Preface

to the theme issue 'Estate Landscapes'

Estate landscapes in Gelderland

The Province of Gelderland has long boasted a large number of country houses and landed estates, which over time coalesced into estate landscapes around the historical capitals of the Duchy of Guelders quarters of Nijmegen, Arnhem and Zutphen. Rapidly increasing urbanization from the end of the nineteenth century onwards threatened the coherence and accessibility of these landscapes. Gelderland’s largest cities, Arnhem and Nijmegen, watched in dismay as many country houses and landed estates fell victim to subdivision and development. In response they started to buy up portions of that estate landscape to ensure that they would remain available to city dwellers. In addition, the ‘safety net’ provided by newly established nature and landscape organizations, in particular Natuurmonumenten and Geldersch Landschap & Kasteelen, also contributed to preservation and permanent accessibility by offering landed families the opportunity to keep their estate intact, albeit no longer under their ownership. Similar motives – the need to preserve attractive, accessible walking areas for the increasingly urbanized society – underpinned the government’s introduction of the Nature Conservation Act in 1928. The Act was invoked more frequently in Gelderland than in any other province. It promoted the opening up of private properties as well as the preservation of the cultural value of the kind of ‘natural beauty’ to be found on landed estates. After the Second World War, in addition to resorting to the Nature Conservation Act, the owners of country houses and landed estates could avail themselves of an increasing variety of grants aimed at preserving (publicly accessible) nature, landscape and heritage, although the emphasis was firmly on nature. Estate landscapes like the Veluwezoom and the County of Zutphen were eventually safeguarded by a patchwork of different government regulations. In the twenty-first century, government policy shifted towards providing financial support for both public and private contributions to nature, landscape and heritage by country houses and landed estates. This in turn has stimulated interest in estate landscapes. Instead of individual heritage-listed estates, the focus is now on areas with multiple country house and landed estates where there are spatial tasks waiting to be fulfilled: not just the preservation of natural beauty for outdoor recreation, but also spatial articulation, climate change adaptation, increased biodiversity and sustainable agriculture. Interest in design, both past and present, has burgeoned thanks to this development.

The social geography of the estate landscape in Gelders Arcadië

For many centuries, the landscape and cultural history of the Netherlands have been influenced by the rural estates of large landowners. Their country houses with gardens, parks and farmland formed an important combination of practical aspects of economic management and aesthetic landscaping. Many castles or country houses were linked to large landholdings of several hundred, sometimes even thousands of hectares, as in the case of the Veluwezoom in the Province of Gelderland. Since the late Middle Ages this area, now known as Gelders Arcadia, has been popular with the landed elite, whose ranks have included noble families, stadtholders, city regents and bankers. The undulating landscape, the rivers and brooks and the fertile land was ideally suited to the creation of the desired combination of productive and aesthetic landscapes. One of the special aspects of the Gelders Arcadia estate zone is that it represents nearly every stage in the development of the Dutch country estate, from the emergence of castles and lordships (c. 500-1600), to the foundation of small country retreats by town regents (c. 1600-1800), and the creation of villa-like country estates for a new elite of bankers, industrialists and lawyers (c. 1800-1940). The historic country houses and landed estates are manifestations of their time and therefore very diverse, ranging from transformed noble castles with large landholdings to the rural retreats of town regents to villa-like country houses for the newly wealthy. Not only the architecture of the house and park, but also the use, the anchoring in the cultural landscape and the social significance underwent development. A historical-geographical approach was used to analyse location and distribution patterns and to investigate the size, character and functions of country estates in each period from an economic, political, societal and social perspective. It appears that the majority of new country houses and estates were created by a new elite of the newly rich, whereas the old elite continued to invest in their ancestral properties. The motivation to invest in the establishment of a country seat differed per period. The landed and country estates featured both economic and aesthetic landscapes, although the former were less prominent in later periods. This socio-historical-geographical approach has given us a better understanding of the various processes of estate creation, transformation and adaptation through time – knowledge that can also be used to reach well-founded decisions in the 21st century. The geographical approach for Gelders Arcadia has resulted in improved spatial policies through: 1. Attention to the entirety of country estates (rather than only those with listed status); 2. A focus on the country estate as a cohesive heritage ensemble, including an understanding of the social, economic, landscape and political factors that contributed to its development and design; 3. Recognition that the estates, thanks to their large number and individual sizes and qualities, have formed and will continue to form an important basis for the character of the living environment.

Future-proofing estate landscapes

Climate change and urbanization have substantial ramifications for the management and protection of cultural-historical landscapes. This is especially true for historical estate landscapes – landscapes whose character is defined by several historical castles, country houses (along with their gardens and parks), and landed estates – where climate change adaptation constitutes a major task. Issues of concern include an excess or shortage of water and changes to vegetation as a result of rising temperatures. That pressure is compounded by increasing urbanization and the associated recreational needs. These landscapes are also susceptible to spatial fragmentation due to urbanization, changes in ownership, changes in function, and so on. Combatting these pressures calls for a future-oriented design approach that deals sensitively with historically valuable landscape characteristics. It involves safeguarding the spatial quality of estate landscapes by striking a new balance between utility value (economic exploitation), amenity value (identity and familiarity), and future value (ecological sustainability). Such is the complexity of the task that a regional perspective is required in order to fully comprehend the cohesion and systemic relations between individual country estates and to develop a common basis for collaboration. This article proposes a landscape-based regional design approach aimed at understanding and designing future-proof estate landscapes. It details a preservation-through-development strategy based on spatial development in sympathy with historical landscapes structures in a process of meaningful stakeholder involvement. Key to this process is collaboration and co-creation with owners, experts, policy advisers and others. Design-based research is employed as a method for addressing the complex spatial tasks facing estate landscapes in an integrated and creative manner. Spatial design, at every level of scale, becomes a instrument for working out development strategies and principles for context-specific landscape formation. But also for highlighting possible solutions that can contribute to the protection and development of historical estate landscapes. In other words, this is not about opposing change or locking up the existing landscape, but about creating new landscape qualities through well-designed new developments. This coincides with a collaborative process in which stakeholders jointly weigh the pros and cons, learn and come up with solutions. The combination of substance, involvement and process makes the landscape-based regional design approach a powerful method for increasing the resilience and adaptability of the estate landscape and in so doing making this landscape future-proof.

Estate landscapes in the Netherlands

In the past, country house research was mainly concerned with individual houses and gardens. Yet, as early as the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, so many country houses were being built around the major cities that they came to define the landscape. Genuine estate landscapes took shape along several rivers (Amstel, Vecht), along the inner edge of coastal dunes, and on newly reclaimed land. In the middle of the seventeenth century, the rivers were augmented with a network of barge canals and soon they too were lined by a belt of country houses. The greatest density of country houses was to be found around Amsterdam, but other big cities in the provinces of Holland and Zeeland had their fair share as well. Access was mostly by water, but in some areas, especially in Zeeland, country roads performed this role. The majority of country houses were built on or next to a farm, which generally continued to exist and, in many cases, survived the country house. In a few areas, the evolving density of country houses has been traced in a detailed chronological record. In most cases it reveals progressive growth towards a high point in the first half of the eighteenth century, after which a gradual decline sets in. However, in a number of areas growth was much more rapid, in particular along the River Vecht. Sustained growth was followed by decline. In the final decade of the eighteenth century and the first decade of the nineteenth, large numbers of country houses were demolished and in many instances the land reverted to agriculture production. It appears that the decline set in earlier in Zeeland than in Holland, but regional differences in decline are not yet entirely clear. The second quarter of the nineteenth century saw the construction of a new generation of country houses, especially in the undulating sandy areas of the Utrechtse Heuvelrug and the southern part of the Veluwezoom, where railway lines provided access. The owners of this new crop of country houses laid out their gardens in the English landscape style. They also bought up vast, neighbouring heathlands from local councils or farmers and planted them with trees. As a result, these country houses are quite different in character from those of the earlier period. In the past the concentrations of country houses dominated the landscape and even today, wherever they have survived to a substantial degree they continue to represent an important landscape quality. As such, protection and management should not be confined to individual country houses but should extend to groups of country houses and their interrelationships (in the form of visual axes, for example). In recent years, a number of provinces have already set a good example by formulating policies for country house biotopes and linear estate landscapes.

Tuinarchitect Lucas Pieters Roodbaard (1782-1851) en de landschapsstijl

Book review of a book written by Rita Radetzky

Dutch research into the country house and its landscape

One of the unmistakable trends in current country house research is the growing interest in the landscape context of country houses. The unquestioned emphasis on the main house and the garden is increasingly giving way to an approach that includes or focuses on the wider setting: village, nature, town, infrastructure, farms, churches, and other country houses. This article sketches the rise of this approach and offers an overview of the various perspectives. Among the aspects covered by landscape studies are country house regions, choice of location, the productive landscape, infrastructure, the political landscape and the mental landscape. Although this growing interest in the landscape setting is one of the most important recent developments in country house research, most of these studies are predominantly descriptive. This article calls for the establishment of a firmer methodological and theoretical underpinning – a task to which it is to be hoped that future researchers will devote themselves.

The Netherlands’ first architectural couples: women architects in their own right?

In the period up to the end of the Second World War, 21 women in the Netherlands completed an academic architectural course. Five of these women married a fellow architect and conducted a joint architectural practice with their husband. These practices profited from the post-war reconstruction boom and, in the 1950s and ’60s, from the growing demand for housing and utilitarian buildings. Jannie Kammer-Kret, Toki Lammers-Koeleman, Jeanne van Rood-van Rijswijk, Koos Pot-Keegstra and Lotte Stam-Beese contrived to flourish in their chosen profession, and all had successful careers. The collaborative model embraced by these couples, which allowed the female partners to develop their potential to the full, was surprisingly emancipated for the time. Although a home-based office, with its combination of business with household and children, held obvious appeal for the woman, the initiative for such arrangements sometimes came from the husband. There were several variations on the respectful and equitable collaborative model, ranging from one in which each partner worked independently on their own commissions to one in which the melding of individual contributions was such that it was no longer possible to attribute designs to one or the other partner. What these models demonstrate is that the women architects did not need to depend on the name and fame of their husband but were perfectly capable of shaping their own career. The work of these women architects was strongly influenced by Nieuwe Bouwen principles as reflected in the application of a functionalist and sober formal idiom, averse to superfluous decoration. Unsurprisingly, given the professional circles they both frequented, their partners held similar architectural views. This undoubtedly contributed to mutual inspiration and possibly also to two-way influence. The output of women architects is astonishingly varied. These women responded to the spirit of the times and to the sometimes difficult economic circumstances by employing new types of dwellings, building materials and techniques, designing buildings for new groups of residents or by familiarizing themselves with the latest requirements of industrial clients or government bodies. Their portfolios encompassed commissions for utilitarian buildings as well as for the more predictable houses. Their household experience and practicality proved particularly useful in the design of private homes, residential aged care and schools, finding expression in efficient floor plans, modern furnishings and new, easy to clean materials. This is also evident in the home-cum-practice they designed for themselves, where they were able to give free rein to those principles.

Amersfoort’s city walls

The development of Amersfoort’s two city walls can be divided into five periods. The first city wall was built in the first period 1259-1379. Although Amersfoort had been granted a charter in 1259, construction of the wall did not commence until after a serious assault by troops from the duchy of Gelre (Geulders) in 1274. The defensive wall was made stronger on that side, probably in expectation of more attacks from that direction. Between 1380 and 1500 Gelre troops attacked Amersfoort on multiple occasions and offensive firepower increased. Interestingly, Amersfoort opted to build a second city wall rather than reinforcing the existing one, considerably increasing the size of the city in the process. However, the project proved difficult to finance, defend and maintain, most likely due to the stagnating economy. Instead of being demolished after the second wall was in place, the first wall was reinforced with abutting houses, thereby becoming a kind of rampart within a rampart. The new fortifications turned out to be ineffective and in 1501 the city council decided to demolish the first city wall. This freed up space for a second generation of wall houses, mostly built from reused stone and with their front elevation on the trajectory of the first wall, with the exception of the houses along Krankeledenstraat and the southern section of Breestraat. In this same period, up until 1644, there was an attempt to strengthen Amersfoort’s defences. Several fortification plans were drawn up, none of which was implemented in its entirety, most probably due to a lack of financial resources. The ramparts that were realized are concentrated in the south-west since in this period the possibility of a new Spanish incursion was greater than any threat from Gelre. In the third period, 1645-1828, the council’s approval of additional openings in the city wall marked the beginning of a gradual deterioration of the defensive works. They had always been a big budget item, yet they had not been particularly effective. Accordingly, the council decided to convert the fortifications into lucrative functions. The Davidsbolwerk, for example, was turned into a cemetery. The most extensive demolition probably started in 1778 when it was also decided to dismantle various outer and inner gates in the second city wall. By 1829 the fortifications had entirely lost their defensive function and the city council proposed converting the outer line into a green pathway encircling the city, which would have resulted in the disappearance of all remaining traces of the wall. However, this was averted in 1844 by a national ban on the demolition of fortifications and they were subsequently integrated with the walking route. City planners continued to submit applications for demolition but encountered fierce resistance from heritage organizations. In addition, many remnants avoided demolition because most urban expansion occurred outside the historical centre. This resulted in a concomitant shift in the economic focus so that the fortifications no longer needed to be sacrificed to industrial development. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, with appreciation for the heritage value of fortifications growing, money became available for their restoration and Amersfoort’s historical centre was declared a conservation area.

The Image of the City in Early Netherlandish Painting (1400-1550)

Book review of a book written by Jelle De Rock