The four ways this address lies
A house number is not unique, a surname is not a fingerprint, and a catalogue caption is not proof. Some of what a search for "Rochussenstraat 169" turns up has nothing to do with this corner, and sorting it out is part of the work. Most of the claims below were set aside. The 1930 Hague example remains a probable city identification, and the last image remains disputed. Each has its own reason and its own record.
The Hague's own Rochussenstraat 169
There are simply two of them. The Hague has a Rochussenstraat too, in the Schilderswijk, with a number 169 of its own, and that house left its own trail in print: lost-property lists in 1910 and 1925, a thanks-notice of 1926 signed 's-Gravenhage, and a 1934 vacancy in the Delftsche Courant that names Den Haag outright. The cleanest specimen is a small advertisement of October 1930:
> AVAILABLE / SEEKS POSITION > respectable German girl, 24 years old, for day work ƒ 12.50 per week, for day-and-night (live-in) ƒ 10 per week. > Able to clean, cook and sew well, furnished with good references. > Letters: Rochussenstraat 169. [box AXY]
A domestic worker placed it herself, looking for day work or a live-in place: a respectable German girl of twenty-four, able to clean, cook and sew, with replies to Rochussenstraat 169. It reads exactly like a Rotterdam item. The paper it ran in, the Haagsche Courant, places it, very probably, in The Hague. In the recorded false-positive sweep, each item kept was checked against its paper, its signing place or another detail that fixes the city.
269, read as 169
The same sweep found that much of the noise comes from Rotterdam itself, through a text-recognition error rather than a Hague result. The advertising bureau P. Keuzenkamp Jr sat at Rochussenstraat 269, in Rotterdam-3. Its box number ran in hundreds of other people's classifieds between about 1946 and 1969, and the OCR misreads 269 as 169. Street and city are right; the number is wrong.
The neighbour at 171
One door along is a different house. A maid's advertisement of 1906 pins down Rochussenstraat 171 exactly: het 2e Huis vanaf den 's Gravendijkwal, naast de Meubelfabriek Van Duffelen en Pelt, the second house from the corner, next to the furniture factory. Items about 171 concern a neighbour of no. 169, and they are set aside on that ground.
Same firm, wrong premises
The firms that did trade at the corner also traded elsewhere, and their other addresses pull in items that do not belong here. Beens' Woninginrichting advertised again and again from Coolsingel 56 and 103 and from Nieuwe Kerkstraat 80; P. van Reeuwijk from the Kipstraat, the Nieuwe Binnenweg, the Jongkindstraat and the Jensiusstraat. A vacancy or a sale at one of those belongs to the same firm, but to a different building.
A Tuschinski wine crate, and a name the source never gives
Other kinds of false trail, beyond the address itself, were run down and set aside too. One is subtler than the rest: a modern AI research pass attached a wartime story to the wrong house. It concerns telephone-resistance work and a wine crate standing in the hall, addressed to an upstairs neighbour, A. Tuschinski. The pass pinned it to no. 169 and to a resident called "J. D. A. Leeflang." The source it cited, a 1951 biography of Tuschinski reached through a web transcription, names no Leeflang and gives no house number. It speaks only of an unnamed man aan de Rochussenstraat. Name and number were added further down the line, and neither holds up against the source. Tuschinski's documented Rotterdam home was Rochussenstraat 77, but that does not put the anecdote there either; it stays an unlocated Rochussenstraat story.
Records credited to WORM, made elsewhere
Another trail comes from the venue that later moved into the building. Not everything the discographies credit to WORM was made at this corner. An Intermission recording of 1998 was made at Lokaal 01 in Breda, the BIMhuis in Amsterdam and Paradox in Tilburg; a 2007 release was recorded at WORM's later home on the Achterhaven; and WORM's screenings of 2002–03 ran at Nighttown. The organisation and the address are separate things, and a credit to WORM is not evidence about no. 169.
The other De Nijs
The last of these is a plain namesake. A present-day construction and development business in Noord-Holland trades under the De Nijs name. It is not De Nijs' Meubelfabriek of Rotterdam, the Sluisjesdijk furniture factory: different firm, different province, different trade, and excluded on all three counts.
The photograph the owner caught
This last entry is unlike the others: a search caught the rest, but the owner caught this one, by challenging the identification of a photograph the dossier had already retrieved. The Stadsarchief catalogues a photograph of 1987 as advertising boards on the bricked-up and boarded-up buildings, nos. 167 and 169, at the Rochussenstraat corner, and it is the only support for the detail that the building stood shuttered behind hoardings in the late 1980s. A closing-down sale in October 1987 and a squat in February 1994 attest those separate endpoints, but they do not show that the building stood empty all the time in between. The present owner-resident of no. 169 examined the picture and states that the facade shown is not this building.