Structuralism

Structuralism is an architectural movement that designs a building as a framework of repeated, adaptable spaces at human scale. Het Nieuwe Instituut, the Dutch national architecture institute, defines it as a movement from the period 1959 to 1980. Its buildings combine human scale with a mix of uses, community, equal social relations and user adaptability. The movement belongs to the Netherlands, so Slovak readers meet it as a topic in architectural history rather than as a local style.

Where did Structuralism come from?

Structuralist designers reacted against the functional separation and the technocratic building practice of Dutch post-war reconstruction. They found that approach too sterile, one-sided and too rigid. The architects Aldo and Hannie van Eyck laid the foundations of Dutch Structuralism, according to the Van Eyck archive notes of Het Nieuwe Instituut. The same notes say that they did not use the term themselves and preferred to call architecture a configurative discipline.

Van Eyck took part in CIAM, the Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne, which the archive notes date from 1928 to 1959. He also took part in Team 10, which the notes date from 1953 to 1981. He edited the magazine Forum in 1959 and 1963, and Herman Hertzberger worked beside him as co-editor. A Forum article of 1959 was an important spur to the movement. Its title was "Het verhaal van een andere gedachte" (The Story of a Different Idea).

The name came later. According to Het Nieuwe Instituut, Hertzberger introduced the word "Structuralism" in 1966, when he presented his competition design for the Valkenswaard town hall. The term then spread through professional literature. The Nieuwe Instituut pages give two spans for the movement. The text of one page says 1959 to 1980, while its title and a second page say 1955 to 1980. This glossary uses "about 1959 to 1980" and treats the earlier date as the start of the pre-history.

How does a structuralist building work?

A structuralist building usually has a repeated framework. The module sets the order of the plan, and the spaces inside stay open enough to change use over time. The table summarises the principles that the sources describe.

Principle	What it means in the building	Where the sources show it
Repeated module	One unit is repeated across the plan, so no single room dominates the whole	Centraal Beheer, a chain of workspaces built from 56 connected cubes
Human scale	Small, recognisable places replace one large hall	Named as a main concern of the movement in the 2019 TU Delft thesis and in the Nieuwe Instituut definition
Flexibility	Spaces can take on new functions without changing the frame	A 2018 TU Delft thesis designs a flexible academic programme inside Centraal Beheer
Mix of uses and user adaptability	The user can adapt the space, and several uses share one building	Nieuwe Instituut definition of the movement

For a designer, the module or grid does the organising work, not the decoration. This is a reading of the sources and not a rule from a standard. Walls, columns and circulation are arranged so that the interior can change later.

Which buildings define the movement?

Two buildings are the usual reference points. Van Eyck's Amsterdam orphanage is dated 1955 to 1960 in the Van Eyck archive notes. Het Nieuwe Instituut dates Hertzberger's Centraal Beheer office in Apeldoorn to 1968 to 1972. A 2024 article in Binnenlands Bestuur gives the year 1972. The table gives the basic facts for both.

Building	Architect	Date	What the sources say
Amsterdam orphanage (Burgerweeshuis)	Aldo van Eyck	1955 to 1960	Van Eyck's built work from the Team 10 period, held in the archive of Het Nieuwe Instituut
Centraal Beheer, Apeldoorn	Herman Hertzberger	1968 to 1972	Built from 56 connected cubes, with spaces of 9 by 9 metres and four workspaces per floor

Het Nieuwe Instituut says that Centraal Beheer shows how a large office building can have a human scale and an informal atmosphere. It replaced the usual corridor layout with a chain of workspaces that connect horizontally and vertically. Two TU Delft master's theses of 2018 and 2019 call the building an icon of Structuralism.

What happened to structuralist buildings afterwards?

Structuralist buildings face the questions of other post-war heritage. Owners must keep them in use, meet current expectations for energy and indoor climate, and protect the spatial idea behind them. Centraal Beheer is the clearest case. A 2019 TU Delft thesis by Anne Ebbenhorst describes the building as vacant. In June 2024 Binnenlands Bestuur called it dilapidated and reported that three developers failed to get a housing conversion approved. The municipality of Apeldoorn wanted to keep the building and saw social uses as a better fit than housing.

The state heritage service has since acted. On 4 February 2026 the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (RCE) published a draft decision. It proposed to designate the former Centraal Beheer headquarters at Prins Willem-Alexanderlaan 651 as a national monument, number 532559. On 24 June 2026 it published the decision to designate. The notice sets a six-week appeal period that starts after the documents are available for inspection, and the inspection ran until 6 August 2026. This glossary did not check whether an appeal was filed, so it treats the designation as decided but not final.

The thesis of Ebbenhorst proposed minimal interventions in Centraal Beheer. That approach shows the practical question for heritage owners. Which parts of the frame must stay, and which parts can change?

How is Structuralism different from Functionalism?

Het Nieuwe Instituut describes Structuralism as a reaction against the functional separation of post-war reconstruction. Functionalism arranges a building or a city by separate functions. Structuralism keeps a common framework and leaves the use of the spaces open. The two movements are not defined by the same material or the same look, so a structuralist building can have very different facades.

Does Structuralism matter for Slovak residential design?

The sources checked for this page name no Slovak or Czechoslovak structuralist canon, and Slovak family houses rarely carry the label. The method is still useful for a house. A clear structural order, such as a regular grid of load-bearing walls and columns, lets a designer reorganise the interior when a household grows or changes. Generous in-between spaces give a house room to adapt without an extension. Examples are a wide hall that serves as a study or a niche for a workplace.

The method also asks that the frame stays visible and readable. This links to the idea of structural honesty. A designer who wants the structure to read clearly should keep the frame logic consistent through the plan and the facade.

What do people commonly get wrong about Structuralism?

The most common mistake is to treat Structuralism as a look. The Nieuwe Instituut definition describes a way to organise space and use, not a style of facade. A second mistake is to confuse it with Brutalism, which has its own entry in this glossary. A third mistake is to assume the movement has a large Slovak or Czechoslovak canon. The sources reviewed here do not document one, so check any claim about local buildings before you repeat it.