številka / volume 179-180
november / november 2008
letnik / anno XXXVIII
številka / volume 179-180
november / november 2008
letnik / anno XXXVIII
primer kolizej
kolizej: a case study
vsebina številke
table of contents
Miha Dešman | Uvodnik Introduction |
Andrej Hrausky | Megastrukture |
Aleksander S. Ostan | Kolizije od Koloseja do Kolizeja |
dr. Breda Mihelič | Ali sploh potrebujemo spomeniško varstvo? |
Leo Šešerko | Kolizej |
Justin Wideman | Rešimo Kolizej Save Kolizej |
Andrej Hrausky | Staro in novo |
Primer Kolizej gre naprej? | |
Darija Mavrič | Ljubljanski Kolizej v ogledalu časa |
Gertraud Strempfl-Ledl | Graški Kolizej Das Grazer Coliseum |
Kolizej – konservatorski program | |
Kerstin Odendahl | Je kulturno dobrino mogoče nadomestiti? Ist die Zerstörung von Kulturgut kompensierbar? |
uvodnik
primer Kolizej v 8 slikah
I.
V današnjih razmerah, ko potrošniška in medijska kultura s pomočjo komercializacije in individualizacije, tematiziranih okolij in bebave zabave vse bolj grobo manipulirata z našimi dušami in pametjo, imata umetnost in z njo arhitektura pomembno vlogo rezistence – obrambe osebne izkušnje, intelektualne svobode, pravice do drugačnosti, pravice do enakosti pred zakonom itd. Zato je prava umetnost eksistencialna podlaga za razumevanje sveta in za človeka vredno bivanje. Žal pri tej obrambi, vsaj zaenkrat, nismo uspešni. Okolje se pred našimi očmi spreminja v množično proizvajan in univerzalno oglaševan kič. Arhitektura še zdaleč ni neobčutljiva za te trende. Najbrž je res, da v bližnji prihodnosti ni pričakovati radikalne spremembe te smeri, ki vodi v razčlovečenje. A je prav zato tako pomemben pogled, čeprav pesimističen, ki od arhitektov (pa tudi umetnikov in drugih) zahteva etični uvid in ravnanje ter s tem obrambo avtentičnosti človekovega bivanja in delovanja.
Dolžnost ohranjanja podedovanih spomenikov kulture je pomemben del tega splošnega etičnega imperativa. Georg Dehio, znameniti nemški teoretik zaščite spomenikov (1850-1932), pravi: »Arhitektura uničuje arhitekturo. Tako je bilo vedno, in to smo jemali kot naravno nujnost. Toda ali ne bi bilo mogoče, da bi se kot družba z načrtno zaščito uprli rušilnim pritiskom in tako vsaj za precej časa podaljšali življenjsko dobo naših umetnostnih in spomeniških zakladov? Misel v resnici ne sega dlje kot v 19. stoletje in vsekakor nosi njegov duhovni pečat.« (1)
Od konca 19. stoletja do danes smo bili priče vzponu in tudi padcu institucionalne zaščite kulturne dediščine. V zadnjem času se vse bolj kaže njen propad, tako v operativnem kot v strokovnem in moralnem smislu. (2) Tako morajo njeno vlogo prevzemati civilna družba in zainteresirane strokovne javnosti. A vrste civilne družbe na področju varovanja arhitekturnih spomenikov in mestne podobe so redke in premalo organizirane, včasih zmanipulirane, drugič strokovno podhranjene. Ker jih institucije v veliki meri ignorirajo, je boj za vpliv v javnem življenju predpogoj za obstanek in razvoj. Vsak poraz pomeni poglabljanje pesimizma v viziji prihodnosti in žal tudi nepovratno izgubo dela naše skupne materialne identitete.
II.
Najbrž smo prišli do ekološke in ekonomske meje kvantitativne rasti in potreb po zgrajenem prostoru. To velja za svet v celoti ter tudi za Slovenijo in Ljubljano. Zgrajenih je dovolj stavb. Na voljo je dovolj kvadratnih metrov stanovanj, pisarn, šol in tovarn.
Arhitektura prihodnosti bo postala predvsem arhitektura prenove. Realnost dogajanj v prostoru pa je zaenkrat še popolnoma drugačna in celo nasprotna. Prostor je bodisi na neprimerni lokaciji ali pa je v napačnem lastništvu ali upravljanju, ni profiten, ne ustreza zahtevam tehnologije in standardom. Zato se vse več gradi. Gradi se v še nepozidanem okolju, zgoščajo se obstoječa naselja ali pa gre za rušenje obstoječega in novogradnjo. Ponavadi je razlog za rušenje to, da hoče lastnik stavbe z rušenjem in novogradnjo kapitalizirati zemljišče, pridobiti profit. Lastnik se vpraša, ali je bolj ekonomično uporabljati stavbo v sedanjem stanju, jo prenoviti ali pa jo podreti in nadomestiti z novo. Pri nadomestitivi je možno povečati kapaciteto in izboljšati gradbeno kondicijo, zamenjati program … predvsem pa zaslužiti! Pa še to – rušitev je včasih lahko znak sproščenosti in svobode.
Problem nastopi, ko je obstoječa stavba, ki jo hoče lastnik porušiti, kvalitetna ali celo zaščitena in njegov zasebni interes trči ob javni interes. V teoriji je situacija jasna – prednost ima javni interes. Seveda pa je vsak primer zase kompleksen in večplasten. Politika, urbanisti in spomeniško varstvo se morajo opredeliti do problema kot celote in do vsakega posameznega primera. V proces je treba vključiti tako stroke kot javnosti. Ovrednotiti je treba mnogo dejavnikov, od lastnikovih ali investitorjevih strategij, potencialnih prednosti za mesto, zaščite stavbne dediščine, vpliva na mestno strukturo itd., pa vse do trajnostnih in ekoloških parametrov.
III.
Pred nekaj leti je zasebni investitor kupil propadajoči Kolizej, »ljubljansko gradbeno sramoto«, in priredil vabljeni natečaj, na katerega je povabil tuje arhitekte, med njimi nekaj v svetovnem merilu zvenečih imen. S tem je nekako vzel v svoje roke dve pomembni javni nalogi: urbanistično načrtovanje in varovanje arhitekturne dediščine. Za to pa si je moral »vtakniti v žep« kar dve primarni javni politični in družbeni entiteti: državo in mesto. Privatizacija javnega je seveda dejstvo, v tem primeru pa je stvar še daleč bolj radikalna – zasebni investitor se sam odloči, da urbanistični dokumenti in spomeniška zaščita zanj ne veljajo oz. da bo v svoje roke prevzel tudi urbanistično načrtovanje in zaščito spomenikov.
V nadaljevanju zgodbe je država Slovenija sprejela zakon, ki omogoča rušenje spomenikov, mestni svet je to potrdil z umikom zaščite, v bližnji prihodnosti pa bo verjetno isti mestni svet prav tako poslušno potrdil suspenz prostorskega dokumenta, ki je za območje predvideval manjši program in zahteval javni natečaj. Dejavnost prostorskega načrtovanja in zaščita kulturne dediščine, ki sta po definiciji v javni domeni (3), tako prehajata v službo zasebne pobude in interesa. To, da je investitor kompromisno znižal višino objekta, predvideno v zmagovalni rešitvi na natečaju (s 100 m na 70 m), je samo pesek v oči ob dejstvu, da ni bila upoštevana nobena od zahtev civilne in strokovne javnosti. (4)
Natečaj je tako s programom kot z obveznostjo rušitve obstoječega v celoti tudi sodelujoče vabljene arhitekte zapeljal v megalomanske rešitve, saj so verjeli, da je rušitev nesporno dejstvo in da je tak program, kot so ga dobili v razpisnem gradivu, pač ustrezno urbanistično in politično verificiran; navsezadnje so to jamčili tudi podpisi eminentnih članov natečajne žirije. Pa je šlo pri vsem skupaj za manipulacijo in tudi zato je natečaj nelegitimen. Nekateri se še vedno (ali pa se na novo) sprenevedajo, da je natečaj pač bil in da imena tujih zvezdnikov opravičujejo nepravilnosti pri organizaciji. Na to ne smemo pristati, saj bi to pomenilo simbolni poraz in tudi kastracijo civilne strokovne družbe. Zamašili smo jim usta, bi se lahko pohvalil glavni protagonist, in to bi kot precedenčni primer odprlo vrata novim projektom s podobnimi idejami o hitrem in velikem zaslužku.
IV.
Na tem mestu povzemam stališče Urbanističnega sveta za Ljubljano, ki je, tako kot mnogo drugih iniciativ civilne javnosti, ostalo brez pravih odgovorov. Naletelo je na molk, medijsko blokado ter sprenevedanje lastnika in večine akterjev, političnih, upravnih, kulturnovarstvenih in drugih (5):
»Predlog za rušitev Kolizeja in intenzivno pozidavo na njegovem zemljišču se je začel, in se, kot kaže, nadaljuje mimo rednih in pričakovanih obveznih postopkov. Intenzivna medijska kampanja je sicer nekoliko potihnila, zato pa se v zakulisju po nekaterih javnih informacijah zadeva intenzivno in netransparentno premika naprej.
Vsi si želimo, da bi se objekt oziroma območje Kolizeja izkopalo iz situacije, v katero je zdrsnilo po krivdi dolgoletnih brezvestnih gospodarjev in delno tudi pretogih dosedanjih aktov. Pri tem ne prejudiciramo načina njegove nadomestitve - prenove, prezidave in/ali dozidave, novogradnje. Izpolnjene pa morajo biti ključne zahteve, da bodo pri tem polno upoštevan javni interes in spoštovani predpisani postopki ter zakoni.
1. Za območje Kolizeja je treba na novo definirati prostorsko še sprejemljive normative – FSI, tlorisne in višinske gabarite – ter program. (Pri tem je mogoče tudi pozitivno ovrednotiti nekatera spoznanja, ki izhajajo iz natečajnih preveritev v vabljenem natečaju.)
Definiranje prostorsko sprejemljivih normativov izrabe prostora in višine objektov je predmet prostorskih aktov. V pripravi so novi strateški in izvedbeni akti za območje MOL, ki bodo (pričakujemo) ustreznejša podlaga za sprejemanje odločitev o posegih na območju centra Ljubljane in Kolizeja kot pa tri desetletja stari veljavni prostorski akti.
Pri načrtovanju urbanega razvoja je treba upoštevati dejstvo, da je Ljubljana srednjeevropsko mesto, ki ima kvalitetno in jasno izraženo urbano in arhitekturno identiteto, še posebno v ožjem mestnem središču znotraj mestnega obroča. Če jo hočemo kot tako varovati pa tudi razvijati naprej, vnašanje izrazito gabaritno predimenzioniranih in neusklajenih volumnov (kakršnega predstavlja prvonagrajeni projekt za Kolizej iz spornega vabljenega natečaja avtorjev Neutelings in Riedijk Architects) v njeno urbano tkivo ogroža njene ključne značilnosti. Medtem ko procesi globalizacije, amerikanizacije oz. univerzalizacije mest vodijo v siromašenje kakovostnih razlik in identitet ne le v evropskem, temveč tudi v svetovnem merilu, večina sprejetih svetovnih dokumentov o urbanem razvoju (Agenda, Habitat, ESDP...) govori o modelu trajnostnega razvoja mest, ki v kontekstu bivalne kvalitete izpostavlja človeško merilo in ravnotežje med naravnim in urbanim, starim in novim, mestom in podeželjem.
2. Po sprejetju novo definiranih normativov je na njihovi osnovi potrebno izpeljati regularen javni natečaj za projekt območja Kolizeja.
Ne glede na to, kaj je z natečajem za Kolizej v Ljubljani hotel doseči njegov naročnik, je jasno, da ta natečaj nima nobene formalne veljave. Natečaj bi imel zakonsko predvideno veljavo in funkcijo v dveh primerih:
V danem primeru ne gre za nobenega od navedenih vrst natečajev: za prvega mu manjka pogoj odprtosti in upoštevanja pogojev veljavnih prostorskih aktov, drugi pa bi prišel v poštev le, če bi bil izveden v postopku priprave prostorskega akta. Naročnik je z natečajem torej opravil s formalnega vidika povsem zasebno (z dejanskega pa seveda zelo javno) preveritev mogočih arhitekturnih rešitev za območje Kolizeja, na katero pa se v nobenem bodočem postopku – ne v postopku sprejemanja prostorskih aktov in ne v postopku izdaje gradbenega dovoljenja – ne bo mogel sklicevati.
Investitorja in pristojne organe mesta ter države pri tem ponovno opozarjamo na upravičene zahteve civilne strokovne sfere ter na nekatere strokovne ugotovitve, ki so bile že izpostavljene ob okrogli mizi v CD decembra 2004 in zapisane v povzetku, ki ga je pripravilo DAL februarja 2006:
Menimo, da morajo vsi udeleženi – investitor, mestna uprava na čelu z županom in podžupanom, pristojnim za prostor, ter predstojnikom oddelka za urbanizem, kot tudi direktorat za varovanje dediščine – jasno in javno predstaviti svoja stališča do primera Kolizej kot tudi do našega predloga in se dogovoriti za takšno nadaljevanje projekta za območje Kolizej, ki bo zagotovilo pravilno in skladno umeščanje zasebnih in javnih interesov v prostor mesta.«
V.
Arhitektura 19. stoletja na Slovenskem je v naši umetnostnozgodovinski stroki relativno slabo obdelana in ovrednotena. Arhitektura tistega obdobja naj ne bi bila nič posebnega, kar naj bi izhajalo iz položaja takratne dežele Kranjske kot periferije habsburškega cesarstva. Dr. Damjan Prelovšek je povezal obdobje s centralno »vojaško« organizacijo stavbarstva v monarhiji, ki je na Dunaju sicer dopuščala razmah arhitekture, v provinci pa je sledila predvsem utilitarnim smotrom. (6) Bidermajerju v prvi polovici stoletja je v drugi polovici sledil klasicizem, kasneje pa tudi t. i. Rundbogenstil pa različni historicizmi. Zanimivo je, kako je center (Dunaj) vplival na arhitekturo v provinci. Arhitekturne revije so že takrat določale trende, tako da je na vsem ogromnem ozemlju monarhije nastajala podobna arhitektura, kot so reprezentativne javne stavbe, še zlasti pa meščanske predmestne vile, tako na Poljskem, v Ukrajini kot v Ljubljani. V Ljubljani je Kranjska stavbinska družba (7), ustanovljena leta 1873, zgradila večino historicističnih stavb – vojašnice, muzeje, vladno palačo, sodnijo, gledališča itd.
Tudi arhitekturna zgodovina se še ni resno ukvarjala s tem obdobjem. Potrebno bi bilo znanstveno ovrednotenje, z doktorati in drugimi raziskovalnimi projekti, katalogizacijo in seveda ustrezno zaščito. V arhitekturnozgodovinski doktrini je prevladovalo stališče, da se z 19. stoletjem ni vredno ukvarjati, saj naj bi šlo za obdobje, ki ni bilo originalno in je zgolj recikliralo elemente preteklih obdobij. Ko pa bi enkrat pričeli raziskovati in inventarizirati arhitekturo 19. stoletja, bi se najprej pokazalo izredno bogastvo obdobja, prav v vrhu pa bi se znašle nekatere ogrožene stavbe, kot sta ljubljanski Kolizej (8) in Cukrarna (9).
VI.
19. stoletje je bilo s svojo artikulirano pragmatičnostjo predhodnik in tudi šola današnjega časa. Obdobje ima v arhitekturnem smislu veliko opraviti z materialnostjo, sijajem, inscenacijo in atmosfero, kar so teme, s katerimi se spopada tudi sodobna arhitektura. Takrat so se razvile teme ornamenta kot operativnega orodja, večnamenskosti forme in funkcije, velike uporabnosti eklekticizma itd. Arhitekti so že takrat morali znati sodelovati z investitorji, se prilagajati in dvomiti, hkrati pa vztrajati pri navdušenosti in ljubezni do svojega dela in poklica. Velika javna, pedagoška in socialna vloga te arhitekture se do danes ni izčrpala. Vladna palača, Narodni muzej, Kazina, Univerza in mnoge druge stavbe so ključnega pomena za Ljubljano in za njeno urbano strukturo.
Rehabilitacija obdobja bo prinesla tudi drugačen odnos do posameznih arhitekturnih spomenikov, tako na strani javnosti kot arhitekturne in umetnostnozgodovinske stroke. Arhitekti ne cenimo dovolj tega obdobja, kar gre pripisati inerciji prej opisanega podcenjevanja, predvsem pa tudi splošnemu neznanju ter nepoznavanju arhitekturne zgodovine in teorije v celoti. To neznanje ima svoj izvor na fakulteti za arhitekturo, kjer resna arhitekturna zgodovina že dolgo nima prave domovinske pravice. A to je že druga tema.
V Ljubljani je umik jugoslovanske armade sprostil velike komplekse vojašnic. Po skoraj 20 letih lahko ugotovimo, da nam ni uspelo izkoristiti vseh potencialov tega umika. Če lahko pohvalimo Mladiko, pogojno tudi Metelkovo, je drugače s Topniško ali Roško. V resnici objekti niso neuporabni niti nepraktični. Le ne omogočajo tako visokega zaslužka kot rušitev in novogradnja, če investitor s slednjo doseže bistveno povečanje kapacitete. Objekti vojašnice na Topniški so bili porušeni, kar je škoda, saj se na njihovi lokaciji že desetletje ni zgodilo nič. To je morda model, ki čaka tudi nekatere druge zanemarjene in ogrožene objekte. Imeli bomo porušene spomenike, z novimi arhitekturnimi atrakcijami ali pa brez njih. Vojašnici na Topniški sledijo Plečnikov stadion, Klavnice, Bellevue, Kolizej, od modernih stavb Učne delavnice, tiskarna Mladinska knjiga itd. Ali res lahko sprejmemo, da je bila porušena Severjeva Tiskarna Jožeta Moškriča, da bi na njenem mestu postavili tipski Hofer? V ohranjeno obstoječo tiskarno bi brez velikih težav lahko bistveno lepše umestili trgovski program, pa še ohranili bi arhitekturno dediščino. Boljša usoda se (vsaj zaenkrat) obeta Rogu, upamo, da tudi Cukrarni, Tobačni in številnim drugim.
VII.
Da velika stavba Kolizeja nima simpatij široke javnosti, ne preseneča, predvsem zaradi statusa socialnega geta, ki ga ima že desetletja, in pa intenzivne propagande v režiji lastnika v škodo stavbe. Argumenti zdrave pameti in stroke so ob tem nemočni. Najbrž je logično, da se v Kolizej ni mogel naseliti spontan kulturni program ali skvot, tako kot se je zgodilo na Metelkovi in v Rogu, saj bi verjetno varnostniki s silo preprečili vsak takšen poskus, česar si javni lastnik (mesto) ne upa privoščiti.
Glavni argument zagovornikov rušenja je poleg odrekanja spomeniške vrednosti ekonomska nevzdržnost prenove. V tem argumentiranju je bilo veliko manipulacij in sprenevedanj, ki so dosegla svoj namen, na drugi strani pa institucije niso opravile svoje vloge. Iskati investitorje ob nezreli politiki pa je seveda nemogoče in absurdno. Branilci Kolizeja – umetnostni zgodovinarji, nekateri (ne vsi) arhitekti, intelektualci humanističnega kova – smo v procesu hitro postali izolirani, argumenti se niso slišali (poslušali), pa tudi teksti velikokrat niso bili objavljeni. Tudi mesto Ljubljana si je nad Kolizejem umilo roke.
VIII.
Večina vzornih primerov prenove je nastala z javnim investitorjem ali vsaj v javno-zasebnem partnerstvu. Javni interes – ne le ocena umetnostnih zgodovinarjev – je usmerjal prenove velikih struktur iz 19. stoletja v sodobne kulturne centre, galerije, pa tudi stavbe z mešanimi javnimi in tržnimi programi, poslovne, trgovske ali stanovanjske stavbe. Dunaj, Pariz, Torino, London – ali se jim bo pridružila tudi Ljubljana? Odvisno je od nas vseh, še najbolj pa od politike. Nič, kar so stari dobro naredili, ne smemo zapraviti, je trdil Plečnik. Kako se torej lotiti prenove Kolizeja?
Vprašanje prenove se je s pomočjo manipulacije oblikovalo v črno-belo dilemo: konservatorska prenova ali rušenje. Nekateri smo že od vsega od začetka poskušali povedati, da med obema skrajnostma obstaja neskončna paleta vmesnih rešitev in da bi morali na kreativen strokoven način poiskati pravo. Najprej pa moramo odgovoriti na vprašanje: Ali Kolizej ima arhitekturne, funkcionalne, tehnične in gradbene kvalitete, da bi ga bilo vredno ohraniti in obnoviti? Zagovorniki trdijo, da je idealen za večnamensko kulturno rabo. Ali gre pri njih za romanticizem, ki ni utemeljen niti z ekonomskimi niti z estetskimi parametri? Poglobljeni strokovni teksti, ki jih objavljamo, dokazujejo, da obstaja za ohranitev mnogo umetnostnozgodovinskih, arhitekturnih pa tudi pragmatičnih razlogov. Zanjo govori mnogo pomembnih ekonomskih in gradbenotehničnih, ne zgolj kulturnih argumentov.
Ko enkrat priznamo, da gre za stavbo z zgodovinsko vrednostjo, pa se pri prenovi Kolizeja, kot rečeno, ponujata dve različni možnosti. Po prvem scenariju bi si zaslužil popolno prenovo. Pri tem so pragmatični razlogi pomaknjeni v ozadje, najpomembnejši postanejo konservatorski. Ta scenarij bi zahteval široko javno financiranje, kar je v sedanji situaciji težko pričakovati. Ekonomski, pa tudi arhitekturni argumenti bi se po mojem mnenju najbolje udejanjili v projektu aktivne prenove. Medtem ko se konservator obrača v preteklost, arhitekt tudi v obstoječem vidi možnost nove sinteze, vidi bodočnost. Ne gradi na tabuli rasi niti na zeleni trati. Startna osnova za projekt aktivne prenove je obstoječi objekt. Iz odnosa do obstoječega lahko s prenovo nastane neka dodatna vrednost, mik, ki ga sicer ni. Prostorske, obrtniške, tudi funkcionalne kvalitete so ohranjene in nadgrajene v sintezi z novim. To bi bil lahko kompromis, ki bi pokazal pot naprej.
Miha Dešman
Opombe:
editorial
the case of Kolizej in 8 scenes
I
In the present conditions, as our minds and our souls are increasingly savagely manipulated by the consumer and media culture, aided by commercialisation and individualisation, themed environments and mindless entertainment, art and architecture as its constituent part have an important role - namely that of resistance, protection of the personal experience, intellectual freedom, the right to be different, the right to equality under the law, etc. This is why real art is the existential foundation for the understanding of the world and one's worthy existence. Unfortunately, our defence has not been successful, at least not so far. In front of our eyes, the environment is turning into mass-produced and universally-advertised kitsch. Architecture is in no way immune to these trends. A radical change of this bearing leading to dehumanisation is probably not to be expected in the near future. But this is exactly why this point of view - albeit pessimistic and demanding ethical insight and actions from architects (as well as artists and others), thereby protecting the authenticity of human existence and action - is so important.
The duty to preserve inherited monuments of culture is an important part of this general ethical imperative. Georg Dehio (1850-1932), the famed German theorist of the protection of monuments, says: "Architecture destroys architecture. That is how it has always been, and we have accepted this as a natural necessity. But would it not be possible for us as a society to establish organised protection and speak out against the pressures to demolish our invaluable art and monuments and thus considerably extend their lifetime? This idea is in fact no older than the 19th century, and it certainly bears its spiritual mark." (1)
From the end of the 19th century to the present day, we have been witnessing the rise and also the fall of the institutional protection of cultural heritage. Lately, its failings have been increasingly apparent, both in the operative, and the expert and moral sense (2). The civil society and vested professionals thus have to take its role upon themselves. But when it comes to the protection of architectural monuments and the city's image, the ranks of the civil society are neither numerous nor organised enough, they are at times manipulated and short on expertise. Since they are being largely ignored by the institutions, the struggle for influence in public life is the precondition for their continued existence and development. Each defeat means more pessimism in the vision for the future and, unfortunately, also another irretrievable loss of a part of our common material identity.
II
We are likely to have come to the ecological and economic limit of quantitative growth and requirements for built space. This is true both for the world at large and for Slovenia and Ljubljana. There are enough buildings. There are enough square metres of flats, offices, schools and factories available.
The architecture of the future will become chiefly the architecture of renovation. The reality of what is happening within the space, however, is at the moment completely different and even contrary to the above. The space is either in an unsuitable location, subject to troubled ownership, mismanaged, unprofitable, or does not meet technological requirements and standards. This is why there is more and more construction taking place. It takes place in an unbuilt environment, existing communities get condensed, or the existing is demolished and replaced with the newly built. Usually, the reason for demolition is the owner of the building wanting to capitalise the plot with the new building and earn profit. The owner considers whether it makes more economic sense to use the building in its present condition, renovate it, or tear it down and replace it with a new one. The latter option enables them to increase the capacity and improve the state of the construction, change the programme ... and above all, make money. And not least, demolition can sometimes be indicative of fresh and free thinking behind it.
There is a problem when the existing building that the owner wants to demolish happens to be of quality or under protection, making his private interest clash with the public interest. In theory, the situation is clear - the public interest takes priority. Needless to say, however, each case is in itself complex and with more than one side to it. Politics, urban planners, and monument conservationists need to each give their opinion on the issue in general, as well as one relating to each individual case. Both the relevant professions and the public have to be included in the process. Numerous factors need to be considered, from the strategies on the part of the owner or investor, potential advantages for the city, the protection of built heritage, the influence on the city structure, etc., down to the sustainability and ecological parameters.
III
A few years ago, a private investor bought the dilapidated Kolizej building, the "Ljubljana's shame in brick and mortar", and organised an invited tender with invitations going out to foreign architects, including a few world-renowned names. By doing this, the investor in a way appropriated two important public tasks: urbanistic planning and the protection of architectural heritage. In order to have been able to do this, they had to "pocket" not one but two primary public and political entities: the state and the city. The privatisation of the public has long been a matter of fact but this case is considerably more radical in this regard: the private investor decides for themselves that the urbanistic documents and the protection of heritage do not apply to them and that they are to take over both urbanistic planning and the protection of the monuments.
The story continued by the Slovene state passing a law that allowed the demolition of monuments, the city council did their share by stripping the building of its protection, and soon, the same city council is likely to play ball again and approve the repealing of the spatial act in which a smaller programme and a public tender are planned for the area. The activities of spatial planning and the protection of cultural heritage, which are by definition in the public domain (3), are thus beginning to serve the private initiative and interest. The fact that the investor has agreed to a compromise and reduced the height of the winning tender entry (from 100m to 70m) is hardly more than a ruse considering that none of the demands put forward by the civil and expert societies were accepted. (4)
Through the programme and the obligatory demolition of the existing structure in its entirety, as stipulated by the tender, the invited architects were mislead into submitting disproportionally excessive solutions since they believed that the demolition is an undisputed fact and that the programme given in the tender documentation had been approved both urbanistically and politically; after all, the signatures of the distinguished members of the jury were there as a guarantee. Yet this was nothing but manipulation, and that is why the tender is not legitimate. Some still (or do so anew) pretend ignorance, saying that the tender had been carried out, for better or for worse, and that the celebrity names from abroad justify the irregularities in its organisation. We cannot settle for this - this would mean a symbolic defeat and also the castration of the civil society of experts. That shut them up, the main protagonist could boast, and this would open the floodgates for new projects with similar ideas about vast and quick earnings.
IV
What follows is an abstract of the statement by the Urbanistic Council for Ljubljana, which, much like numerous others initiatives by the civil society, has not received any meaningful answers. It was met by silence, media blockade and the pretence of ignorance on the part of the owner and the majority of other players, be it political, administrative, conservationist, and others (5):
"The proposal for the demolition of Kolizej and the intensive building on the site has begun and, apparently, goes on with no regard for regular mandatory procedures expected. The intensity of the media campaign has been toned down to an extent yet according to certain public information, intense and non-transparent advancements are being achieved place behind the scenes.
It is the wish of us all that the Kolizej building and site finds its way out of the quagmire that can only be blamed on the years of neglect and partially also on the intransigence of past regulations. This appeal does not prejudice the manner of its replacement - renovation, adaptation and/or extension, or a newly-built building. There are, however, key requirements that have to be met: the public interest has to be fully adhered to, and the required procedures and laws upheld.
1. For the Kolizej site, the spatially acceptable standard limits - such as the FSI, floor plan and height dimensions - have to be defined anew. (In this regard, certain findings deriving from the examinations contained in the invited tender warrant favourable evaluation.)
The defining of spatially acceptable standards for the use of space and building height is done in spatial acts. New strategic and executive acts for the Municipality of Ljubljana are being prepared; we expect them to form a more suitable basis for decision-making regarding interventions in the centre of Ljubljana and in the area of Kolizej than the spatial acts from three decades ago.
When urban development planning takes place, it has to be observed that Ljubljana is a Central European city with a clearly expressed urban and architectural identity of great quality, especially in the inner city centre inside the city ring. If we are to protect and develop this identity, introducing clearly oversized and incongruous volumes (one of which is the winning Kolizej project from the disputed invited tender, by the authors Neutelings and Riedijk Architects) in its urban tissue threatens its key characteristics. While the processes of globalisation, Americanisation and/or universalisation of cities lead to reduction of qualitative differences and identities not only on the European, but on the global scale, most approved documents on urban development applicable world-wide (Agenda, Habitat, ESDP, etc.) refer to such model of sustainable development of cities that uses the inhabitants as the means of gauging the quality of living, as well emphasises as the balance between the natural and the urban, the old and the new, the city and the countryside.
2. After the newly-defined standards are accepted, they are to serve as the basis for a new, legitimate public tender for the Kolizej area project that has to be carried out.
Regardless of what the investor intended to achieve with the tender for Kolizej in Ljubljana, it is clear that the tender in question has no formal validity. The tender would have carried legal validity and function in the following two cases:
The actual case is neither: for the former, it lacks the condition of openness and adherence to the stipulations of the spatial acts in effect, and it could only be considered for the latter if it had been carried out during the spatial act preparation procedure. What the investor did with the tender was, formally speaking, an exclusively private (but in fact a very public) examination of possible architectural solutions for the Kolizej area. However, the investor may not use this examination in any future procedures, neither in the procedure of the approval of spatial acts, nor in the procedure of issuing a building permit.
The investor and all competent city and state offices are hereby once again recalled of the justified demands on the part of the civil expert community, as well as certain expert findings which have been already pointed out during the round table in Cankarjev Dom, December 2004 and recorded in the abstract prepared by the Architects' Society of Ljubljana in February 2006:
We believe that all those involved - the investor, the city administration with the Mayor, the vice mayor responsible for spatial planning, and the head of the urbanism department, as well as the directorate for the protection of heritage - have to be clear and public about their positions on the case of Kolizej and our proposal. We also believe that they have to reach an agreement to continue with the project for the Kolizej area in such a way that will ensure a suitable and balanced implementation of the various instances of private and public interest in the city space."
V
The architecture of the 19th century is relatively poorly researched and not held in relatively low regard. The architecture of that period is thought to be nothing special, the cause of which can supposedly be traced to the status of Carinthia at the time, i.e. being on the periphery of the Habsburg Monarchy. Dr Damjan Prelovšek linked the period to a central, "military-like" organisation of architecture in the monarchy, allowing architecture to bloom in Vienna while in the province, chiefly utilitarian purposes were followed (6). Biedermeier in the 1st half of the century was followed by Classicism, and later also by Rundbogenstil and various historicisms. It is interesting to see how the centre, i.e. Vienna, influenced the architecture in the province. Even then, architecture magazines were the ones setting the trends, causing similar architecture, such as representative public buildings, and even more so suburban residential houses, to spring up on the entire huge territory of the Monarchy, thus in Poland and Ukraine like in Ljubljana. In Ljubljana, Kranjska stavbinska družba (Carniolian Building Company) (7), founded in 1873, built the majority of historicist buildings - barracks, museums, the government building, the Court House Palace, theatres, etc.
Architectural history hasn't yet seriously studied this period. A scientific evaluation would be required, with PhD theses and other research projects, cataloguing, and of course proper protection. There used to be a prevalent opinion within the doctrine of architectural history that the 19th century is not worth the bother since it was supposedly a period that was not original and was merely recycling elements from past periods. But once we began to research and inventorise 19th century architecture, the exceptional richness of the period would be the first to surface, with certain endangered buildings, such as Kolizej (8) and Cukrarna (9) of Ljubljana, serving as prime examples.
VI
With its articulated pragmatism, the 19th century was a predecessor of our contemporary period and acted as a school for it. In the architectural sense, the period has a lot to do with materiality, splendour, pomp, and atmosphere - themes that are a challenge to contemporary architecture, too. During that time, themes such as the ornament as an operative tool, the multi-purposeness of form and function, the wide usefulness of ecleticism, etc. began to develop. Even then, architects had to know how to co-operate with the investors, how to accommodate them and how to doubt, while at the same time maintain the enthusiasm and love for their work and profession. The great public, pedagogical and social role of this architecture has not been exhausted to this day. The government building, the National Museum, Kazina, the University building and many other buildings are of key significance to Ljubljana and its urban structure.
The rehabilitation of the period will also bring a different attitude towards individual cultural monuments, both on the part of the public, as well as the art-historical profession. As architects, we do not sufficiently appreciate this period, which may be due to the inertia of the underappreciation described above, and particularly also due to general ignorance and the lack of knowledge about architectural history and theory as a whole. The source of this ignorance could be traced to the Faculty of Architecture, where serious architectural history has long been banished from. But I digress.
In Ljubljana, the departure of Yugoslav Army after the independence freed up large complexes of barracks. After almost twenty years, we may establish that we were not successful in realising the entire potential created by this departure. While we can praise Mladika and to a certain extent also Metelkova, Topniška and Roška tell a different story. The buildings are actually neither useless or impractical, but they do not offer the same profit compared to demolition and building new whenever that enables the investor to significantly increase the capacity. The buildings belonging to the barracks on Topniška Road had been demolished, which is a shame since nothing has happened on the site for the last ten years. This may be the model also awaiting certain other neglected and endangered buildings. We are going to end up with demolished monuments, either with new architectural attractions or without them. The barracks on Topniška Road is followed by Plečnik's stadium, Klavnice (the Slaughterhouses), the Bellevue, Kolizej, and of the modern buildings Učne delavnice (Apprentices' Workshops), Mladinska knjiga printworks, etc. Can we really accept that Sever's Tiskarna Jožeta Moškriča (Jože Moškrič Printworks) was demolished in order to be replaced by the Hofer store type building? The retail programme could be easily housed in the well-preserved existing printworks without any major problems while architectural heritage would at the same time be preserved. A better fate can be hoped for in the case of Rog (at least for now), hopefully also Cukrarna, Tobačna and many others.
VII
The fact that the big Kolizej building does not enjoy a lot of sympathy on the part of the general public is not surprising - especially due to its status of a social ghetto, which it has had for decades, and the vigorous campaign by its owner to further tarnish its reputation. Both common sense and professionals' arguments are powerless against it. It is probably little wonder that Kolizej could not be settled by any spontaneous cultural programme or squat like it happened at Metelkova and in Rog since security guards would be likely to forcefully prevent any such attempt, which is something the public owner (i.e. the city) dares not afford.
The main argument used by the advocates of the demolition - beside denying the buildings value as a monument - is that its renovation is supposedly economically unsustainable. In arguing this, there has been a lot of manipulating and pretending ignorance, which achieved their goal, while on the other hand, the role of the institutions was not fulfilled. With such immature politics, looking for investors is naturally impossible and absurd. The defenders of Kolizej - art historians, some (not all) architects, and intellectuals of humanistic conviction - quickly became isolated in the process, our arguments were not heard (or listened to), and there were many instances when our texts were not published, either. Even the city of Ljubljana washed its hands of the matter.
VIII
Most exemplary cases of renovation involved a public investor, or at least a public-private partnership. The public interest - not merely appraisals by art historians - directed the renovations of large structures from the 19th century into creating contemporary cultural centres, galleries, as well as buildings with mixed public and commercial programmes, office, commercial, or residential buildings. Vienna, Paris, Turin, London - will Ljubljana join the club? It depends on all of us, but most of all, it depends on the politics. Jože Plečnik said, none of the good work done by the older generations may go to waste. How to approach the renovation of Kolizej, then?
Through manipulation, the question of renovation was reduced to a black-and-white dilemma: conservationist renovation or demolition. From the very beginning, some of us have been trying to get across the message that there is an endless cline of solutions between the two extremes, and that we should find the right one in a creative professional manner. But there is a question we need to answer first: does Kolizej have such architectural, functional, technical and constructional qualities that it is worth keeping and renovating it? Its supporters say that it is ideal for multi-purpose cultural use. Is this merely romanticism without economic and aesthetic parameters to back it up? In-depth expert text published in the issue give proof that there are numerous art-historical, architectural, as well as pragmatic reasons to keep the building. It is supported by numerous significant economic and constructional-technical, not only cultural arguments.
Once we admit that this is a building with historical value, two options regarding Kolizej's renovation open up, as stated above. In one scenario, Kolizej would deserve total renovation. Here, pragmatic reasons take a back seat to conservationist ones. This scenario would demand wide public financing, which is difficult to expect in the present situation. Economic, as well as architectural arguments would, in my opinion, be best realised in a project of active renovation. While a conservationist turns to the past, an architect sees an opportunity for synthesis and for the future even in the existent; the building does not take place on a clean slate or on a green field. The starting point for a project of active renovation is the existing building. On the basis of the relationship towards the existent, an added value may be created through renovation, a new attraction unto its own. The qualities of space, craft, and function are retained and upgraded by means of a synthesis with the new. This could be a compromise that would show the way forward.
Miha Dešman
Notes:
Naslov redakcije / Editorial office
AB
Židovska steza 4
SI-1000 Ljubljana
Slovenia
tel +386 1 2516 010
fax +386 1 4217 975
email info@ab-magazine.com
www www.ab-magazine.com
Založništvo / Publishing
Društvo arhitektov Ljubljana
Karlovška 3
SI-1000 Ljubljana
Slovenia
tel +386 1 2527 930
fax +386 1 2527 930
email info@drustvo-dal.si
www www.drustvo-dal.si
Povezave / Links
o ab / about
naročnina / subscription
arhiv / archive