Survival of Archis threatened October 03, 2000 Questions concerning periodicals are not often raised in the Dutch parliament, but last week that was exactly what happened. The reason was the fact that the survival of the Dutch periodical Archis was rather unexpectedly, yet very seriously, under discussion. The very first issue of Archis, 1986   The latest issue of Archis, September 2000 For some time there had been rumours that Archis was forced to look for a new publisher. That, in itself, is nothing exceptional: the history of the successive periodicals, from Goed Wonen up to Archis, is littered with moments of difficulty and changes of publisher. The expectation was that the matter would once again be resolved. The board of editors and the NAI (employer of the editors and owner of the title) have searched extensively for solutions, with both current publisher Elsevier and other potential publishers. The NAI and the editors thought they had found a new partner in one of the parties, which would have ensured the prolongation of Archis - with the necessary adjustments here and there of course - as a Dutch platform for debate on architecture. In the end the deal fell through, and the NAI was forced to request permission from the employees council to discharge the editors. With that, the situation has become critical. The time in which to find a solution is very short indeed. September 26 a group of members of the Dutch parliament in The Hague- the parlaimentarians Belinfante (PvdA), Halsema (Groen Links), Visser-van Doorn (CDA), Dittrich (D66) and Van Bommel (SP) - put the following questions to Riek van der Ploeg, State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science. 1. Is it true that the existence of Archis is under discussion? 2. Do you regret that this will mean the discontinuation of a periodical that since 1929 - first called the Rooms Katholiek Bouwblad, then under various names including Goed Wonen and Wonen TABK - has built up a rich tradition? 3. Do you share the view that the discontinuation of Archis signifies an impoverishing of public discussion in the field of architecture and urban design? 4. Do you share the view that Archis fulfils a vital role in the national and international discussion on architecture, and that everything possible should be done to continue the periodical? 5. If so, could you outline as soon as possible how you think the discontinuation of the periodical can be prevented? Naturally, Van der Ploeg has yet to respond, but it doesn't sound too good. The possibility that Archis will disappear as per January 1, 2001, is suddenly very much a reality. Our initial reaction, and, it would seem, of those who put the questions to Van der Ploeg, was that this cannot happen. No matter what you think of the content or policy of Archis, almost everybody agrees that Archis plays a vital role in the debate on culture and architecture. Van der Ploeg and the Council for Culture (advisory body to the Dutch government) will no doubt share these views, but whether they are capable (or prepared) to turn the tide is the question. The editors of Archis are dismayed, to put it mildly, yet not defeated, and they are desperately looking for possibilities to continue Archis in whatever form possible. The NAI, too, says it is extremely unhappy with the situation, but it does not see itself in the role of publisher, even if sufficient funding were provided for that purpose. ArchiNed offers its fullest support to the Archis editors in devising a solution, and we know there are many others who do not wish to see Archis disappear. Today, the editor-in-chief of Archis, Mr. Ole Bouman, explained the latest details on Archis. In a letter, he states: 'During the past few weeks I have met with substantial support from all sides of the profession and beyond. This confirms our belief that Archis can and must survive. That is why we are even now engaging in discussion with the NAi and the Ministry of Culture on how to proceed should we become independent. For this strategy to succeed, we need your commitment as friends and colleagues.' ArchiNed will keep you informed of developments, but in the meantime it would do no harm to offer your encouragement to the editors and/or inform the NAI of your astonishment, or urge Van der Ploeg at least to provide clear answers to the questions. Finally, serious publishers who wish to include Archis in their portfolio may also of course step forward. ArchiNed editors translation: Billy Nolan A few days later we received this email: Beste vrienden en medewerkers van Archis, Dear affiliates of Archis, Since this letter is addressed to all of our friends, colleagues and collaborators worldwide, I am writing it in English. You may have been under the impression that Archis, magazine for architecture, the city and visual culture, is alive and kicking. Well it may have seemed that way, but I fear that the end is in sight. Last week, the board and the director of the Netherlands Architecture Institute, which owns the name, announced that Archis would cease publication at the end of the year. Although the decision is not yet final, we cannot wait and must act now to secure Archis' role as an independent medium for reflection on architecture and space. Archis is more than a magazine. It stands for a critical attitude and a strong desire for innovation. As such it has an essential role to play in the international landscape of the architectural press. It should not be extinguished. To give an impression of what has happened during the past year, I would like you to consider the following: a) Some time ago our publisher, Elsevier, dramatically changed its policy. A magazine that considered architecture to be a cultural medium and was addressed to a wider audience, didn't fit into a portfolio of titles geared to the building industry. This tension became all the more visible when profit margin criteria were tightened. Elsevier drew the logical conclusions and announced that it was not renewing the contract as of 2001. Although still officially responsible for Archis, its interest in the magazine has been rapidly dwindling since then. b) Until a month ago there were promising negotiations in progress with a new publisher. These were suddenly cut off due to an error, on their part, in the calculations. The NAi then decided to drop Archis altogether, with no prospect of a future for it. c) During the past few weeks I have met with substantial support from all sides of the profession and beyond. This confirms our belief that Archis can and must survive. That is why we are even now engaging in discussion with the NAi and the Ministry of Culture on how to proceed should we become independent. For this strategy to succeed, we need your commitment as friends and colleagues. Please send us your views by E-mail ( archis@nai.nl ) or fax (+31-(0)10-4364324). I will keep you posted on our future moves. And move we shall! Ole Bouman Editor-in-chief