Presented with the task to create a new design for one of the gardens in such a block (Het Grachtenhuis), Van Gessel decided to recreate the surrounding housing block, using a combination of corten steel and box for the houses, and flowering plants that represent the gardens within them. The work was presented on the Cascade weblog in 2011.¹ The result is a rectangular area with irregular blocks of clipped box, with an open area in the middle where the flowering plants go.

The photo by Lonneke Stulen, compared with my own photo made in Paris, shows the similarities between the two. And although there are many differences, I cannot imagine that Michael van Gessel never visited Parc André Citroën or saw pictures of it. The image must have stuck in the mind and -probably subconsciensly- influenced the designer.

An inspirational garden indeed
And while I was thinking about the subject, I realised that a very different design in another European capital may also be indebted to this relatively simple garden feature. From a formal perspective, the Memorial for the murdered Jews of Europe (Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas) in Berlin bears remarkable resemblances with the blocks of box. Peter Eisenman won the design competition in 1997 (after a long selection process that had started in 1994), only five years after the completion of Parc André Citroën in 1992. The similarity lies not only in the use of blocks placed closely together, but also in the undulating surface area of the total element -the result of using blocks with a height difference.
Scale, meaning, impact and materials used are quite different of course, and architect Peter Eisenman may not have been familiar with the relatively isolated part of Parc André Citroën where the box blocks are. But the landscaping in Berlin was supervised by landscape architect Laurie Olin.² I do not know how the artistic process evolved, but somewhere in the process Olin must have realised he had seen something like this before, in a relatively new park that received much attention from landscape architects in the first years after its completion. If not, he may do so now, together with the rest of us.

1. The blog post is currently only available ‘in cache’ as the website itself experienced hosting problems in the autumn of 2011 and started anew. Therefore, it may not be accessible after a while. [back]
2. A less mentioned fact, but it is mentioned in the margin of the rerelease of one of his essays on landscape architecture: Laurie Olin; ‘Form, Meaning and expression in Landscape Architecture’, in: Marc Treib [ed], Meaning in Landscape Architecture & Gardens. Four Essays, Four Commentaries (Abingdon/New York 2011), pages 70 and 80, image 1.10. [back]

The forecourt in the circle. Note especially the big group of trees in the southwest section of the forecourt (the lower left part of the circle).

The plan was presented by a special purpose foundation (Stichting Plein Elswout) that is supposed to maintain the forecourt and organize events there and on other location in the large park:

The presentation drawing. All trees at the southwest corner are left out.
Or planned to be cut?

The central part with the oval lawn seems to fit historical developments: this section appears to have been unchanged over the past 200 years. The empty areas between the walls and the water do not seem to be in line with historical developments, nor are they consistent with the current situation. The large trees that are currently there -visible in the lower left part of the circle on the aerial view- are not shown on the presentation of the plan.
One can only hope the trees are left out of the presentation drawing for reasons of clarity, not because there is no place for them in the new layout. A drawing of the house and forecourt dated circa 1810¹ already shows thick planting outside the walls:

Elswout circa 1810. The area outside the walls is planted like a forest.

The total cost of the operation is estimated at € 1.2 million. The organization received funding commitments from the estate’s owners and stakeholders, but is still looking for financial support. They expect to be able to realize their plan within the next two years.

1. Source information: TU Delft [back]

According to a local newspaper article, the trees are around a century old and cut down because the current view is that in a wooded area like this, only ‘ecologically correct’ trees are wanted. If that is true, stupidity has reached new levels.
And it is partly true, as the local IVN group states in its newsletter of December 2011 that ecological reasons are the main driver of this action. Besides that, they claim safety reasons, as a lot of the older trees apparently are in a bad state – which is to be expected when architectural garden and park elements are treated as ‘nature’ over a period of 4 decades. Architecture needs maintenance, not neglect or a watch-what-happens-when-we-do-nothing approach. This whole action simply seems to be the result of ignorance, nurtured over a prolonged period of time.

Architecture?
The description of the gardens in the register of monuments state that many trees in this monumental garden (nr 470141) date from this period.¹ Part of the axis belonging to the 18th century garden was elongated towards the top of the Wijngaardsberg around 1900, and was then loosely planted with Quercus rubra. The register specifically states that there was no actual avenue planted in this section.

So not only is ‘ethnic cleansing’-to use a rather big word for once- possibly performed under the cover of ‘ecological maintenance’ (definately as a result of such maintenance), it is also quite possible that a deliberate landscape design from a century ago -prolonging an axis that itself was over a century old at the time, using plants that were ‘en vogue’ in the early 20th century- is demolished. A landscape design that may be attributed to Dirk Tersteeg (1907) or, after simplifying the design, to Leonard Springer (1915).²

The worst thing seems to be that the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, the governing body that keeps an eye on these things, has been informed and apparently approved of the plans. I would like to see their motivation published somewhere, just to see what their considerations were.
At least all necessary parties have been asked for an opinion, it should be said…

And just as a pointer for future actions (and because it is a source I did not know of yet): here’s a nice view at monumental trees in the garden of Vliek.

1. The link leads to a somewhat more extensive description on ‘Rijksmonumenten.nl’, which is not related to the official governing body concerning monuments in The Neherlands: RCE. [back]
2. But the Springer design seems to be limited to the garden around the house. [back]

The current felling follows extensive restoration works carried out in Elswout over the past year, which mainly concerned its pavilions and bridges.

The work has started today, as the situation appears to be too critical to wait till after the holidays. First up will be trees along a public cycling path, on the grounds of Duinvliet. Staatsbosbeheer expects the investigation of potentially dangerous trees and -when necessary- felling of more trees will last through the first half of 2012.

Counting rings?
I just hope someone makes the effort to count growth rings on the older trees, as parts of nowadays Duinvliet are remnants of one of the oldest landscape gardens in The Netherlands: Sandenhoeff in Overveen. In my article on the subject I make a case for that claim, by pointing out that although we know very little of the actual layout of the garden at the time, the fact that plants from the New World are purchased for it as early as 1756, can only mean an attempt was made to create an English garden in the dunes west of Haarlem.¹

In letters to his friend Jacob Boreel, Sandenhoeff’s owner Cornelis Backer exclaimed that he very much enjoyed the layout of those gardens, although he had admittedly never seen one for real. While Boreel was in Engeland during two tours on behalf of the Dutch government (1759/1760 and 1761-1762), he was constantly pressed by Backer to send home drawings and prints of gardens in England, as well as plants he had heard about. In the mean time Backer sent fruit from Boreel’s garden (Beeckestijn) and grapevines to England, in order that Boreel could entertain his guests during meals and have some gifts ready for people who he might want give one.

Let’s just hope that the current cutting of trees can confirm the early landscape layout I have discerned from Backers letters and cash register…

1. H. van der Eijk, “Sandenhoeff: een vroeg landschappelijke tuin?”, Cascade 18 (2009), nr. 2, p104-110. He called them ‘Americaansche boomen’ and paid for the complete package of getting trees from the other side of the ocean: retrieval, freight, transport and -not the least- provision.
   At the time, Dutch gardens were still laid out in a traditional manner, full blown landscape gardens did not appear till the 1780s. One of the first was Elswout itself, by the way, initiated by a member of the Boreel family. [back]

• Koepel van Stoop

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/P5160473.jpg
  la

• View from the Koepel van Stoop

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/P5160477.jpg
  la

• View from the north

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/P5160481.jpg
  la

• Seen from the west

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/P5160478.jpg
  la

• Almost removed beeches in May 2010

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/P5160474.jpg
  la

• Beech trees removed (November 2011)

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/IMG_0121.jpg
  la

• This horse chestnut is also cut down

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/P5160479.jpg
  la

Photos HvdE 2010 and 2011.
Mind: this slideshow may not work well on iPad.
Fact: clicking any separate picture in the slideshow opens the original image.

I don’t know why I thought the trees were just heavily pruned, I probably did not want to think of the more rigorous option, which also resulted in cutting down a horse chestnut just north of the building. A little bit of reading could have pointed me in the right direction.
The building is in use as a studio for the artist Mijpe since 2005. Her website shows the reason for the removal of these trees: a storm in May 2009 damaged a number of beech trees near the building. To avoid damage to the cupola -which was restored in 2003- by the remainder of the trees, these have been removed from March 2010 onwards.

My only question is: is there any plan to replant the group of trees on this location? A photo in the archive of the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (RCE) shows what a background they offer, a magnificent view that is now lost. I’m guessing the trees dated back to the 1840s, and as such are part of either that design by Zocher, or of the initial plans for the establishment of an estate on this location by Stoop. Both arguments speak for a completion of the 2003 cupola restoration in its original context (i.e. cupola complete with group of trees).
Or do we accept the gradual loss of quality and context between this building and its surroundings?

1. This building was built in 1840 for the Amsterdam banker J.B. Stoop, who intended to create an estate on this location. It was designed by architect J.D. Zocher jr. Problems with watermanagement on this location caused Stoop to choose an alternative location. In nearby Zeist he built Molenbosch, also a design by J.D. Zocher jr. [back]

That current state differs considerably. Some gardens only show remnants of what once was, the northern garden of Bagh-e Abas Abad for example, or the very minimalist remnants of Cyrus the Great’s garden at Pasargad. Others, such as Bagh-e Fin in Kashan in the Isfahan province, are in pristine shape.

Thusfar the Unesco website only gives two pictures of one garden. We can do better than that. Not all gardens are represented in HGimages (the Historical Gardens photo group on flickr) yet, and the ones that are there do not show many photos. But that is work in progress and I thought it would be nice to get a visual idea of what these gardes look like now. In the list below, the links refer to these photos. No link, no photos.

The nine listed gardens are:

• Bagh-e Abas Abad | HGmap
• Bagh-e Fin | HGmap
• Bagh-e Chehel Sotun | HGmap
• Bagh-e Akhbariyeh
• Bagh-e Shahzadeh
• Bagh-e Eram | HGmap
• Ancient garden of Pasargadae | HGmap
• Bagh-e Dolat Abad | HGmap
• Bagh-e Pahlavanpur

Finally I would like to point at an amazing feature of traditional Iranian architecture, which I encountered while looking for pictures of these gardens: the ‘windcatchers’, as at Dolat Abad. It shows how inventive people can get when living in harsh conditions that -on the surface- seem to make living there impossible. It is the same inventiveness that made gardening possible here for over two and a half century. And counting.

But where Beeckestijn seems to have buried the bunkers for good, another approach is taken in recent years at Toorenvliedt. A small foundation successfully urged the Middelburg council to revive this part of the cities’ history.² It was decided to unearth one of the bunkers completely, and install an information center in it. In 2008 the bunker resurfaced, was connected to the electricity grid and the interior was adapted to its modern purpose. Now it is open at least once a year, but I’m sure the foundation wants it to be open more frequently.

• Toorenvliedt

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Toorenvliedt.jpg

  The house seen from the southwest.

  la

• Partly_covered_bunker

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Partly_covered_bunker.jpg
  la

• The_unearthed_bunker

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/The_unearthed_bunker.jpg
  la

• Toorenvliedt 1832

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Toorenvliedt-1832.png

  Survey map Koudekerke, sectie E, blad 02. With the altered 19th century layout.

  la

• Toorenvliedt 1944

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Toorenvliedt-1944.jpg

  RAF photo 6 months before the flood with some of the bunkers marked.

  la

• Toorenvliedt 1945

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Toorenvliedt-1945.png

  Zeeuws archief, cat.nr. ZI-II-2347-720

  la

• Toorenvliedt 1956

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Toorenvliedt-1956.png

  Zeeuws archief, cat.nr. HTAM-B-0335. Showing the new garden designed by C.P. Broerse.

  la

Photos HvdE 2011; map and RAF photo courtesy of watwaswaar.nl; aereal photo of new layout and photo of destruction courtesy of Zeeuws achief.
Mind: this slideshow may not work well on iPad.
Fact: clicking any separate picture in the slideshow opens the original image.

Toorenvliedt is an 18th century garden with 19th century alterations to house and garden. It was completely destroyed in 1944, when this part of Zeeland was inundated after the allied forces caused the sea dykes to break -in order to get the German forces to leave. The Germans left fairly quickly, the water stayed for over a year. Apart from all kinds of major damage to cities and human suffering, it also left an arid plain where once the almost 200 year old garden of Toorenvliedt had been. Only the ponds seem to have survived the flood.

That garden was redesigned and replanted shortly after the war, basically swiping its concequences under the rug.³ But the design and the trees were new and the park has now matured into a public park for the surrounding residential areas.

Knowing that, it makes sense to attempt to revive the memory of the devastation of those last war years by opening this bunker. Some of the other bunkers in the garden are also (partly) visible for the public. This way they present a more vivid reminder of the war period than the artifical hills at Beeckestijn now do. In January the Middelburg council decided to embed the work that needs to be done in and around the park in a participation in the European project “World War II Heritage”.

And then I thought: why not do the same at Beeckestijn? Beeckestijn yearns back to its 18th century splendour, but never seems to get it right, because there is no money or because there is no coherent plan (or both).
WW II was as instrumental for Beeckestijn as it was for Toorenvliedt: it meant a new beginning for both gardens. Maybe even more so for Beeckestijn, where the devastations of the war meant the end of a long period of neglect and the start of a new period of bloom.⁴
I don’t see why this part of the estate’s past should remain buried.

1. The bunkers formed part of a defense unit built by German soldiers as part of the Atlantik Wall, called Stützpunkt Brünhild. [back]
2. The foundation is called Stichting Bunkerbehoud. [back]
3. The garden was designed by C.P. Broerse in 1948. [back]
4. I make it sound more easy here than it actually was: the life of the garden was in danger for over a decade after the war before the decision to restore it was made. [back]

• Pinus pinea at Hortus VU_1

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Pinus-pinea-at-Hortus-VU_1.png
  la

• Pinus pinea at Hortus VU_2

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Pinus-pinea-at-Hortus-VU_2.png
  la

Last weekend one of the more prominent trees in the young botanical garden collapsed under the load of snow that has fallen in the past weeks. The pictures made by the Hortus above show the Pinus pinea (Stone pine or Umbrella pine, and in Dutch: Parasolden) tree fell into one of the paths of the garden. Luckily it does not appear to have damaged other plants.
This incident seems indicative of the dark cloud that hangs over this botanical garden, as it’s own Alma Mater threatens to close it and use the land for building purposes. I guess we only have the financial crisis to thank for the fact that these plans seem to be shelved. For now.

(click on the larger images to see the whole picture)

So when someone added this photo to the flickr photo group, I immediately thought: where are the hedges gone?

The hedges stood in front of the curved retaining wall. It is part of the central feature in the garden: a circular area, with four small stairs leading up to the raised center where a statue is placed (since 2007 – replacing an octogonal bird house that stood there earlier). That situation, before the birdhouse and hedges were removed, is visible here:

All hedges that stood in this area seem to have been replaced by young planting, except the ones on ground level right in front of the wall. The purpose of these particular hedges was to conceal the retaining wall. In the original design people were not supposed to have a clear view at the wall, they may have been lead to believe the hedge itself retained the soil behind it. That design choice, quite a usual approach in early 20th century garden design, is now discarded.
The photo of the new situation is made by Infrastucturas Sostenibles Sando, whose subsidiary Althenia has recently worked on several parks in Málaga. I don’t know which design choices have caused the complete removal of these hedges, but it is a pity they have not been replanted. Not because I like clipping hedges that much, but because -again- an original design feature has gone.

(Click the link behind ‘HGimages’ below this post for more photos of the garden.)

The statue was protected by a wooden casing (visible in the centre of the picture), but that would not have protected it from a falling fully grown tree.
The hegde lining the garden inside the surrounding moat is damaged over a length of ten meters, and a few conically shaped yew trees have taken a blow as well.

The Garden

Over the last century a lot of effort is put into the recreation of the garden that once occupied the site. The original garden was probably designed around 1705, by Allert Meijer (1654-1722). In the course of the 19th century the garden was re-landscaped according to the fashion of the day: it became a garden in landscape style.
After the last occupant of the house died (1902), the borg was transferred by the Alberda van Menkema family to a regional museum. The next 25 years were spent on restoring both the house and the garden into something that harked back to the original splendour of the 18th century. Finding the map by Meijer helped the restoration of the garden immensely, although landscape architects H. Copijn en Zn. did not fully restore the garden.

From the 1980s onwards, further work was done to restore or reconstruct the 18th century garden. While doing so, many original 18th century features were found (like the foundations of several pavilions made from trelliswork). Many of the statues in the garden are copies of 18th century statues.
In 2010 the maze, designed by H. Copijn en Zn. in 1921, was replanted. For this reason the maze is closed in the upcoming years.

The Trees

The beech trees that have fallen down formed part of the avenues surrounding this garden, lining the outside of the moat. According to the current owner, the trees appeared to be healthy. The root system of one of the trees now appears to have been infected; the storm proved to be too much to handle. According to the Menkemaborg website, the hole in the tree line will get bigger: there already was approval to cut down several sick and dead trees immediately next to the now fallen trees.

Hikers are advised to avoid the avenues during strong winds, and the condition of the remaining trees shall be assessed. Which leads me to think that those avenues will probably see some chainsaw action in the near future. Glad the avenues also consist of oak and lime trees, which are less vulnerable.

The Statue

Pallas Athena is a painted terracotta statue that was bought by the Menkemaborg in 2007. It was unveiled on June 16 2007. Pallas used to stand in the garden of Dijksterhuis in Pieterburen, an estate also owned by the Alberda van Menkema family, so in some way it stayed in the family.
Maybe that is what saved her.