H.M.J.H. Kraaijvanger (1903-1981) The oeuvre of the brothers Evert and Herman Kraaijvanger is among the most extensive of the past century in the Netherlands and is inextricably linked to the reconstruction of Rotterdam. Not only because of the large number of buildings the firm realized here between 1940 and 1965, but also because of their crucial role in the planning and implementation of the reconstruction plan. Little attention has been paid to the architecture of the brothers Evert and Herman Kraaijvanger. An extensive and illuminating essay on the Rotterdam oeuvre was published in 1994.1 Although the firm's total oeuvre leans heavily on its contributions to the reconstruction of Rotterdam, designs realized by the Kraaijvangers can be found scattered throughout the Netherlands. What is striking is the wide variety of commissions the firm has carried out. The repertoire is typologically and programmatically very broad: bank buildings, department stores, residential buildings, apartment buildings, office towers, commercial buildings, hospitals, schools and churches. The firm's Catholic signature ensured a large number of like-minded clients and for a long time determined the nature of the commissions. In the 1950s and 1960s, production rose to almost dizzying heights. The large clientele built up during these years provided a solid foundation for later commissions and further growth of the firm. In 1927, at a young age, Evert and Herman Kraaijvanger continued their father B.Th. Kraaijvanger's firm. Initially, father Kraaijvanger still called himself architect-timmerman, according to old Rotterdam custom. The craft of architecture was instilled in both brothers at an early age. The eldest of the two, Everhardus Hubertus Antonius Kraaijvanger, was born on July 14, 1899. However, he rarely used his third name.2 Evert initially studied architecture at the T.H. in Delft, but switched to civil engineering after his propaedeutic exam. However, he continued to attend architecture classes. Hermanus Maria Josephus Hubertus Kraaijvanger was born on July 20, 1903. He too used only the first two initials and was referred to within the firm as "HK. Herman studied architecture at the HTS in Utrecht and completed his education at the Academy for Higher Construction Education in Amsterdam. Together they formed an ideal and highly profitable combination. In rapid succession their collaboration grew into one of the largest architectural firms in the Netherlands. The division of tasks would remain the same during the more than forty years they devoted to their architectural practice. Evert provided the technical expertise and was above all the organizer of the office. Herman was the designer and was in charge of designers and draftsmen. Political and cultural involvement In addition to their careers as architects, both Kraaijvangers held various public positions. Evert Kraaijvanger became a member of the Rotterdam city council for the Roman Catholic State Party (RKSP) in 1928. Little is known about his role as a council member, but it is obvious that issues of architecture and urban planning attracted his particular attention. His views on architecture and social issues were strongly determined by the Catholic faith. Illustrative of his philosophy of life is his comments on the expansion plan for Rotterdam's Blijdorp district, which was debated by the council in 1929. Evert Kraaijvanger showed appreciation for the design by W.G. Witteveen and W. Kromhout, but noted that there was more need for spacious houses for large families. In addition, he advocated more space for schools and churches. But above all, he showed himself to be an architect by expressing his concern about the quality of architecture. For this reason, he proposed the creation of a separate department within the Urban Development Department to evaluate architectural designs.5 Architecture as a craft In the early years of the firm, the craftsman's method, as propagated by father B.Th. Kraaijvanger, was still very much in evidence. The commissions - mainly in Rotterdam - were manageable in size and program. The starting points for the design were the function, the location and, above all, the significance of the building. Schools, churches and monasteries were mainly built for Catholic clients. The design was in keeping with the traditions of Dutch brick architecture and the work of architects such as H.P. Berlage, A.J. Kropholler and G. Friedhoff. The Kraaijvangers saw their work as a continuation of centuries of building tradition. Architecture had to express social norms and values. Signs of a new era In the second half of the 1930s, the Kraaijvangers were involved in a number of housing projects in Rotterdam. These commissions were part of the expansion plans for Blijdorp and Dijkzigt, new middle-class neighborhoods that were being built up largely by private investors. The houses designed for these neighborhoods show a willingness in applying modern ideas. These are mainly in the areas of subdivision, housing plans and accessibility as a translation of light and air requirements. These new principles were applied based on the belief that this created the best solution. In their typological and architectural execution, Kraaijvanger's housing complexes are less ideological in nature than the experimental Rotterdam public housing of J.J.P. Oud, M. Brinkman, L.C. van der Vlugt and J.H. van den Broek. This is due to the fact that the main outlines of the urban plan or the typology of the building block were already determined. The designs are interpretations of an existing plan or an already determined structure. Moreover, these are middle-class houses and not public housing; they are more richly executed and have a more spacious floor plan. The social aspect is missing, but the space for large families, as advocated by Evert Kraaijvanger in the council at the presentation of the urban plan for Blijdorp, was given shape by the large number of five-room houses. The building blocks on Rochussenstraat and Statensingel even housed seven-room houses. The reconstruction of Rotterdam Evert and Herman Kraaijvanger's involvement in the reconstruction of Rotterdam was not limited to the considerable stream of commissions they carried out during this period. Both made great efforts to make the rebuilding of the city a success. At no time in their careers was their architectural profession so closely linked to their public and political function as during the reconstruction period. The consequences of the bombing that struck Rotterdam on May 14, 1940, were not limited to a ruined inner city. `It forced the Netherlands to capitulate and Rotterdam to reflect on the consequences of the damage suffered. Moreover, the bombardment offered the opportunity to put an end to all the problems that had marked the prewar city. "11 Four days after the bombardment, the city council commissioned city architect W.G. Witteveen to produce a plan as quickly as possible. A new city center had to be designed that would allow for starting with a clean slate. Within weeks, the most important decisions were made. Shortly after the bombing, Herman Kraaijvanger, together with college architects W. van Tijen, J.P.L. Hendriks and C. Elffers, founded the Central Bureau of Rotterdam Architects. With this they wanted to lend a helping hand in the rebuilding of the city. The bureau would, during the occupation, assist the Municipal Technical Department in reconstruction work, represent the interests of Rotterdam architects and supervise the construction of emergency housing and emergency stores.12 Opposition to the Witteveen plan, which barely got beyond a paper status, grew increasingly strong during the war years. Fears arose that Witteveen's plan was too focused on a finished end result and did not take sufficient account of future developments. Moreover, it lacked a vision of social, cultural and economic issues. For the Kraaijvangers, too, the war marked a period of change in thinking about social and urban planning issues. Before the war, traditional norms and values played a role in their vision of architecture and urban planning, but during the occupation, the realization grew that reconstruction would make other demands on the function, meaning and architecture of the city. Much of the criticism of Rotterdam's rebuilding plans was provided by the Rotterdam business community led by C.H. van der Leeuw, director and builder of the Van Nelle Factory. The Club Rotterdam, an illustrious gathering of leading figures in the Rotterdam business community, discussed the possibilities of a revised and future-oriented plan. Witteveen's position was severely undermined by this criticism, with the result that he disappeared from view on sick leave. Shortly thereafter, Van der Leeuw was given direct control over the reconstruction of Rotterdam - he was appointed to the Adviesbureau Stadplan Rotterdam (ASRO). The `coup' of Rotterdam's business community had succeeded, and it became clear to everyone that Van der Leeuw would push for a new rebuilding plan based on modern urban planning and architectural principles. Because business had gained a grip on the planning apparatus of reconstruction, the stage was set for a new plan, which was presented to the council in 1946. The Basic Plan for the Rebuilding of the Downtown came into being. Contributing to this were architects such as Kraaijvanger, Van den Broek and Van Tijen. Witteveen's spatial-aesthetic design was transformed into a simple grid plan in which Rotterdam was presented primarily as a functional city. A system of traffic routes formed the basis for the urban structure. Divergent urban functions were clustered as much as possible. In this way, a compartmentalized layout emerged, bordered by wide boulevards and narrow shopping streets. One of the progressive principles was the separation of the various types of traffic. This led to the phenomenon of the expedition courtyard: an access route at the rear of stores and businesses with far-reaching consequences for the architecture. In the Basic Plan, special attention was paid to the relationship between city and river. To improve the visual relationship between city and river, the concept `window to the river' was developed. From Coolsingel, a view of the Meuse and the lively harbor activities was offered. This concept echoed Herman Kraaijvanger's ideas on the significance of the river for the cityscape, which he outlined in the booklet Hoe zal Rotterdam bouwen? In it, he compared Rotterdam to other cities on the water. Rotterdam, in his opinion, had to seize the opportunities offered by reconstruction to improve the relationship between city and river with both hands. `If this idea is realized, it means a far-reaching change in the old structure of the city. On this point one must be careful, but not conservative,' he believed.17 The modern principles of the Basic Plan also had implications for views on architecture. Although the plan is often seen as a functional and two-dimensional design, its creators had nevertheless formed a picture of architectural interpretation. Although the explanatory memorandum makes hardly any statements about architecture, it is clear from sketches of street walls and facade diagrams that building plans were carefully guided. The pawn-by-pawn approach and historicizing architectural style of the Witteveen plan gave way to larger-scale building volumes with predominantly flat roofs. Light-colored, glazed brick types and modern building materials made their appearance, and building construction became part of architectural expression. Yet there was no conscious formulation of a new style;the renunciation of historical references seems to be the only common denominator.18 Despite the criticism of Witteveen's supervisory system, the entire planning apparatus was reinstated with the Basic Plan. A working committee of supervisors, in addition to official members, consisting of Herman Kraaijvanger, J.H. van den Broek, B. Merkelbach and J.J.M. Vegter, was created to solve the problems of the old system. Uncertainty about the new architecture When it was discussed in the City Council, Evert Kraaijvanger, as alderman, showed himself a strong supporter of the Basic Plan. He managed to answer critical comments from council members convincingly. The only concern he shared with the council concerned the architecture. He foresaw that in time the `history writer' would criticize the architecture more than the city plan. The cause of Kraaijvanger's pessimism lay in his fear of an ugly city, when unity of style would be lacking and widely divergent projects in terms of design concept would be placed side by side without any restriction. Supervision did not function optimally and therefore he appealed to all architects to bring about the best that was possible with a lot of good will and mutual understanding.19 Evert's brother Herman was also plagued by uncertainty about architecture. During a lecture in 1950, when the first examples of reconstruction architecture appeared in the cityscape, he expressed the opinion that Rotterdam could not become a harmonious city in the sense of Amsterdam, Paris or Vienna. `That is simply impossible, and it would be equally impossible to want to create a forced harmonious architectural image, as smaller towns like Middelburg and Rhenen tried to do with a group of kindred architects. There are voices, which say that the reconstruction of Rotterdam will be characteristic in its multifarious expressions of architecture and will be a monument to the freedom of the creative artist in the twentieth century, and the cultural pessimists will only be able to see the results as the mirror image of a chaotic culture, or even more cynically, that this society will get the city , which suits it, and which it also deserves. "20 About the Basic Plan, to which he himself contributed as an OPRO member, he noted that in the end it was not calculated and intended for the present generation, but for generations to come in the following centuries. Nevertheless, he felt that its design did not sufficiently take into account the development of architecture. By this he was referring to the projected closed building blocks, which he found objectionable. These would prevent architects from expressing the newly acquired insights about light and sunlight and housing forms in the new city. Moreover, he was of the opinion that `the maintenance of the small individual building [...] as an element of urban development no longer fits the scale of the new basic plan with its large and wide traffic routes and its wide perspective'.21 Designs for the new Rotterdam In 1950, Herman Kraaijvanger probably could not have suspected that he and his brother would themselves make a very large contribution to the interpretation of the Basic Plan. Of all the architects involved in the reconstruction of Rotterdam between 1940 and 1965, they built the most, closely followed by other little-known architects such as H.D. Bakker and W.J. Fiolet.22 The reconstruction of Rotterdam is usually associated with the postwar work of the second generation of modernist architects. The significance of the oeuvre of Van Tijen, Maaskant, Van den Broek and Bakema cannot be discounted. After all, they managed to bring pre-war modernist potential to fruition and as a result received plenty of attention in the literature. The ideas they developed and the buildings they realized repeatedly made it into professional journals at home and abroad. However, the success of the reconstruction of Rotterdam cannot be credited solely to a few progressive architects. The Kraaijvangers built a total of thirty-two buildings, including such crucial objects as the Station Post Office and De Doelen concert hall. This respectable number far exceeds the series of buildings designed by the firms Van Tijen and Maaskant and Van den Broek and Bakema.23 Station Post Office Just before the war, construction had begun in The Hague on a new postal processing building, designed by government architect G.C. Bremer.27 This modern building was designed entirely on the mechanical handling of postal items and would serve as a model for a postwar generation of postal processing buildings in the Netherlands. With the Station Post Office in Rotterdam, this new technology was further developed. Location directly on the railroad was a prerequisite for this. In the Basic Plan for the Reconstruction of Rotterdam, the location of the new post processing building next to the Central Station was therefore quickly determined. Since the Government Buildings Agency could no longer cope with the large flow of commissions for the reconstruction of the Netherlands in 1949, the government decided to bring in private architects to eliminate the surplus of commissions. Work was contracted out only to reputable firms capable of realizing large projects.28 That E.H. and H.M. Kraaijvanger belonged to this category is evidenced by the decision of the then government architect G. Friedhoff to leave the construction of the post office in Rotterdam to them. A design by J. Crouwel, architect of the national building service, had been rejected earlier. The Station Post Office was to occupy a key position in the Kraaijvangers' oeuvre. The sheer size of the building means that the Station Post Office occupies an important position therein. The need for square meters, a double storey height, a high floor load and a free layout led to a simple but heavily proportioned concrete construction. Seven large working floors of 34 meters by 104 meters are stacked by wide columns. At the ends, the floors are divided into two layers to serve small office spaces. The height of the floors is seven meters and the work floors are interrupted only by one row of columns in the center of the floor plan. The top floor has a height of almost ten meters and is completely free of columns. Here concrete trusses allowed a free span. On this floor, high above the city, began the impressive process of mail sorting and transport. Through an ingenious system of chutes and chutes, mail items were further sorted from top to bottom. The supply took place by means of its own platform on the railroad. Herman Kraaijvanger captured the functional structure in a powerful architectural form language. In the façade construction, the differences between work floors and office floors are emphasized. In the long facades, the simple stacking of floors is marked by horizontal bands along the full length of the facade. The space in between is filled with large horizontally articulated facades. The facades are placed as separate elements next to each other. At the ends of the facades are recessed, vertical strips in which the floors of the heads of the building stand out. The concrete construction is entirely covered with artificial stone; the only color accents are the parapets of blue, glazed stone and the teak viewing windows, which emphasize the horizontal articulation as recessed ribbons. The end facades have deep-set windows on yellow glazed parapets between concrete piers and are flanked by soaring vertical strips, behind which are the stairwells. On top of this on the west side is a building plastic, designed by Louis van Roode, which covers the entire height of the facade. In the concrete, a pattern has been applied by means of color as a background for a series of protruding glass-in-concrete windows, each with its own shape and representation, which light up at night like "sparkling jewels. "29 The ample attention to visual art - there are several applications on each floor - stems from the so-called one-and-a-half percent regulation, instituted in 1951 by government architect G. Friedhoff.30 Herman Kraaijvanger's special achievement lies primarily in the building's sophisticated detailing. The building takes all scale levels into account. The dynamism of the facade is visible from a great distance through the perfect relationship between receding and projecting elements. Up close, the real texture of the building reveals itself through a rich use of materials and subtle colors. The sense of human scale is also expressed in the windows on the work floors. Herman Kraaijvanger has translated the dual function of the window strips - view to the outside and daylighting - into their construction. In the windows, a wide viewing window at eye level offers a view of the surrounding city. Above this viewing window are double metal facades that are glazed to provide permanent sun protection. With the Station Post Office, the Kraaijvangers proved that they were capable of bringing such large tasks to a successful conclusion. The function of the building was the starting point for the design. Then the position and significance of the building for the urban planning situation was considered. The architectural vocabulary was not fixed in advance, but served to express function and meaning: principles that are illustrative of the Kraaijvangers' working methods. The Doelen The last major commission for downtown Rotterdam was the concert and congress building De Doelen on Schouwburgplein. The complex has a long history of development. Herman Kraaijvanger was involved in the planning from the beginning. Even during the war he was a member of the "committee to report on the issue of music and theater halls".31 In 1941 it was decided to build an emergency theater, which also provided temporary accommodation for the Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra. In 1946, at the instigation of the Rotterdamse Kunststichting -Herman Kraaijvanger had just joined as a board member at the time -the Music Center Study Committee was created. Architect R.H. Fledderus was asked to draw up a plan, which was presented in 1948. The ambitious plan was an elaboration of the idea for a Rotterdam Rockefeller Center, but found little political support. Plans for the Doelen lay at a standstill for a long time after this. Deteriorating economic conditions and a faltering confidence in the future - partly due to the Cold War and the Indonesia issue - were reflected in the rebuilding of Rotterdam.32 In 1955, plans for the concert hall were revived after a fierce battle over the retention of the Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra. Thanks in part to the efforts of Herman Kraaijvanger, in his role as president of the orchestra, the company was able to continue to exist. Herman's involvement earned the Kraaijvangers the commission to design the concert hall, but architect Fledderus, involved in the initial plan, was added to the design team. During the design process, the program of requirements was constantly modified. In 1958, for example, it was determined that the building should also be able to serve as a conference center. In 1959, the final - tenth - design was approved by the City Council. An important starting point for the design was first and foremost to achieve perfect acoustics. The designers made several study trips to study the acoustics of new concert halls.33 The shape and layout of the main hall was determined together with acousticians from TNO in Delft. Another starting point for Herman Kraaijvanger was that the building should stand out from the businesslike and commercial expression of the surrounding buildings. The public should enter the building without diffidence; exaggerated monumental design was excluded for this reason. Herman possessed a great passion for the shared experience of music, and finding a form for the spiritual meaning that the concert hall should express was a great challenge for him.34 The result is a building of "loose" components, resting on heavy columns placed in a rectangular volume. The spaces around these components - the large and small auditorium - flow into each other without limit and form one gigantic foyer. The façade of the foyer consists alternately of closed aluminum surfaces and large glass facades. From Schouwburgplein, the audience is maximally visible; the view from inside to outside is equally unobstructed. At a distance of one meter from the actual separation between inside and outside, a natural stone grid is suspended; an ornamental facade that adds representativeness and "filters the visuality of the internal building. "35 Because the grid `floats' above the set-back facade on the first floor, the horizontality is further emphasized. The oxidized copper mass of the halls rises above this flat volume. Kraaijvanger and Fledderus aimed to create a dignified and timeless building with a clear, cultural aura. Through the use of natural stone, aluminum, glass and copper in extremely tight contours, the design is universal and modern. The building exudes dignity, but any form of ostentation has been avoided. In the interior, this is underscored by the wonderful combination of raw and polished materials: heavy columns of concrete-brut versus inlaid natural stone floors and angular skai sofas under crystal chandeliers. Shaping consumer society: the new department store Like many architects just after the war, the Kraaijvangers made study trips abroad in preparation for their commissions here. For Vroom & Dreesmann's department store for downtown Rotterdam, they visited examples of modern "department stores" in England and the United States. In particular, the type developed in America was of great influence on the technical and programmatic approach to postwar stores. This new typology is based on flexibly dividable sales floors, on which the products displayed can only be seen in artificial light. The form of the department store is little more than a closed box with as much transparency as possible on the first floor, where the seduction of shoppers must take place. These basic principles are already evident in the first form of the Rotterdam branch.36 The department store occupies an entire building block and has strong horizontal articulation. A striking feature is the large concrete awning, floating in front of the eye, which is intended to suggest extra height, a phenomenon more common in the post-war reconstruction of Rotterdam.37 The strong shadow cast by the substantial awning and the recessed first floor are reinforced by tight horizontal outlines of the design. Keeping the first floor as open as possible minimized the distinction between outside and inside. The curved storefronts would naturally lead passersby inside, so to speak. Shop windows without a back wall enhance this effect. The entrance areas were also made entirely of glass, held together only by thin aluminum profiles. The free-standing columns - the actual separation between sidewalk and store - were clad in gold anodized aluminum, with classic fluting to emphasize their slenderness. The floors inside were interrupted only by the rigid pattern of columns spaced as far apart as possible. The escalators were located centrally in the building. So that they offered a panoramic view of the merchandise displayed. Yet it was not the architecture that made the Rotterdam department store famous. It was primarily the technical equipment that would serve as a model for a whole generation of postwar branches. The warehouse areas, elevators and stairs for goods transport were pushed to the edges of the store area, leaving the floor layout extremely flexible. As a result, the sales areas relied entirely on artificial lighting, for which the Kraaijvangers developed an entirely new type of ceiling during the construction period. Apart from lighting, the flexible layout on the shop floor meant that large numbers of pipes and ventilation ducts had to be constantly accessible. The problem was to conceal the existing technology invisibly while providing space for extensive and movable lighting. The Kraaijvangers' solution consisted of an exposed ceiling, which was suspended as a grid under the storey floors. Above the grid, all necessary piping was installed. Pipes and the underside of the floor were painted a matte, dark blue color, creating a dark background. The square sections of the grid were fitted with light fixtures at will. This ceiling would be emulated throughout Europe and was soon known as "The Rotterdam Ceiling. The typology proven in Rotterdam was further developed in other cities in the Netherlands. With the rise of the consumer society, the department store group experienced tremendous expansion in the 1950s and 1960s. New branches were opened throughout the country, many of which were designed by the Kraaijvangers. The series of department stores is illustrative of the developments the firm went through during thirty years. The branch on the Grote Markt in Groningen played a crucial role in the reconstruction plans for this city. The arrival of Vroom & Dreesmann meant an adjustment to the reconstruction plans for the north wall of the Grote Markt. The department store's enormous need for space led to a complete jump in scale in the subdivision and size of the building blocks. Initially, the new branch was planned on the west side of Oude Ebbingestraat, directly behind the Grote Markt. To allow an entrance on the Grote Markt as well, two plots in the north wall were included in the plan. The new views on sales techniques and department store construction could only be applied sparsely in Groningen. First, the building had an awkward T-shaped floor plan with two fronts. The supervisory committee, which tested the reconstruction plans in Groningen against the desired architectural quality, had difficulty with the closed character and demanded that the building be provided with more windows. As a result, a closed box-shaped volume proved impossible. With the design of the building, the Kraaijvangers sought a connection to the vertically articulated facades in Groningen's inner city. Both fronts have a concrete grid of horizontal bands, which coincide with the storey floors, and vertical posts. Between these are deep compartments with windows or masonry, each finished with an artificial stone frame. The masonry forms a geometric pattern in shades of white and gray. The façade on Oude Ebbingestraat has full-width cantilevered windows with large glass windows. The tumultuous growth of prosperity in the 1960s changed the buying behavior of the Dutchman. Supermarkets made their appearance in Dutch society. A larger budget, a wider range of goods on offer, the abolition of the six-day work week and increasing automobility made shopping a favorite pastime. Vroom & Dreesmann responded by adapting its department stores to the latest developments. The branch on Grote Marktstraat in The Hague was one of the first to be equipped with a modern supermarket. A large parking deck was added on the roof, which was connected to the street by a car elevator. Customers could now literally drive into the department store. Remarkably, these new concepts were incorporated into the existing conglomeration of building volumes over which the Hague branch was spread. To create calm in the multitude and emphaticness of department stores on the busy Grote Markstraat, the Kraaijvangers designed a powerful, horizontally articulated facade. This was clad entirely in a light type of natural stone and was given a large protruding window only on the second floor in the area of the restaurant. Access to the parking garage proved a difficult problem. This was solved by creating a logistically convenient, but urbanistically vague intermediate area. An existing alley between two building volumes was built over, creating an indoor shipping courtyard. This area served as access for the car elevator, as an unloading point for trucks, as a pedestrian zone between Grote Marktstraat and Spuistraat, and as a passageway between the two parts of the department store. In the 1960s there seemed to be no end to Vroom & Dreesmann's expansion. For Kraaijvanger, this meant an almost permanent flow of commissions. New branches were designed for fast-growing villages like Zeist and for young industrial cities like Emmen and Helmond. The concept of the closed box remained the starting point for architectural design. In design there was a tendency toward increasingly large-scale volumes and unapproachable materials. This development can only be understood from the large-scale nature of urban development in the 1960s. It was the time of sanitation and city formation and of progressive plans, which, however, were often only partially implemented. As a result, some exponents of the new generation of department stores look like unwieldy monsters, waiting for the environment to adapt to their size and scale. The Vlaardingen department store, incidentally a design by C.F.A. Knol, is the undisputed nadir of this. The facade of the building - once labeled the ugliest building in the Netherlands38 - consists of gray, profiled metal sheets. The front still has some relationship with the square on which it is located, but the back contrasts sharply with the small-scale housing of old Vlaardingen. Nothing about the building recalls the optimistic and cheerful reconstruction theme of the early postwar department stores. Reflecting on the significance of architectural objects in a larger urban planning context also plays a role in the designs for city offices in Schiedam and Tilburg. In both cities, the construction of a new city hall is part of a large-scale transformation of a neglected city district into a new city center with space for administrative and cultural buildings. In Schiedam, a competition for a new city hall was already held in 1951. The new administrative center and office for municipal services was planned on Broersveld, in the northeastern part of Schiedam's historic city center. This site would become the most important entrance to the city center in connection with the planned expansion districts and the construction of the national highway along Schiedam. However, the results of the competition were both architecturally and urbanistically disappointing. None of the five entries could stand the test of criticism, and for that reason it was decided to go with an architect of stature. The Kraaijvangers were commissioned in 1958. In addition to designing a dignified and efficient city hall, the brief also included achieving an urban-dominating effect. In the 1950s, the city hall was still seen as the seat of the highest local authority, a symbol of the community's will to live. This symbolic function had to be expressed in the urban planning.41 In consultation with the municipality, the Kraaijvanger firm developed a plan in which the city hall would become part of three towers on a large open space, the new city hall square. The plan aimed to break open the small-scale structure of the Schiedam and create space for increasing traffic. The ruin of the Huis te Rivière, located in the planning area, was included, as a relic of the city's history, in the design for the new square. This would give it a role in the experience of the square. In this plan, the city hall was composed of a tall office tower - one of three - coupled with an elongated administration wing. Little remained of the progressive plan in the end. Only the office tower was realized in the 1960s. Due to the lack of spatial relationship with the planned elements of the original concept, the tower became an eccentric object that lacks any relationship with its surroundings. The shape of the tower was also reduced to a rigid volume with razor-sharp contours. The openwork top floor and the roof structure with a buckled roofline from the original design are missing from the executed version. The smooth natural stone skin and sunproof window strips give the building an anonymous character. The optimism with which city formation was given shape in the fifties did not lead to the heart of the city that the Kraaijvangers had in mind, but ultimately resulted in a moderately accepted city office. Only after thirty years was the environment adapted to the size and scale of the building. New cultural functions such as a theater and a library were placed as a pedestal around the city office, making the building acceptable to the city. During the war years, modern ideas definitively gained a place in the Kraaijvangers' architectural and urban planning views. Their involvement in the Basic Plan for the Rebuilding of Rotterdam played a crucial role in this. So much so that in 1950 Herman Kraaijvanger felt that the plan was not yet modern enough. 'It is grander in vision and in some places opens up the possibility of making a city of the 20th century; but openly it must be said, that it is very regrettable, that the greater part of the new city, even in this Basic Plan, will by its structure offer no other possibilities than a rebuilding after the spirit of the 19th century; even if the facades of the new buildings will put on a somewhat more modern face, in essence nothing will change, and a great opportunity has been missed'.46 This criticism of the Basic Plan shows that Herman Kraaijvanger was adamant about the need for modern urbanism. The battle between modern and traditional seemed to have been settled in favor of the former. About the usefulness of modern architecture, however, Herman Kraaijvanger was less convinced and still doubtful. 'We live in a time on the border of two worlds. One is the world of thought, which has become familiar to us through the centuries and in which, despite the many changes of form, has remained true to the primal truths of architecture. The other world of thought is nourished by the new discoveries of building technology, which will not only bring changes of form to architecture, but also threaten to erode our faith in those ancient truths. Contemporary architecture therefore reflects many uncertainties and hesitations, which are a consequence of the fact that we are in a transitional phase.'47 'It is difficult to predict the direction in which contemporary architecture will develop, and even more difficult to pass judgment on it. It is unthinkable that one should reject reinforced concrete as a building material because it would essentially be in conflict, due to its nature and composition, with the principles of architecture handed down to us, but furthermore, reinforced concrete as a purely technical aid is indispensable in the current development of building technology. One will therefore have to accept reinforced concrete in its full consequences in the development of architecture, as one has done with other techniques throughout the centuries; but in its application one will still have to search for that harmony of art and technique, in order to arrive at a clean architectural form with the use of this material.'48 This search for a clean architectural form is the thread that runs through the Evert and Herman Kraaijvanger's oeuvre, a search for a suitable form for the changing demands that modern society places on architecture. The critical attitude toward social change made this search a difficult one for the Kraaijvangers. For example, Herman Kraaijvanger believed that "architecture is largely at the mercy of speculators and the vagaries of fortuitous economic events. [...] It is not the architects who are responsible for the poor results, but ultimately the whole of society. Modern materialism, which pervades our entire society, has suffocated the love and attention for the beautiful and simple, and it is characteristic of our time that it is always very difficult to build buildings of cultural significance and even then in an urban planning location that is important in the cityscape'.49 According to him, contemporary Dutch architecture could be nothing but a reflection of our own materialistic culture. The exceptions, buildings that bear witness to indestructible faith in the future of architecture and in the responsibility of the architect, would be "like the flowers that will continue to bloom in every age. "50 Whether Evert and Herman Kraaijvanger counted their own creations among the flowers of their era is debatable. Looking back on a lifetime of architectural endeavors, Evert would remark with a clear sense of self-importance, 'and I do not think that what we have set is below par. Masterpieces are rarely made. "51 Outside positions: Stichting Herrijzend Rotterdam (member curatorium)/1955-1970;Welstandscommissie Rotterdam/1935-1940;Welstandscommissie Rotterdam/1947-1958;Welstandscommissie Instituut Stad en Landschap van Zuid-Holland (chairman)/1961-1967;Work committee from the Board of Supervisors (member)/1948-1952;Work committee from the Board of Supervisors (member)/1957-1969;Rotterdamse Kunststichting (board member)/1945-1957;Rotterdamse Kunststichting (secretary-treasurer and member executive board)/1957-1966;Rotterdamse Kunststichting (chairman Advisory Committee for Soloist Concerts)/1952-1973;Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra Foundation (board member)/1965-1970;Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra Foundation (secretary)/1938-1943;Vereniging tot Instandhouding van het Rotterdams Philharmonisch Orkest (secretary)/1938-1945;Bouwcommissie Rotterdamse Schouwburg (member)/1941-1946;Vereniging Vrienden van het Rotterdams Philharmonisch Orkest (board member)/1951-1973;Prix de Rome (jury member)/1958;R.K. Bouwblad (editor)/1930-1933;Intermezzo (editor)/1960-1966;Rotterdamse Kunstkring (board member)/1938-1945;Rotterdam 1939 Foundation (member art committee)/1940-1942;Committee '50 , '55, '60, '65 and '70 (board member)/1945-1966;Nederlands Kunstverbond Rotterdam department (board member)/1946-1963 Honors: Officer in the Order of Orange-Nassau /1958;Paul Nijgh Penning/1959;Penning van de Rotte/1966;Penning van de Maze/1971;Honorary membership AssociationVrienden van het Rotterdams Philharmonisch Orkest/1973