J.P.L.Hendriks (1895-1975) Introduction The career of Johannes Petrus Leonardus Hendriks began in the 1920s. During this period, several architectural movements coexisted in the Netherlands. All these movements claimed their own style, but in reality there appeared to be many similarities and overlaps. Both modernism and traditionalism, later identified with the Delft School, are based on the architectural ideas of Berlage. Frank Lloyd Wright's architecture has also been influential. What all these movements had in common was that in a period of crisis between two world wars, they sought a way to build soberly. In Hendriks' oeuvre, influences of both modernism and traditionalism can be recognized. In his early designs, the style of Frank Lloyd Wright is evident. Hendriks' work cannot be called innovative, rather he was a follower of styles. The most characteristic of all his designs, modernist and traditionalist, is the austere character. Hendriks confirmed himself to the Roman Catholic movement in the building world. The mouthpiece of this movement was the Katholiek Bouwblad in which Hendriks' work was regularly presented. He received a large number of commissions for Roman Catholic churches, Roman Catholic schools and a monastery. J.P.L. Hendriks was a versatile architect. In addition to the above works, his oeuvre includes utility buildings, homes, stores, office buildings, theaters and a ship's interior. He gained fame as a designer when he won the Prix de Rome in 1924. Shortly thereafter, he designed one of his most famous works, the water tower of Wassenaar. A striking feature of this design is its great austerity, which would become so characteristic of all his later designs. In 1939 Hendriks founded the architectural firm Hendriks, Van der Sluys & Van den Bosch. This firm contributed much to the reconstruction of Rotterdam. His most important work in this context is the design for the Thalia Theater. No important publications of Hendriks himself are known. His designs were often discussed in the Katholiek Bouwblad and the Bouwkundig Weekblad. In a few cases Hendriks commented on them. Education, apprenticeship and career Johannes Petrus Leonardus Hendriks was born in Rotterdam on August 27, 1895. After training at the Ambachtsschool, he attended evening and day courses at the Academy of Visual Arts and Technical Sciences in Rotterdam under W. Kromhout from 1918 to 1923. There he obtained various drawing certificates. He was employed by the architect P.G. Buskens and by the firm Meischke and Schmidt.1 In 1920 and in 1923 he made a study trip through Germany and Italy, where he made several travel sketches. In 1924 he won the Prix de Rome competition with the final design for a religious complex. Hendriks received a gold medal for his design and a stipend from the Dutch government for a four-year study tour of Europe and North Africa. J.P.L. Hendriks also successfully participated in other competitions, including the annual competitions of the Association "Bouwkunst en Vriendschap" in Rotterdam and various municipal competitions. His design for a water tower at Wassenaar, honored with a first prize, was executed. He also made a design for a monument for the former director of municipal works in Rotterdam G.J. de Jongh. This design was not executed. In 1939, Hendriks founded the architectural firm Hendriks, Van der Sluys & Van den Bosch. Van der Sluys was a collaborating architect, not a member of the board. The office was located at Heemraadssingel 28a, in Rotterdam. After World War II, the firm received many commissions as part of the Reconstruction effort. Expansion was necessary. In 1953, the office started working together with Jac. P. Dessing (1880-1966) from Gouda. The association Dessing, Hendriks, Van den Bosch had its office in Gouda. In 1955, J.P.L. Hendriks left this firm, although he remained associated with the Rotterdam firm. In 1956 Van den Bosch, without J.P.L. Hendriks, entered into a partnership with Jan Hendriks (1925), with an office in Nijmegen. In 1960, J.P.L. Hendriks also left the Rotterdam bureau. His major works include churches in Amsterdam (1925), Aalsmeer (1929), Delft (1932), Rotterdam (1948, 1952 and 1954) and Breda (1959). He also designed the water tower in Wassenaar (1928), a vocational school in Rotterdam (1934), the entrance to the R.C. cemetery in Rotterdam (1936) and various apartment buildings, store premises and a cinema in Rotterdam (1955). Hendriks was a member of the editorial board of the Bouwkundig Weekblad and he was a member of the association "Bouwkunst en Vriendschap," where he also served on the jury for the association's annual competitions. He was a teacher at the Academy and the HTS in Rotterdam, and he was a member of the B.N.A..2 Hendriks was part of a committee that chose the images for an illustrated work published in 1937 under the title Hedendaagse Architectuur in Nederland under the auspices of the B.N.A..3 On Thursday, January 23, 1941, at the city council meeting chaired by Rotterdam Mayor P.J. Oud, J.P.L. Hendriks was appointed as a member of the Commission for the Supervision of Municipal Trade Schools.4 In 1946, Hendriks stood as a candidate for the municipal elections in Rotterdam on the list of the Catholic People's Party.5 In the same year, he was a member of the jury in response to a competition for a monument to all the fallen in Rotterdam during World War II. On this occasion, Hendriks expressed regret at the low standard of the entries.6 Contests, influence of Frank Lloyd Wright and modernism While studying at the Academy of Visual Arts and Technical Sciences, Hendriks made a study trip to Italy in 1920, where he made architectural sketches in Ravenna, Venice and Florence. Apparently these sketches, made shortly after World War I during which travel had not been possible, made a great impression because they were published in the Bouwkundig Weekblad of August 21, 1920.7 In 1923 Hendriks traveled to Italy again, this time in the company of his friend and fellow student W. van der Sluys. In this period Hendriks and Van der Sluys also regularly participated successfully in joint competitions. In the annual competitions organized by the Vereniging 'Bouwkunst en Vriendschap' they won prizes on several occasions. In the 1922 competition of this association, Hendriks and Van der Sluys won the first prize, a bronze medal and f 50,-, for a survey of an old building or part thereof, under the motto 'Waalsche Kerk'. In 1923, they won third prize plus an honorable mention in a competition held by the same society for a bridge over a city crescent. Images of this design are not known. His early work expresses a preference for modernism and the style of Frank Lloyd Wright. During a competition held by the City of Amsterdam in 1924 for 'Four monumental lanterns on Dam Square in Amsterdam', Hendriks and Van der Sluys' design under the motto 'Fiat Lux' won the third prize and f 150,-. It is a modernist design. The design is simple and sleek. It consists of two overlapping rectangular columns to which three lamps are attached in the top on one side. To balance the composition, four flat rings have been placed on the other side of the column at the level of the lamps. The jury had much appreciation but considered the 'instrumental' design unsuitable for execution because the whole would not fit in with the surroundings.8 In the same year, the Society 'Bouwkunst en Vriendschap' held a competition for a beach restaurant and a rest bench. Of the 35 entries for a beach pool restaurant, four were eligible for a shared bronze medal and f 40, including two designs by Hendriks and Van der Sluys. Entitled "Sun and Sea" and "Horizon (2)," they designed two pavilions clearly based on the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright. Wright's influence was unmistakably present in Dutch architecture from 1910 onward. Modernist architects saw in his designs the style they aspired to, with purely geometric forms, straight lines, right angles, horizontals and verticals and primary colors. In architecture, this was to be expressed in cubic building blocks, flat overhanging roofs, a horizontal line and the color white.9 Both of Hendriks and Van der Sluys' designs feature these characteristics. They show interlocking horizontal building volumes of unequal height, strip windows and roofs with a large overhang. The 'Sun and Sea' design is asymmetrical, with flat roofs and terraces at different levels on both the beach and street sides. On the beach side, the terrace on the second floor is accessible via a staircase that runs up the circular extension of the dining room. The design "Horizon (2)" is symmetrical. It consists of two superimposed horizontal building volumes of which the upper volume is narrower and has a pyramidal overhanging roof at the corners. The middle volume is taller and has a flat roof. The design had to meet a number of requirements; for example, access to the beach had to take place only through the basement. Furthermore, the construction had to take extreme weather conditions into account. In the jury's opinion, both designs met these requirements. However, the jury also criticized the sketchy treatment of the designs, as well as the facade layout, the symmetry of the "Horizon (2)" design and the alternation of sloping and flat roofs.10 In the competition for a double bench, the jury awarded an honorable mention and f 15. These too are modernist designs. Both designs consist of rectangular horizontal and vertical elements. In the 'Cement, Sand, Iron' design, the backrest in the middle consists of curved steel tubes. Incidentally, the use of materials is not clearly expressed in either design. Again, the jury's verdict is that they are one of the few to have fulfilled the requirement of the commission. Neither of these designs was realized. Prix de Rome Periodically, the Rijksacademie van Beeldende Kunsten in Amsterdam organizes the Prix de Rome. The purpose of the Prix de Rome for fine architecture, established in 1870, is to promote architectural education through competitions. The model for the Prix de Rome in 1870 was the French Grand Prix de Rome, which was completely intertwined with architectural education at the École des Beaux Arts, in Paris.11 Until 1921, the Prix de Rome always followed the same procedure. Participants had to make a preliminary sketch to be worked out in the following months. The starting point was the rules of the École des Beaux Arts, in which regularity and symmetry were the most important criteria. Designing a monumental building at the beginning of the 20th century was an almost routine matter.12 The design principles were fixed, the building was conceived as a whole without regard to its surroundings. In time, this design no longer matched contemporary views on building types and urban planning. Therefore, repeated attempts were made to break through this structure. The competition element was maintained but, in addition, questions about contemporary developments such as modern housing and concrete construction also formed part of the theoretical part.13 Characteristic of the changes in the Prix de Rome was the increasing attention paid to urban planning. There was broad discussion of the relationship between architecture and its surroundings. In 1918 one question read, "What will be the elements of beauty for our modern urban planning? "14 From 1914 onwards, J.A.G. van der Steur gave lectures on urban planning at the Technische Hogeschool in Delft, showing the great interest in this subject. One of the most important urban planners of the time, M.J. Granpré Molière, took over from him in 1924. In 1924, for the first time, the urban design aspect was important in the final assignment of the Prix de Rome. The assignment was to design a religious complex, consisting of a Roman Catholic church with annexes and a bell tower, a rectory, an association building and a boys' and a girls' school. The brief for the final camp was formulated by Jan Stuyt, who already had several religious complexes to his credit at the time. The final design received much support from the likes of J.P. Mieras and A.J. van der Steur, who praised it for its "characteristic modernity," its modesty, and its sense of reality.15 Yet Mieras also criticized the result. J.P.L. Hendriks, as the only participant, acquired 1st prize with his design. J.C. Meischke, J.P.L. Hendriks' employer, acted as an alternate member of the jury.16 In response to the jury report, J.P. Mieras wrote in the Bouwkundig Weekblad (1925): "It is a happy phenomenon that the customary system of Prix de Rome projects has been broken with, in which the participants had to dream away the barren and oppressive reality of their 'lodge'17 in fairy-tale palaces and in vast buildings of art and science on distant beaches or in vast parks. However, while the change in the character of the work can be appreciated in itself, the choice of the present work is not entirely satisfactory [...] The work chosen seems to us too realistic. One can see it in the work done. The drawings made have become drawings of the specifications, which hold out the prospect of a tender [...] It is a pity that the assessment of the work had to be done only by way of appraisal, and that the lack of more participants prevented an assessment by way of comparison. "18 Hendriks' design shows a plan in square form. The buildings are situated around a rectangular courtyard accessible from three sides. One narrow side is formed by a building with a rectangular floor plan and a building consisting of a rectangular and a square building volume placed at right angles to each other and forming a corner. Between the two buildings is a passage to the courtyard. The opposite side of the courtyard is closed by three building volumes that together form a U. Here a rectangular building volume is placed crosswise on one of the corners. On both long sides is access to the courtyard. The corner building on the short side consists of a church with outbuildings incorporating a tall square bell tower. The buildings consist of attached, rectangular building volumes varying in height and width. The side elevations are quite low with strip windows directly below the eaves. The entrances appear quite low in relation to the high gables. All buildings, including the tower, have high gabled roofs. Characteristic of the design is the sober, clean design with a minimum of decoration. Travel sketches After Hendriks won the Prix de Rome in 1924, he traveled throughout Europe and North Africa for four years with a stipend from the Dutch government. The assignment to the Prix de Rome winners was as J.P. Mieras put it in an article in Bouwkundig Weekblad, 1926: "Opportunities for tracing major issues, studying 'problems,' are pointed out to the traveling Prix de Rome (winner) and he is expected to make the fruits of his labor subservient in the most altruistic way to the future of national architecture. "19 In his first year of stipend, 1925, Hendriks visited mainly Germany and also paid a visit to Denmark. He made drawings of the town of Rothenburg on the Tauber, the cathedral towers of Ulm and Bamberg, and of facades and portals in Braunsweich and Hildesheim, among others. In Copenhagen, he made a sketch of the Nicolaïtoren. In 1926 he went to Italy where he subsequently stayed for two years. He then also visited Tunisia. In Italy he drew townscapes including San Gimignano. Some of these sketches are in the archives of the NAi in Rotterdam. They are mainly drawings of traditional architecture. The drawings are characterized by clean lines and sharp detailing and show a preference for robust towers, round arched windows and gates and closed voluminous building masses with small windows. In Tunisia, he drew the city gate of El Driba. This travel sketch was part of the "Van der Steur Collection," an exhibition of travel sketches presented to Van der Steur by B.N.A. members on his retirement as president of the B.N.A..20 Influences from his travels, among other influences, can be found in Hendriks' later work. For example, the massive round towers and narrow windows Hendriks drew on his travels may have served as examples for the water tower in Wassenaar. The square entrance building with the round arch gate of the cemetery at Rotterdam alludes to North African influences. In his designs for church architecture, Hendriks also made frequent use of classical elements such as round arches for window and entrance areas and in bell towers. The drawings he made in Rothenburg of the Weiszer Turm with some typically old gables may have served as a starting point for his design in a historicizing style for a town hall in Bloemendaal. Here we see the same facades running parallel to the street with the building at right angles to it, thus forming an angle into which the tower is incorporated; the same gabled roofs, staggered in height, gate-shaped entrances and rows of small windows. Few publications of Hendriks himself are known about his work. One of the times he spoke publicly about his own work was in 1930 at a festive meeting to mark the 45th anniversary of the association Bouwkunst en Vriendschap, of which Hendriks was also a member. Here he talked about his travel experiences and the sketches he had made during his study trips through Scandinavia and North Africa. He began his talk by noting that in an age of film and radio, it no longer makes much sense to use a few travel sketches to tell about world regions that everyone can see for themselves in the cinema. Nevertheless, Hendriks managed to captivate his listeners, which is evident from an article concerning the meeting in the Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad of 12-12-1930. The author mentions that Hendriks painted a vivid picture of the old North African society. First Hendriks pointed out the origins of Islamic art and the influence of the Mohammedan religion on North African architecture. He pointed out that mosque and monastery were often also military fortifications and universities at the same time. He gave his listeners a glimpse of the covered markets where exotic merchandise was carried by donkeys and camels. He outlined the primitive means of travel by miniature trains. Finally, he described the people, the wide variety of peoples sitting together in groups in front of their own cafe. The writer of the article notes that Hendriks "not only sees the structures, but he sees them entirely in the environment. "21 Between modernism and traditionalism Among Hendriks' first executed designs are three churches and the entrance to the R.C. Cemetery in Rotterdam. The sober style is characteristic of these designs. Here he manages to enliven the strict closed character of a design in brick with a single decorative element. The churches that Hendriks designed in the 1920s and 1930s have a traditionalist design. Here Hendriks followed the principles of traditionalism as formulated by Granpré Molière. The starting point was the naturalness of the appearance that comes from tradition. In traditionalism, every building has a typical appearance, which leads to building churches as they have always looked.22 Granpré Molière wanted to build on tradition without falling into neo-styles in order to achieve architectural innovation.23 The design had to be sober and traditional building materials had to be used. In practice, this amounted to the frequent use of brick. Prewar churches and the entrance to the R.C. Cemetery in Rotterdam In 1928, Hendriks designed the St. Annakerk in Amstelveen in collaboration with M. van Beers. In 1929 he designed the R.C. Church in Aalsmeer commissioned by the Carmel Foundation and in 1932 the R.C. Auxiliary Church in Delft commissioned by the Dean of Delft. Characteristic is the traditional design and the use of brick as building material. Another aspect is the utter simplicity of the three designs with a minimum of decoration. The rectangular building volumes are erected in brickwork punctuated by natural stone elements. The buildings have gables of different heights and gabled roofs. The walls are punctuated by windows with tracery. Hendriks makes frequent use of rose windows and round arches in his designs. Often a decorative masonry pattern is applied around the windows and entrances. Fairly new in this period was the use of concrete in church construction. St. Anne's Church was one of the first churches in the Netherlands to have a concrete foundation. The church is built of brick with a minimum of decoration and consists of three building volumes, the portal, the nave and the apse. All building sections have a gable roof. The portal and apse are narrower than the nave. The side walls of the three sections are of equal height, the gables of the portal and apse are lower than the gables of the nave. A staircase gives access to the porch. The entrance consists of a round arch with two round-arched windows on each side. Above the entrance is a rose window with natural stone tracery. In the side wall, four round windows with natural stone tracery in an alternating pattern are placed between three buttresses. There is a decorative masonry pattern around all windows and round arches. Next to the church on one side is a rectangular bell tower with lantern and pointed turret; on the other side is a hexagonal baptistery. The interior of the church is built of masonry. The vault consists of pointed arches. The nave is closed off from the entrance portals by ornately designed wrought-iron gates. The adjacent presbytery, like the church, is built of brick. It consists of two perpendicular building volumes with gabled roofs. The R.C. Church in Aalsmeer is also very sober in design and use of materials. The building is built of brick with some natural stone elements. The church consists of one rectangular building volume covered by a slightly sloping gable roof. The entrance to the building, consisting of three round arches, is reached by a staircase. Above the entrance is a rose window with natural stone tracery. Next to the church is a rectangular bell tower with three round-arch openings at the top. The tower also has a gabled roof. Again, a decorative masonry pattern is placed around windows and round arches. The R.C. Bijkerk in Delft has a cruciform plan consisting of a portal, the nave with transept and the apse. The whole makes a rather compact impression because the roofs of transept and nave are of equal height. The floor plan of portal, nave and apse is similar to the church in Amstelveen, but in the case of the church in Delft, the side wall of the nave is lower than the side walls of the portal and transept. On the quadrangle of transept and nave is a lantern placed with a pointed tower. The whole is built of brick with natural stone elements. The design made by Hendriks was published in the R.K. Bouwblad of March 9, 1933. This design differs from what was eventually executed. Whether the changes were made by Hendriks himself is unknown. The transept is missing from the published design, and the rectangular entrance with a round arched window above it is the same as what was executed. Otherwise little of the original design can be recognized. The round windows in the side walls have been replaced by round-arch windows and the tower between the nave and apse has been replaced by a transept with one large rectangular window. In an explanation of the original design, Hendriks wrote that his design should be as austere as possible. He designed a roof structure that did not stress the side walls, allowing them to be constructed very lightly and thus inexpensively. The whole building was to be constructed of yellow-gray brick and capped with brown Romanesque roof tiles.24 Hendriks designed the entrance to the R.C. Cemetery in Rotterdam in 1936. It consists of a gatehouse with a side wing. The main feature of the building is its austere style. The austere simplicity of the brick-built building is broken by some decorative elements. The massive character of the rectangular gatehouse is compensated by the transparent mesh of the round gate and by the thinness of the little bell tower on top of the gate. A playful element is the roof edge protruding slightly at the top. The closed nature of the design is broken by sculpture placed in a niche above the gate and by the round arches on pillars in the side wing of the gatehouse. These stone elements counterbalance the severe brick composition. The whole evokes an association with the travel sketches Hendriks made on his study trips through Italy and Tunisia, of the massive city gates of San Gimignano and El Driba. The monument to G.J. de Jongh In the same period, Hendriks also made two designs for a monument for the former director of municipal works G.J. de Jongh in Rotterdam. In 1927, the Hr. D.G. van Beuningen made a sum of money available to the Municipality of Rotterdam for the erection of a monument to G.J. de Jongh, who had led the expansion of the city and the construction of the Rhine, Maas and Waal ports for more than 30 years. The monument was to be placed at the junction of Maas and Koningshaven between the quay walls of Prinsenhoofd. In 1929, the municipality gave seven architects, including J.P.L. Hendriks, a multiple commission to design a monument. None of the designs submitted, in the opinion of the jury, met the requirements set and a public competition was held in 1930. Hendriks submitted two designs under the slogan "Waterpoort": one with a square tower and one with a round tower.25 In the design with the square tower, the tower stands on the border of water and land, with a gateway in the base of the tower. The tower is enclosed on both sides by the quay walls of the Prinsenhoofd. At the back of the tower is a restaurant consisting of two wings running parallel to the quay walls. Again, simplicity is the main feature of the design. The square tower has a decorated tall narrow window at the front and several small windows on the other sides. On the flat roof is a lantern. The rectangular wings of the restaurant have strip windows. The gate is flanked by the two semicircular parapets of the quay wall that give the whole, partly due to the lattice fence in front of the gate, a somewhat robust character. There is no question of decoration in the form of sculpture, initially one of the requirements. In the 'Waterpoort (with round tower)' design, the idea of a water gate was completely abandoned. A round building was chosen at about 2.5 m above the level of the Prinsenhoofd, the roof of which can be used as a terrace. Because of its round shape, the restaurant offers a panorama to all sides. From the center rises the round tower with fluting in the tower shaft and a lantern on top. Hendriks wrote a commentary on both designs. About the design with round tower, he said it was designed to allow unobstructed views of the river from the restaurant on all sides. An open seating terrace was not designed because experience has shown that such a thing is unusable in our country. On the other hand, there is the possibility of sliding away all the windows. The terraces are walking terraces; in addition, there is a viewing terrace on top of the tower. The lantern at the top provides light into the tower. Moreover, by making a special profile on the fluting, the whole tower can be illuminated. The tower and the other masonry would be done in gray clinkers, the top of the tower dark, lighter flowing down. Cover bands, base of the tower, steps, etc. would be of Swedish granite. The lantern on the tower of scoped iron. The other metals of bronze. The structure is of reinforced concrete. About the design with a square tower, Hendriks said the preconceived intention was to create the character of a "Waterpoort" analogous to similar towers along the great rivers. A café is projected on either side of the tower, parallel to the quay wall, ensuring not only a decent view but also creating an attractive terrace formation. The materials are the same as described for the round tower.26 The jury's verdict on the "Waterpoort (with square tower)" design was that the proportions were unfavorable and that the elongated halls of the restaurant did not offer an attractive attraction possibility. The jury decided to award first prize to the design under the motto: 'Waterpoort (with round tower)'. Especially the location of the restaurant met with the jury's approval. Hendriks' design was not executed. The monument to G.J. de Jongh located in the Museum Park behind Museum Boymans van Beuningen in Rotterdam was designed around 1935 by A. van der Steur. That Hendriks sometimes repeated himself in his designs is evident from the previously mentioned 1932 design for a town hall in Bloemendaal. The tower shows great resemblance to the square tower Hendriks designed for the monument of G.J. de Jongh. The window halfway up the tower of the town hall is an exact copy of the small windows in the tower for G.J. de Jongh. It is a small round-arch window with a small balcony and a decoration in the masonry above the round arch. The roof of the tower with its balustrade and lantern is also almost identical. The elongated windows in the remaining facades are reminiscent in design and decoration of the long narrow window in the tower for G.J. de Jongh. Perhaps Hendriks wanted to carry out a successful part of an uncompleted work elsewhere. The design was made as part of a multiple commission issued by the Bloemendaal municipality. The town hall was to be situated on a rectangular square with existing buildings on two sides. Hendriks' design consists of three rectangular building volumes of different heights with a rectangular volume at right angles to it, forming a corner. In the corner rises a square tower. A staircase leads to the entrance hall, which consists of three round arches. Above it are three tall narrow windows that turn into three dormers at the eaves. The remaining buildings have rows of regular windows with decorative latticework and a decorated cornice. All buildings have gabled roofs. The tower has a flat roof on which a lantern is placed. The whole is executed in a historicizing style in which many traditional elements are included The Advisory Committee assessed the design under the slogan: 'Om den Brink' as a good but not interesting solution. It was of the opinion that the town hall does not form one whole with the buildings around it. The long square wall on the Council House side does not form a balanced whole with the opposite square wall. The committee appreciated the design of the buildings but felt that they did not sufficiently blend with the landscape. It also considered the floor plans of the Council House inadequate.27 Consequently, the design was not implemented. A craft school, a ship interior and an exhibition pavilion Hendriks' versatility is evidenced by a number of designs he made in the late 1930s for buildings of very different nature and function. In 1933 the architects J.P.L. Hendriks and M. van Beers received a commission from the board of the R.K. Ambachtsschool St. Joseph to build a school on the Walenburgerweg in Rotterdam. This brought an end to four and a half years of negotiations with the Department of Education, the State Building Department, the Austerity Department and the Education Inspectorate, which during this period cut back more and more on foundation costs but finally granted permission for the construction of the first R.C. Craft School. The aim of the austerity measures was to realize a sober school building that reflected the general scarcity of the time, anything that hinted at excess had to be avoided in connection with the austerity drive.28 The design for the R.K. Ambachtsschool St. Joseph has a modernist character. The building has characteristics of the New Building style. Light, air and space was the credo. The building consists of a concrete skeleton against which a facade with regular large windows is placed, connecting indoor and outdoor space. Heavy walls have been avoided as much as possible. Only the side wings are closed off by a compact brick extension. The building consists of three floors. For each floor, three large rooms are grouped in each of the two side wings in such a way that a central access is obtained, thus minimizing the loss of space in corridors. Economic was also the underground placement of bicycle storage and checkroom. This space was connected to the central hall by a staircase, which was beneficial for the distribution of students throughout the building. The entire building was designed on a module, resulting in great uniformity of building volumes, which is reflected in the architecture. The simplicity of the exterior is consistent with the sober finish of the interior. The idea was that a vocational school is basically not much else than a workshop whose contrast with the reality outside the school was not desired to be too great. Hendriks also contributed to the interior design of the s.s. 'Nieuw Amsterdam'. During the construction of the "Nieuw Amsterdam," an architectural firm was established to deal with the interior design of the newly built flagship of the Holland-America Line. A number of architects were assigned the care of certain spaces. J.P.L. Hendriks was commissioned to design the café and veranda in the tourist class and the vestibule in the cabin class. The vestibule or reception hall extends the entire width of the ship and provides access to the main deck. Both main stairwells on either side of the vestibule lead along the glass elevator wall, with representations by Gidding and Copier, through the deck A vestibule to the dining rooms of first class and tourist class. The walls and ceiling of the vestibule are done in light colors. The stairwells and elevator shafts make extensive use of steel and glass. The railing along the stairs and the end of the balconies in the stairwell are made of steel tubes. The ceiling of the vestibule is supported by copper-colored pillars. The furnishings consist of round tables and, lightly upholstered, armchairs. Hildegard Brom-Fischer designed the light-colored hand-knotted carpet. The bronze plastics on the light green wall in the vestibule between the two stairwells, representing "The Four Seasons," were created by the artists Jan Eloy and Leo Brom. On the promenade deck is the tourist café with adjacent sunny veranda overlooking the sports deck.29 The café is an elongated narrow space spanning almost the entire width of the ship with one row of windows on the long side. The brightly colored room is furnished with round tables and easy armchairs arranged in a row along the windows. Hendriks also submitted a design for the Dutch pavilion for the 1939 World's Fair in New York. The design consists of four linked, rectangular building volumes of different sizes. The horizontal building mass is interrupted by a rectangular tower placed in one of the corners. The rigid, closed line of the main pavilion is broken by six round windows; the side wings have rounded gable corners with pointed turrets. The course of events surrounding the granting of the multiple commission by the Economic Information Service caused some commotion in the construction world at the time. In an article in De Groene Amsterdammer of March 12, 1938, the accusation was made that there was little transparency in the awarding of the commission. The commission had been given to seven architects including J.P.L. Hendriks. The design by the architect D.F. Slothouwer was chosen to be executed without disclosure of the reasons on the basis of which the choice had been made. The whole procedure was surrounded with secrecy and a stream of rumors of a concrete nature arose.30 In response to the article in De Groene Amsterdammer, Architecten Groep 'De 8' and the Vereniging 'Opbouw' addressed an open letter, published in De 8 & Opbouw, to all Dutch artists, architects and to all those who had the development of Dutch art at heart. They expressed their disapproval of the course of events in sharp terms. The government committee was accused of inadmissible actions. The choice of the architect was said to have been determined beforehand and behind closed doors. The multiple commission given had only been a pro forma act. It had never been the intention to make a choice. The various architects invited and probably some of the committee members would have been fooled. They also expressed the assumption that the strictest silence had been imposed on a number of committee members. In the article they called on Dutch artists to ensure that their moral rights would be safeguarded. As long as this moral right was not also legally assured, they should refrain from any cooperation with the Dutch pavilion in New-York.31. Perhaps to take some of the wind out of the critics' sails, the Bouwkundig Weekblad Architectura of May 28, 1938, at the request of the working committee, printed the invitation letter of February 8, 1938, to the seven architects and an explanation of the designs submitted. The letter of invitation contained a number of requirements to be met by the design. The pavilion was to consist of two independent sections, one for the Dutch entry and one for the entry of the Dutch Overseas Regions, with the Dutch entry being allocated the most space. The building had to lend itself to an efficient and artistic way of displaying the entries. As a structure, it was to represent contemporary Dutch architecture. The explanation of Hendriks' design was that the pavilion carried a temporary character without compromising its dignity. The external design already indicated that an important and worthwhile collection was being exhibited in the building. Prostration was avoided. The layout was very global. The four groups of the Netherlands and the Dutch East Indies, each divided into culture and economy, were expressed in the exterior architecture. Furthermore, the committee made some recommendations about the construction, it should consist of a wooden skeleton or a light steel frame covered with metal mesh and plastered with cream-colored cement. For the stone elements, red tiles, plain and glazed brick, baked tiles whether glazed or not were considered, which at the same time would mean propaganda for these materials. Sculptures could be added in several places.32 Housing In the 1930s, Hendriks also received a number of commissions for housing projects. Among the works executed are a residential-annex retail complex on the Broervest in Schiedam, and a number of apartment houses on the Calandstraat and the Tunneltraverse in Rotterdam. He designed the residential-annex retail complex in 1930, commissioned by the city of Schiedam. The complex, with its main front on the Broervest, has a facade of over 260m. and houses 20 stores and 75 apartments. Built in yellow brick, the complex consists of four-story blocks topped by a roof storey.33 The first floor consists of storefronts, the remaining floors are composed of horizontal window sections interspersed with vertical building elements. In the late 1930s, Hendriks designed a number of luxury apartment houses. In 1938, the former Zeemanshuis on Calandstraat in Rotterdam was demolished. A complex of 32 apartments designed by J.P.L. Hendriks would rise on the vacant site. The four-story building is constructed of red brick with steel framework. Each apartment has a bay window, with the corner apartments featuring a round, far projecting bay window. Four stairwells on either side provide access to 8 apartment units each. Very modern for the time, the spacious homes each have two en suite rooms, two bedrooms, a kitchen and bathroom. The apartments are quite luxuriously furnished with central kitchen heating, a bathroom system, refrigerator, kitchen geyser and a house phone with the outside door. The ground floor houses have gardens about 20 meters deep. A reinforced concrete basement with storage space for each house runs under the entire building.34 In 1940, Hendriks, commissioned by the N.V. Nederlandsche Verzekeringsmaatschappij 'Sint Willebrordus', Utrecht, designed a complex of 61 apartment houses along the Tunneltraverse in Rotterdam. The complex consists of three rectangular blocks of different heights that together form a corner. The corner building is eight stories high. The two side buildings consist of five stories. The architecture is simple and consists of rows of strip windows interspersed with stone bands. These flats are also luxuriously furnished for the time, they have passenger and freight elevators and special sound insulation.35 In Rotterdam, the Meent breakthrough was realized in the late 1930s. A large number of hovels were demolished and a new, spacious street plan with houses, stores and offices was realized. Hendriks designed a complex housing stores and offices at Meent 106, the Minervahuis I. It is one of the first Rotterdam buildings with a concrete skeleton. Thanks to this concrete skeleton, Minervahuis I survived the 1940 bombing and subsequent fire, while buildings nearby with a steel skeleton were completely destroyed by the fire. The damage to Minervahuis I was still repaired during the war years, and Minervahuis II, at Meent 94 was also occupied during that period. The building provided housing for "homeless" entrepreneurs. It is considered the first completed permanent building under Reconstruction. It has a bomb-proof construction that was supposed to be able to survive a second air raid.36 Minervahuis I and II on the Meent are the first modern retail and commercial spaces to be realized in downtown Rotterdam. Both Minervahuis I and Minervahuis II are built in a modernist style. Minervahuis I consists of a row of storefronts on the first floor and four floors of offices above. The building is constructed of brick, it has four strips of regularly spaced windows in the facade and a flat roof with a slightly overhanging cornice. Minerva House II has a shopping arcade on the first floor, above which there are five floors. The facade consists of horizontal bands of masonry with banded windows between them. The front facade ends in a rounded corner into which the windows continue. This building also has a flat roof. The sculptor Johan van Berkel created the sculpture that is attached to the facade of Minerva House II. It depicts a number of well-known street types of the time. Minerva House III on the Red Sand (1950) also has a modernist design. It fits into the image of post-war architecture of Reconstruction. The building consists of two rectangular building volumes of four and five floors, respectively, forming a corner. The facade is composed of horizontal and vertical elements of brick and natural stone between which are placed regular rows of windows. The recessed first floor consists of storefronts. Above the storefronts is a frieze with a decoration in the form of garlands. Reconstruction 1940-1942 J.P.L. Hendriks made an important contribution to the reconstruction of Rotterdam during and after World War II. The reconstruction took place in two phases, the period from 1940 to 1942 and the period from 1945. In the period 1940 - 1942 mainly emergency facilities were realized to meet the great need for living and business space. This need had existed even before the outbreak of World War II and plans were ready for a reorganization of the city center and expansion on the outskirts. Ir. W.G. Witteveen, appointed head of the Urban Expansion and Buildings Department of the Rotterdam Municipal Works Department in 1924, had designed a number of far-reaching plans for urban development. These included keeping small-scale, polluting industry out of the inner city. Slums would be demolished to make way for commercial buildings, stores and wide streets. For public housing, new neighborhoods would spring up on the city outskirts. Due to the economic crisis of the 1930s, many of Witteveen's plans were not implemented. However, the events of May 1940 suddenly made the realization of these plans topical again. Within two weeks, the first plans for the reconstruction of Rotterdam were ready. Witteveen had based his plans on those that already existed. Unhampered by existing structures, his plan proposed radical solutions to all the problems that had arisen before the war.37 In order to eliminate the city's retail shortage, a number of places on the edge of the city center were designated where emergency stores and catering establishments could be set up. The inner city was to be kept free for the realization of Witteveen's plans, which, incidentally, could not be implemented due to the 1942 construction freeze. Little would later remain of the Witteveen plan; it was replaced by the City Plan - 1946 led by ir. C. van Traa. Within six months, emergency provisions had been made around the entire vanished city center. New shopping centers sprang up on Coolsingel, Nieuwe Binnenweg and Kruiskade, on the land of Hoboken (Dijkzicht) and in Blijdorp near the Statentunnel.38 The Dijkzicht shopping district was formed around Jongkindstraat, Mathenesserlaan and Nieuwe Binnenweg. This is where the large retail companies such as Piet van Reeuwijk, Peek and Cloppenburg, V&D, C&A and Ter Meulen settled. The architecture in this area, as far as the big business was concerned, was mainly done by the architects J.P.L. Hendriks and Gebr. Kraayvanger. "The shopping blocks were to have as neat and attractive an appearance as possible, whereby the architect had freedom of action within certain limits determined by the building height of about 8 meters. As far as the windows were concerned, we provisionally counted on glass of not too small dimensions, but large-format mirror glass was out of the question. The whole was to have something of a modern exhibition. With the obtained store front it had to be cozy, especially when in winter the stores would be illuminated and there would be enough interest from shoppers. The improvised shopping district was to become a compensation for the old shopping town. "39 Emergency stores and cafes were created by the government on municipal land. These emergency facilities had a concrete slab foundation, walls of brick taken from the rubble, small storefront windows and a wooden roof. Many private entrepreneurs built temporary housing at their own expense. Here the municipality only played a role in allocating the building site.40 Much attention was paid to the construction of the Dijkzicht shopping complex. The private stores here are less uniform than in the other emergency shopping facilities. One- and two-story buildings are intermingled here. The foundation is reinforced concrete, the frame is wood or iron, and the walls are of simple new factory bricks, which are then plastered or covered with brick.41 The architecture shows great variety. Each client chose his own architect. Buildings of different sizes, with large storefront windows, are intermingled. There was experimentation with greenhouse-like circular extensions and window islands some distance from the store doors. Embellishments were added to the stores by visual artists.42 Yet the complex is a harmonious whole because there was much mutual cooperation and consultation between the various architects. The austere lines of the architects J.P.L. Hendriks and Gebr. Kraayvanger contrast nicely with the curlicues in Van Ravesteyn's architecture.43 The first phase of the Dijkzicht shopping center was largely completed by the end of October 1940, and the stores were able to open for the holidays. The emergency stores fulfilled an important function. They had to meet the desire to store in times of scarcity and housing shortage. The public had to be guided along beautiful, consecutive display windows via walking routes in the city center in order to escape the daily drabness for a while. The shopping complexes were an illusion; they were beautiful, comfortable islands in a vanished city.44 As early as 1936 and 1938, Hendriks had designed the plans for the remodeling and new construction of the warehouses and stores of Van Reeuwijk's Mij. voor Woninginrichting N.V. on Kipstraat in Rotterdam.45 In 1940, he designed the emergency store and warehouses for Van Reeuwijk on Nieuwe Binnenweg. The facades are constructed of white plastered stone and rest on a concrete base. The building consists of two floors with a flat roof. The first floor consists of a glass facade. The upper floor has a row of windows. At right angles to the facade, a gallery runs under the building. The front facade is slightly protruding above the gallery entrance and raised in relation to the rest of the facade. The gallery has an arched roof. It connects the Nieuwe Binnenweg with the Breitnerstraat. There are a total of 18 shop windows, some of which are housed in the gallery. The building was completed in two months and in September 1940 was the first emergency warehouse in Dijkzicht to open its doors to the public.46 A year later, the building was already too small and Hendriks was commissioned to build a second emergency warehouse in the inner grounds of Dijkzicht on the expedition road behind the warehouses on Mathenesserlaan. The design is a sober, rectangular 10 x 30 m. single-story building. The head of the building faces Jongkindstraat. On the long wall on the as yet unnamed street there will be a wide display front. On the first floor is the retail space, on the first floor are studios. The studio receives light through windows in the facade and through two lanterns in the roof. The walls are plastered light gray and given a decorative pattern of horizontal and vertical lines. The iron for the skeleton comes from the ruins on Kipstraat, and chipped stones from the rubble are used for the walls.47 Hendriks also designed the emergency store of the Fa. Meddens on the Nieuwe Binnenweg. The building is two stories high. On the first floor, next to the deeper entrance are two large display windows. The upper floor jumps in relation to the lower facade creating a balcony. Along the balcony runs an ornately decorated iron gate. The upper floor has three tapered windows with round-arched niches above. The strongly overhanging flat roof rests on pilasters on either side of the facade and in front of the storefront on two slender iron columns. New formulas for approaching shoppers were also experimented with during this period. The management of N.V. H. ter Meulen, in consultation with Hendriks, the architect of their emergency warehouse on Mathenesserlaan, sought a way to break through the closed nature of the store. They wanted to establish a certain contact between the public on the street and the sales area. An elevator system was installed in the columns along the front facade that allowed the six large display windows to be raised with a single hand movement in fine weather. The window display was modified and the counters were moved to the street side, bringing the merchandise directly to the attention of the public. The formula was a success from the outset, as evidenced by the large number of curious and buying customers who visited the store in the spring of 1941.48 Hendriks also designed a new main warehouse for the N.V. H.J. van Woensel's Schoenmagazijnen "De Kaplaars" on Mathenesserlaan in 1940. For the Hollandsche Confectiefabriek in 1941, he designed the plans for a drastic renovation of an existing building on the Nieuwe Binnenweg, and for Mr. J. Kok's company clothing store, he designed the plans for a conversion of a residential house into a store building on the Zwartjanstraat in the same year. Major problems also arose in the field of public housing in Rotterdam in 1940. Already in the pre-war years there was a great shortage of affordable housing. During the bombing, another approximately 27,000 homes had been lost, and in addition, a large number had been severely damaged. Building materials for new construction or repairs were largely missing. Even the approximately 1,000 homes under construction at that time could not be completed. The City of Rotterdam faced the difficult task of providing shelter again for thousands of homeless people. Solutions were sought to quickly provide a large number of affordable homes. Attention turned to the cooperating builders' organizations in which most of Rotterdam's builders were united in a limited liability company with a capital of f 4 million. This builders' organization had already built a thousand very cheap houses in 1938 to designs by the architects J.P.L. Hendriks and ir. J.H. van den Broek. The plans of these houses with an iron skeleton, which had cost about f3000 each, were still there and the municipality wanted to see if they could be modified in terms of construction because iron for skeleton construction was certainly not available.49 Under the name the 1000 Homes Plan, construction of a series of modified emergency homes began in 1940. On September 9, 1940, the first pile was struck. Piles pulled out of the ground in the bombed-out downtown area were used. The very simple houses were given flat roofs covered with asphalt and gravel and a small garden. In the spring of 1941, 1008 homes were completed.50 In 1940, polluting industries were not allowed to return to downtown Rotterdam after the bombing. In order to assist the aggrieved entrepreneurs and get industry back on its feet, a partnership between the City of Rotterdam and the Chamber of Commerce came about, the Rotterdam 1940 Foundation. From this emerged the idea of establishing an industry committee. The committee was to develop plans to eliminate the lack of business space through collective buildings in order to help entrepreneurs find suitable workspace. The first project of the Industry Committee was the plan to build twenty workshops on Sluisjesdijk. Auxiliary hangars and emergency workshops also became available on the Coolhaven and the Haringvliet area. In late 1940, J.P.L. Hendriks received a commission from the Fa. Lemm and Co. manufacturer of chocolate and sugar works to make a design for a new factory on Sluisjesdijk. The new factory was to be built next to the thirty workshops which the municipality and the 1940 Rotterdam Foundation had commissioned on the initiative of the Industry Committee. The factory was spacious with separate office and factory areas, warehouses for the storage of raw materials and a shipping area. The building was not underpinned and was constructed entirely of concrete because building regulations required that the use of wood be limited as much as possible. 51 For the firm P.C.D. Kok, Hendriks designed the building for a modern coffee roastery on the Coolhaven in 1941. This building was not an emergency facility but a permanent building, designed with the future in mind. A very bold plan because the trade in coffee, tea and southern fruits had already stagnated a year earlier. The building consists of five floors and a cap floor. It is built in a historicizing style and has more of the appearance of a 17th century merchant's house than a modern commercial building. The building is over 20 m. high and is completely basement, providing 300m2 of space for the storage of southern fruits. The first floor will house the packing and shipping area, and the other four floors will house the coffee roastery, blending machines and offices as well as the canteen. For the purpose of internal company transport, an elevator will be installed from the basement to the top floor. In the design, automation was pursued as much as possible. For example, the supply of products to the distillery is not done manually but by means of hoppers. The ready-made product is automatically packed in the correct dosage. The building consists of a concrete skeleton, the facade is clad with orange-colored hand-formed bricks punctuated by cream-colored concrete. The facade is enlivened by rows of windows of different sizes. The significance of the distillery on the second floor is accentuated by the extra-large glass in front of which pilasters are placed. The slightly pitched gable roof is covered with red Dutch tiles.52 Entertainment was also given attention in the destroyed city. The Palace building, a theater cum dance hall, located on Botersloot and Huize Marcel on Jonker Fransstraat, which housed a dance school, were completely destroyed. After much tug-of-war with the municipality, in December 1940 the owner of the premises was allocated a site at 15 Zomerhofstraat, where the new Palace building, designed by J.P.L. Hendriks, was erected. The building had a spacious entrance; the large, austerely furnished auditorium could seat 556 people. In the hall was a stage of 9 x 9 m. and there was a foyer with bar. Upstairs, Huize Marcel had found a home. This was the pink hall where dance lessons were given.53 Hendriks also made a design in 1941 for a new wing to the hotel Central on Raadhuisplein - Nieuwe Kerkstraat, which was severely damaged in the bombing. The new wing consists of four floors. On the first floor there is a gallery across the entire width of the facade. The facade is broken by three rows of windows on the remaining floors. The building has a gable roof with a number of dormers. The design was not implemented because the existing Hotel Central on this site bears no resemblance to it. All building activity came to an end when the occupying forces declared a general construction freeze on July 1, 1942. It would take until 1946 before construction could resume. Postwar designs One of the first permanent buildings that could be put into use in Rotterdam after 1945 was the block of apartment houses, stores and offices on the north side of the Groenendaal, designed by J.P.L. Hendriks.54 The building was commissioned by N.V. Nederlandse Verzekering Mij. St. Willebrordus. It consists of apartment houses for about 60 families, 14 stores and a six-story office building. The buildings are built in a business style with brick facades and sloping tiled roofs.55 Around 1950 Hendriks designed an office building on the Rode Zand, the Minervahuis III mentioned earlier, and housing blocks on the Schiedamseweg and the Schiedamse Vest in a moderate modernist style. Other image-defining buildings designed by Hendriks in this postwar period include the Van Reeuwijk store building on Binnenwegplein (1950) now Media Markt, an apartment building on Stadhoudersplein (1957), the shopping center on Bentinckplein (1958), the Ahrend building on the corner of Karel Doormanstraat and Westblaak (1959), and a number of dwellings in the new Pendrecht district ca.(1953-1960). These are two-story single-family houses that are incorporated into the structural structure of the district, which consists of building blocks of different heights grouped around a common garden.56 In 1940, the operators of the Lumière, Tuschinski and Scala theaters joined together after the destruction of their downtown cinemas. Under the name of Lutusca, they reserved a plot on Kruiskade where an emergency cinema was to rise. J.P.L. Hendriks made a design and the building plans were approved. However, it would take until March 20, 1946, before the first pile was driven into the ground. On December 18, 1946, the building was officially inaugurated. The theater seats 1,000 people. Its design is very similar to emergency facilities built in the 1940s and 1941. It is a simple, rectangular, white-plastered building. The only decoration consists of a number of illuminated advertisements on the facade above the entrance. Most postwar buildings designed by Hendriks are modernist in style. An exception is the churches. Postwar churches In the postwar period, Hendriks designed several more churches in a traditionalist style. These churches were built in rapidly growing new residential areas. All the churches have one thing in common, they were built in an austere style, in brick and concrete. The Franciscan church of Saint Anthony of Padua in Rotterdam (1954) also called the "Boschje" stands out for its austere design. The brick-built building consisted of three rectangular building volumes, the porch, nave and choir. The entrance was formed by a concrete porch that consisted of an architrave supported by four columns above which there was a rose window with tracery. The side wall of the nave had four large rectangular windows with tracery on each side. At the top of the side aisles were a row of small square windows. On the choir was a bell tower in the form of a lantern. A decorated frieze formed the cornice of the nave. Next to the church was a traditional octagonal baptistery. The interior of the church was dominated by the large windows of the nave that extended to the coffered ceiling. The nave was separated from the side aisles by a frieze supported by pillars. The interior was executed in brick, on the friezes in an ornamental bond. The visual art in the church was provided by Cephas Stauthamer who designed the altar. The sculpture, including the statue of St. Anthony, was done by Gerard Heman, and the ornamental ironwork by Henri de Groot.57 The church was demolished about 1988.58 In the postwar years, a number of architects proceeded to build domed churches. Hendriks designed the Saint Peter and Paul Church in Breda (1956). This domed church strived as much as possible for a central building. Hendriks designed a square ground plan on which a bulbous segment was placed centrally. The altar was situated at the edge of the dome opposite the entrance and in front of the apse. The design aimed to create as many spaces around the altar as possible. To keep the church space uncluttered and uncomplicated, a side aisle was designed where the confessionals were housed. At the end of the aisle was the altar of Mary. The exterior of the church was executed in variegated Brabant brick, the plinths in quarry stone. Window surrounds, eaves and decorative elements were of vibrated concrete. The entrance party consisted of three round arches on concrete pilasters. The round arches contained doors with high skylights with tracery. In the side walls there were two by two a number of round-arched windows. The tapered apse had round windows over the entire surface of the side walls. The dome rested on a tambour in which there were windows all around. Next to the church was a square bell tower topped by a round arch and a round baptistery crowned with a lantern. The interior was done in flat brick masonry. The pillars under the dome were sandblasted concrete; the ceiling and dome were finished in sanded stucco.59 The church was demolished in 2003.60 Of a completely different style is the R.C. Church of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at Rotterdam Hoogvliet, which Hendriks designed in collaboration with the architect P.C.J. Blaauwhof in the 1960s. The exterior of the church has a functionalist character. Here the impression arises that both architects were inspired by the New Apostolic Church on the Hillevliet in Rotterdam, designed by J.J.P. Oud (1929). The first impression is that both churches show great similarity in design but also in detail a number of parts are similar. In both cases it is a rectangular hall church, where in the long side of the white plastered nave a strip window is inserted. Both Oud and Hendriks have an extension at right angles to the long side of the nave, with Oud ending in a chimney, while Hendriks has a bell tower here. The rectangular entrance and window arrangement also show great similarity in both cases. The long side of the nave of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, together with the presbytery and the day chapel, forms a U-shaped square that is raised five steps from street level. The rectangular entrance is located on the square. This architecture invites one to enter the building. The placement of the bell tower in line with the day chapel adds to this. The brick tower looks heavy next to the lightness of the white plastered facade with ribbon window of the nave. The interior of the church consists of a rectangular hall. The walls are of red brick and are interrupted only by doorways and a strip of windows along the south side. The slightly sloping ceiling consists of green stained pine boards. Near the window strip, the roof is supported by several steel columns. Near the choir, the hall has a transept that houses the confessionals. The altar is placed in a somewhat curiously shaped niche. A wall inclined to a right angle covered with natural stone slabs is pushed through an opening in the back wall. The church in Hoogvliet is one of the last structures designed by J.P.L. Hendriks. He had already retired from the Hendriks, Van der Sluys and Van den Bosch architectural firm in 1960. A striking feature of Hendriks' oeuvre is that he did not limit himself to one style. His early work tends toward functionalism, while his later work, especially church construction, expresses his preference for traditionalism. It is therefore surprising that Hendriks ends his career with the design for a functionalist church building. The water tower of Wassenaar (1928) The 1927 design of the water tower at Wassenaar is part of the utilities designed by the Ind. Mij. "Mabeg" designed utility works for the benefit of the water supply of the municipality of Wassenaar and ten surrounding villages. The municipality held a competition for the design of a water tower on the basis that it should disfigure the natural surroundings as little as possible. Furthermore, the architect was given great freedom. Only the size of the reservoir and the corridor around it, the leakage floor and the height of the building were given. The entry by J.P.L. Hendriks was awarded first prize and construction began the same year. The emphasis of this design is on the silhouette of the tower because it will only be seen from a great distance, but attention was also paid to detail. The cylindrical shape was created because the casing of the reservoir and the leakage floor, which is at a low height, was raised directly from ground level. The reservoir with an average diameter of 9.5 m and a height of 8.75 m can hold 550 m3 of water. The reservoir wall is made of waterproof concrete on which another waterproof skin is applied on the inside. The bottom of the reservoir consists of a bulb segment. A system of ring beams, columns and pilasters transfers the vertical pressure through the hull to a foundation slab 18.5 m in diameter and 8.5 m thick.61 The reservoir, floors, roof, foundation and the lantern under the spire are made of reinforced concrete. It was originally intended that the spire would also be constructed in concrete, but the design, tall and narrow, made this practically impracticable, so a construction in oak was chosen. For a more balanced appearance, the tower was rejuvenated toward the top. For light to enter the reservoir, windows were placed on the tower in the form of a lantern on which a spire was placed. The sober design is executed in yellow-gray brick to match the dune landscape as much as possible. The tower is raised in masonry and has a plinth at the base in a different masonry bond. The robust trunk with its narrow windows gives the tower a strictly closed appearance. In contrast is the slender spire, and it is this contrast that brings tension to the design. In contrast to the severity of the tower is also the entrance. This is surrounded by a playful, Art Deco-style decoration in the brickwork and in the skylight with ornate wrought iron grille. The jury's verdict was that the design under the motto H2O excels by a very sensitive, simple, modest design, which makes it subordinate to its surroundings, with which it grows together through material and color.62 Among Hendriks' contemporaries, engineers and architects, opinions on the design were divided. Ir. A.H. van Rood expressed fierce criticism. His main objection was that the tower is not recognizable as a water tower. The water tank is not expressed in the design, so the various spaces do not come into their own. He reproached the jury for being guided by sentimental aesthetic considerations rather than the call for efficiency and rationalism.63 A very different sound came from J.Zietsma. According to Zietsma, the designer did an excellent job of adapting the form to the landscape. Also, the hull of Hendrik's water tower would have been difficult to solve more rationally, precisely in this case, completely refraining from accentuating or demonstrating the reservoir in the exterior leads to the best solution.64 R.K. Church at Overschie (ca. 1953) For the R.K. Church at Overschie, Hendriks made two designs, the last of which was executed. Both designs are traditionalist. The designs show how much Hendriks was influenced by the ideas of Granpré Molière. The first design is almost a copy of Granpré Molière's design for the R.C. Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Assistance in Breda. Granpré Molière made a design in brick with a raised façade tower behind which the nave is hidden. The entrance and openings in the tower consist of three round arches. The facade is flanked by two semi-towers. The decoration is kept to a minimum. In Hendriks' design we see the same facade layout, a raised facade tower with three round arches and an entrance party consisting of three round arches. The facade is flanked by two turrets. Above the entrance party, Hendriks places a rose window. The use of a large number of decorative elements makes Hendriks' design more unbalanced than Granpré Molière's. The natural stone columns under the round arches and the decorative niches, balustrades and the huge rose window in natural stone form an unsettled whole. This gives the building a certain monumentality that contradicts the austere design principles of traditionalism. In the design as finally executed, the facade tower was replaced by a rectangular tower placed on the, also rectangular, front facade. The turrets adjacent to the façade disappeared. The building is constructed of brick with decorative elements of concrete. The entrance porch consists of three round arches on concrete columns above which is placed a rose window with tracery. The cornice of the facade consists of a balustrade of decorative brickwork with square openings. At the four corners of the facade are concrete columns. The tower has three round-arch openings and a decorative roof moulding of concrete. The slightly pitched gable roof of the three-nave nave is hidden behind the front facade. The side walls contain two by two round-arched windows. The nave is closed by an apse with an arched rear wall in decorative brickwork. The side walls of the apse have square window openings that harmonize with the square openings in the balustrade of the front facade. Next to the church is an octagonal baptistery. Unlike the earlier design, the design and decoration is sober, creating a harmonious whole. The church has a traditional interior. The nave is separated from the side aisles by round arches on columns and has a wooden ceiling. Above the entrance portal, the rose window is visible. The opening to the apse is formed by a round arch. For the finish of the heavy columns Hendriks had thought of cream natural stone slabs but for financial reasons he had to abandon this. The dark-colored tiles he used instead were not considered such a happy choice. They, combined with the wooden ceiling, would make the nave look too low.65 The Thalia Theater at Rotterdam (1955) As early as 1940, the operator of the Thalia Theater, which belonged to the Tuschinsky Group, wanted to return to a location on the Hoogstraat in downtown Rotterdam, where the theater had originally stood. Hendriks designed, against building regulations, an auditorium 15 meters high, 3 meters higher than the permitted height. Naturally, this design was not approved, and even after the war, building plans for the Hoogstraat had no priority. Thalia began looking for a new location and it was not until 1954/1955 that construction could begin on the Hendriks-designed cinema on the corner of Kruiskade/Lijnbaan.66 The Thalia theater was commissioned by Maatschappij Tuschinski N.V. to be designed as an 800-seat movie theater. A site was made available by the Urban Development Department on Lijnbaan, corner Kruiskade. The clients requested that the entrance to the theater be located on the Kruiskade, otherwise the architect was free regarding the size and shape of the design. The theater is free standing on all sides. The fan shape was chosen for the floor plan. The auditorium is divided into three sections, each with a slope increasing towards the back, allowing an unobstructed view of the film image. The back row of the auditorium consists of 60 seats in width. The height difference between the first and the last row is 5m. The front section occupies 2/3 of the space. Here rows of seats are placed on either side of a center aisle. There are two side paths giving access to the emergency exits. The second compartment consists of a ring of seats interspersed with stairs leading to the vestibule on the first floor. A transverse corridor behind this ring gives access to the third compartment with contiguous rows of seats accessed by stairs between the rows. Below the second and third hall compartments on the first floor is a vestibule giving access to the central hall with adjacent intermediate hall. In the intermediate hall are the stairs leading to the cinema. The curved back wall of the cinema forms the facade in which the entrance party is located in a corner. This entrance at the corner of Kruiskade and Lijnbaan consists of a facade of aluminum and glass that is raised over the entire height of the facade. Stores are built against the side façade on the Lijnbaan side. The facade on Kruiskade has a horizontal layout. It consists of a plinth in glazed white brick that recedes slightly halfway across the width of the facade, on the side of the entrance. Pillars are placed under the recessed section. Here square windows of different sizes are inserted into the wallwork. Above this is a high frieze of black decorative concrete in which three rectangular windows are placed. The large plastic figuration on the frieze was done by sculptor C. Kneulman. Above the frieze is a strip window under an overhanging cornice. The side facade of the building is made entirely of glazed brick. There is a strip of decorative ornaments below the cornice. The plinth of the side facade recedes slightly. Here pillars were placed in front of the recessed section. For the execution of the interior, the architect Janzen was consulted as acoustic consultant. The side walls are made of a hard material, the rear wall of rock wool plaster and the ceiling of heraklith panels. A number of artists were engaged to beautify the interior. Two panels in appliqué, designed by Jan van Keulen and executed by J.M. van Keulen-Dragton Lee, were installed on either side of the movie screen, made of reflective fiberglass. The bird motifs on the walls and lettering were also designed by Jan van Keulen. The two sgraffito images in three colors located on the side walls were executed by Nico Weinberg, who also designed the paneling on the side walls. In the hall, in front of a decorative parchment wall, stands a bronze statue made by M. Mascherini. Also located here are two terracotta panels by Dirk Hubers. On the floor is a hand-knotted carpet designed by Wim Schumacher, who was also entrusted with determining the colors and coordinating the other artists.67 NOTES 1 Anca Bocanet, Hans Ibelings (editors), Jouke van der Werf, Outspoken talent: The history of the Prix de Rome for Fine Architecture, Netherlands Architecture Institute 1990, p. 39. 2 Anca Bocanet, 1990, p. 39 3 Vakblad voor de Bouwbedrijven, November 22, 1937. 4 Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad, January 23, 1941 5 Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad, June 12, 1946 6 Bouwkundig Weekblad, 65-1947-10 7 A.M. Folman, Between stylistic struggles and brick construction: The wondrous choice of an architectural tour of Italy. Travel sketches of Dutch architects, 1880 - 1930, 1996, p. 73 8 Bouwkundig Weekblad,45-1924-52 9 Koen Kleijn, Jos Smit, Claudia Thunnissen, Dutch Architecture: A history of ten centuries of architecture, Alphen aan den Rijn 1995, p. 218-219 10 Bouwkundig Weekblad, 46-1925-3 11 Anca Bocanet, 1990 p. 8 12 Anca Bocanet, 1990 p. 9. 13 Anca Bocanet, 1990, p. 11 14 Anca Bocanet, 1990, p. 11 15 Anca Bocanet, 1990, p. 13 16 Anca Bocanet, 1990, p. 14 17 The participants were in a locked room for the period they worked on their design and had no contact with the outside world. 18 J.P. Mieras, The Prix de Rome for Architecture, Architecture Weekly, 46 (1925)2,p.45-47 19 J.P. Mieras, Exhibition of the work of the Prix de Rome, Bouwkundig Weekblad, 47 (1926)4, p. 36-39 20 G.W. Tuynman, About the exhibition "Van der Steur Collection," Bouwkundig Weekblad, 72 (1954) p. 7-8, 61 21 Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad, 12-12-1930 22 H.Ibelings, Dutch Architecture of the 20th century, Rotterdam 1995, p. 68 23 H. Ibelings, 1995, p. 43 24 Het R.K. Bouwblad, March 9, 1933, p. 241-247 25 Bouwkundig Weekblad Architectura, August 1, 1931, p. 277-282 26 Architectural Weekly Architectura, August 1, 1931, p. 283 27 Architectural Weekly Architectura, April 2, 1932, p. 122 28 The R.K. Bouwblad, March 9, 1933, p. 244 29 Bouwkundig Weekblad Architectura, December 10, 1938 30 The Green Amsterdammer, March 12, 1938 31 The 8 & Opbouw, 9-1938-6 32 Bouwkundig Weekblad Architectura, May 28, 1938 33 Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad, June 24, 1930 34 Vakblad voor de Bouwbedrijven, October 24, 1938 35 Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad, March 26, 1940 36 www Minervahuis.nl 37 A city for life: Reconstruction Rotterdam 1940-1965, ed. Gerrie Andela and Cor Wagenaar, 1995, p.21 38 Gerrie Andela and Cor Wagenaar, 1995, p.78, 79 39 Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad, June 1940 40 E.Roelofsz, De frustratie van een droom: De wederopbouw van de in mei 1940 verwoesten delen van de binnenstad, Kralingen en het Noordereiland van Rotterdam 1940-1950, Rotterdam 1989, p. 34,35 41 E. Roelofsz, 1989, p.36 42 Gerrie Andela and Cor Wagenaar, 1995, p.80 43 E. Roelofsz, 1989, p. 36 44 Wouter Vanstiphout, Make a city: Rotterdam and the architecture of J.H. van den Broek, Rotterdam 2005, p. 136 45 Vakblad voor de Bouwbedrijven, January 6, 1936, January 24, 1938 46 Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad, September 11, 1940 47 Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad, September 26, 1941 48 Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad, May 5, 1941 49 Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad, May 1940 50 Wouter Vanstiphout, 2005, p. 368 51 Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad, December 1940 52 Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad, May 20, 1941 53 Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad, March 20, 1941, July 16, 1941 54 E. Roelofsz, 1989, p. 171 55 Rotterdams Nieuwsblad, December 5, 1946, December 11, 1946 56 Bouwkundig Weekblad, 78 (1960)2, p. 41-43 57 N F.A. Molenaar, Katholiek Bouwblad, November 20, 1954, p. 52 58 http://wonen.rotterdam.nl 59 J.P.L. Hendriks, W. van der Sluys, L.A. v.d. Bosch, Katholiek Bouwblad, June 16, 1956, p. 289 60 http://wonen.rotterdam.nl 61 Bouwbedrijf, 1927, p. 388-390 62 Bouwkundig Weekblad, 48-1929-19, p. 177 63A.H. van Rood, The water tower at Wassenaar,Bouwkundig Weekblad, 48-1927-20 p. 185-186 64 J. Zietsma, The water tower at Wassenaar,Bouwkundig Weekblad, 49-1928-46, p. 362-363 65 B.J. Koldewey, Katholiek Bouwblad, November 6, 1954, p. 33-35 66 E. Roelofsz, 1989 p. 74 67 Bouwkundig Weekblad, April 10, 1956, p. 165-167 Education: Ambachtschool Rotterdam/;Academie van Beeldende Kunsten en Technische Wetenschappen evening course and day course Rotterdam/1918-1923 Additional positions: Winner Prix de Rome/1924;Editorial Board of Architectural Weekblad/member/;Academy of Visual Arts and Technical Sciences Rotterdam/teacher/;HTS Rotterdam/teacher/;BNA/member/;Competition Bouwkunst en Vriendschap exhibition kiosk/jury member/1928;Competition Bouwkunst en Vriendschap pavilion for water polo/jury member/1928;Competition Bouwkunst en Vriendschap hotel, children's depository, interior for a pharmacy, modern card game/jury member/1934;Competition Memorial Rotterdam/jury member/1947