PROLOGUE

In 1918, Michiel Brinkman was commissioned to designhousing for two blocks in the Spangen polder inRotterdam’s northwestern fringe. The plan for the polder,provided in schematic form by J. de Jonge in 1903,promoted housing development through denseconfigurations of perimeter enclosure with interior stairsand single-floor dwelling units. These housing blockswere seen as uniform, whole blocks that combined tocreate a monumental, as opposed to a picturesque, urbanlandscape. Various architects commissioned to designhousing in Spangen, including the newly-appointed CityHousing Architect J.J.P. Oud, proceeded with projects thatmet these expectations. However, since Brinkman hadnot been active in housing design to that point in hispractice, nobody anticipated the radical departures heproposed for his assigned blocks and then defended asnecessary to the social reconstruction of the Dutch city.

His design, known as Justus van Effenstraat, enclosedboth blocks within a single, but broken, perimeterbuilding, included significant communal facilities and,most contentiously, proposed a gallery or “elevated street”that ran over 1000 meters long to give access upper levelunits. While Brinkman considered these qualities subtle,others thought it a strong departure that might destroy theurban concept of connecting the new district to theexisting city. Indeed, the distinction he soughtemphasized the futility he felt toward housing proposalsbeing made at that time and the necessity for analternative which promised a new life.

Ever pragmatic, Brinkman sought to reconcile thecollectivity of the enclosed block with an increasingdesire for individuality as proposed in the garden cityconcept. Although usually seen as a benchmark in Dutchobjectivity (labeled “New Building” [“Nieuwe Bouwen”], Justus van Effenstraat also presents an example ofBrinkman’s application of Theosophical studies. As aleader in the Dutch Theosophical movement, Brinkmansaw the careful observing of life—everyday life as the

container of meaning—as central to his attempt toransform society. This approach distanced him fromother architects in the Theosophical Society, particularlythe Vâhana Lodge in Amsterdam, which focused onabstract, numeric and geometric systems to achieve auniversal aesthetic that would evolve “new” connectionsto the dormant potential of humans through abstractmeans. For Brinkman, maintaining a clear objectivepurpose while emphasizing the particular, individualability to live provided the stimulus for design to touchspirit.

ABSTRACTION AND THEOSOPHY:SOCIAL HOUSING IN ROTTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS

Ken Lambla University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Figure 1. Aerial photograph showing a portion of the Spangenpolder. Justus van Effenstraat is located upper-center withnewly painted white walls inside the courtyard. J. J. P. Oud’sprojects are to the right and above; “alcove-dwellings” in theforeground with pitched roofs.

He was not alone among architects at this time in theNetherlands searching for alternative social and spiritualgoals in spite of Dutch neutrality during World War I.Through the debate over the Stock Exchange competition(1885-1898) in Amsterdam, H.P. Berlage fought hard toinstill confidence in a modern, rational approach tocounter the comfort gained through eclecticism. Berlagealso spoke at length and with elaborate conviction fromthe 1880’s about the loss of transcendent valuesarchitecture suffered since the Renaissance. Other Dutcharchitects such as J.L.M. Lauweriks, K.P.C. de Bazel, andH.J.M. Walenkamp joined Berlage in a call for a“practical aesthetics,” but it was Berlage who insisted thatthe architect who abandons style in favor of geometryloses “unity in diversity.”

Berlage was not a Theosophist, but these uniquely Dutchdebates about the significance and application of rationalsystems are central to Brinkman’s concern about theincreasingly distant way in which occupants of Rotterdamrelated to each other. As opposed to the Beaux Artsdesign models he learned from Henri Evers at theRotterdam academy, the Academie voor BeeldendeKunsten en Technische Wetenschappen, Brinkman soughtto engage a form of social realism and human contact atJustus van Effenstraat.

Brinkman envisioned a process whereby opening theperimeter block, providing places of meeting, andcreating a second “street” in the form of the gallery, mightunify the occupants. For the Theosophist each instancewas an opportunity to reveal oneself and be exposed toother people. This unveiling is a precondition to“brotherhood.”

His was not a behaviorist dream or functionalistmaneuver, but an impetus to enact individual will withinthe collective unity of the community. This process mightappear to follow the function of geometric abstraction asdescribed by fellow Theosophist and painter PietMondrian: “Abstraction is the reducing of (individual)particularities to their intrinsic universal aspect.”1

However, whereas Mondrian sought to distance himselffrom the “concrete,” and therefore subjective, conditionof humankind, Brinkman sought total immersion in thefabric of life and all its willfulness.

As happened in the case of Justus van Effenstraat,abstraction in architecture was quite distinct fromabstraction in art; the operation (mutation) may appear

similar, but the impetus and process differ. Brinkman’ssearch for “universal” or “absolute” value in architectureis dependent on the everyday life of its occupants. Withinthis everyday life, occupants tangle with layers ofarchitectural determinacy, both spiritual and material. Tothem life occurs as small steps and occasions rather thanas transcendent leaps into new horizons.

OCCUPYING JUSTUS VAN EFFENSTRAAT

In 1921 the new residents began moving into Justus vanEffenstraat. They were, according to one of the firstresidents, “carefully chosen” to live in this project due toits radical form and social intent.2 The criteria forresidency combined income, political affiliation, familystability, and progressiveness. Civil servants and factoryworkers (both were recognized as not being part of thelowest class in the Netherlands) were chosen by the CityHousing Department for what was considered some of the

best housing available in Rotterdam.3

The residents of Rotterdam were good merchants, andeven better workers, thus frugality and conviviality weremeasured as a “cost” by occupants, developers, architects,and politicians alike. In a 1921 survey by H.P. Berlage ofcontemporary examples of “social housing,” the plan typeand costs for various projects built since 1915 in Hollandwere presented and compared. Most projects kept rentslow, usually around f 4.00 per week, while those proposed

V7n2: Abstraction and Theosophy, Page 2

Figure 2. Photograph of the interior court of Justus vanEffenstraat showing the central bath and laundry building andgallery, with shops on the ground level.

in Spangen by J.J.P. Oud (the newly-appointed CityHousing architect, by recommendation of Berlage) andBrinkman were f 5.50 to f 6.75 per week.4 To build atthis cost difference one had to believe that architecturepromoted a better life.

Opposing these new “social housing” projects weredeveloper-built, perimeter- or row-blocks with “alcove”units, defined by the lack of a separate room for sleepingand common stairwells. Developers could sell verticalsections of the city when market conditions were good orwhen maintenance had been deferred beyond repair.However, these designs ignored the traditional, directconnection between dwelling and street. As a result,residents turned to hanging out of front windows tosurvey and thus “live” on the street, a practice eschewedas uncivilized (and unsafe) by housing officials. The

common stairs made public the political affinity of theoccupants. Socialist residents, popular but not powerful,were easily identified by the pamphlets seen in open mailslots or spread across the common stairs for retrieval.

At Justus van Effenstraat, each resident had their own,private door to the street, whether on the ground or on theraised “gallery” and the size and sill height of windowswere designed to maximize natural lighting andventilation but also to restrict potential “window hanging”so prevalent in older housing districts. In addition,sleeping alcoves were replaced by isolated bedroomsaccessed by internal, private stairs.

Brinkman had provided a powerful design that promotedsocial change, especially for those in the socialistmovement in this city of workers. Early residents

V7n2: Abstraction and Theosophy, Page 3

Figure 3. General plan of the Spangen polder showing Justus van Effenstraat project plan at left (inside box), surrounded by projectsdesigned by J. J. P. Oud. Plan dated 1939. Note Oud’s project, “Witte Dorp” in Oud-Mathensee to the left, and his repetitive blocks,“Tusschendijken” bottom, center. Also note the “Van Nelle” Factory at the top by Brinkman and Van der Vlugt (1925).

generally applauded the controversial broken perimeterblock, courtyard, elevators, common bath and laundry,individual garbage chutes, shops, central heating plant,front-door delivery of milk and vegetables, and 3000 footlong gallery. These attributes provided for common,everyday contacts that brought individual residents toacknowledge their social potential in the form of concreteengagement, interdependence, and visibility. Forexample, the central bathhouse was used almostcontinuously; working shifts at nearby docks and factoriesmade for constant need and the habit of bathing onSaturdays that has survived until today. These contactsdepicted life as fully integrated. This would appear tofulfill the simple promise of the selection criteria, butoccupying Justus van Effenstraat also confirmed that“outside” the self was a dimension of diversity (evenchaos!) that was connected with “inside.” The home wasseparate, but not secular, and residents saw in this dualitythe potential for continuity in both social and spiritualterms. The Theosophist spoke in similar manner of“exoteric” as expounding intellect, defended by reason,with the “esoteric” as the inner dimension of truth toSpirit.

Thus, residents of Justus van Effenstraat were alternatelyviewed as “appropriate” families, those who coulddemonstrate that changes in society were possible throughphysical arrangement; and those who might bepredisposed, possessing “gezelligheid,” which expresses afeeling of social contentment or comfort.5 This quietconfidence pervaded each exposure, contact, orpresentation of self within the courtyard and on the

V7n2: Abstraction and Theosophy, Page 4

gallery; and the loose enclosure defined by the openedcourt, vehicular access and raised walkway (gallery) wasequated with sociability by residents. It was no wonderthat photographs of families sitting or engaging the cartmen on the gallery were used to exemplify the success ofthe project.

Justus van Effenstraat presented a potential confluence—or conflict—at the time of its occupancy. Would the willof the residents, who confronted a European communitycontinually assailed as problematic due to risingindividualism, persist against the ultimate, and idealistic,intent of an architect, Michiel Brinkman, and his client,A. Plate, President of City Housing Services?

Figure 4. Existing “alcove housing” in the Spangen polder, backside view opposite Justus van Effenstraat.

Figure 5. Residents use the gallery as a public space and, insome cases, as an extension of their living quarters.

DEBATING JUSTUS VAN EFFENSTRAAT

City officials and other architects expected that in hisdesign of Justus van Effenstraat (begun in 1916)Brinkman would follow the plan for the Spangen districtmade in 1906, conforming to the primacy of the streetpattern by laying out two perimeter blocks with well-designed public facades and relatively narrow, privatecourtyards.6 However, Brinkman and Plate presentedsomething quite radical: one large block, broken invarious places to access an interior courtyard; doorsfacing inwards; a common washing and bathing “house”at the center; and, connected by seven common stairwells,a gallery at the second level which brought the street tohalf of the houses “in the air.” Plate reflected, in 1941, onthe intentions of his only built work with Brinkman: “Theinvisible world in which beauty lies hidden must again beable to establish contact with the regions in whicheveryday temporary happenings take place. . . . Everyday

V7n2: Abstraction and Theosophy, Page 5

life should be interwoven with beauty to such an extentthat there is no room for the idea of ‘art.’For that, art istoo special, it limits the domain of beauty.”7 In 1942Plate reiterated, “Auniversal religious atmosphere shouldpenetrate our everyday life. Society will have to be freefrom that which impedes the ties with supersensualinfluences.”8 These statements reveal why in Rotterdam,a city of workers run by conservative businessmen,Plate’s appointment was a surprise. His commitment tosocial harmony through new forms of collective housingwas not only against the tradition of alcove housingdevelopment but also opposed the use of land for gardensuburbs, which had begun in the “Heyplaat” area ofRotterdam in 1914. But Plate had considerableconnections established through his father-in-law, aformer mayor of Rotterdam, and his presentation of“scientific” categories of housing need justified therationale.

Figure 6. Site plan prepared by Brinkman for Justus van Effenstraat (1918). The bath and laundry block are at the center withadjacent shops on the ground floor. The gallery on the second floor connects all the parts and was originally accessed by sevenstairs and one elevator.

V7n2: Abstraction and Theosophy, Page 6

The public debate about housing in Spangen predated thedesign of Justus van Effenstraat by Brinkman. In 1916,Socialist city council member Hendrik Spiekman arguedthat municipal urban development was essential sinceprivate developers could neither meet demand nor strivefor improving conditions under the alcove dwellingmodel, which continued to be built until 1937.9

Brinkman’s idea would prove to be just the housingmodel Spiekman sought, although he died in 1917 beforeseeing its final design. By turning its back on the street itbecame a miniature city; Bakema would later called it ". .. a large house with many apartments.”10 It realized thedream of socialistic, communal housing policy, while atthe same time demonstrating Plate’s search for a scientificbasis of matching unit type with family size as theprerequisite for a truly “modern” architecture (Justus vanEffenstraat had 264 dwellings with 17 different,sometimes complicated, unit plans).11

The debate was furious and demonstrated how distant thegoals of Brinkman and Plate were, and the resonance ofthe demands made by Spiekman (who had died in 1917 atthe age of 43). On February 13, 1920, the RotterdamCity Council first saw the plans of Michiel Brinkman,along with other proposals for further development inSpangen polder. By that time the projects by J.J.P. Oudwere under construction on adjacent blocks. The councilrequested “proof,” on April 9, 1920, to establish the“suitability” of the gallery-street.12 But the criticismwent much further. By then the complex was feared byconservative and liberal members of Council alike: thegallery was considered a “no man’s land” that wouldrequire constant policing for garbage and young lovers’exploits on the stairways; household arguments wouldspill out onto the gallery only to conflict with its use fordeliveries and playing; merchants’carts could not passeach other because of the gallery’s narrow width; thewhole complex, with its flat roof, was “un-Dutch” andwould look too much like a barracks. Each critical voicewas a signal for the primacy of “individual” occupant andidiosyncratic everyday life.

During the April 15, 1920, discussion preceding formalapproval of Justus van Effenstraat, Social-DemocraticCouncilman A.W. Heijkoop defended the project as a“specific social-democratic invention.” His statementwould later prove fatal to his political career. Heijkoop

had been to Germany to study new housing models in aneffort to find an acceptable substitute to privatelydeveloped “alcove” housing. The “invention” was in theform of projects that emphasized collectivity throughcommon facilities and spaces. This stood in stark contrastto another prevailing “counterproposal” in the form of theVreewijk “garden suburb,” whose street plan was initiallylaid out by H.P. Berlage in 1916. While the gardensuburb presented an anti-urban environment appealing topeople who had just moved from the countryside, somepoliticians and businessmen argued for the futureindustrial city. In September, 1920, Heijkoop argued fora second open-court, raised-gallery project for Spangen,this one designed by the architect P.G. Buskens.Surprisingly, both observers and supporters of Brinkmanand Plate’s “experiment” were not yet prepared torelinquish the credibility of private developers or promotesuch ideal social plans until Justus van Effenstraat hadbeen proven. By 1922, Buskens was forced to redesignhis project to a perimeter-block scheme with privateinterior courts and Heijkoop resigned from City Council.

Evident throughout this debate is the dilemma ofindividual control and the representation of collective,unifying thought. Michiel Brinkman, by the time of thiscommission an experienced, well-known architect,portrayed Justus van Effenstraat as a search for, “a smallstep forward” where he ". . . tried a few of the advantagesof a single-family house within the conditions given andthe current (perceived and actual) conditions of the city(i.e., a long road, building societies, dwelling number).”He saw this work as an evolution in seeking balance forthe urban dweller in a tumultuous environment. This is acrucial distinction from the “invention” proclaimed byHeijkoop, which distanced - almost abstractly - theparticular contribution the project offered. For Heijkoop,Spangen existed as a radical experiment that wouldliterally model future behavior.

Justus van Effenstraat, in fact social housing in general,presented the opportunity to debate the distinctionbetween human will (abstraction, scientific method, andinvention) and ultimate progress (ideal, self-consciousness). Herein lies a parallel with Theosophy, ifonly in the sense that its idealism depends upon thehuman experience in various forms.

V7n2: Abstraction and Theosophy, Page 7

URBANISM AND ARCHITECTURE

The design of Justus van Effenstraat contributed to a newoptimism about architectural design and society. Inaddition, it fostered a simmering debate about therelations between residents and the street in the city.Reports about the project claimed it as a key symbol inthe Nieuwe Bouwen: it changed the relationship betweenhousehold unit and the public realm, moved the street intothe air, and provided a poignant example ofFunctionalism’s purpose and application. It would be aserious error, however, to see these strategies as unified ineither their point of origin or result. Brinkman struggledwith the balance between the monumental effect of Justusvan Effenstraat and the centrality of the individualoccupant as viewer of the city. These were the sameconcerns being professed by H.P. Berlage in his work onthe Amsterdam urban extension plans during those yearsBrinkman was traveling there for Theosophical Societymeetings.

Brinkman’s acquaintance with H.P. Berlage is almostassured. By 1918, when Brinkman was working inearnest on Justus van Effenstraat, the social program ofBerlage’s plan for Amsterdam-South had been recentlyapproved and van Epen’s first blocks were beingconstructed. By then Berlage had been passed over in thecompetition for the Rotterdam City Hall (1912) forreasons primarily associated with his being a recognizedsocialist, but had been working in Rotterdam on Vreewijk“garden suburb” (1916). Additionally, in 1918 Berlagewas invited to design the monument to the socialistSpiekman on the P.C. Hooftplein in Spangen, and

published his influential “Normalisatie in Woningbouw”in Rotterdam.13 In this work Berlage asserts the socialconscience of architecture through ". . . universality,regularity, ‘zakelijkheid,’and constructive rationalism.”14

While Justus van Effenstraat was being occupied in 1922,Berlage argued for a new plan he had prepared for theHofplein in Rotterdam before a committee of architectsincluding Brinkman, Buskens, and Meischke andSchmidt.15

Also in 1918, the young J.J.P. Oud was appointed asChief Architect of City Housing Services, and served inthis position until 1933. At the same time as Brinkman,Oud designed housing blocks on all three sides (on thefourth was a canal) surrounding Justus van Effenstraatand in the nearby area of Tusschendijken (1920); all ofthis housing was of a perimeter block type, confirmingboth the attention to “city spaces” and the strict separationof social spaces. In these projects he makes a firstattempt at artistic integration by employing GerritRietveld to design furnishings for a Spangen model home,and Theo Van Doesburg to consult on exterior bandsabove the plinth and door.16 From his position as ChiefArchitect, Oud was able to view and discuss otherprojects with Plate, namely Brinkman’s.

Independently, Oud and Berlage presented images of thecity unified by an abstract device, what Oud would latercall a “poetic functionalism.” They sought unity throughcalculated control and coherence, which limited the urbanexperience to the disposition of objects. They were lessromantic than Camillo Sitte (although Berlage was deeplyinterested), and more influenced by Peter Behrens andA.E. Brinckman, with the attempt to integrate art andarchitecture resulting in the building’s preciousness,untouched by the dirty hands of the user. “Unity” cameto be seen not as a conjoining of inside and outside but,rather, what the housing blocks were in themselves,isolated.

Although Brinkman and Berlage’s direct association isunconfirmed, the developing program for housing inRotterdam was certainly of mutual concern. By 1923,Brinkman had designed four new housing projects. Nonecontained galleries and all were closed, perimeter blocks.In the same year he became an aesthetic adviser for thedevelopment of the Mathenesserweg, the principleboulevard connecting Rotterdam-West (includingSpangen) with the older part of the city. Perhaps

Figure 7. The interior courtyard at one of Oud’s perimeter blocksat Tussendijken.

V7n2: Abstraction and Theosophy, Page 8

Berlage’s influence convinced Brinkman of the superiorsignificance of the “bouwblok”the impression of whichunifies and beautifies the social order. This order forcedthe spiritual further inward, both in denial of theindividual architect’s expression and in the resident’sacceptance of a clear distinction between inside andoutside (private courtyard and public street). The openedblock of Justus van Effenstraat was courageous notbecause of a grand socialist ideal of Brinkman, butbecause of his confidence that the transition could bemade by the occupants between inner thought andoutwardness, experience, and contact. This is animportant difference, but one overlooked in subsequentabstractions of collective housing and everyday life.

PRAGMATISM AND THEOSOPHY

Against the irrational fear that the collective character ofthe Justus van Effenstraat block would lead to alienationand misconduct stood the pragmatism of MichielBrinkman. By the time he began work on Justus vanEffenstraat, Brinkman had developed an extensivepractice and network of civic positions. He was educatedby the future, albeit controversial, winner of theRotterdam City Hall competition, Henri Evers, at the“Academy of Plastic Arts and Technical Science.”Through Evers, Brinkman was exposed to a rationally-based curriculum using Cuypers and Viollet-le-Duc asbackground to what would evolve into a “practicalclassicism.”17 Neither the courtyard or the gallery wasunusual in this formal oeuvre of Brinkman or toRotterdam. (He seems unaware of the proliferation ofboth courtyard and gallery schemes in the UnitedKingdom and in the form of the familistère in Belgium.)

Brinkman had also completed significant industrialprojects, designing warehouses, grain silos, and factories,which brought him into contact with many of Rotterdam’smost important business and civic leaders. He, unlike the“excessively” socialist Berlage, was among those invitedin 1912 to the City Hall competition. He also belonged tomany professional organizations, De RotterdamscheKring (The Rotterdam Circle) and De Opbouw (TheBuilders) being the best known. These helped him “tolook out for the city” of Rotterdam.

Brinkman conceived of his work as a contribution to thelife of the citizens, whom he saw as his neighbors. InJustus van Effenstraat there was a clear attempt to

demonstrate an “essence” or “naturalistic pragmatism”that improved both individual and collective lives. This,however, was not dogmatically or theoretically pressedupon the occupants; they were to realize, throughcommon necessity, the opportunity that lay before them.Necessity, however, was not simple or direct convienenceor proximity.

Pragmatism, for Brinkman, was represented throughthought and gesture as seen in the basic layout of Justusvan Effenstraat. Rather than designing two separatehousing blocks, Brinkman sought to make the “back” sidemore pleasant and increase the depth of each unit. Theblocks assigned to Brinkman were longitudinal to thenorth-south axis, thus by opening the interior, morenatural light was available. The gallery permittedeveryone visual and acoustic access to the interiorgarden.18 He wrote, “It is in the integrated facility—afeeling of togetherness through their common interests—everyone has to ‘agree’to function and maintain thefacility.” Brinkman trusted that feeling, “I hope I made atotal in which these people could live agreeably in adense neighborhood. I hope they will like it. It willdepend upon the behavior of these first occupants [tomake it successful] and then the next generation.”19 Foralmost 50 years, it did succeed.

Even before the defeat of Buskens’s similar project inSpangen, Brinkman was commissioned to design two newhousing projects in developing areas of Rotterdam. Bothwere designed during the construction of Justus vanEffenstraat and demonstrated Brinkman’s rational method,typological complexity, and situational fit. Neither,however, attempted to repeat the occupied interiorcourtyard or common facilities of the Spangen project.Perhaps even Brinkman had to test his will.

The impression one receives of Michiel Brinkman aspragmatic architect disguises, however, anothersignificant aspect of his personal development whichtempers an interpretation of his practice as the skilledapplication of rational, scientific rule. Michiel Brinkmanwas a long-standing member in the Dutch TheosophicalSociety, and rose through its ranks to be elected to thenational board and was nominated for the nationalpresidency. In the July 1903 issue of the publicationTheosophische Vereeniging: Nederlandsche Afdeeling[Theosophical Society: Netherlands Section],MichielBrinkman is first listed as the chairman of the Rotterdam

V7n2: Abstraction and Theosophy, Page 9

Lodge. His role, however, is not simply one of presider,since he conducted “study-classes” on Friday evenings onH.P. Blavatsky’s The Secret Doctrine (1888). Recordsshow that Brinkman maintained the position of chair ofeither the Rotterdam or Besant Lodge, Rotterdam,through at least 1919, while he was designing Justus vanEffenstraat. During this period Brinkman presentedlectures to broaden people’s understanding of Theosophysuch as “The Study of the Consciousness” (1908), and“General Theosophical Study” (1910), as well as hostingmeetings at the Rotterdam Circle between 1918 and1920.20 In 1916, Brinkman is listed as a possible juror,along with Mondrian, for a new cover for Theosophia.21

Theosophical Society lodge meetings occurred in citiesand towns throughout the Netherlands, forming the coremethod for the promulgation of Theosophy in variousarenas. In Amsterdam, at the Vâhana Lodge, begun byDe Bazel, Lauweriks, and Walencamp in 1896, classes indrawing, art history and aesthetic theory wereconducted.22

In Rotterdam, in contrast, programs focused on a broadrange of topics: spirituality, the Bible, and ethics. Thesehad titles such as, “Art, Idolatry and Philosophy,”“Theosophy and Socialism,” and “Practical Theosophy.”Through these engagements Brinkman reaffirmed theinseparable nature of social involvement and individualself-formation, demonstrated at Justus van Effenstraat.This was the connection, or unification, which detractors

could not, or would not, accept. Their fear and charges ofpotential immorality depended upon an exaggeratedattempt to restrict spiritual development to inward actions- secular at best, manipulable at worst. This wasconsonant with Calvinist moralism, which put a premiumon dwelling within through secrecy and privacy.

Clearly, Brinkman’s work was fully engaged with hisvalues and beliefs. Rationality was a formal construct toinform the product measured ultimately in terms not of itsaffect on a client, but with a client. This process wasdemonstrated in his extensive work for the Van Nelletobacco, coffee and tea company, culminating with thecompletion of the icon of the Nieuwe Bouwenmovement, the Van Nelle Factory, in 1931 by Brinkman’sson, Johannes, and Leen van der Vlugt. MichielBrinkman, however, began work for the Van Nelle firm asearly as 1912, first with some office and industrialrenovations and later, in April 1916, he made the firstsketches for a new factory on the banks of the canalDelfshavensche Schie, immediately north of the Spangenpolder. Undoubtedly, this work brought Brinkman intocontact with C.H. (Kees) van der Leeuw, whose familyhad been proprietors of the van Nelle business since1837. Van der Leeuw, whose induction in May 1912 intothe Order of the Star while traveling in the United States,began a lifelong commitment to Theosophical ideals andwas also active in the Rotterdam Circle, the BesantLodge, and the Ommen Camps.

Whereas Brinkman and van der Leeuw are central to theTheosophical movement’s development in Rotterdam, itis their balance between esoteric (relating to the occult)with exoteric (in this case human “brotherhood”) that ismost important. It is at this juncture that theTheosophical interpretation of Brinkman and van derLeeuw toward pragmatism based in human need becomesan “absolute” demand—a form of essence into itself.This is interpreted through van der Leeuw’s critique of DeBazel’s plan for the Van Nelle office in Amsterdam(1916), and his embrace of Brinkman’s early concern forlight and functional expression in his factory plans.23

Unfortunately, Michiel Brinkman’s early death in 1925prevented both his completion of the Van Nelle projectand the further development of the Theosophical groundhe and van der Leeuw shared.Figure 8. Photograph of Justus van Effenstraat during

construction showing the underside of the pre-cast concretegallery as well as the passages through the “broken block”.

V7n2: Abstraction and Theosophy, Page 10

EXTENSIONS OF JUSTUS VAN EFFENSTRAAT

In 1923, Adolf Loos, proponent of the strict divisionbetween public and private, proposed a housing projectfor Vienna with large, communal terraces which weremeant to function as raised streets and meeting places.“Each person possesses his own entrance with his ownoutdoor space where he can sit at the end of the day andtake in some fresh air. It is possible for children to playon the terrace without worrying about being hit by a car. .. . My tranquil and protected terraces give the childrenthe possibility of spending the whole day out of doors,near their apartment and under the neighbors’surveillance.”24 The next gallery access housing inRotterdam does not appear until after Michiel Brinkman’sdeath, when “de Mathenesserhof” is built in 1926 by DeRoos & Overeynder, a few blocks from Justus vanEffenstraat. Later, gallery-access housing was designedand built in Moscow (1928, Ginzburg and Milinis),Berlin-Siemensstadt (1929, Gropius), Warsaw (1930-31,Brukalscy and Szanajca). In London “balcony”-accesshousing had been built as far back as 1850 and continuestoday, with the project in Highgate (1932, Wells Coates)most clearly representative of Brinkman’s influence.With the rise of the Nieuwe Bouwen in the Netherlands,though, Brinkman’s son’s firm produced one of the moststriking examples of gallery-access housing inBergpolderflat (1934) in Rotterdam, with W. van Tijen.

Many of these projects have served as evidence of thefailure of functionalism; but with these examples modernarchitects sought to accentuate the role of neutrality as an

abstraction of everyday life. Loos was concerned notwith social agenda or political affiliation, but rather apurification of place which assumes that the inner self isfree to inhabit and grow as needed (privately). AtBergpolderflat one sees the “raised street” extended to aconstructional aesthetic and economic demand, divorcingintention from the action of residents.

Abstraction is seen here as an end unto itself; its use is asa representational force—an essence—as opposed to theexercise of will. With benefit of hindsight, HermanHertzberger noted, “The connection between thesecomponents (family units, gallery, bouwbloks) as a resultof their situation is an abstract relation which, through thelack of plastic recognizability of the parts—the blocks—can never belong to an order other than one abstractedfrom society.”25 Willfulness must be connected topeople’s contact with each other, not their separation.

ESOTERIC ABSTRACTION

It is, then, contact with human will which represents thesubject for Michiel Brinkman; it is this subject that cannotbe made objective, nor autonomous, nor denied byabstraction.

In February 1921, J.J.P. Oud gave a lecture to theRotterdam “Opbouw” group in which he establishedhimself not only as a significant contributor to “De Stijl,”but also as a strict proponent of functionalism.26 Oudhad corresponded with Piet Mondrian beginning inJanuary 1920, and the two engaged in a debate on thediffering roles, attachments, and results of art andarchitecture. They agreed on one thing: that puritythrough neo-plasticism was the goal of both disciplines.This created an simplistic similarity in the operationsinvolved in creating both painting and building.However, in a letter to Oud begun in the summer of 1925,Mondrian describes an important principle of their search,". . . an essay on ‘the subject must be banished from

art.”27

Mondrian concludes, after struggling toward purity andagainst naturalism, that the “subject”—naturalrepresentation—must be abolished if any truly pure art orarchitecture is to be produced. Thus, the “subject” ismade neutral in assessing the influence of person to abuilding, to a neighbor, and to a street or courtyard. ToFigure 9. Bergpolderflat block (1934), by W. van Tijen.

V7n2: Abstraction and Theosophy, Page 11

Brinkman, this abolition was the very subject of hisarchitecture!

Risking too literal an interpretation, Justus van Effenstraatmight be presented as an unveiling of the unity present inhumankind, referred to as “collectivity.” The opencourtyard and entry portals reveal the potential hidden inthe perimeter block arrangement; in Oud’s Spangen andTusschendijken blocks the inner remains locked inside.For Brinkman, the courtyard, with the communalbathhouse at its center, was seen as an inside full of life-sharing, connected parts in which “brotherhood”—theTheosophist’s ultimate goal—could be demonstrated.

While this assessment of Justus van Effenstraat isadequate to explain the positivistic tendencies (“logos”)of early modern Dutch architecture, it leaves unansweredhow Brinkman arrived at such a radical, syntheticproposal. For Brinkman, having conducted study sessionson The Secret Doctrine,contact with the practice, ratherthan aesthetic, of architecture results in assessing methodsnecessary to engage the work—and the occupants—ofbuilding. It is through practice and discipline thatBrinkman develops complex unit typology, sitespecificity, and economic justification; each attributeaccommodates the variety of resident. These are not themeans to remove the subject from architecture.

The method Brinkman applies he has learned from hisstudies in Theosophy. Madame Blavatsky acknowledgesHegel’s reliance on mysteriousness to explain the relationbetween subject and object, inner and outer, and self andworld. The abstract concept of the “first moment” iscounterbalanced by a concrete, particularizing element.Brinkman may be understood as giving only provisionalstatus to the concepts of unity, rationalism, and opennesswhich he learned both academically and practiced inprevious, typologically similar offices and urbancomplexes. Instead, he awaited the experience of theresidents of Justus van Effenstraat.28 He was not fearfulof their “filling in” the project with their own experience,conflict, and encounters with the world outside.

The abstract, then, is not positioned as a “bridging”device, but rather an opposition to the absolute, whereactive engagement of the will brings about newpossibilities.29 By neutralizing the subject, abstractionnullifies the very goal of Theosophy to see humanexistence as a totality and return the true powers of

humanity both to individuals and the collective body. TheTheosopher starts with the personal, individual event.Brinkman saw Justus van Effenstraat, in fact, as an“integrated facility” that encouraged "a feeling oftogetherness through their common interests.” But whatconstitutes the common does not necessarily cause unity,and empowers the dualism of absolute reality.

This approach defines the Dutch heritage in paradoxesthat arise from living in the material world.30 Brinkmanis seen here as a modern architect precisely because of hiswillingness to accept that his decisions were the result ofcomplex possibilities within the traditions he had learned.In this case, Brinkman saw Justus van Effenstraat as itpresented experience. “We understand a building only ifour experience is persuasive for us: only if it occupies aplace in which we can feel its relation to the workings ofthe moral life.”31

Brinkman’s work is not that of an authoritarian,transcendent architect who is seeking to neutralize humandistinction as a reaction to material indifference or cosmictragedy. If the Modern sought to restrict, albeit for higherground, the subjective nature of self, then Justus vanEffenstraat must be seen in new terms. Rather thandefining collectivity as sameness, one may seek unity infleeting, but enduring, everyday encounters. This wasBrinkman’s absolute test of unity.

Figure 10. “Brahmshof” housing, Zurich, Switzerland (1995),Kuhn, Fischer and Partner Architekten AG. Showing the interiorcourt with steel-framed galleries and access stairs as recentlyconstructed.

REFERENCES

The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of Peter Luthi and Ria Niclaes in providing critical and local insight into the subjectscontained in this paper. For many years they have welcomed my inquiry and nurtured my direction.

1 P. Mondrian, “Abstract Art,” Art of This Century, exhibition catalogue from the Art of this Century Gallery, New York, ed. by PeggyGuggenheim in October 1942, draft version.

2 Interview with Ms. J.M.B. de Bruijn-Minnes, March 1995, one of the first residents of Justus van Effenstraat.

3 Rob Dettingmeijer, “The fight for a well built city,” Het Nieuwe Bouwen in Rotterdam, 1920-1960 (Delft, 1982), 28-29. The “BurgdorferReport of 1912” outlines the classification of various occupant groups and the different methods of assessing housing plans according to threegeneral categories: “Able-bodied workers; Less able-bodied persons; and Physically unfit persons.” It goes beyond the scope of this paper toundertake an analysis of how these categories were defined and the strategies and priorities devised, but the increasingly scientific definition ofhousing needs was an important component of “new objectivity.”

4 H.P. Berlage, A. Keppler, W. Kromhout and J. Wils, Arbeiderswoningen in Nederland(Rotterdam, 1921).

5 “Gezelligheid” is exclusively Dutch and without direct translation into English. It signifies not being dependent upon a group, and is subjective,describing one’s personal feelings. Similarly, it should not be confused with “gezellschap” (Dutch) or “Gesellschaft” (German), or “gemeenschap”(Dutch) or “Gemeinschaft” (German). While treatises abound on the German usage, for the purposes of this essay the Dutch implies distinctions ofsize, intent, and internal/external implication. Acknowledgment is given to Rianne Verhoef for detailed explanation of these qualities as well asMs. J.M.B. de Bruijn-Minnes for confirming their overt use at Justus van Effenstraat.

6 Following the Census of 1900 and the Housing Act of 1902, the plan for Spangen provided by de Jongh in 1903 presents the opportunity to relatethe debate from the expansion plan for Amsterdam South to the very different context of Rotterdam. The pattern described relating streets toperimeter block housing originates in the presentations made by H.P. Berlage in 1883 and 1894, “Amsterdam and Venetie. Schets in verband metde tegenwoordige veranderingen van Amsterdam,” Bouwkundig Weekblad 3, no. 34 (1883): 217-219; and “Bouwkunst en impressionisme,”Architectura2, no. 22 (1894): 109-110. While derived from Sitte (1889) and Stubben (1890), it is the work of A.E. Brinkman, Platz undMonument als Kunstlerisches Formproblem (Berlin, 1908), which articulates the planning basis used in the Spangen district in Rotterdam. For areview of this history in Rotterdam see, L.J.C.J. van Ravesteyn, Rotterdam in de negentiende eeuw(Rotterdam, 1924).

7 J.P. Bakema, “Ahouse for 270 families in Spangen,” Forum 15 (1960-61): 194-195.

8 Ibid., 195.

9 Handelingen van den Gemeenteraad van Rotterdam(17 February 1916), 211-215.

10 Bakema, “Ahouse for 270 families in Spangen,” 194.

11 “Woningbouw Spangen, Justus van Effenblok,” Rotterdam Kunststichting115, pt. 3(1991).

12 Register op de Verzameling van Gedrukte Stukken 114 (9 April 1920): 421-423.

13 Private correspondence between Berlage and A.B. de Zeeuw, 16 October 1918, contained in the archives at the Netherlands ArchitectureInstitute, Rotterdam. Further correspondence between Berlage and de Zeeuw continues on 22 and 23 December 1919; and with Meischke &Schmidt on 3 November 1919.

14 H. Searing, “Berlage and Housing, ‘the most significant modern building type’,” in H.P. Berlage: 1856 -1934 (Bussum, 1975), 165.

15 “Het Hofplein te Rotterdam,” De Bouwereld 21, no. 19 (10 May 1922): 146-148.

16 J.J.P. Oud, “Gemeentelijke Volkswoningen, Polder ‘Spangen’, Rotterdam,” Bouwkundig Weekblad. 41, no. 37 (11 September 1920): 219-222

17 J. P. Baeten and K. Schomaker, Michiel Brinkman: 1873- 1925, Bibliografieen en oeuvrelijsten van Nederlandse architecten enstedebouwkundigen(Rotterdam, 1995): 10-12.

18 “Volkswoningbouw Te Rotterdam in Den Polder ‘Spangen’, Architect M. Brinkman,” Bouwkundig Weekblad 41, no. 8 (1920): 45-50.

19 “Galerijbouw in Der Polder Spangen,“ Rotterdam Jaarboecke(1923), xlii- xlv.

20 De Theosofische Beweging1, no. 1 (1 January 1905) and vol. 16, no. 2 (February 1920).

21 K.P.C. de Bazel was also nominated and finally chosen. Mondrian was, perhaps, not chosen because of his rejected article (his first and only)for this journal. See De Theosofische Beweging12, no. 1 (1916).

V7n2: Abstraction and Theosophy, Page 12

V7n2: Abstraction and Theosophy, Page 13

22 K.P.C. de Bazel and J.L.M. Lauweriks became members of the Theosophical Society in Amsterdam on 31 May 1894, and published woodcuts in1894-95 in Licht en Waarheid .

23 F. Kauffmann, “Kees van der Leeuw,” Wiederhall 14: Leen van der Vlugt, ed. E. Adriaansz, J. Molenaar, and J. Meuwissen (Amsterdam,1993).

24 A. Loos, “Die moderne Siedlung,” Der Sturm (February 1927).

25 H. Hertzberger, “Three better possibilities,” Forum15 (1960-61): 193

26 J.J.P. Oud, Bouwkundig Weekblad 42, no. 21 (11 June 1921): 159.

27 H. Holzman and M. S. James, “After De Stijl: 1924-38, ‘Purely Abstract Art (1926)’,” in The New Art—The New Life: The Collected Writingsof Piet Mondrian (Boston, 1986), 198.

28 A. Faivre, “Book One: Approaches to Western Esoteric Currents; Part One, II B: Some Key Concepts; Theosophy,” in Access to WesternEsotericism(Albany, 1994).

29 The ideas of absolute and abstract are further explained by Henri Lefebvre in two books: Critique of Everyday Life, translated by John Moore(New York, 1991), originally published as Critique de la vie quotidienne(Paris, 1947); and The Production of Space, translated by DonaldNicholson-Smith (Cambridge, 1991), originally published as Production de l’espace (Paris, 1974). Lefebvre presents a dependent relationshipbetween relative (real) and absolute (apparent) knowledge. While Lefebvre acknowledges that natural and social space comes into being by beinginhabited by a “higher reality,” he distinguishes absolutefrom abstractspace. “Absolute space, religious and poltical in character, was a product ofthe bonds of consanguinity, soil and language, but out of it evolved a space which was relativized and historical.” “Abstract space functions‘objectally’, as a set of things/signs and their formal relationships: glass and stone, concrete and steel, angles and curves, full and empty. Formaland quantitative, it erases distinctions. . .” Lefebvre, The Production of Space, 48-49.

30 S. Schama, An Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age (Berkeley, 1988); and, in his review of the1995 Mondrian exhibition. He notes, “. . . the struggle between matter and spirit (Carnival and Lent); between the local and the universal; betweenthe parochial flatlands of the Low Countries and the cultural imperialism of Paris; between the humanism of Erasmus and the mortifications ofCalvin,” The New Yorker (9 October 1995).

31 R. Scruton, “Expression and Abstraction,” The Aesthetics of Architecture (Princeton, 1979), 205.

Copyright 1998 by Ken Lambla

Material appearing in Architronic may be distributed freely by electronic or any other means, providing that any such distribution iswithout charge (unless for purposes of cost recovery by interlibrary loan services) and that Architronic is acknowledged as thesource. However, no article may be reprinted in any publication without the explicit written permission of the author(s). Thisstatement must accompany all distributions of Architronic, whether complete or partial.