Several years ago, architecture center AR-TUR released the DVD ‘Domestic Modernism — 3 Houses around Turnhout’. The documentary tells the story of three houses designed by architects Paul Neefs, Atelier Vanhout & Schellekens, and the firm of Lou Jansen and Rudi Schiltz, architects whom we consider part of the ‘Turnhout School’.

The theme is undoubtedly relevant, especially since the film originated from the observation that the intriguing architecture of the Turnhout School is insufficiently known, and gradually — some forty years after its realization — is increasingly exposed to the ‘dangers’ of the drive for contemporary comfort requirements. Many buildings risk losing their identity due to new owners with changed living requirements and regulations regarding, for example, energy performance. As a result, various ill-considered extensions have already appeared, facades and volumes have lost their original character, and contemporary kitchen islands have aggressively conquered interior spaces without regard for the architectural concepts that made these homes so special.

AR-TUR therefore conceived the ambitious idea of creating an exhibition and publication about the architecture of the Turnhout School. As an architecture center, we aim to enhance knowledge about quality contemporary architecture and provide advice in the increasingly complex development processes of buildings and infrastructure, where the inspiring aspects of architecture are often overlooked. The relatively recent and still unknown heritage that the Turnhout School leaves behind is particularly vulnerable in this respect.

Although the mentioned theme explicitly starts from the appreciation of architecture as immovable heritage, collaboration regarding the accessibility of the archives — which belong to movable heritage — proved to be of great importance. We found the majority of the resources for the realization of this publication through subsidies within the framework of the heritage decree that supports initiatives around movable heritage. Therefore, the entire development process of the exhibition with accompanying publication is conceived as a case study regarding a comprehensive approach to acquiring, preserving, researching, and making architectural archives accessible, culminating in the written documentation of a piece of objective recent architectural history based on this. We aim to generate momentum and share our experiences with other architectural organizations and organizations involved with architectural archives.

The archives of the architects of the so-called Turnhout School from the golden sixties are an ideal example of this. These archives are vulnerable, not yet organized, and usually incomplete, as is the case for other architectural archives from the recent past. For this project, it was logical that AR-TUR would collaborate extensively with the Architectural Archive of the Province of Antwerp (APA). After all, the APA manages the archives of Paul Neefs and of Jansen and Schiltz. After closing his practice in 1983, Paul Neefs meticulously redrew a selection of his projects at 1/100 scale and then destroyed his archive. Only two ring binders with plans and some damaged black-and-white photographs and negatives remain. After his death in 2009, this archive was transferred to the APA. The complete archive of predecessor Eugène Wauters has also been acquired by the APA. Lou Jansen himself recently transferred the majority of his archive to the APA.

Furthermore, architect Luc Vanhout manages the archive of his father Carli Vanhout and of Atelier Vanhout & Schellekens: some photographs, a few more artistic drawings, and most files and tracings. Paul Schellekens also still owns some notable plans and drawings, mainly from his student days.

APA prioritized this project in making its archives accessible and thus formed an important driver for the project’s feasibility. Since most of the APA’s archives consist of fragile old tracings that are difficult to print or scan using conventional methods, APA arranged for the photographic reproduction of the tracings, while AR-TUR expanded the archive by searching for preliminary designs and building permit applications on paper from clients — both private individuals and social housing companies and municipal authorities — which are easier to scan. This allowed us to lay the foundation for a digital archive of more than two hundred documents that can be easily consulted and distributed. This is particularly significant enrichment for Paul Neefs’ limited archive.

Through the architects and their families, we also came into contact with items that usually don’t end up in archives, such as books, photographs, and slides from study trips. Many clients have since passed away or are moving to retirement homes, causing their houses to be recently sold or soon to change ownership. Although all buildings are particularly valuable and are often discussed in professional literature, such as in “Building through the Ages in Flanders”, there is little quality visual material available. At best, we occasionally find some slides with the architects. These are usually of inferior quality due to non-professional photography from the past or poor conservation.

Therefore, we generally selected buildings that have changed the least, so we could photograph them in their authentic state. These photographs with the original window profiles, finishing materials, kitchen, and bathroom document a condition that is likely to be affected in the near future.

In this project, we also attached importance to oral history. However, three of the five architects have since passed away. The widows of Paul Neefs and Rudi Schiltz were still able to tell us much about their husbands and their work. Paul Schellekens and Lou Jansen are 72 and 76 years old respectively. It was high time to let them tell about their life and work. This revealed more about their profession: their working methods, philosophy, visual language, and the buildings they worked on. But we also wanted to highlight their human side through travel stories and anecdotes. In oral history, the clients receive special attention. Due to the specific interaction between client and architect, each building has its specific origin story. Furthermore, secondary oral sources, such as draftsmen who worked at the offices and interns, were consulted to reconstruct the history.

For this publication, AR-TUR worked with an editorial board consisting of researchers from the APA, KU-Leuven, the Flanders Heritage Agency, and the Artesis University College Antwerp. We were also fortunate to work with several privileged witnesses. For instance, Yves De Bont, also a board member, spent a year and a half as a researcher on this project. He actively experienced the period in question, including as an intern (from 1971 to 1974) with Lou Jansen, and knows the architects personally. Francis Strauven, who still traveled with Paul Neefs in the 1960s, further researched his work. Through searching and studying archives and sources, Yves uncovered the trajectory of several projects, such as the Warande, several residential areas, and individual houses, from project definition, through preliminary designs, to design and changes during execution. It is noted that the architects maintained excellent relationships with their clients. It becomes clear where they drew their inspiration from through the buildings they visited on their travels, which magazines they subscribed to, and which books they read. The evolution of each architectural firm is examined separately. Ultimately, the larger history of the Turnhout School is written, with their collaborations, influences, friendships, and friction. This is possible because the period covered is limited to about ten years and because we chose the most influential from hundreds of buildings from that period. It was certainly not intended to write an exhaustive monograph of each firm.

In the debate following the screening of ‘Domestic Modernism’ with residents and architects of the three featured houses, each of the architects expressed varying degrees of concern about the future of their architectural legacy. All had been approached to renovate one of their own projects. A number of their realizations have already been modified by others — with or without expertise — or are rapidly approaching that point. For example, the Van Roy house on Kempenlaan in Turnhout was recently converted into a veterinary practice by Jansen’s own office. The evolution of Jansen’s architectural practice itself and the break with the past that the exterior radiates is remarkable here. The use of materials with metal corrugated sheets forms a clearly visible contrast with the previous detailing of the existing facades in white-painted brick. In their recently completed renovation of the Van Rompay house in Beerse — also designed by Jansen in 1971 — architects Nagels and Verbraeken showed particular care. They visited several houses by Jansen built in the same period and concluded that the Van Rompay house is exemplary of that design period. This was also confirmed by Jansen himself in a preliminary conversation. The Van Rompay house is the result of a functionalist approach to living where living is conceived as a chain of defined functions. This division allowed Jansen to work modularly within a strict mathematical geometric pattern in plan and facade construction. Thus, the plan is captured within a four-part symmetry with identical four-sidedness. It’s also interesting that all facades are identical, although orientation was taken into account during construction by directing the entrance to the north, the dining area to the east, the play area southward, and the office to the west. The one-sided extension with semicircular entrance hall that Jo Crepain added to the same house in the 1980s sets itself against the building’s laws and makes few attempts at rapprochement. Nagels and Verbraeken, however, indicate that if you make changes within this principle, you quickly affect the strong ‘self-legality’ of the design, which was not their intention. It was therefore obvious that an extension could be placed centrally on top, as Jansen himself did in his original design for the Remeysen house in 1972 in Merksplas. For stability reasons, Nagels and Verbraeken chose a contemporary extension on the first floor in timber frame construction supported by the four existing slender steel columns. They also opted for an exterior wall construction that is identical on all four sides. The construction elements remain visible inside and form wall shelves. The facade cladding consists of lacquered glass with a certain transparency, causing the additional volume to change under different weather conditions and distinguish itself from the base. The important zenithal light incidence below is maintained through well-considered recesses in walls and floors, giving the ground floor house a vertical dimension that was less present before. This project demonstrates that different needs of new users in a later period can be positively implemented in significant buildings, despite their pronounced identity or strong image.

The different approach evident in these three examples is exemplary. During the creation period of this publication, the Turnhout cultural center de Warande was also being renovated again. In the past, the Warande was already expanded with the Warandep’Ant, and several smaller interventions took place. In preparation for the current renovations, a so-called ‘heritage assessment’ was established for the Warande as the first public building. With this recent legal instrument, the Flemish Government imposes an assessment framework where (partial) demolition or renovation of a valuable building must be weighed against heritage values. Both the opening of the renewed Warande and the fortieth anniversary of the cultural center in the year when Turnhout is also the cultural city of Flanders form the perfect timing for the opening of the exhibition based on this publication.

We hope that the knowledge gathered here can be useful in approaching existing buildings from the golden sixties in general and the Turnhout School in particular. While most of the buildings described here may not appear particularly spectacular, they are often quiet witnesses of or exercises within a design philosophy that becomes more visible through knowledge of various projects by the architect, of the era in which he worked, and his own story in this regard.

Finally, we thank all architects and their families for sharing their archives, the clients and current residents and users of the buildings the architects left behind, the editorial board, the board of directors of AR-TUR, the APA, Cultural Center De Warande, the sponsors and the Flemish Community for their contribution to this project. Special thanks also to Sofie De Caigny (coordinator Flemish Architecture Archives Center) and Cor Van Istendael (Heritage Cell Northern Kempen) for their advice in preparing the grant application.

On behalf of AR-TUR and the entire editorial board, I wish you great reading pleasure.