7 clichés about the Rotterdam identity: which are true?

For her research on the influence of port barons on Rotterdam’s post-war reconstruction, historian Hilde Sennema discovered many fascinating things. She was captivated by Rotterdam from a young age—the metro, Rijn- and Maashaven, the Botlek, the vast Zuidplein shopping centre; everything felt futuristic and unlike anything she knew from Groningen. Sennema moved to Rotterdam in 2009. Combining her research knowledge and her childhood fascination, she wrote Met opgestroopte mouwen (With Rolled-Up Sleeves), exploring the ‘layered nature of Rotterdam’s identity’, which she argues is far more complex than it may seem. Here are seven misconceptions about Rotterdam.

“Rotterdam is old. Those who think it’s new is looking too much at its current appearance and how it presents itself. The dam on the Rotte likely dates from 1270, which you could consider as a beginning of Rotterdam. People lived here before then, too, but because of rising waters, they were forced to keep relocating. The completion of the sea dike by Aleid van Avesnes enabled Rotterdam to take root. She was regent of Holland until her nephew Floris was old enough to rule. There’s still an Aleidisstraat named after her, close to Graaf Florisstraat. Rotterdam’s history has many layers; if you could drive a stake into the ground as if it were soil, you’d likely reach the Bronze Age.”

“That’s an understandable assumption. Since the late nineteenth century, the Rotterdam port has grown immensely, overshadowing other aspects of the city. A rich humanistic tradition has been somewhat forgotten. Desiderius Erasmus, for instance, was an intellectual famous across Europe who always identified as ‘Roterodamus’, of Rotterdam. His In Praise of Folly is considered the first ever bestseller. At a time when statues were only erected of royals and saints, Hugo Grotius suggested creating a statue of Erasmus. Johan van der Veeken, a wealthy merchant who helped establish the Dutch East India Company, had a figure of Erasmus—not a mermaid—carved on the bow of his ship, Liefde (Love). Even after his dead, Erasmus helped distinguish Rotterdam from other cities.”

“No, it was once a trade city where only those with a useful profession or sufficient wealth could settle. ‘Worker’ is a relatively recent label for the city, fitting the expansion of the port and industry in the nineteenth century. Migrants from other provinces and countries arrived, mostly to do unskilled labour. The one thing they had in common was their work: heavy, often irregular labour in cargo handling. The image of the strong, hardworking man thus became a cultural symbol, something they could identify with. This image was also useful to the port magnates. Feyenoord is an example of a club that drew many workers, and where the Rotterdam elite invested as a pastime for the new masses. I don’t want to be too cynical because there’s a positive side to it. Work once seen as dirty and menial became something people could take pride in.”

“Ah, yes—the second-city syndrome, the inferiority complex of a country’s second-largest city. For years, I viewed it that way too. But I’ve since reconsidered by looking at Rotterdam’s distant past. This view also sells Rotterdam short. There have been times when Amsterdam watched Rotterdam’s growth with trepidation—what if it became bigger? The notion that Rotterdam is the little brother clamouring for attention is simply inaccurate. In the early 1960s, Amsterdam’s mayor Van Hall openly disparaged Rotterdam’s ambitions as a world port. In the 1980s, both cities competed to host the national architecture museum. Amsterdam argued that Rotterdam already had so much modern architecture. Rotterdam won. It’s not a capital city, so don’t compare it to Paris—think more of Marseille or Liverpool. Great cities, but the state opera house is elsewhere.”

“At the start of the twentieth century, Rotterdam already had a modern port and aspired to be a modern city. It looked to America for inspiration: modern buildings, space for traffic, and contemporary urban planning. Buildings were already being demolished for these plans. There’s even a kind of conspiracy theory that the elite wanted these plans so badly that Rotterdam was bombed for that reason. Not true, of course, but you can’t deny that the destruction gave these plans momentum during and after the war.”

“This idea fits perfectly with the image of Rotterdam, doesn’t it? It’s true that the first meeting about reconstruction was held on 18 May 1940, just four days after the bombing. Clearing rubble was essential not only for rebuilding but also for retrieving bodies and searching for survivors. People must have seen some horrifying sights—charred bodies, for instance. National media soon reported that Rotterdam was rolling up its sleeves again. How determined Rotterdam was, how strong, the city became an example for the entire country. But almost out of necessity—once you have that image, it’s hard to shake.”

“How Rotterdammers experienced that day and its aftermath deserves more attention. This aspect is increasingly present in the historical record, and hopefully, it will also filter into the city’s reconstruction narrative.”

“This concept of ‘malleability’ is a bit strange; it was mainly used to describe what couldn’t actually be shaped following the reconstruction. The skyline, that’s malleable. The port, less so. But in terms of social or cultural policy, it’s not a malleable city at all. Rotterdam, for example, still believes that if the middle class does well, then groups with fewer resources will also benefit. Time and again, we see this doesn’t work.”

“After World War II, the city continued to lean on the ‘rolled-up sleeves’ image. It gave the battered city a sense of pride. That’s fine, of course, but the city has so much more to offer. In life, rolling up your sleeves isn’t enough; you have to use your mind as well. There are many clichés about Rotterdam, and the city does itself a disservice by not looking beyond them. Let that ‘actions, not words’ mentality be an additional layer to Rotterdam’s identity, but let’s also consider all the other aspects.”