
Preservation of the Rietveld building for the Rietveld Academy
Sign the petition at http://www.rietveldforrietveld.org/english
My friends of Experimental Jetset informed me about this very important matter. Please read the message bellow and SIGN the petition!
Two years ago, Dutch design legend Wim Crouwel delivered a lecture at the Bold Italic conference in Ghent. In his talk, Crouwel mentioned the fact that, more than anything else, his main source of influence (as student of Minerva Academy, Groningen) was actually the architecture of the Minerva building. More than the lessons, the teachers, his fellow-students, it was the building that influenced him.
He continued by saying that he selected the schools of his children based on the architecture of the buildings. A beautiful revelation.
These words are testament to a very simple fact: a building is not just an empty vessel. It is a designed object, a machine with a soul. The architecture of a school has an influence on the students, maybe a deeper influence than teachers will ever have. Surroundings are an essential part of any education.The current plans of the management of the Academy, to move the school out of its original building, are deeply disturbing. To break the bond between the Rietveld Academy and its roots is a shame. In Dutch, ‘doodzonde’. Once broken, this bond can never be fixed. It’s a mistake that can never be reversed.
In an article that was published in Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (on 30 April, 2009), the management explained their plans by referring to the lack of space. That there is a lack of space is undeniable, but moving to another building is not the solution. The lack of space is caused by the current increase of students; a more logical solution for the lack of space would be to control this increase of students. The Rietveld should stay a small, high-quality unit, not an anonymous factory of mass education.
On that note, we should keep in mind that the current economic situation will mean a decrease in students anyway. Due to the current crisis, it is more probable that the Rietveld will shrink, not grow, in the near future. The Rietveld should embrace this return to small-scaleness, and see it as an opportunity to invest in the quality of education, rather than the quantity.As a more important reason to move out of the original building, the article in De Volkskrant (30 April, 2009) mentions the desire to gentrify the ‘Bos en Lommer’ area in Amsterdam, a so-called ‘Vogelaarwijk’: a district that is part of a select group of districts known as the most problematic and poorest neighborhoods in The Netherlands. By locating the Rietveld academy to such a poor district, the reasoning goes, the district will be elevated to a higher standard. It’s pseudo-’thinking-out-of-the-box’ management logic of the worst kind: “Let’s dump some hipsters in there, to whiten things up a bit”.
It’s a way of reasoning that’s either terribly naive, or really patronizing. Poverty can only be solved by looking at underlying social-economic factors; it cannot be solved by moving an art academy to the “wrong side of town”.
However, a closer look reveals that this decision is not naive at all, but actually a very cynical money-making scheme. As we learn from the article in De Volkskrant, this whole plan has been thought up by the current director of the Rietveld Academy (who, as it happens, will leave the Academy in a short time), and the project developer in charge of the GAK building (the proposed future building of the Rietveld). As becomes clear in the article, the goal of this plan is to get a few millions of euros from the government and city council, to subsidize this gentrification project. This money will be used to buy the building from the project developer. (Keep in mind that this building was impossible to sell; it has been empty for many years now. In the Volkskrant article, the project developer mentions that, much to his regret, the building could not be demolished, as it is an official monument). Selling this otherwise unsellable building to the Rietveld Academy is a great way to get rid of the property and receive public money at the same time. This plan will probably mean big bonuses for all those involved. In plain Dutch, we call this GRAAICULTUUR (look it up).What’s more, the moment the Rietveld allows itself to be used as such an instrument of gentrification, it will have to relocate everytime the managers, politicians or developers decide it’s time to gentrify another neighborhood. The academy will turn into a disembodied entity, forced to change places every few years. A ghost school, without roots, without history, without future. A soulless Golem, growing for the sake of growing, moving for the sake of moving, without any purpose at all.
One final note. In the original article in De Volkskrant (30 April, 2009), the head of the Supervisory Board ridicules the current location of the Rietveld Academy, saying the school is much better off in a ‘multi-cultural environment’ such as Bos en Lommer. It’s a remark that shows extremely bad taste. The current location of the Rietveld is in fact a very interesting area, historically important for art, design and especially architecture. It’s an area that features such highlights as Berlage’s Plan Zuid, Duiker’s Open Air school, the Olympic Stadium and Citroen Garage by Jan Wils, and the Children’s Homes by Aldo van Eyck
Moreover, it is an area that is seen generally as a district that will have a great economic importance in the near future (see the entry on ‘Zuidas’ on Wikipedia). To dismiss this area as a district of crematoria (as the head of the Supervisory Board did) is deeply disturbing.
(We know it’s a cheap shot, but still we think it’s worth thinking about: if the director of the Rietveld, the project developer of the GAK building and the head of the Supervisory Board think it’s so important to gentrify the area of Bos en Lommer, why are they are not moving there themselves? Of course, this is something that will never happen. They rather locate a few busloads of students there).Further reasons can be found on the website.
Sign the petition at http://www.rietveldforrietveld.org/english
Thanks in advance!All the best,
The Rietveld Preservation Society.






— julia maria said,
May 21, 2009 at 12:38 am ∞
‘‘That there is a lack of space is undeniable, but moving to another building is not the solution. The lack of space is caused by the current increase of students; a more logical solution for the lack of space would be to control this increase of students. ‘‘
What do you mean with that? Education just for special people? And what about universal educational? Doesn‘t everybody desearves to study?
— Danny said,
May 22, 2009 at 3:52 pm ∞
Hello Julia Maria,
Everybody deserves to study, but not everybody has to study at the same academy. An academy doesn’t have to be forced to just grow and grow without limits. The idea of several smaller, flexible academies is much more interesting than the idea of one colossal factory of mass education.
If students are rejected at the Rietveld Academy, they can just go to one of the other art academies in The Netherlands, all of which are excellent. It’s a much healthier model: several small academies, not one big dominating academy.
Not “education just for special people”, but special education for everybody.This can only be achieved by downscaling, not upsizing.
— Michele Champagne said,
December 5, 2009 at 5:16 pm ∞
Hi Xavier,
Thanks for this post. I’m a Canadian-born designer and student at the Sandberg Instituut (Rietveld family and campus). And I live in Bos en Lommer. I was not aware of this discussion and a few things came to mind while reading about it.
Firstly, I do not find the Rietveld area very interesting. There are no galleries, community centers, cafes or restaurants nearby. Nor are there printers or hardware stores. And most of all: there are no people. It feels like a suburb or office park. After 17:00 the streets are empty. Personally, I’d rather spend time in Bos en Lommer than in the Rietveld area.
Secondly, I would agree with the idea that a building is not just an empty vessel. But I’m also of the opinion that buildings have no inherent meaning of their own. It is we who add meaning to them.
This reminded me of my earlier studies at the École secondaire De La Salle in Ottawa, Canada. Its a world renowned training center for gifted students and artistic achievers. But you wouldn’t know it from the building: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_secondaire_publique_De_La_Salle
Had my parents and I chosen a high school based on architecture, I would have missed the high-caliber education and faculty De La Salle had to offer. In the end, the building became a positive symbol of the most exciting and formative years of my life.
(It also reminded me of the time I spent studying at the Design Academy Eindhoven and its fascinating Witte Dame building. It was one of the most uninspiring and depressing years of my life.)
To finish, I think if The Rietveld Preservation Society wants to keep their location, they should work harder at solidifying their arguments. Their adage – of money grubbers uprooting artists from an inspiring area – is full of loopholes. I think they can do better and I wish them the best of luck.
Thanks again for the post.
Best, Michele
RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a Comment