Sonneveld House Proves Functionalism Was Never Just White Walls

Albertus Sonneveld could see Brinkman and Van der Vlugt's modernism at work in the Van Nelle factory, where he was one of three directors. For the family home, commissioned in 1929, the architects extended that logic into dining, bathing, sleeping, storage and service. Steel framing and concrete floors removed the need for internal load-bearing walls, allowing a freer plan and long windows rather than a stack of dark, cellular rooms.

The house was also an affluent showcase. A bathroom with a bath, shower, heated towel rail and multiple fittings was exceptional while many Dutch homes lacked a shower. Indirect lighting, radios, speaking tubes and labour-saving equipment promised efficiency, but domestic technology did not abolish domestic labour. The staff route and service spaces reveal who maintained the bright, hygienic environment. Functionalism here is socially specific, not automatically egalitarian.

• Client: Albertus Sonneveld, a Van Nelle factory director
• Family occupation: 1933–1955

Nieuwe Instituut records warm vermilion, cornflower blue and canary yellow alongside light grey, dark grey and brown. Fabrics came from Metz & Co, including colours associated with Bart van der Leck, while tubular-steel pieces by Gispen recur throughout. Colour marks zones, changes the apparent weight of planes and warms materials more familiar from offices and hospitals. The house was coordinated, not monochrome.

Even the central stair behaves materially: black marble is inset with rubber strips that quieten footsteps as it coils through the building. Turquoise tiles distinguish the daughters' shared bathroom; smooth linoleum assists cleaning elsewhere. These choices make a better argument for functionalism than the façade alone because beauty and maintenance are negotiated together. Hygiene had a texture, colour and sound, not merely a slogan about fresh air.

• Furniture: chiefly Gispen, with Metz & Co textiles
• Colour is embedded in room use rather than applied as decoration

Sonneveld House reopened to the public in 2001 after restoration and refurnishing toward its 1933 condition. Heirlooms from the family were combined with acquired and borrowed period objects, including glass. That curatorial record should accompany any claim that the interior is ‘intact.’ The architecture survives exceptionally well; the museum experience is a researched reconstruction enriched over time.

Our verdict: Sonneveld is one of the best architecture-series subjects because its operator publishes detailed research that challenges the campaign's easy images. Visit for the service systems, gendered furniture, bathroom and stair as much as the open plan. Current admission belongs to Nieuwe Instituut, not RIMOWA's December 2024 feature. The house matters because modernism penetrated routine—and because the routine was luxurious, labour-dependent and brilliantly coloured.

• Best detail: the stair's marble-and-rubber acoustic design
• Necessary caveat: the museum interior combines original, acquired and loaned material