Europa Nostra attends ICOMOS Netherlands lecture, where calls are made for renewed protection of the former Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment in The Hague

On 8 April, ICOMOS Netherlands hosted its monthly lecture dedicated to the future of the former Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment building (SoZa) in The Hague, an iconic example of late-20th-century Dutch structuralist architecture designed in 1979 by Herman Hertzberger. The building is among the fourteen cases of heritage sites at risk in Europe for 2026, which were preselected last February by the Advisory Panel of the 7 Most Endangered Programme – a key civil society initiative led by Europa Nostra.

 

The lecture, focussing on transformation of valuable heritage and sustainability in general, brought together Anneke de Gouw (Erfgoedvereniging Heemschut, South Holland chair) and Prof. Dr. Ana Pereira Roders (TU Delft), who examined the building’s architectural significance, its uncertain future, and the broader implications for post-war heritage protection in the Netherlands and Europe.

Once considered a landmark of human-centred governmental architecture, the SoZa building was conceived within the structuralist tradition of Hertzberger and strongly influenced by the ideas of Aldo van Eyck. It formed part of a wider post-war Dutch planning strategy that relocated ministries from congested city centres to new sites, aiming to support urban renewal while creating flexible, socially interactive public buildings capable of evolving over time.

Although Hertzberger’s design philosophy emphasised adaptability and long-term (re)use, the building’s trajectory shifted after the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment vacated it in 2006. Ownership changed multiple times, and redevelopment pressures gradually intensified. Despite sustained advocacy from heritage organisations, the building was never granted municipal or national monument status and was excluded from early post-65 heritage protection programmes, leaving it structurally and legally vulnerable to demolition. 

 

Speakers highlighted how this situation reflected broader systemic weaknesses in the protection of post-war architectural heritage in the Netherlands. Fragmented governance structures, slow and parallel designation procedures, limited political room for manoeuvre, and strong market-driven development pressures were identified as key factors contributing to the erosion of significant modernist public architecture. 

The lecture also contrasted earlier idealistic post-war planning values with today’s increasingly commercialised urban development, warning of the continued loss of human-scale architecture and eminent risks of greenwashing. The Netherlands proud reputation as a country that produces excellent, creative and cutting-edge architecture will significantly suffer with the demolition of such an internationally known iconic building. Although the building is not alluring you in an easy smooth superficial way, once inside it has surprising qualities of space and light. It was designed with a passion about elementary human needs – both practical and emotional. It offers spatial guidance, flexible and inviting, addressing all senses. As such this philosophy is in contrast with present day dominant, more ‘efficient’ buildings, where each and every cm3 has a predesigned purpose, whereby all air has been squeezed out. 

Since the departure of the SoZa Ministry employees, and although parts of the building had been temporarily reused for social and cultural purposes, including housing refugees and other vulnerable groups, its long-term future remained uncertain, with demolition still considered a likely outcome.

A central contribution to the lecture was made by Prof. Dr. Ana Pereira Roders, who introduced the concept of the “Rights of Buildings” as an extension and not a replacement of human rights. She argued that the current crisis in the built environment is characterised by high demolition rates despite climate commitments, significant environmental impacts from construction (37% of global greenhouse gases), and the limited proportion of officially protected heritage (<1% of Dutch building stock are listed as national monuments) which requires a fundamental rethinking of legal and ethical frameworks.

 

Within this perspective, the SoZa building was described as effectively “vogelvrij” (legally unprotected), exposed to redevelopment regardless of its cultural, historical, and social value. To make these abstract issues more tangible, her work incorporated a fictional narrative, published in a recent book SOZA : The Untold Story of an Extraordinary Building and the Pledged Fight for His Rights’,  in which the building is imagined as a living entity forming relationships with a rebellious pigeon named Pete and a grumpy caretaker named Gus. Together, they reinterpret the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, expanding its scope to include buildings and nature. Both speakers emphasised how sometimes one can best use irony and humour, or allegory and fairytales, as powerful tools for expressing ideas, helping messages resonate more deeply and bypass the usual barriers that can make people resistant to reconsidering flawed decisions.

The lecture developed a “Rights Wheel” linking humans, nature, and buildings, and explored three worldviews: anthropocentrism, in which humans remain central and other entities are instrumental; ecocentrism, where nature holds intrinsic rights; and post-humanism, in which humans, nature, and buildings are recognised as rights-bearing subjects. It further distinguished between intrinsic, instrumental, and relational value, arguing that heritage protection must move beyond purely aesthetics, economic or functional assessments.

The discussion also drew on international precedents such as Ecuador’s constitutional recognition of the rights of nature and the legal personhood granted to the Whanganui River in New Zealand, as well as the influential work of Christopher Stone on the legal standing of non-human entities. These examples were presented as evidence of an evolving legal imagination that could inform future approaches to the built environment.

The lecture concluded on an urgent and reflective note. While the SoZa building continues to symbolise an important moment in Dutch post-war planning and architectural innovation, its future remains dangerously precarious. The central question posed was whether preservation was still possible or whether demolition had already become inevitable.

The discussion ultimately called for a shift in how societies understand responsibility towards heritage, emphasising that, just as human rights had to be fought for, “Rights of Buildings” may represent the next frontier of justice. The closing message captured this call for collective action and shared responsibility: “All for one, one for all”.