De Dageraad, 1918 - The Social Housing Complex and the Amsterdam School Style

De Dageraad, 1918 The Socialist Housing Complex and the Amsterdam School Style

Genevieve Shymanski 4-8-2019 Professor Ipek TĂźreli ARCH 355

Shymanski - 1 As the Netherlands entered its industrial revolution in the late 1870s, sharp growth in population led to the decline of the living standards of the working class, as they were forced into overcrowded slums with poor hygienic conditions. With the working-class’ best interests in mind, the Social Democratic Workers Party (SDAP) gained power within the Dutch government and fought to inaugurate the National Housing Act of 1901 (the Woningwet), which improved public housing by regulating its architectural design through plans, façades, and their urban contexts.1 At the same time, a group of socialist architects formed the Amsterdam School, holding the belief that the betterment of society would be achieved by the integration of art with the built environment. They abstracted these ideas in their designs. The Amsterdam School thus flourished in the public housing sector between 1915 and 1926, as the emergence of the style simultaneously occurred with the need for reform in the urban identity of public housing. The work of the Amsterdam School responded well to this challenge, as its architects created designs that catered to the working class and promoted socialist ideals of unity, harmony, and collectivity.

In 1918, the founders of the Amsterdam School, Michel De Klerk and Pieter Kramer, were commissioned

by De Dageraad (The Dawn) Association to build De Dageraad housing complex. The project was placed in H. P. Berlage’s Plan Zuid, an urban expansion plan of Amsterdam’s South which was decreed by the Woningwet. The project included three hundred dwellings and six local shops, situated on the streets of P. L. Takstraat, Burgemeester Tellegenstraat, Henriette Ronnerplein, and Therese Schwartzeplein (Figure 1).

Within the realm of architecture, we often wonder what it means to possess architecture and whether it belongs to the architect, owner, or resident. Today, half of Amsterdam’s dwellings are owned by housing cooperatives or by the Municipal Housing Association of the Netherlands.2 However, in the city of canals, these

1

Helen Searing, “Amsterdam South: Social Democracy’s Elusive Housing Ideal,” Culture and the Social Vision, MIT Press VIA 4 (1980): 60.

2 Harm Grünhagen, “The Development of the Floor Plan,” in Atlas : sociale woningbouw Amsterdam = The Amsterdam social housing (Amsterdam : Amsterdamse Federatie van Woningcorporaties, 1992), 12.

Shymanski - 2

Figure 1 –Amsterdam South Site Plan. De Dageraad housing blocks are center.

Taken from Bernhard. Kohlenbach, Pieter Lodewijk Kramer : Architect van de Amsterdamse School, 1881-1961 (Naarden : V K, 1994), 72.

dwellings belong to the people. The Municipal Authority, De Dageraad society, De Klerk and Kramer were committed to creating an architecture for the working class, by the working class.

Guided by socialist ideals and the search for a new collective identity after the implementation of the Woningwet, the architects and association of De Dageraad housing complex strived to create a socialist utopia and improve the living standards of the working class. Contrary to the Pruitt-Igoe public housing project, built in the United States in 1954, De Dageraad complex was established in a socialist context where public housing developments and the interests of the working class were founded on the values of equality and unity. In comparison to the Pruitt-Igoe project, which failed under the capitalist system of the US, the context of De Dageraad allowed the housing development to succeed. Through a reconfiguration of the floor plan and urban

Shymanski - 3 community design, and by symbolizing unity and community in the façade of De Dageraad housing complex, Michel De Klerk and Pieter Kramer achieved their social vision of elevating the working class.

Setting the Context As workers moved to the inner city for employment opportunities in the 1870s, the dense city centers quickly became overcrowded and housing conditions began to deteriorate. Since the socialist political parties considered housing to be a human right and shared national responsibility,3 the Netherlands government immediately sought to respond to the housing crisis by implementing the National Housing Act. The Woningwet consisted of three major components. First, it required that the municipalities set forth extension plans to alleviate crowded slum conditions, hence the development of the Plan Zuid, where De Dageraad is situated. Second, it set mandatory building regulations to improve living conditions, including details such as room dimensions, light/air supply, providing clean water and fire safety. Finally, it established a financial system, allowing housing societies such as De Dageraad to receive generous subsidies and loans from the government in order to finance their public housing projects. While socially oriented public housing associations were always granted these loans, private companies and dwellings that disobeyed the regulations were either given very small subsidies or none at all.4 This demonstrated the government’s intention to support associations which were exclusively working in the public housing interest.

The Pruitt-Igoe project, also conceived under a public housing mandate - the United States Housing Act of 1949 - was created as part of an urban redevelopment plan in St Louis. 5 With little money allocated towards the project and a lack of profit for the builders involved, the architect Minoru Yamasaki employed a modernist architecture which took advantage of industrialist methods and inexpensive manufacturing to produce thirty-three identical apartment towers.6 The imposed construction costs from the St Louis Housing Authority were

3

Rosemary Dolata, “Social Housing in the Netherlands,” University of Minnesota, June 28, 2008, 9.

Searing, “Amsterdam South: Social Democracy’s Elusive Housing Ideal,” 61.

5 Katharine G. Bristol, “The Pruitt-Igoe Myth,” Journal of Architectural Education (1984-) 44, no. 3 (1991): 164, https://doi.org/10.2307/1425266.

6 Ibid.

4

Shymanski - 4 unrealistically low, therefore poor-quality materials were used for its assembly, which expedited the building’s deterioration.7 The monotony of the architecture arguably inspire no artistic allure.

The St Louis Housing Administration’s tight restrictions did not allow for much creativity from the architects, whereas the Woningwet in the Netherlands required that the housing designs be completed and approved by the Schoonheidscommissie, a board of architects in Amsterdam.8 These prominent Amsterdam architects, including Johan van der Mey, ensured that the dwellings were not only comfortable but also artistically expressive.9 The Amsterdam School style was often approved by the committee as their façades successfully achieved architectural unity within their neighborhoods.10 The Amsterdam School architects avoided industrialism and standardized designs, as they believed it would only benefit the capitalist system. 11 They criticized the repetitive row houses typically associated with capitalist-driven workers housing which emphasized distinctions between social ranks.12 Therefore, they made each building unique and playful, appealing to their vision of community art.13 Through expressionist designs, the Amsterdam School aimed to build an architecture that demonstrated “unity in plurality.”14 They held a vision for a society where “all would be equal and in which art could flourish,” and believed that the development of a great society must be paired with great art. 15 As a result, the Amsterdam School style highly focused on symbolism, aesthetics, plasticity, and rich decoration. The intention was that the architecture presented a divided unity,16 where all the small pieces come together in its massing to form a whole.

7

Ibid, 165.

Wim de. Wit, The Amsterdam School: Dutch Expressionist Architecture, 1915-1930 (New York: Cooper-Hewitt Museum, 1983).

9 Nancy. Stieber, Housing Design and Society in Amsterdam : Reconfiguring Urban Order and Identity, 1900-1920 (Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1998), 69.

10 Wit, The Amsterdam School.

11 Suzanne S. Frank, Michel de Klerk, 1884-1923 : An Architect of the Amsterdam School (Ann Arbor, Mich. : UMI Research Press, 1984).

12 Stieber, Housing Design and Society in Amsterdam.

13 Dorine Mignot, “Woningbouwverenigingen,” Ons Amsterdam, October 1973.

14 H. Paul Rovinelli, “H. P. Berlage and the Amsterdam School, 1914-1920: Rationalist as Expressionist,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 43, no. 3 (1984): 257, https://doi.org/10.2307/990006.

15 Ibid.

16 Manfred. Bock et al., Michel de Klerk: Architect and Artist of the Amsterdam School, 1884-1923 (Rotterdam: NAI Publishers, 1997).

8

Shymanski - 5 This representation embodied the solidarity of the working-class movement at the time, where individuals came together for the betterment of society.

Given the imposition of social class hierarchies enforced by the capitalist system in the United States, Pruitt Igoe’s demise resulted from the economic and racial oppression of its African-American minority residents.17 Consequently, the poor working class of St Louis was subjected to an architecture that was not attentive to their needs. Katharine Bristol, in “The Pruitt-Igoe Myth,” highlights criticisms against Yamasaki for trying to force a white, middle-class lifestyle onto the residents of Pruitt Igoe.18 Some claim his designs were insensitive to the social conditions of the tenants.19 Additionally, the buildings quickly deteriorated due to lack of funds for maintenance and the increasing poverty of the tenants who could no longer afford the rent.20 In contrast, the protagonists of De Dageraad housing complex were of the same class as its residents. De Dageraad was a Jewish socialist housing association comprised of the working class.21 Their name, The Dawn, referred to “a break into a new, improved socialist world.”22 The society completed the project pro bono, as they were dedicated to the improvement of public housing in Amsterdam.23 Michel De Klerk, also part of the working class, completed some of his work free of compensation as well.24 Additionally, the association hired craftsman, carpenters, masons, and laborers from the Federatie van Zelfstandig Werkende Groepen, a cooperative of working-class men, to build De Dageraad.25 Finally, the dwellings were rented at affordable prices for even the lowest income class.26 The goals of the architects of De Dageraad and its association were to build homes that were truly intended for the residents. This resulted in a unique architecture that represented its tenants and

17

Bristol, “The Pruitt-Igoe Myth,” 168.

Ibid, 167.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid, 166.

21 Searing, “Amsterdam South: Social Democracy’s Elusive Housing Ideal,” 69.

22 Bernhard. Kohlenbach, Pieter Lodewijk Kramer : Architect van de Amsterdamse School, 1881-1961 (Naarden : V K, 1994).

23 Mignot, “Woningbouwverenigingen.”

24 Helen Searing, “With Red Flags Flying: Housing in Amsterdam, 1915-1923,” Art and Architecture in the Service of Politics, MIT Press, 1978.

25 Kohlenbach, Pieter Lodewijk Kramer.

26 Ibid.

18

Shymanski - 6 became a source of pride for the workers. 27 In comparison to De Dageraad, the Pruitt Igoe project aimed to simply fulfill the minimum requirements of the US housing mandate, due to the lack of funds and profit incentive around the project. However, the socialist association behind De Dageraad went beyond these objectives because it had no need for profit motives, which are inherently necessary to the Capitalist system. This distinguishes the clear difference between the contexts of De Dageraad and Pruitt Igoe, and primarily points to the success of De Dageraad as a public housing scheme.

Developing the Floor Plan The Municipal Housing Authority and the architects of the housing blocks in Amsterdam wanted to improve workers housing through the floor plan.28 When the working class of Amsterdam lived in inner-city slums, entire families inhabited one room. There were no toilets or water supply, and little air circulation.29 Members of the household would sleep in bed alcoves, built into the wall. During the implementation of the Woningwet in 1901, this sleeping arrangement was banned after being identified as a major cause of tuberculosis. 30 The elimination of bed alcoves and the inclusion of toilets and water supply promoted healthy hygiene.31 De Dageraad featured Amsterdam’s largest workers housing apartments at the time. 32 Even if these space might seem small to us now, the new houses represented a significant improvement in housing conditions, then in comparison to the slum houses these workers were originally living in.33 In the plan of De Dageraad apartments, the domestic activities were separated. The kitchen was pushed to the back to disengage tenants from chores and promote the communal living room placed at the front (Figure 2). The bourgeois “parlor room,” which was traditionally present in Amsterdam homes was removed from the plan to accommodate more bedrooms.34 By

27

Frank, Michel de Klerk, 1884-1923.

Grünhagen, “The Development of the Floor Plan.”

29 Wit, The Amsterdam School.

30 Searing, “With Red Flags Flying: Housing in Amsterdam, 1915-1923.”

31 Stieber, Housing Design and Society in Amsterdam.

32 Kohlenbach, Pieter Lodewijk Kramer.

33 Mignot, “Woningbouwverenigingen.”

34 Stieber, Housing Design and Society in Amsterdam.

28

Shymanski - 7 splitting up these spaces within the home, the new housing plan moved families from one room homes to larger apartments. De Dageraad apartments came with three, four or even five-room apartments (Figure 2), which residents said they were “very happy to have.”35 The diversity in plans within the housing blocks recognized different individual needs, such as the size of the family or their financial status.36 In comparison to the city slums, where tenants were left in dark basements or stuffy attics, the Woningwet decreed that the houses receive ample sunlight and good ventilation.37 Every room in De Dageraad’s housing block featured a window. After the completion of De

did not allow an adequate amount of sunlight and

Figure 2 – De Dageraad Floor Plan. This floor plan features apartment schemes with one, two and three bedrooms, labeled “S”. The living room is labeled “W” and kitchen as “K”.

were therefore enlarged afterward, demonstrating

Taken from Bernhard. Kohlenbach, Pieter Lodewijk Kramer : Architect van de Amsterdamse School, 1881-1961 (Naarden : V K, 1994), 77.

Dageraad, it was determined that certain windows

the housing association’s dedication to providing a comfortable home environment.38 While the interior conditions were largely prescribed by the Woningwet, De Klerk and Kramer still found ways to architecturally translate the exterior to the interior, using the round shapes expressed on the façade to

35

Mignot, “Woningbouwverenigingen.”

Bock et al., Michel de Klerk.

37 Stieber, Housing Design and Society in Amsterdam.

38 Kohlenbach, Pieter Lodewijk Kramer.

36

Shymanski - 8 sculpt unique rooms but still provide utility (Figure 2).39 De Klerk and Kramer chose to stack the apartments on three levels and center them around a major stairwell, rather than along a corridor. These stairwells were connected to outside air and reduced the main entry to only four or six apartments in the building. By limiting the vertical circulation, the main front door and communal stairwell feel more connected to the apartments inside, evoking the feeling of distinct home. This gave a sense of sovereignty to the workers.40

The Call for a Unique Façade In the style of the Amsterdam School, Michel De Klerk and Pieter Kramer’s incredible attention to detail achieved an organic aesthetic which fulfilled De Klerk’s vision – elevating workers housing to workers palaces.41 The architects went further than simply designing the functionally necessary for low-income housing. The opposition to standardized façades and floor plans represented the architects’ fight against industrialism. Using unique forms to express a new class consciousness, De Dageraad played with scale, the variation of materials, and interesting details such as

Figure 3- Façade Detail along Burgemeester Tellegenstraat Taken from Bernhard. Kohlenbach, Pieter Lodewijk Kramer : Architect van de Amsterdamse School, 1881-1961 (Naarden : V K, 1994), 98.

stairwells which project from the façades as sculptural entities (Figure 3). The angular shapes break up the rhythm of the façade and play with light and shadow, offering an experiential architecture as one walks down the street.

The variety in colors of the materials - yellow, burgundy and red brick, orange-red roof tiles, white wooden

39

Mignot, “Woningbouwverenigingen.”

Stieber, Housing Design and Society in Amsterdam.

41 Wit, The Amsterdam School.

40

Shymanski - 9 window frames - display a liveliness which was new for public housing architecture.42 The color contrasts were used to unify pieces of the façade, achieving an “organic whole rather than adjacent parts.” 43 The varied window sizes, oblique shapes, and decorated doors further animate the façades. Hand formed bricks were intentionally misused to achieve unique brick patterns (Figure 3) in order to portray the architectural ideas of De Klerk and Kramer.44 A major architectural moment of De Dageraad occurs at the corner of P. L. Takstraat (Figure 4). This “castle wall” design has been attributed to Pieter Kramer, whose style was geared toward monumental and

Figure 4- Corner of P. L. Takstraat Jan Sluijter, Amsterdam, Woningencomplex De Dageraad, March 28, 2017, Flickr. Accessed April 7, 2019, https://www.flickr.com/photos/jansluijter/33732774925/in/photostream/

42

Bock et al., Michel de Klerk.

Searing, “With Red Flags Flying: Housing in Amsterdam, 1915-1923.”

44 Wit, The Amsterdam School.

43

Shymanski - 10 rhythmic architecture.45 The two towers form a strong center for the housing complex and suggest a “fortress providing strength, security, and hope for the future.”46 The solidity of the brick and the monumental architecture symbolizes the resilience of the working class. 47 Architecture that emulates a palace or fortress and visually projects a high social status, therefore, elevates the architecture to that status and promotes the dignity of the working class. Helen Searing compares the P. L. Takstraat façade to flags streaming and overlapping, a symbol of the May Day Parade, where masses of workers came together in solidarity.48 The corner became a “monument to the class struggle,”49 and symbol of the triumph of Amsterdam’s working class.

Michel De Klerk’s architectural focus was more towards the creation of a home and celebrating the domestic individual within the collective. Along Burgemeester Tellegenstraat, the oblique walls demarcate each section but roll into the next (Figure 4), connecting the distinctly individual units while creating flow along the length of the street.50 De Klerk uses vertical elements, color and window partitions to differentiate the apartments and stress the structural system of the building. These details show that the collective unit in fact shelters individual families. However, the divisions and compositions of the windows (for example on the “villas” at Henriette Ronnerplein and Therese Schwartzeplein housing blocks) make it seem like the block is made up of large houses with a single door, despite each having six different dwellings inside (Figure 5). These façades use vertical breaks to give a sense of rest, whereas the façades along P. L. Takstraat and Burgemeester Tellegenstraat use dynamic rhythms to “sweep the eye along.” 51 As the viewer walks along the street, picturesque effects are created by the plasticity of the façade and emphasized through a variation of heights (Figure 2). Each change in direction is marked as an event, where volumes, colors, and textures interpenetrate, synchronizing all the parts to fit together.

45

Kohlenbach, Pieter Lodewijk Kramer.

Rovinelli, “H. P. Berlage and the Amsterdam School, 1914-1920,” 261.

47 Kohlenbach, Pieter Lodewijk Kramer.

48 Searing, “With Red Flags Flying: Housing in Amsterdam, 1915-1923.”

49 Ibid.

50 Bock et al., Michel de Klerk.

51 Searing, “With Red Flags Flying: Housing in Amsterdam, 1915-1923.”

46

Shymanski - 11

Figure 5 - View of a façade of the East or West Block of De Dageraad [The Dawn] from across a square, Henriëtte Ronnerplein, Amsterdam, Netherlands Gemeentelijke Dienst, View of a façade of the East or West Block of De Dageraad [The Dawn] from across a square, Henriëtte Ronnerplein, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1970s. Canadian Center For Architecture. https://www.cca.qc.ca/en/search/details/library/publication/116108.

The repetition along the street wall represents the mutual equality and combined power of the workers who inhabit De Dageraad but recognizes a balance between the claims of the individual and the community.52 Along with façade design, the urban streetscape of De Dageraad complex makes use of historical allusions and collective spaces to express the spirit of the community. Coming from the Amstel Canal into Amsterdam South’s Takbuurt neighborhood, there are two schools on either side of the P. L. Takstraat, followed by rows of

52

Ibid.

Shymanski - 12 housing blocks. At the end of the Y-shaped P. L. Takstraat begins Burgemeester Tellegenstraat (Figure 1). This separates the two urban squares which are surrounded by the Henriette Ronnerplein and Therese Schwartzeplein housing blocks. Due to the narrow streets and labyrinthine layout, no street in the Takbuurt neighbourhood runs directly into another street. This site planning was used to slow down traffic and discourage vehicle movement. 53 This creates an urban space at the human scale which encourages physical activity and social interactions. While the image of a community is created by the green public spaces in front of the Henriette Ronnerplein housing block (Figure 5), the urban community is continued behind the apartment façades, where the apartments had balconies that overlooked enclosed shared garden spaces. De Klerk and Kramer’s perimeter block design contributes to the metaphor of urban local identity, as it recalls the traditional forms of Amsterdam’s city building.54 Above the top story windows, white hooks are placed for a pulley and rope system to facilitate the movement of furniture and goods in and out of the apartment (Figure 6).

The presence of the hook, a signature Dutch housing element, enforces De Klerk’s use of symbolic historical motifs for a functional design. Another historical reference is also present in the gable-roofed blocks at Henriette Ronnerplein and Therese Schwartzeplein, recalling Amsterdam’s traditional gable façade style (Figure 5). Furthermore, the “barn-like” façades recall the rural Dutch settler architecture.55 The large brick baskets, gable roofs, and faucet-like chimneys are playful in their scale, materiality and color (Figure 6). The separation of the “barns” by the roof and baskets show how the

Figure 6 -Henriette Ronnerplein Façade Detail

architects aimed at creating a home for these individual

Taken from Bernhard. Kohlenbach, Pieter Lodewijk Kramer : Architect van de Amsterdamse School, 1881-1961 (Naarden : V K, 1994), 101.

53

Searing, “Amsterdam South: Social Democracy’s Elusive Housing Ideal.”

Stieber, Housing Design and Society in Amsterdam.

55 Kohlenbach, Pieter Lodewijk Kramer.

54

Shymanski - 13 families within a friendly community, while still ensuring the harmony of a collective space. De Klerk adds another domestic touch by pulling the tiled roof down to the second floor at the end of the housing block at Henriette Ronnerplein (Figure 5). The use of local materials such as brick or tile is, again, reminiscent of the local Dutch identity. All these elements contribute to the symbol of a collective urban consciousness, building a sense of community within the neighborhood.

Achieving unity through floor plans, urban design and façades, Michel De Klerk and Pieter Kramer introduced socialist values of equality and collectivity to the domestic behaviors and conditions of the tenants of De Dageraad in efforts to improve the living standards of the working class. The socialist intentions behind the conception of De Dageraad rejected the capitalist definition of real estate as a commodity. The immense support from the Netherlands government and Municipal Housing Authority allowed the housing complex to succeed and become a favorable home for the working-class. By animating material and redefining the image of public housing as a representation of the unified class, De Dageraad effectively shows how the design of public housing can be used to shape a collective urban identity. The architects of De Dageraad erased the stigma of public housing by creating a stimulating environment that evoked pride among its tenants. 56 As a testament to De Dageraad’s success as an endeavor towards the “visual embodiment of proletarian aspirations,”57 inhabitants of the public housing complex have said they felt “that they dwell, not that they have been stowed away.”58 Concluding with the words of workman’s wife, who described De Klerk’s work at his memorial: “[Michel De Klerk’s architecture is] a fairy tale that you only dreamt about, and which did not exist when we were children. Is it not glorious to come home after a fatiguing day to a house which is designed with joy and which brings domestic bliss? Is it not true that each stone calls out: come all you workers and rest in this house that has been built for you.”59

56

Searing, “Amsterdam South: Social Democracy’s Elusive Housing Ideal,” 59.

Ibid, 74.

58 Bock et al., Michel de Klerk, 262.

59 Frank, Michel de Klerk, 1884-1923, 87.

57

Shymanski - 14

List of Figures

Figure 1 –Amsterdam South Site Plan .......................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 – De Dageraad Floor Plan ............................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3- Façade Detail along Burgemeester Tellegenstraat ........................................................................ 8 Figure 4- Corner of P. L. Takstraat ................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 5 - View of a façade of the East or West Block of De Dageraad [The Dawn] from across a square, Henriëtte Ronnerplein, Amsterdam, Netherlands...................................................................................... 11 Figure 6 -Henriette Ronnerplein Façade Detail .......................................................................................... 12

Shymanski - 15 Bibliography Bock, Manfred., Sigrid. Johannisse, Vladimir. Stissi, and Nederlands Architectuurinstituut. Michel de Klerk: Architect and Artist of the Amsterdam School, 1884-1923. Rotterdam: NAI Publishers, 1997.

Bristol, Katharine G. “The Pruitt-Igoe Myth.” Journal of Architectural Education (1984-) 44, no. 3 (1991): 163–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/1425266.

Dolata, Rosemary. “Social Housing in the Netherlands.” University of Minnesota, June 28, 2008, 9.

Frank, Suzanne S. Michel de Klerk, 1884-1923 : An Architect of the Amsterdam School. Ann Arbor, Mich. : UMI Research Press, 1984.

Grünhagen, Harm. “The Development of the Floor Plan.” In Atlas : sociale woningbouw Amsterdam = The Amsterdam social housing, 12–16. Amsterdam : Amsterdamse Federatie van Woningcorporaties, 1992.

Kohlenbach, Bernhard. Pieter Lodewijk Kramer : Architect van de Amsterdamse School, 1881-1961.

Naarden : V K, 1994.

Mignot, Dorine. “Woningbouwverenigingen.” Ons Amsterdam, October 1973.

Rovinelli, H. Paul. “H. P. Berlage and the Amsterdam School, 1914-1920: Rationalist as Expressionist.”

Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 43, no. 3 (1984): 256–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/990006.

Searing, Helen. “Amsterdam South: Social Democracy’s Elusive Housing Ideal.” Culture and the Social Vision, MIT Press VIA 4 (1980): 58–75.

———. “With Red Flags Flying: Housing in Amsterdam, 1915-1923.” Art and Architecture in the Service of Politics, MIT Press, 1978.

Stieber, Nancy. Housing Design and Society in Amsterdam : Reconfiguring Urban Order and Identity, 1900-1920. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Wit, Wim de. The Amsterdam School: Dutch Expressionist Architecture, 1915-1930. New York: CooperHewitt Museum ;, 1983.