Skip to content

Emmastraat 60

A closer look into the garden house.

In 1878 Villa Caecila got permission to build a coach house with stables. I now notice that the newspaper says “with living facilities”. The main building was from 1875. Early 1875 the house was sold and in November of the same year the stables were added.

As we saw, when the family Farwerck bought the villa in 1912, they also got the stables (quite logically too). The personnel was then housed in these stables / extra house. Since I have seen the address Emmastraat 60 a few times, I was curious if the address would indeed be that house.

This is ad advertisement from 1915 in which the address is mentioned, the oldest mention of the address that I have found so far.

1912 Is less than two decades after the house was built. This made me think. In 1910 there already was the Hollandselaan and Wernerlaan running behind the garden of the villa (see below). The fact that the address is Emmastraat has to mean that it was closer to that street than to the back of the garden. The school that ‘ate up’ the Farwerck villa is numbered 56, so the garden house was most likely on the other side of the villa (or at least its entrance). It must have been quite close to where the street became the Utrechtsebaan, the road at the bottom right running straight down. The other part of the fork is the continuing Emmastraat.

So did Rieka Leeflang have anything to do with the family Farwerck, is Emmastraat 60 not the garden house or is something else going on?

Here we can see that Emmastraat 60 surely was the garden house.

Of Viereke I know he was the gardener and chauffeur of the family Farwerck until 1943. He is here listed as living at Emmastraat 60. The conclusion must be that Emmastraat 60 is the garden house. Perhaps Leeflang was also Farwerck personnel.

In 1943 Carl Wilhelm Farwerck, Johanna Farwerck-Borrius and their sons moved from Amsterdam to Hilversum. The personnel had to leave. Willy and Johanna moved into the main house, two sons (21 and 18 years of age) into the garden house. In 1950 Kees Jan Farwerck (the youngest, born 1930) lived at that address. If his brothers also still lived there I have yet to find out.

Oddly enough, a phonebook of 1950 has both Franz and Willy Farwerck living at #60.

Were the addresses used interchangeably or did the Farwercks move between the main building and the coach house?

In 1964 Willy Farwerck passed away and the announcement has the widow and the eldest son listed first with Emmastraat 58 as address.

At that time, Franz still lived at Emmastraat 58. If this means that Johanna and son lived in the main house too, I don’t know, but that they lived either there or at number 60 seems likely. This is something I have to find out somehow, because what is clear is that three years later, Johanna and son lived at Wernerlaan 41.

This was very close to Emmastraat 58 / 60, so close even, that for a while I thought it was a new address for the garden house. That can’t be the case, because the address Wernerlaan 41 already existed in 1919.


Can we find out where these stables were located? When I was looking if Wernerlaan 41 was the new address it became clear that the stables / garden house must be closer to the Emmastraat. On some maps, there is indeed a building there:

From left to right, 1977, 1982 and 1995. See that block on the bottom right in 1977? The current Emmastraat 62 is from the same time as Caecilia (but it looked way better in the past). Perhaps that block was Emmastraat 60 (very close to 62 below). In that case it seems to have been gone by 1982.

If the garden house was to close so the villa, it may sound more logical if the 1968 expansion for the school included both buildings, but I’m not yet sure about that.


Emmastraat 62, like I said, is as old as Caecilia, but in spite of reconstructions, this villa does still survive. I was looking for construction drawings for permits of the neighbours and found a few interesting situation drawings.

From left to right, 1956, 1963 and 1981. The irregular yellow buildings have to be Caecilia and consequently, the other building the garden house. How odd to see the original form of Caecilia in 1981 while we know that shortly after 1968 it was much enlarged for the school. These two buildings of course were not the subject of these drawings (they were for number 62), so perhaps older drawings were used and only the editions for number 62 were added. Would this mean that in 1981 the garden house was still there? Judging the maps above, this could be the case. This building is also still there on a 1985 drawing for number 62, while gone in the 1982 map. By the early 1990’ies there is a large school building somewhere where Emmastraat 58 and 60 used to be on drawings for number 62. Good that they changed the building so often. This gives me some background.

And here we have 1968 on a drawing made for the school that enlarged the villa (the dark parts on the drawing).

There is that. The garden house was not included in the enlarged villa for the school. It may have been left in tact until in the early 1980’ies both the enlarged villa and the garden house fell prey to the building that can still be found there today.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *