(abridged version Bonas Essay) J. Boterenbrood (1886-1932) Little is known about the life and work of Jan Boterenbrood. It took place mainly in Amsterdam, where an important part of his oeuvre can also be found. In the literature he is sometimes called a representative of the second generation of Amsterdam School architects. Huize Lydia is considered his most famous work. During his lifetime he enjoyed reasonable fame. An important part of his realized designs are housing projects. He also regularly entered competitions throughout his life, winning several times. Unfortunately, very few of these were executed. For private clients, Boterenbrood made some designs for simple country houses, but as far as is known, these too were not realized. Boterenbrood was also active in the Genootschap Architectura et Amicitia of which he was a member from 1905 until his death in 1932. He became a Delegate member in 1919 and was the secretary of the A. et A. board from 1921-1928. He was also a member of the editorial board of the architectural magazines Wendingen, Architectura and Bouwkundig Weekblad Architectura. Boterenbrood has many publications to his name on a variety of subjects. From 1924 to 1927, he served on the Amsterdam Beauty Commission along with Eibink and Vorkink. Boterenbrood had a recognizable style that is difficult to characterize. His designs are fragmentary, sometimes introverted or thoughtful, and with great attention to urban planning. Characteristic elements are the small top gables, the alternation of steep gabled roofs with flat roofs, parabolic windows and triangular risen wall surfaces with bay windows. For low-rise projects, Boterenbrood shows a more rural style with the use of lots of wood and large low roofs. There is a development within his oeuvre from a somewhat heavier massive design and Amsterdam School influences to a more light-footed style with some early Delft School characteristics. Jan Boterenbrood was born in Nieuwer Amstel in 1886 and attended the Crafts School. He then worked at various architecture firms including Van Epen in Hilversum, Eduard Cuypers in Amsterdam, where many young talents worked, and at Baanders' firm. In the years 1915-1916, Boterenbrood made a trip to Denmark where it is certain that he visited Copenhagen. The published travel sketches of the Amalienborg and the Copenhagen station hall bear witness to this. Several collaborators undertook similar trips, such as de Klerk in 1910-1911 and later van der Mey. Boterenbrood maintained an interest in Scandinavian architecture in subsequent years and would later devote several articles to it. His trip was followed by a period in which Boterenbrood produced a number of designs for houses in Amersfoort, Laren, Blaricum and Bussum, mostly commissioned by private individuals. Often the plans remained stuck in the sketch phase, yet there are some building plans known, including one for a country house in Amersfoort. The many sketches give a good idea of Boterenbrood's working methods. The houses are simple in design; a first floor and an attic with a large gable roof. The rural character is reinforced by the wooden cladding, small windows and prominent chimneys. In two projects, Boterenbrood showed an entirely unique vision of residential construction. His plans for terraced housing and homes for labor savings were quite innovative for 1920. Not so much in design of the facades but in organization of the floor plans and thinking about modern life in the city. Both plans were published in Wendingen.9 By the mid-1920s, Boterenbrood had gained some notoriety and held high-profile positions for the Genootschap Architectura et Amicitia. As secretary of the Society and editor of Wendingen and Bouwkundig Weekblad, he closely followed developments. In addition, as a member of the Amsterdam Beauty Commission, he was able to directly influence the city's streetscape. A striking feature of Boterenbrood's oeuvre is the recurring interest in urban planning issues. Many designs show great skill in that area both on a large and small scale. He also wrote frequently over the years on urban planning topics. Probably Boterenbrood had attended the HBO course in urban planning in the period 1925-1932, as some urban planning assignments have been preserved in the archives. It is also known that he owned a large number of books on urban planning. In the 1930s, building activities declined due to the economic crisis. The house builder Boterenbrood tried to increase the living pleasure of residents. Light played a major role in this. To influence this, it was important to know how the sun shone on the buildings. Boterenbrood developed a solar diagram in order to determine 'sunlight'. This made it possible to determine the duration of the sunlight and its course on any given day of the year. Using the solar diagram, the sunlight could be calculated from tables in connection with the position of the facade and the daily solar radiation. The editors of the architectural weekly Architectura asked Boterenbrood several times to publish about this. It never came about. After the inventor's death, J.P. Mieras tried to make a description based on Boterenbrood's notes. This he published in the BWA of March 25, 1933: ' The actual diagram is pasted around a small wooden board measuring 23 X 23 cm. In the center of this dayram, which in a special way represents the course of the sun during all the days of the year, a ruler is fitted rotatable, which is connected with a second ruler to a parallelogram rotatable in the corners.' In 1932, J. Boterenbrood died unexpectedly. That Boterenbrood's work was widely known and appreciated in his own time confirms Mieras in his piece. "His main work "Huize Lydia" on the Roelof Hartplein, will undoubtedly honor Boterenbrood`s name. It is not only a piece of poetry in a district of the city, which has no abundance of it, but it is in itself a building of powerful conviction of its own and personal cachet." Poignantly, his work later came to be known as second-generation Amsterdam School, which meant as much as follower indebted to the "Greats" of this movement. Fanelli even said that elements came straight from De Klerk such as the tower or the parabolic windows, but actually these are very superficial similarities.28 In itself there are similarities to be pointed out, especially in De Klerk`s early work such as the first block on the Spaarndammerplantsoen with its flat facades. But it detracts from Boterenbrood`s own development by stating that he only looked to De Klerk. Other equally important influences such as his teacher Van Epen or Scandinavian architecture are then unjustly neglected. The tendency toward more traditional architecture that can be observed under the influence of Scandinavian art from 1925 onwards is expressed, among other things, in special theme issues of the magazine Wendingen. Its influence on Boterenbrood therefore seems plausible given his trip to Denmark and many publications on Scandinavian architecture. Wim de Wit, one of the most important authors on the Amsterdam School, stated that Boterenbrood's work is characterized by a lack of imagination.29 He explained this with the fact that the second generation did not work from an expressionist ideology. In itself the latter seems correct to me, only one cannot call Boterenbrood's buildings unimaginative or impersonal, at most introverted and well-considered, but that was precisely "of the person". Actually, there can be no question of second generation with regard to Boterenbrood when he accomplishes a project at the same time as De Klerk and Kramer in 1920 in which he clearly works in his own style. Education: Ambachtsschool Nieuwer-Amstel/;HBO course in urban planning/1925-1932 Additional positions: Archives: NAi/BOTE