številka / volume 181-182
november / november 2009
letnik / anno XXXIX

PDF
gradbišče ljubljana
ljubljana construction site
vsebina številke
table of contents
Miha Dešman Uvodnik
Editorial
Miran Gajšek Smeri urbanega razvoja ljubljene Ljubljane
Janez Koželj Poudarki in vizije dolgoročnega razvoja Ljubljane do leta 2025
Grega Košak Za prometno in okoljsko prijazno, a obenem prodorno mesto
Grega Košak Prometna priložnost
Projekti / Ljubljanska tržnica
Aleksander S. Ostan Ljubljana; Potemkinova vas?
Janko Rožič Garažna hiša pod tržnico
Jakob Likar Garažna hiša v grajskem hribu
Damjan J. Ovsec Etnološki pogled na ljubljansko tržnico
Tomaž Pavčnik Predmet kulturnovarstvene zaščite
Miha Jazbinšek Primer tržnica gre naprej kot »živilski trg«?
Fedja Košir Kdor molči, soglaša
Janez Suhadolc Kronologija uničevanja tržnice
Projekti / Plečnikov stadion
Andrej Hrausky Golmož na telovadišču
Damjan Prelovšek Plečnikov stadion
Stanovalci Fondovih hiš za Bežigradom Spopad med Davidom in Goljatom za košček zelene Ljubljane
Projekti / Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica
Mateja Komel Snoj Za nekaj "pregrešno novega"
Borut Osojnik Pomen nove stavbe NUK
Borut Matić, Nejc Černigoj Novi natečaj za NUK 2: nujna in edina smiselna rešitev
Projekti / Pregled
Miha Dešman Stanje stvari
Nove ureditve javnih prostorov
Jurij Kobe, Ljuba Della Valle, Mojca Guzič, Aleksandra Fatur,Matej Kučina, Rok Žnidaršič, Samo Mlakar Most Barjanka, Park Gradaščica
Jurij Kobe, Iztok Turk, Rok Žnidaršič Most, Park Kolezija
Miha Kajzelj,Rok Žnidaršič, Etbin Tavčar Koseški bajer
Jerneja Fišer Knap, Rok Žnidaršič, Jakov Brdar Ključavničarska ulica
Jerneja Fišer Knap, Jurij Kobe, Špela Kokalj, Urša Podlipnik, Rok Žnidaršič, Maja Kovačič, Samo Mlakar, Žiga Kreševič Park Špica
Jurij Kobe 6 projektov
Katarina in Miha Dešman, Eva Fišer Berlot Most čez Gruberjev prekop na Špici
Vesna in Matej Vozlič Ureditev Brega od Čevljarskega mostu do Zoisove ceste s stopnicami do vode v osi Novega trga in s potjo ob vodi
Prostorož Prenova podhoda Tivoli pri Moderni galeriji
Prostorož Prenova Plečnikovega podhoda
Andrej Mercina, Ksenija Intihar, Petar Vidanoski Nabrežja Ljubljanice od Špice do Gradaščice
Andrej Mercina, Ksenija Intihar, Petar Vidanoski Nabrežja Ljubljanice od Gradaščice do Šentjakobskega mosta
Ina Šuklje Erjavec, Andrej Erjavec, Jana Kozamernik, Mojca Balant, Nataša Žnidaršič Severni mestni park – razširjena 2.a faza
Maja Simoneti, Tanja Maljevac, Dušan Stupar, Urška Krajnc, Maša Šorn Šmartinski park
Tanja Maljevac, Maja Simoneti, Nika Cigoj, Klara Sulič, Maša Šorn Prenova otroškega igrišča na Trgu 9. maja
Janez Koželj Fragmenti iz mandata
Digest
uvodnik

Lojze Kovačič, slovenski pisatelj, ki je se je rodil in mladost preživel v Baslu, je leta 1990 o Ljubljani zapisal:

"Ljubljana, ne samo kot prestolnica ali talilni lonec nekakšnega prototipa Slovenca, ampak Ljubljana s svojimi vogali in križišči kot lokalnimi domovinami, z meščani še iz predvojnih časov (baroni, industrialci, trgovci, Židi, Nemci, Lahi, pisano bando mladoletniških tolp z gradu, Žabjaka) … skratka, na mesto z vonjem po Ljubljanici, šoti, megli in klenkanjem zvonov v zraku, z večslojnim prebivalstvom, nabitim po barokiziranih hišah do podstreh, a tudi Ljubljana kot spiritualno središče, mesto knjig, knjižnic in knjigarn, nasadov, cerkva, mostov, intelektualnih klik, elegance … skratka, na mesto, duhovno, konveksno in konkavno, individualno prenapeto za vsak ništrc … nedolžno, brez maske, evropejsko - kmečko - balkansko, naivno, ki je sinteza za vse, tudi Neslovence, tujce, s svojo vsenavzočnostjo mesto-država, nekakšen spiritualni metropolis ..."

Če pozorno beremo Kovačičev briljantni portret Ljubljane, se nam razkrije oblikovanje identitetne matrike »ljubljenega mesta« kot proces, ki v osnovi nima veliko skupnega z »brandingom« po vzorih tekmovalnih mest, kakršnega nam pridigajo novodobni marketinški apostoli. Gre za čisto nekaj drugega: za sintetično podobo, ki je sestavljena iz popolnoma drugačnih snovi - iz ljudi, dogodkov, trgov in hiš, sledi in prostorov preteklosti, pa tudi iz sedanjih dejanj, razmišljanj, čustev, utvar, spominov in želja.

Ljudje in prostori skupaj oblikujemo identiteto Ljubljane. Vprašanje je, v kateri smeri naj nadaljujemo oblikovanje te identitete? Ali je Ljubljana politično, turistično, industrijsko, univerzitetno, terciarno, kulturno mesto? Vse to in še mnogo drugega. A njena dolgoročna identiteta je, kot pravi Kovačič, predvsem mentalna in spiritualna, pa geografska, topografska in arhitekturna. Ljubljana se še ni našla v novi, prestolni vlogi. Pa se pač še bo. Nastavke ima v baročni, secesijski, Plečnikovi, Ravnikarjevi Ljubljani, ki so vse nastajale z vizijo in v dialogu. Prostor je izraz duhovne kulture (ali ne-kulture). Duhovna kultura in materialna kultura sta povezana v dialektiki časa. Bodoči prostor mesta se nam razkriva na osnovi sedanjega, postopoma, tako kot fotografija v razvijalcu. Nastaja oblika, ki ima svojo naravno, geološko logiko, logiko trajanja. Prostor preteklosti izginja, vendar se hkrati preporaja v drugačni, novi obliki. Na podoben način, kot se v loku časa menjavajo generacije, ki pa ohranjajo isti genetski kod. To je življenje mesta.

Ljubljana ima zelo jasno strukturo. Križ mesta sestavljata dve različni liniji, cardo, ki se projicira v neskončnost severno proti Alpam in južno proti morju ter decumanus, ki samo povezuje dva griča – Grajski grič z dominanto gradu in Tivoli z Rožnikom. To prostorsko matriko moramo imeti v mislih pri vseh pomembnih posegih v mesto, pa ne bomo delali nadaljnjih napak. Moramo jo znati ohranjati, kristalizirati, jo krepiti in ji hkrati dodajati nove simbolne plasti.

"Nobeno mesto ne more preživeti samo s konservacijo obstoječega. Če ni novogradenj, mesto ne obstane; niti staro ne bo trajalo. Vsako mesto mora najti svojo lastno formulo za kombinacijo obstoječih simbolov z novimi. Brez novih simbolov so stari obsojeni na golo ponavljanje."

Mesto Ljubljana doživlja po desetletjih stagniranja novo dinamično fazo urbanizma in arhitekture. V izdelavi in sprejemanju je dolgoročni mestni načrt, ki je vsaj načelno utemeljen na principih trajnostnega razvoja. V dveh letih je bilo razpisanih dvomestno število natečajev za pomembne mestne projekte in ureditve. Mesto je pričelo z obnovami in širitvijo odprtih javnih prostorov, trgov, parkov, nabrežij. Intenzivni so poskusi reaktiviranja degradiranih območij, kar kaže na jasno strateško usmeritev v mestno prenovo in notranji razvoj. Pri tem se pojavljajo mnoga vprašanja, na katera ni enoznačnih odgovorov. Hkrati obstaja neomajna podpora, pa tudi dvomi in aktivna nasprotovanja prizadevanjem mestne oblasti, da bi izoblikovala nov in učinkovit mestni plan, pa tudi vsaki posamezni javni, mešani ali zasebni investiciji. Ta številka se ukvarja z odgovori, seveda nujno nepopolnimi, na vprašanja, kot so:

Kdo so tisti, ki imajo glavne vloge v teh procesih? Kako jih igrajo?

Kakšno vlogo ima politika? Kako se mestna oblast loteva stvari, kje je uspešna, kje manj? Kakšna je vloga investitorjev? Kako je s prebivalci?

Kakšno vlogo ima arhitekturna in urbanistična stroka?

Odgovori so, kot že rečeno, subjektivni. Subjekti igrajo svoje vloge med politiko in stroko, med vizionarstvom in oportunizmom, med malikovanjem zasebnih interesov in med zavračanjem kakršnihkoli sprememb.

Prepričan sem, da nujno potrebujemo participativne strategije, transparentnost politike, nove načine sporazumevanja in odpiranje zatečenih barier, tako realnih kot mentalnih, da bi presegli atmosfero, v kateri je zaupanje med politiko, prebivalci ter stroko omajano in je po eni strani težko ločiti pozitivne aspekte urejanja mesta od negativnih, iz nasprotne strani pa dobronamerne kritike od sesuvaških.

Kritika sedanjosti je seveda vedno možna šele »a posteriori« in živi od dela drugih.

Realnost pa gre vedno naprej in ne čaka. Tako kritiki ponavadi prakticiramo »umetnost biti prepozen kakor hitro je le mogoče« . Lastni referenčni okvir nam zato onemogoča dokončno sodbo o dejanskem. Tako sodbo bo lahko prinesel šele čas.

Miha Dešman

editorial

Slovene writer Lojze Kovačič, who was born and spent his youth in Basel, wrote the following about Ljubljana in 1990:

"Ljubljana, not just as a capital or a melting pot of a prototype of a Slovene of some sort, but Ljubljana with its street corners and junctions as local homelands, with the citizens from times before the war (barons, industrialist, merchants, Jews, Germans, Italians, a colourful band of youth gangs from and around the castle hill) ... a city, then, smelling of the river Ljubljanica, the soot, the fog and the knelling of the bells in the air, with the population of many classes crammed into Baroque-dressed houses up to their attics, but also Ljubljana as a spiritual centre, a city of books, libraries, bookshops, of groves, churches, bridges, intellectual cliques, elegance ... in short, a city of spirit, convex and concave, individually waiting to burst out at anything ... innocent, not wearing a mask, European - rural - Balkan, naive, one that synthesises it all, including Non-Slovenes, foreigners, with its omnipresence a spiritual metropolis of sorts..."

A close reading of Kovačič's brilliant portrait of Ljubljana reveals the forming of the "beloved city's" identity matrix as a process that doesn't have a lot in common with the "branding" found in competitive cities and preached by marketing apostles of our times. We're dealing with something completely different: a synthetic image composed of entirely different substances - people, events, squares and houses, traces and spaces of the past, as well as of current actions, reflections, emotions, illusions, memories and wishes.

People and spaces of Ljubljana form its identity together. The question is in which direction we are to continue the forming of the identity. Is Ljubljana a city of politics, of tourism, of industry, is it the university, the tertiary sector, the culture that defines it? It's all that, and then some. But its long-term identity, as per Kovačič, is chiefly mental and spiritual, as well as geographic, topographic and architectural. Ljubljana hasn't yet fully grasped its new role as a capital. There's no doubt that, in due time, it will do so. The origins are there in Baroque, Art Nouveau, in Ljubljana of Plečnik and Ravnikar, all of which developed with vision and through dialogue.

Space is an expression of spiritual culture - or lack thereof. Spiritual and material culture is connected in the dialectics of time. The future space of the city reveals itself to us within the current one, gradually, like a photograph in the developer bath. What is being formed is a shape with its natural, geological logic, the logic of sustainment. The space of the past is vanishing and at the same time re-emerging in a different, new form, like the generational change happening along the temporal arc, still preserving the genetic code. This is the life of the city.

Ljubljana has a very clear structure of two separate intersecting lines. The cardo projects itself into infinity towards the Alps in the north and towards the sea in the south, while the decumanus only connects two hills, the Castle hill with the castle as its dominant, and Tivoli complete with Rožnik hill. We have to keep this spatial matrix in mind whenever it comes to an important intervention into the city - if we do, no further mistakes will be made. We have to know how to preserve it, how to bring it out, how to make it stronger and add further symbolic layers to it at the same time.

"No city can survive only by conserving what's already there. If no new constructions are built, the city won't stand - even the old won't last. Every city has to find its own formula to combine the existing symbols with the new ones. Without the new symbols, the old are condemned to nothing but repetition."

After decades of stagnation, the city of Ljubljana is enjoying a new dynamic phase of urbanism and architecture. A new long-term city plan, based, at least in principle, on the tenets of sustained development, is being written and is pending to be submitted for vote. Within the past two years, the number of competitions for important city projects and developments went into double digits. The city began renovating and expanding its open public spaces, squares, parks, riverfronts. There are intensive attempts at re-activating degraded areas, which indicates a clear strategic emphasis on urban renovation and development on the inside.

All this creates a myriad of questions without a definitive answer. There is die-hard support for, as well as doubts and active opposition to the strivings of the city government to form a new and effective city plan in equal amounts. Both the support and the opposition are also extended to each individual public, PPP, or private investment. This issue is focused on providing answers - incomplete and imperfect ones by necessity - to questions such as:

Who are the people playing the key roles in these processes? How good are they at fulfilling their roles?

What is the role of politics? What is the approach of the city government, where has it proven successful, where less so?

What is the role of the investors? What about the citizens?

What is the role of the architectural and urbanistic professional communities?

The answers provided are, as stated above, subjective. Each entity plays their role between politics and profession, between vision and opportunism, between the idolisation of private interests and the outright rejection of any change.

I am convinced that we are in dire need of participative strategies, of political transparency, of new ways of coming to agreements and breaking down barriers long overdue, be it physical or psychological ones, in order to rise above the atmosphere where policy makers, citizens, and professional communities have a hard time trusting each other and where one side has trouble telling the positive aspects of city development apart from the negative ones, and the other doesn't differentiate between constructive and destructive criticism.

Critique of the present is naturally only ever possible in retrospect - it lives off the work of others. Reality, however, marches on and waits for no man. As critics, we therefore often practice the "art of being too late in as timely a fashion as possible" . Our own frame of reference thus prevents us from giving the final verdict on the objective. Only time can bring such a verdict.

Miha Dešman