Poglobitev v Ljubljani

Ljubljana je mesto z izredno dediščino urbanizma in arhitekture, od srednjega veka preko baroka, 19. stoletja, secesije, modernizma do Plečnikove in Ravnikarjeve dobe. Kako nadaljevati gradnjo mesta v 21. stoletju? Za upravljanje mesta potrebujemo povsem novo paradigmo. Določanje oblike je treba zamenjati z usmerjanjem procesov. To pa polje načrtovanja mesta neusmiljeno prestavlja iz rok arhitekta in urbanista v roke politikov, investitorjev, kapitala. Usmerjanje se ruši, državna in upravna prisila odpoveduje in se rahlja. Mesto je vse, kar imamo, je že pred desetletjem v prelomnem tekstu »What Ever Happened to Urbanism« (1) ugotovil Rem Koolhaas. Situacija laissez faire je nevzdržna, saj vodi v kaos. Ukvarjanje s sodobnim mestom, tudi v primeru Ljubljane, je izredno kompleksno početje. V posamičnih duelih z njim je vsakdo obsojen na neuspeh. Vedno se izkaže, da so stvari bolj zapletene in predvsem niso črno-bele, kot so videti na prvi pogled. Ravno zato je danes tako težko uravnavati mestni razvoj. Vedno znova je potrebno kritično prevrednotenje lastnih izhodišč. Potrebna je kritična pozicija, ki pa je drugačna od tiste, kakršne smo navajeni v zadnjem času – »nekritične« kritičnosti do vsega in vseh, brez trdne referenčne točke. Gre za kritično razumevanje prostora mesta, ki je v zadnjem času nekako ušlo iz zanimanja širše javnosti, politike, pa tudi stroke, za razmišljanje, ki vedno izhaja iz celote in zna upoštevati čim več plasti te vedno nepopravljivo nepopolne celote, kar je vsako živo mesto in tudi Ljubljana. Prepričan sem, da se moramo arhitekti tudi pri nas, kljub »realnemu« času poznega kapitalizma, ki, kot rečeno, ignorira dolgoročno planiranje, sistematično in stalno ukvarjati z mestom. Še vedno je resnična tista ostra kritika mesta kot procesa produkcije in alienacije, katere protagonista sta bila pred desetletji Tafuri in Rossi. »Stroka in politika« se mi v tej luči zdita kot dve strani Moebiusovega traka – blizu sta si, sta enaki, a se v realnosti nikoli ne srečata. Kot pravi Slavoj Žižek, med njima zeva »paralaktična zev«. Navidez se prekrivata, v resnici pa nimata nobene skupne točke, se izključujeta. Dimenzija arhitektove želje po obvladovanju in kreiranju tako postaja anahronistična in pogosto tragična, saj nima pravih možnosti za uresničitev. Edina strokovna pozicija, ki zdrži, je konstruktivna kritična pozicija, ki vedno znova išče svoj široki strokovni in etični temelj. To vlogo imamo neodvisni strokovnjaki in v našem imenu organizacije civilne strokovne družbe. Prepoznati, spodbujati in podpreti moramo vsako iskreno pozitivno prizadevanje za kvaliteten urbanizem in arhitekturo mesta. Politika pa mora v procesih odločanja skrbeti za participacijo ter stalen in odprt dialog s civilno strokovno družbo. Delovati je treba na dolgi rok, transparentno, premišljeno in povezano. Te kulture upoštevanja in dialoga se bo treba še naučiti. Zaenkrat sta pri političnih in upravnih subjektih na državni in mestni ravni preveč prisotna strah in želja, da bi se izognili vsaki potencialni oviri. Zato je najbolj običajna taktika poskus manipuliranja z organizacijami civilne družbe. Upošteva se jih le toliko, kolikor so si sposobne izboriti, to pa ni dovolj, saj je na konceptualni ravni njihova vloga podcenjena in niso sistemsko sponzorirane. če dodam, da je bila v preteklosti prav civilna sfera velikokrat instrumentalizirana in se le težko emancipira, je še toliko bolj razumljiva njena (pre)šibka in včasih premalo artikulirana pozicija. Ljubljana je v obdobju zadnjih dveh desetletij razvojno v glavnem stagnirala. Ko pa se je pričela prebujati, se je nenadoma izkazalo, da ne sledi več samodejno dolgoročnemu, celostnemu načrtovanju, ampak razvoj postaja predvsem izkaz moči kapitala. V tej situaciji, ki preti z velikanskimi in nepopravljivimi napakami, je nedvomno tudi velik potencial. Zapletene in zablokirane razmere na področju načrtovanja so prehodna faza družbenega razvoja, ki bo minila in že mineva. Proces dozorevanja družbe in norme Evropske unije nas bodo, upam, peljale k normalni situaciji urejene družbe, v kateri veljajo načela pravnih norm in enakih možnosti. Mesta se morajo naučiti, kot pravi Winny Maas, združevati razvojne tehnike, s katerimi bodo obvladovala množico razpoložljivih informacij, in navsezadnje tudi sedanjo nezdružljivost različnih spoznanj in vrednot. Poskus županstva in mestne uprave, da na opisane izzive odgovorita z organizirano prostorsko politiko, ki se je pričela s predstavitvijo »Vizije 2025« in se nadaljuje s pripravo mestnega načrta, je velik korak v pravo smer. Ljubljana je mesto, ki se prebuja kot Trnuljčica po dolgem spanju. Pričakovanja so velika. čas bo prinesel odgovor, ali so ta pričakovanja realna, vendar je priložnost za preobrat v mestni prostorski politiki enkratna. Ob tem pa ne smemo spregledati, da se na obzorju prihodnosti vse bolj razločno rišejo tudi nekatere nevarne čeri. Vse bolj je prisotna ideja, da bi s posameznimi »velikimi projekti« pritegnili pozornost domačih in tujih investitorjev. Z njihovo začetno razvojno spodbudo naj bi se drugi deli mesta razvili sami po sebi. Žal ta ideja nosi s sabo velika tveganja. čim večji in močnejši je zasebni investitor, toliko manjši in težje izvedljiv je vpliv javnosti, stroke in celo politike. Naraščajoča »privatizacija« mesta nudi malo možnosti za uravnotežen, pravičen in trajnostni razvoj. Ni dovolj operativnost za vsako ceno, ki favorizira posamezne kratkoročne projekte investitorskega značaja. Mesto potrebuje javne investicije, namenjene izboljšanju javnega standarda in trajnostnemu mestu. Morda so možne in nujne bližnjice, ki pa morajo upoštevati uvid v zgoraj opisano celoto. Nova politika mora združevati, pokazati kreativnost in vizionarstvo, a ne pri kršenju, pač pa pri uveljavljanju pravnih in etičnih norm ter predpisov. Vprašanje poglobitve železnice in z njim povezana ureditev območja železniške postaje je morda preskusni kamen te nove politike. Gre za projekt, kjer opažamo elemente teze o neenakopravnosti javnega v primerjavi z zasebnim. Mesto in država, ki bi morala igrati glavno vlogo, sta vse bolj izrinjena in njuna vloga postaja obrobna. Zgodba je, kot dokazuje akcija »Vizije II«, stara že vsaj tri četrt stoletja. Vsaka današnja poteza je brezupno ujeta v ta historični kontekst. Poglobitev železnice v Ljubljani je primer prostorsko časovnega načrtovanja, ki je do danes spodletelo že nekajkrat, čeprav je imelo vso strokovno utemeljenost. Ta številka ab-ja je namenjena predvsem zgodovini tega spodletelega projekta in tehtanju možnosti za njegovo morebitno uresničitev, poleg tega pa tudi drugim značilnostim, problemom in priložnostim mesta Ljubljana in države Slovenije, povezanim z urejanjem prostora in urbanizmom. V zadnjih nekaj letih je situacija postajala vse bolj eksplozivna. če smem prerokovati, mislim, da se bo razrešila s turbulentno katarzo – ki pa se še niti ni zares pričela.

(1) Rem Koolhaas, »What Ever Happened to Urbanism?«, 1994, v: S,M,L,XL, OMA (in Bruce Mau), The Monicelli Press, New York, 1995, str. 959-971, prev. v: ab, 1995, št. 125, ponatis v: O urbanizmu. Kaj se dogaja s sodobnim mestom?, ur. Ilka Čerpes in Miha Dešman, Krtina, Ljubljana 2007.

Miha Dešman

Tunnel vision in Ljubljana

Ljubljana is a city that boasts an exceptional heritage of urbanism and architecture from the Middle Ages through Baroque, the 19th century, Modernism, and up to the Ple?nik and Ravnikar eras. How to continue building the city in the 21st century? A wholly new paradigm is needed for managing the city. Prescribing the form has to give way to the steering of processes. This, however, is taking city planning out of the hands of architects and urban designers and placing it into the hands of politicians, developers, and the capital. The steering is going awry, the state and legislative regulation is becoming powerless and is loosening as a consequence. "The city is all we have," declared Rem Koolhaas over a decade ago in his seminal text "What Ever Happened to Urbanism?" . The laissez-faire situation is unsustainable as it leads to chaos. Being involved with any aspect of a contemporary city is an extremely complex undertaking, even in the case of Ljubljana. Whenever one takes the city on, one is destined to fail. It always turns out that things are more complicated, and, moreover, that they're definitely not black and white as they might've seemed at first glance. This is precisely the reason it's so hard to regulate urban development nowadays. There is a need for constant critical re-evaluation of one's own principles. There is certainly a need for a critical position, but different from the one we've lately become used to, i.e. the "uncritical" criticism of everything and everyone without a firm reference point. What is required is a critical understanding of the space of a city, yet this position hasn't been finding much favour lately be it with the public, the policy makers, or even the professionals; what is required is a frame of mind that never loses sight of the whole and that is able to accommodate as many layers of an irreparably imperfect whole that is every city, including Ljubljana. I believe that we, the architects of here and now, have to systematically and constantly concern ourselves with the city despite the "real" times of late capitalism, which, as mentioned above, ignores long-term planning. The harsh critique of the city as a process of production and alienation, propagated decades ago by Tafuri and Rossi, still applies. In this regard, the contact made between "profession and politics" seems to me like two sides of the Moebius strip - they're close to each other, they are the same, but they never actually meet. As Slavoj Žižek puts it, there is a "paralactic gap" between them. They seem to overlap, but in reality, they share no common ground; in fact, they exclude each other. This way, the dimension of the architect's desire to control and create becomes anachronistic and often tragic as it has no real chance of being realised. The only defendable professional position is a position of constructive criticism, continuously looking for its own wide professional and ethical foundation. This is the role of independent experts, and - in our name - of various organisations within the civil society of professionals. It's upon us to recognise, encourage, and support any honest positive strivings for quality urbanism and urban architecture, and it's upon the policy-makers to include participation and a constant open dialogue with the civil society of professionals in each decision process. We have to act with long-term goals in mind, and the way it's done should be transparent, informed, and integrated. Such culture of consideration and dialogue is yet to be learnt, however. So far, there has been too much fear and resolve to evade any potential obstacles when it comes to political and administrative subjects, both on the state and municipal levels. As a result, attempts at civil society manipulation are the prevailing practice. It's solely upon the civil societies to make themselves heard and demand attention - and they aren't getting enough of it. On a conceptual level, their role is not being properly recognised, and they are not systematically sponsored. And if we consider that in the past, it was precisely the civil sphere that was often instrumentalised and is only slowly emancipating itself, its weak and at times underarticulated position is all the more understandable. Ljubljana's development has been mostly stagnant over the period of the past two decades. But when it began to resuscitate, it suddenly became clear that it no longer followed a long-term integral plan; instead, it is mostly a display of the power of capital. This situation is prone to colossal and irreparable mistakes, yet it definitely has great potential, too. Complications and stalemates in the planning segment are a transitional phase of the social development that will pass and is, in fact, passing already. The process of social maturation, along with the EU norms, will hopefully lead to a normal situation in the context of a regulated society where the rules of law and equal opportunities really work and are obeyed. Cities have to learn to integrate, as Winny Maas puts it, the techniques of development, which will help them manage the multitude of information at their disposal, as well as integrate the currently incompatible differences in findings and values. The attempts of the mayor's office and the municipal government to address the above challenges with an organised spatial policy - they began with the unveiling of Vision 2025 and continue with the drafting of the municipal plan - is a major step in the right direction. Ljubljana is a city waking up from a long sleep like the Sleeping Beauty, and there are great expectations. Time will tell whether they're realistic, yet this is certainly a unique opportunity for a sea change in the city's spatial planning policy. Still, we cannot ignore certain inherent perils that are beginning to take shape on the future's horizon. The idea to attract domestic and foreign investors with various "Grand Projects" is increasingly taking root. The underlying logic is that these would serve as a catalyst for subsequent spontaneous development of other parts of the city. Unfortunately, this is a very risky proposition – the stronger the private investor, the weaker and more limited the influence of the general public, professionals, and even politics. An increasing "privatisation" of the city presents little opportunity for a balanced, fair, and lasting development. Operativity at all costs, favouring various short-term developers' projects, is not enough; the city needs public investment that raises the public standard and contributes to the city's permanence. There may be shortcuts, and maybe we have to take them, yet they always have to support the whole mentioned above. The new policy has to work towards integration, show creativity and vision, but not in breaking legal and ethical norms and regulations, but in their enforcement. The area of and around the railway station and the related issue of cut-and-cover tunnelling may be the first true test of this new policy. In some ways, the location in question hints at an imbalance between the public in favour of the private. Both the city and the state that should be leading the way are being pushed to the side more and more and their role is becoming marginal. The idea of taking the tracks below street level is - as shown by the action "Visions II" - at least 3/4 century old, and every decision taken today immediately falls hostage to this historical context. The case of the railway tunnelling in Ljubljana is an example of spatial and temporal planning that failed in its execution several times in the past even though it received full justification from the experts. The history of this failed project and the gauging of possibilities for its realisation is the central theme of this issue, which also covers additional characteristics, problems, and opportunities related to spatial and urban planning in the city of Ljubljana, and in Slovenia at large. In the past few years, the situation has been getting positively explosive, and if I may look into the future, I anticipate a turbulent catharsis as its resolution - a catharsis, however, that has not yet begun.

Miha Dešman