Het Hof van Sint Jan te Utrecht: over het dichten van een gat

For centuries the immunities of the town of Utrecht were distinguished by their enclosed and remarkably spacious character. After the reformation in 1580 these territories, inhabited by canons, were gradually becoming available for building. In recent history a new building project was realized in the former territory of one of the oldest immunities, the immunity of St John: ‘St John’s Court’ / ‘Hof van Sint Jan’. This did not take place without any resistance. On the site where a neglected multi-storey car park had caused trouble for years on end, an enclosed, combined residential and business complex arose, including controversial high-rise buildings. Residents, municipality, buildings aesthetics committee and the Department for the Preservation of Historic Buildings came into conflict with each other on this issue. In this article the building history is described on the basis of relevant material from the records and the various arguments are held against the light of the historical development. The development of the building plan took more than twenty years. The Department for the Preservation of Historic Buildings (RDMZ) initially based itself on the established designated use as a ‘garden’. The municipality, on the other hand, took the view that the RDMZ appealed to an outdated zoning plan. Due to lack of money a small-scale outline plan and a public municipal garden were not considered feasible. However, this point of view creates the deceptive impression that the designated uses in question have been superseded for reasons of contents. The RDMZ blamed the municipality for an unjust legitimization of the plan and unwillingness to contribute towards the costs of the development. Accepting lack of money as a ‘realistic approach’ was said to ignore the essence of the protection. On the basis of comparison with the historical development of the area, it may be concluded that this criticism of the legitimization as regards the contents of the building plan has proved to be just. Social pressure to put an end to the uninterrupted flow of plans for this relatively large open space, and the opposition of many years’ standing by a reluctant garage owner are more probable reasons for the realization of the building project. The RDMZ has made clear that it will not accept these grounds, but a significant impact of this on the building process has not taken place so far. Whether this has been just in view of the contents is doubtful.For centuries the immunities of the town of Utrecht were distinguished by their enclosed and remarkably spacious character. After the reformation in 1580 these territories, inhabited by canons, were gradually becoming available for building. In recent history a new building project was realized in the former territory of one of the oldest immunities, the immunity of St John: ‘St John’s Court’ / ‘Hof van Sint Jan’. This did not take place without any resistance. On the site where a neglected multi-storey car park had caused trouble for years on end, an enclosed, combined residential and business complex arose, including controversial high-rise buildings. Residents, municipality, buildings aesthetics committee and the Department for the Preservation of Historic Buildings came into conflict with each other on this issue. In this article the building history is described on the basis of relevant material from the records and the various arguments are held against the light of the historical development. The development of the building plan took more than twenty years. The Department for the Preservation of Historic Buildings (RDMZ) initially based itself on the established designated use as a ‘garden’. The municipality, on the other hand, took the view that the RDMZ appealed to an outdated zoning plan. Due to lack of money a small-scale outline plan and a public municipal garden were not considered feasible. However, this point of view creates the deceptive impression that the designated uses in question have been superseded for reasons of contents. The RDMZ blamed the municipality for an unjust legitimization of the plan and unwillingness to contribute towards the costs of the development. Accepting lack of money as a ‘realistic approach’ was said to ignore the essence of the protection. On the basis of comparison with the historical development of the area, it may be concluded that this criticism of the legitimization as regards the contents of the building plan has proved to be just. Social pressure to put an end to the uninterrupted flow of plans for this relatively large open space, and the opposition of many years’ standing by a reluctant garage owner are more probable reasons for the realization of the building project. The RDMZ has made clear that it will not accept these grounds, but a significant impact of this on the building process has not taken place so far. Whether this has been just in view of the contents is doubtful