A.J. Noordendorp Adrianus J. Noordendorp was born in The Hague on July 19, 1780, the son of Jacobus Noordendorp, a controller of the Hague works, and Berendina Roos. On October 22, 1820, he married Hendrike Kros in Dordrecht, where she had been born on August 25, 1793. On December 28, 1828, their first child Jacob Simon Adriaan was born, and on November 11, 1830, the second, Simon Pieter. Adrianus Noordendorp died quite young on November 28, 1833 from nervous breakdown fever. Throughout his life he had lived and worked in The Hague. (1) Education Adrianus Noordendorp came from a family of carpenters, brickmakers and masons. Therefore, it is not surprising in itself that he trained to become a surveyor. Where Noordendorp received his training is not known. A real training he may have followed in Breda, Den Bosch, Nijmegen, Deventer or at the Hogeschool in Leiden, because only there were courses there. It was also possible to acquire the required knowledge by being apprenticed to a functioning surveyor, whether or not combined with training at a school or university. (2) In any case, one was approved only after passing an examination. To pass this examination, of course, a number of skills had to be acquired. Knowledge of the principles of surveying, including triangulation and descriptive geometry, algebra or mathematical analysis, mechanics and hydraulic engineering, and mathematics and physics was certainly assumed to be known to a greater or lesser extent to the aspiring surveyor. Upon taking the oath, the surveyor was sworn to be faithful to the Conste of Geometria. In this context, geometria actually referred to both geometry and surveying. Noordendorp was adopted by the Court of Holland as Surveyor on May 23, 1803, when he was 23 years old. An admittance by the Court of Holland was very attractive because it allowed one to work within all of Holland (the area that is now North and South Holland). Noordendorp produced a survey drawing of the Flakkee Plate near the Haringvliet on the east and west sides of Middelharnis harbor as early as September 1804. The profession of surveyor and architect was generally still considered to be an extension of each other at that time. Several, later famous, architects such as Jan de Greef and Andrew Munro had also started their careers as licensed surveyors. Initial work When architect C.T.J.L. Rieber discussed Noordendorp in 1892, he indicated that he had served "in the ranks of Napoleon. (3) Noordendorp is likely to have been doing surveyor work for Napoleon at the time. Although Rieber is the only source for this information, it is obvious to assume that Noordendorp owed his next appointment to this. Indeed, on April 28, 1806, actually quite shortly before the accession to the throne of Louis Napoleon, he was appointed Assistant Controller of Buildings under the management of the representative body of the Batavian Republic on a daily salary of two guilders. (4) In this position he assisted Govert van der Linden, who was Contrarolleur van 's Landsgebouwen in The Hague. On April 24, Van der Linden, who in 1763 had already been appointed Contrarolleur for the Government Buildings on the Buiten- and Binnenhof of the Residence, had requested that, due to increasing age and heavy physique, with ever-increasing work, an assistant be added to him. From this it could be tentatively concluded that Noordendorp probably took on more tasks than an assistant to a younger counter-columnist would have done. In addition to performing copywork, he may also have been engaged in producing drawings for renewal or maintenance of the land buildings, and in overseeing the proper execution of the (repair) work to be done. During his time as assistant, Noordendorp produced a design plan for a renovation of the Loterijzaal and further redevelopment of the Stadhouderlijk Kwartier at the Binnenhof into a palace for King Louis Napoleon. In any case, the fact that Lodewijk Napoleon was already leaving for Utrecht in October 1807, having only moved into the Binnenhof in August 1806, was reason enough not to proceed with Noordendorp's design. Incidentally, this does show that Noordendorp must have been quite ambitious, since his position at the time was not of such a nature that a design of his for the conversion to a palace actually had a "serious" chance of being accepted. The work of a contraroller The term contrarolleur or controller has actually fallen into such oblivion that it does not really give a twentieth century person the impression of a high position. Yet the duties of a contrarolleur were in themselves similar to those of a city architect from a large city. Like any other architect, the contrarolleur made designs that were then executed by his staff of superintendents and masons. According to the notes of one of the Commissioners General of Internal Affairs, accompanying the proposal to King William 1 to officially appoint Noordendorp as contrarolleur by decree of March 17, 1814, his task consisted of "the administration of all the country's buildings, the inspection and maintenance of archives in good condition, the supervision and delivery of all repairs, changes or renewals which were deemed necessary, the drawing up of all memorandums, specifications and drawings relating thereto, the recording of all work done on the buildings, the examining and certifying of all accounts of labor wages and supplies, and in a word the keeping of a general supervision with the surveillance of all workmen and supplies, including the surveillance and administration of fuels. (5) This shows that the contrarolleurs were quite independently responsible for the management of the buildings assigned to them. The only difference with "other" architects was that Noordendorp's appointment as contrarolleur der landsgebouwen also allowed him to make renovation or new construction designs for these buildings. The budget for the service year 1821 showed that in addition to planned renovations and extensions to the various buildings in the Binnenhof, Noordendorp was also responsible for the maintenance of the bridges, gates, streets, sewers and quay walls in and around the Pond and for the salary of his staff. (6) The "Instruction for the Contrarolleur" also revealed that Noordendorp took care of everything that had anything to do with managing the land buildings. Besides making drawings for new works, this management also included keeping the inner works, locks and hinges in good working order, keeping the streets of the Binnen- and Buitenhof, the Singel and the avenues of the Court clean and having supreme supervision over the Court's fire sprinklers as well as the peat and wood sheds and other fuel storage facilities. (7) Noordendorp in the position of Contrarolleur From 1807 to the end of 1813, because King Louis Napoleon kept changing residences, the office of controller was moved from The Hague to Utrecht, and later to Amsterdam. This was why Noordendorp was not appointed Contrarolleur at The Hague, although he actually succeeded Govert van der Linden as such in 1808. Architect Johan van Westenhout in Amsterdam officially took over the task of Contrarolleur of 's Rijksgebouwen from Van der Linden but was assisted by Noordendorp in The Hague. (8) Noordendorp is said to have performed this function "with all praise. (9) On December 27, 1808, the latter was already relieved of his position in The Hague and transferred to Amsterdam to serve as Commies with the aforementioned J. van Westenhout. His annual salary was hereby increased to f 1000,-. This already indicates that this position must have been more important than that of assistant. A commies actually functioned as a kind of first assistant. The change of residence by King Louis Napoleon, who moved into the Amsterdam Town Hall in April 1808, probably played a major role in this transfer. As of January 1, 1809, the post of contrarolleur der landsgebouwen was suppressed in The Hague and in Utrecht. As long as the government was located in Amsterdam, the Landdrost in the Department of Manland was charged with the main supervision of the national buildings in The Hague, insofar as these were not handed over for the use of the Department of War. The Rentmeester-Generaal was entrusted with the daily management. (10) In 1809, J. van Duijfhuijs took over Noordendorp's job as commies in Amsterdam. From July 1, 1809, when Noordendorp returned to The Hague, until after the fall of Napoleon in 1813, he probably still functioned quite independently as a kind of Contrarolleur in The Hague. That he was indeed very independent was shown by the fact that on October 26, 1812, he submitted design drawings, a memorandum and a cost estimate to the Conseil Municipal (Municipal Council) for the purpose of converting the Hofje van Nieuwkoop into a military hospital with a thousand beds. Although the Conseil Municipal most probably did come up with the idea of a new military hospital, it was clear from the very extensive explanation of his design that Noordendorp must have been responsible for the suggestion to convert precisely the complex of the Hofje van Nieuwkoop into a military hospital. (11) The plan, perhaps due to the very high costs involved, was ultimately not carried out. It was also rumored that the French Minister of War wanted to build the new military hospital on the Binnenhof. The Binnenhof was already, after Louis Napoleon had abdicated the Crown on July 1, 1810, furnished -probably provisionally- as a military hospital. This purpose, of course, ended simultaneously with French rule in November 1813. After the restoration of Dutch independence, The Hague again became the residence and the daily care of the national buildings in The Hague remained in the hands of Adrianus Noordendorp. He was also finally provisionally appointed Contrarolleur by the General Administration of the United Netherlands on December 1, 1813. By Royal Decree (K.B.) of March 12, 1814, it was once again officially confirmed that Noordendorp had been appointed Contrarolleur der Landsgebouwen in The Hague at a salary of f 2400,- per year. J. van Duijfhuijs lost his job as Inspector and Contrarolleur van 's Rijksgebouwen in Amsterdam, which he had held from 1811 to 1813, because the position of inspector was now moved back to The Hague. He was demoted to Master Carpenter and placed under Noordendorp's orders. J. van Straaten was appointed as the superintendent of land buildings. (12) Noordendorp was accountable for his policies to the Commissioners General (Ministers) of Finance and Home Affairs, who formed the Commission of Superintendence on the Land Buildings. He therefore submitted a "Project Budget for the service of the State Buildings in the Residence" for each fiscal year. Noordendorp was also employed in ceremonial activities. For example, under his direction, a floor plan was "projected and executed" with indications of seating at the baptism of William II's second son, Prince Alexander, in the Grote Kerk in The Hague. It is not clear whether it was the custom to hire a contrarolleur der Landsgebouwen for this kind of 'royal' assignment. (13) The gas lighting in the Binnenhof Noordendorp, as can be seen from the above, had a very extensive job as contrarolleur. Although it was clear even then that he most aspired to the work of architect, Noordendorp, however, also threw himself heart and soul into the tasks that did not have very much to do with it. One example of this is the attention Noordendorp paid to the exterior lighting of the Binnenhof. The idea to install gas lighting at the Binnenhof to replace the expensive oil lighting came from Noordendorp. He had received permission for this from King William 1 in 1818, on condition that he would bring in Rev. B. Koning, who was the inventor of a certain type of gas and who had been attached since 1817 as an advisor to the Education Department "especially for matters concerning gas. (14) The gas was used from 1820 for the exterior lighting of the Binnenhof. Noordendorp strongly advocated its extension to other parts of the inner city. Although from 1825' he was no longer a contrarolleur, he continued to manage this lighting until his death in 1833. The competence struggle between Noordendorp and Ziesenis (15) Architect B.W.H. Ziesenis, who had already served as royal and later imperial architect since 1807, was appointed Architect of Palaces and National Buildings by Royal Decree of August 2, 1814. (16) This also gave Ziesenis oversight of the larger works on the country's buildings. Until then, the contrarolleurs had always enjoyed a fairly high degree of independence, which was also clearly cherished by Noordendorp. Although even then it had been the intention to hire an -extra- architect for major renovations, the contrarolleurs on duty often decided for themselves what was or was not considered a major renovation. It was not considered that Ziesenis might be more inclined than the contrarolleur to consider certain renovations as "major works. Following a restoration of the Loterijzaal (Knights' Hall) at the Binnenhof, which Noordendorp had begun after the restoration of independence, a conflict of competence inevitably arose between Ziesenis and Noordendorp. Ziesenis was furious that Noordendorp had also changed the appearance of the windows without consulting him about it. He did not consider the contrarolleur an "employee" on an equal level but a subordinate, who certainly did not have the aptitude and knowledge to enter the architect's profession. Noordendorp, on the other hand, did see himself as an architect, and also clearly wanted to continue the independent position he had always had as a contrarolleur. For this reason, as evidenced by the job description he had assigned himself and turned in to the Minister, he placed himself directly under the Minister's command. (17) Both Ziesenis and Noordendorp had had to submit a draft of their job descriptions to the Secretaries of State so that they could find out exactly who was supposed to have which job. The Minister finally prepared new draft instructions in December 1815 that actually confirmed Noordendorp's subordination to Ziesenis. The fact that these instructions were never ratified by the king may be explained by the fact that the king was greatly annoyed by the slow progress of the renovation of the Noordeinde Palace and the overrun of the budget for it. Ziesenis was responsible for this major undertaking. (18) It was judged that new advice from "new" persons was needed to steer the further course of the renovation in the right direction. Ziesenis was finally suspended by K.B. on July 29, 1816. Court Marshal Count van Reede, who was now given supreme control over the construction, asked Noordendorp's advice on the matter immediately after the suspension. (19) This shows that confidence was placed in the judiciousness and competence of the contrarolleur. (20) Ziesenis officially retained his title until his death in 1820. The collaboration with De Greef After Ziesenis' suspension, J. de Greef was appointed Architect of the Royal Palaces. De Greef had been able to study in Paris as a trainee through Louis Napoleon's scholarship system. At the time, the "directeur des élèves" Mirbel had recommended him to the court designer Percier who, together with Fontaine, was "responsible" for the emergence of the Empire style. In Percier's studio, De Greef will naturally have been engaged in designing interiors and furniture in this famous Empire style. Obviously inspired and influenced by this "French" neo-classicism, De Greef returned to the Netherlands. Here, as early as 1815, he began rebuilding the Soestdijk hunting lodge, which was transformed into an important exponent of the Empire style. (21) Noordendorp, who had always refused to assist his former "chief Ziesenis in the renovation of the palace Noordeinde in the form of a kind of subordinate, was now added to De Greef's staff especially for the keeping of the administration and the formation of the specifications. Whether in this way it was hoped to avoid a new competence struggle is speculative and also unlikely. What is clear is that Noordendorp was very actively involved in the renovation. As with that of the Soestdijk hunting lodge, where Noordendorp worked out De Greef's designs. His collaboration with De Greef must have been quite intensive. Noordendorp actually acted as a kind of intermediary between client, architect, suppliers and craftsmen. In addition to drawing up specifications, his duties included forwarding all invoices sent to him for approval with a covering bill to the Minister or the Court Commissioner. The cooperation with De Greef went so well that it was continued. Among other things, they worked together on the conversion of the House of Van Wassenaer-Obdam into a palace for the crown prince. De Greef probably saw Noordendorp much more as a cooperating architect than as a subordinate. Important in this regard is that De Greef, like Noordendorp, had started out as a surveyor and only later developed into a gifted designer and architect. Because Noordendorp was clearly seen by De Greef as a cooperating architect, he must also have been more open to the latter's architectural views and ideas than to those of Ziesenis. In later designs it is easy to see that the neoclassicism employed by De Greef had a strong influence on the direction in which Noordendorp developed his "own" style. By using the empire style inspired by Percier and Fontaine for the decoration of all the rooms in the three palaces, De Greef brought Noordendorp 66k into contact with their ideas. All in all, he can certainly be considered an important "teacher" for Noordendorp. (22) 'Private master builder of H.M. William 1' (23) With the death of Ziesenis in 1820 and the departure of De Greef, the position of Architect of the Royal Palaces and State Buildings was formally abolished in the northern provinces, probably to the delight of counter-architect Noordendorp. There was no longer any need to maintain the function of a state architect and the work could be assigned to the counter-architect alone. If 'any major work or new construction' had to be carried out, a competent architect could still be charged with it. (24) Charles van der Straeten, who was Architect of the Royal Palaces and State Buildings in Brussels, now automatically became responsible for the palaces and state buildings in the northern provinces in 1820. Nevertheless, it should not be assumed that all important renovations and new construction plans in the north can be attributed to this architect. Especially not with the commissions that the king personally forgave. Indeed, Noordendorp was appointed private architect to King William I in the same year. In this function he expanded the royal tomb in the Nieuwe Kerk in Delft (1821-1824). From this one can conclude that, although (still) without the official title of Architect of Royal Palaces (and State Buildings), he must have exerted a great influence on all -especially royal- construction plans and (rebuilding) designs in the north. That De Greef was already "honorably" dismissed on March 15, 1820, due to his appointment as Director of City Works in Amsterdam, further strengthens the hypothesis of Noordendorp's growing independence in his position, all the more so because Van der Straeten was very much preoccupied with the construction of the royal palace in Brussels and the renovations of the national buildings there. The important renovations of Noordeinde Palace and Kneuterdijk Palace were now further completed by Noordendorp. (25) Noordendorp was assisted in this by A. Roos, who from 1817 to 1825 functioned as assistant-contrarolleur der landsgebouwen in the northern provinces. In addition to Roos, the former writer (copiist) of Ziesenis, Pieter van Raan Smit, was added to Noordendorp's service by R.D. of May 16, 1820. (26) The collaboration with Charles van der Straeten in the furnishing of the Mauritshuis into a Royal Museum As I mentioned above, the position of Architect of Royal Palaces and State Buildings in the Northern Provinces was formally abolished upon Ziesenis's death in 1820. Noordendorp now effectively took over his duties. The claim that the government, however, soon found it desirable that "this especially technically trained" architect was assisted by a gifted designer, and for this reason in 1821 in fact restored Ziesenis's position with the appointment of Charles van der Straeten, is in my opinion not correct. (27) One did see Noordendorp as a competent structural engineer who was capable of all possible work on palaces and country buildings. A1 one, when a major renovation job unexpectedly came up, it was thought that it would be good to appoint a competent architect to assist Noordendorp for this, in accordance with the conditions set by the Minister of the Interior and Water Management when he proposed to abolish the position of State Architect. Van der Straeten was therefore called in, in my opinion, not because it was generally felt that Noordendorp, because of his largely technical background, was inadequate in the works entrusted to him, but because precisely in 1821 there were plans for a major renovation. At a public sale on February 21, 1821, the State of the Netherlands had acquired the Mauritshuis, with the aim of furnishing it as a museum. Charles van der Straeten, together with Noordendorp, was asked to draw up a renovation plan for this purpose. From a letter to the Minister of Internal Affairs and Water Management, in which Noordendorp noted that he was charged with "the formulation of a specification, estimate of costs and drawings of the works demanded at the Building of the Royal Museum" we know what his assignment was. Noordendorp also mentioned that 'in due time' he had given the director of the museum a drawing of the facade and a plan of the terrain for the building. These drawings 'had to serve to enable the aforementioned architect [Charles van der Straeten] to separate his ideas concerning the renovation'. (28) From this we can conclude that Van der Straeten, with the help of these drawings -probably made by Noordendorp-, initially operated from Brussels. Yet another letter reveals that Van der Straeten also personally attended The Hague and discussed his ideas about the renovation with the Minister for Public Education of National Industry and the Colonies. At that time the architect had also "already developed his ideas in the details to Mr. Noordendorp. (29) It is clear that Van der Straeten presented the proposals for the designs and that subsequently Noordendorp elaborated these plans and ideas. Given the museum function, they wanted to improve accessibility to the building. This was hoped to be achieved by replacing the walls and buildings enclosing the forecourt with a brick parapet and pillars with a wrought-iron fence. The entrance was also provided with a wide monumental borde staircase in neo-classical style. Van der Straeten had already realized a similar staircase for the Pavilion of Tervuren. (30) A bricklayer Joannes Noordendorp was also employed during the renovation of the Mauritshuis. (31) As with Noordendorp's assistant A. Roos, the family relationship of Joannes Noordendorp, who worked as a Master Mason in The Hague, is not certain. J. Noordendorp also took on works in the rebuilding of the Noordeinde Palace and the construction of the Korte Voorhout Palace. He must have been appointed by Adrianus in both cases. It is possible that he was a brother or cousin, since Adrianus Noordendorp together with Joh. Christiaan Noordendorp, brickmaker in Oegstgeest, also acted as guarantor, for example, when Joannes became owner of the cemeteries near the Eijkenduinsche laan on April 19, 1830, together with P. Maxwils. Almost without exception, only family members acted as sureties. (32) The construction of a hotel for H.R.H. Prince Frederik of the Netherlands The renovation history of the Mauritshuis shows that Van der Straeten clearly had more influence than Noordendorp on major works on the country buildings in the northern provinces. This did not automatically apply to new construction plans or alterations to the royal buildings. As the king's private architect, Noordendorp could operate much more independently in that regard. Certain commissions, such as the aforementioned expansion of the royal crypt, could certainly be considered "major" renovation commissions. When the king wanted to have a Hotel built for his second son H.R.H. Prince Frederik of the Netherlands, Noordendorp was even specifically charged with its construction by a decree of His Majesty. Noordendorp himself clearly mentioned this fact, when he indicated that the detailed statement of costs for the construction of the Hotel "was thus formulated with my undersigned Controller of State Buildings as a result of ZM's decision specially charged with the construction of this Hotel. (33) Van der Straeten was also involved in the preparations for the construction of the Hotel. Noordendorp spent two weeks in Brussels in May 1823 to 'confer' with Van der Straeten about his designs for the palace. On the basis of Van der Straeten's plan and elevation drawings, the costs were estimated at NLG 393,437.97. Noordendorp himself had formulated a plan for the foundation of the palace which he added to Van der Straeten's drawings. (34) Van der Straeten realized that the sum mentioned was very high and he tried to defend it in a letter to the Minister of the Interior and Water Management. The argument was that according to him, 'notwithstanding that the said sum is not in accordance with that, the which seems to have been determined by His Majesty [...] there is little to diminish about the proposed design, being dees but only a proper Prince's dwelling, less, it becomes a parti culier House which could only be executed for the certain sonune in den Haag'. (35) However, a luxurious "Prince's residence," as Van der Straeten had imagined, had never been the king's wish. Indeed, King William 1 had clearly indicated that he wanted a house, but not a palace, for his second son, who, after all, was not crown prince. (36) For that matter, the specifications never referred to the house to be built for Prince Frederik as "Palace," as Van der Straeten probably would have liked. From the very beginning it was called Hotel. That this design was ultimately not chosen is clear from Allan's description of Prince Frederick's 'Palace' on Korte Voorhout in his History of the City of The Hague from 1859: 'Besides, as we are well informed, a concurrence of circumstances prevented His Royal Highness from complying with the original building plan, which was thus altered'. (37) From this quote it can be deduced that the original building plan of Van der Straeten was changed by Noordendorp. On two occasions a new specification together with drawings was submitted whose cost was lower than the original design. The finally executed specifications with the drawings Noordendorp had submitted on April 1, 1824. The detailed "statement of costs" amounted to nuf 138,455.17; about one-third of original construction cost. (38) Appointment as Architect of the Royal Palaces and State Buildings in the Northern Provinces Van der Straeten probably did not really concern himself with the further course of the preparations for the construction of the Hotel. His major project in Brussels, which involved erecting a new facade for the royal palace and also remodeling several staterooms, had to contend with both organizational and financial problems. Organizationally, similar problems existed as had been the case with the renovation of the Noordeinde Palace under Ziesenis. Even before Van der Straeten's appointment in April 1820, the chief engineer J.B. Vifquain, who was in charge of the service of public buildings in Brussels and its environs, had let it be known that he could handle the work alone. Between this Vifquain -whose function in fact resembled that of the contrarolleur in 's-Gravenhage- and Van der Straeten a similar conflict of competence arose as Ziesenis and Noordendorp had done. Relations between the two eventually became so bad that Van der Straeten was dismissed for that reason in 1825. (39) That same year the place of formation in the northern provinces was reinstated. It had evidently been concluded that an "own" architect was necessary in the north as well. The distance between The Hague and Brussels, which at the time required about 341/2 hours of travel time, must obviously have impeded the progress of design procedures and the development of renovation plans. (40) In addition, by then Noordendorp had already emerged from the shadow of the great architects Ziesenis and De Greef for several years. He had shown that he could well combine his position as head of the national building service with private commissions from the king and the work he did as "deputy" architect of the royal palaces. On May 13, 1825, Noordendorp was finally officially appointed by Royal Decree as Architect der Koninklijke Paleizen en Lan dsgebouwen in de noordelijke provinciën. (41) Noordendorp's assistant A. Roos was now promoted to contrarolleur. H.C. Lijssen, who had assisted Van der Straeten as superintendent, was transferred to The Hague to work under Noordendorp. (42) The construction of the Hotel in The Hague was by now in full swing. Noordendorp certainly since his appointment produced all subsequent plans, especially those for the interior, and specifications. Noordendorp and Neo-classicism Through collaboration with Van der Straeten, Noordendorp had also come into contact with a more austere neo-classicist style. In Van der Straeten's austere farades, the influence of J.N.L. Durand in particular was palpable. Durand, with his rationalist ideas expounded in his books, had made a great impression in France and also in the Netherlands. In the manuals of W.C. Brade and G.H. Storm van 's-Gravezande, widely used by architects and engineers, many of Durand's ideas and designs were adopted. In his books, Durand gave a clear overview of the guidelines the architect had to follow. The depicted orders, peristyles, arcades, façade compositions and floor plans show how much importance Durand attached to symmetry, utility, efficiency and a functional use of materials. The style in which Durand designed his buildings was based on early Greek architecture and can be referred to as "sober neo-classicism. The exterior of such buildings was often in sharp contrast to the interior, which was generally richly decorated. (43) Sober, "dorist" work was particularly characterized by flat, often unplastered and virtually ornamentless, brick facades, whose massiveness was further emphasized by the repetition of equal bays and limited profiling. The profiling consisted mainly of moldings that further emphasized the horizontality of the facade. A heavy, overhanging cornice completed the whole. In neo-classicism, geometric shapes were seen as the basic forms that would order nature, the universe. In pure geometric figures such as the circle and square, one therefore saw a kind of reflection of universal harmony. When one wanted to add something to creation with an architectural design, that harmony had to be reflected by means of geometric, or derivative, forms. Even in the case of the seaside pavilion designed by Noordendorp, the composition of the building is geometric. Noordendorp had obviously been familiar for much longer with the various facets of Neoclassicism, through earlier collaborations with Ziesenis and De Greef and through sample books and manuals or already realized buildings. A more representative form of neo-classicism-a colonnaded portico and temple front-was applicable to one building than to another. The choice of this, of course, was inherent to the function a building was going to have. Thus, the facade of the Hotel for Prince Frederick can be considered an exponent of sober neo-classicism. Because the building was explicitly not to convey the character of a palace, this was a logical choice, which both Noordendorp and Van der Straeten may have made. Later designs by Noordendorp show that he always chose the style that suited the function of the building or its surroundings. In doing so, he always remained within the "boundaries" of neo-classicism. For example, the unrealized design of 1828 for the extension of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the Buitenhof in The Hague was adapted to the existing buildings around the Binnenhof. An austere neo-classical formal language was considered by Noordendorp, as evidenced by his facade design, to be most suitable for this purpose. In contrast, for his design of a new north facade for the Academy at Leiden in 1827, Noordendorp chose a more monumental, representative form of neoclassicism. To actually give the new entrance to the Academy Building the allure it demanded, he designed a classicist entrance with pilasters and a pediment. Noordendorp brought about the connection between the old and the new building in a very modest way. Unknown architect The remarkable thing about Noordendorp's career is that Noordendorp also eventually achieved what he clearly aspired to from the beginning. Several fellow architects he had worked with were suspended, demoted or dismissed over time, while he remained appointed and even rose higher in the "ranks. That he nevertheless remained relatively unknown has to do with the fact that Noordendorp did not have the opportunity to design many high-profile structures to which only his name was attached. During his period as contraroller, only major restorations were carried out on the various palaces, which continued for quite a long time. For these major renovations and extensions, an architect was always hired to supervise. Although in such cases Noordendorp did function as a collaborating architect, he did not always have something to say about the plan to be carried out. During the restorations, he was able to present himself less as an architect and was primarily a dedicated "civil servant" who did his job well. Only in less important renovations and extensions did he have the "power" as a contrarolleur. After 1825, when Noordendorp was given the position of architect of royal palaces and national buildings, few commissions were given for new buildings, so that even then he could only prove himself as an architect with difficulty. In those years, Noordendorp still had to deal primarily with the furnishing and maintenance of the royal palaces. One building, however, has gone down in history as completely designed and built by Noordendorp. Even before the Hotel for Prince Frederick was completed, Noordendorp received a commission for a new building. (44) In June 1825, Court Marshal Count van Reede had proposed to the king that a "little house by the sea" be built for the queen. (45) The king immediately accepted this proposal, because he hoped that frequent stays by the sea would improve the queen's weak health. Noordendorp was commissioned to design this pavilion north-east of the village of Scheveningen. The design of the pavilion, a rectangular building whose entrance façade has a columned central front in the long side with a window to its left and right, harkens back to country houses in France and Italy in the more "palladian" neo-classical style. When the pavilion was festively inaugurated on November 18, 1827, all of Scheveningen celebrated with the party. The Scheveningen poet Cornelis Gebel had written a poem especially for the occasion. In it, he described the pavilion as a "splendid building" that had risen from the rough dunes and that would function as a memorial column for all the favors. Also, according to him, this "proud building" would endure for centuries to come and withstand hurricanes on its "unyielding walls. (46) The pavilion occupies a special place in Dutch architectural history as a neo-classical building, but especially because of its building type, a pavilion by the sea. Such a seaside pavilion expressed the new awareness of nature and its significance, as it had emerged in the early 19th century. Involvement in architecture education The School of Civil Engineering at The Hague, founded in 1820, merged in 1821 with the Vrije Haagsche Academie, founded in 1776. The 's-Gravenhaagsche Teekenacademie thus formed consisted of two departments, the second of which provided education in architecture. Both departments had their own board that was accountable to the general board for its management. At the head of the second department were placed A. Noordendorp, H. Swaan, J. van Duyfhuys and P. van Cleef. (47) Noordendorp's position was thus that of director and not teacher. Nevertheless, he will most certainly have been involved in choosing the various textbooks and sample books to be used in the lessons. One can think of the books of Durand, Brade, Storm van 's-Gravenzande, J. van Straaten and W. Tollenaar. Noordendorp was contrarolleur when he was appointed director, and not yet Architect der Koninklijke Paleizen en Landsgebouwen. Apparently, Noordendorp was considered by contemporaries as someone who had enough experience with "architects' work" and probably that is why he was considered suitable for the position of Director at the Department of Architecture of the 's-Gravenhaagsche Teekenacademie. A selection from the oeuvre of Noordendorp The Hotel for HRH Prince Frederik of the Netherlands. The Hotel was built on the Korte Voorhout in The Hague in a sober neo-classical style. The building had a simple, flat brick façade, whose horizontal articulation was further emphasized by natural stone cordon strips that emphasized the division of the building into basement and three floors. The heavy overhanging cornice, like the pronounced cornices across, closed off the facade and reinforced its massive character. The facade consisted of eleven bays. In the left-most bay was the entrance hall. This jumped slightly forward and showed a different width so that it was distinguished from the other ten bays that were also otherwise identical to each other. The explicit placement of the entrance on the side rather than in the middle had the effect that the building seemed to stretch endlessly. The facade acquired a special kind of "grandeur" through the repetition of identical bays. Making finite objects appear infinite through the uninterrupted repetition of identical parts is an idea that can be found particularly in the work of Boullée, Durand's teacher. (48) Achieving grandeur through repetition of parts, whether they were columns or windows, was a common tool in neo-classical architecture. A memorandum by Noordendorp reveals that he had even suggested "widening" the facade of the Hotel. He wanted to achieve this by erecting an empty facade identical to the Hotel in front of the adjacent building, which housed the Gouvernement van Zuid Holland, whose new entrance was also to take the form of the Hotel's porte-cochère. This artificial extension of the facade, according to Noordendorp, would give the Hotel more prestige. This design by Noordendorp, incidentally, was not carried out. (49) In a very modest way, ornamentation was added to the facade. Thus, the windows of the bel-étage, in addition to a wooden or bluestone frame, received an additional "cornice" to emphasize the importance of that floor. The entrance was also provided with a wide cornice. The shading obtained by the cornices and architraves also played an important role in the character the building was intended to exude. Seven cast, iron lanterns were placed in front of the building. These subtly gave the horizontally oriented facade a vertical counterbalance. As mentioned, the client had expressly wanted a 'house' rather than a palace. At the time, not everyone was pleased that the house of the second prince did not have a truly palatial appearance. For example, in his "Physiology of The Hague," a Hagenaar indicated that he hardly even dared to speak of the palaces of the princes: "that of Prince Frederik is held by all travelers to be a hotel garni [...]. (50) Also, Allan described the hotel as 'an externally simple building, which [...] with its thirty-two stained-glass windows in the façade has a rigid appearance, and actually has more the appearance of a factory than that of a royal residence'. Allan also found "the internal arrangement of this palace inefficient and cramped. Most of the rooms are small, and the communications are poor or at least not well chosen. (51) These statements indicate that it was believed at the time that Prince Frederick had not been given a "proper Prince's residence," but only an "ordinary" house that was below the status that was ascribed to him. This is not entirely incomprehensible, since at that time a neo-classical style was usually used for truly representative commissions, where the facade was plastered if a complete covering with natural stone proved too expensive. After 1820, moreover, even for distinguished buildings, a portico of columns with temple front was almost "obligatory. (52) In later times, opinions were somewhat more divided regarding the Hotel's palatial appearance or not. In 1892, for example, architect Rieber even placed the Hotel above other structures realized at the same time. He considered the Hotel to be a massive piece of soberly treated work that was well detailed and, due to its dignified proportions, without being otherwise somber, had a very stately appearance. 'The architect,' he wrote, 'in spite of its simplicity, has managed to obtain this palatial appearance, even without the temple facades leading in his time, something that is all the more remarkable.' (53) This showed that Rieber did recognize that in the early 19th century a 'temple facade' was of the utmost importance in obtaining a truly palatial appearance, but that he also believed that good proportions could give a building that status. Evers, who was Professor of Architecture at Delft, even counted "the impressive facade of Prince Frederik's palace" in 1916 among "the best of the age. (54) Gugel, who had also been Professor of Architecture at Delft, on the other hand, was of the opinion that Prince Frederik's -then already former- palace did not at all have the grandeur that Evers saw in it. With the Hotel in mind, among others, he wrote: "Like everywhere else, without regard to their purpose, all designs with a sober academic sense were composed exclusively of elements derived from Greek and Roman temple architecture. They were subject to the rules of building regulations, whose observance could never be neglected and from which the dignified, yet cool character of these buildings derived a great degree of impersonality'. (55) Allan did not criticize the entire interior. He considered the 'beautiful dance hall', which he saw as the main room of the building, to be 'a favorable exception'. (56) This room, which was obviously on the bel-étage, must have had stucco walls and a vaulted coffered ceiling. When the Hotel came into the possession of the Court of Justice, the former ballroom was used for criminal hearings. (57) The Hotel was destroyed by the Bezuidenhout bombing of March 3, 1945. 'A little house by the sea' The pavilion at Scheveningen was built for Queen Frederica Louisa Wilhelmina of Prussia in the style of a palladian villa. Like Palladio's Villa Rotonda, it was provided with a freestanding portico with a temple-like column front in the Doric (actually Tuscan) order. The outlines of the small neoclassical building, which otherwise has heavy, gray-tinted, austere facades, stand out sharply. This effect is achieved in particular by the running entablature with overhanging cornice. To mark the bel-étage, a continuous parapet, crowned with a fine cordon frame, runs around the entire building. The windows on this parapet are framed with a wooden architrave band. (58) In addition to the facade, the floor plan shows strong symmetry. The floor plan shows a central axis in line with the entrance with symmetrically placed rooms on either side of it. The centrally located, hexagonally extended hall on the rear façade also conforms to the palladian villa type. This hall was built as a sala terrena. Such a hall was at ground level and gave direct access to a garden or outdoor terrace; it thus formed a link between inside and outside, between architecture and nature. To emphasize this transition, a sala terrena was often provided with naturalistic stucco decorations. (59) In the decoration of the sala terrena in the pavilion there are all kinds of sea motifs. In the corners there are rising round-rod profiles composed of garlands of shells, starfish and corals. A narrow, horizontal band of alternating palmettes and dolphins, intertwined two by two with their tails, runs through the entire room. Above this band is a wide area of stucco. On each wall in the center is a pair of dolphins with their tails curled up around a trident and on either side a seahorse. All these motifs can be found -sometimes almost literally- in the example books of Percier and Fontaine. (60) De Greef had "brought" this Empire style from France. Noordendorp, by assisting him in the various restorations to the palaces, had gained much experience in working with typical Empire decorative motifs taken from the interior designs of Percier and Fontaine. It is possible that he himself owned a copy of Percier and Fontaine's book Receuil de décorations intérieures. (61) Although Noordendorp copied several motifs, such as the dolphins with intertwined tails, verbatim from this, he also clearly experimented with them. For example, the coral scrolls along the outer edge of the medallion in the ceiling are actually a maritime translation of vegetable motifs from Percier and Fontaine's book. (62) To make the room truly a sala terrena, the transition from architecture to nature did have to be symbolized in the decoration with various marine motifs, because here, for example, it was not the forest that represented nature but the sea. The entire decoration of the building indicates that the intention was only to make an outdoor residence for "a visit in the day. (63) Nevertheless, the construction of the royal country residence meant a great deal to the people of Scheveningen. From now on, the royal family would be present in their village at least a few times a year. The pavilion, even now that it has been "expanded" with a museum, still emphatically dominates its surroundings. The architect of the new building around the pavilion, Wim Quist, I believe, certainly recognized those values in the 19th century beach pavilion that relate to the geometric and symmetrical composition of that building. So he brought these values into his own design, which in the floor plan consists of two symmetrical circular sections that fold, as it were, around the pavilion. Actually, this is how the theoretical background of the pavilion was carried through into Quist's museum. Both buildings have a clear construction of geometric forms but their external appearance is very different. Yet the museum 66k does meet the requirements in terms of coloring and proportion, which the pavilion seems to demand from its surroundings from its dominant character. With its sand-colored concrete and sunken location, the new building almost seems to disappear into the dune. The only neo-classical beach pavilion in the Netherlands, which in fact can be considered the most important work of the -in the twentieth century relatively unknown- architect Noordendorp, has been complemented and accentuated by the construction of this museum. Now that the pavilion has thereby undergone a kind of revaluation, it has actually also become time to actually snatch its architect from oblivion and give him a place in history. Notes 1) Sillem, 15. 2) Huijbrecht, 150. 3) Rieber, 9. 4) Peters, 170; Van der Peet and Steenmeijer, 669 - 682. The Appendix lists the executive officers responsible for the architecture of the State Buildings and its precursors from 1798 to the present. It lists the various positions Noordendorp successively held and the people who assisted him in them. In this survey and in other literature, years are sometimes mentioned that do not agree with each other. For example, the overview mentioned above mentions that Noordendorp was appointed assistant controller in 1809, while Peters indicates that Noordendorp was appointed assistant to the controller G. van der Linden in April 1806 "due to increasing age and heavy physique" of the latter. Should Noordendorp indeed have been Van der Linden's assistant, the year 1806 must be taken seriously, since Van der Linden served as counter-arranger only until 1807. 5) Speyart van Woerden, 23-24; Van Hóvell tot Westerflier-Speyart van Woerden, Van der Peet and Steenmeijer, 35 and 55 (note 4). After the restoration of Dutch independence, a Commission of Superintendence on the Landsgebouwen was established, consisting of the Commissioners-General of Finance and the Interior. They managed the land buildings in the residence and royal palaces. 6) General Archives of the State (ARA), Second Division, Interior (BiZa), Central Administration of Water Resources (CAW), inv. no. 2104, dos. 83. 7) Peters, (Appendix G) 217-222:.," 8) Faber, xi. M.C. Speyart van Woerden, 29, also assumes that Noordendorp had actually succeeded Van der Linden as Contrarolleur in 1808 and that the day-to-day care of the land buildings remained in the hands of Noordendorp when he was officially appointed Contrarolleur by K.B. of March 12, 1814. 9) Speyart of Woerden, 29. 10) Peters, 170. 11) Gemeentearchief's-Gravenhage (GAG) bnr. 350 (Oud Archief), inv.nr. 5814. 12) Van Hóvell tot Westerflier-Speyart van Woerden, Van der Peet and Steenmeijer, 35; Van der Peet and Steenmeijer, 676. 13) Sillem, 17. 14) Stolp, 117. 15) For the battle of competence between Ziesenis and Noordendorp see: Speyart van Woerden, 29, 34,39; Van Hóvell tot Westerflier-Speyart van Woerden, Van der Peet and Steenmeijer, 35-37; Van Hóvell tot Westerflier-Speyart van Woerden, 69 and 79. 16) This specific added responsibility for the estates in the residence was also reflected in Ziesenis' salary, which was now divided equally between the Court and the Empire. Although Ziesenis was now given the added care of the land buildings, his salary remained f 3000. This meant that he received a sum of f 1500 for his services in caring for the national buildings. Noordendorp, on the other hand, received f 2400,- for his contrarolleurs office. This was significantly more, and from this the conclusion seems justified that Noordendorp remained the most important official who took care of the land buildings. Ziesenis' involvement will have been only superficial. 17) From December 1815, only the Minister of Water Management and Public Works (formerly the Ministers of the Interior and Finance) bore final responsibility for the management of the national buildings. 18) In contrast, Speyart van Woerden, 39, wrote: "The draft instruction, for unknown and incomprehensible reasons, remained unfinished with the King, without being ratified by a final Decree. 19) Slothouwer, 164-165. 20) Incidentally, A. Noordendorp's extensive opinion, submitted by him on September 30, 1816, was not acted upon. In it, Noordendorp had indicated that he thought it prudent to lay the palace free, so that it would have more prestige and be connected in a less fire-prone manner to the houses of Noordeinde and Molenstraat. With the great financial and artistic difficulties of the renovation, however, it was thought that this problem should not be raised. (Slothouwer, 165-166). 21) Van Hóvell tot Westerflier-Speyart van Woerden, Van der Peet and Steenmeijer, 37; Rem, 5-7. 22) Van Hóvell tot Westerflier-Speyart van Woerden, Van der Peet and Steenmeijer, 38; Sillem, 16. 23) Rieber, 10. 24) Speyart van Woerden, 45. 25) Van Hövell tot Westerflier-Speyart van Woerden, Van der Peet and Steenmeijer, 43; Van der Peet and Steenmeijer, 672; Rieber, 10. 26) Speyart van Woerden, 45; it should not be ruled out that A. Roos was related to Noordendorp's mother's side. Pieter van Raan Smit was added to Noordendorp's service for a salary of f 600. 27) Van Hövell tot Westerflier-Speyart van Woerden, Van der Peet and Steenmeijer, 43; Speyart van Woerden, 45. 28) ARA, Second Department, BiZa, CAW, inv. no. 2102, dos. 75; letter from Contrarolleur Noordendorp to the Minister of the Interior and Water Management (Minister of BiZa and W) (April 30, 1822). 29) ARA, Second Department, BiZa, CAW, inv. no. 2102, dos. 75; letter from Minister for Public Education of National Industry and the Colonies the Lord Falcky to the Minister of BiZa and W (March 15, 1822). 30) Fish, 19-21. 31) ARA, Second Department, BiZa, CAW, inv. no. 2102, dos. 75; the "list of accounts for supplies and labor done to the Royal Cabinet of Paintings at The Hague" mentions that J. Noordendorp had performed work for f 38.03.32) Kalmeijer, 132. 33) Royal Household Archives (KHA), inv.no. E 9a V 3. This detailed statement of expenses was dated April 19, 1823. Incidentally, there was also a "Directie tot den opbouw van een hotel voor Z.K.H. Prins Frederik der Nederlanden" that supervised the construction. Court Marshal Count Van Reede had the supreme management. 34) ARA, BiZa, CAW, inv.no. 2112, dos. 138; letter from Contrarolleur over 's Rijks Gebouwen Noordendorp to the Minister of BiZa and W (July 1, 1823). 35) ARA, BiZa, CAW, inv.no. 2112, dos. 138; letter from Architect der Koninklijke Paleizen en Landsgebouwen Van der Straeten to the Minister of BiZa and W at Brussels (August 18, 1823). 36) Schouw, 47. 37) Allan, 73. 38) Royal Household Archives (KHA), inv.no. E 9a V 3. 39) Van Hdvell tot Westerflier-Speyart van Woerden, Van der Peet and Steenmeijer, 39 and 41. 40) ARA, BiZa, CAW, inv.no. 2112, dos. 138; letter from Contrarolleur over 's Rijks Gebouwen Noordendorp to the Minister of BiZa and W (July 1, 1823). Noordendorp had conferred with Charles van der Straeten in Brussels in 1823 on the construction of the Hotel for Prince Frederick. For the cost of the stay there and the journey there and back to The Hague, he had submitted a claim to the Minister of BiZa and W. The distance between the two places was set at 34'/2 hours. 41) Sillem, 17; Royal Decree No. 20. 42) Van der Peet and Steenmeijer, 670. 43) Van Hdvell tot Westerflier-Speyart van Woerden, Van der Peet and Steenmeijer, 39. 44) The Hotel for Prince Frederik can, in my opinion, also be counted as a new construction project by Noordendorp. Nevertheless, Van der Straeten also had a share in the preparations for its construction so that the direction in which the design developed was developed was partly guided by him. 45) Sillem, 7. 46) Gelder, 129-131. 47) Sillem, 18. 48) In his theoretical manuscript "Architecture, essay sur Part" (± 1790-1793), Boullée paid much attention to the repetition of elements in architecture. Among other things, he wrote that the greatest grandeur and the most perfect symmetry is produced by extending certain elements, like rows of columns, in all directions and continuing beyond our facial horizon. The parts then seem to walk with us, as if we animated them. A translation of Boullée's manuscript can be found in: Helen Rosenau, Boullée & visionary architecture, London/ New York 1976 (pages 81-117). 49) KHA E9a V inv. no. 3. Noordendorp's memorandum is dated August 4, 1824. In a letter of March 25, 1825 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Noordendorp indicates that by this widening the facade of the Hotel would indeed be embellished but that 'nevertheless there was no absolute necessity for this'. This shows that Noordendorp was well aware of the fact that repetition of identical elements can lend grandeur to buildings. 50) Physiology, 26-27. 51) Allan, 73. 52) Ter Kuile, 188. 53) Rieber, 9. 54) Evers, 598. 55) Gugel, 392. 56) Allan, 73. 57) Overvoorde, 116. The Hotel came into the possession of the Courthouse and District Court in 1900. The stables and service buildings on Casuarie Street were then demolished to make way for a new House of Detention, which was inaugurated in July 1902. 58) Sillem, 21. Andrea Palladio (1508-1580) built his Villa Rotonda in the second half of the 16th century. 59) Sillem, 35. 60) Sillem, 30-32. 61) C. Percier and P. Fontaine, Receuil de décorations intérieures, Paris 1801. 62) Sillem, 32. 63) Gelder, 129. literature: 1. Allan, F., The city of The Hague and its history, Amsterdam 1859. Evers, H., Architecture in its main epochs (Part II), Amsterdam 1916 (second edition). 2. Faber, J., Inventaris van het tekeningenarchief van de Rijksgebouwendienst en rechtsvoorgangers over de periode 1824-1945, The Hague 1992. 3. Gelder, H.E. van, The historical beauty of The Hague, Amsterdam 1943. 4. Gugel, E., Geschiedenis van de bouwstijlen in de hoofdtijdperken der architektuur (Deel II), Rotterdam 1920 (fourth edition completely revised by J.H.W. Leliman). 5. Hövell tot Westerflier-Speyart van Woerden, M.C. van, 'Ziesenis, very lazy and almost always ill', in: C.J. van der Peet and G.H.P. Steenmeijer (ed.), The Government Architects. Two centuries of architecture of the Rijksgebouwendienst and its predecessors, Rotterdam 1995, 65-85. 6. Hövell tot Westerflier-Speyart van Woerden, M.C. van, Peet, C.J. van der and Steenmeijer, G.H.P., 'Overview', in: C.J. van der Peet and G.H.P. Steenmeijer (ed.), The Government Architects. Twee eeuwen architectuur van de Rijksgebouwendienst en zijn voorgeners, Rotterdam 1995, 27-62. 7. Huijbrecht, R. and Scholten, F.W.J., 'Surveyor's Admissions in Holland', in: E. Muller and K. Zandvliet (ed.), Surveyor's Admissions in the Netherlands before 1811. Sources for the history of surveying and its application in administration, architecture, cartography and fortification and hydraulic engineering, Alphen aan den Rijn 1987, 149-190. 8. Kalmeijer, C.A., 'The Column of Oak and Dunes', Yearbook of the Geschiedkundige Vereniging Die Haghe (1978),117-141. 9.Overvoorde, J.C., Voorlopige Lijst der Nederlandse Monumenten van Geschiedenis en Kunst (Deel III. De Provincie Zuid-Holland), Utrecht 1916. 10. Peet, C.J. van der and Steenmeijer, G.H.P. (ed.), 'Appendix 1. Work of national architects', in: C.J. van der Peet and G.H.P. Steenmeijer (ed.), The Government Architects. Twee eeuwen architectuur van de Rijksgebouwendienst en zijn voorgeners, Rotterdam 1995, 639-668. 11. Peet, C.J. van der Peet and Steenmeijer, G.H.P. (ed.), 'Appendix 2. Overview of executive officers', in: C.J. van der Peet and G.H.P. Steenmeijer (ed.), The Chief Government Architects. Two centuries of architecture of the Rijksgebouwendienst and its predecessors, Rotterdam 1995, 669-682. 12. Peters, C.H., De Landsgebouwen te 's-Gravenhage, Rapport aan Zijne Excellentie den Minister van Waterstaat, Handel en Nijverheid,'s-Gravenhage 1891. 13. Physiology, Physiology of The Hague by a Hagenaar,'s-Gravenhage, 1843. 14. Rem, P.H., Jan de Greef (1784-1834) and the rebuilding of Soestdijk from 1815-1821 (Doctoral thesis in art history V.U.), Amsterdam 1984-1985. 15. Rieber, C.T.J.L., 'De Maatschappij tot Bevordering der Bouwkunst van 1842 tot 1892: De "Maatschappij tot Aanmoediging der Bouwkunde", en de toestand der bouwkunst in den aanvang der 19e eeuw', Bouwkundige Bijdragen, 38 (1892),1-18 (is identical to Bouwkundig Tijdschrift 12 (1892)). 16. Schouw, J. van der, Illustrated Guide to's Gravenhage, Wassenaar, 't Westland, Rijswijk, Voorburg and Scheveningen, with map of 's Gravenhage, the Bosch and Bezuidenhout, Binnenhof and Plein, Scheveningen, Boschjes etc. Driving and Walking Map and many illustrations, The Hague 1894 (first edition 1893). 17. Sillem, C., 'The history of the Pavilion', in: H.P.R. Rosenberg (ed.), A royal pavilion and a museum by the sea; The Pavilion of 'De Witte' and the museum Beelden aan Zee in Scheveningen, The Hague 1994, 7-20. 18. Sillem, C., 'Description of the Pavilion', in: H.P.R. Rosenberg (ed.), A royal pavilion and a museum by the sea; The Pavilion of 'De Witte' and the museum Beelden aan Zee in Scheveningen, The Hague 1994,21-41. 19. Slothouwer, D.F., The Palaces of Frederick Henry, Leiden 1945. 20. Speyart van Woerden, M.C., B.W.H. Ziesenis, Architect der koninklijke- keizerlijke- en landsgebouwen, 1807 - 1820 (Doctoral thesis art history R.U.U.), Utrecht 1988. 21. Stolp, A., 'How hard the Hague running gas went', Yearbook of the Geschiedkundige Vereniging Die Haghe (1977), 117-142. 22. Ter Kuile, E.H. in: Fockema Andrea (ed.), Duizend jaar bouwen in Nederland (Volume II), Amsterdam 1957. 23. Vis, L., Building historical documentation and value assessment: Mauritshuis (Part 1. Text), The Hague 1984. Additional functions: Surveyor//1803-;Contrarolleur der Landsgebouwen te 's-Gravenhage//1809-1813; Archives: Royal Archives (KHA) The Hague/;Municipal Archives The Hague/;National Archives (NA)/;Municipal Archives Rotterdam/