How WWII changed the landscape of Groningen

The landscape of Groningen has been shaped by the Second World War in more ways than one could imagine. Culturally, almost a quarter of the city center was lost, while the physical heart of Groningen was bombed to pieces. What has now blossomed once again into the vibrant center of the city has had to overcome great adversity.

Cultural landscape

The biggest change concerning the cultural landscape in Groningen was caused by the Holocaust. Because of the Holocaust, the Jewish community in Groningen vanished almost completely. With this, the once so lively Jewish quarter became quiet.

Figure 1 The former Jewish neighbourhood in Groningen

Before the war, about 2900 Jewish people were living in the city of Groningen. They were quite well integrated into the rest of the Groninger society, among other things because of the emancipation decree of 1796. However, as a Jewish war survivor told a Dutch newspaper, the Jewish people stayed a different group within it. Most poorer, more traditional Jewish people were living in the Jewish quarter, which was located around the Folkingestraat. The Folkingestraat was a busy street and maybe even the most important street for the Jewish society in Groningen. Here, you could find the synagogue and many small firms and traders. However, there were not only Jewish people in this centre of the Jewish quarter as more than half of the shops in the street were owned by non-Jewish people. Most richer, more secularised Jewish people were living outside of the Jewish quarter. A third group of Jewish people living in Groningen consisted of German-Jewish refugees. However, the Groninger Jews saw the German Jews in the first place as German, and not as one of “them”.

Figure 2 Folkingestraat in 1925 during preparations to asphalt

In August 1942, the transportation of Groninger Jews started. In less than a year, almost every Jewish person had been deported from Groningen and murdered. After the war, there were only 225 Jewish people left in the whole city of Groningen. The Folkingestraat became even more impoverished, as did the rest of the Jewish quarter. There was little activity afterwards, especially compared to the street before the war. The synagogue had become too big for the people who survived the war and stayed in Groningen. Therefore, it was sold and became the place of a dye-house, and later a church building.

Only after the construction of the Groninger Museum and the bridge besides it did the Folkingestraat become more lively. The street is now home to a variety of shops. Not so much reminds us of the street this has been before the war, except for five artworks and some memorial road bricks. The synagogue has been restored. Part of the building is used as synagogue again and there are tours and exhibitions.

Figure 3 Artworks in the Folkingestraat, project Verbeeld verleden (1997)

Tangible landscape

Chronologically going through staggering archival imagery, it becomes clear that the Liberation itself had the biggest toll on the built integrity of the city. Unlike in other cities, the use of artillery seems to have been limited, in part to avoid harm to civilians. Without shelling or bombing the city, infantry forces had to ‘clear buildings room by room’ – something attested to by the following excerpt:

This type of battle might have spared large parts of the city from further destruction, leaving the structure of houses intact, but in need of repair. Every loss of life and home is tragic, but residential parts of Groningen stayed largely intact – this is felt just by going on a walk through some of them. 

Going for a walk through the main square, the Grote Markt, tells a different story. The inhomogeneous architecture on the square and in parts of the streets leading into it hints at more excessive destruction than seen in other parts of the city. Due to German strongholds around the square, it was necessary for liberation forces to use flamethrowers and tanks against the buildings, leaving the Grote Markt stripped – the majority of it turned into rubble, and the rest left burning, with some fires spreading throughout the city. 

The War Diary of a Canadian Infantry somewhat understates the damage done, saying that ‘the city was captured undamaged except for several fires that burned some of the houses’. It’s hard to wrestle yourself back to accept this after seeing how much of the square was lost, and in what way. However, out of an estimated 32,000 buildings at the time, 270 were destroyed. The city truly was largely left in tact, illustrated by the fact that some other cities were in whole affected like just the square was in Groningen – Rotterdam suffering a loss as large as Groningen itself, with more than 30,000 buildings leveled. 

Rebuilding the city square was not an easy task, and in hindsight, the city council has shown understanding of the taste-splitting sense the Grote Markt conveys today, saying: ‘In the 1950s, several broad buildings were constructed on the east façade and the street alignment was pushed backward. The Grote Markt thus changed from an intimate and monumental square into an (in retrospect) over-spacious and cheerless zone with an ugly car park behind it.’

 Some of the buildings originally built closely following the war have been torn down in recent years to give way to newer ones, again erasing some of the continuity of the ‘old’ square that was kept. New buildings crossed the outline of the prewar square for the first time, now protruding into it. The square is evolving past both its prewar and postwar history, and citizens today might have more to say in the process than they did in the efforts directly after the war. It’d be nice to do justice to the ones who lost their beloved town square, and hopefully there are ways to do that.

The price of the war for the city was paid not just in lives but in brick and mortar. In the history that was lost in the people as well as the edifices surrounding the emotional and physical heart of the city. World War 2 truly changed the landscape of Groningen.

Written by Niko, Finn, and Mika

The ownership of Schiermonnikoog

The island of Schiermonnikoog has quite the history when it comes to the ownership of the island. Throughout the years the island has been owned by monks, the States of Friesland, several citizens, it has been confiscated by the Dutch state and there has been a debate about the border and of which province the island is part of. In this blog post we will look at who has owned the island, why the island is moving, why this poses a problem and the social aspects of this problem.

Schiermonnikoog was owned by the monks of the monastery Klaarkamp from around 1323 until 1580. The name of the island of Schiermonnikoog supposedly also came from these monks and their grey habits. It is not known who owned the island before the monks owned it, the monks are the first known owners of the island (Ven, 1993).

In March 1580 the decision was made to abrogate the catholic church and that same day the order was given to take all their properties. This resulted in the island becoming property of the States of Friesland (Ven, 1993). 

In June 1638 the States of Friesland decided in a resolution to sell the island of Schiermonnikoog. The auction of the island was won by Gabe Wiegers Bota and Hendrik van Marssum. On the 9th of March 1639 they sold the island to Pieter Bauckes Houckema, who made plans to make an agricultural exploitation of the island, due to his bad health, he could not finish this plan and in 1640 he sold the island to Johan Stachouwer (Ven, 1993). 

Schiermonnikoog was in the hands of the Stachouwer family from 1640 to 1858. In 1858 Edzard Tjarda van Starkenborgh Stachouwer and Gratia Susanna Stachouwer, decided to sell the island. Mr J.E. Banck bought the island. The German count Hartwig Arthur Berthold Graf von Bernstorff bought the island from Mr J.E. Banck in 1893. After the second World War, the Dutch government in London made the decision that the ownership of Schiermonnikoog would now be in the hands of the Dutch state, since it was owned by an enemy. From 1945 onwards the Dutch state is the owner of Schiermonnikoog, being part of the province of Friesland (Ven, 1993).

The island of Schiermonnikoog is sixteen kilometres long and four kilometres wide and is the site of the Netherlands’ first national park. The only village of the island is also called Schiermonnikoog. Just around 946 people permanently reside on the island, making the municipality both the least populated and least densely populated in the Netherlands.

Thanks to the tidal current, the prevailing winds and the storms coming from the North Sea, the island is slowly moving to the south east.

This small island island off the northern coast of the Netherlands has been continuously “moving” towards the south east due to several factors that we will soon explain. Just 762 years ago, in the mid XIII century, the island laid roughly 2 km to the north of its present position, and it had a significantly different shape. If we do the math, that results in an average pace of 2.62 meters per year, which is not slow at all for such a process to occur.

We must mention that the island doesn’t actually move, however. In scientific terms, the sea erodes the island at one end and deposits fresh slit on the other, causing the island to shift position and assume a slightly different shape each passing day. In the XVII century, when the main changes happened, it was due to the burst of the watersheds that the water movements of the tidal inlet located west Schiermonnikoog decreased, resulting in the deposition of coarse material closer to the axis of the inlet with a subsequent contraction of the outer and inner delta. Both deltas caused a sequence of erosions of the dunes that led to the growth of the eastern side of the island.

In 2004 it was decided that Friesland would buy the island back from Groningen since the island had entered the territory of Groningen. One of the main reasons that it was necessary for the island to be bought back, and belong to one province, is that in the case of an emergency (for example an oil spill or a shipwreck), it would not be clear who needs to help.

One of the disagreements during discussions was the fee that Friesland had to pay Groningen for ‘buying’ the land back. This fee consisted of 274 000 Euro to the province of Groningen, and 37 000 Euro to the municipality Eemsmond. The reason that Friesland had to pay this money, was as compensation for the income that Groningen otherwise would get from the government. 

But some people thought that it was unnecessary to compensate Groningen and Eemsmond, as they actually profit from not having this piece of the island in their territory, since they do not have to help with emergencies anymore, and there are not any people living on the east part, so no taxes are lost either.

But what do the people themselves think about the situation? Most of the Frisians think that the island belongs to them, since they have the longest history of ownership and the Dutch government also officially appointed the island to belong to Friesland.

But the Groningers also think that the island should belong to their province, during an unofficial vote most Groningers voted that they thought that the island should belong to Groningen.

The unofficial vote held on the website of the Groninger media outlet ‘RTV Noord’
‘RTV Noord’ even included the island in a map that shows the election results

One of the reasons that the Groningers might feel this way is that the boat to the island departs from Groningen and not from Friesland. And the Islanders themselves? Most of them do not really care to which province the island belongs, as they feel ‘islander’ above Frisian or Groninger.

Written by Victor Lira, Vera Landstra and Eline Waanders

References

Schier koopt “eigen” eiland terug. (2004, December 23). Retrieved January 20, 2020, from https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/schier-koopt-eigen-eiland-terug~bc317f0b/?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Lopend Vuur: Schiermonnikoog hoort bij Groningen. (2018, April 26). Retrieved January 20, 2020, from https://www.rtvnoord.nl/nieuws/193361/Lopend-Vuur-Schiermonnikoog-hoort-bij-Groningen

FryslÂN, R. O. (2017, March 22). De Groninger strijd om Schier. Retrieved January 20, 2020, from https://www.omropfryslan.nl/nieuws/707644-de-groninger-strijd-om-schier

Flemming, B. W., & Davis Jr, R. (1994). Holocene evolution, morphodynamics and sedimentology of the spiekeroog barrier island system (Southern North Sea). Senckenbergiana Maritima.Frankfurt/Main, 24(1), 117-155.

Ven, F. (1993). Een omstreden eiland : De eigendom van het eiland schiermonnikoog in geding (Doctoral dissertation, 1993). S.n.

Why Groningen?


Almost a quarter of Groningen’s population is composed of students. Every year, thousands of students choose to study in Groningen, but why?

As students ourselves, we were curious as to what factors other students considered when they decided where they wanted to study, and if there was anything that made them hesitate. In order to investigate this, we conducted a survey, to which 48 students in Groningen responded. We asked them about their origin, what they were studying, and push and pull factors affecting them both in coming to, Groningen and what may affect them in the future.

Push and pull factors may sound a bit confusing, so we’ll define them. Push factors are factors that drive people away and are reasons for people to migrate, think about something like lack of jobs. Of course there are stay factors too, like family and friends. The same considerations that push people away from one place can pull them to another place. The reasons that attract people to a place are called pull factors, stay away factors, meanwhile, are reasons why people would not want to migrate to a certain place.

Who are our participants?

The majority of our subjects were bachelor students and studied at UCG, the reason for this is that we are UCG students ourselves. We utilised our personal contacts to spread the survey, the majority of which was comprised of UCG students. Moreover, UCG is an international faculty, which made it even more interesting to look at  students’ motivations in choosing groningen as their place of study despite high moving costs and a long travel distance.

The nationalities of our respondents can be seen in the table below:

While all of these students have obviously chosen to study in Groningen,we were also curious about what other options had they considered, and why. 

What came out was a very strong preference towards Dutch universities in general, even if just a quarter of the sample was Dutch. The country as a whole and not just the city of Groningen appears to have been a strong pull factor.

Many respondents indicated a university in their home country as other options. The “stay” factors of friends and family prove especially strong for young people. 

Factors Bringing Students to Groningen.

In order to investigate how pull factors affected students coming to Groningen, we asked participants “what did you find attractive about studying in Groningen?”. 

Rather unsurprisingly, the majority of our university students mentioned their specific study, or the overall quality and reputation of the University of Groningen, as being reasons to come to the city. More interestingly, we found a fairly even balance between this and other pull factors. With most responses including two or more factors, we could explore the importance of other factors in their decision making.

The social environment of Groningen,encompassing its international environment and high student population, the quality of the city itself, including its size, attractiveness and overall lifestyle, and its geographic location were fairly evenly mentioned. We found that the location of Groningen was the second most mentioned pull factor, just three responses short of the university. Responses under this category mostly mentioned proximity to friends or family, with two mentioning distance, referring to a desire to study abroad. 

Stay away factors, or reasons that made our subjects hesitate about moving to Groningen, can be grouped in similar categories. A confidence in the University is highlighted with few concerns about it, and those that did have concerns were personal worries about their selection of program. The majority of stay away factors mentioned relate to adapting to the social life within Groningen. Concerns about language (not being able to speak Dutch), the student housing shortage and the distance of the city from either the rest of the civilized world country, or their home country, were prevalent stay away factors mentioned.

Future Push and Stay Factors

Finally, we asked the participants if they thought they wanted to stay in Groningen after obtaining their degrees. Half of our participants informed us they didn’t know, while nine wanted to stay, and fifteen wanted to leave. The stay factors for remaining in Groningen after their current education differed greatly between participants. Some enjoyed the city a lot, while others mentioned that they were interested in masters in Groningen. There was one mention of opportunity in Groningen, but no specific mention regarding jobs. In contrast to the leaving group, where a job someplace else was mentioned as a motivator to leave Groningen. The 15 people who told us that they would leave after their education also had varied reasons. Similarly to the stay group, participants in the leaving group wanted to choose their place of residence based on their desired masters. Many also mentioned they wanted to explore other places and cultures while others wanted to return to their home country. 

We thought it would be interesting to see where previous UCG students ended up, so check out this link to see what masters degrees they pursue; 

https://www.rug.nl/ucg/about-us/after-ucg

Conclusion

After analyzing the results, we found that there are many reasons why people choose Groningen as their student city. Most choose it because of the programs the educational institutions provide. Many also choose it because of the city, it’s location and it’s small size. However, some responses regarded these as reasons to leave , while others simply decided to continue their education elsewhere. 

The range of reasons why people come and leave Groningen is vast and this survey was just the tip of the iceberg. Still it is was great to learn about what motivates people to come here, and what in time will motivate them to leave. What motivated you to choose your student city? Do you consider going somewhere else after getting your degree, and why? We would love to hear your answers, so please comment below.

written by: Daniel MacRae, Arianna Salvatori and Cathelijne van der Voort


The Gap Between National Benefits And Regional Costs

Gas extraction in the Province of Groningen

Earth quake damaged house

Introduction

The gas exploitation in the Province of Groningen has benefited the whole of the  Netherlands greatly over the last 60 years. Billions of euros in government revenue were generated, however the government ordered a sudden stop of exploitation by the year 2022 (Nos.nl, 2019) even though another 50 years of profitable gas exploitation are possible (Oil & Gas Journal, 2019).

In this blog, we will explore the impacts of gas exploitation on Groningen and the benefits to the whole nation of the Netherlands. As the topic is extensive and complicated, we aim to provide a broad overview and general approach to the topic by illustrating the contrast between the broad national benefits and local costs.

In 1959, the at the time largest natural gas field in the world, was discovered in the province of Groningen. Since 1963, gas has been exploited by a joint venture between NAM, (60%), itself a joint venture between Royal Dutch Shell & Exxon, and the Dutch government (40%) (Voort & Vanclay, 2015).  

Over the years exploitation rates fluctuated drastically and have dropped substantially since 2000. Today about 80% of the originally 2.8 trillion cubic meters of gas have been depleted, however at current rates there would theoretically be enough gas for another 50 years of exploitation. (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistik, 2019). 

The gas exploitation generally had positive economic impacts on the whole of the country. However, the province of Groningen has experienced minor seismic tremors. In August 2012, however, an earthquake measuring 3.6 on the Richter scale hit the village of Huizinge, by far the largest that ever occured in the region. This development recently forced the government to reevaluate and set new priorities (Nos.nl, 2019).

Number of earthquakes in the province of Groningen above a magnitude of 1.5 from 1991-2017

National Benefits

The benefits from gas exploitation are mostly, but not entirely, monetary in nature. 

Overall the Groningen gas fields had a massively positive impact on the Dutch economy as a whole. Studies suggest that gas exploitation has both directly and indirectly created 60.000 jobs in the region (Berg, Denys & Bos, 2012). Further it lowered the dependence on energy imports from other countries. This has led to a positive trade balance, making the Netherlands one of the few European countries with net positive gas export/import ratio.  This not only had a positive economic impact but was also politically relevant.

Operation facilities

Most notably, a large part of the profit generated by the gas extraction is infused  directly into government revenue. This contributed 3-6% on average to the overall government budget over the years. In total almost 417 billion Euros have been generated for the government since 1963 (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistik, 2019). In 1982 saw the Dutch government earn a record 19% of the annual budget from Groningen gas revenues  (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistik, 2019). The “generous” Dutch welfare state was in large parts made possible by said revenues (Mulder et al., 2018).

Additionally, major infrastructure projects were financed such as railway tracks to the German and Belgian borders and an extension of the Rotterdam harbour. This contributed to further economic development of the country in other regards. (Mulder et al., 2018) The government spending also created a knock on effect by putting more money into the dutch economy (Voort & Vanclay, 2015).

Through the transition of the Dutch energy market many houses were able to improve their heating facilities through a central space heating by making gas cheap and generally available. There were no changes in income need to get access to what was perceived luxury (Jorna, 2018).

However, in large, the province of Groningen did not profit from these spendings as less than 1% were spent in the region of exploration (Mulder et al., 2018). Even before the earthquakes, the distribution of profit generated in the region were perceived as unfair as not enough of the money stayed in the region. With the beginning of major earthquakes the general sentiment finally turned against the exploitation entirely. 

Local Costs

“This whole gas extraction thing is so unfair. We have cracks in our house, we can’t possibly sell it and my mom is scared. The compensations are a joke. And to top it all off; none of the benefits stay in the region.”  – Solke Eugelink, 2019

The earthquakes induced by the gas extraction have had  major impacts on local neighbourhoods, coloured in yellow in the map, including damage to properties and harm to the inhabitants’ health.

The damage to properties is most observable in the form of cracks in walls, damage to roofs and increased susceptibility to rainwater intrusion. (Voort & Vanclay, 2015) This results in a decline in housing prices and home values leading to total costs of 715 million Euros. Many people thus decide to move but then face difficulties selling their properties due to a lack of prospective buyers (Jorna, 2018).

Moreover, it also has major effects on the inhabitants’ health. The invoked feelings of insecurity and as well as issues with damage claims procedures resulting in stress-related health problems including increased levels of anxiety, insomnia and depression (Voort & Vanclay, 2015).

Due to this, the overall satisfaction in the living area has decreased; since 2015 the area of Groningen is the least satisfied in the Netherlands (Jorna, 2018) which illustrates the extensive local social costs of the gas extraction besides the obvious economic ones.

Future Plans

In 2018 it was decided to end the gas extraction in the province of Groningen by 2030 (Rijksoverheid, 2018).

This year, the government decided to, as quickly as possible, phase out the gas extraction in  Groningen in order to guarantee citizens’ safety in the future. In September 2019 it was decided that by 2022 the gas exploitation will be stopped (Nos.nl, 2019). Measures such as the ‘Small field policy’ were created, prioritizing non-Groningen gas fields to keep providing stable and reliable supply of natural gas (Jorna, 2018).

Conclusion

Weighing all the costs and benefits against one another is beyond the scope of this blog. 

The Dutch government, however, came a conclusion doing just that. They have decided to shut down all gas production as soon as 2022, regardless of the consequences for government revenue. This can be interpreted as a strong statement in favour of the minority, the province of Groningen. Even though the frequencies of earthquakes have decreased, they are expected to continue even after exploitation ceases entirely in 2022, the province will remain vulnerable. While the decision to stop the gas exploitation benefits the province of Groningen, the government revenue loss will impact the whole country.

Therefore, the question is, if the government’s decisions will be overall beneficial?

Bilbliography:

Hannah Jelkmann, Linn Vogelsang, Benedikt Stockkamp, Valentin Fieber

The Der Aa-church: the history of Groningen’s iconic yellow tower

Would you join a party if it were to be held in a church?

Nowadays you can, at the Der Aa-church. It is a gothic church placed in the centre of Groningen at the Aa-kerkhof, which is nearby the Vismarkt. The church was originally a chapel, but throughout many centuries, this transformed into the church we know today. We will investigate the cultural and architectural changes the church underwent, as well as the type of events that were held in the church and how these have modified over time.

The church’s history

The chapel was originally used by sailors who were docked in the port, which is now the Vismarkt. In 1200 it was made into a parish church, allowing baptisms and other sacraments to be held there, and was rebuilt with stone. Around the 14th and 15th centuries there were calls for religious reform, thus resulting in a renovation and expansion with for instance new ornamentation on the ceilings in 1495. 

As a result of the Reformation in 1594, the church was whitewashed to remove any trace of Catholicism; bombs damaged the tower and the altars were dismantled. Approximately 100 years later, the city was under French occupation, employing the church as a depot for their army and stable for their horses. Once the French retreated, worship services were once again held at the church. Roughly 200 years after French occupation, the church was closed down due to a risk of falling masonry. The building was reconstructed and paintings that had been whitewashed nearly four centuries earlier, were rediscovered.

Due to the growing number of people who have no religious affiliation, the need for churches decreased. However, for such a high-maintenance building in the city centre to survive, it would need to be put to use. Therefore, in 2006 the church included modern facilities and modern events and functions, which is elaborated below.

“Most of the tower used to be owned by the bourgeois community, which is still the case now.”

– Marcel van Santen, structural engineer at the Aa-church

Visit this site for a more indepth history.

Architecture

Expanding of the church through history.

The church first began as a small wooden chapel, which was built around 800. In the 13th century, they began with the expansion of the chapel in Roman Gothic style, typically for the 13th and 14th-century. Then, at the beginning of the 15th century, the church was re-modelled in Gothic style. Thus showing that the architecture conforms to the style that is popular at that certain time and is therefore influenced by the current culture. 

After the fire in 1671, the tower collapsed. The repairing of the tower took a long time due to the city being under siege by the Bishop of Munster and poor repairs led to the tower collapsing again in 1710. When the tower was rebuilt again, it got a baroque copestone; a Catholic style. It is remarkable that they chose this style when a hundred years earlier, people tried to hide any trace of Catholicism. The tolerance of Catholicism in this era might have influenced this decision. 

At the end of the 20th century, the church underwent restoration again. The most noticeable element was the return of the original yellow colour on the tower. The choice for this was influenced by the “Stijl” from decades earlier, using lots of colours. Many Groningers had to adjust to this colour, but now it is characteristic of the church as well as the city. As explained before, in 2006 the church was re-modelled again to have more modern facilities.

“During the restoration in 1982, soft grey and blue were changed into the existing colours by the architects, this was a historical reconstruction.”

– Marcel van Santen, structural engineer at the Der Aa-church

Current use of the building

As explained before, the events held at the church modified over time as the church changed from having much external religious influence to very little influence. Honorary services are currently no longer frequently held there, as opposed to the past in which religion was of great importance. Subsequently, the Der Aa Church now has multiple other functions which mainly focuses on business and cultural sectors. The church now mainly operates as a space for concerts, theatre, exhibitions, parties, congresses and meetings. Still, one could go there to visit the place, however, it is more usual for visitors to go there for events. These events may include for instance weddings, dinners as well as receptions, book fairs, information markets and even whisky tastings.  Moreover, other major phenomena may occur like the globally known exhibition of the World Press Photo contest. Therefore, the Aa-church is a symbol for the challenge of dealing with religious buildings which are often protected as monuments in a secularizing place. 

Summary

All in all, it is safe to say that culture and architecture go hand in hand as they both seem to have a visible effect on each other. The Der Aa-church is an example of this, due to multiple religions over the course of several centuries. For instance, as a result of Catholicism, the Reformation as well as the French Revolution, the inside and outside of the Der Aa-church have modified. Not only architecture changed over time but also the events that were held in the church, due to the altering culture in Groningen. So, a transformation of purpose can be seen from mainly religious to an application that is more likely to be for leisure. Thus, as one can see, the church is a visible representation of how culture shapes the style of buildings.

BY SI-JIN, ELENI AND STERRE

References

Der Aa-Kerk Groningen. (n.d.). Retrieved October 23, 2019, from https://www.deraakerkgroningen.nl 

Der Aa-Kerk Groningen & Stichting Oude Groninger Kerken (2015), Groningen- De der AA kerk. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from https://www.groningerkerken.nl/downloads/groningen.de_der_aakerk.2015.pdf 

History. (2019, October 12). Retrieved October 23, 2019, from https://www.blgroningen.nl/en/venues/der-aa-church/history 

Reker, L. G. (1985). DE RESTAURATIE VAN DE DER AA-KERK. Cultuurtijdschriften, 2(3), 71–76. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from http://cultuurtijdschriften.nl/download?type=document&docid=516371 

Ekhart, J. (n.d.). Kleurhttp://www.staatingroningen.nl. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from http://www.staatingroningen.nl/referentie/582/1653/kleur

Knox, P.L. & Marston, S.A. (2016) Human Geography: Places and Regions in Global Context. Seventh Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started