Towards an Architecture Museum
cover of Wonen TA/BK special double-issue on architecture museums, #11-12, June 1985
Rotterdam or Amsterdam? This was the question that throughout 1985 dominated every conversation on the plans for a new national architecture institute in the Netherlands. The controversy had been unexpectedly started a few months earlier (December 18, 1984) by one single letter sent by Minister of Culture Elco Brinkman to the Dutch Parliament. Without any public or official discussion, Minister Brinkman’s letter simply reported that the decision to locate the forthcoming institute for architecture and urban planning in Rotterdam had been made. Such definitive and unforeseen decision surprised Dutch architectural and cultural circles in general, and the NDB (Nederlands Documentatie Centrum voor de Bouwkunst), the SAM (Stichting Architectuur Museum) and Stichting Wonen in particular. For over a year, these three institutions had been involved in lengthy conversations preparing their merger and subsequent foundation of the new architecture institute with their governmental supporters, the Ministry of Culture (WVC) and the Ministry of Housing (VROM). However, the question of the new institute’s location had never even been posed. Since all three organizations were based in Amsterdam, there was a tacit assumption that the new institute resulting from their merger would also be located in the capital. By circumventing discussion with the involved parties, the unilateral decision to establish the future institute in Rotterdam was not only perceived as an undue political imposition, but also one that suggested difficulties for the future institute’s (political) independence.
discussion on the location of the future architecture museum in Amsterdam’s Beurs van Berlage on April 21, 1985
The escalation of the confrontation between merging partners and Ministry of Culture reached its peak in May 1985, when SAM followed Stichting Wonen’s lead and also abandoned the merger negotiation table. While effectively halting the official preparatory work for the new institute, Stichting Wonen and SAM still aspired to found the future architecture institute. Thus, throughout the negotiations’ interregnum, it was important not only to continue preparing the new institute, but also to keep the public interested in it. Besides organizing public meetings and discussions to garner more support for their position, Stichting Wonen published in June 1985 a special double issue of their journal Wonen TA/BK entirely dedicated to architecture museum(s). The purpose of this issue is quite clear: to assert Stichting Wonen’s position in the (architectural) public opinion and pressure the government into action. By publicizing their position and the issues at stake with the establishment of the architecture museum, Stichting Wonen was attempting to enhance the likelihood of the museum’s implementation under the negotiated conditions. Stimulating public discussion and increasing public expectations could only make it more difficult for Minister Brinkman not to follow through.
Through articles by Hans van Dijk and others, Wonen TA/BK’s issue #11-12 discussed the historical and current conditions for the proposed merger, while also forcefully arguing for its inherent benefits and necessity. Beyond the activist reflection of domestic questions, the issue was comprised of a comprehensive benchmarking exercise analyzing the practices and objectives of architecture museums in Finland, France, England, Germany, Switzerland and the USA. Beyond suggesting that staffing, funding, policies, objectives and activities were some of the major concerns in the preparatory discussions; this published analysis also indicates how the NAi was modeled on several of these institutions, combining features of each of them.
drawing by OM Ungers for a “House within a House,” the concept of the Deutsches Architektur Museum (ca. 1980)
While conventional narrative has (essentially) established that the NAi was modeled on the Deutsches Architektur Museum (among others, Bart Lootsma in “The Art of Architecture Exhibitions,” Nai Publishers: 2001), this issue of Wonen TA/BK disproves such assertion. Instead, it suggests that the NAi was modeled not only on the German DAM, but also on other architecture museums and institutions like the RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) in London, the Institut Français d’Architecture in Paris or the Suomen Rakennustaide Museo (Museum of Finnish Architecture) in Helsinki. Several themes and considerations that became central to the NAi’s organization and policy were already present (and common) in many of the examined museums, from the importance of reaching a wide audience to the support of talented young architects. But this analysis also served to highlight specific issues in the organization and everyday functioning of an architecture museum, which would also be considered in the foundation of the NAi.
For example, the review of both German examples (Bauhaus Archive in Berlin and the Deutsches Architektur Museum in Frankfurt) commented on the institutions’ buildings. While Berlin served a cautionary tale of inadequate conditions which created several obstacles to ambitious exhibitions and that could exhaust the resources of any organization, Frankfurt showed how a remarkable building could articulate the concept of an institution and enhance (almost immediately) its notoriety. The positive influence of captivating regular patrons was also explicit in Berlin. A welcoming atmosphere with an inviting cafeteria and a tasteful library appealed to visitors and compelled them to become “supporting member” with yearly fees. Such system would be implemented in Rotterdam as the Leliman Association (currently named the “Friends of the NAi”) which, at one point, was refined to a class system of members, donors, patrons and special patrons. Likewise, the DAM’s emphasis on models for the articulation of architecture to a wide audience (in stark contrast with several other museums that only collected drawings and/or photographs) set the example for the NAi, eventually leading to the opening of its model storage at the Van Nelle Fabriek and to the permanent model-based populist exhibition Stad van Nederland/Dutchville. Identified as the main reason for the DAM’s early success, the engagement with international debate would also become a leading focus at the NAi, albeit in a significantly different form.
“Suomen Rakennustaide Museo” by Juhani Pallasmaa and Asko Salokorpi (1982)
While the international orientation of the DAM did not privilege German architecture in any way, the NAi adopted an international engagement more akin to the approach of the Museum of Finnish Architecture. Like Helsinki’s MFA, the NAi promoted international architecture domestically and domestic architecture abroad. In fact, the NAi seemed to have much in common with the Finnish Architecture Museum. Like the Helsinki museum, the NAi produced television series for architecture to reach a wide(r) audience (“Architectuur in Nederland” was aired throughout 1993-94) and published a Yearbook of national architecture (“Architecture in the Netherlands Yearbook” was first published in 1988). Moreover, the very organization of the institute -as a foundation run by a board with daily operations being managed by the museum director- and its funding arrangements -with the state being responsible for the larger portion and the rest originating from the host city and ticket proceeds- were reminiscent of the Finnish Museum.
The Helsinki Museum demonstrated how an architecture museum could be almost fully funded by the central government and remain independent, but the Institut Français d’Architecture offered a stark contrast. By being closely associated with the political structures, the IFA’s fate was always volatile. The uncertainty of each election cycle endangered the funding and staffing of the IFA, which paralyzed the institute for several months at a time and prevented it from adopting a truly critical stance regarding the (architectural and heritage) policies of the government. Conversely, the Basel Architekturmuseum and the RIBA Drawings Collection and Library enjoyed complete political independence, as their funding was secured from private contributions. Both would influence the NAi in different ways: the Basel museum through its production of exhibitions that challenged both the boundaries of architecture and the ‘exhibition’ medium; and the RIBA through its archival policy and management of complete archives.
guided visit to NAi’s archives for MuseumWeekend, 1993
Archival and acquisition policies diverged considerably among the analyzed architecture museums and centers. It ranged from a complete lack of archives, to collections composed by only photographs and drawings, to collections composed by discrete representative projects, to comprehensive collections of complete archives. The different attitudes toward archives reflected different goals, but also different perceptions of architecture. Rather than a “product-oriented” perspective, the NAi adopted a “process-driven” perspective on architecture, to which its collection of complete archives was central. The NAi archives established a comprehensive resource for architectural research which encouraged new readings of history and allowed new arguments to emerge. Given the NAi’s focus on comprehensive archives and research on ways to make them culturally productive, the absence of the similar minded Canadian Center for Architecture (CCA) in Montreal from this comparative analysis becomes even more noticeable. Perhaps due to logistical difficulties, or perhaps because the center was not yet open to the general public, the CCA was not included, but since its foundation, the NAi has shared a close affinity to the Canadian Center. Beyond the collection of comprehensive archives, like the CCA, the NAi has also been dedicated to the idea that architecture is a public concern, which must be positioned within a broader societal context, or “the cultural dimension of architecture.”
Through the review of these foreign institutions the implicit agenda of Stichting Wonen remains clear. The analysis of these architecture centers and museums regarding staffing, funding, organization and political independence, suggest a criticism for the government’s decisions that are confirmed by the complementary articles sympathetic to Stichting Wonen’s position. The dispute between merging partners and government took another year to be resolved and a compromise was only reached in the summer of 1986, in which a new building rather than location was the main issue.
NAi’s Urban Augment Reality (UAR) app visualizing the future Rotterdam Markthal
While over 25 years old, it is remarkable how the lessons of this Wonen TA/BK double-issue remain valid -and are being pursued by the NAi- today. Most notably, as the NAi reinforces its role of intermediary between a wide audience and the discipline through the recovery of its “platform function” for the discussion and engagement of architecture. The same strategy identified in this 1985 issue as being crucial for the establishment and development of architectural museums and institutes, from Helsinki to Paris.