Ankone, Joost 1

The Production of Reused Church Buildings
The process of adaptive reuse examined
Joost Ankone
Masterthesis Human Geography, Urban and Cultural Geography

School of Management
Radboud University Nijmegen
1
Masterthesis Human Geography, Urban and Cultural Geography
The Production of Reused Church Buildings

The process of adaptive reuse examined
Name: Joost Ankone

Student number: S0800678
Mentor: dr. R. Pijpers
Second reader: dr. R. van Melik
Master Human Geography, Urban and Cultural Geography

School of Management
Radboud University Nijmegen
April 2016
Contact: j.ankone@student.ru.nl / joostankone90@gmail.com

3
I. Preface
When I first started in the field of Human Geography in September 2014, I looked at space and
place from a historian’s perspective. I had just finished my master in History and was fortunate
that I could follow a second master study at the Radboud University Nijmegen. Throughout the
master year, I learned more and more about the way space and place influence our lives (and
vice versa) and especially how interdisciplinary the field of Geography is. Because of this
characteristic, I could combine my background as a historian with urban and cultural geography
in this thesis, researching the process of adaptive reuse of church buildings.
When I started my internship at the Cultural Heritage Agency, I had the ambition to finish
my thesis in September 2016. The fact that I am writing this preface in April 2016 shows that I did
not succeeded. The reasons for this delay were the opportunities that crossed my path during my
internship: I conducted another research for the Agency and I was hired (part-time) in October
2015 as a project assistant.
This thesis could not have been written without the support of my mentor Roos Pijpers,
who guided me through the process with her expertise and gave me insightful comments on my
work. I also want to thank Mirjam Blott and Frank Strolenberg – my supervisors at the Agency –
for the chances to gain experience in the field of religious heritage and the freedom for conducting
my own research. My girlfriend Marjolein, who supported me during the whole process. My sister
Marjolein – what is in the name? – who helped me to improve my English writing throughout my
master. Finally, my parents who gave me the possibility to conduct a second master and always
gave me the chance to follow my dreams.
Joost Ankone
Den Haag, April 2016
4
II. Abstract
Although research shows that monuments have a positive effect on the liveability, the
attractiveness and spatial quality of cities, discussions about the most threatened monumental
buildings still arise: churches. On a municipal level, the effects of the changing religious society
are visible and discussions concerning the adaptive reuse of church buildings occur more and
more. Especially when the building is not protected as a monument, different actors try to achieve
this. Neighbourhood initiatives, local or national heritage associations, and action groups request
the municipality to protect the building, so demolition is more difficult. When the municipality
appoints such a building as a monument, it leads to friction among different parties. Involved
parties often go to court and let court judge over the monumental value of the building. The church
building becomes a contested space during the process of adaptive reuse. This process is
researched based on the Conceptual Triad of Henri Lefebvre (1991 [1974]): a theory on space
which makes it is possible to explain the production of the urban space.
Space is produced by three elements from the Conceptual Triad: spatial practices, i.e. the
perceived space; representations of space, i.e. the conceived space by urban planners, policy
officers and architects; and the representational space, i.e. the lived space by urban dwellers and
users. Space is created by on the one hand designers (policy officers, politicians and planners)
and on the other hand the users (city inhabitants). These two groups can give a different meaning
to space, which may lead to friction, something that the planners of space, i.e. the politicians and
policy officers, have to take into account. Moreover, policy officers create the conceived space,
but they are also part of the lived space from which their personal background derived. This
research examines whether this personal background plays a role in their policymaking and in
what way this is of influence on the process of adaptive reuse. It also analyzes whether other
involved actors also have influence on the reuse process. It does so with the following question:
What is the (personal) meaning that municipal policy officers and other involved actors give to
church buildings and what is the influence of this on the process of adaptive reuse?
For this thesis, research is conducted in Emmen, Oss, Standdaarbuiten and Weert. Four
processes of adaptive reuse are compared, in which all church buildings had one common
denominator: the municipal monument status. This instrument of the conceived space shows an
intention with the space and connects the municipality to the process of adaptive reuse. Two
different research methods are used: data analysis and qualitative research. The most important
(policy) documents concerning adaptive reuse are examined and interviews are conducted with
the most important respondents that were involved in the process. Moreover, three heritage
professionals are questioned to retrieve an overview of the municipal monument field.
The results of this research show that the opinions/meaning of the involved actors are
mainly connected to their interests in the process of adaptive reuse. The church board has a
different vision on the building, because it intends to sell the building and feels this becomes
difficult when a monument status is appointed. The neighbourhood association or inhabitants
experience the building differently, because they want to maintain it for the view, religious use, or
do not want developments in their backyard. Heritage associations consider the building from a
cultural-historical perspective and wish to preserve the building because it is rare and has a
certain historical value. Even within the municipal organization different visions on space can be
5
found: the policy officer of monuments can have a different vision on space than the project
department. Although there were differences in the vision on space, only in Oss did the
monumentality of the building become a real topic of discussion. The most outstanding actor is
the national heritage association the Cuypersgenootschap, which greatly influenced the
processes in Emmen and Standdaarbuiten. If they did not requested the municipality to list both
church buildings, it would have been easier to demolish the buildings and it is possible it would
no longer be in existence. There is no certainty that this would have been the case, but their
request raised awareness to the (soon to be) vacant church buildings in those two cases.
This awareness is definitely present in the neighbourhoods, although it seems absent in
this research. The different owners stress that they find it important that the neighbourhood
supports their projects. Although the involvement of the neighbourhood differs in the cases, it
seems likely that most of the inhabitants felt that the building would not be demolished (probably
due to the municipal monument status). The fact that there were no large-scaled developments
in three of the four cases (the building process still needs to start in Emmen) contributes to the
lack of involvement as well.
The meaning that policy officers give to church buildings depends on their personal
background (lived space), as well as the municipal monument policy (conceived space). To what
extent the personal background plays a role in the decision-making process is harder to grasp.
Policy officers also depend on the interest of the responsible aldermen and how interested these
are concerning monument policy. Despite six interviews with different respondents active as
policy officer or member of a monument-commission, it was not possible to examine this
profoundly. Personal background does play a role when policy is created and decisions are made,
but to what extent this is the case remains a subject for further research.
Lefebvre’s Conceptual Triad shows that it is important that all actors (which represent the
conceived and lived space) are involved and support the process. The Fatimakerk in Weert is a
good example of this and shows that the municipality and its policy officer can play a great
(facilitating) role in the process (and for that reason the production of space). On the one hand, it
shows how important the municipal framework and its note is, but, on the other hand, also the
way the policy officer executes her job and uses her personal background to improve the process.
Some recommendations are given based on the results of this research, will help to
understand the processes better and can be used by everyone who is interested, working or
connected with (the adaptive reuse of) church buildings.
 Although the advantages of cultural heritage are clear, most municipalities do not take the
initiative in the process of adaptive reuse of church buildings. Although the local
government is not obliged to do so, it is understandable that owners expect help from the
municipality when their building is listed as municipal monument, especially when this
happens during the process of adaptive reuse. A municipal monument status shows the
municipality wants to maintain the church building for the city/village. Therefore, they
should act as a facilitator of the process and act more pro-active;
 Three out of the four churches were listed with the knowledge that the building would have
to be reused in the recent future. When this is known, municipalities should consider the
possibilities for adaptive reuse before the building is listed. When the possibilities for reuse
6
are small and largely obstructed by a monument status, the municipality can consider this
in its decision to list the building or not;
 Communication is a key factor during the process, from the listing procedure until the
actual reuse of the building. Although it is legally correct to only send a letter with the
message that a listing procedure starts, it would be recommended that the municipality
organize meetings to explain the consequences of the listing and possible reuse of the
building. It is important for the support of the municipal monument status (and the
municipal monument policy in general) that it is clear for owners what is and what is not
possible. This also applies to the process of adaptive reuse. When the communication
between inhabitants, the owner and other involved actors is clear, active and personal,
the process of reuse runs smoother;
 All interested actors in the process of adaptive reuse should be involved. Adaptive reuses
in which the neighbourhood, the municipality, and the former believers are all involved are
successful. Although it is not a condition for a reuse to succeed, it definitely contributes to
the success of the project. Adaptive reuse processes at most take a couple of years. When
all interested actors are involved in the process, the support stays present as well;
 All new users of the building were found in the surrounding areas and already knew the
building. Especially outside the large cities (in the more rural/smaller urban areas), it is
important to focus on the local inhabitants. They are the new potential users for the
building.
7
III. Table of contents
I. Preface ................................................................................................................................... 4
II. Abstract.................................................................................................................................. 5
III. Table of contents .................................................................................................................. 8
1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................11
1.1 Background .....................................................................................................................11
1.2 Aim of this study ..............................................................................................................15
1.3 Relevance .......................................................................................................................15
1.4 Reading guide .................................................................................................................17
2. Theoretical framework ........................................................................................................18
2.1 Church buildings in the urban and rural environment .......................................................18
2.2 Religious buildings as (sacred) space..............................................................................19
2.3 Religious buildings and heritage ......................................................................................21
2.4 Religious buildings and their spatial environment ............................................................23
2.5 Religious buildings and adaptive reuse............................................................................24
2.6 Religious buildings and the production of space ..............................................................25
2.7 Operationalization ............................................................................................................29
2.8 Conceptual framework and leading thoughts ...................................................................32
3. Methodology........................................................................................................................35
3.1 Case study design ...........................................................................................................35
3.2 Selection of cases ...........................................................................................................37
3.3 Research methods ..........................................................................................................39
3.4 Reliability and validity ......................................................................................................43
4. Multilevel governance of adaptive reuse ...........................................................................45
4.1 Adaptive reuse.................................................................................................................45
4.2 Legal and political framework ..........................................................................................46
4.3 Different stakeholders ......................................................................................................48
4.4 Municipal policy practices ................................................................................................52
4.5 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................53
5. The Fatimakerk in Weert .....................................................................................................55
5.1 Introduction of the case ...................................................................................................55
5.2 The municipal monument policy ......................................................................................57
8
5.3 The process of adaptive reuse.........................................................................................58
5.4 Differences in appreciation of the involved actors ............................................................59
5.5 Influence personal opinion monumental policy ................................................................61
5.6 Production of space .........................................................................................................62
6. The Pauluskerk in Oss ........................................................................................................64
7. The Zuiderkerk in Emmen ..................................................................................................74
7.6 The production of space ..................................................................................................81
8. The Johannes de Doperkerk in Standdaarbuiten .............................................................82
9. Analysis and comparison cases ........................................................................................90
9.3 Differences in appreciation policy officers and involved actors.........................................93
9.4 Influence personal opinion on monuments by policy officers ...........................................95
9.5 Production of space – Conceptual Triad ..........................................................................95
10. Conclusion and recommendations ..................................................................................97
10.1 Remarks and reflection research ...................................................................................97
9
10.2 Results analysis.............................................................................................................98
10.3 Recommendations .........................................................................................................99
10.4 Discussion ...................................................................................................................100
References ............................................................................................................................102
Literature .............................................................................................................................102
Interviews ............................................................................................................................111
Images ................................................................................................................................112
Appendix ...............................................................................................................................114
10
1. Introduction
‘Church in Standdaarbuiten remains a monument’, ‘Battle around Zuiderkerk continues’ and
‘Church board wants money from Oss [municipality] for Pauluskerk’ are some regional headliners
which tell the story of conflicts around the municipal monument status.1 During the last couple of
years, these kind of headlines have appeared regularly on a regional level, which is where the
effects of the changing religious society are becoming increasingly visible (Bernts & Berghuis,
2016). There are (soon to be) vacant church buildings – for which the future is uncertain – in
nearly every Dutch municipality, especially when the building is not protected as a monument.
This uncertainty often results in a call from different actors to protect the church building as a
municipal monument. Local or national heritage associations, action groups or neighbourhood
initiatives request the municipality to protect the building, so demolition is not possible when the
owner changes. The municipal monument status is seen as the last resort to prevent vacant
churches from being demolished after their sale.
When the municipality appoints a church with a municipal monumental status in such an
adaptive reuse process, it leads to friction between different parties. The church board assumes
that a monument status leads to more difficulties during the sale of the building, because there
are restrictions on the use of the space. It is no longer easy to demolish the building and some
changes in the building have to be approved by the local monument-commission. Furthermore,
church boards think that the selling price of the building is lower due to the status. Involved parties
often go to court and let court judge over the monumental value of the building. The church board
states that the building barely has any monumental values, while the action groups, the
municipality or heritage associations reason the opposite. Both have different interests and
visions on the space of the church building, which makes it contested space. Friction arises
between the planned space and lived space, which is something the planners of space, i.e. the
politicians and policy officers, have to take into account.
Politicians and policy officers plan not only for themselves, but also for the city and all its
inhabitants. However, policy officers are also humans with their own preferences and monuments
will also have – besides a professional meaning – a personal meaning to them. It is the question
to what extent this meaning plays a role in the municipal monument policy. Besides that, the
meaning of monumental space for planners, politicians and for inhabitants, form together the
production of monumental space. The context for this research will be the process of adaptive
reuse of church buildings with a municipal monumental status.
1.1 Background
This development – vacant churches that are being sold – can be seen in all regions of the
Netherlands. The declining visiting rates of churches lead to increasing vacancy. This started as
early as the 1960s, when Dutch citizens distanced themselves from organized religion more and
more. This deconsecrating became stronger throughout the 20th century and led to a decline in
the amount of Christian believers (Van Eijnatten & Van Lieburg, 2006, 329). This development is
problematic and causes societal anxiety among religious groups and among neighbours, who do
1Kerk Standdaarbuiten blijft toch monument. (2014, October 16). BN DeStem; T. de Louw (2013, April
25). Willibrordusparochie eist geld van gemeente Oss. Brabants Dagblad; Strijd om Zuiderkerk Emmen
gaat door (2015, January 31). Dagblad van het Noorden.
11
not want to lose the church as an important ‘landmark’ –an identity defining element– in their
habitat. The statistics show that the problem is expanding rapidly. There are approximately 7.000
churches in the Netherlands, of which 4.000 are currently in use. The Roman Catholic community
still owns 1.700 churches, against 2.300 protestant churches. From these 7.000 churches, 2.000
are under the protection of the Cultural Heritage Agency. How many religious heritage is under
the protection of municipalities is unknown. Estimations are that in the next decennia around
1.500-2.000 churches will be demolished, if governmental and church policy does not change
(Sonneveld n.d.). Due to the economic crisis, the problem has increased during the last decade.
A lot of church owners could not financially exploit their buildings and had to sell their church,
sometimes even for the symbolic amount of one euro (‘Lambertuskerk Buren voor 1 euro
verkocht’, 2015). It is difficult to use and maintain religious heritage or to find new functions for
vacated churches and monasteries.
When the municipality appoints a municipal monument status to a church building in such
an adaptive reuse process, it often leads to friction between different parties. The church board
is trying to sell the building and states that such a status barely has advantages and only limits
the owner. Often heard criticism is that the status hinders the sale and reuse of a church, because
the building cannot be demolished easily. Besides that, certain restrictions apply to the building,
whereby renovations have to be approved by a special monument-commission. Criticisms are
that these restrictions lead to a lower sales price, less interested parties and less possibilities for
adaptive reuse. Besides that, these buildings have already existed in these municipalities for
decennia, so why protect those buildings so late in the process of adaptive reuse? The
municipality or other parties state that the building has historical values and is important for the
view of the city. Furthermore, the church can be important for the liveability of neighbourhoods or
small villages. The use of the monumental status differs between cities, because municipalities
have room within the legal framework to configure their own monument policy. There is no
coherent monument policy on a local level.
In general, cultural heritage –which monuments are part of– is experienced as positive
and important for the city and its inhabitants. Several studies stress the fact that heritage is part
of, creates, and maintains our identity (Reinders, 2005). Cultural heritage has a certain value for
society; we can derive our history from it. Monuments themselves contribute to the living quality
of a city and serve as a mark of ‘identity of an area, which from the meaning of the past can
contribute to better spatial quality of the location’ (Cerutti, 2011, 10). These thoughts on
monuments are in line with a shift on the national level. Until 1999, the focus lay on the single
object, but with the policy plan Nota Belvedere this switched to an approach centred on
monuments and their environment (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, 1999).
This is in line with the change from a ‘conservation paradigm’ to ‘transformation paradigm’,
because heritage is nowadays seen as a part of spatial planning and as contributions to the spatial
quality of the area as a whole. Research shows that monumental cities have more growth and
less aging of the population than non-monumental cities. This is also visible in the increasing
housing prices, since these are decreasing in non-monumental cities (Van Duijn & Rouwendal,
2013; Marlet & Woerkens, 2015). Thus monuments contribute to a better climate for settlement
in a city.
That raises the question of why there are conflicts about the reuse of monuments and in
this case church buildings? Religious heritage sites are a rare phenomenon. They can be seen
12
as sacred spaces, which are more difficult to reuse, since more actors and emotions are in play.
A site, space or landscape is sacred, because humans perceive it as such (Carmichael et al.,
1994). The perception of what is sacred differs across the world. In the Netherlands, we mainly
deal with a Christian society in which it is possible to deconsecrate sacred sites. A church can be
deconsecrated by a ritual procedure so that it becomes a secular site which – in theory – can be
used for any other purpose. Sacredness is not bound to the place itself, but created by religious
leaders who can create and undo a sacred place (Hubert, 2013). Although a sacred place can be
deconsecrated, it is the question whether it is perceived that way by society. Several examples of
adaptive reuse show that – after deconsecrating the site – the sacred atmosphere and history still
play a great role in the adaptive reuse process.
While in the recent past the public government took the leading role in the process of
adaptive reuse, nowadays this is no longer always the case. Due to economic and political
developments, the role of the public actors is shifting from leading to facilitating. With this shift,
the role of the private actors changes as well. The Dutch government is decentralizing more and
more, which creates new relations between public and private parties. Different actors besides
the municipality are involved and needed in the process of adaptive reuse, like the church board,
church communities, the (possible) owner, neighbours etcetera. The importance of those ‘private’
actors is also stressed by the British architect Latham (2000, 12-13):
‘‘The real limitations are not archaeological, aesthetic, economical or functional, but
psychological: the limits created by preconceptions, and by lack of imagination. Once the will is
there, the skill and ingenuity will follow.’’
These preconceptions can be found by the different parties involved in the process. An example
is the way the municipal monument status is experienced by church boards, who claim that it only
limits the possibilities for sale and adaptive reuse. The church perceives the building – after
deconsecration – as normal ground with rocks on it, which they want to sell for a market conform
price. The neighbourhood, municipality or heritage associations still see it as historical or sacred
space which has to be treated with respect and with its previous function in mind. Besides the
sacred aspect, local societies are emotionally bound to the building (Belvedere, 2008, 9). At that
moment, sacred and secular forces intersect in the making of a place (Kong, 2001, 212).
Although the importance of monuments within a city is known, it is still possible to have
different visions on space by different groups. Based on H. Lefebvre’s (1991 [1974]) theory on
space it is possible to explain the production of the urban space, in this case the production of
monumental space. Lefebvre was a French philosopher and sociologist and introduced in his
several works concepts like right to the city and the production of social space. According to him,
the attention (of researchers) ‘must be expected to shift from things in space to the actual
production of space’ (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974], 37). To Lefebvre, production of space means that
the city is not just an empty space, but produced by its physical being and social processes. In
his work The Production of Space, he states that space is a social construction, formed by on the
one hand designers (policy officers, politicians and architects) and on the other hand the users
(urban dwellers) can give different meanings to the same place. Together these groups create
the (social) space within cities.
13
Space is produced by three elements from the Conceptual Triad: spatial practices, i.e. the
perceived space; representations of space, i.e. the conceived space by urban planners, policy
officers and architects; and the representational space, i.e. the lived space by urban dwellers and
users. It is possible that within the Conceptual Triad there are differences of perception of the
same space. Urban dwellers can see and use space differently than originally planned (Lefebvre,
1991, 38-41). Urban planner M. Leary states that the Conceptual Triad is flexible enough to apply
to different issues of planning on different levels of scale (Leary, 2009, 196-197). From that
perspective, it is possible to apply the perspective of the Conceptual Triad on monuments within
a city. There is a possibility that there is a difference in notions of monuments within a city between
policy officers and politicians on the one hand, and urban dwellers on the other hand.
Policy officers and politicians create the representations of space (the conceived space)
and are responsible for the local monument policy. As professionals, they have to design space
and give meaning to that space that is shared by the urban dwellers. Urban planners T. Fenster
and H. Yacobi (2005, 192) think that ‘generally distinctions can be made between the planners’
professional knowledge, which they obtained from high education as well as from their practice,
and the residents’ local knowledge, which is based on their intuitive perceptions and images of
the city, derived from their daily routine practices in it’. Policy officers (which urban planners are
part of) use their professional knowledge within the representations of space, but they are also
part of the spatial representation (the lived space) because they are users of the space they plan.
This double role can influence the monument policy by the personal influence monuments have
on them.
There has not been a lot of research from a sociologic point of view to the adaptive reuse
of church buildings, especially not with the Conceptual Triad as theory. Most studies examine
these processes from a political, historical or planning perspective. Furthermore, the Conceptual
Triad allows the researcher to analyze to what extent the (personal) influence of policy officers
and the influence of citizens play a role within the production of monumental space during the
process of adaptive reuse. Based on the Conceptual Triad from Lefebvre research is undertaken
into monumental space in the form of vacant church buildings in cities and its adaptive reuse
process. During the adaptive reuse, different actors – who have a connection to the church
building – interact within the process of the creation of the space. During that process, it is possible
to research how different actors appreciate, influence, form and clash with regard to the adaptive
reuse (and the production of the space) of a church building.
The process of adaptive reuse of church buildings is a good process with which to
measure these presumptions, since religious heritage is a phenomenon which is ‘created, shaped
and managed by, and in response to, the demands of the present’ (Ashworth et al., 2007, 3).
Although religious heritage can be seen as a space that is shaped by the city and where social
processes come into being, it also has influence on these processes. From that perspective,
religious heritage can be seen as a space where social processes are (re)produced through the
practices of people, while the social processes of the city and society are shaped by the church
buildings and monasteries (French, 2008). Thus religious heritage can serve as a space wherein
social processes can be examined, as well as a space which shapes these social processes.
While religious heritage is constantly shaped by different societal groups and open to change, it
is a source for conflicts.
14
1.2 Aim of this study
The aim of this research is to investigate the role of different actors within the production of
monumental space, based on the Conceptual Triad from Lefebvre. What is the (personal)
appreciation of the involved actors in the process of adaptive reuse in regards to church buildings
and to what extent does the personal background of policy officers play a role within the
production of (monumental) space. Based on existing literature and the aim of the research, the
following research question is established:
These are the sub-questions I will attempt to answer:
- How is the municipal monument policy set up?

- What was the course of the process of adaptive reuse?
- What is the meaning of the church building for the involved actors and does this influence the
monument policy and the process of adaptive reuse?
- Does the personal background of policy officers influences their monument policy?
To answer these questions, research has been conducted in Emmen, Oss, Standdaarbuiten and
Weert: different urban environments where churches are reused or were in the process of reusing.
Two research methods are used: policy documents are analyzed and an analysis of the
monument policy within the different cities is made. Besides that, the most important actors that
are involved in the adaptive reuse of the four churches are interviewed. The four churches have
one common denominator; the municipal monument status. Buildings that are municipal
monuments have regional or local historical values and are a remarkable view within the urban
landscape. This municipal status can be seen as meaning given to a certain place from the
abstract designing level of space.
1.3 Relevance
Scientific relevance
Several reasons for the adaptive reuse of cultural heritage are sketched in the existing literature.
Most often financial and ecological aspects are described, while the social and cultural aspects
that can be a ground for adaptive reuse are mostly neglected. Researchers often do not take the
meaning of the building for the area and its inhabitants into account, which are mainly cultural
values. Besides that, the owners and developers mainly focus on the economic values, instead
of ‘historical, sociological, psychological, artistic, other cultural and even moral and religious sub-
functions’ (Plevoets & Van Cleempoel, 2011, 162). These values are described well by urban
geographer D. Harvey (2001, 320):
‘‘Every society has had a relationship with its past, even those which have chosen to ignore it,
and it is through understanding the meaning and nature of what people tell each other about their
15
past; about what they forget, remember, memorialize and/or fake, heritage studies can engage
with academic debates beyond confines of present-centred cultural, leisure or tourism studies.’’
The concept of a sacred space is often linked to memories, histories and rituals by individuals
and communities. A sacred space can be seen as a ‘significant place [which] provides stability
and security […] act as anchors and symbolic life lines’ (Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 2004, 385). This
concept is mainly researched from a heritage or religion study perspective and it is interesting to
examine these spaces and the socio-spatial relationships from a geographical lens. Researching
the social relations of a church building can provide a better understanding of the role of the
building in the neighbourhood in the contemporary society. The different backgrounds and
interests of the neighbourhood, (new) owners, municipality and local believers all influence the
making of such a place. Understanding the meaning of such a building for the involved actors in
the process of adaptive reuse can contribute to a better decision making process, because there
can be more mutual understanding.
Looking at the field of cultural heritage from another perspective is also something that
Plevoets & Van Cleempoel (2011, 161-162) encourage. Adaptive reuse has to be seen as an
interdisciplinary process, in which different studies come together. Although most authors
acknowledge this, ‘existing studies are mainly drawn from one perspective’ (Plevoets & Van
Cleempoel, 2011, 162). Professor of archaeological monument care J. Bazelmans (2013, 21)
agrees with this opinion and speaks of the necessity of ‘transdisciplinary research’ in the field of
cultural heritage. Within this field, the non-academic actors are not involved well enough. It is
important to create an environment in which academic and non-academic actors work together,
create relations and both give meaning to cultural heritage. Within this research, all actors are
equally important, because they have their own set of knowledge and experiences. To conduct
‘transdisciplinary research’, Bazelmans refers to research methods like interviews, workshops
and participating observations derived from studies like sociology and anthropology (Bazelmans,
2013, 21-22). According to him, more involvement of the different actors will contribute to better
decision-making.
Social relevance
For years the number of church visitors has been declining. Expectations are that
during the next decades, one in three churches will be closed. With this closure, places of (local
and national) history are vanishing. Churches have always been the centre of cohesion,
coherence and involvement within a Christian parish or an urban/rural space. When the building
disappears the symbolic heart of a community, an anchor of memory, vanishes as well
(Monumentenhuis Brabant, 2005, 16-17).
Those places of remembrance have the capacity to transform their meaning and to give
continuity to different memories. This is also applicable to the adaptive reuse, which gives a new
meaning to the building. This is illustrated by the role of the church in villages, which is different
than in the larger cities. The church was the centre of the urban space and served as a social
urban space. Although the extent of this function has decreased, it is still important to maintain
the building for the image of the village. Another reason to reuse cultural heritage is the negative
consequences of vacancy. Vacant buildings – within the fabric of the city – decrease the social
bonds of inhabitants. Besides that, vacancy contributes to the decline of neighbourhoods,
16
although where religious heritage is concerned that seems to be applicable to a smaller extent
(Harmsen et al., 2008, 85).
Not everybody realizes that religious heritage is part of our history and culture. To draw
more attention to religious heritage and its problems, several partners from the public and private
sector cooperated and organized the Year of Religious Heritage in 2008. In this year, many
activities were organized with the goal to raise awareness of the problems. Several conferences
were organized, religious heritage was inventoried, educational programs were set up and
regional gatherings were arranged (Nelissen, 2008). Following this year, the Cultural Heritage
Agency decided to establish a program concerning religious heritage in 2014. The program Future
Religious Heritage consists of seven points of interest, which represent the areas of concern and
possible changes for religious heritage (Cultural Heritage Agency, 2014a). These developments
illustrate the expected problems regarding religious heritage and the program tries to connect the
involved partners.
1.4 Reading guide

This research starts with an overview of the theoretical notions: religious heritage, (sacred) space,
geography and the role of churches within cities will be discussed. Based on Lefebvre’s
Conceptual Triad, these theoretical notions will be connected with the planning of monuments
within cities. Next, the most important research methods are explained within the methodological
chapter. Thereafter an overview of the legislation and actors in the field of adaptive reuse of
religious heritage is given. In chapter’s five to eight, the cases will be described. The research will
try to explain all three layers from the Conceptual Triad, the representations of space,
representational space and spatial practices. Based on the results and the theoretical framework
the research questions will be discussed, answered and reflected upon in the analysis and
conclusion.
17
2. Theoretical framework
In this chapter different theories and visions regarding religious buildings will be highlighted.
Firstly, the changing role of church buildings in the urban and rural environment will be sketched.
Different characteristics from religious buildings, e.g. sacred space, the concept of heritage and
the effects on their spatial environment, will be analyzed. The adaptive reuse process will be
examined shortly, after which the main theory of this research – Lefebvre’s Production of Space
– will be explored, followed by the conceptual framework and leading thoughts.
2.1 Church buildings in the urban and rural environment

In the beginning of the 20th century, the Dutch sacred landscape was controlled by several
religious tendencies. Supporters from the Protestant and Roman Catholic religion, but also liberal
and social beliefs, were united in different pillars. Several institutions were established within
these pillars, e.g. schools, sport associations, labour-unions, broadcast organizations and
newspapers. This resulted in a society in which people with different religions lived separated to
a certain extent (Van Eijnatten & Van Lieburg, 2006). In the 1960s a different tendency emerged:
deconsecration and secularization. The young generation did not feel connected to religion, a
development which persisted throughout the rest of the 20th century. Churches started to strongly
decrease in popularity around 1970, and are still becoming less and less popular. The two major
Christian movements – the Protestant and Roman Catholic Church – saw their members
decrease by more than half in the period from 1970 till 2016. Only 18 percent of the people in the
Netherlands still regularly visits a church building (Bernts & Berghuis, 2016).
From the moment that religion appeared within cities and villages, there were religious
buildings. Especially after the Second World War, when the rebuilding started and was led by the
government, religious buildings gained a new role within urban development. The socio-political
idea was to divide the city into neighbourhoods, in order to promote the formation of communities
and serve as a safe and educating environment for youth. The neighbourhood became a small
scaled space in which all the social functions and facilities were available. These ideas are in line
with the pillar system and ascertained that every denomination had their own religious buildings
within a neighbourhood (Doevendans & Stolzenberg, 2004, 265-266). Nowadays, people are no
longer territorially bound to their neighbourhood from a religious point of view and there is not
enough foundation and potential for organized religious communities. Religious buildings can fulfil
another role. A British study showed that religious groups contribute substantially to the
community development by their presence and their volunteers. Although in many
neighbourhoods this is not possible due to the vacancy of churches, the religious buildings can
serve as catalysts for the improvement of social capital (Bisseling et al., 2011, 17).
Despite the declining numbers, more than two thirds of the Dutch population state that the
government should assure that there is at least one church building in every village. This is one
of the results of opinion survey God in the Netherlands (Bernts & Berghuis, 2016), in which the
Dutch religious climate, the religiosity, and the role of churches in the public debate are
researched. This attitude is explained by Bernts & Berghuis (2016): The church building still
represents great value for a lot of people, also outside the strict religious use. Besides its religious
function, it is also an important symbol for the identity of a village or neighbourhood.
These results are in line with research from sociologist G. Davie, who examines the
changing role of religion in societies, especially in Europe. She has introduced the concept of
18
vicarious religion, which she defines as ‘the notion of religion performed by an active minority but
on behalf of a much larger number, who (implicitly at least) not only understand, but, quite clearly,
approve of what the minority is doing’ (Davie, 2006, 24). Although the influence of religious
structures in Western-Europe is decreasing, there are still foundations for ‘churches and church
leaders to in conducting rituals on behalf of a wide variety of individuals and communities at critical
points in their lives’ (Davie, 2006, 25). Examples of these points are birth, marriage or death.
Although the demand of the church has dropped regarding the first two points, most Europeans
are directly in contact with religion regarding death. Davie (2006, 25) points out that people would
be ‘deeply offended if their request for a funeral were met with rejection’ because ‘a refusal to
offer either a funeral liturgy or appropriate pastoral care would violate deeply held assumptions’.
Davie (2010, 262) developed this view to explain ‘the continuing attachment of large
sections of the European population to their historic churches, whether or not they attended these
institutions on a regular basis’. Davie’s view is not applicable to the whole of Europe, but has to
be seen as an instrument to understand some current developments within the religious world. In
the case of the Netherlands, this view can be seen as a way to understand current developments
around the adaptive reuse and demolition of churches. To better understand those reuse
processes, the different characteristics of such a building will be sketched in the following
paragraphs.
2.2 Religious buildings as (sacred) space

One of the characteristics of religious buildings is their sacrality and from that perspective church
buildings can be seen as sacred space. Although the buildings discussed in this research are
deconsecrated, the concept of sacred space is important to bear in mind since the history,
meaning, and perception of church buildings has influence on the process of adaptive reuse.
Though the concept of sacred space is researched to a great extent, this is mainly from a
perspective of religious places in general and not specified to the current (Christian) situation in
the Netherlands.
Although religious buildings can fulfil several functions, they are originally sacred spaces.
The concept of a sacred place is often linked to memories, histories and rituals by individuals and
communities. A sacred space can be seen as a ‘significant place [which] provides stability and
security […] act as anchors and symbolic life lines’ (Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 2004, 385). This is
a common definition of a sacred space, applicable to different sort of religions like Hinduism,
Buddhism, Islam and Christianity. Religious places are imbedded in the ‘cultural system of
religion’, which consists of ‘sacred symbols [which] function to synthesize a people’s ethos—the
tone, character, and quality of their life’ (Geertz, 1966, 3). Religion can significantly affect people’s
private and public life, influencing their lifestyle, choices, places of worship, community
participation and neighbourhood (Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 2004, 385). Religion and therefore
sacred places have influence on the relation of people with places and on the design of space in
villages and cities. This can be illustrated by the way the Dutch Christian church obtained a central
place in the environment, from the cathedrals in the medieval cities to the Dutch neighbourhoods
in the period after the Second World War. Religious places have influenced the planning of cities,
the structure of neighbourhoods, and have become orientation points.
Besides that, religious places are important for believers because they allow for
development of their identity. Environmental psychologist H. Proshansky et al. (1983, 57) state
19
that ‘development of self-identity is not restricted to making distinctions between oneself and
significant others, but extends with no less importance to objects and things, and the very spaces
and places in which they are found’. Thus, believers derive their identity from sacred spaces.
According to Geographer B. Osborne (2001, 42) identity is constantly constructed ‘by human
behaviour in reaction to places’. Despite the fact that religious buildings consists of ‘material
things, […] they also evoke specific kinds of meanings and serve as spatial coordinates of identity’
(Osborne, 2001, 42). People produce places, but also derive their identity from them. Or, in other
words, cultural theorist S. Hall (1997, 61) wrote: ‘‘It is us – in society, within human culture – who
make things mean, who signify. Meanings, consequently, will always change, from one culture or
period to another.’’
Since the 1980s, the dominant paradigm within the study of geography is that space is a
social construction. H. Lefebvre (1991, 404) even states that ‘social relations […] have no real
existence save in and through space’. All social relations are spatial and space is a social
construct (Massey, 1993). The city is not just seen as a neutral, empty space, but it is created by
its physical presence and social processes, or in the words of Leary (2009, 195): ‘‘Space is
constituted by social relations which are in turn constituted by space.’’ This means that space is
not neutral, but can be politically ‘coloured’. Space is constructed and experienced through the
body, while ‘the whole of (social) space proceeds from the body’ (Lefebvre, 1991, 405).
‘‘Within the body itself, spatially considered, the successive levels constituted by the senses (from
the sense of smell to sight, treated as different within a differentiated field) prefigure the layers of
social space and their interconnections. The passive body (the senses) and the active body
(labour) converge in space.’’ (Lefebvre, 1991, 405)
Space can thus be seen as a construction that is perceived through the body, from which it is able
to understand the social layers within space. One of those social layers is religion, which exists
and expresses itself in space. It even ‘plays a part in the production and reproduction of social
space’ (Knott, 2005, 8). This production and reproduction of space will be explained further in
paragraph 2.6 of this chapter.
Religious buildings are places in which religious ideas about ‘the divine, the human
community, and the ritual process of producing sacred space are given a material presence’
(Knott, 2005, 11). Although the architectonical aspects of religious buildings may be significant –
and even a condition – for the sacral radiation of the place, it does not determine the sacral
character. The sacral character is created by the use of the building itself, while the original sacral
destination does not imply that the building is sacral forever. This is underwritten by Professor P.
Post – who has specialized in researching religion in contemporary society – who thinks it is the
question to what extent this depends on the buildings architecture (Post, 1997). ‘‘A building is not
sacred because it is built as a church and it has its external characteristics’’ (Post, 1997, 37). This
view gives room for the reuse of religious buildings, while when the building received a new
function, the sacrality can decrease overtime. In spite of this, religious buildings carry their (social,
psychical and cultural) history with them, which stays present when the building loses its sacral
function.
20
2.3 Religious buildings and heritage
Due to their sacral character, religious buildings relate to the broader concept of religious heritage,
which is part of the overarching notion of cultural heritage.2 Cultural heritage is the sum of stories,
places, buildings and objects that are passed from generation to generation within a group
(Cultural Heritage Agency, 2009). Heritage can appear in different forms, but people mainly think
of material objects from the past such as paintings, drawings, archaeological and historical
objects. Material heritage is applicable to objects in museums, historical buildings, but also to
literature, films, music and television. For those objects the definition cultural heritage is used.
This concept is mostly associated with the material side of heritage (Grijzenhout, 2007, 1). When
this is applied to religious heritage, churches and monasteries, as well as movable objects within
those buildings, like paintings, benches, organs, are considered to be material heritage.
Besides the material definition a new concept emerged over the last years, namely
immaterial heritage. These are ‘specific forms of cultural representation – authentic or invented –
that threaten to disappear such as certain rituals, processions, celebrations and other uses’
(Grijzenhout, 2007, 4). Examples of immaterial religious heritage can be found in clerical traditions
and songs. The difference between material and immaterial heritage is important in the context
of religious buildings, because around such a place, the immaterial aspects are strongly present.
Religion itself is rather an immaterial form of heritage, and is one of the basic elements of our
modern western society. A religious building combines these two forms of heritage; it is not just
the architectonical part of the building as a home of religion. The Christian belief, which is closely
connected to the building and defines the atmosphere, is maybe even more important than the
material, architectonical features. All religious material expressions – including the building –
originate from immaterial, Christian ideas. This shows that the material and immaterial aspects of
heritage cannot be separated from each other without problems, while there is a dynamic
relationship between the material and immaterial heritage (Van der Zeijden, 2004, 32).
Historian W. Frijhoff (2007) distinguishes a third definition. Heritage is not a product that
is ‘established’ and ‘stays itself’. It is a dynamic concept that does not aim consumption of
heritage, but production of heritage. The discourse of culture – in which heritage can be placed –
consists of the meaning, and representation of objects. In this case, heritage is the object, which
is ‘constructed and constituted’, by the selection of historical remains from the past (Frijhoff, 2007,
38). These historical remains are passive until they become meaningful through selection:
something we share in the present and of which we collectively think it is good to preserve for the
future (Frijhoff, 2007, 19). Historian R. van der Laarse also establishes that heritage is subject to
change. It localizes itself at one place, but new heritage sites are created in contemporary society.
When objects are placed outside their original context – for example the adaptive reuse of a
church or moving an historical object from its original setting – they receive a different meaning
(Van der Laarse, 2005, 5). This creates distance between the object and its original meaning,
which is bound to time, place, and the frame of reference of people. This is illustrated by planner
G. Ashworth (1998, 269), who acknowledges that heritage is read differently by people: ‘‘Thus a
medieval Gothic cathedral in Europe conveys a divergent message to a Catholic, a Protestant, a
2 This section partly builds on my earlier research: J. Ankone (2014). De Nijmeegse Monumentenzorg
tussen 1923 – 1961. Lokale monumentenzorg in een nationaal perspectief. Master thesis, Radboud
University Nijmegen.
21
Muslim, an atheist, and frequently even to a regional separatist, nationalist or European
internationalist.’’
D. Harvey (2001, 335) researched the relation between heritage and transformations.
Despite the fact that cultural heritage and its reuse is mostly linked to history, it is seen more and
more as a starting point for the future. Harvey states that heritage is a cultural process, instead of
just a built artefact.
‘‘Heritage is a present-centred cultural practice and an instrument of cultural power’’ (Harvey,

2001, 336).
Heritage can be seen as a process that changes overtime, which is illustrated with a change of
discourse within the field of cultural heritage the last decade of the 20th century. Where at first
heritage was only conserved, a new discourse emerged in the last two decades. Heritage now
plays a greater role in cultural and spatial developments and in the design of urban areas. This
‘transformation’ discourse is marked by heritage as part of its environment (Ministry of Education,
Culture and Science, 1999; 2009). This is illustrated by a change within the law Spatial Planning
in 2012, which states that cultural history has to be analyzed when new zoning plans are created.
This ensures that heritage is now preserved in and through development.
Cultural heritage is strongly linked to identity. It can be part of the physical aspects of a
place which, in combination with the social aspects, determine the identity of a place. However,
when cultural heritage is part of place it does not automatically determine the identity of the place.
The story of heritage is used by different groups to create a collective identity, but also to
distinguish themselves from the other groups and to create a feeling of community.
‘‘Heritage is not any old past […] the past through whose lens we construct our present identity,
the past that defines us to ourselves and presents us to others’’ (Lowenthal, 2005, 29).
Heritage serves the creation of identities, which goes hand in hand with the politics of selective
remembering and forgetting. In Lefebvre’s (1991, 222) definition heritage – or in his words
monumentality – are ‘strong points, nexuses or anchors’ which connect ‘large space covered by
networks or webs’, represented in the numerous religious buildings within the Dutch landscape.
Lefebvre (2003 [1970], 21) also links monuments with symbols and power, because ‘any space
that is organised around a monument is colonized and oppressed’ and ‘it is a seat of institution’.
Therefore it is remarkable that the religious institutions are fading away, but the appreciation for
the religious buildings stays present in the Dutch society. The religious buildings shift from
religious oppression to societal appreciation. The oppression of monumental space can still be
present, since the public government as institution can ‘colonize’ the space with a monumental
status. One of the possible reasons that religious buildings are still appreciated is given by
Lefebvre (1991, 222), since monumentality ‘offers to each member of a society the image of his
belonging and of his social countenance’. D. Lowenthal (2005) ascribes the popularity of heritage
to the more individualized society. Changes follow each other rapidly and the past – in this case
heritage – can serve as point of memory.
For this reason, church buildings are lieu de memoires; a concept derived from the French
historian P. Nora (1984-1992). A church building is a symbol of its sacral past, but also of history
22
in general. The building is connected to individuals but also to general memories of the past.
When a church building changed from its sacral function, the generations that were strongly
connected to the place will have died after a few decades. Despite this, history remains visible
through such buildings and people can still feel directly connected to the past. Historian J.
Huizinga called this ‘historical sensation’ that can be invoked by church buildings, for example by
its smell, the architecture, or the light in the building itself (Huizinga, 1948).
2.4 Religious buildings and their spatial environment

The historical sensation described by Huizinga is only one of the effects that religious buildings
can have on their environment. As described, religious buildings are connected to identity and
memories, but are also physical landmarks within cities and villages. Until the recent past, church
buildings were the religious, cultural, social, and geographical centre of urban environments.
Church buildings have a grand appearance and dominate their surroundings. This especially
applies to churches built before the Second World War. During the post-war period in the 1950s
and 1960s, the architectural style of buildings became more modest and churches received a less
prominent place in urban design (Post, 1997, 37-38). In spite of this, even church buildings from
that period can now be seen as landmarks.
Although the meaning of the church building and its role within society is changing, it
remains to be a cultural symbol. Not only individual buildings are cultural symbols, but the urban
landscape as a whole can be seen as one. According to Ashworth (1998, 261), it is an expression
of the past and ‘present aesthetic values of the societies’. Because most of the European societies
are urban, the city can be seen ‘as the most prevalent, engaging and pervading cultural symbol
of modern Europe’ (Ashworth, 1998, 261).
‘‘In so far as it has been created over periods of past times by the deliberate actions of people,
the urban landscape is in itself therefore part of their culture and, by its presence, expresses the
needs, values and norms that shaped it in the past and maintain it in the present.’’ (Ashworth,
1998, 261)
Since church buildings are prominent objects within the urban landscape as a whole, they should
be researched within that context. This is definitely the case when the economical component
from heritage is examined, because several studies show the influence of historical buildings on
the value of their surrounding area. Economic geographers Van Duijn & Rouwendal (2013, 1)
investigated ‘the impact of cultural heritage on the attractiveness of cities by analyzing the location
of choice of households’. Their results show that monumental inner cities are more attractive and
cultural heritage indirectly makes it a good location for retail businesses and the food service
industry (Van Duijn & Rouwendal, 2013, 27-28).
These conclusions are also confirmed by Marlet & Woerkens (2015), who have
researched the fifty largest Dutch municipalities on the theme heritage. They conclude that the
twenty municipalities with a historical inner city have an increasing number of inhabitants, that
there are more highly educated inhabitants, the housing prices are higher on average (including
the non-monumental buildings), there is a less aging population and tourists are more attracted
to the city. This was concluded from a comparison with the non-monumental cities. Heritage does
not solely contribute to all those differences, but is one of the influencing aspects. The role of
23
attractiveness of cities, sacred space and cultural heritage is not further explained, because the
selected church buildings and their environment are not popular touristic places.
As noted in the previous chapters, the societal meaning of religious buildings is subject to
change. In the Middle Ages, the church was a public space that was open all day. It was not only
used for religious practices, but was also the centre of political and economic activities. This has
changed during the 19th and 20th century, and nowadays most church buildings are only open on
Sunday. Historically, the church has a function of cohesion within a neighbourhood or city and
was always open to everybody (Van Cuilenburg, 2006, 43-44). Despite the fact that the function
as a public space has decreased, a lot of churches are built largely depending on gifts of the
community. A lot of people still feel, one way or another, connected to the building and its public
character. This connection is mostly emotional, because they have memories connected to the
building. These memories are mostly based on experiences with the building concerning birth,
marriage and death.
Besides that, a lot of neighbourhood churches – especially those built in the post-war
period – are financed by funds from the surrounding neighbourhood. Although the economic (and
sometimes architectural) value of such church buildings is mostly low, they are appreciated by
the neighbourhood and connected with quality and liveability of the area where people live. The
former public character and the factor of place attachment to the church building can explain why
they are treated as ‘collective possessions’ by the (religious) community (Belk, 1992). This is
illustrated when a church is threatened with demolishment, and the surrounding (religious)
community starts to revolt and battles for conservation of the building.
2.5 Religious buildings and adaptive reuse

Previous paragraphs show the (positive) effects of religious buildings on their environment, but
church buildings are still being demolished or there are long discussions on adaptive reuse.
Before further explaining the process of adaptive reuse, it is important to examine the definition
of this process. The definition of ‘adaptive reuse’ is derived from Brooker & Stone, who see the
function as the most obvious change, ‘but other alterations may be made to the building itself
such as the circulation route, the orientation, the relationships between spaces; additions may be
built and other areas may be demolished’ (Plevoets & Van Cleempoel, 2011, 155). There are thus
two dimensions within adaptive reuse: the change of its function and physical change.
Both changes in the process of adaptive reuse can be a cause of conflict. Mostly there is
a difference between the interests of different actors. The church board wants to sell the building
for a market price, the neighbourhood and believers want to preserve the building for the
community and (local and national) heritage associations try to maintain the building as it is,
because of its monumental values. The different actors involved all have their own interests,
mostly derived from their own cultural identity. Different trials illustrate the intensity of these
conflicts. In some cases church buildings can be seen as contested places (Postma, 2009, 157).
Especially the cultural values of the ‘younger’ churches – from the post-war period and later – are
underestimated and contested in the adaptive reuse processes. These churches are more modest
buildings, which are less dominant in the street view and of which the building style is sober.
The rise of contested places in neighbourhoods was foreseen by sociologists J. Logan &
H. Molotoch (1987). Parts of neighbourhoods can be developed by large corporations in a way
that undermines residents’ vision of their surrounding urban space. Examples are industrial
24
development, air pollution, and the construction of large apartment buildings. There can be friction
between the exchange value – the economic value of the location on the market – and the use
value – the way the location is valued by the surrounding community. The authors speculate about
the future in their book Urban Fortunes (1987, 215) and foresee a rise of conflicts between the
exchange and use value in the local political scene. In some cases this form of opposition can be
characterized as Not In My Backyard. Residents protest against developments because it is close
to their home, although they acknowledge the developments are needed for society, but only in
another location.
Most studies examining the process of adaptive reuse are analyzing the challenges and
possibilities of the adaptive reuse of a church building (Pollmann, 1995; Dullemond, 1997; Bogie
et al., 1999; Schram et al., 2007; Heisterkamp & Linskens, 2010-2012). Besides that, some
studies analyze the (religious and political) decision making process during the adaptive reuse of
the building (Jongmans et al., 2008; Van der Staak, 2013; Post, 2013). Finally, some projects
focus on the future of the church and its buildings (Doevendans & Van der Harst, 2004;
Monumentenhuis Brabant, 2005; Nelissen, 2008).
2.6 Religious buildings and the production of space

The previous described difference in valuing space can be linked to H. Lefebvre’s (1991 [1974])
broader theory on the production of space in his seminal volume The Social Production of Space.
In his volume, Lefebvre states that space is socially constructed and produces social relations as
well (French, 2008, 26).
The first critical spatial distinction Lefebvre makes in this work is between abstract and
concrete space. Abstract spaces are bureaucratized and created by architects, planners and
policy officers, in the form of policy plans, blueprints or maps. This form of space is created by
‘the elite group’, can be conceived as homogeneous and facilitates the power of the state. An
example of such an abstract space is the zoning plan in figure 1, which states what is possible in
a certain space and what is not. These zoning plans are executed by the government, who is in
control of the planning of a city. Therefore, abstract space is the dominant space. Lefebvre states
that within abstract space ‘all elements are exchangeable and thus interchangeable’ (Lefebvre,
2009, 192). To successfully realize an abstract space, McCann (1998) distinguishes two
developments that have to occur.
First, policy advisors and architects
have to determine which activities are
allowed within an abstract space based on for
example policy documents or zoning
restrictions. Secondly, an erasure has to
occur ‘of all the prior social conflicts and
struggles that took place on that space’
(McCann in French, 2008, 29). This is
interesting in the light of the adaptive reuse
of religious heritage, which receives a new
meaning when it is used differently. However,
in the case of church buildings, the history is Figure 1. Zoning plan - an example of abstract space
one of the crucial points in the process of
25
adaptive reuse. This is demonstrated by the contract of the diocese, in which the diocese state
what is and what is not possible in the future use of the building. The contract is based on the
historical character of the building and the fear that the new use is not worthy, from the perspective
of the church community.
There is a contradiction in the explanation of Lefebvre’s abstract space and he does not
deny this. Abstract space tries to homogenize different societal groups and cultures, but by doing
so, still prolongs the existence of marginalization and fragmentation (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974]). An
example to illustrate this is the process of gentrification. In this process, the local government tries
to improve neighbourhoods by attracting other societal groups than the original inhabitants. Artists
are attracted and used to create a better image of the neighbourhood. When the revitalization
progresses and the image of the neighbourhood improves, real estate owners start to raise the
rents. This eventually forces those artists – who contributed to the popularity – away from the
neighbourhood, making it available for the higher classes of society. These processes are
repetitive, while most of the original inhabitants are also displaced or forced out of the
neighbourhood, for the purpose of the artists.
Opposite to the abstract space is the concrete space, in which individual users live
physically in the everyday life (McCann, 1999, 164). Lefebvre (1979, 241) calls it ‘the space of
use values produced by the complex interaction of all classes in the pursuit of the everyday life’.
Concrete space arises from the everyday life and from ‘experience that […] [is] materialized
through the spatial practices of all members of society’ (French, 2008, 28). These are the
(physical) spaces we interact with every day. Concrete spaces – in this research the church
building and its surroundings – are produced by urban dwellers, based on their experience and
the way of seeing the world (French, 2008, 28). The notions of abstract and concrete space are
deepened by Lefebvre with his tool, the Conceptual Triad, with which one can analyze socio-
spatial relations (Lefebvre, 1974 [1991]). This triad consists of three elements – the ‘perceived’,
‘conceived’ and ‘lived’ space – that constantly influence each other and that exist in both abstract
and concrete space. According to social geographer C. French (2008, 32) this tool can ‘examine
the producing relation of a particular space and thereby develop an understanding where social
and spatial practices overlap’.
The first category in the Conceptual Triad is the conceived space, also known as
representations of space. This is an abstract space, mostly conceived from a top- down
perspective. This space is
conceptualized by urban planners,
architects and scientists, the space
of urban planning, and it is seen as
dominant by Lefebvre. The models
created in this space determine
how the landscape is modelled
and conceptualized. The
conceived space is ‘tied to the
relations of production and to the
‘order’’ which those relations
impose (Lefebvre, 1974 [1991],
Figure 2. Lefebvre's Conceptual Triad
33).
26
The second space is the lived space (representational space). This space is ‘lived’ directly
‘through its associated images and symbols and hence the space of ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’’
(Lefebvre, 1991 [1974], 39). This space is based on personal experiences, culture, images and
symbols of inhabitants. These lived spaces arise from the relationship between the spatial
practices and representations of space. In this space, representations that ‘overlays physical
space’ are formed (Lefebvre, 1974 [1991], 38). The society dominates in this space, ‘a space of
imagination and emotion’ (Leary, 2009, 195). Urban dwellers construct the physical world with
their imagination and mentality. Everyday life is experienced here and social relations take place.
Finally, the perceived space (spatial practices) can be seen as the ‘physical’ city, its
‘maintenance’, redevelopment and routines in our daily life (Healey, 2007, 204). It is ‘perceived’
while it is ‘empirically observable’, according to Lefebvre (Leary, 2009, 195). A popular example
to illustrate spatial practices is the way urban dwellers walk in a city, sketched by historian M. de
Certeau (1984, 98):
“If it is true that a spatial order [conceived space] organizes an ensemble of possibilities and
interdictions, then the walker actualizes some of these possibilities. In that way, he makes them
exist as well as emerge. But he also moves them about and he invents others, since the crossing,
drifting away, or improvisation of walking privilege, transform or abandon spatial elements.”
These practices in everyday life ‘mediate between the two forms of social space, working within
the bounds of the conceived abstract spaces [...] while simultaneously being shaped and shaping
individuals perceptions and uses of space’ (McCann, 1999, 173). Geographer E. McCann (1999)
points out that in the spatial practices, the actual use of space can be examined and the way of
use is influenced by the plans from the conceived space, or is the result from the personal
experience and imagination that a group or individual has. These three layers cannot be seen
individually and are constantly depended upon each other, intertwined and in negotiation with
each other. Negotiations over space can result in the creation of counter-space. This form of
space can be derived when ‘a community fights the construction of urban motorways or housing-
developments when it demands ‘amenities’ or empty spaces for play and encounter, we can see
how a counter-space can insert itself into spatial reality’ (Lefebvre, 1991 [1974], 381-382).
The first author who pointed out the importance of Lefebvre’s ideas was geographer E.
Soja. In 1996, he reconceptualised Lefebvre’s Conceptual Triad and conversed it into the theory
of ‘thirdspace’ (Soja, 1996). Soja uses the Conceptual Triad as basis but reconceptualises the
lived space (representational space) and examines the transcendent character of Lefebvre’s
theory. ‘Thirdspace’ refers to the lived space but ‘retains the multiple meanings Lefebvre
persistently ascribed to social space. It is both a space that is distinguishable from other spaces
(physical and mental, or First space and Second space) and a transcending composite of all
spaces’ (Soja, 1996, 62).
A more practical implementation of Lefebvre’s ideas is executed by E. McCann (1999),
who uses the framework to analyze the public protests which arose after the police killing of an
18-year old black man in Lexington. He describes the protests (representational spaces) as a way
to reclaim the representational space and question the actions of the representations of space
(the power of the state to control their protests). Another good example is given by urban planner
M. Leary (2009). His paper presents the struggle between different actors on the spatial meaning
27
and future of Manchester’s industrial city-centre. The conversion of Liverpool Road Station into a
successful museum is sketched out over a period of twenty years. In those years, several actors
of all Lefebvre’s categories were involved.
In view of the Dutch year of religious heritage in 2008, E. Postma analyzed the temporary
church building ‘Katrina’ in Utrecht, based on Lefebvre’s Conceptual Triad. Postma (2009) uses
the triad to reconstruct the social production of the temporary church on a festival, why it was a
contested space and how it was used. The place cannot be seen as church, because the physical
appearance of the building was not experienced as religious. Despite this, the building was called
a church by the organization, but the choice was made to leave the religious symbols away.
Moreover, it could be seen as a place in which hospitality was produced and where people could
meditate (Postma, 2009, 182).
McCann, Leary and Postma show that it is possible to put the Conceptual Triad of Lefebvre
in to operation and use it to analyze the socio-spatial relations in the process of adaptive reuse of
church buildings. Leary (2009, 196) states that the Conceptual Triad is ‘useful for planning
research and practice because of the ways it understands the city as: a physical entity requiring
resources for its maintenance and development, a space that is institutionally represented and a
place that is socially interactive and historically situated, imagined by a range of actors’. McCann
(1999) points out that the theory of Lefebvre is not only used for researching spatial processes,
but can also examine the individual experiences, economic and political structures, and social
and cultural backgrounds. The combination of researching spatial processes in combination with
the social, economic, cultural and economic context makes the triad suitable for this research.
Religious heritage in a city or village is subject to processes, from the local and national
government (conceived space), as well as the ‘imagination’ and ‘experience’ of the users and
inhabitants (lived space) and the way the building is physically and materially used (perceived
space).
Church buildings are not only located in space, but are also a product of social relations
(French, 2008, 36). These social relations can differ, illustrated by the appreciation of religious
heritage for policy officers (representations of space) and urban dwellers (representational
space). This becomes visible in the use of the space (spatial practice). Because policy officers
and politicians design the urban space, they are constantly challenged by – and have to adapt
their decisions to – the changing opinions of the inhabitants of urban space. This is possible in
many ways, like political and public participation or through participation within a public-private
partnership. This process of adaption illustrates the essence of the Conceptual Triad; public space
is created through interactions between policy officers and urban dwellers.
It is assumable that there is a difference of appreciations between on the one side the
professionals (monument specialists and politicians) and on the other side the urban dwellers.
This is not always the case, because the groups can also reinforce each other in the protection
and reuse of religious heritage. This happened in Rijnwoude, where local actors influenced the
municipality to set up a municipal monument status policy; the occasion was the conservation of
the local church building (‘Toch monumentale status voor Scheepjeskerk Rijnwoude’, 2013).
Within the Conceptual Triad, the designers and users of space are seen as two separate
groups. In reality, designers of space are not a homogenous group. Spaces differ on a local level,
because the legislation - in case of monument policy - is not the same in every municipality.
Besides that, producers of space are also users of space most of the time. Their personal interests
28
and values are also important, since these are of influence on the production of the abstract space
(Fenster & Yacobi, 2005, 198). The value of the religious heritage for the users of the space,
urban dwellers, are the basis of the representational space (lived space) in the Conceptual Triad.
It is the question to what extent the value of religious heritage of the other actors has influence on
the policy of the municipality (representations of space – conceived space). It seems plausible
that this influence is there, although monument professionals always take more factors into
account, like financial costs, involved actors, political backgrounds etcetera.
The choice is made to research all three spaces concerning the role of the building in the
spatial environment. It is the question to what extent church buildings are still part of ‘daily routines
and interactions with the routes and networks of ‘urban reality’’ (Healey, 2007, 204). Church
buildings are not opened every day; most of them are not opened at all except Sundays, and
cannot be seen as a public place from that respect. The use of the building – all these churches
became vacant buildings at some point – implicates that they do not play a huge role in the daily
life of people anymore (spatial practices). Although the role of the building in the neighbourhood
is minimal from such a perspective, the building itself contributes – presumably – to the quality of
the environment and the sense of place (representational space).
2.7 Operationalization
One of the critiques on the theory of Lefebvre is that he never really put his ideas for empirical
research into operation (Unwin, 2000; French, 2008). Although the discussion and reflection on
Lefebvre’s theories and the framework is great, there are relatively few scholars who actually
operationalized the Conceptual Triad for empirical research. Reason for the lack of application is
perhaps the philosophical and theoretical character of Lefebvre’s writings. Even though his
concepts are not easy to understand (especially in his original works) and make operational, the
following scheme is derived from urban planners P. Healey (2007, 204) and M. Leary (2009, 196),
showing that adaption for use in empirical research is possible. Table 1 is drawn to clarify the
concepts of Lefebvre and the way they are understood in this research. The role of the building
in the spatial practices can be hard to grasp, but it possible to see how public policy (conceived
space) is experienced (lived space) and actually used in practice (perceived space). Because
every municipality has a certain extent of freedom concerning their policy, it can be interesting to
compare this in the different cases.
Table 1. Three ways in which space is produced.
Lefebvre’s concepts Lefebvre’s definition (Healey, 2007, Leary’s ‘translation’ (2009,

204) 196)
Perceived space Daily routines and interactions ‘‘The physical city, its
(spatial practices) with the routes and networks of maintenance, redevelopment
‘urban reality’. and the daily routines of
everyday life.’’
29
Conceived space As in the conceptions of ‘‘Rational, intellectual
(representations of ‘scientists, planners, urbanists, conceptions of urban areas for
space) technocratic subdividers and analytical, planning and
social engineers, as of a certain administrative purposes.’’
type of artist with a scientific
bent’ (Lefebvre 1991, 38).
Lived space ‘As directly lived through […] ‘‘Emotional and artistic
(representational images and symbols’ expressed interpretations of city space
space) in symbols and signs (Lefebvre 1991, imbued with cultural meaning,
39). which values places in ways that
run counter to the dominant
representations of space and
can lead eventually to the
production of a counter-space.’’
The different processes of adaptive reuse are useful cases through which to operationalize
Lefebvre’s Conceptual Triad and show how the space around church buildings is produced. The
processes of adaptive reuse are used to construct the three layers of the production of space.
Perceived space – spatial practices – the used space

Perceived space relates to the daily routines or, in other words, the use of the space. This can be
examined in this layer, as well as whether the spatial practice is influenced by the plans from the
conceived space, or is more the result from the personal experience and imagination that a group
or individual has. Built space, e.g. church buildings, are also part of the spatial practices, because
this correlates with the use of such a space. In case of church buildings, the perceived space can
be hard to measure. The space is no longer used at the moment during the process of adaptive
reuse, since the building is mostly vacant. When such a building is still in religious use, there are
only services on Sunday once or twice a month. If church buildings were public space, the daily
routines and the way it is used by urban dwellers could be measured more easily. In such a case,
the space of church buildings has to have more than one function for which it can be used.
Conceived space – representations of space – the intended space

Contrary to public space, church buildings are not property of the municipality. Nevertheless, the
local government can have influence on what is possible with such a building, especially when it
is appointed as a monumental building. Different aspects of the vision of the municipality are
registered in policy documents such as zoning, structure vision, heritage note and the note on
external appearance of buildings. When it is appointed as a municipal or national monument,
documents like the heritage note and the monument/heritage regulation present the
consequences and possibilities of such a status. The zoning and monument/heritage regulation
determine what the legal possibilities are. When such policy documents come into force,
maintenance, management and representation are important instruments to the space function
as it is meant to be from a public governmental (abstract spatial) perspective (Lefebvre, 1991
[1974]; Harvey, 1989).
30
Lived space –representational space – the lived space
The way space is lived is more and more important in public policy. This is visible in the way public
space is designed, but also in the decisions made to maintain street views, coherence in building
structures and the protection of cultural heritage. Despite the governmental vision on space, every
user experiences space differently, since this depends on physical and social elements. Senses
play a huge role in the way space is interpreted. As explained in the theoretical framework,
humans perceive space independently from each other, based on personal experiences,
combined with natural and cultural elements from the landscape. Together these perceptions
create a strong sense of place to certain places (Massey, 1991). The way a body experiences
these perceptions is crucial in how it appreciates space; physical aspects – landscape and
facilities – play a huge role in this experience. These last two physical aspects play for example
a huge role in shrinking regions, where the church and the last supermarket are seen as crucial
elements in keeping a village liveable.
31
2.8 Conceptual framework and leading thoughts
Based on the literature review and the research questions the following conceptual framework
has been developed. This model leans on the theory of Lefebvre and aims to research how the
involved actors influence the production space of church buildings during produce the adaptive
reuse. Although the research questions are already discussed in the introduction chapter, for
completeness they are repeated below.
Figure 3. Conceptual framework
32
Research question:
Sub-questions:
1. How is the municipal monument policy set up?

2. What was the course of the process of adaptive reuse?
3. What is the meaning of the church building for the involved actors and till what extent does
this influence monument policy and the process of adaptive reuse?
4. Does the personal background of policy officers influences their monument policy?
Based on the literature, some assumptions are made in relation to the research questions. In the
conceptual framework, the three spatial layers of Lefebvre’s theory are adapted. The
representations of space (conceived space) are represented by the municipal monument policy.
Firstly, the national legal framework influences this policy, because every municipality has to
design their monument policy according those restrictions. Although there is a framework,
municipalities have freedom of policy to a certain extent. This implicates that a municipality can
design their policy especially measured for their local situation. The national framework, policy
freedom and personal background of the public professional results in the municipal monument
policy. In the process of the adaptive reuse this policy is illustrated by the appointment and further
use of the municipal monument status. Such a status tells something about the importance and
appreciation on a public level from the church building. The municipal monument status creates
boundaries to the possibilities of adaptive reuse, although the boundaries differ from municipality
to municipality. The first and fourth sub-question refer to figuring out the conceived space.
The second sub-question refers to the process of adaptive reuse, which is the context of
the production of space, but also important from a material perspective. The physical change of
the building belongs to this spatial layer. Not only the physical change on the outside, but also the
changes on the inside of the building are possible and are influenced by the conceived
(restrictions from the municipality) and lived space (appreciation of the building).
The representational space (lived space) represents the users and inhabitants who are
involved in the process of adaptive reuse. The third sub-question refers to these actors, which
can be believers, neighbours, project developers, (local or national) heritage associations, the
parish, (new) owners and the municipality themselves. It is the question how the municipal policy
is experienced by the different actors and in what way they have influence on the policy itself. It
is plausible that the private actors have influence on the municipal policy to certain degree. Public
actors make their policy for society and residents have influence on that policy through co-
decision procedures and elections. When decisions about cultural heritage are taken, it is
important that the public actors know how society appreciates certain places. Policy officers often
take other aspects – such as financial costs – in account, which also can be important within the
process of adaptive reuse.
33
It seems reasonable to assume that the personal background of different actors has
influence on how the adaptive reuse is experienced. This also applicable to the public
professionals, who as designers of space give a certain meaning to space. They form the
representations of space, which contains the professional meaning which is given by a place by
policy officers. Public professionals are, besides designers, also users of monuments and are part
of the representational space. It seems reasonable to assume that the personal meaning they
give to religious heritage has influence on their work as designer of space. This is captured in the
fourth sub-question. Moreover, every actor within the field of adaptive reuse has their personal
interests and appreciates the building in a different way. The interests and appreciation of the
building can come together or differ within the adaptive reuse. All these three layers together form
the production of space during the process of adaptive reuse.
34
3. Methodology
Lefebvre’s concepts are extensively examined and operationalized in the theoretical framework.
The production of space during the adaptive reuse of church buildings is studied based on the
‘translated’ concepts in table 1, the conceptual framework and the leading thoughts. These are
the foundations of the findings and results that together answer the research questions. This
chapter can be seen as a bridge between the theoretical and empirical part of this study. The
methods and techniques that will be used to examine the production of space are discussed. The
theoretical framework shows that Lefebvre’s theory has not yet been used to analyze the process
of adaptive reuse of churches and can possibly provide new insights on this process. In addition
to the literature research, empirical research is conducted.
3.1 Case study design

Based on the theoretical framework, different presumptions are made and research questions are
formulated; the results of the empirical research will be confronted with the theory and these
questions. This research examines the social relations within the adaptive reuse of religious
heritage (the phenomenon) – the way actors react to each other, the way they handle different
problems and the network of social relations, perceptions and opinions – which can be researched
best with the help of the case study approach. Qualitative research is conducted as the primary
form of data collection.
The choice for qualitative research is made because this research wants to understand
the meaning that people give to events in their daily life, in this research the adaptive reuse of a
church building. Within qualitative research, the interpretative variant is chosen because it
assumes that social scientists emphasize with their respondents and interpret the data within the
context. Contrary to natural sciences, the interpretive approach assumes that the truth cannot
only be seen as a system of natural laws. Knowledge derived from interpretative research is more
idiographic; the truth is the result of the human ability to interpret, of language, of reflection and
of purposeful, conscious acting (Belk, 2007, 158-163). Researchers who study the human truth
cannot limit themselves to noticeable – or through standard methods obtained – data, but have
to take the aspects of humans – who act, give meaning and experience – into account. This is
one of the main themes in the social production of space. Within interpretive research, one tries
to reconstruct the processes that led to a certain event or events (Korzilius, 2000, 4-5).
To reconstruct such processes, four case studies are conducted. According to R. Yin
(2013, 16), a case study ‘investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the ‘case’) in depth and
within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may
not be clearly evident’. This definition identifies some points which are important when conducting
a case study. Firstly, a ‘contemporary phenomenon’ which is connected ‘within its real-life context’
to an existing theory. This makes this research deductive. Furthermore, emphasis lies on ‘the
boundaries’ between the ‘phenomenon and ‘context’. The phenomenon is closely connected to
the context and researching one without the other would give an incomplete image of the situation.
This research aims to look closely at the phenomenon of adaptive reuse of church buildings and
in relation to the context in which the possible conflicts around the production of such space arise.
The four cases are studied extensively in a defined area (Swanborn, 2013, 73). This
makes it possible to connect policy, appreciation and use of church buildings related to the specific
35
context and creates the possibility of pointing out coherence and friction between the cases.
Although a limited amount of cases are examined, the outcome and conclusions can still be used
to ‘formulate explanatory ideas that help’ to recognize the phenomenon and ‘refine both theory
and practice’ (Kachuyevski, 2006, 3). The case study approach has several advantages. The ‘how
and when’ questions can hardly be expressed by numbers and with the case study approach and
qualitative research it is possible to obtain detailed answers (Yin, 2013). Secondly, this approach
covers the contextual conditions of the phenomenon, which can be of great importance. For
example, in case of adaptive reuse, the political character of the municipality can play a great role
within the decision-making. A right-winged political party is in principle less in favour of more
restrictions for owners than a left-winged party. This is one of the characteristics of this approach:
a phenomenon is researched as a whole and in its context. This is called a holistic approach
(Baarda et al., 2005, 113).
The research design of this study consists of multiple cases which are being researched
with a single research project (production of space during the adaptive reuse of church buildings),
from which it is expected that the phenomena appears almost the same way in the different cases.
The findings of more cases are – in general – more compelling than when one case is studied.
The type of case study will be descriptive, since an ‘intervention or phenomenon and the real-life
context in which it occurred’ is researched (Baxter & Jack, 2008, 547). A descriptive research
provides an accurate description of a phenomenon. For descriptive research it is necessary to
define the key variables.
It is important to define these variables, because several authors point out the danger of
developing a research that is too broad (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Yin, 2013). Creswell (1998)
suggests that cases have to be bound by time and place, time and activity and context. For that
reason, one of the boundaries of this research was the involvement of the municipality, measured
with the municipal monument status. The selection of these boundaries and suitable cases is
‘always more a practical question than the product of systematic choice criteria’ (Healey, 2007,
291). This will become apparent in paragraph 3.2, in which the choice of the cases is explained.
Thus, phenomena are researched within the specific environment (context). Within a case
study, a limited number of persons, situations or events are researched (Baarda et al., 2005, 114).
Different sets of data can be used: conducting interviews, analyzing documents and observing
the situation. The use of multiple data sources ensures that the phenomenon is ‘not explored
through one lens, but a variety of lenses which allows for multiple facets of the phenomenon to
be revealed and understood’ (Baxter & Jack, 2008, 544). For this research, the choice is made to
analyze policy documents and conduct interviews. Besides that, all the church buildings are
visited and explored on the in- and outside.
Besides the collection of these two types of data, the problems around church buildings
and their adaptive reuse are derived from existing literature. The problem has been expanding
during the last two decades and this has resulted in quite some literature on the decision-making
process, the role of different actors and the adaptive reuse process of churches. Furthermore,
several actors are consulting with each other in view of the Year of Religious Heritage (2008) and
the program Future Religious Heritage (2014-2016). These existing documents formed the basis
of this study and show how the landscape of vacant church buildings in the Netherlands is formed.
There were other possibilities in designing this case study research; ‘ethnographical’, or
deriving a (new) theory from the different cases. An example of the ethnographical approach is
36
studying the culture of a specific group or community, for instance the culture of different
denominations of the Christian belief and the way they deal with adaptive reuse of their churches.
Another angle for this type of research could be the investigation of the culture of a
neighbourhood. One could study why in certain neighbourhoods (looking specifically at the culture
of the local community) adaptive reuse of church buildings is successful, but not in others. The
other type of research design – different cases to find similarities and construct a new theory – is
not the approach of this study, because an existing theory is being tested.
3.2 Selection of cases

Four cases are selected on the basis of the following criteria:
1. Church building: church buildings are the central element of this research;
2. Process of adaptive reuse: there has to be a question of the process of adaptive reuse;
3. Dutch context: the church has to be located in the Netherlands. This research aims at
church buildings in the unique, Dutch sacral landscape. This landscape is explained in
chapter 4;
4. Municipal monument status: the building has to be a municipal monument. Thus, the
municipality appreciates the building in a certain way and is involved in the process of
adaptive reuse;
5. Phase: the initiate phase of the process of adaptive reuse has to be finished. The initiate
phase of the process is interesting, because different actors can influence such a process.
This illustrates an important part of the production of space and is only worth researching
when finished. Otherwise, drawing conclusions would be impossible.
Besides these five homogeneous criteria, heterogeneous criteria were also of importance for the
selection of the cases. Homogeneous criteria frame the research and make sure the cases are
comparable. Heterogeneous criteria distinguish the different cases from each other. Within these
criteria, different cases are chosen consciously.
Table 2. Homogeneous and heterogeneous criteria
Homogeneous criteria Heterogeneous criteria
Church building Type of denomination
Process of adaptive reuse Urban or rural area
Dutch context Location within the Netherlands
Municipal monument status Building period
Finished initiate phase Finalized or finishing process of adaptive

reuse
When selecting the different cases, the heterogeneous criteria were of great importance. Firstly,
it is important that there are different types of denominations in this research. The Roman Catholic
and Protestant church both have a different vision on church buildings; this will be explained more
37
extensively in chapter 4. It was important to distinguish the urban or rural setting in which a
building is located. In general, church buildings that are located in an urban setting are easier to
reuse than in a rural setting, because there are less people and facilities (needed). The location
within the Netherlands had to differ, to illustrate the regional differences or similarities. It is
important for the success of reuse in which period the church building is built. Church buildings
which were built in the post-war period have a different building style than churches which were
built in the 1920s. Church buildings from the post-war period are generally easier to reuse, since
the building forms are more square and the building style is more sober. Churches built in the
1920s have greater aisles, are larger buildings and have more small corners.
Finally, the process of adaptive reuse had to be finished or in the finishing phase. In this
way the production of space of the church building throughout the process of adaptive reuse can
be studied well. When a project was finished, attention is paid to the time between the delivery of
the reused church and this research. The process of adaptive reuse had to be finished recently,
for the reliability and validity of the qualitative research.
Table 3. Heterogeneous criteria selected cases
Municipality Church Construction Roman Urban or Appointed Out of Adaptive

building year Catholic / rural3 as religious reuse
Protestant municipal use process
monument finished
Emmen Zuiderkerk 1923 Protestant Urban 2014 2015 No, still in
107.687 process
inhabitants
Oss Pauluskerk 1963 Roman Urban 2011 2011 Yes
Catholic 89.903 (2014)
inhabitants
Standdaarbuiten Johannes 1924 Roman Rural 2014 2013 No, still in
(municipality de Catholic 2.280 process
Moerdijk) Doperkerk inhabitants
Weert Fatimakerk 1955 Roman Urban 2005 2011 Yes
Catholic 48.914 (2014)
inhabitants
Based on the different criteria, four church buildings are selected in Emmen, Oss,
Standdaarbuiten and Weert. The four municipalities are spread throughout the Netherlands.
Three Roman Catholic Churches and one Protestant church were selected, of which the building
periods are quite similar. Two churches were built in the 1920s and two were built in the post-war
period (1950s/1960s). When the numbers of inhabitants of the different municipalities are
compared, it is notable that Emmen, Oss and Weert are three medium-sized urban areas.
Standdaarbuiten is the only case which is different, since it is a village consisting of approximately
2,000 inhabitants. This church is selected to illustrate the adaptive reuse of church building in a
rural area. The churches in Emmen, Oss and Standdaarbuiten are appointed as a municipal
monument during the process of deconsecration. The churches are appointed because the
3The numbers are derived from the Central Ageny of Statistics, Bevolking; geslacht, leeftijd, nationaliteit
en regio, 1 januari 2015. Consulted on December 16, 2015, from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=70634ned&LA=NL
38
neighbours, believers, heritage associations or the municipality itself wanted to protect the
buildings against possible demolishment. The church building in Weert is the only one that has
been protected for a longer time, namely since 2005.
Finding and selecting suitable cases was a difficult task because of criteria such as a
church building with a municipal monument status, a (almost) finished process of adaptive reuse
and – the most important factor – the cooperation of all the important actors that were involved.
Especially the municipal monument status limited the possible cases. Velthuis & Spenneman
(2007, 53) acknowledge this, because ‘until recently only buildings from before 1850 were listed’.
A lot of churches from younger building periods – as the churches in this research – are not listed
as a (national/municipal) monument. There were also two suitable church buildings in Bilthoven
and Son and Breugel – two villages which can be seen as rural areas – but for a variety of reasons
not all actors were willing to cooperate. The cases are chosen in consultation with my internship
supervisors. For that reason, one church building in a rural area is chosen because my
supervisors would like to see such a church in that context researched.
3.3 Research methods

Lefebvre’s analytical framework consists of three layers and for that reason the research methods
can be divided in three parts as well. Every layer of the Conceptual Triad can be researched
differently. Table 4 shows in what way the different layers are researched. The layers are
researched the same way in all four cases; for that reason, table 4 does not distinguish the cases.
Table 4. Research methods for the Conceptual Triad
Layer Data collection Method of data collection
Conceived space Document analysis Snowball method

Interviews Semi-structured interviews
Perceived space Interviews Semi-structured interviews
Observation Observation of the buildings
Lived space Interviews Semi-structured interviews
One of the advantages of the case study approach is the use of multiple data sources; ‘a strategy
which also enhances data credibility’ (Baxter & Jack, 2008, 554). The main source of data will be
retrieved during in-depth interviews. These interviews are semi-structured. It is always possible
to dive deeper in some phenomenon with a semi-structured interview, which is important because
every case can differ due to the heterogeneous criteria. The other data source which is used is
document analysis.
Document analysis
The problems concerning vacant church buildings are not recent and have been taking place for
at least two decades. For this reason, there is a lot of documentation and literature written
concerning the future of church buildings, adaptive reuse, the decision making process and
39
demolishment. This is shown in the theoretical framework. Besides that, several actors are
developing viewpoints on the problematic situation and are in consultation. One of the outcomes
of this development was the Year of Religious Heritage (2008) and the program Future of
Religious Heritage (2014-2016). This resulted in large amounts of documentation on vacant and
reused church buildings: reports, congresses, literature, documents, and articles. These sources
served as the basis of this research.
Besides these documents, policy documents from the national and local government are
studied. The national government creates the legal framework in which the municipality can
operate. The emphasis lies on the general policy on cultural heritage. On a local level, every
municipality has freedom of policy to a certain extent and can establish their own monument
policy. This results in different, local accents in the monument policy. The reason for this is simple:
the amount of cultural heritage differs per municipality. The local documents concerning
monuments are also part of this study and give insight in the ambitions and local policy. The
document analysis served as the main foundation of the chapter 4, in which the general framework
of the adaptive reuse is sketched.
Semi-structured interviews
To better understand the spatial layers, several interviews are conducted as part of the data
collection. The interviews were all semi-structured to make sure certain subjects were mentioned.
Nevertheless, there was enough room for the respondents to express their thoughts, motivations,
visions and experiences. The interview guide is based on the theoretical framework and can be
found in appendix A. Because of the great variety of actors that are interviewed, some interview
guides are adjusted to the specific situation and/or actor. Although these variations, there were
main topics which were the basis of all the guides. This was also one of the reasons for a semi-
structured interview; it is easy to dive deeper into certain topics. This can be important, because
of the different role, appreciation, and vision of a respondent. The analysis will mainly be based
on the interviews conducted with the different involved actors. To retrieve a good view of the
process of adaptive reuse and the different actors who played a role in this process, these
interviews are essential. Two types of interviews are conducted: interviews with experts to retrieve
a good national overview and interviews with the involved actors in the four cases.
Expert interviews
In order to provide a good overview of church buildings and adaptive reuse on a local level,
interviews are conducted with four experts who work throughout the Netherlands or province for
their profession and often get in touch with processes of adaptive reuse on a local level. These
interviews provide an overview of the variety of local differences and the factors that are important
in such processes. The expert interviews are the paragraph 4.4. The interviews are not used in
the case study chapters.
The first two experts that are interviewed are Karel Loeff (director) and Mathijs Witte (policy
advisor) from heritage association Heemschut. It is the largest heritage association in the
Netherlands (more than 5.000 members) and is legally listed as an interested party when cultural
heritage is part of governmental decision-making. This implies that Heemschut can influence
(municipal) policy and for example request municipalities to list church buildings as monuments.
40
Furthermore, the organization consists of twelve provincial (voluntary) committees containing
professionals, like architects, city planners, jurists and heritage caretakers. Amsterdam has his
own committee as well. Karel Loeff and Mathijs Witte are part of the national agency and control
these committees. Their work is not on voluntarily basis. From their national perspective, Loeff
and Witte are well aware of the differences between heritage policy on a national, provincial and
local level.
The second expert interview is conducted with Leo Dubbelaar, who works on voluntary
basis for the board of heritage association the Cuypersgenootschap. This association is named
after the famous Dutch architect Pierre Cuypers and – though the work of this architect was the
reason for establishment – make an effort to maintain architectonical heritage from the 19th and
20th century. Contrary to Heemschut, the Cuypersgenootschap is smaller and has approximately
500 members. This also has consequences for the way the association is set up: there is a small
group of volunteers who work throughout the Netherlands. They are also legally listed as an
interested party when architectonical heritage from the 19th and 20th century is part of decision-
making.
Harrie Maas is the fourth expert who is interviewed. He is the director of Monumentenhuis
Brabant, a foundation that supports municipalities in enforcing and improving their monument
policy. The foundation has an independent position between public and private organizations that
are involved in the field of cultural heritage. The structure of the foundation consists of a board
and organization. Harrie Maas is director of the organization for which five people work with
different heritage expertise. Municipalities from Noord-Brabant can hire their expertise and
therefore the foundation is involved throughout the province on a local level.
Case interviews
The case interviews are conducted with respondents who are involved in the process of the
adaptive reuse of religious heritage. Public and private actors are interviewed. The expectation is
that a large number of actors is involved in all cases. It is not possible – within this relatively small
research – to conduct interviews with all of them. For that reason, actors who have played a key
role within the process of adaptive reuse or policymaking are approached. Among these actors
are (potential) owners, church boards, municipalities, and heritage caretakers. It is important to
find a balance in the interviews between public and private actors.
Before the definitive selection of the cases, contact information of the involved actors was
collected with help of the internet and related organizations. Not all involved actors were willing
to participate in this research for a variety of reasons. Therefore, only the cases are selected of
which all the actors agreed to participate. Because it was a wish from the Cultural Heritage Agency
to research four different cases, not all the actors who were involved in the process could be
questioned due to the amount of time available for this research. The most important actors
involved in the process of adaptive reuse are interviewed in every case.
All interviews are recorded with a recording device with permission of the respondent. The
interviews are literally written out in a transcript and send to the respondent in question. All the
respondents approved the transcripts that are used in this research. All respondents are
interviewed individually, to increase the validity of the research. It is possible that respondents will
answer differently and more socially accepted when they are interviewed together, for example
the church board with a representative from the municipality (Baarda, 2014, 88). The municipality
41
of Emmen offered to conduct the interview with three of their employees who were involved in the
process of adaptive reuse of the Zuiderkerk.4 In Standdaarbuiten, Adrie Kuijstermans and Coen
Tolenaars were interviewed together. They cooperate to maintain the church building and were
originally both part of a working group established to save the church. Eventually Adrie
Kuijstermans bought the church and was part of the interview as the new owner. In the case of
Emmen, the new owner of the church Roderick van Nie was briefly spoken to via the telephone.
Due to a lack of time, it was not possible to conduct an extensive interview and his point of view
is noted in short sketch.
Table 5. Overview respondents per case
Emmen Oss Standdaarbuiten Weert
Simone Wijnands - Paul Spanjaard, Monique van de Looi, Joke Jongeling,

Schutte, Henriette municipality of Oss municipality of Moerdijk municipality of Weert
Vrieling, Eugene
Sauren, municipality of
Emmen
Tonnis Bos, Protestant Cor Mennen, parish of Jan Bedaf, parish of the Thijs Hendrix, new
Church Emmen Oss Bernardus owner
denomination
Ingo Leth, temporary Frank Jansen, new Adrie Kuijstermans, Hans Marechal,
tenant owner new owner, also part of chairman
the working group ‘save neighbourhood
the church’ association ‘Friends
from the Fatima
neighbourhood’
Roderick van Nie, new Hettie Peterse, Coen Tolenaars, Ingrid Beckers,
owner monument-committee chairman working monument-committee
Oss group ‘save the church’ Weert
Thematic analyzing and coding
The interviews are analyzed using the method thematic analyzing. This is one of the most
common forms of analysis within qualitative research. Thematic analysis focuses on finding
themes within the collected data. To answer the research question, it is important to find
similarities and differences between the different cases. This can be done by coding: concepts,
similarities and elements are tagged with codes. As more and more data is collected and
analyzed, these codes form concepts, and concepts form categories, which can help to structure
the data and compare the cases with each other (Allan, 2003). Thematic analysis derives its
method from grounded theory approach, which is mainly used to derive a new theory from
4 The names of the church buildings of the selected cases are written in Dutch throughout the whole
thesis.
42
collected data based on the identification of concepts and categories from texts (Corbin & Strauss,
2008). Thematic analysis does not exclude theoretical development.
‘‘Its [thematical analysis] primary goal is to describe and understand how people feel, think, and
behave within a particular context relative to a specific research question.’’ (Guest et al., 2012,
13).
The way Guest et al. (2012, 13) describe the goal of this method can be seen in line with
phenomenology, in which the participants perceptions, experiences and feelings are the object of
study. Furthermore, thematic analysis ‘require[s] more involvement and interpretation from the
researcher’, while it ‘move[s] beyond counting explicit words or phrases and focus on identifying
and describing both implicit and explicit ideas within the data’ (Guest et al., 2012, 10). The
transcripts of the interviews are coded with help of the program Atlas.TI. Coding means that
certain quotes and opinions can receive a certain code. The codes are divided in themes and
sub-themes (appendix B). Through coding, differences and similarities can be found in the
interview itself, as between different interviews. This makes the analysis more complete.
3.4 Reliability and validity

In advance, different methodological choices are made for the purpose of reliable and plausible
research. The internal validity is ensured by operationalizing the concepts of Lefebvre, which are
used as a basis for the conceptual model, data collection and the analysis. The operationalized
concepts were the basis of the interview guide and the coding. By continuously using the
conceptual model as basis to research the production of space, an attempt is made to guarantee
the possibility to reproduce the results. Despite these preparations, it is possible that there are
some flaws in the data. The danger with qualitative research is that the interpretation of the
researcher – based on his personal experiences – can lead to inaccurate information. To prevent
this as much as possible and increase the validity, this research uses the principle of triangulation
(Baarda, 2014, 89) which means that the object of study is examined from different perspectives,
with different respondents, which results in different statements on the same phenomenon. This
makes it possible to clarify different perspectives and makes it possible to include the personal
and preferences of the respondents.
Qualitative research is always difficult to repeat, because interviews are difficult to conduct
again. For that reason, the interviews are transcribed literally and coded. This enhances the
transparency in the analysis. There are some inevitabilities when conducting interviews, in which
the interviewer performs an important role. It is possible that a respondent was not comfortable
enough to tell their whole version of the story and leaves parts out. It is also possible that more
socially accepted answers are given, because of future relations with other respondents (for
example the municipality). The interviewer has certain charisma that influences the course of the
interview (Baarda, 2014, 98). Despite this, there is always a chance that a difference in
interpretation over the concepts originates during the interview.
Generalization is not possible in the case of adaptive reuse of church buildings. Every
case is unique and can differ on a local level. Despite this, the perceptions and opinions of the
respondents contribute to a better understanding of the object of this study. Although every case
is unique, it is possible to speak of comparability of the different cases. To compare these – in
essence – unique cases, several criteria need to be distinguished and examined to increase the
43
scope of this research (Baarda et al., 2005, 199). Generalization is possible, but only when per
case is examined of which the criteria can be compared to the criteria from another case.
44
4. Multilevel governance of adaptive reuse
This chapter examines the field of adaptive reuse, the legal and political framework, the different
stakeholders and their interests, and the municipal policy concerning church buildings. The four
selected church buildings are all municipal monuments and for that reason there is more
emphasis on the role of the municipality than on other governmental layers.
4.1 Adaptive reuse

Due to secularization and the decrease of visitors within a parish or church community, the church
board or diocese can feel that it is necessary to find an alternative destination for their church
building. When this is the case, there are several possibilities: maintaining the church building by
cooperating with different parishes and church communities, sale and adaptive reuse, or
demolishment.
Since the 1960s and 1970s – when secularization started in the Netherlands – numerous
church buildings have been demolished. Despite this development, the movement to redevelop
church buildings was already present, although to a lesser extent. The climate for maintaining
church buildings without (and sometimes with) a monumental status deteriorated in the 1960s
and 1970s. A drastic change occurred, because church boards concluded for the first time that
demolishment was sometimes inevitable. Church buildings became vacant because religious
communities merged or chose to build a smaller new building (Coenen, 2004, 179). In those
decades, the demolishment of a church building already invoked many emotions, especially
among religious believers. Adaptive reuse therefore became a common phenomenon, although
demolishment was more often the chosen option (Coenen, 2004, 179-180). Despite the (cultural
and social) value of church buildings, the financial situation was then and is now the most decisive
factor to maintain or dispose a building. The financial means of many church communities are
decreasing and when they have run out, the only solutions are an alternative destination for the
building or demolishment.
When a church board wants to maintain the building, the first step is to investigate the
possibilities for use of the church in a multifunctional way. Church boards can decide to rent the
building (or certain rooms) to third parties. Popular examples are the possibility to organize
weddings, concerts, congresses, and art expositions, which can provide income for the church.
The possibilities differ for every building and depend on the type of church building and type of
denomination. There are large differences between the Roman Catholic and Protestant
denominations and their vision on church buildings. In general, there are more Protestant
churches than Roman Catholic Church buildings used in a multifunctional way. From the Roman
Catholic perspective, church buildings are holy places, houses of God, which can only be used
as such (de Hart, 2014, 15). The Roman Catholic Church prefers – traditionally – demolishment
instead of maintaining the church building in another function. In practice, demolishment occurs
less often than a couple of decades ago. From the Protestant view, religion is not connected to
the building. Buildings are sacred because they are used in that manner. The buildings have to
be treated carefully and will always be seen as religious heritage, but the local protestant
municipality can decide what happens with the building. In practice, there are more possibilities
for multifunctional use and adaptive reuse in Protestant church buildings (Lingen &
Uytenboogaart, 2008, 33).
45
When multifunctional use does not provide enough financial means to maintain the
building, church boards have to consider different alternatives, starting with selling the building.
The future possibilities of a church building mainly depend on the flexibility of local church boards,
whether they are Roman Catholic or Protestant. The flexibility and attitudes differ per protestant
municipality, parish, or diocese. Both the Roman Catholic and Protestant church prefer a different
religious community that takes over the building. The Protestant church is reticent in reusing the
building by a different religious community, although the local protestant municipality can decide
(Lingen & Uytenboogaart, 2008, 31). The Roman Catholic Church only accepts different religious
communities when they are registered in the Council of Churches (Bisseling et al., 2011, 87-88).
In practice, this means that only Christian religious communities can take over a Roman Catholic
Church building; other religious communities are not accepted. Handing over the building to
another religious community is the most easy option; the development plan and building do not
need to be changed.
When this is not possible, reusing the church in a non-profane way is the second option.
Especially for the Roman Catholic Church this option has its limits. When their church building is
deconsecrated, it has to receive a worthy function; preferable social (library, school, health centre,
hospice or foster home) or to a certain extent cultural (museum, exposition, concerts, choir
practice). When this is not possible, the catholic church prefers demolishment (Roman Catholic
Church, 2008). There are no guidelines that describe what a worthy function exactly is
(Gelderloos, 2012, 194). In general, commercial functions are considered as not worthy. Because
there is no clear definition, the Roman Catholic Church is in practice more pragmatic in the
process of adaptive reuse. The Protestant view on the church building also provides more
possibilities in reusing the church building. The final option is demolishment, although the number
of churches that are demolished is decreasing rapidly (Belvedere, 2008, 33). One of the reasons
for the decrease is the economic crisis from 2008, which led to a decrease of building projects by
developers.
4.2 Legal and political framework

In this research, all selected church buildings are listed as a municipal monument. This means
they are – in general – protected against demolishment and the owners have to move towards
reusing the building. The role of municipalities was not always as large as today and the laws
concerning the protection of monuments changed drastically over time. In this paragraph, the
development of the (municipal) monument policy will be sketched shortly.
At the end of the Second World War in 1945, the first law concerning the protection of
monuments was established. The first ‘official’ Monument Law of 1961 replaced this law, and
made sure architectural, archaeological, and movable objects were protected and preserved in
the Netherlands. Objects had to be older than fifty years and were listed as a national monument
(Potano, 1997). In 1988, the law was replaced by a new Monument Law, in which the
municipalities saw their role and responsibilities increasing in the field of monument care. The
most important change was the decentralization of tasks from the national to municipal level. This
development started in the 1970s, the decade in which the foundations for monuments increased,
the number of monuments grew, and some municipalities already conducted their own monument
policy (Potano, 1997, 108-109). These developments were transformed in a new Monument Law
in 1988, which replaced the first Monument Law of 1961.
46
Municipalities received the possibility to list their own monuments and design their own
policy. Moreover, municipalities became responsible for the monument licenses, i.e. what is and
what is not possible when a building is a monument. If the owner of a monument wants to change
or demolish his monument, he needs a license from the mayor and aldermen (Ministry of
Education, Culture and Science, 2002, 107-108). This is the case for national and municipal
monuments. When plans are submitted by the owner to change or demolish a monument, the
municipal board is advised by an independent, local monument-commission, which is filled with
heritage and architectural professionals. This decentralization is important for this research,
because the municipal monument status ensures that the municipality plays a role in the process
of adaptive reuse and can influence the possibilities with the space (church building).
Cultural heritage is protected on all three Dutch governmental levels. The national
government appoints national monuments, i.e. buildings that are of great national importance.
Below the national government is the provincial layer, which also has the freedom by law to
appoint monuments and conduct policy. On a local level, municipal monuments are historical
buildings of great local or regional importance. The municipal monument lists are mainly based
on national inventories. An example is the Monumental inventory Project (MIP) conducted
between 1986 and 1995, in which all historical buildings or ensembles from the period 1850-1940
are inventoried. With the Monument Selection Project (MSP), a selection is made from these
inventories and part is listed as a national monument. Many municipalities used these lists to
make an inventory of which buildings – that were not appointed as a national monument – are
considered as a municipal monument. National monuments had to be at least fifty years old. This
was the case until 2012 (Cultural Heritage Agency, 2014b). This rule does not apply for municipal
monuments.
A new approach arised in 1999 with the Nota Belvedere. This policy aims to increase the
role of cultural history – of which monuments are a part – within spatial developments and
planning projects. The policy document is not a law, but more a document of inspiration for
provincial and local policy (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, 1999). Since the
implementation of the second Monument Law in 1988 the approach of monuments has changed
from a ‘conservation paradigm’ to ‘transformation paradigm’. The definition of a monument is seen
as broader than just the object and transformed to heritage. Besides that, monument care takers
now strive to maintain monuments by development. This means that cultural history is maintained
by integration within spatial developments. The Nota Belvedere was succeeded by the
Modernization Monumentcare in 2009, which consisted of three main points (Ministry of
Education, Culture and Science, 2009):
 New functions for historical buildings;

 Easier legislation for owners;
 Cultural history becomes a component of spatial plans.
The line of the Modernization Monument Care was implemented legally in 2012, when the
Monument Law was modernized. The first point indicates the importance of reusing historical
buildings. When historical buildings – monument or not – lose their function and become vacant,
the conservation of its historical values are under pressure. Adaptive reuse can prevent this. On
a national level, adaptive reuse was stimulated by the establishment of a National Program of
47
Adaptive Reuse, a program that tried to stimulate the practice, knowledge and publicity of
adaptive reuse. Nowadays, the conservation of cultural values is the most important in a process
of adaptive reuse, although there is more room for aspects like function and the possibilities for
the future user (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, 2002, 107). Conserving a monument
by development means that a building can be conserved best by combining cultural history with
new functions. A subsidy fund is also established, which stimulates adaptive reuse by providing
financial support for owners who are researching their possibilities for reusing their historical
building.
Besides that, cultural heritage has to be taken into account in planning procedures. This
is part of an area-oriented heritage approach and gives municipalities the possibility to prevent an
apartment building from being built next to a monument. The environment of cultural heritage is
seen more and more as a factor that influences heritage as well. The development plans state
where cultural historical values are in the area and how these are (going to be) protected. With
this adjustment of the law, citizens and interested parties can point out what is important to
preserve in an early stage. Moreover, it is clear for developers which cultural historical values are
present in the area and how the municipality wants to preserve them (Cultural Heritage Agency,
2013).
The division between the church and state, as noted in regulations 1 and 6 of the Dutch
constitution, does not play a role in the Monument Laws. This division is established to separate
politics and religion. The consequences are that church communities are financially independent
and cannot receive financial support from the state. Despite this, it is possible to receive subsidies
for church buildings that are listed as a monument. Only one exception is added in the decision
making process when a monument is appointed: in the case of religious heritage, the national,
provincial or municipal government is obliged to consult with the rightful owner. However, they do
not need the owner’s permission to list the building. Although the division between church and
state does not appear to play a great role in the legal framework, it is of influence on political
decisions. Municipalities can act carefully and hesitantly when a church building is deconsecrated
and becomes vacant; they feel that it is not their task to act, despite the societal and cultural
historical value of the building (Jongmans et al., 2008).
4.3 Different stakeholders

In this chapter, the main stakeholders that are involved in the process of adaptive reuse are
examined. This chapter only characterizes different actors on a municipal level because this is
the scope of this research. For that reason, the national and provincial government are not treated
extensively. The stakeholders in this paragraph all have the possibility to influence the decision
making process of adaptive reuse and can in such a way impact the production of space. This is
only a small selection of all the involved actors in the process of adaptive reuse, but in this
research these are the most important.
4.3.1. Roman Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic Church consists of seven diocese and is a hierarchical organization. The
head of every diocese is a bishop. Every diocese has the freedom to conduct their own policy
about their churches concerning the buildings and the way they handle adaptive reuse differs. On
a local level, there are parishes that are determined geographically. The priest is the head of
48
every parish, which is led in cooperation with a board. In the Roman Catholic Church, decisions
about buildings are made on the level of the bishop and his board. In the case of selling the
building, the local parish board has influence on the process, because they are the first contact
point and spokesman in the process of adaptive reuse. The parish is the owner of the building
and in charge of the sale, but the bishop has to give his permission. The final decision is always
in hands of the bishop (Jongmans et al., 2008, 50). When a parish board goes through the selling
process carefully and involves the diocese, the bishop normally gives his permission.
The Roman Catholic Church strives for a market conform price and the benefits are
generally used for the other church buildings in the parish. When a church building is sold,
conditions are almost always chained to the adaptive reuse in a contract, to make sure some
functions are not performable in the future. When the owner breaks this contract, he has to pay a
(large) financial compensation. What is possible and what is not in a church building according to
the Roman Catholic Church is already explained in paragraph 4.1.
4.3.2. Protestant Church in the Netherlands

The Protestant Church in the Netherlands is the largest Protestant church community in the
Netherlands. It was established when three different protestant movements merged together in
2004, the Dutch Reformed Church, the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Protestant church will
always view their buildings as religious heritage. However, the local Protestant community can
decide what will happen to the building. This happens after consulting with their members and the
regional boards. In general, it is easier to reuse protestant church buildings than Roman Catholic
ones. Although the building is not consecrated in the Protestant belief, their buildings are sacred
by the protestant use. When a Protestant church is reused, the new function ‘has to orient
primarily on the belief and radiation the Protestant community gave to the building’ (Lingen &
Uytenboogaart, 2008, 33).
4.3.3. Private buyers

Vacant church buildings are sold to different parties. Development companies, private buyers or
non-profit foundations are actors who play a role in the ecclesial real estate market. Development
companies mostly have commercial goals and are interested in the (in many cases) beneficially
priced ground and location of the building. Besides that, private buyers and non-profit foundations
often purchase church buildings to maintain them for the neighbourhood or village. There are a
lot of provincial non-profit foundations, such as ‘Stichting Alde Fryse Tsjerken’, ‘Stichting Oude
Groninger Kerken’, ‘Stichting Oude Gelderse Kerken’, ‘Stichting Oude Hollandse Kerken’, and
‘Stichting Oude Zeeuwse Kerken’.
4.3.4 Public policy makers
The national government

The monument legislation is performed by the Cultural Heritage Agency, a department of the
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. This Agency has several instruments to preserve
heritage, such as the national monument status and national town and villages views, but in
practice these are hardly used anymore. The national town and villages views are only appointed
49
by municipalities nowadays, and new national monuments are only listed by rare exception and
according to thematic listing programs. The Agency offers several subsidies and invests in
research, as is the case with the National program of Adaptive Reuse and the program Future
Religious Heritage. The Agency profiles itself more and more as a knowledge institution and
connector between different actors.
The province
The way monuments are handled differs on a provincial level, thus also church buildings and their
vacancy are handled differently in every province. The amount of (religious) heritage is not the
same in every province. Provinces are important concerning spatial development, in which
cultural history received a prominent role in 2012. Provinces can research cultural historical
values and register these in maps. In that way, cultural history is involved in spatial developments,
but these maps can also be used by municipalities when designing development plans. Only
Noord-Holland and Drenthe have appointed provincial monuments. Not only objects, but also
dikes, border posts and municipal bordering objects are listed. This last category is the sort of
cultural heritage which is outside the hands of municipalities and the national government. All the
Dutch provinces reserve yearly subsidies for cultural heritage, but leave the monument policy
mostly to the national government and the municipalities.
The municipality
The municipality can be seen as the most important governmental layer concerning vacancy of
church buildings. It is the first who receives signals over the vacancy of churches and has multiple
policy instruments to control the process of adaptive reuse. On a municipal level are one or two
policy professionals specialized in monuments, depending on the size of the municipality. Besides
that, there is mainly one employee operative on the permit department. Besides these employees,
every municipality has a monument-commission, or is affiliated with a regional monument-
commission, which judges over building plans from the listed monuments.
The municipality describes the monument legislation in a monument order and has
multiple instruments to preserve and protect heritage, such as the zoning, the structure vision and
the heritage note. Although these instruments can play a role in the preservation of cultural
heritage, the most important instrument is the municipal monument status. The board of mayor
and aldermen can list a building – whether on request of an interested party or not – as a municipal
monument. An interested party is, according to article 1.2 from the General Administrative Law,
someone whose interest is involved in the decision-making process. When a monument is listed
the group is more limited, namely natural or legal owner. Heritage organizations like the
Cuypersgenootschap and Bond Heemschut, whose aim it is to preserve heritage, are interested
parties in the process as well.
When the municipality has the intention to list a building as a monument the building is
protected as if it is a monument until a decision is made. The monument-commission starts
research into the monumental values of the building, which are described in a monument
description. This document describes what is of value. After the commission has conducted this
research, they advise the board of mayor and aldermen, who then have to decide if the building
is listed or not. The consideration of the different interests – the public interest of the building
versus the interest of the legal owner – has to be motivated by the municipality in the final decision.
50
During the listing procedure, interested parties can have a say and influence the decision-making
process.
The effects of the municipal monument status differ per municipality. When a building is
listed as a monument, this does not have an influence on the current function but only on future
use. When an owner wants to change the building an extra permit is needed. Some parts can be
changed without a permit, but this depends on the monument description. This document also
describes whether the interior and/or exterior are protected. Contrary to national monuments,
there are no uniform subsidies for municipal monuments. Every municipality can decide if there
is a budget for subsidies. The recent years were dominated by cut backs, which did not stimulate
the financial possibilities for monuments. Paragraph 4.4 will show that there are large differences
in policy on a municipal level.
Figure 4. Listing procedure
Monument-commission
This independent commission advises the board of mayor and aldermen about the buildings or
renovation plans for which an ‘area permit’ is needed. This is their minimal legal task, but such a
commission can also fulfil a larger role: (un)questioned advice concerning municipal monuments
(listings and building plans), and advising the listing of provincial or national monuments and
buildings in protected town- and village views (The Association of Dutch Municipalities, 2009, 11).
The Monument-commission needs members with knowledge concerning restorations,
architecture, building history, historical geography, urban planning, and archaeology. The
commission has to consist of minimally three members (The Association of Dutch Municipalities,
2009, 13). The commission is an independent organ that is supported by a municipal employee.
This municipal employee is not a member of the commission, but can perform as secretary or
advisor.
51
The commission judges whether building plans influence and erode the monumental
values of an object. The commission determines to what extent the building can be changed and
in which way these modifications should be executed. It only advises and does not decide which
interests – the public interest or that of the owner – are the most important and whether the
building is listed or not. This is in hands of the board of mayor and alderman. In practice, this
board almost always follows the advice of this commission (The Association of Dutch
Municipalities, 2009, 21-22).
4.3.5. Heritage associations

The two largest heritage associations – Cuypersgenootschap and Bond Heemschut – represent
the interests of cultural heritage and are active on all governmental levels. The organizational
structure of both associations is explained in paragraph 3.3. The main difference between the
associations is the working method. Heemschut has more members than the
Cuypersgenootschap and has a larger file of volunteers. Therefore, Heemschut works with
provincial (voluntary) committees, which are in contact with municipalities and try to control or
influence the local heritage policy. The Cuypersgenootschap is not organized in provincial
committees and consists of a small group of volunteers. Both associations have inquired
municipalities about heritage policy, advice, object and campaign (together) for the preservation
of heritage. They are both legally listed as interested parties when cultural heritage is part of
governmental decision-making. Contrary to Heemschut, the Cuypersgenootschap goes to court
more often to preserve heritage (Transcript Leo Dubbelaar, 2015, 1-3).
4.3.6. Local associations

On a municipal level, there are many historical, neighbourhood and non-profit organizations
related to church buildings or/and neighbourhoods, e.g. the local historical club, a neighbourhood
association or ‘Friends’ of the church. These organizations can influence the preservation of local
heritage and the decision making process. The way citizens are organized and to what extent
they influence the process of adaptive reuse differs per church building, neighbourhood, and
village or city.
4.4 Municipal policy practices

Before the different cases are researched, it is important to show how the field of municipal
monument policy works. Both Heemschut and Cuypersgenootschap see large local differences
between municipal monument policies. According to Karel Loeff, it is important that the
responsible alderman has a positive attitude to monument policy. There has to be ‘culture within
a municipality if you want to achieve something’ (Transcript Karel Loeff & Mathijs Witte, 2015, 1).
Some municipalities have a positive attitude towards monuments and are active in conservation,
while others only fulfil their legal tasks. Herewith the focus is only on issuing permits, contrary to
establishing monumental policy. Such municipalities have little knowledge and there are barely
working hours available for monuments (Transcript Karel Loeff & Mathijs Witte, 2015). Leo
Dubbelaar acknowledges this and often encounters a lack of knowledge in small municipalities,
when the Cuypersgenootschap request the listing of potential monuments. The responsible
employee sometimes does not know how such a process works. Such a listing request can be
politically sensitive in smaller municipalities, as the local government is closer to their inhabitants
52
and the lines between the administrators and church boards are short. When the lines between
the aldermen and church board are short, it is possible that the consideration of interests moves
more in the direction of the owner and the monumental values are ignored (Transcript Leo
Dubbelaar, 2015, 5).
Municipalities often take a wait-and-see attitude concerning religious heritage. This
attitude is due to the downsizing of finances during the last three or four years, according to Harrie
Maas. If municipalities are confronted with new policy concerning religious heritage, ‘most of them
will say; we will see when this comes up for discussion’ (Transcript Harrie Maas, 2015, 2).
Municipalities do not want to meddle in this process. Every board of mayor and aldermen differs
in where the focus lies and in terms of cutbacks, cultural history has less priority (Transcript Harrie
Maas, 2015, 4). On the other hand, church boards – as owners – have denied the problems for a
long time. They first have to consider which buildings they want to maintain and which they want
to repel.
Despite the other instruments, the municipal monument status is the primary way to
preserve heritage on a local level. Other spatial instruments – like the zoning – do not offer the
‘insurance, safety, acknowledgement, pride and positivity’ from a monument status (Karel Loeff
& Mathijs Witte, 2015, 5). The status prevents that a building can be demolished out of the blue,
but is also a recognition for the owner. Besides that, it is ‘positive that we as a community, as
society’ maintain these types of buildings on a local level (Karel Loeff & Mathijs Witte, 2015, 5).
In comparison with the monumental status, the zoning only protects the view from the street and
form of the building, while the interior – which is also part of the church – is unprotected (Transcript
Leo Dubbelaar, 2015, 3).
Every municipality can decide whether they offer subsidies for the status. When a
municipality does, it will often ‘only have a limited impact’ (Transcript Leo Dubbelaar, 2015, 3).
Many municipalities do not offer any financial compensation for a monumental status; this is a
common complaint from church boards. This is legitimate criticism according to Dubbelaar,
because the status does restrict the use of the building. Because the monumental status makes
it more difficult to demolish the building, it is seen as an impediment in the process of adaptive
reuse. Normally the owner has the possibility to request a permit for demolishment, the process
now focuses on adaptive reuse. The municipal status is legally the same in every municipality,
but the use differs.
This is also applicable to the monument-commission, which advises the municipality over
the monumentality of buildings or objects. Every commission can have their own preferences.
When the local commissions prefer a specific type of restoration, it can be difficult to change their
thoughts. It is sometimes forgotten that – from the perspective of the owner – someone has to
invest a great amount of extra money in their building. Monument-commissions only judge the
monumental values and do not keep the importance or function of the church within a
neighbourhood in mind to the same extent. Some commissions can be really strict, while others
are very flexible and willing to cooperate (Transcript Harrie Maas, 2015, 5).
4.5 Conclusion
This chapter shows that the field of adaptive reuse is illustrated by many (local) differences
between actors, legislation and governance. The possibilities of adaptive reuse can differ per
diocese, parish or (Roman Catholic or Protestants) church board. Besides that, due to legal and
53
political developments, most of the responsibilities concerning the redevelopment of church
buildings are now at the municipal level. Although the legal framework is the same for every
municipality, there is an amount of freedom of policy in regard to how the monument care is
conducted. The differences between municipalities are sketched in the previous paragraph and
show that there is no coherent policy; this makes the following four cases more interesting.
54
Figure 5. The Fatimakerk
5. The Fatimakerk in Weert

The Fatimakerk is a Roman Catholic Church in Weert. The building is designed by Pierre Weegels
and was built in 1954-1955 in the heart of the Fatima neighbourhood, surrounded by lawns,
parterres and trees. In 2005, the municipality decided to list the iconic building as a municipal
monument. The church building was deconsecrated in 2011 and taken over in 2014 by Fatima
House B.V. (owner family Hendrix from Ospel, represented by Thijs Hendrix). Hendrix renamed
the building Fatima House and wants to use the building, in cooperation with the residents,
societal organizations and the municipality of Weert, as part of a ‘social enterprise’, in which
commercial goals are combined with public tasks and charities.
5.1 Introduction of the case

The ‘Onze-Lieve-Vrouw Onbevlekt Ontvangen’ parish was established in 1948 and a temporary
church was built, by the local contractor P.M. Gijbels & Zoon, in the new Fatima neighbourhood.
In 1953, Pierre Weegels was appointed as architect to design a new church building, which had
to replace the temporary accommodation. Weegels designed a brick building with a fan-shaped
ship standing out a presbytery. The largest mosaic from the Netherlands can be found in the
church, which was designed and created in the period 1963 – 1965 by Hugo Brouwer and depicts
an image from the life of humans and the redemption. Furthermore, there are stained glass
windows from Charles Eijk and Hugo Brouwer, woodcarvings and ceramics from Cor van
Geleuken and paintings from Gard van Wegberg. The church benches deserve special attention,
because they are formed as a fan-shape, in the shape of the building (Jacobs & Wiekart, 2003,
1753-1755). All these art objects were specially designed for the church, and can be seen as part
55
of the building as well. Together they form a ‘gesamtkunstwerk’, i.e. an art form as a whole. The
building form is rare in the Netherlands – the church is also called ‘the key hole’ – which makes
this church special. There is room
for eight hundred people.
5.1.1. Location and area
The Fatimakerk is located on a

parcel in the middle of the Fatima
neighbourhood and can be seen as
the heart of the community. In front
of the church a former monastery is
located, which now serves as a
mosque. Behind the church is a
primary school. The church
buildings location is surrounded by
green structures. These green Figure 6. Overview Fatimakerk
structures are surrounded by
houses. Because of the central
location and open space around the
building it looks like an island within
the neighbourhood and can be seen
as a landmark.
The area was developed
around 1949 and was originally built
as a garden village. It became a
working class neighbourhood.
Besides this church building,
Weegels designed in the period of
1946-1955 different houses (1964),
two primary schools (1950 and
1954), a pre-school, and the
Fatimakerk and the presbytery, all
centred around the large field of
grass. A church island arose, which Figure 7. Cadastral map Fatimakerk
connected religious and educational
buildings (Van Cauteren, 2007, 15). The neighbourhood is located on the west-side next to the
city centre.
5.1.2. Actors
For this chapter, interviews are conducted with the policy advisor of monuments, Joke Jongeling
from the municipality of Weert, the current owner Thijs Hendrix, chairman of the neighbourhood
association ‘Friends from the Fatima neighbourhood’ Hans Marechal and architect Ingrid Beckers,
from the monument-commission. The church was listed as a municipal monument in 2005 and
has been out of use since 2011. There has not been an interview with the former church board;
56
the choice is made to only conduct interviews with the actors who are involved in the process
since the building was sold. There was no discussion about listing the building in 2005. The same
applies for the sale in 2014. The parish had drafted an appraisal report which was the base of the
sale (Transcript Thijs Hendrix, 2015, 4).
5.2 The municipal monument policy

Weert is a small-scaled municipality with a relatively large amount of monuments, including 62
national monuments, 175 municipal monuments and 12 protected town- and village views. The
monuments are seen as the benchmarks of the history of Weert, which has an agrarian character.
‘Everybody [in Weert] is a bit surprised’ that there are many monuments in Weert, according to
policy advisor Joke Jongeling (Transcript Joke Jongeling, 2015, 2). The monument list consists
of objects from all the periods of the history of Weert, chosen by typologies and dates. The key
note on monumental policy is the monument note Monument policy plan 2014, which focuses on
the improvement of support among the local society and the experience of cultural history. These
accents are conducted by establishing a ‘monument of the year’ price, using social media and the
winning of the title Greenest city of the Netherlands and Greenest region of the world. The way
Weert handles their cultural history played a huge role in these elections.
To preserve their cultural history, Weert mainly uses the municipal monument status. The
zoning has more of an alarming function: if there are developments which can harm the
monument, this instrument has not enough possibilities to protect the whole building. Contrary to
the zoning, the municipal monument status creates the possibility to maintain the ex- and interior
of the building. The listing process of a monument in Weert is organized slightly differently than
in most municipalities. Usually there is only one monument-commission, but in Weert the tasks
are divided among two commissions. The commission cultural history advises the college of
mayor and aldermen about the monument policy, for example the listing of monuments and the
monument description. This commission is formed by representatives from the local heritage
associations and a restoration architect. Besides that, policy advisor Joke Jongeling is secretary
(Municipality Weert, 2014b). The commission cultural history unites all the local associations and
gives them a voice and influence in the local monument policy. The other commission – called
monument/aesthetics-commission – judges the buildings’ plans concerning monumental objects.
Inhabitants can also influence the monument policy by requesting the municipality to list
a building as a monument. In Weert, this does not happen often – Joke recalls one example from
the local mill association – but if it happens, communication is essential. She notices many
prejudices about the effects of the municipal monument status: ‘‘You hear the weirdest things,
that you cannot hit a nail in the wall’’ (Transcript Joke Jongeling, 2015, 6). What is possible and
what is not in buildings plans, depends from the judgment of the monument/aesthetics-
commission, but there are more possibilities than people think. When the ‘character of the
building, how recognizable it is, and its intrinsic value’ is preserved, changes which serve the use
of the building are definitely possible (Transcript Joke Jongeling, 2015, 9).
Joke Jongeling – ‘‘You have to look at the possibilities [from the municipal monument status], you
do not need to immediately shout what is and what is not possible. You first have to look at the
possibilities and realize those’’ (Transcript Joke Jongeling, 2015, 19).
57
5.3 The process of adaptive reuse
The Fatimakerk was listed as a municipal monument in 2005. The listing was not contested at
that time and the church board also agreed. The listing had the consequence that the exterior as
well as the interior are protected (Municipality Weert, 2005). When the building was
deconsecrated in 2011, the church board did file a request to remove the building from the
monument list. The board was not able to maintain the building financially (Municipality Weert,
2013). The request was denied by the municipality – after consultation with the monument-
commission – because the monumental qualities of the building did not change compared to the
situation in 2005, when the building was listed. Furthermore, the municipality even requested the
Cultural Heritage Agency to consider the Fatimakerk as a national monument (Transcript Joke
Jongeling, 2015, 8-9). At that moment, the church was already empty and several redevelopment
options were researched by different parties. The Cultural Heritage Agency declined the request;
the building was already protected as a municipal monument and a national monument status
would not contribute to the process of adaptive reuse. The national agency did advise the
municipality to (again) consult with the church board concerning the adaptive reuse (Municipality
Weert, 2013).
When the church was deconsecrated, the municipality examined the possibilities to
accommodate municipal services and organizations in the building. For this, acoustic research
was even conducted but in the end, the accommodation turned out to be unsuitable (Transcript
Joke Jongeling, 2015, 10). During the following years there were different interested parties with
ideas for adaptive reuse, of which the party that wanted to realize the first Dutch mausoleum in
the building was most concrete. Developer Smolenaers Group and architects Beelen CS
developed the first concrete plans in 2013: an adaptive reuse which did not harm the monumental
quality of the building. To successfully realize this function, they consulted with the municipality
about the possibilities in an early stage (Municipality Weert, 2013). Despite great enthusiasm of
the diocese of Roermond and the province of Limburg, this function was not realized. The church
building was sold to Thijs Hendrix in 2014, who transformed it into the Fatima House.
Entrepreneur Thijs Hendrix is from Ospel – one of the surrounding villages of Weert – and
in his youth studied in the monastery facing the Fatimakerk. He was already familiar with the
building and has bought the Fatimakerk after he had already bought the Fransiscus church in
Weert. He wants to develop a ‘social entreprise’ in both buildings – in combination with another
municipal monument, the Hotel ‘Antje van Statie’ in the centre of Weert – in which commercial
goals, public tasks and charity are combined. How this will exactly develop is not yet clear. There
is room for the local community as well in his plans, because the Fatimakerk remains available
for gatherings and community development. The building had earlier fulfilled these functions as
well (Transcript Thijs Hendrix, 2015, 3). The province of Limburg reserved a maximum of 500.000
euro for the restoration and adaptive reuse of the building, under the condition that every euro of
subsidy is matched by the owner with the same contribution. The municipality has agreed that the
surrounding park can be used by the Fatima House as well, as the new function increases the
liveability of the neighbourhood (Municipality Weert, 2014a).
Thijs Hendrix – ‘‘Besides that, the municipality contributes to the adaptive reuse, by making the
surrounding green area available in consultation with all the actors of the neighbourhood’’
(Transcript Thijs Hendrix, 2015, 2).
58
This quote from Thijs Hendrix illustrates the special aspect of this adaptive reuse: the extent to
which the neighbourhood is involved in the process. A covenant is signed which connects ten
involved parties to strive to keep people in the Fatima neighbourhood as long as possible. Thijs
Hendrix joined this cooperation program, whereby the Fatima House can be deployed for this goal
as well. How this will be realized is not clear yet, but the intentions are positive. Because Thijs
Hendrix involved the neighbourhood in his plans from the start, the adaptive reuse is now
supported by the neighbourhood, municipality and province (Transcript Hans Marechal, 2015, 1-
3).
Thijs Hendrix – ‘‘We are here not to just tell that we are going to buy it, but also how the building
can connect to the societal needs’’ (Transcript Thijs Hendrix, 2015, 6).
5.3.1. Effects municipal monumental policy
Because the building was a municipal monument since 2005, the municipality was involved in the
process of adaptive reuse from the beginning. During the purchasing process there were several
exploratory conversations between the municipality and Thijs Hendrix about the possibilities of
the building. The municipal monument status – and the building limitations that it brought along –
was no problem for him. After the purchase, the functions and the possibilities were discussed
(Transcript Thijs Hendrix, 2015, 5). The intentions of the municipality were clear from the start:
maintaining the building from a cultural-historical and societal perspective. This is apparent from
the attempt to accommodate municipal functions in the building, as well as the given possibility to
use the surrounding space for activities from the Fatima House.
The municipal monument status has the consequence that the whole church building is
protected, i.e. the in- and exterior, unless it is stated differently in the monument description.
Despite these limitations, the purchase- and renovation process of the building ran smoothly. The
reason for this was Thijs Hendrix himself, who wanted to maintain the present building as much
as possible. He renovated the building historically where it was possible; the entrance is restored
in its original colours, the organ is renovated, and the bells are restored (Transcript Thijs Hendrix,
2015, 5). Another reason for the smooth process of adaptive reuse is possibly policy advisor Joke
Jongeling. Besides her job in the municipality, she is a member of a church board located in the
south of Weert. Therefore, she knows all the involved actors and the different interests (Transcript
Joke Jongeling, 2015, 8). Although this function can possibly lead to a conflict of interests, she
and her superiors are happy at this moment with the extra knowledge it provides.
5.4 Differences in appreciation of the involved actors

Chairman of the neighbourhood association Friends of the Fatima Neighbourhood Hans Marechal
has been concerned with the neighbourhood since the beginning of the eighties, when he moved
to the area. He was one of the founders of the first neighbourhood association and has been
involved with the church building since 1988, when the church needed financial support for
renovations. He was active in the local politics of Weert, in several voluntary jobs concerning the
Fatima neighbourhood, and in his current role as chairman he makes an effort for the monumental
qualities of the church building.
59
The inhabitants of the Fatima neighbourhood have the strong feeling that it is their church,
because the neighbourhood largely financed the construction of the building in the 1950s. Many
people from the neighbourhood have strong emotional ties with the building: children are baptized
there, funerals are organized and weddings are conducted. The Fatima neighbourhood is a ‘stable
neighbourhood in terms of residents’ and for that reason many people have memories connected
to the building (Transcript Hans Marechal, 2015, 4). Despite the emotional value, the average
resident will now look at the building differently. The religious character of the building has
decreased and people look at the building now and appreciate it for several reasons. Hans
Marechal and his local organization appreciates the monumental value and the different artworks
of the building. The monumental appreciation was less present in the 1970s/1980s when the
church building was still in religious use:
Hans Marechal – ‘‘I think that people themselves – in the 1970s/1980s – in the church, they did
not have that idea [of monumental appreciation]. I for myself – when I got married there in ‘78 –
did not have that feeling. Now I am realizing how special that is’’ (Transcript Hans Marechal, 2015,
2).
Although the monumental appreciation is widely supported throughout the neighbourhood and by
different local associations, most inhabitants from the neighbourhood will have a slightly different
vision on the building:
Hans Marechal – ‘‘If you ask the average resident of the Fatima Neighbourhood, I don’t think that
[they appreciate the monumental value]. Then it is more about: that thing is standing there and it
looks nice. The building has always been standing there and they do not need to break it down.
More such an idea’’ (Transcript Hans Marechal, 2015, 4).
The Friends of the Fatima Neighbourhood did not play a role in the decision making process in
2005, when the church was listed as a monument. According to Joke Jongeling, the citizens of
Weert are not really proud of their cultural history and monuments. The Fatima neighbourhood
can be seen as one of the exceptions, especially the way they are grouped in a local association
(Transcript Joke Jongeling, 2015). Hans Marechal is also active in the project ‘Fatima aan Zet’,
for example, which strives to maintain the liveability in the neighbourhood, to improve the societal
activities, and maintain the residents in the neighbourhood as long as possible.
Thijs Hendrix signed the covenant which makes him a supporter of the project and has
ensured that the Fatima House can be used for activities. The societal role of the building in the
neighbourhood is important for Thijs Hendrix, just like the monumental qualities of the building.
Thijs Hendrix is even more strict than the monument-commission in what is possible with the
building and what is not. He does not want to change anything about the building, even though
there were possibilities to change the in- and exterior, from the perspective that the building
receives a new function and is used differently. This is illustrated with the building of new toilets.
At first, the toilets would be built around the entrance of the building. This turned out to be
impossible. The monument-commission suggested that Thijs Hendrix could look at the possibility
to place the toilets on the outside, where two coves are. This space could then be used and
finished on the outside with zinc (Transcript Joke Jongeling, 2015, 11-12).
60
Within the framework from the monument-commission – the conceived space – there are
enough possibilities to change the building to adjust it for the new function. Because Thijs Hendrix
did not want to change anything on the outside of the building, the toilets are now realized in the
presbytery. Thus, the monument-commission can take in mind the new function of the building
and can act flexibly concerning building plans. The framework from which they operate only allows
the commission to judge over the monumental appreciation of the building. ‘‘It is not our job to
judge whether the adaptive reuse suits its surroundings’’, says Ingrid Beckers from the
monument-commission. Only from an esthetical view the commission can judge if exterior
changes are in line with the buildings surroundings (Transcript Ingrid Beckers, 2015).
When Thijs obtained the building, he made sure the bells were sounded three times a day
again (9 am, 12 am and 6 pm). This is the only decision that evoked some resistance, because
some people worked morning shifts and did not know that the tradition – the bells were sounded
since the building was opened in 1954 – had been restored again. Several neighbours who lived
close by addressed this and after consultation the morning bell is stopped. The bells are only
sounded at 12 am and 6 am: a familiar sound and the neighbourhood is happy with it, according
to Thijs Hendrix (Transcript Thijs Hendrix, 2015, 6).
In this process of adaptive reuse there were no real differences between the main actors
involved. The municipality has acknowledged the monumental value from the building since 2005
and Thijs Hendrix is an ideal monument owner, since he wants to maintain the building in the
present form as much as possible. This does not happen often. Although the financial possibilities
are low, the municipality also supported the adaptive reuse from a societal perspective. This is
illustrated by the flexibility from the monument-commission and making the surrounding green
structure available for use. The only future difference of interests can be found in the commercial
activities that will be organized in the Fatima House. Although this is not the case yet, Thijs
Hendrix wants to make the church building a touristic attraction and organize events in it. To what
extent this is possible for large numbers of people is the question, because it seems that the
neighbourhood might not have an ideal amount of parking space for large numbers of people. On
the other hand, the building is quite close to the centre of Weert, which improves the access to
the building.
5.5 Influence personal opinion monumental policy

Policy advisor Joke Jongeling believes that her own influence on the monumental policy is large.
She is passionate about her job and monuments, and if this drive would not be present, it would
be more difficult to convince the local board. She illustrates this with the example of an old school:
Joke has to judge the monumental quality of the building and if she does not think it is important
or interesting enough for a monumental status, the school is demolished. If she would think it is a
great example of a village school, she can start a decision making process which can lead to the
preservation of that building.
In the case of church buildings she can profit from her background as a member of a local
church board in the south of Weert. She knows exactly what the different interests and problems
of the involved actors in the process are, because there are also (soon to be) vacant religious
buildings in her parish. The municipality of Weert gave her permission to combine this voluntary
work with her job as policy advisor, while there could be conflicting interests at some point. The
Fatimakerk was part of a different parish, so this was not the case. She and her executives
61
definitely see it as an advantage and possibility to ‘build bridges’: ‘‘That you know all the actors
makes a big difference’’ (Transcript Joke Jongeling, 2015, 8).
Although she is not the one who eventually decides whether a building is preserved or
not, her input is definitely important. She sees this as ‘just her job’ but her personal effort is
important to make things possible. This can be illustrated with the complex of buildings called ‘De
Lichtenberg’ in Weert, also designed by architect Pierre Weegels. This ensemble – built in the
post-war period – with among other things an outdoor theatre, a swimming pool and a tennis court
was outdated and seen as an old mess. For ten years, the municipality – with Joke as one of the
initiators – had been trying to gain more support for the area. This succeeded and the complex
was appointed as a municipal monument in 2006 and as a national monument in 2010 (de Korte,
2006). At this moment, the municipality is becoming owner of the complex and wants to keep it
open for the inhabitants from Weert (Municipality Weert, 2016).
This development is in line with the improved appreciation for monuments in the
municipality of Weert. Jongeling also notices this internally in the municipal organization; ten years
ago she was the only one who always represented the monumental perspective and said that
such objects needed special attention. Nowadays she notices that more and more colleagues
appreciate cultural history and want to preserve it more and more. This has been demonstrated
during the last years, because during retrenchments, the budget for monuments stayed the same.
One of the reasons for this appreciation is also that the current alderman who is responsible for
the monuments has a great heart for cultural history.
Restoration architect Ingrid Beckers – member of the monument/aesthetics-commission
– is careful concerning her personal opinion when she judges building plans. Because of her
personal background as architect she is involved with monuments every day and knows very well
which problems colleague architects encounter. The commission consists of three members,
which all have to agree to plans. Therefore the plans and decisions that are made are broadly
supported. In her commission, their personal opinion does not play a role, although she
acknowledges that this can be different in other monument-commissions. Their decisions about
the building plans are based on a legal framework – the monument regulation – and in some
commissions members advise without always keeping these foundations in mind. When that is
the case, the personal taste or background can play a role in the approval or disproval of plans
(Transcript Ingrid Beckers, 2015).
5.6 Production of space

The adaptive reuse of the Fatimakerk is an example of the production of space in which all spatial
layers intertwine, influence each other, and coherently form the (social) space. The coherence
originates from the municipal attitude concerning monuments and creating support among
inhabitants. This is illustrated by the commission cultural heritage, in which some professionals
as well as representatives from the local heritage associations have a seat. Moreover, the
municipal policy creates a great amount of attention for the visibility of heritage and the creation
of local support.
This attitude is not only present in the abstract conceived space but also appears in the
other layers during the process of adaptive reuse. The municipality is a mediator between different
actors – church board, interested buyers and the neighbourhood – and this is also partly due to
the personal (religious) background of Joke Jongeling. Her experiences from the lived space, as
62
member of a church board, are of influence on her work on the conceived space. The municipal
policy cannot always be designed or apprehended in notes. An example of an inventive way to
support the adaptive reuse outside of the traditional municipal instruments is giving Hendrix the
possibility to use the surrounding green spaces. It is an example of adapting the conceived space
to the perceived and lived space, because this gesture shows the support for the new function of
the building from a material and imaginary perspective.
The monument/aesthetics-commission also showed how abstract space can be used
within the perceived space, by advising Hendrix over the possibilities as to where he could realize
new toilets. It was even possible – despite of the monument status – to change the exterior and
view of the building for this. There was a difference of interest concerning this point, since Hendrix
did not want to change anything about the building; he is enthusiastic about churches, monuments
and art, which are all part of his personal experiences and therefore the lived space.
By signing the covenant, Hendrix showed that he wants to reuse the building in
cooperation with the neighbourhood. Although the interests of both parties can differ – Hendrix
also has a commercial interest, but the neighbourhood aims for liveability – the signing made sure
the involved actors were all ‘on the same page’, although there was a small unforeseen problem
that arose when the building was used again. Hendrix wanted to restore the tradition of sounding
the bells three times a day, but that evoked some protests from neighbours. Some people were
no longer used to these old routines within the perceived space and experienced problems due
to their work (lived space). This was the only difference in the vision on space during the research
period and was solved by consultation.
63
Figure 8. The front view of the Pauluskerk
6. The Pauluskerk in Oss

In 1964 the Pauluskerk was built in the neighbourhood the Krinkelhoek on the Oude Litherweg.
The building was designed by architect J.A. de Reus, who was mainly active in Oss and its
surrounding areas, and it has served as a church until April 2010. The municipality has listed the
Pauluskerk as a municipal monument in 2011. In the period before the listing, the municipality
tried to buy the church from the Willibrordusparish to establish societal functions inside the
building. The parish did not accept this offer. They wanted to demolish the building and sell the
ground to a project developer. After the building was listed, the parish started a legal procedure
against the municipality, since they felt that the municipality had misused the municipal monument
status. The building would be impossible to sell or could only be sold for a lower amount of money.
The judge did not agree with the parish. Entrepreneur Frank Jansen bought the building in 2013
and renamed it to ‘@Paulus’, in which work-, studio and workshop rooms can be rented. The
project is successful. There was even a waiting list in May 2015.
64
The Pauluskerk was built in 1964 and can be seen as an integral part of the neighbourhood de
Krinkelhoek. This neighbourhood was built in the 1960s and the church building illustrates the
former building views: every neighbourhood
formed a parish unit. For that reason, the church
was built next to one of the entrances of the
neighbourhood and functions as a landmark.
The building is characterized by the style of the
‘Bossche’ school and consists of brick walls,
concrete floors and a flat roof (Ariëns &
Schamp, 2010, 6-7). The building can be
divided into four parts: the church building itself,
the sacristy, the rectory and the inner garden.
The church building is the largest with 1200m²,
the rectory is 440m² and the sacristy
approximately 130m². There are no valuable
movable objects in the building anymore. These
have been removed during the deconsecration
of the building (Ariëns & Schamp, 2010, 8). Figure 9. Overview Pauluskerk
The building is located next to a roundabout

which connects four roads to each other:
Zaltbommelseweg, Oude Litherweg,
Hertogensingel and Vierhoeksingel. The
location is one of the most important entrances
of the neighbourhood. In the past, the church
formed a small neighbourhood centre. The
centre has been enlarged in the course of the
years and there are also some schools and
elderly homes in the direct environment. On the
east side of the building, i.e. the side of the
Oude Litherweg, there is a small heightened
church square. The south side of the building –
on the side of the Zaltbommelweg – also used
to be an open area, but is now deprived from Figure 10. Cadastral map Pauluskerk
sight by a green structure. The west and north
sides are closed (Ariëns & Schamp, 2010, 13). The neighbourhood the Krinkelhoek is located
north of the city centre of Oss, which is within walking distance.
65
5.1.2. Actors
For this chapter, interviews are conducted with policy advisor monuments Paul Spanjaard from
the municipality Oss, the current owner Frank Jansen, pastor Cor Mennen from the
Willibrordusparish, and Hettie Peterse, chairman of the monument-commission.

Oss is a municipality with a long history of municipal monuments. In the 1980s, the first policy
was established, and sixty to seventy objects were inventoried and listed as municipal monument.
In 2007, new heritage policy was determined, which was further developed by the municipality in
2010. Several inventories were studied again and because of the municipal re-division – historical
villages such as Ravenstein and Megen became part of the municipality Oss – many new objects
were listed. This process is still ongoing and the municipality hopes to finish the procedures in
2016. At that time there will be 245 national monuments and over 300 municipal monuments in
Oss. These monuments represent the different historical periods of the (industrial) city Oss.
The document Heritage policy 2006-2011 is the key note of Oss’s policy and is still used,
even though it is not recent (Municipality Oss, 2006). The municipal monument status is also in
Oss mainly the way of preserving historical objects. Zoning enables protection of the ‘form and
dimensions’ and does not just constitute the preservation itself. With the municipal status, the
whole parcel is protected, including the interior and outbuildings unless these are excluded in the
monument description. Owners of municipal monuments can use a municipal subsidy for their
maintenance costs. Moreover, the municipality advises monument owners without obligations
about their buildings plans and the Monumentenwacht is subsidized. This is an organization that
controls monumental buildings concerning maintenance. According to policy advisor Paul
Spanjaard, there are restrictions on the use of the space, but it is not as bad as people think.
There are still multiple options for (re)developing space, but these have to be performed with
respect to the monumental object (Transcript Paul Spanjaard, 2015, 16).
According to the chairman of the monument-commission Hettie Peterse, a monumental
status does restrict the owner. One can no longer do anything one would want to do, ‘but it is not
true that nothing is possible, which is what a lot of people think’. Her commission always considers
whether the changes serve adaptive reuse, because a new function is important for the
preservation of the building (Transcript Hettie Peterse, 2015, 3). In this process, one should
always be on the look-out for a conflict. Ingenuity is necessary when attempting to maintain the
characteristics of the building as much as possible combined with the new function, adjustment
or maintenance. A good architect is necessary in this process. The commission in Oss has more
tasks than only advising on building plans, it also performs inventories.

The Pauluskerk in Oss has been deconsecrated in 2010 because of the combination of the
Paulusparish with the parish Maria Onbevlekt Ontvangen. The new St. Willibrordusparish decided
to sell the church due to financial reasons. From the moment the building was on the market, the
municipality contacted the parish about the future of the building. In 2010 the plans became more
concrete and the municipality revealed to the parish that they wanted to buy the building, in order
66
to realize a multifunctional accommodation in it. The development of a neighbourhood centre in
the northern part of Oss had already been planned and the municipality instructed architect office
Ariëns and Schamp to research the possibilities for adaptive reuse. The reuse of the building also
gained support among the local political parties, such as D66 and Trots op Nederland (Proud of
the Netherlands) (de Louw, 2013).
In the Quickscan Pauluskerk Oss the possibilities for adaptive reuse are sketched and the
urban and architectonical values of the building are taken into account. According to Paul
Spanjaard (Transcript, 2015), the municipality has treated the building in the adaptive reuse
design as if it was already a municipal monument. The research of the monumental values of the
building started before the negotiations between the municipality and the parish. The church came
to the attention of the monument-commission when it was deconsecrated. Although the municipal
bid was based on a valuation and the quickscan, the parish thought it was too low (Transcript
Paul Spanjaard, 2015, 3). When the negotiations failed, the municipality decided to list the building
as a municipal monument and on March 22 of 2011 the procedure started (Municipality Oss,
2014, 3). The procedure came for the parish board ‘like a bolt from the blue’ (Transcript Cor
Mennen, 2015, 2).
The church building was listed as a municipal monument on September 28 of 2011 after
a positive advice of the monument-commission. The Pauluskerk was one of the last churches in
the ‘Bossche school’ style and several others were already demolished in Oss (Transcript Paul
Spanjaard, 2015, 4). The in- and exterior are completely protected. Movable objects were
removed by the parish during deconsecration. Besides that, the parish board never gave the
commission access to the building and for that reason, only the exterior is extensively described
in the monument description (Transcript Frank Jansen, 2015, 8). When the owner does not want
to grant the commission access to the building, there are building plans, photos etcetera on which
the commission can base the protection from the interior and construction. The conceived space
is in this case based on other documents from the same spatial layer. The parish board felt
harmed by the listing of the building and after protesting on a municipal level and in court, the
case was handled in May 2013 at the Council of State. The parish board did not agree with the
monumental status of the building and the rectory, which ‘did not consist of more than two stapled
boxes of bricks’ (Council of State, 2013).
Besides that, the parish protested against the damage that the listing of the building would
cause, because ‘it is generally known that a monument listing makes it very difficult to sell,
demolish or rebuild the building’ (Council of State, 2013). After the building was listed, a buyer
withdrew his bid, because of the restrictions the listing caused. The final selling price was lower
than the bid of that buyer (Transcript Cor Mennen, 2015, 2). The Council of State did not agree
with the parish. The monumental values of the church building and rectory are sufficiently
described in the monument description. According to the Council, the listing of a monument does
not exclude demolishment as an option; it is always possible to request a demolishment permit.
When there is a concrete request of such a permit, the municipality has to weigh the owner’s
interests against the public interest to maintain such a monumental building. The parish did not
create a plausible enough case that the municipal monument status was the reason for a lower
selling price. There was no data and documents to support the parish their argument. Thus the
church stays a municipal monument (Council of State, 2013).
67
After the building had been deconsecrated, there were several interested buyers. The
municipality and the other interested buyer have been described above and one and a half year
later a new purchaser was found in the person of Frank Jansen. Frank Jansen himself lives in the
neighbourhood of the Pauluskerk and was earlier interested in the building. Due to the high selling
price and several interested project developers, he had already given up on buying the building.
When he discovered in December 2012 that the space was still for sale, he made a bid and bought
the church. At that moment, he had no idea how to use the building yet; he was only bound to the
contract from the diocese which stated that the new function had to be worthy (Transcript Frank
Jansen, 2015, 2).
Thanks to the announcement in several local media that all ideas for the reuse of the
building were welcome, Frank Jansen was sitting around the table with 150 to 200 people during
the following months. This resulted in creating different work-, studio and workshop rooms in the
Pauluskerk which can be rented (Transcript Frank Jansen, 2015, 13-14). When Frank bought the
church, he did not have any contact with the municipality. With the key in his pocket, he arrived
at the town hall to discuss the possibilities. The involved broker told him the following in advance:
Frank Jansen – ‘‘You have to take into account that the building is a municipal monument and
that you cannot do anything with it. Then I started to search on the internet what that meant
precisely’’ (Transcript Frank Jansen, 2015, 2).
After consulting with the municipal officials, the zoning of the building was expanded and it was
possible to rent commercial rooms on a small scale, besides cultural, art and societal activities.
The first consults were with officials from the department of spatial planning and these consults
were successful. This department reacted flexibly to Franks plans and expanded the zoning. After
that it was clear to Frank what was possible, and what was not, and he got in touch with the
monument-commission. The first meeting he arrived with designs he had sketched himself and
the commission recommended that he hired an architect. For the monument license real building
plans are necessary. The consults with this commission were more difficult from Frank’s
perspective and his plans were judged on a detailed level. Designs were send back to Frank ‘for
idiotic reasons’ (Transcript Frank Jansen, 2015, 5).
According to chairman of
the commission Hettie Peterse, the
first drawings consisted of too
many working places in the church
building, which affected the open
character of the hall (monumental
quality) (Transcript Hettie Peterse,
2015, 7-8). Despite the fact that
only the exterior is described in the
monument description, the
monument-commission in Oss has
the freedom to advise over the
whole building, provided that the
advice is argued well. The hall of Figure 11. The rooms built in the main hall
68
the building can be seen as an important part of the building and his construction means a lot for
the monumental qualities of the building. But the monument description needs to be guiding when
the designs are judged. In the meantime, Frank Janssen hired architect Henk Ariëns – whose
office created the quickscan – and after two or three sessions a middle way was found and Frank
could start building. By means of window frames, Frank Jansen created several small rooms in
the hall, which are not attached to the building. In this way, it is possible to remove the small
rooms without damaging the construction. After three or four months the first artists could start
working in the church.
At first, the municipality was one of the main candidates to obtain the church and realize a societal
function in the building. When this failed – because the parish declined the bid – the building was
listed as a municipal monument. This was a legitimate decision, according the Council of State
(2014). From a legal perspective, the municipality considered all the interests and decided that
the public interest – maintaining the building because of its cultural historical value – was more
decisive than the interest of the owner; the parish who wanted to demolish the church and sell
the ground to a project developer. This procedure was executed in the right way, according to the
Council of State. The listing procedure was a surprise for the parish. There are more examples of
church buildings which are listed as a municipal monument during the process of adaptive reuse.
A listing can lead to friction between the municipality and the parish board.
According to Paul Spanjaard, the monumental quality of the building was already known
during the buying process of the municipality. At the moment these values were known, the
municipality could choose to make an intended decision about listing the Pauluskerk. This means
that the municipality announces that they want to list the building in the future. In this case, the
listing procedure started after the negotiations had failed and the parish did not expect the listing.
The municipality used its legal possibilities to maintain the building. When an intended decision
was made during the buying process, the decision making process would be more transparent.

The several actors involved in the decision making process of the Pauluskerk have – contrary to
the case in Weert – differences in appreciation and vision on the space of the building. These
differences already started to arise during the selling process, which involved the municipality and
the parish. The municipal bid was too low according to the parish, even though the municipality
had researched the different possibilities for adaptive reuse and executed a valuation of the
building. The reason for this was the different interests of both parties: the municipality wanted to
maintain the building for its cultural and historic value, but the parish only wanted a high price for
the ground.
Pastor Cor Mennen thinks the status is an instrument of power of the municipality, only
used to block their plans with the space. Despite the argument that there are still enough
possibilities with the building, Cor Mennen (Transcript, 2015, 2) is not positive about the effects
of the municipal monument status. According to him, it is more difficult to sell the building because
of the many restrictions. His earlier experiences with renovating other (national and municipal)
monuments are bad:
69
Cor Mennen – ‘‘That everything has to be so nitpicking, It is awful’’ (Transcript Cor Mennen, 2015,
3).
Paul Spanjaard acknowledges that the parish let them know they rather wanted to demolish the
building and change the zoning, in order to possibly build apartments there (Transcript Paul
Spanjaard, 2015, 3). The parish had a financial interest in selling the building, to receive as much
financial means for their other buildings as possible. For them, the building was only a number of
rocks without monumental value after the deconsecration. The municipality had a different vision
on the space and used the monument status to prevent the building from being demolished and
for it to be maintained for the neighbourhood. The monumental values – as described by the
monument-commission in the buildings description – were not recognized by the parish. This was
one of the arguments in the legal process at the Council of State (2014).
The new owner of the building, Frank Jansen, wanted to do ‘something beautiful for Oss’
with the Pauluskerk (Transcript Frank Jansen, 2015, 4). During the process of adaptive reuse, he
had different experiences with the municipal departments. The policy officers of spatial planning
showed their flexibility and adjusted the zoning, whereby Frank’s plans could proceed. According
to Frank, they were flexible in the grey area of the juridical possibilities. The monument-
commission and Frank was a less good combination and it was unclear for him what the
possibilities with the building were. On the other hand, Hettie Peterse thinks that there are no
standard solutions for monumental buildings and it is always a custom process. The uncertainty
can also come from the little experience Frank had with the municipal monument status. After
some sessions they found a middle way between the program of the adaptive reuse and the
monumental qualities of the building.
Frank Jansen – ‘‘I do not speak their language’’ (Transcript Frank Jansen, 2015, 5).
After the plans had been executed, the municipality sent an officer from the permit department to
check the building plans; Frank did not receive any visitors from the monument-commission,
neither during the consults, nor during the building process. Hettie Peterse acknowledges this
and argues that the commission does not have the time to visit the buildings of which the plans
are judged. According to her, it is unusual that members of the commission visit the space during
or after the rebuilding, unless on personal initiative. The commission is only paid by the
municipality to judge the buildings’ plans – the conceived space – and not to visit the buildings in
‘real-life’ (the spatial practices). The officers and advisors of the permit department visit the
different buildings (Transcript Hettie Peterse, 2015, 8).
When Frank Jansen bought the building, he knew that there were limited possibilities on
the outside because of the monumental status, but that there were enough possibilities on the
inside. What these possibilities were was – in his experience – a grey area during the process of
adaptive reuse. This caused indistinctness, something he thought was not positive. The
communication between him and the monument-commission was also stiff (Transcript Frank
Jansen, 2015, 8-10). It is often unclear what is possible in a building that has a (municipal)
monument status, before the consults with the monument-commission start. According to Hettie
Peterse, this gives the initiator room to come with suggestions. She states that in the case of the
70
Pauluskerk the commission was open to the plans of Frank Jansen, but kept the monumental
qualities of the building in mind.
When the political and legal process of the adaptive reuse was finished, Frank could start
executing his ideas and rebuilt the church. The neighbourhood did not play a role in the official
process of reuse. Paul Spanjaard attributes this to the character of the neighbourhood: in a
relatively new neighbourhood as the Krinkelhoek – built in the 1960s – with a few monumental
buildings, there is less awareness of monuments than in a small monumental village. That there
was no initiative from the Oss society is also due to a lack of organization; there is no real local
heritage association which concerns itself with the preservation of cultural history.
From the start, Frank tried to gain support from the surrounding area and the city of Oss
for his plans. The city of Oss (and the neighbourhood as well) could be involved in the ‘idea-
contest’ that Frank organized. Some elderly neighbours suggested the possibility to keep the
Maria chapel open; something which did not fit the plans of Frank Jansen. He kept the possibilities
open in the beginning, because it is a ‘slow process’ of acceptation that the church is
deconsecrated. After a while, he became more concrete and made clear to these neighbours it
was impossible (Transcript Frank Jansen, 2015, 12-13). In the beginning it was strange for the
neighbours that there was a new owner, but most of them were happy that there was finally activity
in and around the building and the grass was not ‘six meters high anymore’ (Transcript Frank
Jansen, 2015, 11). This statement is not confirmed by people from the neighbourhood, while
Jansen was the only actor that was interviewed. It is assumable that the neighbourhood is happy
that there is a new user, while the building had been vacant for two years and there was
vandalism.
Besides this, one of the main reasons that the reuse is accepted by the neighbourhood is
Frank’s attitude. The building is officially opened with the neighbourhood council and the whole
neighbourhood was welcome to see what happened to the church. He makes sure that there are
several activities for which the people in the neighbourhood are personally invited as well.
Moreover, the neighbours all have his phone number and they call him when something happens.
Jansen thinks it is a win-win situation: the building did not change on the outside and it is no longer
vacant. Spanjaard agrees with him (Transcript, 2015, 14) and in terms of liveability of the
neighbourhood, the building does not play a huge role. The municipality was only afraid that the
amount of parking space in the area would be insufficient. The amount of space is indeed limited
and for that reason, Frank organizes only small gatherings and events (Transcript Frank Jansen,
2015, 11-13).

Within the monument-commission in Oss, personal preferences do not play a role according to
Peterse. A person does not list a monument, but the decision is carried by multiple municipal
departments. When an object is listed, the framework of the municipal status indicates what is
possible and what is not, and which characteristics of the building have to be maintained
(Transcript Hettie Peterse, 2015, 9). The commission does not judge whether the adaptive reuse
suits the neighbourhood, but only whether it is possible in the building or space. Adaptive reuse
is also an interest of the commission itself, because through reuse, the building and its
monumental qualities are preserved longer.
71
Although the framework of the monument-commission – the conceived space – is
practically the same in every municipality, it is possible that a building plan is approved in one
commission and declined in another. Opinions can differ and this also applies to members of the
commissions. Although there are similar frameworks, the members of the commission can have
different opinions, which can cause conflicts. This is something that Peterse has already
experienced several times, although she did not give examples (Transcript Hettie Peterse, 2015,
10-11).
The monument-commission is an independent organ – but part of the municipal
organization – and not only ‘difficult’, but also established to protect the aldermen and mayors
from personal arbitrariness with its advice. Despite the independency of the commission, Peterse
knows examples of instances where the local politics could influence and pressure decisions. An
example – not in Oss – is the fact that the commission can only advise about the façade, the way
it is constructed and the colours inside, but it is already certain the building is going to be built. In
such a case, the commission cannot advice about the volume (Transcript Hettie Peterse, 2015,
9-11). As a member of the commission in Oss, she has never experienced that the advice of the
commission is declined by the mayor and aldermen, but in Nijmegen – where she works as a
policy advisor monuments – she has.
Hettie Peterse – ‘‘If everybody thinks it is really important that a giant cinema is built on the most
important square of the city, and everybody supports that, you can advise what you want but if
the municipality and board decide; yes, it will be there’’ (Transcript Hettie Peterse, 2015, 11).
In his role of policy advisor in Oss, Spanjaard thinks his personal influence on monument policy
is small. There is no specific area of attention in the policy; every historical phase which was of
importance for Oss has to be visible through preserving objects. Every period has its own qualities
and objects of value, but Paul acknowledges that the ‘younger periods’ – such as the building
period and style of the Pauluskerk – cause more discussion. The preservation of these objects is
less accepted than older ones. The personal influence of the responsible aldermen is important;
the current alderman in Oss has interest in establishing a local vision on religious heritage
(Transcript Paul Spanjaard, 2015, 15).
Contrary to Spanjaard, Jansen thinks that it depends on the involved policy advisors
whether plans can succeed or not. The policy officers of the spatial planning department believed
in his plans, and for that reason could extend the zoning possibilities (Transcript Frank Jansen,
2015, 4). This was one of the factors contributing to the financial exploitation and therefore
success of the adaptive reuse.

The municipality Oss has played an important role in the production of space of the Pauluskerk.
After the church board had declined their offer, the municipality decided to list the church as
municipal monument to prevent the building from possible demolishment. The conceived vision
on space – the monumental qualities of the building – were not acknowledged by the church
board. This was one of their arguments in the legal process at the Council of State. From their
perspective and religious background (lived space), the building (perceived space) was nothing
more than some bricks after the process of deconsecration. The legal process shows that the
72
Pauluskerk was a contested space; Mennen even stated that he experienced the monument
status as an instrument of power (Transcript Cor Mennen, 2015, 2).
Because of the monument status, Jansen had to consult his changes with the monument-
commission. The protection of the building is based on the monument description (conceived
space), in which the monumental characteristics of the building are described. In Oss, the ex- and
interior are protected, which means the commission advices over all Jansen’s building plans.
Nevertheless, the inside of the building is not described extensively in the monument description,
because the parish never allowed the commission into the building (perceived space). Therefore
the possibilities on the inside of the building were experienced by Jansen as unclear (lived space)
in the beginning.
The conceived space reflects in the use of the municipal monument status, the study to
the adaptive reuse of the church and widening the zoning possibilities for Jansen’s project. In the
whole process of adaptive reuse, the inhabitants of Oss did not play a huge role. There were no
national, local or neighbourhood associations that interfered in the process of adaptive reuse.
This is remarkable, because the building is surrounded by houses and is located in a prominent
location in the neighbourhood (perceived space). Although the building is a landmark, it had
already been vacant for a couple of years and was not part of the perceived space of the
neighbourhood, apart from its appearance and location in the neighbourhood landscape. Another
reason might be the monumentality of the building style of the church. Because it is a ‘younger’
church (1960s), it is appreciated less and there is more discussion concerning the monumental
values than with churches that were built in the 1920s. It is possible that the building is not
experienced as monumental (lived space), due to the more sober building style (perceived space).
Despite of this, the municipality has acknowledged these qualities by listing it as a monument
(conceived space).
73
7. The Zuiderkerk in Emmen
On the corner of the Van Schaikweg
and Wilhelminastraat lies the
Zuiderkerk, built in 1923. In 2011, the
Protestant church Emmen decided to
close one of their three churches in
the centre of Emmen, which was
decided to be the Zuiderkerk. The
building remained to be in religious
use during the sale. As a reaction to
the possible sale, the
Cuypersgenootschap requested the
municipality in 2010 to list the building
as a municipal monument. The
heritage association was afraid that
the building would be demolished
easily and wanted to maintain it
because of its cultural-historical
qualities. The municipality followed
this request in 2013 and listed the
building. The Protestant church did
not agree with this decision and felt
that it was more difficult to sell the
building with such a status. They filed
a lawsuit; the Council of State judged
in June 2015 that the listing was
legitimate. A couple of weeks after
this decision, project developer Van
Nie Beheer from Emmen announced
that they had bought the building and
are going to realize studios and lofts
in it.
Figure 12. The front view of the Zuiderkerk

The Zuiderkerk dates from 1922-1923 and is designed by architect Ytzen van de Veen from
Groningen. The church building replaced the church on the Vreding in Emmen. The cruciform,
nave building has been in use from January 3 1923 and consists of a ship, transept and extra
ancillary spaces at the back (Cuypersgenootschap, 2011). The architecture is typical for the
reformed church building style of the first decades of the 20th century. On the right of the building
– on the side of the Wilhelminastraat – is a rectory that was built at the same time. It is a mansion
which was later used as a veterinary practice. Nowadays yoga classes are also taught in the
74
building. The Zuiderkerk is the only church from architect Ytzen van de Veen in Drenthe (Libau,
2012, 1).
The building is located on the corner

of the Wilhelminastraat and Van
Schaikweg, on the border of the
centre of Emmen. The
Wilhelminastraat is one of the
entrance roads to the centre and the
Van Schaikweg is a connecting road.
The church is surrounded by a green
structure and is a free-standing
building. On the south side of the
building are two large supermarkets.
Because of the location on the
corner and the surrounding green
structures, the building is easily
spotted and therefore a landmark.
Figure 13. Overview Zuiderkerk
The building is located near
the centre of Emmen which has
problems with vacancy. The city of
Emmen is located in a shrinking
region and does not have a historical
profile. The note The resilient inner
city (Planbureau voor de
Leefomgeving, 2015, 64) researched
different inner cities in the
Netherlands and entitles Emmen’s
centre as ‘weak and peripheral’. The
potential of the inner city of Emmen
is not large, the number of
inhabitants is not growing (58% of
the inhabitants of the centre are
above 65) and shrink is expected in
the region and province. The Figure 14. Cadastral map Zuiderkerk
economy is not strong and the
vacancy of shops is large. Due to these developments, the municipality of Emmen faces large
challenges concerning the liveability of their city centre.
5.1.2. Actors
For this chapter, interviews are conducted with several policy officers from the municipality of
Emmen, namely Simone Wijnands-Schutte from the permit department, advisor of space
75
Henriette Vrieling and urban planner Eugene Sauren. Moreover, an interview is conducted with
Tonnis Bos, chairman of the Protestant church Emmen, and Ingo Leth, an artists who temporarily
used the church building as an exposition space. A short telephonic interview is conducted with
Roderick van Nie, from project developer Van Nie Beheer.

From the time the Monument Law 1988 was established, the municipality Emmen established a
monument order, although this eventually did not lead to the listing of municipal monuments.
Around 2002-2003 the first attempts were made to list municipal monuments, but it took until 2008
before there was enough foundation in the local politics. In Emmen 51 municipal monuments are
listed of which the exterior is protected. The municipality is less strict concerning the interior of
municipal monuments than concerning national monuments. For this reason the monument order
states that only the exterior of an object is protected, unless it is described differently in the
monument description (Municipality Emmen, 2010b).
Several policy officers are concerned with monument policy. Simone Wijnands-Schutte is
from the permit department and used to be involved with everything that happens concerning
monuments. Recent developments ensured that monuments are more and more part of spatial
policy, whereby different people work with monuments. The department of space is drafting a key
note on heritage; at this moment there is no policy concerning monuments. Heritage needs to be
an inspiration for spatial developments in Emmen. There is no special policy advisor for
monuments. The reason for the lack of an officer and policy might be the relatively small amount
of monuments in Emmen. In and around the city centre the monuments can be counted on two
hands. Emmen had always been a small village that did not have a historical centre and grew into
the large city it is nowadays in the 1950s/1960s (Transcript Simone Wijnands-Schutte, Henriette
Vrieling and Eugene Sauren, 2015, 11).
The municipal monument status is the main way to preserve cultural history in Emmen. A
listing round is organized in 2008 and different lists were inventoried. The monument organization
Libau was employed to support this process. Based on the financial possibilities, the mayor and
aldermen set a maximum of 75 municipal monuments. It is possible for owners to apply for a low-
rent loan (Transcript Simone Wijnands-Schutte et al., 2015, 2-4). There are no further subsidies.
Despite that the status is a restriction, there are also enough possibilities in Emmen ‘if it does not
harm the cultural historical values too much’. On the front and sides of the building there are not
much possibilities to change the building, but on the back – or the parts that are not visible from
the public space – ‘a lot is possible’ (Transcript Simone Wijnands-Schutte et al., 2015, 5). In the
heritage order of Emmen, there is a special clause; if owners are harmed by the listing of their
building as a monument, i.e. if spatial/economic developments cannot be executed anymore, the
municipality can provide a financial compensation. The owner can show this after the building is
listed, but in practice, the clause is not used often (Transcript Simone Wijnands-Schutte et al.,
2015, 4).

The Zuiderkerk is one of the three Protestant churches in the centre of Emmen. The number of
church members in the centre had been declining for years and the general church council – of
76
the Protestant Church Emmen –
started discussions in 2005 about
which of the three churches would
stay open. Eventually in 2010, the
decision was made to close the
Zuiderkerk on the long term, partly
because this was the only church
without a monument listing. Besides
that, the maintenance costs were too
high. The church stayed open and in
religious use – every service was still
attended by fifty to sixty people –
until a different destination for the
building was found. A special Figure 15. The mourning band around the Zuiderkerk
commission would search for a new
user. The decision to close the Zuiderkerk awakened much resistance among the local Protestant
believers. The Zuiderkerk community disapproved of the decision of the general church council
and resisted. The foundation Friends of the Zuiderkerk was founded and one of their actions made
the national headlines. In April 2010 the church was encompassed with a two meter wide band of
black plastic which represented a mourning band (‘Rouwband rond Zuiderkerk in Emmen’, 2010).
Besides this action, the foundation collected 1600 signatures – against the closing of the church
– and offered these to the general church board in Emmen.
Their actions did result in more attention for the closure and deconsecration of the building;
chairman of the Protestant Church Emmen Tonnis Bos thinks that because of the mourning band
action, the national heritage association the Cuypersgenootschap was alarmed (Transcript
Tonnis Bos, 2015, 3). This organization requested the municipality in 2010 to list the building as
municipal monument. The building had already been on inventory lists earlier, but had not been
chosen because ‘the interior was not original anymore’. Incorrectly, since this is not a criterion for
the listing of a municipal monument, according to the heritage order. Only the exterior of municipal
monuments are protected in general. From the start, the listing process has developed slowly,
partly because such a request was a new phenomenon for the municipality. In response, the
municipality requested the Cuypersgenootschap for more information concerning the
monumentality of the church (Municipality Emmen, 2010a).
The heritage association wrote a monument description for the Zuiderkerk
(Cuypersgenootschap, 2011). Based on this description and their own research, the monument-
commission concluded in 2012 that the Zuiderkerk qualified for the municipal monument status
(Libau, 2012). In 2013, the mayor and aldermen decided to follow the advice of the commission
and listed the building as a monument. Tonnis Bos dedicates the listing partly to the slow decision
making process of the municipality (Transcript Tonnis Bos, 2015, 3). It took three years before
the municipality decided on the request of the Cuypersgenootschap. Tonnis Bos thinks that
eventually the pressure of the Cuypersgenootschap led to the listing (Horstman, 2013).
After consultation with its jurists, the general church board decided to appeal to the
decision. ‘‘They say we have serious chance of success’’ (‘Strijd om de Zuiderker gaat door’,
2015). They did not succeed, because the Council of State judged in August 2015 that the
77
municipality ‘in all reasonability listed [the Zuiderkerk] as a municipal monument’ (Council of State,
2015). The board argued that the value of the building had decreased with sixty percent due to
the status, but this could not be substantiated. The exterior of the whole complex is protected,
church building as well as the rectory, but no parts of the interior are protected.
During the listing process, the church board was familiarizing itself with the options of
adaptive reuse and interested parties. The foundation Cultuurhuis and Podium de Grote Beer
were interested in the realization of a Culture House in the building (Kort, 2013). Cultural activities
such as theatre performances would be combined with catering. The foundations did not have
the financial capacity, after which a project developer joined. The developer wanted to build on
the surrounding green space, in order to financially profit from his investments. This request was
eventually declined by the municipality (Transcript Tonnis Bos, 2015, 3-4). A broker was also
interested in the plans of the Culture House, but pulled out as well (Kort, 2013).
After these developments, there was no progress for a while and the church board
employed a broker of the
foundation KKG, the real estate
specialist of the Protestant
Church. A believer from the
Protestant Church Emmen was
also interested in the building,
but this did not work out either.
In April 2015, the building was
deconsecrated and the artist
Ingo Leth started to use the
church as a pop-up gallery. He
approached the church board
with this concept and they were Figure 16. The temporary use of the Zuiderkerk
enthusiastic. Ingo sees it as a
win-win situation: he can work in an inspiring place for a small amount of money. When he sells
a piece of art, the church receives ten percent of the selling price. Besides that, the building cannot
be broken into by squatters when it is in use. The municipality did not play a role in realizing this
form of temporary use of the building (Transcript Ingo Leth, 2015).
In May and June 2015, the local project developer Van Nie Beheer BV expressed serious
interest, intending to realize housing in the building. The church was sold to the developer on
June 5 2015, provided that changing the zoning is possible. The rectory already has a zoning for
housing, but the church building does not. There are no problems expected from the municipality,
but the procedure – for changing the zoning – takes a long time. The expected owner Roderick
van Nie does not want to change a great deal. The municipal monument status is no problem for
him, but it is more important that the zoning can be changed. Besides that, it is possible to ‘live
monumental’, something that is not yet possible in Emmen (van Nie, 2015). Ingo Leth can stay in
the building until the procedure for changing the zoning is finished, this is expected to be in
February 2016.
Roderick van Nie – ‘‘Enough buildings have been demolished in Emmen.’’ (Kwak, 2015)
78
Many buildings have been demolished in Emmen and for that reason politicians and
administrators find it important to maintain the still existing monumental objects. Tonnis Bos
agrees with this, but had expected a much more active role of the municipality. He feels that the
municipality has barely participated in the process of adaptive reuse. The municipality indicated
that they would ‘do their best’ when the zoning had to be changed, but they did not actively
participate in the process of searching a new user (Transcript Tonnis Bos, 2015, 6). The judicial
process between the church board and municipality also made communication and cooperation
more difficult. This is acknowledged by urban designer Eugene Sauren, who said the problem is
‘two-fold’.
On the one hand, the municipality wants to cooperate to acquire a new function for the
building and there have been exploring conversations with several initiatives. The consideration
the municipality makes is ‘in fact not different from a random other initiative for a different building.
You just make a bigger, urban planning consideration’ (Transcript Simone Wijnands-Schutte et
al., 2015, 10). During these exploring conversations, the municipality explained their vision on the
space of the Zuiderkerk and the surrounding area. Because the building lies on the side of the
centre and one of the entrance streets, the municipality aimed for the new function to be housing
or working space. On the other hand, there is judicial dispute that can influence the extent to
which the municipality is involved in the process of adaptive reuse.
Tonnis Bos – ‘‘You cannot list a building as a municipal monument and then wash one’s hands of
it’’ (Transcript, 2015, 6).

The municipality is having many difficulties with the vitality of the centre of Emmen. It might be
that the location of the church – just outside the centre – ensured that there it was not a priority
from a municipal perspective to participate in the adaptive reuse process. Bos thinks the vacancy
in the centre is one of the reasons that one of the earlier initiatives did not succeed. The Culture
House wanted to combine cultural functions with hospitality, while the municipality ‘tries to
maintain shops and catering as much as possible in the centre’ (Transcript Tonnis Bos, 2015, 4).
Urban planner Eugene Sauren would love to pick up the church building and place it ‘a
couple of hundred meters to the north [in the centre]’. From his perspective, the church is located
just outside the centre and not a place ‘if you would demolish it, […] to execute large
developments’ (Transcript Simone Wijnands-Schutte et al., 2015, 7). Besides that, the
municipality wants to have a more compact centre. Redeveloping the building into houses would
be an ideal solution (Transcript Simone Wijnands-Schutte et al., 2015, 8). The building receiving
a new function was also in the interest of the municipality. These are undoubtedly factors that
were of influence on the decision making process.
The Cuypersgenootschap played a decisive role with their request to list the building as a
monument. There was not real discussion about the monumentality of the building; the legal
process was more about the notion that the status might impede the selling process. In this case,
there was no real opposition against the selling process. The foundation Friends of the Zuiderkerk
has had no further role in the process of adaptive reuse besides the mourning band action, the
79
autographs and supporting the listing request of the Cuypersgenootschap (Friends of the
Zuiderkerk, 2010). Their aim was to maintain the Zuiderkerk in religious use and after that it
became clear that the building would be deconsecrated, the activity of the group stopped. From
the surrounding neighbourhood there was no resistance against the sale or adaptive reuse of the
building.
This is remarkable, since in the past many buildings have been demolished in Emmen.
The Zuiderkerk is an iconic building, but not everything ‘breathes the atmosphere of a monument’
according to Tonnis Bos (Transcript Tonnis Bos, 2015, 3). He agrees that the remaining historical
buildings have to be maintained for the city of Emmen, but expected more help in the process of
adaptive reuse. The interest of the church board was mainly to sell the building. Demolishment
has not been an issue in this case, which can be the reason there was a small amount of
opposition. Not all opposition was visible in the public or political domain, since there were silent
protests among believers. A reasonable amount of believers did not move to one of the other
protestant churches, but chose to establish their own church community (Transcript Tonnis Bos,
2015, 8).
The emotional attachment to the building is also recognized by artist Ingo Leth who meets
a great deal of former believers. The building is now open daily because of his temporary pop-up
gallery. Some still have tears in their eyes when entering the building: ‘‘At one moment, I am [the
user of] their building’’ (Transcript Ingo Leth, 2015, 2). Some people had been going to the church
for fifty, sixty or even seventy years; children’s were baptized and people were married and buried
in the building. The emotions are still deep, but when the older people are gone, ‘nobody cares
[from that perspective] what happens to the church’ (Transcript Ingo Leth, 2015, 3). In his view,
the church board reacts opposite to the believers and seems to be less emotional. Their priority
was selling the building.
The selling process succeeded and Roderick van Nie is happy with the monument status
and the appreciation of the building. The municipal status is also interesting from a commercial
perspective. He points out that there is no place in Emmen where you can ‘live monumentally’; a
unique selling point of the building (Telephone call Roderick van Nie, 2015). At this moment (April
2016), the plans of Van Nie Beheer are still being discussed with the municipality, but the
expectations are that changes in the zoning and the building plans will be approved of.

Just like in Weert the policy advisors receive a lot of freedom to emphasize certain elements in
their working field. Henriette Vrieling confirms that if monuments are something one has affinity
with, one has the freedom to emphasize this. Simone Wijnands-Schutte had these opportunities
in her former function as monument policy officer, but now works at the permit department where
this is not possible. At this moment, there is not really someone in the municipality who steps up
for monuments, although she has enough colleagues who work with monuments.
Despite the fact that most colleagues are working on spatial plans, there is definitely
awareness for monumental values and buildings. ‘‘It is part of the identity of this place’’ (Transcript
Simone Wijnands-Schutte et al., 2015, 12). As a policy officer one can influence the responsible
aldermen as well. By sketching the image of the different interests among the decision making
process, the aldermen can judge how important monuments are in relation to their environment.
One of the difficulties the three respondents encounter is the lack of monument policy (Transcript
80
Simone-Wijnands Schutte et al., 2015, 13). Finances mostly determine what is possible and
without policy, it is not clear which goals are set for the next years.
7.6 The production of space

The group of believers attending the Zuiderkerk was still quite large when the church board
decided to deconsecrate it. The believers’ action of wrapping the church in the two meter wide
band of black plastic drew a great amount of media attention. The mourning band around the
church as symbol is part of the lived space, because it is an symbolic interpretation from the users
of the church. The actual band around the building can be seen as the perceived space. The
action set developments in motion in the conceived space, because afterwards the
Cuypersgenootschap requested the municipality to list the building as a municipal monument.
Due to the listing process, the Zuiderkerk developed into a contested space, since the
church board did not agree with the listing. Their interest lies with selling the building and from
their perspective, the municipal monument status impedes this process. The argument that the
building would be more difficult to sell had already been disproved before the judge brought in a
verdict, because Van Nie Beheer had bought the building. The idea (lived space) that the
monument status (conceived space) makes it more difficult to sell the building was disproved by
the judge as well as by Van Nie Beheer.
Contrary to the municipalities of Weert and Oss, the municipality of Emmen did not use
their (spatial and juridical) possibilities to facilitate and control the process of adaptive reuse. The
listing of the Zuiderkerk followed on the request of the Cuypersgenootschap and the municipality
listed the building after the monument-commission had advised positively. This was not a decision
based on policy, but on the activity from the national heritage association. Furthermore, the local
government did not intervene in the process of adaptive reuse until the building was sold. Besides
the legal process – a difference in vision on space – the church board also had a different vision
on the municipal policy and expected more help from the municipality (the conceived space).
The surrounding neighbourhood was not involved in the process either, apart from the
group of believers. This was in line with the experience of Leth regarding the visitors in his gallery.
The influence of the temporal use of the Zuiderkerk cannot be measured, but it made sure the
building was not vacant. Immediately after the deconsecration, Leth moved into the building and
made sure it was open and the possibilities of the space were visible.
81
Figure 17. The front view of the Johannes de Doperkerk
8. The Johannes de Doperkerk in Standdaarbuiten

On June 29 2013 the Johannes de Doperkerk – located on the Markt in Standdaarbuiten – closed
its doors. The most important reason for closure was the decrease of the number of believers. In
the following period there were plans to realize thirty apartments on the plot of the church,
whereby the building would be partly maintained. With these developments in mind, the
municipality did not list the building as a monument, in spite of a positive piece of advice from the
monument-commission. This decision invoked protests by the national heritage associations
Heemschut and the Cuypersgenootschap. Because of their objections and the positive reactions
of the inhabitants of Standdaarbuiten, the municipality has protected the building in 2014. The
church was sold to Adrie Kuijstermans in 2015, inhabitant of Standdaarbuiten and member of the
working group Church Standdaarbuiten, a sale that was established to maintain the church
building. He has not yet decided what will happen to the building.
82
The Johannes de Doperkerk was built in 1924 and designed by architect Jan Oomen. The location
had already been used as a church location since 1549; the first building had been demolished
in 1862, the second in 1920. The current building is built in a neo-gothic style, has a broad ship
and has side chapels. The village and church were damaged heavily during the Second World
War: a part of the spire and the stained glass windows were destroyed. The tower was rebuilt
after the war and provided with a sloping pyramid roof, instead of the earlier slender spire. Apart
from that the church has barely changed since it was built (Municipality Moerdijk, 2013, 2). Since
the church has been sold, most movable objects have been removed. The Maria chapel is still
open and is maintained by a group of volunteers (Transcript Adrie Kuijstermans & Coen
Tolenaars, 2015, 2).
The church was built in the middle of

Standdaarbuiten, on the Market, and
is therefore an iconic building.
Standdaarbuiten was built according
to the ‘Flakkeese’ village principle: it
is a dyke village, in which the main
street is located north of the dyke.
This leads to the market and ends at
the Johannes de Doperkerk
(Municipality Moerdijk, 2013, 1). The
church is in the middle of a square
and surrounded by a road and
houses. Because of this road, the Figure 18. Overview of the Joh. de Doperkerk
whole church is visible from the public
space. When the village is
approached by one of the
surrounding roads, the building is
visible from a great distance.
Standdaarbuiten is one of the
eleven larger villages which together
form the municipality of Moerdijk. It is
the largest municipality of Noord-
Brabant in surface (184 km²) and in
the west of the municipality, there is a
large industrial site, which connects
to the rails and tubing from Rotterdam
to Antwerp. In spite of this industrial
site, expectations are that within
twenty years, the people of 75+ will
have doubled and the large part of Figure 19. The cadastral map of the Joh. de Doperkerk
83
the people under 65 have moved away. It is a potential shrinking region (Municipality Moerdijk,
2015).
5.1.2. Actors
For this chapter, interviews are conducted with policy advisor of monuments Monique van de Looi
of the municipality Moerdijk, the new owner Adrie Kuijstermans, chairman of the working group
Church Standdaarbuiten Coen Tolenaars, and Jan Bedaf, member of the board of the St.
Bernardusparish.

In 2012, real progress was made with the monument policy of the municipality of Moerdijk. In that
year, the municipality hired the advice bureau Vestiga, which establishes criteria for municipal
monuments. Based on a point system, 32 objects were selected, of which 29 are listed as a
monument. The objects are selected from different inventories and are tested according a point
system in cooperation with the local heritage associations (Transcript Monique van de Looi, 2015,
1-2). The point system was new for policy advisor on monuments Monique van de Looi and the
monument-commission. The system is set up in such a way that ‘houses, things that do not stand
out score very low, around twenty points. And churches that stand out, for example, those
buildings score very high because they are landmarks’ (Transcript Monique van de Looi, 2015,
3). The policy officer is aware of this and bears it in mind during the listing processes.
Appointing a monument is in Moerdijk organized in the same way as in the other three
municipalities. When a building or object is listed only the exterior is protected. It is possible to
change the exterior, as long as it is not visible from the public space. As an example, Monique
van de Looi refers to a church in Klundert, which is located on a street corner. Three sides of the
building are visible, only the left side wall is imperceptible from the public space. Changing that
wall would be possible, although the monument-commission still has to consider these sort of
plans (Transcript Monique van de Looi, 2015, 4). When a building is listed in Moerdijk, no
subsidies are available, but there is a possibility for concluding a low-rent loan. The Moerdijk
Restauration Fund is established by the municipality, although these is not often used. The
awareness and attention for cultural history is present in all the villages, illustrated by several local
heritage/historical associations. Since the listing of municipal monuments in 2012, there have
been five requests from the inhabitants of Moerdijk, which is a reasonable number in three years
(Transcript Monique van de Looi, 2015, 8-9).
84
The moment the Johannes de Doperkerk closed his doors for his believers, there was resignation.
On average, the Sunday service was visited by fifteen people and it was no longer wise to keep
the church open. On an organized evening concerning the closure of the church, this was hardly
a point of discussion. The large number of inhabitants that were present were more interested in
het future and adaptive reuse of the building. They wanted to maintain the building in a different
form, considering the liveability of their village.
There was even an idea to remove the roof of
the building – which was in a bad condition –
and maintain the tower and chapel,
transforming these into an inner garden.
This idea might seem rather far-
fetched, but the company Breda Bouw has
done research into the possibilities of
transforming the building into apartments. In
these plans, part of the church would be
maintained (see figure 20). Extensive research
showed that it was financially not profitable to Figure 20. Sketch from the plans of Breda Bouw
execute these plans. According to Jan Bedaf,
who was responsible for the buildings from the parish St. Bernardus, the selling process was
difficult because of a number of factors. The contract from the diocese limits the owners’
possibilities with the building. Besides the limitations to use the building as a casino or brothel, it
was also not possible to realize a shop in the building because it is forbidden to use a cash desk
in the church building (Transcript Jan Bedaf, 2015, 1). Another limiting factor was the municipal
monument status, something ‘that the average inhabitant of Standdaarbuiten’ liked ‘because it
would somewhat simplify the maintenance of the building’ (Transcript Jan Bedaf, 2015, 2).
The building was listed as a municipal monument in July 2014, even though the mayor
and aldermen had decided not to list the building on January 14 2014. The church was not part
of the 29 objects that were listed when the new monument policy was established in 2012. The
reason for this was that there were internal appointments between the church board and the
project department of the municipality concerning the demolishment of the church buildings and
the redevelopment of the ground (Transcript Monique van de Looi, 2015, 4). Both church buildings
from the parish were removed from the listing round, despite a positive advice from the
monument-commission. Not listing the building was due to the plans such as those of Breda
Bouw.
Against the decision of the mayor and aldermen, the Cuypersgenootschap – together with
Heemschut – protested during the decision making process. ‘The decision was not justified well
enough. Deviating from counsel of the monument-commission is only possible with conclusive
arguments. The fact that the diocese, the owner, is against it is not enough’, said Leo Dubbelaar
from the Cuypersgenootschap (den Engelse, 2014). After these protests and reactions from
inhabitants the municipality decided to revise their earlier decision and eventually listed the
church. Aldermen Schoneveld said the following: "On the basis of the monument order, we have
also considered the future of the church. It could be demolished. We have also regarded the
economic significance’’ (den Ridder, 2014).
85
The listing ensures that the exterior of the church is protected as a whole. There are
drawings on the inner side of the walls, but these are part of the interior and thus not protected.
The church is located on a sort of roundabout and all the sides are visible from the public space.
For that reason, the whole exterior is protected (Transcript Monique van de Looi, 2015, 6). In the
conversations that Jan Bedaf had with interested parties – before the church was listed as a
monument – demolishment was not a topic. All of them wanted to (partly) maintain the building.
The parish board did protest against the municipal monument status, because it would make it
more difficult to sell the building.
Jan Bedaf – ‘‘There are less options, less user possibilities, [it’s] harder to change the zoning.’’
(Transcript, 2015, 2).
Eventually, the parish did not start a legal procedure. Bedaf thinks that the effects of the status
on the sale of the building are minimal. He believes that it is possible to enlist the building when
there is a good alternative for the building or the financial costs to reuse the building are too high,
(Transcript Jan Bedaf, 2015, 4). However, in June 2015 the church building was sold to Adrie
Kuijstermans, who has one clear goal: maintaining the building for Standdaarbuiten. Apart from
Breda Bouw and Adrie Kuijstermans there were no real interested parties for the building. The
municipal status was not of influence on the lack of interest, according to Jan Bedaf. It is mainly
the location of the church, in a village such as Standdaarbuiten with only 1.200 inhabitants. A new
community house had just been opened, where a lot of social functions are gathered in one place.
Moreover, a lot of functions such as a doctor, pharmacy, and library are not located in the village.
Jan Bedaf – ‘‘The churches in those small villages […] that has to be a stroke of luck, if you want
to find a good adaptive reuse for it and if you want it to make you some money’’ (Transcript Jan
Bedaf, 2015, 5).
But because of the small-scale character of Standdaarbuiten, the involvement of the inhabitants
was large. When the parish announced that the church would close, a group of inhabitants
established the working group Church Standdaarbuiten. During a municipal information evening
about the development of the village, the inhabitants made clear that the church building and last
supermarket in Standdaarbuiten were of great importance. The goal of the working group was to
maintain the church building for the view of Standdaarbuiten, because it is a landmark for the
village. Moreover, maintenance of the church might increase the liveability of the village. However,
this was not the only working group that was established that evening; there are also working
parties concerning traffic and safety and the preservation of another building (Transcript Adrie
Kuijstermans & Coen Tolenaars, 2015, 5).
Contact with the parish board was established and the working group has spoken with
developer Breda Bouw and the municipality. The initiative from Breda Bouw was difficult for them,
because of the demolishment of the back of the church and the height of the planned apartments.
Furthermore, the working group did not play a role in this process (Transcript Adrie Kuijstermans
& Coen Tolenaars, 2015, 7-8). The plans of the developer were financially impossible. The search
for a new plan was difficult and just when the working g thought it had been finished, Adrie
Kuijstermans bought the church. The other members of the group did not know anything about
86
the buying process, which had already started before the establishment of the working group in
2013.
Adrie Kuijstermans – ‘‘But it takes a long time, it is not that you can just say: I’ll buy a church’’
(Transcript Adrie Kuijstermans & Coen Tolenaars, 2015, 4).
Kuijstermans himself rents properties and was born and raised in Standdaarbuiten. As a boy he
used to attend the Johannes de Doperkerk and was ‘always looking at the building’ (Transcript
Adrie Kuijstermans & Coen Tolenaars, 2015, 3). He is especially impressed by the craftsmanship:
‘‘There is not a single brick that is oblique.’’ (Transcript Adrie Kuijstermans & Coen Tolenaars,
2015, 5). Apart from the church he also owns an old sugar warehouse, a national monument
located near the river the Dintel in the south of Standdaarbuiten. Kuijstermans is considering the
possibilities for adaptive reuse in collaboration with the working group. He does not exactly know
what he will do with it, but he wants to rebuild the spire to its original state. There has been an
informal consultation between Kuijstermans and the monument-commission. This will become
more specific when there are actual plans (Transcript Adrie Kuijstermans & Coen Tolenaars,
2015).
The role of the municipality Moerdijk concerning the Johannes de Doperkerk illustrates that the
local government is a heterogeneous organization. There are different interests within the
municipal organization and its departments. The municipal monument status of the church
building proves that these interests are not always considered well. Where the monument-
commission gave a positive advice concerning the monument status, the mayor and aldermen
did not follow this. Internal agreements between the project department and the parish board were
considered to be more important. By intervention of the Cuypersgenootschap and Bond
Heemschut the municipality eventually listed the church. The municipality was involved in the
process of adaptive reuse, considering their role in the consults with Breda Bouw. There was little
contact between the municipality, working group and parish, which might also be due to the low
amount of interested actors for the church building.

The involvement of the community of Standdaarbuiten has remained large since Kuijstermans
has bought the building. Local voluntary groups were gathered in July 2015 by the working group
Church Standdaarbuiten in order to discuss the plans of the building. During that meeting, the
groups decided to keep open a space for religious use, namely the Maria chapel. This was
communicated with the parish, which deployed a scheme whereby a couple of volunteers check
the chapel every day. There is also a group of volunteers that helps with restorations in and
around the building. Kuijstermans thinks it is extraordinary how enthusiastic everyone is. The
support of the village is illustrated by the numerous positive reactions he receives: ‘‘Really, I am
amazed by it’’ (Transcript Adrie Kuijstermans & Coen Tolenaars, 2015, 2).
The involvement of the inhabitants of Standdaarbuiten has been large ever since the
church building was deconsecrated. Despite the lack of visitors and the fact that the building was
87
always closed, the inhabitants wanted to maintain the building, but according to Jan Bedaf not
from a religious perspective:
Jan Bedaf – ‘‘Not because they could not go to the Sunday service, but because they feared how
the space would be filled, would the building be demolished? Will there be a large apartment
building that allows people to look into my backyard?’’ (Transcript, 2015, 2)
Despite this not in my backyard principle, Bedaf noticed that the whole village was connected to
the building. The building was (re)built with gifts from the village; when it was built in the 1920s
and after the Second World War. Moreover, it is a landmark and located in the most central place
of Standdaarbuiten. Maintaining the silhouette and character of the village was the most important
argument. The often heard emotional connection with the building was recalled – births, deaths,
sacrament – but not used by the inhabitants in the discussion concerning the conservation of the
building. From his perspective as (previous) owner of the building, Bedaf was not happy with the
monument status, but ‘deep in his heart’ he was glad that the building is preserved (Transcript
Jan Bedaf, 2015, 3).
From Kuijstermans’ perspective, the monumental status does not add much, but this is
also based on his interest as owner. Kuijstermans has the best intentions with the building, but
he can understand that the status is an advantage for the inhabitants involved. If an owner has
different plans with the building – for example demolishment or radical changes – such a status
is good, because ‘I cannot do what I want out of the blue’ (Transcript Adrie Kuijstermans & Coen
Tolenaars, 2015, 9). A monumental status makes it more difficult, but this does not discourage
Kuijstermans. He wants something that fits the building and for that reason, the status is no
restriction. Although he acknowledges the disadvantages, he definitely agrees with the
monumentality of the building and the ‘craftsmanship’ of the people who have built it in the 1920s.
During the interview, he expresses his appreciation for the building several times. His vision is in
line with the conceived space, which in this particular case is the (cultural-historical) appreciation
of the monument-commission.
Kuijstermans believes that if he wants to demolish the building, it would be possible.
According to him, it is easy to show that it is economically not possible to maintain the building,
considering its bad state (Transcript Adrie Kuijstermans & Coen Tolenaars, 2015, 4, 10). Apart
from the monument status, there is another restriction on the building: the contract from the parish.
The vision on the building and the restrictions from the diocese were also no problem for
Kuijstermans. He understands that functions such as a casino or brothel are not worthy, but was
amazed by the restriction not being allowed to use a cash desk in the building (Adrie Kuijstermans
& Coen Tolenaars, 2015, 15).
The goal of Kuijstermans and the working group is to improve the liveability of the village.
The church and the last supermarket are important to make Standdaarbuiten more attractive to
live in or to visit. In the end, they hope the village can derive from the shrink situation and grow a
little. For this reason, they kept open the Maria chapel. There is still a need among the inhabitants
to have a religious space that they can visit. About fifteen volunteers make sure the chapel
remains open; something that also underlines the support of the inhabitants for the conservation
of the building.
88
The council of the municipality consists of some inhabitants of Standdaarbuiten, who did not want
the church to disappear. These members went to the mayor and aldermen and talked to the parish
board. This was also of influence on the decision making process according to Van de Looi
(Monique van de Looi, 2015, 7). Although the development of monument policy is now on hold in
Moerdijk, the responsible alderman is a member of the local historical association and has much
affinity with monuments. Despite this, he also depends on his colleagues (the mayor and other
aldermen).
This is familiar for Van de Looi, who acknowledges that she also puts her personal
preferences in her work. She likes to inform herself about the practices in other municipalities and
see how they set up their policy. More concrete examples are not given, possibly due to a lack of
policy. Although the monument-commission did not play a role yet, every member of the
commission interprets his role differently. In Moerdijk’s commission holds a restoration architect,
with a lot of knowledge about the details of buildings. This is noticeable when he judges a plan
and sometimes pins himself to the details. Monique’s role in the commission is also to maintain
the framework of advice and what can and cannot be judged by the members.

That the Johannes de Doperkerk became a contested space was not about the monumentality of
the building. The timing of the listing and the possible consequences for the sale were the factors
that made the church board appeal to the decision. The board did not start a lawsuit, because
Bedaf believed the consequences from the listing would eventually be minimal. The professionals
from Cuypersgenootschap-Heemschut wanted to protect the building from a monumental
perspective, while the inhabitants mainly wanted to preserve the building from a societal view.
The municipality had not a wait-and-see attitude, because of their involvement in the talks with
Breda Bouw, but also did not fulfil the role of the dominant conceived space.
The possibilities of the adaptive reuse depend in this case not only on the actions of the
municipality (conceived space), but the location of the building (perceived space) is also of great
importance. Contrary to the other three cases, this church is located in a village in a shrinking
region. Due the (geographical and social) situation of Standdaarbuiten, the involvement of the
inhabitants is larger than in the other three urban neighbourhoods. The working group did not
contributed to the actual sale of the building, but does illustrate the support among the inhabitants
and mobilizes the people to help with the renovation of the building. This is definitely important
for the further process and plans of Kuijstermans.
89
9. Analysis and comparison cases
In this chapter, the different cases are compared and analyzed, according to the structure of the
case chapters. First the monument policy of the different municipalities is compared, after which
the processes of adaptive reuse are examined. The differences in appreciation and the underlying
reasons for this are sketched and the influence of the personal background of policy officers on
their policy is discussed. Finally, Lefebvre’s Conceptual Triad is used to analyze the production
of space.

In the four municipalities, the municipal monument policy – the conceived space – is the same
from a juridical perspective. The monument orders differ slightly but are generally similar, just like
the listing process of a municipal monument. Weert has a different approach: local heritage
associations have influence on the monument policy and where they fulfil some tasks of the
monument-commission. There are two commissions, of which the commission cultural history is
responsible for the listing process of a municipal monument. It judges over the monument
description and advices the mayor and aldermen regarding the possible monument. Besides that,
the monument/aesthetics-commission is active and advices over building plans of monuments. In
the other three municipalities, there is one monument-commission that is responsible for both
tasks. In table 6 the monument policies of the municipalities are compared.
Table 6. Comparison monument policy
Municipality Monument/heritage Municipal Protection Subsidies Low rent

policy monuments loan
Weert Yes (2014) 175 Exterior and Yes, subsidies No
interior, unless for maintenance
described
differently
Oss Yes (2006; revised in 300 Exterior and Yes, subsidies No
2014) interior, unless for maintenance
described
differently
Emmen No, under 51 Exterior No Yes
construction
Moerdijk No 31 Exterior No Yes
The municipality of Emmen is the only one that does not have a policy advisor especially for
monuments. Monuments are part of the planning department. The monument note is under
construction. In Moerdijk, there is also no monument policy. There are large differences between
the amount of listed municipal monuments. In Weert and Oss many objects are listed, while in
Emmen and Moerdijk considerably less monuments are part of the monument list. Emmen and
Moerdijk in principle only protect the exterior, unless the interior in valuable. Weert and Oss
assume that the ex- and interior are protected. All four municipalities have (minimal) financial
90
possibilities for monument owners. Weert and Oss provide subsidies for maintenance and
Standdaarbuiten and Emmen offer the possibility to close a low rent loan.
Moerdijk is the only municipality that uses a point system to determine whether a
monument has to be listed. The system was set up by an external organization, but in practice it
does not work the way the municipality had expected. Landmarks, i.e. large and outstanding
buildings that are visible from far, score a large amount of points. Smaller monumental buildings
like houses, which stand out less in the urban or rural landscape therefore score a lower amount
of points. It is an example of conceived space (monument policy) that has a different impact on
the perceived space (built environment) than intended. The listing policy should treat all the
monuments equal theoretically, but in practice it has a different effect. Because policy officer
Monique van de Looi has noticed this, it has had no real consequences for the monumental policy
in Moerdijk yet.
The municipal monument status is the main way to protect cultural history on a local level,
illustrative for the object oriented approach. The fact that monuments are part of the spatial
environment is clear from the notes and interviews, but does not yet show in the actual policy.

The four cases were chosen because of the involvement of the local government in the process
of adaptive reuse. The precise effects of the municipal monument status – the conceived space
– on the process of adaptive reuse are hard to measure. The interviews showed that during the
sale of the building the status was barely a topic of discussion. Whether the status influences the
price is not researched because of two reasons. Firstly, the different respondents did not wanted
to share the selling price. If they did and the price lowered after a listing, it is still the question if
the municipal status is the decisive factor for this. Other factors such as the (national and local)
economic situation and the possibilities concerning for example the zoning are also of influence.
For the adaptive reuse of the building it is more important whether or not the zoning –
another instrument from the conceived space – can be changed. Potential owners discuss these
possibilities during (in)formal consults with the municipality, before the sale is completed. In
Emmen, changing the zoning is even a condition for proceeding with the sale. There are consults
with the municipality concerning the sale and zoning, but also over the possibilities of renovations.
Regarding these questions, owners get in touch with the monument-commission. In the case of
the Fatimakerk in Weert, Hendrix did not experience problems because he did not want to change
anything. The monument-commission even brought up ideas concerning the building of new
toilets. In Oss, Frank Jansen had more plans with his buildings and had several consults with the
monument-commission before there was consensus regarding the building plans. Frank Jansen
is an entrepreneur who wants to proceed with his plans, while the monument-commission can
slow down this process with their advice. In the case of a monument, processes never proceed
as fast as owners would want to and it is not clear in advance what exactly is possible with the
monumental space. Because of this, the approval of plans might take more time.
It was not possible to change anything on the outside of the building in Oss, contrary to
the municipalities Weert and Standdaarbuiten. In Standdaarbuiten, the policy officer explained
that when the changes are not visible from the public space – e.g. from the back of the building –
it is possible to discuss changes in the exterior. It always depends on the quality of the plans and
architect to what extent changes are possible. Despite the fact that building plans are examined
91
by an extra commission, the municipal monument status did not lead to problems in the projects
of adaptive reuse. The new owners – sometimes by adapting their ideas – and the monument-
commission together formed the plans. The status can slow down the developments, as in the
case of Frank Jansen who visited the commission multiple times.
It is notable that the new owners of the four cases are all coming from the neighbourhood
of the church buildings. Owners Thijs Hendrix and Adrie Kuijstermans grew up in the surrounding
area of the church building and visited the building in their youths. Frank Jansen is a resident from
the neighbourhood in which the Pauluskerk is located and Van Nie Beheer is a local project
developer from Emmen. Because the new owners are familiar with the building, the personal ties
are stronger. Thijs Hendrix is a lover of cultural heritage and does not want to change anything
about the building. Frank Jansen wanted to do ‘something beautiful for Oss’ (Transcript Frank
Jansen, 2015, 4). Adrie Kuijstermans has the same motivation; as a resident of Standdaarbuiten
he wants to maintain the building for the village. The project developer Van Nie Beheer from
Emmen has more a commercial background, but also acknowledged that enough buildings had
already been demolished in Emmen.
Besides that, it seems important that the surrounding neighbourhood supports the initiative
of the reuse and the new destination. In Weert, the new owner Thijs Hendrix even signed a
contract in which he stated to cooperate to maintain and improve the liveability of the Fatima
neighbourhood. The liveability of Standdaarbuiten was also one of the main arguments to
maintain the Johannes de Doperkerk; the inhabitants connected the church building to the future
of their village. This landmark in Standdaarbuiten determines the identity of the village and is
therefore a crucial factor in the living and settlement climate. In Oss the reused church building
does not contribute to the neighbourhood from these perspectives; the building was less iconic
and the new function – mixed commercial and cultural use – does not contribute to activities and
functions in the neighbourhood. Nevertheless, the neighbourhood is enthusiastic. Frank Jansen
has been communicating with them from the start and opened the doors of his building when his
project was finished. Moreover, he organizes multiple events that can also be visited by the
neighbours. He also takes the limitations of the location – surrounded by houses and low amount
of parking space – into account and adapts his activities accordingly.
The reuse of the Zuiderkerk was the only process in which the neighbourhood was absent.
Although believers of the protestant community influenced the decision making process by their
action of the mourning band around the church and their support for the Cuypersgenootschap,
there was no further meddling from other local parties. It is possible that the location of the building
is one of the reasons for this. The church is located on a corner of two wide roads and is
surrounded by a green structure. On the south side there are two large supermarkets. Therefore,
it is not part of one of the surrounding neighbourhoods.
The Zuiderkerk was also the only Protestant church building in this research, but there
were no real differences in the processes of adaptive reuse that relate to the religious character
of all buildings. The reason the protestant believers of the Zuiderkerk community opposed to the
local church board was due to the (relatively) high number of believers who attended the services
in the building.
92
9.2.1. Effects of the municipal policy
As Harrie Maas from the Monument House Brabant already sketched in chapter 4.4, most
municipalities have a wait-and-see attitude concerning the problems around religious heritage. In
this research this only counts for half of the municipalities. Contrary to the general attitude, Weert
and Oss handled actively and had influence on the process of adaptive reuse. At first, both
municipalities wanted to locate municipal and social services in the buildings. In the case of Weert
this was not possible and the municipality performed as a mediator in the process of adaptive
reuse; they maintained contact with the different parties and participated in thinking about new
plans. In Oss the possibilities with the Pauluskerk were researched but when the municipality
could not buy the church, they decided to list the building as a municipal monument. After the
listing, their active role was over. When the building was sold, the municipality was involved in the
process again.
The listing processes in Standdaarbuiten and Emmen are comparable: both buildings
were listed under pressure of the Cuypersgenootschap. Both municipalities performed a small
role in the process of adaptive reuse. In Standdaarbuiten a working group was established to find
a new function for the building. There was sporadic contact between the municipality and the
working group. In Emmen the church board did not receive any support from the municipality
during the selling process. Even though the municipality is not obliged to do this, it is logical to
expect involvement in such a process as when a building is listed as a municipal monument. The
municipality acknowledges with this status – conceived space – that they want to maintain the
building for the city and therefore has to perform a more active role in the process.
9.3 Differences in appreciation policy officers and involved actors

The differences between the policy officers (from the conceived space) and the involved actors
(from the lived space) are sketched in this chapter. Differences in appreciation already started
during the listing procedures of the building. The church boards in Oss, Emmen and
Standdaarbuiten did not agree to the listing. Arguments that the building could not be demolished
and that the selling price would be lower to the monumental restrictions on the space, were not
likely and proved to be incorrect, according to the judge in the cases of Emmen and Oss. In
Standdaarbuiten the listing did not lead to a legal process. The parish board did protest to the
decision, but did not start judicial procedure.
In the three cases, all actors felt opposed by the status in their selling process, especially
because the buildings were appointed after closure of the building had been announced. Listing
the building makes it more difficult to demolish the building, although the option is still present.
When the owner can show that an adaptive reuse is financially not profitable, the object can be
unlisted. It is possible that the status scares project developers, who have the interest in new
developments on the space of the church building. They do not care about the monumentality of
the building from that perspective, but more about the possibilities regarding the ground. This is
cannot be concluded from this research, since there were no project developers – except Van Nie
Beheer – involved in the four cases.
The monumentality of the buildings – which is stated by the conceived space with the
municipal monument status – was less a topic of discussion in these listing processes. Although
there were objections in the decision making processes in Emmen and Standdaarbuiten, the
93
church boards objected because they thought it would be more difficult to sell their building with
a monument status. Their objections were not based on a difference in the monumental vision on
space; the monumentality of the building was not the topic of discussion. Jan Bedaf even
acknowledged that in his heart he did not mind that the church was a monument, but he had a
different role and interest as member of the church board. This was also the case in Emmen. Only
in Oss the church board did not agree to the monumentality and perceived the church as a
concrete box without monumental values.
The status is an instrument from the conceived space that influences the possibilities from
the space of the church building. What the effects of the status are is not clear for the inhabitants
and users of the lived space, since the use of the status differs per municipality. This is visible in
the cases, where the local policies, the degree of protection (exterior/interior) and the financial
possibilities differ. The different interviews showed that many involved actors – except for the
professionals – do not exactly know what the implications of the status are. Some even think that
hitting a nail in the wall is no longer allowed. This is also illustrated by the two juridical procedures
and the arguments that are used by the church boards. In practice (the perceived space), the
different owners and church boards acknowledged that the municipal monument status was no
real point of discussion in the selling processes. The cases in Weert and Oss also show that there
are still enough possibilities with the building concerning changes and restorations.
It is also the question to what extent the monumentality of the buildings is supported by
the surrounding neighbourhoods. Although it is important that the neighbourhood supports the
adaptive reuse, the monumentality of the building is something different. The building is protected
due to its cultural-historical values, but the question remains whether these values are also
recognized by the surrounding areas. Hans Marechal (Transcript, 2015, 4) thinks this is not the
case in Weert; ‘it is more about: that thing [Fatimakerk] is standing there and it looks nice’. This
is also applicable to the cases in Oss and Emmen, where the neighbourhood did not play a role
in the decision making process concerning the listing of the building.
There are several possibilities for this lack of involvement. When there would be actual
plans for demolishment – which was never the case – one would assume that there would be
more protests. Moreover, the culture that is present in a city or neighbourhood is also of great
importance. In Oss and Emmen, there are no real local organizations which are concerned with
cultural heritage. The place monuments have in these cities is probably recognized by inhabitants
(lived space) as something that ‘is always standing there and it looks nice’ –instead of them
appreciating the building the way the municipality has protected it (conceived space). In the daily
life of people (perceived space), the building is part of the landscape and of urban or rural
environments.
From the perspective of most users and inhabitants the interest lies mainly in maintaining
this landscape. There are several reasons for this and one which is noted in this research is the
Not in my backyard principle, visible in Standdaarbuiten where there was quite some protest
against the initial plans of Breda Bouw. On the other side, the church building was also connected
to the broader interest of the liveability of the village; the building as a place of identity and where
social functions can be located.
94
9.4 Influence personal opinion on monuments by policy officers
Three out of four policy advisors believe their personal background can be of influence on
monumental policy. From those three, Joke Jongeling is the only one who stated that her influence
can be large. She exemplified this by sketching that her interests and background concerning
monuments is of influence on her policy. In the case of the Fatimakerk, she benefits from her
background as member of a church board. The employees in Emmen and Standdaarbuiten also
state that they have the freedom to lay accents in their work, but it seems less concrete then in
Weert. The difference can be that there is in Weert an actual note which forms the basis of the
policy, and this is not present in the other two municipalities. Paul Spanjaard is the only policy
advisor who thinks his role is small, especially because there are no specified areas of attention
concerning historical periods in the policy of Oss.
All policy officers sketch the importance of the responsible aldermen. In Oss, Weert and
Standdaarbuiten, the respondents explicitly state that it is important if the alderman has an interest
in monuments. In Standdaarbuiten, the aldermen is even a member of the local historian
association which influences his decision making as well. Only in Emmen, the respondents
explained that it is important that the aldermen is informed concerning the importance of
monuments in plans, so that he can make a through-out decision. The responsible aldermen has
a great influence on the monument policy and the possibilities, while he is – in combination with
his mayor and other aldermen – responsible for the municipal policy. His personal background is
assumable of larger influence on the policy, because he can directly determine what is important
in his years as aldermen and what is not.
The role of the personal background in the monument-commissions (2 out of 4 cases) is
less clear. Peterse as well as Beckers acknowledge that the personal background can be of
influence in the decision making process over building plans. Both also state that this is not the
case in their commission. It is the question whether members of the monument-commission would
say that their advice is partly based on personal preferences. Although the personal background
can be of influence, such commissions normally consists out of more than multiple persons who
judge the building plans for monuments. In such a way, the decisions are carried out and
supported by more than one person.
9.5 Production of space – Conceptual Triad

Where Lefebvre sketches the conceived space as the most dominant form in the Conceptual
Triad, this was not always the case in the four processes of adaptive reuse. Although the
municipality – in this research the conceived space – has all the instruments to determine and
handle these processes, this only happened in Oss and Weert. In Weert, all the actors supported
the adaptive reuse and the municipality emphatically interfered in the process. In Oss, the
municipality interfered in the process as well, the municipal monument status to make sure the
building would not be demolished. In Standdaarbuiten and Emmen, the municipality acted
withdrawn and did not show initiative in the process of adaptive reuse.
That the church buildings in those two municipalities are still present is a result of the
interference of other groups. Lefebvre speaks in his theory about the creation of counter-spaces
– i.e. counter-movements that derive from the spaces of representation (lived space) – but that is
not applicable on these cases. The heritage associations battle with the municipality about their
policy, but these are struggles over the conceived space and the decision making process. This
95
battle is not to reclaim or retrieve right over the city, but this is an institutionalized form of counter-
space. The lack of monument status (conceived space) from the heritage associations
perspective are challenged within the formal municipal processes (conceived space as well).
There were some actions, which derived from the lived space, such as the working group in
Standdaarbuiten and the Friend of the Zuiderkerk, but these initiatives did not battled over
conceived space. They both had other goals to achieve, e.g. maintaining the building for the
liveability of the village/maintaining the building for religious use. These actors are all not
‘marginalized groups’ who ‘reclaim their space’ as meant by Lefebvre.
The legal struggles which were started by the church boards (Emmen and Oss) could
possibly be prevented by better communication. The municipality usually conducted their policy
by deciding something and explaining and defending it afterwards (decide-explain-defend).
Although it is formally correct to inform an owner of a decision with a letter, personal
communication contributes to a smoother process and therefore a better production of space. By
clearly explaining what the effects of such a status are during the listing process, clarity can be
provided and the municipality and owner can work together to maintain the building.
Maintaining a church building is not only important from a cultural-historical perspective.
In Weert and Standdaarbuiten, the building is connected to the broader problems concerning
liveability of the neighbourhood/village. The municipal monument status – that ‘guarantees’ the
maintenance of the church building – can contribute to the liveability and in that way, the
conceived, lived and perceived space come together.
The role of the (local) media and new ways of communication such as internet are barely
addressed in Lefebvre’s theory. Although the influence of media was not large in this research, it
is a factor which cannot be ignored in the production of space. In Emmen, Bos believed that the
action of the Friends of the Zuiderkerk and the publicity they gained, was noticed the
Cuypersgenootschap. Without (local) media and the modern ways of communication, national
heritage associations would not be informed so easily about decision making processes
throughout the Netherlands.
96
10. Conclusion and recommendations
In this chapter, the results of this research are discussed and the main research question is
answered. The central research question was structured by four sub-questions. These also
served as the structure of the case analysis and were examined and compared in chapter 9.
These sub-questions will not be discussed extensively in this chapter. The outcomes of this
research are two-fold: the main research question will be answered and based on the analysis,
recommendations will be given. These recommendations will help to understand the processes
better and can be used by everyone who is interested, working or connected with (the adaptive
reuse of) church buildings. The central research question was:
10.1 Remarks and reflection research

This research was conducted independently and the researcher did not choose sides within the
processes of adaptive reuse. The research examined how the space of church buildings is
‘produced’, i.e. what the background of the involved actors is, which actors had influence on the
process, how the different actors related to each other and whether there was friction in the
process. The amount of four cases was chosen to make sure it would be possible to draw
significant conclusions, although the time of the research was limited. Generalization is difficult in
these processes, because the local conditions can be of great influence. One can think of the
type of religion, the culture of a neighbourhood/village, the attitude and efforts of the parish board
and the policy of the responsible bishop. Despite these conditions, similarities can be sketched
from which it is assumable that these can be found in comparable processes of adaptive reuse
(which comply with the homogeneous criteria, stated in chapter 3).
Due to the changing role of the church building within society and the smaller role of the
church building in the spatial practices of inhabitants, the neighbourhood is largely absent.
However the neighbours themselves are not part of this research, interviews are conducted with
two representatives of neighbourhood organizations such as the working group and the Friends
of the Fatima neighbourhood. It seems important that the surrounding neighbourhood supports
the initiative of the reuse and the new destination. Only in the case of the Zuiderkerk in Emmen,
the neighbourhood was absent in the process. Most buildings were hardly visited or opened, most
of the churches had already been vacant for a while. This contributed to the decrease of the
(previous) religious function of the building. My internship organization was more focused on the
process of adaptive reuse and the role of municipal policy. From that perspective, the respondents
were approached. Despite this, the presence/absence of the neighbourhood within the adaptive
reuse process can tell also something about the relationship between the church building and the
surrounding inhabitants.
Another absent factor in this research is the possible financial depreciation of the building
due to the municipal monument status. The church boards in Emmen and Oss indicated in court
that their property was worth less due to the listing. The court decided in both cases that it could
not be substantiated. This is in line with more verdicts throughout the Netherlands. Although it is
an often heard argument against the listing, it is difficult to research what the influence is on the
selling price. The respondents in this research (new and old owners) were not willing to share the
97
financial data. If this data was available, it would still be the question whether the status is the
reason for the depreciation or whether other factors such as the national/regional economic
situation or different taxations played a role. Therefore, the researcher chose to leave this
discussion out of the research.
Despite six interviews with different respondents active as policy officer or member of a
monument-commission, it was not possible to examine this profoundly. Personal background
does play a role when policy is created and decisions are made, but to what extent this is the
case remains unknown. Because vacant churches are a political sensitive subject, it is possible
that the respondents (as well the policy officers as the members of the monument-commission)
did not reveal what he or she was truly thinking. Besides that, policy officers are depended of the
priorities of the mayor and aldermen.
10.2 Results analysis

The different chapters were organized according the sub-questions and these were answered in
the previous chapter. Only the most important conclusions for the main research question will be
sketched.
It stands out on a local level that the municipal monument status is the way to maintain
and protect cultural-historical objects. Although cultural-historical values can be named within
zoning plans, this mostly has a signalling function. It does not offer the security of the municipal
monument status. All four municipalities have limited financial possibilities and in two
municipalities, there is no monument policy. This can be of influence on the (financial) possibilities
of the policy officer. With an actual policy note, the mayor and aldermen acknowledge the
importance of monuments and ensure there is a framework with priorities for the following years.
The municipalities who influenced the process of adaptive reuse due to their active role – Weert
and Oss – both had a policy note.
Within the process of adaptive reuse, timing is essential. When the building is listed in an
early stage, like in Weert, and there are no developments around the building, there are barely
any protests. In Moerdijk and Emmen, both church buildings would be deconsecrated and sale
was planned. Listing a building in such a process invokes friction, especially when there is no
clear communication. In Emmen, it took almost three years before a decision was made on the
request of the Cuypersgenootschap. In Standdaarbuiten, the municipality first decided not to list
the building, but after the protest of the Cuypersgenootschap they decided to list it anyway. In the
case of Oss, the municipality used their instruments to maintain the church building. Looking at
the plans and interest of the parish, they were not content with this decision.
The opinions of the different actors regarding the church building are mainly connected to
their interests. The church board has a different vision on the building, because they want to sell
the building and feel this is more difficult with the status. The neighbourhood association or
inhabitants experience the building differently, because they want to maintain it for the view,
religious use, or do not want developments in their backyard. Heritage associations look from a
cultural-historical perspective and want to preserve the building because it is rare and has a
certain historical value. Even within the municipal organization there are different visions on
space: the policy officer of monuments can have a different vision on space than the project
department, as was the case in Moerdijk. The members of the monument-commission only judge
over the cultural-historical values and whether the reuse fits the building. They do not take the
98
surrounding developments into account. This is also captured in the legal framework, which
describes the tasks and possibilities of the monument-commission. Although there were
differences in the vision on space, the monumentality of the buildings was only in Oss a real topic
of discussion.
The most outstanding actor is the national heritage association the Cuypersgenootschap,
which greatly influenced the processes in Emmen and Standdaarbuiten. If they did not requested
the municipality to list both church buildings, it would have been easier to demolish the building.
It is always a guess if this would have been the case, but their request raised awareness to the
(soon to be) vacant church buildings in those two cases. This awareness is definitely present in
the neighbourhoods, although it seems absent in this research. The different owners stress that
they find it important that the neighbourhood supports their projects. Although the involvement of
the neighbourhood differs in the cases, it seems plausible that most of the inhabitants felt that the
building would not be demolished. The fact that there were no large-scale developments in three
of the four cases (the process still needs to start in Emmen) contributes to the lack of involvement
as well.
The meaning that policy officers give to church buildings depends on their personal
background (lived space), as well as the municipal monument policy (conceived space). To what
extent the personal background plays a role in the decision-making process is harder to grasp.
Policy officers also depend on the interest of the responsible aldermen and how much interests
he has in the monument policy. Three policy officers acknowledge that their background and
preferences can have influence on their work. Only Jongeling acknowledges that it can influence
her policy to a great extent and it does matter that her background is also connected to religion
and church buildings. The two members of the monument-commission both ensured that the
personal background can be of influence within monument-commissions, but also deny that this
is the case in their commissions.
Lefebvre’s Conceptual Triad shows that it is important that all actors (which represent the
conceived and lived space) are involved and support the process. The Fatimakerk in Weert is a
good example of this and shows that the municipality and its policy officer can play a great
(facilitating) role in the process (and for that reason the production of space). On the one hand, it
shows how important the municipal framework and its note is, but also the way the policy officer
executes her job and uses her personal background to improve the process. The monument-
commission showed their creativity and flexibility, although this was not necessary for the reuse.
Although the municipality handled pro-actively, this alone is not enough. Hendrix, the owner of
the church, feels that it is also important to involve the neighbourhood. This works in two ways:
Hendrix gains support as an owner and the Fatima inhabitants can use the church as a place of
gathering. This case illustrates how important the social relations around such a building are
within the process adaptive reuse. These relations could not be analyzed without Lefebvre’s
perspective and Triad, which sheds a different perspective on the reuse of church buildings.
10.3 Recommendations
 Although the advantages of cultural heritage are clear, most municipalities do not take the
initiative in the process of adaptive reuse of church buildings. Only in Oss and Weert did
the municipality play an active role. Although the local government is not obliged to do so,
it is understandable that owners expect help from the municipality when their building is
99
listed as municipal monument, especially when this happens during the process of
adaptive reuse. A municipal monument status shows the municipality wants to maintain
the church building for the city/village. Therefore, they should act as a facilitator of the
process and act more pro-active;
 Three out of the four churches were listed with the knowledge that the building would have
to be reused in the recent future. When this is known, municipalities should consider the
possibilities for adaptive reuse before the building is listed. When the possibilities for reuse
are small and largely obstructed by a monument status, the municipality can consider this
in its decision to list the building or not;
 Communication is a key factor during the process, from the listing procedure until the
actual reuse of the building. Although it is legally correct to only send a letter with the
message that a listing procedure starts, it would be recommended that the municipality
organize meetings to explain the consequences of the listing and possible reuse of the
building. It is important for the support of the municipal monument status (and the
municipal monument policy in general) that it is clear for owners what is and what is not
possible. This also applies to the process of adaptive reuse. When the communication
between inhabitants, the owner and other involved actors is clear, active and personal,
the process of reuse runs smoother;
 All interested actors in the process of adaptive reuse should be involved. Adaptive reuses
in which the neighbourhood, the municipality, and the former believers are all involved are
successful. Although it is not a condition for a reuse to succeed, it definitely contributes to
the success of the project. Adaptive reuse processes at most take a couple of years. When
all interested actors are involved in the process, the support stays present as well;
 All new users of the building were found in the surrounding areas and already knew the
building. Especially outside the large cities (in the more rural/smaller urban areas), it is
important to focus on the local inhabitants. They are the new potential users for the
building.
10.4 Discussion
This research was executed with the perspective of Lefebvre’s Conceptual Triad and shows that
it is possible to operationalize and use its abstract theory for contemporary phenomenon. The
Conceptual Triad is not often used anymore, but provides in this research another view on a
subject that is mainly researched from a cultural-historical perspective. Despite the advantages
of the theory, it is noticeable that Lefebvre formulated his ideas in the 1970s. A complementation
to his Conceptual Triad could be the digital space (internet, modern communication technologies).
Mobile phones allow everyone to connect to the digital space, from the perceived space, every
moment of the day. The Conceptual Triad stays relevant because the access of digital spaces is
still executed from the body and all developments occur one way or another still in Lefebvre’s
distinguished spaces. The digital space influences as well the conceived, lived and perceived
space. Within the adaptive reuse processes, the national heritage associations are a good
example. Without internet, they would never be able to react quickly when there are developments
around cultural heritage.
The neighbourhood was mainly absent in this research. It would be interesting to examine
the neighbours’ perspective on the church building and the process of adaptive reuse. One could
100
research two cases in which the neighbourhood played an active role in the process and two
cases in which they are absent. A possible research method to examine this is quantitative
research, which allows the researcher to examine a large group of involved inhabitants. The
homogeneous criteria can be used to select the cases, although it is advisable to add a criteria
which distinguishes the location of the churches. The building should be located in the same kind
of spaces, for example neighbourhoods in mid-size cities (as in Emmen, Oss and Weert). In such
a research, one could also examine if the church building is still perceived as a sacred or public
space. Both perceptions were hard to measure in this research and seemed absent.
Within this research, the cases were not suited to research in depth which way the
personal background plays a role within monument-commissions. It would be interesting to take
the monument-commission as main research object and try to test the same building plan among
different commissions, which are embedded in the same institutional framework. When there are
differences in the advice concerning the plan, it is possible to examine if the personal background
played a role in the decision making process. The meetings of the commission have to be
observed and analyzed, to distinguish which member of the commission is for instance interested
in details or as a preference for a certain building style.
101
References
Literature
Allan, G. (2003). A critique of using grounded theory as a research method. Electronic Journal of
Business Research Methods, 2(1), 1-10.
Ankone, J. (2014). De Nijmeegse Monumentenzorg tussen 1923-1961. Lokale monumentenzorg

in een nationaal perspectief. Master thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Ariëns & Schamp Architectenbureau (2010). Quickscan Pauluskerk Oss.
Ashworth, G. J. (2002). Conservation Designation and the Revaluation of Property: the risk of
heritage innovation. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 8(1), 9-23.
Ashworth, G. J. (1998). The conserved city as cultural symbol: the meaning of the text. In B.J.
Graham (ed.), Modern Europe: Place, Culture, Identity (pp. 261-286). London: Arnold.
Ashworth, G. J., Graham, B. J., & Tunbridge, J. E. (2007). Pluralising pasts: heritage, identity and
place in multicultural societies (Vol. 3). London: Pluto press.
Baarda, D. B. (2014). Dit is onderzoek: handleiding voor het kwantitatief en kwalitatief onderzoek.
Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff.
Baarda, D. B., De Goede, M. P. M., & Teunissen, J. (2005). Basisboek kwalitatief onderzoek.
Handleiding voor het opzetten en uitvoeren van kwalitatief onderzoek. Groningen: Wolters
Noordhoff.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544-559.
Bazelmans, J. (2013). Waarde in meervoud. Naar een nieuwe vormgeving van de waardering
van erfgoed. In S. van Dommelen & C. J. Pen (Eds.), Cultureel erfgoed op waarde geschat:
economische waardering, verevening en erfgoedbeleid (pp. 13-23). Den Haag: Platform 31.
Belk, R. W. (1992). Attachment to possessions. In I. Altman, S.M. Low (Ed.), Place attachment
(pp. 37-63). New York: Plenum.
Belk, R. W. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing. Northhampton,

MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Belvedere (2008). Onderzoek herbestemming kerken en kerklocaties. Een inventarisatie vanaf

1970. Diocese Haarlem, Diocese Rotterdam & Projectbureau Belvedere.
102
Bernts, A.P.J., & Berghuijs, J. (2016). God in Nederland 1966-2015. Ten Have.
Bisseling, H., Roest, H.P., & Valstar, P. (Eds.). (2011). Meer dan hout en steen: handboek voor
sluiting en herbestemming van kerkgebouwen. Zoetermeer: Meinema.
Bogie, M., Nelissen, N., Smits, J., & Voorzee, J. (1999). Herbestemming van grote monumenten:
een uitdaging. Den Bosch: Stichting pandenbank Noord-Brabant.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carmichael, D. L., Hubert, J., Reeves, B., & Schanche, A. (Eds.) (1994). Sacred sites, sacred
places. London: Routledge.
Cauteren, J. van (2007). De Fatimakerk in Weert van Pierre Weegels. Weert : stad met ambitie
(pp. 15-17).
Certeau, M. de (1984). The practice of everyday life. Trans. Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University
of California.
Cerutti, V. (2011). Creatieve fabrieken: waardecreatie met herbestemming van industrieel

erfgoed. Utrecht: C2Publishing.
Coenen, J. (2004). Het kerkgebouw en zijn betekenis, op zoek naar elan. In C.H. Doevendans &
G. van der Harst (Eds.), Het kerkgebouw in het postindustriële landschap (pp. 177-184).
Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Council of State, Statement 201410466/A2, August 26, 2015. Retrieved on October 22, 2015,
from
https://www.raadvanstate.nl/uitspraken/zoeken-in-uitspraken/tekst-
uitspraak.html?id=84965&summary_only
Council of State, Statement ECLI:NL:RVS:2013:CA0688, May 22, 2013. Retrieved on October

22, 2015, from http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2013:CA0688
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five designs.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuilenburg, P. van (2006). Kerkruimte: venster naar God. Utrecht: Interkerkelijk Werkverband
voor de Recreatie.
103
Cultural Heritage Agency (2009). Erfgoedbalans 2009; archeologie, monumenten en
cultuurlandschap in Nederland. Amersfoort: Cultural Heritage Agency.
Cultural Heritage Agency (2013). Cultuurhistorisch onderzoek in de vormgeving van de ruimtelijke

ordening. Aanwijzingen en aanbevelingen. Amersfoort: Cultural Heritage Agency.
Cultural Heritage Agency (2014a). Agenda toekomst religieus erfgoed. Retrieved April 10, 2016,
from www.toekomstreligieuserfgoed.nl
Cultural Heritage Agency (2014b). Eenheid en verscheidenheid. Een zoektocht naar een integrale
cultuurhistorische waardestelling van het materiële erfgoed. Amersfoort: Cultural Heritage
Agency.
Davie, G. (2006). Is Europe an Exceptional Case?*. International Review of Mission, 95(378‐

379), 247-258.
Davie, G. (2010). Vicarious religion: A response. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 25(2), 261-
266.
Degen, M., DeSilvey, C., & Rose, G. (2008). Experiencing visualities in designed urban
environments: learning from Milton Keynes. Environment and planning. A, 40(8), 1901-1920.
Doevendans, C. H., & Harst, G. van der (Eds.). (2004). Het kerkgebouw in het postindustriële
landschap. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum.
Doevendans, C. H., & Stolzenburg, R. (2004). De kerken en de wijkgedachte: een opmerkelijke

geschiedenis. In K. Doevendans & G. van der Harst (Eds.), Het kerkgebouw in het postindustriële
landschap (pp. 265-274). Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum.
Dullemond, C. (ed.). (1997). Niet onder stoelen of banken. Over een ander gebruik van
kerkgebouwen. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum.
Dutch Government, Modernisering monumentenzorg. Retrieved on January 7, 2016 from

http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/erfgoed/modernisering-monumentenzorg
Engelse, M. den (February 18, 2014). Uitstel van plannen voor kerk. BN/DeStem. Retrieved on
April 18, 2016.
Fenster, T., & Yacobi, H. (2005). Whose city is it? On urban planning and local knowledge in
globalizing Tel Aviv-Jaffa. Planning Theory & Practice, 6(2), 191-211.
French, C. A. (2008). The social production of community garden space: Case studies of Boston,
Massachusetts and Havana, Cuba. New Hampshire: University of New Hampshire.
104
Frijhoff, W. (2007). Dynamisch erfgoed. Amsterdam: SUN.
Geertz, C. (1966). Religion as a cultural system. In M. Banton (Ed.), Anthropological approaches

to the study of religion (pp. 1-46). New York: Praeger.
Gelderloos, J. (2012). Liever een boekwinkel dan een disco. Ratio en emotie rondom her- en
nevenbestemming van kerkgebouwen. Jaarboek voor liturgie-onderzoek, 28, 183-205.
Grevel, S. (2009). Zwakte als kracht. Religieus sociaal-maatschappelijke activiteiten in

prachtwijken. Nijmegen: Kaski Nijmegen.
Grijzenhout, F. (Ed.). (2007). Erfgoed: de geschiedenis van een begrip. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. do.
Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London:
Sage.
Harmsen, H., Waal, G. M., & Asselbergs, F. (2008). De oude kaart van Nederland: leegstand en
herbestemming. Amersfoort: Cultural Heritage Agency.
Hart, J. J. M. de (2014). Geloven binnen en buiten verband: godsdienstige ontwikkelingen in

Nederland. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural
change. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (2001). Heritage pasts and heritage presents: temporality, meaning and the scope of
heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(4), 319-338.
Healey, P. (2007). Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies. London: Routledge.
Heisterkamp, P., & Linskens, B. (2010-2012). Handboek Behoud en beheer van kerkgebouwen.
Amersfoort: VBMK.
Horstman, J.W. (2013, March 2). Emmen nalatig met Zuiderkerk. Dagblad van het Noorden.
Retrieved on April 11, 2016, from the Lexis-Nexis database.
Hubert, J. (1994). Sacred beliefs and beliefs of sacredness. In Carmichael, D., Hubert, J.,
Reeves, B., Schanche, A. (Eds.), Sacred sites, sacred places (pp. 9-19). New York,
NY: Routledge
105
Huizinga, J. (1948). Verzamelde werken. Haarlem: H.D Tjeenk Willink & Zoon.
Jacobs, A., & Wiekart, A.A. (2003). Kerken na 1940: Inventarisatie en waardenstelling kerkelijke
bouwkunst na 1940. Roermond: Stichting Monumentenhuis Limburg.
Jongmans L., Linskens, B., & Groot, A. de (2008). Handreiking religieus erfgoed voor burgerlijke
en kerkelijke gemeenten. Van kerkelijke gebruik tot herbestemming. Den Haag: VNG/VBMK.
Kachuyevski, A. (2014). Structured, Focused Comparison: An In-Depth Case Study of Ethnic

Conflict Prevention. In SAGE Research Methods Cases. London: SAGE Publications.
Kerk Standdaarbuiten blijft toch monument. (2014, October 16). BN DeStem. Retrieved April 10,
2016, from Lexis-Nexis database.
Knott, K. (2005). Spatial theory and method for the study of religion. Temenos: Nordic Journal of
Comparative Religion, 41(2), 153-184.
Kong, L. (2001). Mapping ‘new’ geographies of religion: politics and poetics in modernity.
Progress in Human Geography, 25(2), 211-233.
Kort, R. (2013, February 11). Zuiderkerk als cultuurtempel. Dagblad van het Noorden. Retrieved
on April 11, 2016, from the Lexis-Nexis database.
Korte, M. de (2006). De Lichtenberg gemeentelijk monument. In: Nieuwsbrief RDMZ nr. 2. Zeist:
Rijksdienst voor de Monumentenzorg.
Korzilius, D. H. (2000). De kern van survey-onderzoek. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Kwak, M. (2015, June 29). Studio’s en lofts in monumentale kerk. Dagblad van het Noorden.
Retrieved on April 11, 2016, from the Lexis-Nexis database.
Lambertuskerk Buren voor 1 euro verkocht. (2014, December 12). De Gelderlander. Retrieved
April 10, 2016, from the Lexis-Nexis database.
Latham, D. (2000). Creative Re-use of Buildings. Shaftsbury: Donhead.
Leary, M. E. (2009). The Production of Space through a Shrine and Vendetta in Manchester:
Lefebvre’s Conceptual Triad and the Regeneration of a Place Renamed Castlefield. Planning
Theory & Practice, 10(2), 189-212.
Lefebvre, H. (1979). Space, Social Production and Use Value. In J.W. Freiberg (ed.), Critical
Sociology: European Perspectives (pp. 285-295). New York: Irvington.
Lefebvre, H. (1991 [1974]). The production of space (Vol. 142). Oxford: Blackwell.
106
Lefebvre, H. (2003 [1970]). The Urban Revolution. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lefebvre, H. (2009). State, Space, World: Selected Essays. Trans. G. Moore, N. Brenner & S.
Elden. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Libau (2012). Verzoek tot aanwijzing als gem. monument Wilhelminastraat 13.
Lingen A., & Uytenboogaart, J.H. (2008). Een protestantse visie op het kerkgebouw. Protestantse
Kerk in Nederland.
Logan, J., & Molotch, H. (1987). Urban fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley:
University of California.
Louw, T. de (2013, April 25). Willibrordusparochie eist geld van gemeente Oss. Brabants
Dagblad. Retrieved on April 11, 2016, from the Lexis-Nexis database.
Lowenthal, D. (2005). Heritage and history. Rivals and partners in Europe. R. van der Laarse
(Ed). Bezeten van vroeger. Erfgoed, identiteit en musealisering (pp. 29-39). Amsterdam: Het
Spinhuis.
Marlet, G., & Woerkens, C. van (2015). Atlas voor gemeenten: de 50 grootste gemeenten van
Nederland op 50 punten vergeleken. erfgoed. Nijmegen/Utrecht: VOC Uitgevers.
Massey, D. (1991). A global sense of place. Marxism Today, 38, 24-29.
Massey, D. (1993). Politics and space/time. In M. Keith, & S. Pile (Eds), Place and
the Politics of Identity (pp. 141–161). London: Routledge.
Matos Wunderlich, F. (2008). Walking and rhythmicity: Sensing urban space. Journal of Urban
Design, 13(1), 125-139.
Mazumdar, S., & Mazumdar, S. (2004). Religion and place attachment: A study of sacred
places. Journal of environmental psychology, 24(3), 385-397.
McCann, E. J. (1999). Race, protest, and public space: contextualizing Lefebvre in the US city.
Antipode, 31(2), 163-184.
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (1999). Nota Belvedere. Beleidsnota over de relatie
cultuurhistorie en ruimtelijke inrichting. Den Haag: VNG Uitgeverij.
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (2002). Cultuurbeleid in Nederland. Den Haag: SDU.
107
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (2009). Beleidsbrief Modernisering Monumentenzorg.
Den Haag.
Municipality Emmen (2010a). Brief aan het Cuypersgenootschap, 13 december 2010, kenmerk
10.131857.
Municipality Emmen (2010b). Erfgoedverordening.
Municipality Moerdijk (2013). Redengevende omschrijving R.K. Johannes de Doperkerk, Markt

Standdaarbuiten.
Municipality Moerdijk (2015). Moerdijk in Cijfers. Retrieved on February 19, 2016 from,
https://moerdijk.incijfers.nl/jive/jivereportcontents.ashx?report=home
Municipality Oss (2006). ‘Op Gemengde Bodem’. Erfgoedbeleid van de gemeente Oss 2006 –
2011.
Municipality Oss (2014). Verslag van de vergadering CRK monumentenkamer van 21 januari
2O14.
Municipality Weert (2005). Besluit B&W Fatimakerk.
Municipality Weert (2013). Advies aan B&W nr. BW-006726.
Municipality Weert (2014a). 500.00 euro subsidie voor het Fatima Huis. Retrieved on September
16, 2015 from http://www.weert.nl/500000-subsidie-voor-Fatima-Huis.html
Municipality Weert (2014b). Erfgoedverordening Weert 2014.
Municipality Weert (2016). Presentatie Weert-West. Sport, natuur, cultuur, educatie leisure &
zorg. Information evening 11-01-2016. Retrieved on February 19, 2016 from,
http://www.weert.nl/downloads/Bouwprojecten/Weert-West/Weert-West%20-
%2003%20Presentatie%20informatieavond%2011-01-2016.pdf
Nelissen, N. (2008). Geloof in de toekomst! Strategisch Plan voor het Religieus Erfgoed. Utrecht:
Stichting 2008 Jaar van het Religieus Erfgoed.
Nora, P. (1984–1992). Les Lieux de mémoire, 3 volumes. Paris: Gallimard.
Osborne, B. S. (2001). Landscapes, memory, monuments, and commemoration: Putting identity

in its place. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 33(3), 39-77.
Parochie wil geld Oss voor Pauluskerk. (2013, April 25). Brabants dagblad. Retrieved April 10,
2016, from Lexis-Nexis database.
108
Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (2015). De veerkrachtige binnenstad. Den Haag: PBL.
Plevoets, B., & Van Cleempoel, K. (2011). Adaptive reuse as a strategy towards conservation of
cultural heritage: a literature review. Structural Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of Heritage
Architecture, 12, 155-164.
Pollmann, T. (1995) Herbestemming van Kerken, een Ontnuchterend Relaas. Den Haag:
SDU Uitgeverij.
Post, M. (2013). ‘‘The end of church buildings?’’ A study on dominant factors in demolition
decisions for unused churches. Master Thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Post, P. G. J. (1997). Een ander huis: kerkarchitectuur na 2000. Baarn: Gooi en Sticht.
Post, P. G. J. (2010). Voorbij het kerkgebouw: De speelruimte van een ander sacraal domein.
Heeswijk: Abdij van Berne.
Postma, E. (2009). Het kerkgebouw als utopische ruimte. ‘Katrina’, een kerk op theaterfestival
Tweetakt. Jaarboek voor liturgie-onderzoek, 25, 157-183.
Potano, M. (1997). Een lange weg. De totstandkoming van de Monumentenwet. In Jaarboek

Monumentenzorg 1997. In dienst van het erfgoed. Rijksdienst voor de Monumentenzorg (pp. 92-
109). Zwolle/Zeist: Waanders Uitgevers/Rijksdienst voor de Monumentenzorg.
Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place identity: physical world
socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57–83.
Reinders, L. (2005). De verbeelding van een nieuwe stad: identiteitsstrategieën en de

transformatie van naoorlogse wijken. In H. Ernste & F. Boekema (Eds.), De cultuur van de lokale
economie, de economie van de lokale cultuur (pp. 179-201). Assen: Koninklijke van Gorcum.
Ridder, H. den (2014, July 17). Joh. de Doperkerk toch monument. BN/DeStem. Retrieved on
Roman Catholic Church (2008). Rooms-Katholiek visie op het kerkgebouw. Retrieved on January
6, 2016 from, http://www.kerkelijkwaardebeheer.nl/wp-content/uploads/rooms-katholieke-visie-
op-het-kerkgebouw.pdf
Rouwband rond Zuiderkerk in Emmen. (2010, April 7). Reformatorisch Dagblad. Retrieved April
10, 2016, from Lexis-Nexis database.
109
Schram, A., Velzel, W. & C.H. Doevendans & W. van Velzel (Eds.). (2007). Kansen voor
kerkgebouwen - Vragen & uitdagingen bij gebruik en herbestemming. Utrecht: Protestantse Kerk
in Nederland.
Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Expanding the geographical imagination. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sonneveld, J. (n.d.), Inventarisatie kerkgebouwen Nederland. Retrieved March 21, 2016 from
http://www.hdc.vu.nl/nl/online-informatie/ikgn/index.asp
Staak, M. van der (2013). Een procesanalyse van de herbestemming van katholieke kerken.
Master thesis Technical University Eindhoven.
Stichting Cuypersgenootschap (2011). Waardestelling Zuiderkerk.
Stichting Monumentenhuis Brabant (2005). Toekomst voor Religieus Erfgoed in Noord-Brabant:

Kansen door herbestemming. Geertruidenberg/Veghel: Stichting Monumentenhuis Brabant.
Strijd om Zuiderkerk Emmen gaat door (2015, January 31). Dagblad van het Noorden. Retrieved
Swanborn, P.G. (2013). Case-study’s? Wat, wanneer en hoe? Amsterdam: Boom Onderwijs.
The Association of Dutch Municipalities (2009). Handreiking Gemeentelijke

Monumentencommissies. VNG.
Toch monumentale status voor Scheepjeskerk Rijnwoude (2013, December 3). Leidsch Dagblad.
Retrieved April 24, 2016, from the Lexis-Nexis database.
Unwin, T. (2000). A waste of space? Towards a critique of the social production of

space. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 25(1), 11-29.
Van der Laarse, R. (Ed.). (2005). Bezeten van vroeger. Erfgoed, identiteit en musealisering.
Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Van der Zeijden, A. (2004). Volkscultuur van en voor een breed publiek. Enkele theoretische
premissen en conceptuele uitgangspunten. Utrecht: Nederlands Centrum voor Volkscultuur.
Van Duijn, M., & Rouwendal, J. (2013). Cultural heritage and the location choice of Dutch
households in a residential sorting model. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(3), 473-500.
Van Eijnatten, J., & Lieburg, F. A. van (2006). Nederlandse religiegeschiedenis. Hilversum:
Uitgeverij Verloren.
110
Velthuis, K., & Spennemann, D. H. (2007). The future of defunct religious buildings: Dutch
approaches to their adaptive re-use. Cultural Trends, 16(1), 43-66.
Friends of the Zuiderkerk (2010, May 6). Brief aan college van B&W.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
publications.
Interviews
Telephone call Roderick van Nie, 09-09-2015.
Transcript interview Adrie Kuijstermans and Coen Tolenaars, 10-08-2015.
Transcript interview Cor Mennen, 27-05-2015.
Transcript interview Frank Jansen, 27-05-2015.
Transcript interview Hans Marechal, 30-07-2015.
Transcript interview Harrie Maas, 16-07-2015.
Transcript interview Hettie Peterse, 03-09-2015.
Transcript interview Ingo Leth, 13-07-2015.
Transcript interview Ingrid Beckers, 27-08-2015.
Transcript interview Jan Bedaf, 08-06-2015.
Transcript interview Joke Jongeling, 08-06-2015.
Transcript interview Karel Loeff en Mathijs Witte, 13-05-2015.
Transcript interview Leo Dubbelaar, 21-05-2015.
Transcript interview Monique van de Looi, 08-06-2015.
Transcript interview Paul Spanjaard, 06-08-2015.
111
Transcript interview Simone Wijnands-Schutte, Henriette Vrieling en Eugene Sauren, 01-06-
2015.
Transcript interview Thijs Hendrix, 08-06-2015.
Transcript interview Tonnis Bos, 13-07-2015.
Images
Front page: Ankone, J. (2015). [Nameless photo of the Fatimakerk].
Figure 1. Zoning plan – an example of abstract space:

Ruimtelijke plannen (2016, February 29). Coenraad Abelstraat 31a, 6001VJ, Weert [zoning
plan]. Retrieved from http://www.ruimtelijkeplannen.nl/web-
oo/roo/bestemingsplannen?postcode=6001VJ&huisnummer=31
Figure 2. Lefebvre’s Conceptual Triad:

Campbell, S. (2016, February 29). Lefebvre’s Conceptual Triad. Retrieved from
https://sites.google.com/a/umich.edu/up650/
Figure 5. The Fatimakerk:

Brouwer, J. (2014, September). [Nameless photo of the Fatimakerk].
Figure 6. Overview Fatimakerk:

Bing Maps (2016, February 19). Weert, [map], 51,252830 5,699790. Retrieved from Bing Maps.
Figure 7. Cadastral map Fatimakerk:

Kadaster (2016, January 22). Fatimalaan. Retrieved from http://pdokviewer.pdok.nl/
Figure 8. The front view of the Pauluskerk:

Jansen, F. (2014). [Nameless photo of the Pauluskerk].
Figure 9. Overview Pauluskerk:

Bing Maps (2016, February 7). Oss, [map], 51,771220 5,514600. Retrieved from Bing Maps.
Figure 10. Cadastral map Pauluskerk:

Kadaster (2015, February 7). Oude Litherweg. Retrieved from http://pdokviewer.pdok.nl/
Figure 11. The rooms built in the main hall:

Jansen, F. (2014). [Nameless photo of the Pauluskerk].
Figure 12. The front view of the Zuiderkerk:

Ankone, J. (2015). [Nameless photo of the Zuiderkerk].
112
Figure 13. Overview Zuiderkerk:
Bing Maps. (2016, February 18). Emmen, [map], 52,778820 6,896510. Retrieved from Bing
Maps.
Figure 14. Cadastral map Zuiderkerk:

Kadaster (2016, February 18). Wilhelminastraat. Retrieved from http://pdokviewer.pdok.nl/
Figure 15. The mourning band around the Zuiderkerk:

Anninga, J. (2010). [Rouwband om Zuiderkerk]. Retrieved February 18 2016, from
http://www.refdag.nl/kerkplein/kerknieuws/rouwband_rond_zuiderkerk_in_emmen_1_397223
Figure 16. The temporary use of the Zuiderkerk:

Ankone, J. (2015). [Nameless photo of the Zuiderkerk].
Figure 17. The front view of the Johannes de Doperkerk:

BN de Stem (2014. October 14). [Nameless photo of the Joh. de Doperkerk]. Retrieved from
http://www.bndestem.nl/regio/moerdijk/kerk-standdaarbuiten-blijft-toch-monument-1.4582088
Figure 18. Overview of the Joh. de Doperkerk:

Bing Maps. (2016, February 19). Standdaarbuiten, [map], 51,611580 4,513350. Retrieved from
Bing Maps.
Figure 19. The cadastral map of the Joh. de Doperkerk:

Kadaster (2016, February 18). Kerkstraat. Retrieved from http://pdokviewer.pdok.nl/
Figure 20. Sketch from the plans of Breda Bouw:

Breda Bouw (n.d.). [Gevel zuidwest Joh. de Doperkerk]. Retrieved from
http://www.bredabouw.nl/projecten/woningbouw/herontwikkeling-johannes-de-doper-kerk
113
Appendix
Appendix A - Interview guides
Fifteen interviews were conducted. Because of some large differences between the cases, not all
interview guides could be specified and attached. This appendix consists of three interview
guides, which were the basis of the interviews. The actual interviews were all semi-structured,
and differ from some questions in these guides.
Interview guide – municipal policy officer
Local municipal policy:

How is the municipal monument policy set up in your municipality?
What is the basis of this policy?
How many policy officers for monuments work in your municipality?
Municipal monument status

How does the listing process for a municipal monument work?
Which interests play a role in this process?
Which internal actors have influence on this process?
Which external actors have influence on this process?
Case in general:
Can you tell something about the church?
Municipal monument status:

How did the process of listing the church building – go?
Which interests played a role?
- room for follow up questions!
What are the effects of the municipal listing?
Stakeholders:
Which actors have played a role in the listing process?
To what extent did these actors play a role?
Adaptive reuse:
What was the role of the municipality in the process of adaptive reuse?
Which other actors played a role in the process of adaptive reuse?
Personal background monuments

How often do you visit monuments in a year?
Why do you visit monuments?
Which type of monuments do you prefer?
Personal influence on policy

Influence of the personal background of monuments on policy:
114
To what extent has your personal background influence on the monument policy in this
municipality?
Influence use and appreciation of inhabitants monuments on policy:

To what extent has the use and appreciation of inhabitants influence on the monument policy?
Influence political change on policy

Did changing an aldermen have an influence on the monument policy?
Did a change in the municipal council have an influence on the monument policy?
Interview guide monument-commission
Respondent
Could you first tell something about yourself?
- Profession, living city etcetera.
Municipal monument-commission
What is the composition of the commission?
What role does the commission have in the listing process of a municipal monument?
- Monument description?
- Judging the monument description?
- Judging building plans?

People often say that a municipal monument status only limits the owner. What do you think of
this?
What are the possibilities and what do these depend on?
How did this idea of limitation come into being?
Which role does the commission play in the process of adaptive reuse?
- What are the points the commission pays attention to?
- What is important in this process?
- What are the building possibilities?
- Are other arguments considered, besides the cultural-historical one? Think of the
societal meaning of the building for the neighbourhood, for example.
Influence of personal background respondent on the policy:

To what extent does your personal background have an influence on the monument policy?
Does the personal background of commission members influence the approval of building
plans?
If answered no: could this be possible?
115
Interview guide church owner
Respondent
Could you tell something about yourself?
Case in general:
Could you tell something about the church and the process so far?
What is your interest in maintaining this building?
- Is this different from the other involved actors?

- To what extent does the cultural-historical value play a role for these actors?
Municipal monument status:

Can you describe the listing process?
Which actors were involved in this process?
- Communication?
Role of the building:

What is the role of the church building in your neighbourhood/village/city?
Is this experienced by the inhabitants in the same way?
What is important when the building is reused?
How important is it that the building is maintained for the neighbourhood/village/city?
Owner:
Why did you buy the church?
What do you know of the municipal monument status?
What are its effects for the church building?
How do you experience the status?
Did you have contact with the municipality?
- Monument-commission?
- Possibilities for adaptive reuse
Influence on policy
To what extent do you have influence the monument policy in your city?
Does the change of an aldermen have consequences for the monument policy?
Does the change of the council have consequences for the monument policy?
116
Interview guide – Local association
Respondent
Could you tell something about yourself?
Case in general:
Could you tell something about the church and the process so far?
What is the relationship between the church building and your association?
Role of the church building in the neighbourhood
What is the role of the church building in the neighbourhood?
Has this role changed during the last couple of decades?
How important is the adaptive reuse of the building?
- New function
Did your association have influence on the listing of the building?
Which actors influenced the listing process?
Which interests played a role for you to step up for maintaining this building?
- Were these different from the interests of other involved actors?

- To what extent does the monumental value play a role in the listing process?
Adaptive reuse
What the role of your association in the process of adaptive reuse?
- Involvement association/neighbourhood
- Also in other adaptive reuse processes?
Was the goal of all actors the same?
What was the role of the municipality in the process of adaptive reuse?
Which other actors played a role in the process of adaptive reuse?
117
Appendix B - Codes analysis interview
Presence of monuments
 Quantity of monuments
 Monumental values versus development
 Use of space
 Comparison with other cities
General effects of monuments

 Effects on the living environment
 Esthetical value
 Recreational function
 Establishment factor
 Identity
 Memories
 Economic value
 Emotional value
 Monumental appreciation
Monument policy
 Listing of monuments
 Influence inhabitants
 Appreciation of monuments
 Difference in appreciation
 Notes
 Zoning
 Municipal monument status
Process of adaptive reuse church building

 New function
 Perception of the building
 Appreciation of the church building
 Not in my backyard
 Appreciation from the neighbourhood
 Appreciation municipality
 Appreciation (new) owner
 Appreciation other actors
 Role of the building in the neighbourhood
 Difference in perception
 Local association
 National association
Personal meaning monuments respondent

 Visiting monuments
118
 Preference of monuments
Planning process
 Influence inhabitants
 Influence economical situation
 Influence media
 Influence personal meaning monuments on policy
 Influence politics
 Difference in interests
Conceptual Triad
 Conceived space
 Perceived space
 Lived space
 Conceptual Triad
119

Ankone, Joost 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ankone, Joost 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ankone, Joost 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Production of Reused Church Buildings

The process of adaptive reuse examined

Masterthesis Human Geography, Urban and Cultural Geography

The Production of Reused Church Buildings

Name: Joost Ankone

Master Human Geography, Urban and Cultural Geography

Contact: j.ankone@student.ru.nl / joostankone90@gmail.com

Den Haag, April 2016

These are the sub-questions I will attempt to answer:

- How is the municipal monument policy set up?

1.4 Reading guide

2.1 Church buildings in the urban and rural environment

2.2 Religious buildings as (sacred) space

‘‘Heritage is a present-centred cultural practice and an instrument of cultural power’’ (Harvey,

2.4 Religious buildings and their spatial environment

2.5 Religious buildings and adaptive reuse

2.6 Religious buildings and the production of space

Table 1. Three ways in which space is produced.

Lefebvre’s concepts Lefebvre’s definition (Healey, 2007, Leary’s ‘translation’ (2009,

Perceived space – spatial practices – the used space

Conceived space – representations of space – the intended space

Figure 3. Conceptual framework

1. How is the municipal monument policy set up?

3.1 Case study design

3.2 Selection of cases

Homogeneous criteria Heterogeneous criteria

Church building Type of denomination

Process of adaptive reuse Urban or rural area

Dutch context Location within the Netherlands

Municipal monument status Building period

Finished initiate phase Finalized or finishing process of adaptive

Table 3. Heterogeneous criteria selected cases

Municipality Church Construction Roman Urban or Appointed Out of Adaptive

3.3 Research methods

Layer Data collection Method of data collection

Conceived space Document analysis Snowball method

Perceived space Interviews Semi-structured interviews

Observation Observation of the buildings

Lived space Interviews Semi-structured interviews

Emmen Oss Standdaarbuiten Weert

Simone Wijnands - Paul Spanjaard, Monique van de Looi, Joke Jongeling,

Thematic analyzing and coding

3.4 Reliability and validity

4.1 Adaptive reuse

4.2 Legal and political framework

 New functions for historical buildings;

4.3 Different stakeholders

4.3.1. Roman Catholic Church

4.3.2. Protestant Church in the Netherlands

4.3.3. Private buyers

4.3.4 Public policy makers

The national government

Figure 4. Listing procedure

4.3.5. Heritage associations

4.3.6. Local associations

4.4 Municipal policy practices

5. The Fatimakerk in Weert

5.1 Introduction of the case

5.1.1. Location and area