History of the establishment of an institution for the history of architecture \architecture museum In the Netherlands, an architecure museum has long been sought. It began back in the last century when the Maatschappij tot Bevordering der Bouwkunst, founded in 1842, began collecting drawings and models. By 1910, however, that had become more difficult because the Society itself was in trouble. In 1912, the architect J.H.W. Leliman (jr.), in response to the announcement of the commemorative exhibition "100 years of the Netherlands" in 1913, advocated a permanent solution in the form of an architecture museum in his now-famous article in De Bouwwereld. The society Architectura et Amicitia accepted that challenge and appointed a committee. This committee issued a memorandum in 1916 to the Minister of Interior, who then appointed a State Commission in 1918. In 1919, the committee recommended the establishment of a State Museum of Architecture in Amsterdam. Not much happened to this recommendation. However, collecting continued and the archives were housed in the State Print Room at the time. In 1923 there was another architecture exhibition, this time to mark the 25th anniversary of Queen Wilhelmina's reign. A portion of the exhibit, the so-called Jubilee Exhibition, was stored afterward in the Reich Prison Cabinet at the Reich Museum in Amsterdam. Things picked up after World War II and on Sept. 5, 1955, the Architecture Museum Foundation (SAM) was established. The members of the foundation were appointed by the Association of Dutch Architects (BNA) and the society Architectura et Amicitia (AetA). The purpose of the foundation was "to collect, preserve, maintain and make accessible to interested parties drawings, documents and other orginalia, photographs, models and books and records, which are of importance for the knowledge of Dutch architecture" (art. 2 founding act). The SAM managed to acquire many architects' properties but nothing came of the pursuit of its own museum building. This own building was necessary because the collection continued to grow. In the sixties, attempts were made again to get a real museum off the ground. The City of Amsterdam was sympathetic to the idea of an architecture museum and promised a building : the Arsenal, on Waterloo Square, next to the Academy of Architecture. Meanwhile, on the other side of the building, the BNA had planned its new office. At the end of the 1960s, the housing situation for the SAM's archives had become tenuous. However, discussions with the Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Social Work (CRM) did not lead to the foundation of a state museum for architecture because the minister had by now decided that there would be no new state museums. Meanwhile, the National Service for the Preservation of Monuments (RDMZ) had become increasingly interested in the "younger monuments." Thus, the State saw the SAM's collections as a resource for RDMZ because those collections documented the period that RDMZ would increasingly have to deal with in the future. Accordingly, in 1970, the National Government established the Netherlands Architecture Center (NDB). Organically, it was placed under the Art History Department of the RDMZ. It was housed at the Arsenal in Amsteram. The NDB was given the task of managing and making accessible the archives of the SAM that had yet to be transferred and the archives that had been donated to the state and were stored in the Rijksmuseum. In 1971 the art historian Fons Asselbergs was appointed the first director of the NDB, and from 1972 he was also the secretary of the SAM. From the beginning, there was not enough staff to properly declassify the collections, in 1972 the SAM archives were officially transferred to the State of the Netherlands. The staffing shortage was combated by employing interns, geweensbezwaarden and through other arrangements such as the Temporary Employment Program (TAP). Many under-seekers, meanwhile, found their way to the NDB. In 1974, the NDB moved tide-wise to the Government Building, Dry Dock 1a, in anticipation of a remodel of the Arsenal. However, the stay at the Dry Barge became permanent because the Arsenal conversion did not go through. The Government Records Building, however, was not adapted to the NDB's mission; managing archives. In the monumental year of 1975, four very successful exhibitions were orchestrated from the NDB. In orchestrating exhibitions, however, the NDB was out of line and the administrator was made aware of this. The NDB had to refocus on its job. Asselbergs could not agree with the policy. He stepped down in 1978. Dick van Woerkom was appointed in his place, until then Asselbergs' deputy and originally an architect. The SAM meanwhile was not resurrected in 1972. The main reason for its continued existence was that a private organization could make purchases on the free market more easily than a government agency and was also eligible for subsidies. Because of the restriction on the freedom of the NDB, the SAM began to organize its own exhibitions. The exhibitions were supported by the NDB with a lot of time and manpower. This led to major problems between the SAM and the NDB and RDMZ. By 1979 the SAM was as good as bankrupt by organizing exhibitions that attracted too few people. The BNA, until then hardly interested in the SAM, was willing to give its stepchild a financial injection of ¦ 50,000 as well as provide secrecy facilities up to a maximum of ¦ 30,000. In return they claimed the posts of president and secretary/treasurer, to be filled by respectively the then president and director of the BNA. This was accepted by the SAM without too much difficulty. The NDB itself began another exhibition program in the early 1980s. This program resulted in 1983 in a series of five exhibitions on the theme of "the New Building." The same museums as in 1975 participated, expanded to include Museum Boymans-van Beuningen in Rotterdam. This time, too, the success was great. Other 1983 exhibitions that also achieved success were "100 Years of Architecture in and around Amsterdam" and "Biennial of Young Dutch Architects." At the beginning of the 1980s, a modest personnel expansion could be realized. There was now also an employee for the general the general service, an administrative assistant and an archivist. In addition, one had to continue to rely on contract employees, interns or people employed temporarily through one arrangement or another. Meanwhile, the National Commission for Museums had recommended to the Minister of Welfare, Public Health and Culture (WVC) in 1982 that an institute for architecture and urban design be established. This would include the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) should also be involved because of its responsibility for the built environment. This institute should include the NDB, SAM and the Housing Foundation (Wonen). With the latter partner, both SAM and NDB had begun to cooperate more and more. This resulted, among other things, in the series of exhibitions "Biennale Young Dutch Architects," which were held every two years starting in 1983. It was during the opening of the first Biennale Young Dutch Architects that the deputy director general of Cultural Affairs of WVC announced on behalf of the Minister announced the adoption of the advice of the National Commission on Museums. In 1983 and 1984, discussions were held between the five parties involved in establishing an architec- tural institute (SAM, NDB, Wonen, WVC and VROM). They were able to come to an ultimate agreement and nothing seemed to stand in the way of the creation of the Lower Institute of Architecture and Urbanism. For the three institutions to merge, it was obvious that the institute would be located in Amsterdam, the city where they had been working successfully for so long. However, things would turn out differently because Rotterdam had also come up early on as a place to establish a Dutch Architecture Museum. They even already had a building in mind, namely the old building of the Municipal Architecture Library. Amsterdam acted late, and even the offer to rent out part of the world-famous Beurs van Berlage for ¦ 1 per year was to no avail. Minister Brinkman chose Rotterdam with culture-spreading as his argument for that choice. A storm of protest arose against this decision. Many newspaper articles and letters to the editor were the result. Both SAM and the Housing Foundation suspended their participation in merger talks if the minister did not reverse this decision. The NDB, as an official organization, could do little against this decision but the employees agreed with all the actions that were being initiated to stay in Amsterdam. The minister did not review the decision and announced that they would then continue with the NDB alone. First the SAM realized that there was nothing more to be done about the location. Although they would have liked to stay in Amsterdam, the establishment of the NAI was more important than where it would be located. For the Wonen, both the old municipal library and the location were insurmountable obstacles. Wonen only agreed when the minister came with a guarantee of new construction and was promised that they would not have to temporarily move into the Municipal Library either while waiting for the new building. Discussions resumed and a steering committee emerged from the 1983/84 working group to shape the merger in cooperation with an external organizational consulting firm, Andersson, Elffers and Felix, of Utrecht. For the NDB busy times dawned as preparations had to be made for the relocation. It soon became apparent, however, that this would not be easy because there were large backlogs of artefacts that had been used for exhibitions and because of the fact that most of the archives had not yet been inventoried. Additional staff was hired and began to improve the management records of the archives because it was not clear which archives were on loan and which were owned by the SAM or the NDB or the State. A closure of the reading room because of the many works also proved necessary as did the cessation of making exhibitions. A long time of clearing out and then taking inventory began. On January 1, 1989, the Netherlands Institute for Architecture, Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture (NAI) was established. The SAM transferred the archives in its possession to the state, which then transferred these, as well as the collections already in state ownership, into the management of the NAI. After the staff of the Housing Foundation joined the new foundation on January 1, 1989, the staff of the NDB followed in December 1990. This was due to problems related to the civil service status of the NDB staff. The SAM transferred its duties to the NAI but continued to exist, with the intention of possibly dissolving itself only 1 year after moving into the new building. However, the final liquidation of the foundation did not take place until 1997. The remaining assets became available to the Leliman Association. Archival Foundation archives, 1955-1980 (-1985). \The management of the SAM archives falls into three periods. The first period (1955-1971) covers the founding of the SAM through the establishment of the NDB and the amendment of the SAM statutes. Not much can be said about records management because there are not many records. Nor is it possible to find out who managed it. The only constant factor seems to be Auke Komter (he was a member for many years and later president). Possibly he later managed the archive. What is present in terms of records consists of correspondence and notes. It is arranged chronologically by year; some of it is present only in the form of photocopies. Possibly this was copied during the transfer of the secretariat to the BNA. The second period (1972-1981) covers the period when the NDB administered the secretariat managed. This period is characterized by a mixing of SAM and NDB archives. This can be traced back to the fact that the administrator of the NDB (Fons Asselbergs) was also a secretary of the SAM. The archive was at the secretariat of the NDB, was possibly included ín the archive of the NDB. It is sometimes difficult to determine what a document belongs to if it is not immediately obvious from its external features. For example, some letters from the SAM were written on NDB letterhead, but the opposite also occurs. On these letters, there is then no further indication of Asselbergs' function (e.g., secretary NDB or secretary SAM). After Asselbergs' departure, van Woerkom became administrator of the NDB. During Asselbergs' trusteeship, it was decided to separate the dual function of administrator of the NDB and secretary of the SAM. Under the trusteeship of Van Woerkom, after Asselbergs' departure in 1978, a clearer separation was made between the duties of the SAM and the NDB. The boundaries between the archive of the NDB and that of the SAM then run somewhat more clearly. The third period covers the post-1981 era. The SAM archive is now formed at the BNA secretariat because the SAM receives funds and secretarial facilities from the BNA. This archival part is still at the BNA. However, there are still some documents from the beginning of this period because the SAM's mailing address was still Droogbak 1a. In addition, there are still documents from board committees because the administrator or one of the other staff members of the NDB participated in the deliberations of those committees. The SAM board will transfer its records when it dissolves itself . \.