater hall, as a powerful symbol of the Jenaplan school where the emphasis is on teamwork and community. As in the school in Cuijk, multiple front doors give access to the school: a class can thus pass by on entry without disturbing others. Three of the original four front doors are still in use on the west, south and north sides of the largest block. The floor plan of the school is constructed from a module system, a rectangular system in which, in Verhoeven's designs, the diagonals also co-determine the design.(113) The tile-covered meeting space has eight U-shaped masonry niches that form the basis for the dome-bearing wooden trusses laid on a steel invisible L-profile with sixteen corners. The alcoves are intended for working in small groups individually. At the top they have an opening to the large space through which they receive daylight from the dome. The dome with windows is supported by a junction of two times two trusses both supported by two rafters. The intersection of the two times two main trusses is at 90 degrees. The crossing trusses are rotated 45 degrees with respect to the west-east axis. The eight ends of the main trusses rest on eight of the sixteen short wings of the U-shaped niche walls; eight braces support the other eight short wings. Four structural struts placed in the four trusses support the upper tile-covered roof and the four upper windows. The posts are incorporated into the main truss, that is, between sections of this that are made of double beams throughout, a main principle repeated throughout Verhoeven's constructions. The windows in the center of the dome are similarly constructed. Like the school in Cuijk, the tile-covered classrooms have an octagon as their basic shape, to which two niches have been added here. The classrooms are covered with an asymmetrical dome, supported by two times two intersecting trusses. A quadrangular flat-roofed lantern is placed centrally between the intersecting trusses in the middle of the basic octagon. Here and in the common room, the trusses, ring purlins, kilkepers and rafters are very important as supporting and decorative elements. The classroom spaces receive light from the windows and from the lantern. In addition, the classroom has a high sitting window, placed between the flat part of the roof of the classrooms and the sloping roof around the domes. The playroom with dome and with lantern with flat roof has a structure, similar to the large common room. What is striking about this and Verhoeven's other schools is that they do not have a monumental entrance. At "De Vuurvogel," it was originally possible to enter the school from four different sides. These modest entrances underscore the idea of passing by and developing at this school, not entering a temple where "truth" is proclaimed. Corners and smaller sheltered areas where students can be engaged in small groups or on their own. The variety in window sizes works to form individual places and the strong trusses hold it all together. The irregular polygons of the classrooms invite a variety of furnishings. The floor plan in this school is an example of Verhoeven's configurations, geometric figures that can be compared to tile ornamentation from Islamic culture.(114) Verhoeven was never positive about his own schooling, quite the contrary. It is as if he wanted to impart to children everything he himself lacked in inspiration in his elementary school years in his own designed schools. A high dome with trusses, braces, beams and rafters and also high-sitting windows may be a source of fantasy for some, for others this "forest" with its logical structure of construction parts may catch your attention, when the official program starts to bore you. Moreover, just as a space that is too low can be oppressive, a larger, high and daylit space can be felt as a liberation, both physically and mentally. Lower Technical School De Koppel One of Verhoeven's first independent buildings in which he would give form to his insights involved the design for a new Craft School in Amersfoort. His father J.A. Verhoeven was on the board of this school and in 1959 proposed his son as the architect for the new building.(115) The commission had originally been granted to architect D. Zuiderhoek (1911-1993) and Ingenieursbureau Dwars, Heederik and Verhey N.V., both in Amersfoort. Verhoeven was first named as an associate of Zuiderhoek but stated in a letter that he could only accept them as supervisors. From a letter dated 14.12.1961 from Verhoeven: "My work, which was characterized as restless by Mr. Heederik, was highly praised by Mr. Zuiderhoek."(116) The commission for the school was not granted to Verhoeven until 1969 by the "Vereniging ter bevordering van het Nijverheidsonderwijs te Amersfoort.(117) The building on Hooglandseweg, now called Lagere Technische School De Koppel, was completed in 1971 and expanded by Verhoeven in 1983 with a second floor for six theory classrooms and a practice room on the first floor for Technique (Construction). Various changes were later made by other architects. The school has a "pyramidal" structure, perpendicular to the longitudinal direction from west to east: at the top the lanterns on the first and second floors, in the middle the double-height practice rooms and at the foot the one-story high storerooms. The structure is also reminiscent of Verhoeven's study design for an aquarium. The building for 600 students vaguely recalls the architecture associated with the New Building and De Stijl; for example, it fulfills one of the demands written in a De Stijl manifesto. "The new architecture is anti-cubic, that is, it does not strive to summarize the functional cells of space in one closed cube, but it throws the functional cells of space (...) out of the center of the cube, through which height, width and depth + time come to an entirely new plastic expression in the open spaces. This gives architecture (insofar as this is constructively possible - a task for engineers!) a more or less floating aspect, which goes against the gravity of nature, so to speak."(118) The architect Rietveld, respected by Verhoeven, belonged to the aforementioned group.(119) The school was placed south of the street Meridiaan. Meridiaan is designed as a boulevard with a grass field in the middle. On both sides of this lawn is a row of maple trees. East and west of this vegetation are roads, one that to the west gives access to residential buildings, one of which has stores on the ground floor, and a road on the east side where there are residential buildings and a church. All in all, a typical Dutch, post-war building just outside Amersfoort's oldest center. The elongated school building lies along a north-south axis and follows the Meridiaan bicycle path that is a continuation of said street. This path leads south through a tunnel under the railroad line towards Apeldoorn and Zwolle. The school is easily visible from the train. The building is surprising on the outside and on the inside. Although it fits into the developments within the Nieuwe Bouwen of after the Second World War as far as appearance, construction and materials are concerned, still the basis, to make a whole out of individual parts, is well recognizable in this school -and most of Verhoeven's later designs. The building is constructed pyramidically from east to west with concrete columns and beams as the basic structure, respectively placed according to the modular plan 3.50 x 4.00 and the height modules. This truss is filled in with concrete bricks of dense texture. In its dimensional structure, the school is reminiscent of the contents of a container ship, for students of a technical education an adequately clearly constructed building. The entrance to the building is on the south facade; through the double-height entrance hall you enter the inner street called "the heart" which is also two stories high. The inner street is executed with walls of red clinkers to emphasize its central "beating" function. The access area to the two gymnasiums on the north side is also over two stories. On either side of the interior street are the practice rooms. Those for engineering such as metal, painting and automotive technology were placed on the west side, those for bread and pastry baking and ornamental subjects were on the east side. Between the inner street and the practice rooms were the one-story washrooms and other secondary rooms. Above these rooms, and partially in the practice rooms, was an opportunity for the installation of a continuous gallery. An example of a gallery, built later, can be seen in the building room. This was and is used for student studies and to keep an overview from here. Against the exterior walls on the east and west sides are one-story warehouse spaces. With the other primary parts of the building body, roofs with lanterns, classrooms on the upper floors, inner street with halls and practice rooms, they define the pyramidal structure of the building. Two double, spatially well-placed bore stairs between brick walls, forming voids in the inner street, gave access to the second floor. The combination of two bore staircases gave two ways to reach the floor. Either on the platform straight through or on the platform around the corner. A strikingly melodic solution, marking the quality of Verhoeven's design. These stairs were placed above the toilet groups. The first- and second-floor corridors were abundantly lit during the day, originally meaning that the voids allowed more daylight to fall into the interior street. The corridors are illuminated with six lanterns and lead to the theory classrooms placed here. A staircase from the north hallway gives access to the first-floor auditorium, and a staircase from the south hallway leads to the second-floor theory classrooms added in 1983. Among the imposing wider spaces listed on the building's short facades, the distinct and universally visible skeletal construction stands out, with its double-height, concrete columns and concrete beams. The concrete floors were clad on the underside with white sprayed wood-wool cement boards. Furthermore, the interior walls were masonry of open-textured concrete bricks. In all rooms, originally the installations and construction, instructive for the engineering students, were in plain sight. The sober design and clear concrete construction can still be experienced in various places in the building, such as in the classrooms, the gymnasiums, the corridor on the second floor, the practice building and corners of the entrance hall on the south and in the hall on the north that gives access to the gymnasiums. The elongated main form is exceptional in Verhoeven's work, but his vision, familiar from other school designs, is recognizable here: a common space, executed here as a double-height interior street, surrounded by individual classrooms. A striking architectural feature that one sees more often in Verhoeven's designs is the arrangement of windows in the facades. In executing these parts, his wife, Eva Verhoeven, was asked to help. Her musical giftedness, graphic training and experience contributed to usually very rhythmic layouts such as here in the large windows of the practice rooms. The combination of door and windows at the houses along Kyftenbelt Avenue in Hoevelaken also features unusual layouts with two narrow door-high windows, one of these with a quadrangular window in the middle. Like the street Meridiaan, the interior street in the building is frequented by Amersfoort citizens. An initiative taken in part by students from the neighborhood. An initiative that fits completely with Verhoeven's vision "architecture is establishing relationships. Starting in 1983, there will be access to a restaurant two nights a week. Pupils from the School of Catering, Tourism & Food make and serve the dishes in their practical classrooms. This is widely used. In connection with these evenings, a bakery store is open with entrance from the interior street. The neighborhood and the school help each other through this, other examples are also cited that encourage cooperation between school and neighborhood. For example, neighbors have painted the railroad tunnel and the school opens itself up to local events. National Fire Academy in Schaarsbergen Verhoeven had already designed quite a few educational institutions in the late 1970s when he received the received the commission to build a National Fire Academy in Schaarsbergen. The academy in Schaarsbergen is close to the secondary entrance to the Kröller-Müller Museum and National Park De Hoge Veluwe. The terrain on which the academy was established between 1979 and 1981 is hilly with differences in height of up to 6 meters, a landscape with moraines where later heath land was reclaimed.(120) The terrain slopes from east over north to west. Originally here stood a villa - Hemelbergh - surrounded by European and American oaks, some of which are still present.(121) This villa was demolished in connection with new construction. The grounds define the face of the base of the complex. The first floor, the entrance level for teachers and students, is on the highest level of the grounds. Below the first floor is a powerful concrete pedestal against which the sharply sloping site leans. At the aforementioned entrance door, the pedestal was one-story high. Above this pedestal, the exterior wall is of matte red brick. The building consists of three main parts, so to speak: The central garage for twelve fire engines and also the place for recreation, four nodes, one of which is the 24-meter-high hose tower, and five blocks, four of which were built on top of the garage and one block for the canteen near the entrance. In the four blocks above the garage, administration and learning rooms were located on the first floor; on the two floors above, student rooms were positioned under special pent roofs in all five blocks. The first floor is recognizable in the facades because the concrete walls above grade level are lined with bricks. The second floor and the columns with their polygonal capitals are in concrete and visible. Under the tower with chimney, due to the sloping surface on the southwest side, you can see a two-story plinth. behind which are basement rooms with technology and central heating. At secondary entrances, retaining walls form powerful gaps in the grassy terrain, also the concrete gutters for surface water can be seen strikingly in the grass. Central storage area Access to this area consisted of four lift doors. The main one, through which exiting fire engines could directly reach the Kemperbergerweg and then the A50 highway, was located on the east side of the central hall. The three other lift doors were intended for re-entry. The floor plan of this space -at the lowest level of the building 6 meters below grade level- was designed between two concentric octagons Within the large octagon were four niches in two stories. The smaller octagon was the three-story open space and was used for volleyball and basketball and as a reserve room for the fire engines. At the top of this space, on the first floor elevation from SE to NW, ran a bridge with a centrally located alarm station. Constructively, this hung in the space, comparable to a "sedan chair," by means of a steel ring around the octagonal space that was equipped with 4x2 steel "support poles. The support poles rested on 4x2 cantilevered concrete beams. These brackets rested on the concrete walls enclosing the recreation area. Four concrete protruding stairs ran from the stall area to the first floor. These stairs were the important route for students from their internal residences on the first and second floors to the central stall area. In the event of a fire alarm, they had to be downstairs within two minutes. The ceiling of the three-story stall room had an alarm panel rising from the roof, four oblong overhead lights like rays of a star, and concrete slabs between consoles. Between the concrete slabs was a black wood beam ceiling. Together, these elements formed an ornament, typical of Verhoeven executed with extra attention. The direction of the overhead lights and the black beams underscored the central location of the alarm center.(122) The blocks The five blocks were reached from the main entrance on the first floor. This main entrance at the base of the serpentine tower was reached by the outside staircase. The four blocks above the garage were interconnected by four bridges in the central storage area. The first floor in the blocks had different functions, but was mainly used for education. In the block east of the serpentine tower was the cafeteria. The block on the other side of the snake tower housed rooms for the principal, teachers and administration. The next block and its corresponding node (clockwise) contained a physics classroom and two theory classrooms. The block next to the third node included a library and theory classrooms. The fifth block contained a meeting room and another library. Student housing was on the first and second floors, which were built on top of the octagonal staging area. The four blocks were rotated ninety degrees from each other around the central octagonal stall space. The roof shapes of all five cruciform blocks were composite. Each wing of a block has two longitudinally draining pent roofs, from which rises a central building section with entirely vertical, tile-clad side walls. The four blocks are crowned by these pent roofs, separated longitudinally by a narrow recessed flat roof.123 Thanks to this cruciform gap between the pent roofs, overhead light was present in the dwellings. In all dwellings, a sleeping area was placed on an inset. From the first floor to the second floor ran a recessed staircase whose direction was rotated 45 degrees with respect to the concrete staircase that ran from the storage room to the first floor (see above). The stairs from the first to the second floor had a quarter above and below, all intentional movements that you can often follow in Verhoeven's works. So they were not determined by function and place alone. From the first floor, the stairwell in the blocks had a central void over three floors, closed with an overhead light. The use of planks in executing railings and handrails was strikingly rustic: on the second floor the stairwell was surrounded with an octagonal balustrade, on the second floor with a cruciform balustrade. Nodes The nodes or towers, placed outside the blocks could be the transition between these and possible extensions, as seen at the canteen next to the serpentine tower. The four octagonal nodes are clockwise: the already mentioned 24-meter-high hose tower for drying the original cotton hoses, a combined chimney, practice and installation tower, one tower intended for model workshop and the last a recreation tower. The ground floor model room has an octagonal elevator platform that can lower to the floor where the model workshop is located. The recreation tower has a bar on level -3m and an expressively designed octagonal fireplace on the first floor. Between these floors, visual contact is possible through voids bounded by low wooden walls and there is another double-acting spiral staircase.(124) Between the six voids are benches that have a direct view of the open fire. Between the supporting posts surrounding the fireplace a chimney is masonry that flows into the centrally placed chimney. Fire exits The National Fire Academy did not have a sprinkler system, but had an elaborate system of fire exits, steel stairs and steel landings and balconies. The pivot of the stairs between ground and second floors is larger than on the other floors, which gives the set of fire escapes a lively appearance. Furthermore, the contrast between the masonry red brick walls and the gray-blue steel structure enhances the rustic impression. Verhoeven compared the steel structures on the walls to plants growing. Verhoeven's lively and playful way of thinking and designing clearly shows here as well as his apparent giftedness to convince the client of this special solution. On the first floor was originally the southeastern main entrance for staff and students, clearly placed at the foot of the impressive tower, on an octagonal plan and 24 meters high. At the time, this height was needed for hanging out and drying the linen hoses. The main entrance to the academy was reached by a concrete staircase that bridged the difference in height between the first floor and the lower lying grounds at this location. In Verhoeven's projects, there are usually parts, "themes," that received extra attention in design. Examples in the National Fire Academy include the double spiral staircase in the bar, the hose tower near the original main entrance, the fireplace placed centrally in the room in the bar and the layout of the lift doors. The hose tower had an octagonal floor plan reinforced by two masonry three-sided prisms throughout the tower. At a height of 24 meters, it ended with a star-shaped cantilevered platform and balustrade. This platform was geometrically formed by inscribing an octagon into a quadrilateral and placing a quadrilateral of the same size on top of it, rotated 45 degrees with respect to the former quadrilateral. Above the four lift doors there were window frames that were mirrored with respect to the doors, in lifted position created intersections through the rods of the doors and windows.(125) Decision Verhoeven built a large number of projects in a short time that gave him an important position as an advocate of small scale and individual recognizability of architecture. When the social appreciation for that type of buildings waned, it became relatively quiet around him. Verhoeven's lasting value must be sought primarily in the design basis of his works. This usually consisted of a pattern of squares in which the diagonals also play a role. The dimensions of the grid are adapted to form and function and not the other way around. Floor plans are usually created by reflections and rotations of the basic pattern around a central, often polygonal space. Thus, residential houses are given rooms around a central living room, individual residential houses are laid out on plazas, and in the case of schools the community space is bordered by individual classroom spaces. The main idea underlying this is the belief that individual and community are equally important and together form a whole. The arrangement of houses around a square meant a lot of variation and therefore sense of identity thanks to the different placements and therefore diverse views from house to house. The central space is a crucial element in Verhoeven's designs, whether they are residential houses, schools or other community buildings. They encourage and inspire togetherness and a sense of community. The rotations and reflections in the floor plans provide an experience of life, openness and dynamism. Against the stream of residential complexes with dull houses, Verhoeven and other colleagues set a new approach that corresponded to the social developments of the 1960s-1980s. visitors to his residential neighborhoods therefore met with great enthusiasm among the daily users of his houses. In his residential houses on Kyftenbeltlaan in Hoevelaken, the smaller individual rooms are arranged around a common larger living room. In this neighborhood, the houses are rotated and mirrored around polygonal squares and garden spaces. In the elementary school in Heumen, classrooms with lanterns surround a dome-covered octagonal meeting space. In the National Fire Academy, the blocks of teaching, administration and canteen classrooms and housing were rotated around the octagonal central storage and recreation area. In all central spaces a cosmic axis (126) via lanterns or overhead lights is an important component, often necessary to properly illuminate larger spaces but also an architectural element that gives a special dimension to the building. Verhoeven has revived the classical basis, starting from a rectangular grid, by using reflections and rotations in a floor plan. Verhoeven's use of traditional materials, brick, wooden structural members and roof tiles, thanks to the unusual forms created in interaction with the basic pattern described above, was original and contemporary while at the same time carrying history in a refreshing way. Verhoeven himself spoke of houses with a "story. Certain historical inspirations stand out in his 'stories': influence of old and of new architecture and influence of indigenous architecture. His own house, built on Park Weldam in Hoevelaken, has a floor plan inspired by Palladio's Villa Rotunda near Vicenza. The houses on Kyftenbeltlaan third phase in Hoevelaken have a living room with loft and insets similar to the part in a Dutch farmhouse. The National Fire Academy was inspired in its construction with towers and pointed pent roofs by the Khmer temple Angkor Vat in Cambodia, among other things.(127) The pointed towers in this complex can be found in the academy in the pointed ridges of the pent roofs that can be seen in the roof floor of the blocks near the short gables and which were created because of the deep cross-shaped gap between these roofs. Apart from the axes mentioned above, the floor plan of the said temple with its classical rigid pattern forms a contrast to Verhoeven's floor plan with rotations and therefore greater variety. At the same time, there is a certain similarity between the floor plan of the academy with Louis Kahn's government building in Dacca, Bangladesh. 'Themes' that enhance the experience are also noteworthy, such as the progression of stairs that encourage fluid movement. These can be seen in the design of the stairs of the MTS school in Amersfoort. Another example is the staircase in the aforementioned house in Hoevelaken; with a straight stabbing staircase that divides halfway up and continues in two quarters, like a dance where two first dance together and then separately. And finally Verhoeven's skylights where, for example in the aforementioned house in Hoevelaken, you have, as it were, three levels of light: most of the light under the dome where moonlight and starlight are also experienced, moderate light next to the façade and in the middle under the balcony (insert) even less daylight. One resident talks about rembrand light because of this level of light under the dome. Notes , Regteren Altena, M. van, Hollandske Huse, reprint from Arkitekten, 78(1976) 23, p. 6. 2 Strauven, F., Aldo van Eyck relativity and imagination, Amsterdam 1994, p. 80. 3 Vletter, M. de, The critical seventies, Rotterdam, 2004 p. 23. Verhoeven was enthusiastic about Robert Venturi's book Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, published in 1966. 4 Interview with former collaborator P.A. van Ravenswaay, dated 16.06.2011. 5 Herman Hertzberger points to Verhoeven's early interest in sustainability, conversation dated 16.11.2011. 6 An approach totally different from what is advocated today, now one is concerned with, "filling holes" in large existing cities. 7 Herman Hertzberger, conversation dd 16.11.2011. 8 Herman Hertzberger, conversation dd 16.11.2011. 9 Zahle, M., 'Jan Verhoeven in Memoriam', in: Arkitekten 97(1995)13, p. 448. 10 Communication Caroline Verhoeven, dated 01.11.2010. 1 Two of Jan Verhoeven's maquettes -Woning complex Hofdijk Rotterdam and Student Housing Drienerloo- are on display in the NAI's Treasure Room which opened in September 2011. 12 Upon entering Verhoeven's studio, Herman Hertzberger recalls the cabinets full of maquettes in surprising forms, "which were assembled at breakneck speed," conversation dated 16.11.2011. 13 Hos, W.jJ, Vastenburg, G., 50 years of ups and downs in: Komma, anniversary issue of the staff magazine of Verhoeven Engineers, October 1983, p. 5-6. 14 Knoll, W.H., In Remembrance in: Comma (1983) p. 1. 15 Komma (1983) p. 51. 16 Comma (1983) p. 1 and Interviews with former employees in: Comma (1983) p. 23. 17 Thau, C., Arkitekturen som tidsmaskine, Copenhagen 2010, p. 31, p. 33, p. 39. Thau refers to Bachelard, G.,The Poetics of Space, the classical look at how we experience intimate places, Boston 1994, p. 5-7. 18 Archive NAi - BNAR, biographical data on Dutch Architects. Royal Society for the Advancement of Architecture, Union of Dutch Architects (BNA). Application for membership, 23.08.1966. 19 NAi - VERH d 421, doctor's statement 07.01.1945 by physician J.A. Boorsma, Amersfoort. The statement was probably prepared to safeguard Verhoeven from being put to work in Germany. 20 Sepp, letter to Jan Verhoeven from friend from Middletown, dated June 13, 1949. Sepp worked temporarily in the American department of Polak Fruital Works. Sepp's father worked in Amersfoort at the Dutch branch of this company. Archive Caroline Verhoeven. 21 Interview Just Coehoorn d.d. 23.10.2010. 22 Knoll (1983) p. 44. 23 Strauven, F., 'Jan Verhoeven : The essential reaches beyond the social', in: Not equally...but equally by and about Aldo van Eyck, Amsterdam 1982, p. 93. 24 Knoll (1983) p. 44. 25 Wendt, D., Academy of Architecture 1908-2008, Rotterdam 2008, p. 131. 26 NAi - VERH, d 429. 27 Eyck, A. van, 'Aquarium assessment by lecturer Aldo van Eyck', Forum 14(1960)2, p. 69-72. 28 Isometry of aquarium design performed by former employee of Jan Verhoeven, P.A. van Ravenswaay. 29 The still existing Dalcroze course was founded by Emile Jacques-Dalcroze (1865-1950). Important elements in this training are eurythmics, vocal exercises and improvisation. Verhoeven's works have a strong emphasis on how to move through space. Since Eva was his first counselor, she, with her roots in an environment as indicated here, may have influenced said quality. 30 Conversation with Caroline Verhoeven dated 01.11.2010. 31 Letter from singing teacher Saskia Verhoeven, daughter of Jan and Eva, received d.d. 01.11.2010. 32 Conversation with Caroline Verhoeven dated 01.11.2010. 33 Giedion (1967), p. 698. The congress was scheduled in Moscow but was cancelled. According to Giedion with the following reason: "... the avant-garde had no place in Stalin's Russia".... 34 Giedion (1967), pp. 702-703. 35 Dijk, H. van, Architecture in the Netherlands in the twentieth century, Rotterdam 1999, p. 122. 36 Dijk, H. van. (1999) p. 123. 37 Herman Hertzberger, conversation dated 16.11.2011. 38 Zahle, M. 'The New Building 1920-1960' in: Arkitekten, 85(1983)18, p. 361-365. 39 Friend, J.J., Architecture of this century, Amsterdam 1959, p. 52. 40 Dijk, H. van, Architectuur in Nederland in de twintigste eeuw, Rotterdam 1999, p. 66, 67 and dates in Het Nieuwe Bouwen 1920-1960, Delft 1982, p. 16-18. 41 Friend, J.J. (1959) p. 39. 42 Het Nieuwe Bouwen 1920-1960, Delft 1982, p. 8. 43 Among others, B. Merkelbach, A. Bodon and K. Limperg were members of this study group. 44 Dijk, H. van, (1999) p. 100. 45 Dijk, H. van, (1999) p. 134. 46 Dijk, H. van, (1999) p. 134. 47 Dijk, H. van, (1999) p. 100-101. 48 Hengeveld, J. and Strauven, F., Piet Blom. 2008, p. 5. 49 Eyck, A. van, 'Aquarium assessment by lecturer Aldo van Eyck', in: Forum 14(1960)2, p. 69-71. 50 Strauven, F, 'Jan Verhoeven : The essential reaches beyond the social', in:Not for the sake of it; by and about Aldo van Eyck, Amsterdam 1982. Interview with Jan Verhoeven, p. 93. Another student, Peter Defesche, graduated in 1984, endorses my (MZ) impression, see p. 533. 51 This project was also discussed in Copenhagen, where the author was living at the time. 52 Configurative: 'the term denotes the possible arrangement of different elements into a coherent figure, a pregnant stature in which these elements themselves acquire a new meaning'. Strauven, F., Aldo van Eyck relativity and imagination, Amsterdam 1994, p. 377; See also Hengeveld, J. and Strauven, F., Piet Blom, 2008, p. 11. 53 Interview with Jan Verhoeven, 'Jan Verhoeven on the profession: Architecture has been spoiled', in : Cobouw 3(1975)24, p. 123-124. Emphasis on the emotional, (...)many ways to love(...) Interview with J.V. archive MZ. Jan Verhoeven because he thinks building is a human process from a to z. (...)shaping a certain sense of life(...), showing informality. 54 Strauven, (1994), p. 123-124; see also Thorsen, J. J., Modernisme i dansk kunst specielt efter 1940, Copenhagen 1965, p. 100. 55 Strauven (1994), pp. 125, 130. 56Strauven (1994), p. 110 meeting in 'the 8 and Construction ' 1946 quote Hein Salomonson: 'he really kicked down walls'. See also note 3 p. 24-25. A discussion that all generations of architects will have experienced. I myself (MZ) have experienced that this discussion can be very intense and gives rise to the formation of clubs. 57 Strauven (1994), pp. 80, 465, 467. 58 Strauven (1994), p. 468. 59 Beerends, A., A structure for the Amsterdam town hall, in: Tijdschrift voor Architectuur en Beeldende Kunsten, 36 (1969)1, p. 13-15. 60 Strauven (1994), p. 392 and p. 394. Compare also the trip of architect Herman Haan (1914-1996) to the Matmata plateau in southern Tunisia where he followed the nomadic inhabitants (Berbers). See: Haan, H., Life in the desert, in: Forum, 15 yr, 1960, p. 8-15. 61 Strauven (1994), p. 394. 62 Strauven (1994), p. 288, 294, 295. 63 Lüchinger, A., Structuralism in Architecture and Urban Planning. Strukturalismus in Architektur und Städtebau. Stucturalism and architecture et urbanisme, Stuttgart 1981, pp. 37, 100, 135. 64 Beerends, A. in Tijdschrift voor Architectuur en Beeldende Kunst 36(1969)1, p. 15. 65 Idsinga, T., Steen: Dutch architects on their motives, ideas, and methods, Amsterdam 2009, p. 86. 66 Herman Hertzberger spoke of Verhoeven's peasant, simple details and his ability to create something characteristic with few means. Conversation dated 16.11.2011. 67 Füeg, F., "Stichting Architecten Research," in: Innovative Dutch Architecture, Hasselt 1970, p. SAR 1-11. 68 Füeg, F., (1970) SAR 2. 69 Habraken, N.J., The carriers and the people; the end of mass housing, Amsterdam 1961, p. 7. 70 Bekaert, G., 'Het andere wonen : een studie van ir. Habraken', in: De Linie, 25.01.1963. 71 Habraken, N.J., The development of a structure, 1967, colored leaflet (MZ archive). 72 Haan, H., Haagsma, I., A subject of constant concern, postwar building in the Netherlands, Utrecht 1983, p. 136-137. 73 Habraken, N.J. (1961), p. 81. 74 Information from J.Chr. Carp, Eindhoven on 01.12.11; he was Habraken's successor as director of the foundation. Carp said that the foundation talked about resident participation rather than participation. 75 Dien, A. van, The national foundation new housing forms, p. 7. Archive MZ. Red brochure undated. 76 Red brochure for The Foundation for New Housing Forms, undated, title ( MZ archive folder DSNW). 77 Fiedeldij Dop, Ph.H., 'New Housing Forms, in: Urban Planning and Public Housing, 49(1968)12, p. 475-478. 78 Kalverda, B., The National Foundation for New Housing Forms. An initiative to change public housing in the 1970's, K3 Architecture 417090. Dato 11. 1981. 79 Timmer, P., 'Foundation New Housing Forms 1968-1977, or the ups and downs of idealism', in: Construction 37(1983)17 p. 38-40 and 37(1983)18, p. 36-38. 80 At several ago the author heard Verhoeven explain it this way. 81 Timmer, P. (1983), p. 37-38. 82 Lavalette, W.A.R., 'The Experimental Housing Foundation' in: Innovative Dutch Architecture, Hasselt 1970, p. 1-4. 83 Lavalette, 1970 p. 1-4. 84 Brochure published by Stichting Experimentele Woningbouw Utrecht : 8 Diagonal Houses at Delft, Subtitle: House = Carcass + Infill, no date no page numbers. 85 Beerends, A. 'A half eksperiment in Delft, Herman Hertzberger, the government and private initiative' in: Tijdschrift voor Architectuur en Beeldende Kunsten 37(1970)2, pp. 29-32. 86 The team of employees consisted of a project developer/director, an economist, a structural engineer, a community worker, a financial-administrative assistant, a documentalist and several other specialists. 87 Dicou, B., (2005), pp. 63, 64. 88 Tummers, Nic.H.M., Mathieu Lauweriks his work and his influence on architecture and design around 1910: 'The Hagener Impulse', Hilversum 1968, p. 12. 89 Hertzberger's parents and Jan's wife Eva's parents were friends. The families kept in touch and when the Verhoevens lived in Hoevelaken, the Hertzbergers came to pick blackberries for many summers. 90 This correction was by J.F. van Regteren Altena, who also helped determine the ground level in phase three. 91 'Residential yards and sitting pits. The Critical Seventies," exhibition at the NAI June 18-October 4, 2004; the quotes are from the DVD "Seventies Memories" shown at the exhibition. Another DVD entitled 'Houses with a Soul' was also shown at the exhibition. This DVD in possession of the NAI is damaged and could not be viewed. See also the publication accompanying this exhibition: Vletter, M. de, De kritiese jaren zeventig, Rotterdam, 2004. 92 Eternit, International Prize for Architecture 1976. Report of the deliberations of the jury, p.2-3, (total 26 p.), private archive Caroline Verhoeven. 93 Eternit (1976) p. 1-2. 94 Eternit (1976) p. 26. 95 Interview with Caroline Verhoeven dated 30.11.2010. 96 Eternit, International prize for architecture 1976, Press Information p. 2 (total 2 p.), private archive Caroline Verhoeven. 97 Verhoeven, J.,'Wooncollectief Purmerend architect's office Jan Verhoeven at Hoevelaken' in: Construction 41(1986)19, p. 34-37. 98 Dicou, B.; Govaars, M.; Kraaijeveld, M., 'From Ideal to Reality. 20 years Woonkollektief Purmerend [1985-2005]', in: Dicou, B, From 'premium buyers' to 'Foundation 28, Purmerend 2005. 99 Dicou, B. (2005), p. 16 100 NAi-VERH, d. 295, d. 339. 101 Kroon, B., Piet Blom: 'Dan maar maar de 'smerige artist' zijn', in: De Tijd 27.06.1975, p. 17 -21. It is interesting to compare Verhoeven's surprising wall form in the sailor's bedroom with Piet Blom's pole houses, also of 1975, where he works with floors with sloping sides. 102 Roos, J., 'Talking with Jan Verhoeven', in: Het Parool,13.05.1976. 103 Bouten, J., 'People hungry for a home with a soul, in: Amersfoortse Courant -Veluws Dagblad, 18.06.1977. 104 Konijnenbelt, A., 'The housing shortage should never be an excuse for those rotten rows', in: Amersfoortse Courant-Veluws Dagblad, 28.11.1981. 105 Strauven, F., Aldo van Eyck relativity and imagination, Amsterdam 1994, p. 80. 106 Enklaar, J., 'Architect: Jan Verhoeven: If I hate anything, it's ostentation', in: Hoevelakens Nieuwsblad, 26.09.1979. 107 Doel, H.G., van den, 'Village school Rozendaal by Jan Verhoeven: interplay of tradition and innovation', in: Christelijk Pedagogisch Studieblad (1975)3, p. 75-79. See also: Van den Doel H.G., Ik heb op de fluit gespeeld, Hoevelaken p. 52-62. 108 Doel, H.G., van den (1975), p. 75. 109 Doel, H.G., van den (1975), p. 76. 110 Doel, H.G., van den (1975), p. 76. 111 Doel, H.G., van den (1975), p. 79. 112 While cleaning up drawings etc. from Jan Verhoeven's studio, Eva Verhoeven drew the author's attention to the school in Heumen. 113 Tummers, Nic.H.M., J.L. Mathieu Lauweriks, his work and influence on architecture and design around 1910: 'The Hagener Impulse', Hilversum 1968, p. 12. Originally published in: Bouwkundig Weekblad, 85(1967)23, 24,25. 114 Blair,S., Jonathan Bloom, J., 'Tiles as Decoration', in: Hattstein, M.; Delius P., Islam: Art and Architecture, Cologne 2000. See also inside cover of this book. According to Jan Verhoeven's daughter Caroline, Jan V. looked at pictures in this book many times, reading he did not, a well-known form of study for architects. 115 Archive NAi-VERH d. 51. From 02.06.1957 to 09.06.1964, Verhoeven's father was a member of the school board. 116 Heijdenrijk, G.J., The most secret intentions, in: Tijdschrift voor Architectuur en Beeldende Kunsten. Catholic Building Journal, XXXIV(1967)6, p. 121-143. This first design for this 1961 school is known only through this article by Verhoeven's friend architect Leo Heijdenrijk. He describes it with short sentences, including: The building consists of three parts. In the substructure are the workshops. (...)In the intermediate section are projected the expression classrooms, the head and handwork(...). In the superstructure the theory classrooms, the main work, have found a place. (...)The leadership of the school has its rooms in the heart of the building. From here it can easily supervise everywhere. (...)The L.T.S. has a pyramidal shape. (...0The tapering creates a large central hall.... From the hall, the levels stagger with half floors.(...)Certain correspondences with the aquarium and the final design stand out. 117 Archive NAi-VERH d. 31. 118 Original: De Stijl 6(1924)6/7, p. 81, 11 Space and Time. De Stijl 2 1921-1932. Complete reprint 1968, Amsterdam-The Hague, p. 389. 119 Loon van J.A., There must be something between heaven and earth, there are so many secrets, in: Komma, anniversary issue of the staff organ of Verhoeven Raadgevende ingenieurs BV, october 1983. Interview with Jan Verhoeven: "I have less affinity for Oud's symmetry, although my father thought he was very good. The same goes for Rietveld's work, which I can understand. He liked my second house very much." (probably reference to House Carree, Princenhoflaan 6 and 8, Leusden by Jan Verhoeven). 120 De Grote Bosatlas, Groningen 1998/1999, p. 14. 121 Hest, J.H.J., 'Kemperbergerweg 783' , Arnhem, 2006, p. 1-15. Justification in connection with the inclusion of the building on the municipal monument list, Municipality of Arnhem, Heritage Department. 122 Anyone who, like the author, has spent time in bed in a bedroom in one of the houses of the last phase of this neighborhood along Kyftenbeltlaan in Hoevelaken, knows how pleasurable it can be to look at the beam distribution of a house by Verhoeven for a while. Therefore, a lot of time was used to find out how this shed roof was composed. Thanks in part to photographs from Caroline Verhoeven's archives, it was finally possible. 123 Hest, J.H.J. (2006), p. 4. 124 'A typical Verhoeven design'. Interview with Peter van Ravenswaay on 16.06.2011. A staircase known in its principle from the French castle Chambord. 125 P.A. van Ravenswaay drew the author's attention to this. 'Verhoeven was very fond of intersections'. Conversation with P.A. van Ravenswaay on 16.06.2011. 126 Smienk, G., Niemeijer, J., Palladio, the villa and the landscape, Bussum 2011, p. 148. This book mentions, among other things, the cosmic axis, an axis found in many of Verhoeven's houses. Verhoeven was highly inspired by Palladio, as seen in his own house at 10 Park Weldam in Hoevelaken. In the 1960s, the author took a course on Palladio outside Vicenza and took slides of several Palladio villas in Veneto. Verhoeven borrowed these time and again for lectures. 127 Zwinkels, C., 'Jan Verhoeven at his best: State Fire Academy at Schaarsbergen', in: De Architect 12(1981)11 p. 87.