Historical Gardens

Around a month ago a large ‘auction’ of landscape features in The Netherlands was announced, in an attempt to rake in more money to protect and maintain these vital landscapes. A website is available where people can bid for their favourite piece of landscape. People do not actually buy a piece of land or countryside, but they do provide the money for maintenance, and in return receive a promise that this landscape feature will not be threatened within ten years after the auction.

I think it is a great idea to make more money available for the protection of landscape features. People are more inclined to give (extra) money to particular projects than they would for a more general countrywide protection scheme.
Some of the projects presented in the auction are still rather generic. You can buy a native tree for € 5,- or something, somewhere in the countryside (and then hope that somebody is actually going to look after this tree for ten years). But there are also more specific goals.

One of these is the restoration of the belvedere at Leyduin.¹ The dilapidated belvedere has been in a terrible state for a long time. Several attempts to put a stop to the decline have only helped temporarily. The owner, Landschap Noord-Holland, thinks the research itself will cost € 15.000,-, while the whole restoration budget is estimated to be € 80.000,-.

The funny thing is, that this belvedere was built in the late 18th century, in a time when building a ruin to adorn your garden with was quite normal.² The ruin at Frankendael (built somewhat later, but in the same spirit) is a good example of how that was done. So where the owner tries to repair the belvedere into its original state, that original state might be closer to the current state than the owner now believes.
As far as I have been able to find out, no contemporary images of the belvedere exist. But the original description as a hermit’s lodge suggests that the building was not a neat neogothical tower, but already a ‘romantically dilapidated’ structure to begin with.
I’m curious to find out whether that will actually be the result of the architectural research.

And while Landschap Noord-Holland is trying to restore this tower, they might also want to consider restoring the area around the nearby cascade.

The situation around the Leyduin cascade as it was depicted on a postcard around 1900.

The cascade is still there, although it has not been working properly since the water levels in the dunes dropped considerably after the city of Amsterdam started to use it for their public water supplies. But that might change now the excessive draining has stopped. This spot is currently rather bleak and empty and could use some form of decoration and lightening up.

1. To my surprise it is the only one in the whole auction that has any bearing on historical gardens. The organisations behind this auction own loads of historical gardens and estates. There are way more opportunities there to profit from in the future. [back]
2. The structure was first mentioned in 1798, as a hermit’s lodge on a hill -hermitage op een heuvel. [back]

A neighbour who states that the new owner ‘undermines its own guiding principles’; a local council (Wijdemeren) who seems to be surprised by plans to start a ‘care hotel’ (zorghotel) in the main house, and hits back hard at an individual who opposes to the plans; a new owner who teams up with a party that presents future events in past tense.

Who said life was quiet in the Wijdemeren community?¹
Now there is unrest concerning Jagtlust’s future, with fears that new owner Natuurmonumenten is trading in its principles against hard cash and an extension of its hiking path in the area. The Wijdemeren council seems to be surprised by both the plans and the protests.

What’s the story? In 2006 Jagtlust was sold to Natuurmonumenten, whose reputation in the area is good. The preservation of both natural and historical values seems to be in good hands with this organisation. The park was to be partially opened for the public, the seller was going to move into the coach house. Everybody seemed to be pleased with this situation.
A week ago plans for the ‘care hotel’ at Jagtlust were made public by Thuiszorg Gooizorg. At the same time (and conveniently mentioned in the online newspaper article), a website was presented, showing how great life at ‘Zorghotel Residentie Jagtlust‘ was going to be -and why not, they are trying to sell something.
Today that same newspaper reports on the protesting neighbour. He says Natuurmonumenten has been felling age-old trees on behalf of a new hiking path (where they could have easily used the existing paths). If true, this would contradict Natuurmonumenten’s pledge to preserve the historical context of the park, but the organisation stresses that their work is in line with their guiding principles.
The protesting neighbour also suggests that the local council was taken by surprise and points out that the new house of the former owner is flagged as an office area in the zoning plan, which would make living there illegal.

As a response, Wijdemeren wrote a piece on their web newspaper where they say the council has not yet received official requests to amend the current zoning plan, but earlier its mayor and aldermen have advised positively on the plans by Thuiszorg Gooizorg and Natuurmonumenten.² The piece ends with a rather underhand -but maybe unintentional- characterisation of Jagtlust’s neighbour as a professional protester who lost in many cases.

So: it seems there is a lot ado about nothing, yet the way in which this conflict is fought out suggests otherwise.

One thing the local press has not picked up (again): the high-pitched protest may have been initiated by the zorghotel website. In the section called ‘Opening’ reference is made to an opening in June 2008, which was followed by an impressive official opening party in August. All texts in this section are in past tense (it is now the beginning of April 2008, so the events take place at least two months from now).

The story on the zorghotel website is obviously fake. It all looks like a playful joke. But the text leaves the impression that the zorghotel is a fait accompli. And that is not a smart move when you have only just begun to request approval for your plans.
Clumsy operating is not recommended for an organisation as highly dependent on trust as a ‘care hotel’.

In the archives: more stories on Jagtlust and Eikenrode.

Edited @ April 4, 2008 to remove a stupid mistake. Also added the image.

1. Just over a month ago, all resources at the local council were needed to prevent the sudden public sale of Eikenrode in Loosdrecht (which by the way will also house a ‘care hotel’), in which Wijdemeren was and still is an active party. It seems somebody is not paying enough attention over there. See this blog’s archives. [back]
2. Notulen vergadering burgemeester en wethouders d.d. 25 maart 2008, page 3, point 19. The proposals need to comply with all legal aspects of the monumental status the house and park have, and need the stamp of approval of at least two other organisations before they can be approved by the council. [back]

Sometimes finding similarities between garden designs is just a matter of coincidence, or luck. Despite that, it always results in a feeling of accomplishment which is deserved nor appropiate. It also tends to lead to more questions than answers, which is nice, but not very helpful. This is such a case.

Browsing through one of last year’s more eye-catching books, I stumbled upon a maze I knew I’d seen before -or a slight variation to the design.¹

The Sanssouci maze. Detail of a -not executed- part of a remodelling plan made around 1775. SPSG plan collection 11790 (photo from book in note 1). The palace -and the north- is to the right. The image is rotated 180 degrees, which is why all trees are depicted upside down.

This Prussian example of a combined circular and rectangular maze reminded me of a similar maze I saw a short while ago, when I read about a former maze on the isle of Texel, in the upper northern parts of The Netherlands.² I managed to find this terrible image of a plan, which -according to its source- should date from around 1790.
These mazes are not identical, but despite the differences between them, they are remarkably similar. Both have a circular maze with a -slightly crooked- rectangular appendix; but the Texel maze has only one center, where the one proposed for Sanssouci seems to have two.
Both circular mazes are made up of two paths, spiralling outwards from the center of the maze -or rather: inward to the center of the maze.
They both have one path leading from the center that’s ending in a dead end; although the Texel one has a way out from there, while the Sanssouci maze forces you to go all the way back to the center and try the other path.

The Texel design made before or after 1786?
Depending on which source one chooses to use, the Texel design was made before between 1764 and 1786 (for Cornelis Roepel) or between 1786 and 1794 (for Arie Kikkert).³ I believe the maze as shown here might date from before 1786, because of the name used on the plan. The small area has had an impressive amount of names in the past. “Engelsteen” is the name used on the plan from ±1790. An alternative was “Engelse Steen” (”English Stone”). Both names refer to a local belief that the rocky underground of this elevated plot of land was part of one huge stony slab, which supposedly connected Texel to England underneath the North Sea. In fact it is an isolated sediment, created during one of the ice-ages. Today it is simply known as ‘Doolhof‘ or ‘Het Bosje‘ (’The [small] forest’).

Part of the North Sea, with Texel in the circle on the right.
The Rede van Texel (’road’ or ‘anchorage’) was situated to the east of the island.

One source is very elaborate about Arie Kikkert creating the maze, refurbishing the place with clipped hedges and summerhouses with benches and mural paintings. This all supports a creation date of 1786 or later. So that source dates the plan to ±1790. It also says Kikkert renamed his patch of forest into “’s Lands Welvaartszicht“.⁴ And it does not question why the map sports the old name for his property, instead of the new one he himself invented? I believe the plan was made before 1786. One source even specifies this and dates it to the last months of 1774, but does not give any supporting evidence for that claim.⁵

Relationship between the two desings?
Regardless of its precise dating, the plan for the Texel maze has been created approximately the same time or shortly after the Sanssouci remodelling plan was drawn. Which does raise the question how and why these two almost simultaneous designs can bear so much similarities? They are separated by almost 600 kilometers of land and sea and situated in separate countries. The Sanssouci design was made for a Prussian king, the Texel design for a local buff, working in or highly dependant of a country whose political and economical role was diminishing sharply -and with no known cultural relations whatsoever.

If the design was indeed made for Cornelis Roepel, there is a chance he may have had contacts with important garden owners with connections or ideas. Roepel worked for the Admiraliteit van Amsterdam (Amsterdam Admiralty), which was one of the most powerful and influential organisations in The Netherlands. And although Roepel was situated in what we now consider as an outpost of the country, in his age this was the point where tradeships from all over the world anchored before sailing through to Amsterdam -or vice versa.
The design has a familiar feel to it, but I still haven’t figured out how these designs ended up looking like each other as they do. Both gardens may have had the same designer, but it seems more likely both designs refer to another example. The only example I know that comes close to these two, is a design published by Dezallier d’Argenville. Although that design was highly popular and used in several gardens in The Netherlands, it must have been oldfashioned by the time the Texel and Sanssouci designs were made. Besides that, it only accounts for the paths, spiralling out from the center of the maze. None of the other characteristics of the Sanssouci and Texel mazes are present.
I doubt these mazes have had the same designer. But there surely is one combined source for both designs?

‘Dessein d’un Labirinthe avec des cabinets et des Fontaines’, from: Antione Joseph Dézallier d’Argenville, La Théorie et Pratique du Jardinage, Paris, 1709.

1. Katrin Schröder: ‘Englische Parthien’ and foreign trees- The ‘natural taste’ in the Frederician garden arts of Prussia; in: Prussian Gardens in Europe. 300 Years of Garden History. Stiftung Preussische Schlösser und Gärten Berlin-Brandenburg (SPSG) 2007, pp. 34-39. [back]
2. The current owner, Staatsbosbeheer, announced a revitalisation of the Doolhof (the Dutch name for a maze and, though the maze itself has gone, still the name for the road running past it). It soon became clear that by revitalisation Staatsbosbeheer meant refurbishing the paths and adding some benches and more attractive plants to the worn-out bush the Doolhof had become. [back]
3. The latter period is also mentioned in a recent publication on mazes and labyrinths: Fons Schaefers and Anne Miecke Backer, Doolhoven & Labyrinten in Nederland, Uitgeverij De Hef Publishers, 2007, p. 44 (under the alternative name: ‘Het Bosje’). [back]
4. That name translates roughly as “Prospect of the country’s Prosperity”, probably because from this elevated spot -a whopping 15 meters above sea leavel!- on the island he had a good view at the tradeships from Amsterdam, Hoorn and Enkhuizen docking at the Rede van Texel), waiting for a favourable wind to sail out to the East Indies. [back]
5. Doolhof: Tegen de Hoge Berg ligt een interressant loofbosje dat de Doolhof wordt genoemd. Het werd eind 1774 aangelegd door Cornelis Roepel of Ruepel, commissaris van de Amsterdamse Admiraliteit, die daarmee een lusthof voor zichzelf en zijn familie wilde creëren. De trap op het hoogste punt (15 meter boven de zeespiegel) van het bosje wordt ook wel de Zeven Pannekoeken genoemd. Het doolhof, zo genoemd naar de labyrintische dooreengevlochte slingerpaden valt onder beheer van de Stichting Natuurmonumenten en Staatsbosbeheer. [back]

Michael Jackson’s Neverland and Loosdrecht’s Eikenrode would never have been linked on this blog if it weren’t for the fact that they have been sharing similar fates during the last few months. Both estates were put up to auction by their respective banks in recent months, and both estates were able to avoid that public sale at the last minute. The difference is that where one is world news -the possible auction of Neverland even received coverage by Dutch local regional press, news on the fate of Eikenrode never gained attention outside of the realm of the regional press -and this blog, ofcourse.

The main house of Eikenrode after the restoration. Both photo’s by GVB Architecten, 2003.

Eikenrode was to be publically sold last week, but a few days before the auction the owners, the municipality and the banks reached an agreement on how to go forward. The province of Noord-Holland brought all parties together to reach this solution, according to their press release on the matter. It seems there are no new agreements made between parties, nor is the process of transferring the grounds from the municipality to the current owner of the house completed. The bank, who threatened to sell the estate because it took the other parties ages to complete this transfer, must have been assured by all parties they would not lose money on this deal. This means that Martien Plasmeijer can proceed with his plans to gradually restore the estate and develop new ways to make money at Eikenrode.

Eikenrode was established in 1845 for the Hacke family, who lived on the estate until 1974. The design of both the house and the gardens is attributed to architect Johan David Zocher jr, but as far as I know this attribution is based on oral history, not on documentation.¹ Much of the original layout of the garden is still visible today. In recent years Plasmeijer restored the main house and ice-cellar. As soon as the transfer is completed, work on restoring the coach-house annex orangerie can begin. Plasmeijer is planning appartments for elderly people who need to be cared for (zorgappartementen) in this building, which was destroyed by fire last December.
Earlier photo’s (from 2003) show that this building was in a deplorable state even before the fire. The cause of the fire has never been established (or has not been made public). A short video of the fire can be found in this earlier post.

Note:

1. Attribution by H.M. van der Wijck, De Nederlandse Buitenplaats. Aspecten van ontwikkeling, bescherming en herstel, 1982, p.311. This information is maintained on the TUiN database, with the addition that the attribution is based on oral history. Archiwijzer says the garden and orangerie are indeed by Zocher, but not the house. Though it resembles Zocher’s later design of the house of Molenbosch in Zeist, according to them the architect of the main house of Eikenrode is Jan Streefkerk. [back]

The fate of the Eikenrode estate in Loosdrecht has turned from bright to dim in a matter of only two months. Last April I could report that Eikenrode was one of seven estates to receive a restoration grant from the big Dutch VSBfonds. This grant was preceded by another grant five months earlier: in December 2006 RACM decided to fund the restoration of the coach house/orangerie with an amount of € 293,575.00.¹

Coach house at Eikenrode after the fire

On December 15th, 2007 (almost to the day one year after the RACM grant was awarded), while all necessary paperwork for the upgrade of the structure to several apartments was ready, said coach house/orangerie caught fire and was severely damaged. According to a local source the fire was probably started intentionally, because the empty building was cut off from any gas or electricity lines.²

Luckily for the owners of Eikenrode, RACM came with a quick assessment that, although many original features were lost, the remains of the building were still considered to be a monument, which meant the building activities could go ahead.

But the next blow came by the end of January 2008. Not in the form of flames this time, but in the form of nervous banks announcing the public sale of Eikenrode on March 4th, 2008. What happened? Since 1974 Eikenrode had been owned by the local counsil, in whose hands the estate deteriorated. Plasmeijer started his reconstructive work on the estate in the year 2000, with silent support from the local counsil -who still owned the grounds surrounding the house. Both parties decided in April 2007 to formaly transfer the complete estate to Plasmeijer, the new ‘lord of the manor’ with two restoration grants in his pocket to back his plans up. This transfer process took a while and has yet to be finalised, reason for the participating banks to withdraw their support and announce the public auction.³

The bank’s action has been condemned and deemed ‘premature’ by both the local counsil and Plasmeijer. According to them, all parties are working hard to complete the transfer before March 4th. To be continued, I’m sure.

Edit @ February 25th 2008: I found a short ‘movie’ of the fire on YouTube, with some comments from a local at the end. The comment is in Dutch, ofcourse.

1. In that same month, owner Martien Plasmeijer received the largely symbolic title of Ambachtsheer van Mijnden en de beide Loosdrechten from his predecessor. [back]
2. Stichting Historisch Goed Loosdrecht, entry of 16-12-2007. [back]
3. These are tough times for banks, who have most probably taken the recent fire into account as well. [back]

Dutch developers return on New York’s shores for the first time since 1674, as a team lead by architects from Rotterdam based West 8 Urban Design & Landscape Architecture win the competition for the redevelopment of Governors Island. The results of the competition were made public by New York mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and New York State governor Eliot Spitzer as representatives of the islands owners: ‘the people of New York’. The plan to develop the island that boasts Manhattan, Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty as its neighbours, came from the Governors Island Preservation and Education Corporation, who control the island since it was left by the Coast Guard in 1995. The $400 million plan should be completed in 2012. West 8 is represented by architects Adriaan Geuze and Jerry van Eyck. They will be appointed to develop a master-plan and a detailed design.

The winning bid was made in cooperation with New York based architects Rogers Marvel Architects and Diller Scofidio & Renfro (according to The New York Times in association with Quennell Rothschild & Partners and SMWM). It includes a 2 mile long promenade along the western waterfront, a new park including some artificial hills on the southern flat part of the island and an ‘improved’ park in the island’s northern historic district. The plan leaves room for future building activity in two development zones, where facilities for visitors may be built.¹ The jury stated in that respect that the winning design “was really the scheme that best addressed the issues of phasing.”

Governors Island was known to the native Indians as Pagganck (Nut Island) after the island’s plentiful hickory, oak and chestnut trees. The Dutch aptly named it ‘Noten Eylant’ from 1611 onwards while the island remained to be used by the native Indians. In 1637 the fifth director of Nieuw Nederland Wouter van Twiller bought the island from the Manahata Indians (other sources speak of “two Lenape, Cacapeteyno and Pewihas”) for two ax heads, a string of beads and a handful of nails. Van Twiller bought the island for private use, but one year later the Dutch West Indian Corporation (WIC) confiscated the island.

The English first took over the island in 1664, and after ten years they secured it’s possession for the next 100 years, “for the benefit and accommodation of His Majesty’s Governors”. American troops confiscated the island and officially named it Governors Island. Shortly after that the Americans built two fortifications: Fort Jay and Castle Williams. The island became a self providing community for the local army and facilities. In 1912 the island was enlarged extensively by the deposit of rocky material which was the result of excavations for the Lexington Avenue Subway. From 1966 onwards the American Coast Guard took over the island from the army until they left in 1995. Four years ago, on 31 January 2004, the island was transferred to the people of New York, stipulating amongst others that building houses and casino’s was prohibited. Surprisingly they did not ask for the planting of trees that bear nuts, but the architects may be smart enough to think of that themselves…

Further reading, more reading, pictures of Governors Island and more pictures from the winning bid.

1. Source for the plan: Governors Island Preservation and Education Corporation through the New York Times article. [back]

… was my first, slightly cynical reaction on reports across the web that speak of an endangered landscape park in Belgium. But it may turn out quite OK in the end, maybe.

The endangered park is surrounding the so-called Kasteel van Walle, near Kortrijk. The danger comes in the form of a property developer called Samainvest, who wants to divide the garden in six parts to build villa’s on. The very idea reminded me of destructive plans from for instance the 1950’s for the ‘restructuring’ of former gardens. One such plan was made for Beeckestijn when it was at its lowest, but that did not become a reality. But there are many others that have been executed (the plans, I mean), resulting in anomalies like the beautiful Chinese pavilion the French architect Jean-Marie Morel built in l’Isle-Adam (just north of Paris), which now stands alone on te edge of a huge lake and…villa-park.

The Chinese pavilion by Jean-Marie Morel in l’Isle-Adam. Photo by yxelle [via].

A touch of reading into the matter made me more mellow about the whole idea, though. Continue Reading »

Natuurmonumenten has added a new estate to the cluster of estates they already own in ’s Graveland. In the beginning of December Land en Bosch was acquired. After extensive cleaning operations and preparations, this estate will be added to the public rambling path that Natuurmonumenten already has in the area. Natuurmonumenten has its headquarters in the nearby estate of Schaep en Burg.

Land en Bosch used to be a conference centre for over 50 years, until it closed in 2003. According to an early source the sellers (De Christengemeenschap -Foundation Christian Community, who used Land en Bosch for prayers up till September 2007) wanted the estate to be used as a ‘zorghotel’ -a caring center for the chronically ill. The author believes the new owner may have agreed with this use, but Natuurmonumenten itself does not mention anything about the future use of Land en Bosch. The same source mentions an acquisition price of € 5,000,000 against an asking price of € 5,500,000.

The 3,5 hectare park boasts -by the looks of it- its fair share of mature beeches, as well as an 18th Century cabinet, or theekoepel, which was restored in 1958 by the local council. A photo of that theekoepel can be found here.

Land en Bosch, photo: Ferry Siemensma.