»Koridor se je rodil pred tisoč in tisoč leti. Star je, kolikor je stara arhitektura. Za človekov razum je koridor namreč edina pravilna rešitev v arhitekturi. Šele potem, ko sem o tem zveličavnem koridorju podvomil in ko me je ta dvom prisilil, da sem začel razmišljati, analizirati, so se mi začela odpira nešteta vprašanja:
V arhitekturi je zadnja desetletja nastajala prava revolucija, ko smo začeli uporablja najrazličnejše materiale in se je spreminjala tehnologija. Koridor pa je ostal. Torej revolucija v arhitekturi le še ni končana. A kaj, ko je med koridorno in brezkoridorno stavbo velik prepad! Najbrž zato, ker je koridor diktatura, je labirint hodnikov, čeprav se je že neštetokrat izkazalo, da prav hodniki dajejo stavbi slab vizualni pregled, poleg tega so neekonomični, njihova funkcionalnost pa je omejena. Koridorna gradnja pa je tudi zelo draga prav zaradi nefunkcionalnosti. V brezkoridornem sistemu pa v stavbi nenadoma dobimo prostor. Namesto množice ozkih hodnikov nastane en sam velik, svetel, uporaben prostor. V koridorni stavbi povezujejo hodniki samo posamezne prostore. Ljudje so v njih stisnjeni med okna in stene. Prisiljeni so, da se gibljejo samo v smeri, ki je mogoča. Zato zmerom, ko se znajdemo na takšnih hodnikih, podzavestno gledamo, da se čim hitreje umaknemo. A sami veste, večja ko je stavba, daljši in bolj zaviti so hodniki v njej. V brezkoridornem sistemu pa teh dolgih hodnikov ni in tudi nepotrebnih dvorišč v stavbah, ki so nastala, kakor je pač šlo, ni.« [1]

Emil Navinšek (1904–1991) ima v slovenski povojni arhitekturi specifično vlogo, ki je hkrati osrednja in spregledana. Slovenija, še posebej Ljubljana, je polna njegovih šol, ki so vse narejene po istem receptu. Ta recept je genialen v svoji preprostosti. Brezkoridorni koncept ponuja široko stopnišče sredi avle, osvetljene z dveh strani s celostenskimi zasteklitvami ter levo in desno razrede z velikimi okni. Rezultat je, da je šola ena sama svetloba in jasnost. Navinškove šole so utelešenje ideje »Neues Bauen« [2] – več svetlobe, več sonca, več zraka. Prostor v šoli je popolnoma čitljiv, pravzaprav je tipološko blizu panoptikonu. [3]

Navinšek v intervjuju, iz katerega je uvodni odlomek, nastopa kot odločen zastopnik modernizma, ki je (bil) prepričan, da se mora odtrga od bremena arhitekture iz preteklosti, njenih strahov, travm in mračnosti, ki je predan borec za vrednote napredka, ki je verjel v start iz pozicije nič. Lekcije iz zgodovine, ki so njegovega učitelja Plečnika popolnoma obsedale, zanj naj ne bi imele ključne vloge, razen kot način arhitekture, ki ga je treba znanstveno analizira in preseči, z nadaljevanjem in dokončanjem revolucije.

Navinškova šola je paradigmatski arhitekturni objekt, brez konteksta, brez urbanizma. Po drugi strani pa Navinškova arhitektura (ne)zavedno sledi učitelju – Plečniku, v svoji kompozicijski absolutnosti in tipološki brezkompromisnosti. Ob tem nekako prevaja klasične principe v moderen, bolj abstrakten jezik. Ogromna okna, terazzo, monumentalna stopnišča, stebrne dvorane ..., vse to je značilno tako za Plečnikov neortodoksni (vitalni) [4] klasicizem kot v določeni meri za lokalno (slovensko) verzijo medvojnega modernizma, ki jo zastopajo arhitekti, šolani na Dunaju (pri Behrensu) in v Pragi, kot so Vurnik, Šubic, Hus, Spinčič, Mesar, Novak in drugi. Pot v smeri abstrakcije pa ga ni (kot npr. Novaka) privedla do Corbusierjevih petih točk nove arhitekture, ostal je pri zanesljivosti in pragmatizmu klasične tipologije in gradnje. Razlika s Plečnikom je torej bolj v temeljnem dojemanju arhitekture, kot v arhitekturnih realizacijah samih – med Plečnikovo Uršulinsko gimnazijo, prvo »Navinškovo« šolo Valentina Vodnika v Šiški in vsemi, ki so sledile, je mogoče potegni močne vezi kontinuitete.

Ne smemo pozabiti, da je Navinšek deloval in razmišljal v drugačnem času, kot je današnji. Prihodnost je bila svetla in optimistična. Ne samo tehnološko, temveč tudi socialno. Ko s konca drugega desetletja 21. stoletja gledamo na svet, kakršen je, vemo, da je bilo to popolnoma nerealno. Svet še zdaleč ni takšen, kakršnega smo si predstavljali. Iz današnje perspektive lahko vidimo, da se optimistični scenariji niso uresničili. Pa so zato izgubili svoj pomen?

Vprašanje za današnji čas je, ali je v luči novih konceptov učenja in pedagoških metod Navinškov brezkoridorni model šole prišel do meje svoje uporabnosti? Oziroma, z drugimi besedami, ali še vedno nagovarja našo današnjo kulturo in potrebe, ali je še vedno na visokem nivoju v arhitekturnem in tehnološkem, pa tudi pedagoškem in socialnem smislu?

Izkaže se, da, podobno kot pri avstro-ogrskih šolah, prav zaradi racionalne in stroge, pa vendar odprte in prostorsko bogate zasnove, Navinškove šole še danes odlično funkcionirajo. Njegove šole še vedno izražajo močno intelektualno strukturo, sistematičnost, premišljenost in logiko, ki je po zaslugi avtorja botrovala njihovemu nastanku. V svoji enostavnosti, ki pa zajema kompleksnost, delujejo odprto in optimistično. Tloris izraža, kakšna pedagoška kultura je v osnovi šolskega procesa. Ali je individualna, ki se kaže v delu v majhnih avtohtonih skupinah, ali pa je kolektivna. Ali je demokratična ali avtoritarna? Ali je vključevalna ali pač izključevalna? Navinšek je v svojem času odgovoril z »open space« avlo, ki je prostor izbire in svobode, nasproti formalizirani vlogi učilnice. Njegove avle so v tem oziru pionirske, čeprav so v nekem smislu avtoritarne. V sodobnem času se open space v šolah strukturira v celo vrsto raznolikih manjših ambientov, namenjenih individualnemu druženju, oblikovanju skupnosti, projektnemu delu ter za učenje v manjših skupinah.

Gradnja novih šol in predvsem natečajna praksa, pri nas in v tujini (v Avstriji, Švici, na Danskem ...), potrjuje ugotovitev, da je tipološki koncept centralne avle (brez koridorjev) uporaben in sodoben odgovor na potrebe in vizije v današnjem razpršenem času, ko sta arhitektura in šola, z eno besedo, pluralistični. Vizija arhitekta je sta, ki se kot intelektualna struktura udejanji skozi gradnjo, življenje pa ji da vizija uporabnikov. To se pravi, brez učencev in učiteljev ni šole, ni kot institucije ni kot arhitekture. Prav »hibridna« modernost, ali pa vitalni klasicizem, če parafraziram Ravnikarja, je tisto, spričo česar je Navinškova arhitektura danes, po toliko letih, sveža in aktualna bolj, kot kadarkoli prej. Navinškove šole so še vedno uporabne in priljubljene, v veselje in ponos njihovim ravnateljem, učiteljem in učencem.

1. Alenka Bibič, odlomek iz pogovora z arhitektom Emilom Navinškom, 40.000 ur nekega dvoma, revija Tovariš, 1974.
2. Neues Bauen je ime gibanja za moderno arhitekturo v Nemčiji v dvajsetih in tridesetih le h 20. stole- tja, ki se včasih imenuje tudi Nova stvarnost (Neue Sachlichkeit).
3. Michel Foucault v delu Nadzorovanje in kaznovanje (1975) razvije tezo, da režim oblasti od razsvetljenstva naprej ne temelji več na spektakularnem razkazovanju, temveč se strukturira okrog pogleda. Nova oblast je predvsem oblast, ki celoten družbeni prostor izpostavi pogledu in s tem omogoči, da se nad njim vzpostavi nadzor. Prav zato Foucault kot paradigmo te oblasti navede slavni Benthamov Panoptikum – model zapora, kjer so zaporniki stalno in vsepovsod izpostavljeni pogledu, ne da bi videli, kdo, če sploh kdo, jih gleda. Zapor postane model za druge institucije, na primer za šole, vojašnice in tovarne.
4. 4 Edvard Ravnikar, Vitalnost Plečnikovega klasicizma, ab 62/63, Ljubljana 1982.

"The corridor was born thousands of years ago. It is as old as architecture itself. To the human mind, the corridor is the only correct solution in architecture. It was only once I had begun to doubt the venerated corridor and this doubt made me think, analyse, that countless questions started to arise in me. There has been a bona de revolution happening in architecture during the last decade as we started using many different materials and the technology was changing. But the corridor has stayed. So it seems the revolution in architecture isn't quite over yet. It is unfortunate that there should be such a disparity between buildings with corridors and corridorless ones. This may be because the corridor means dictatorship, it is a labyrinth of hallways even though it has transpired me and me again that it is these hallways that cause a building to be visually opaque they are also uneconomical, and their functionality is limited. The construction of buildings with corridors is also very expensive, precisely due to the limited functionality. Using the corridorless system, space is suddenly recovered in the building. Instead a multitude of narrow hallways, there is one large, lighted, usable space. In corridor buildings, the corridors only ever connect individual spaces. People within are squeezed between the windows and walls. They are forced to move only in the permitted direction. Consequently, whenever we find ourselves in such hallways, we subconsciously want out as soon as possible. But as you know, the larger the building, the longer and more twisting its hallways. In the corridorless system, however, these long hallways are gone, together with the unneeded courtyards which then get bundled in somehow." [1]

Emil Navinšek (b. 1904; d. 1991) enjoys something of an intimidating reputation in Slovene post-WW2 era architecture. Slovenia, and Ljubljana in particular, is full of his schools, which are all made following the same recipe. This recipe is brilliant in its simplicity. The corridorless system offers a wide staircase in the middle of the central hall, lighted from two sides via full-height glazing, and with classrooms with large windows to the le and to the right. As a result, the school is brimming with light and clarity. Navinšek's schools are the embodiment of the idea of "Neues Bauen" [2] - more light, more sun, more air. The space in the school is utterly legible, in fact, it is typologically close to the panopticon [3].

In the interview which produced the above excerpt, Navinšek presents himself as a resolute representative of Modernism with a conviction that it was imperative for him to break free from the burden of architecture from the past, its fears, anguish, and gloom; as someone who leads a committed struggle for the values of progress; someone who believed in star ng from zero. Lessons from history, a compulsion which was consuming Plečnik, his teacher, were apparently not of key importance for Navinšek, except as a way of doing architecture which has to be scientifically analysed and overcome through the continuation and completion of the revolution.

Navinšek's school is a paradigmatic architectural building, without context, without urbanism. But on the other hand, Navinšek's architecture (un)consciously follows the teacher Plečnik in its compositional absoluteness and typological intransigence. In doing that, Navinšek performs a kind of translation of classical principles into a modern, more abstract language. Huge windows, terazzo, monumental staircases, columned halls - all so characteristic both of Plečnik's unorthodox (vital) [4] classicism, and, to an extent, of the local (Slovene) version of interwar Modernism represented by architects schooled in Vienna (under Behrens) such as Vurnik, Šubic, Hus, Spinčič, Mesar, Novak, and others. But the road towards abstraction didn't lead Navinšek to Corbusier's five points of new architecture (as it did Novak): he se led on the dependability and pragmatism of classical typology and construction. The difference between him and Plečnik therefore lies more with the fundamental understanding of architecture than in architectural realisations themselves - there are strong ties of continuity to be drawn between Plečnik's Ursuline Grammar School, the first "Navinšek-type" school, Valen na Vodnika Primary School in Šiška, Ljubljana, and all the rest that followed.

One mustn't forget that Navinšek's work and thinking were being done in times very different from today. The future was bright and optimistic. Not just in terms of technology, but in terms of society, as well. As we look at the state of the world from the end of the 2nd decade of the 21st century, we know that this was completely unrealistic. The world isn't anything like we imagined. From today's perspective, we can see that the optimistic scenarios didn't come true. But did this cause them to lose their significance?

The question for the present day is whether with the new learning concepts and teaching methods, Navinšek's corridorless-school model has reached the limits of its utility. Or, in other words, does it still engage the culture and the needs of to- day; does it still stand for excellence in the architectural and technological, and also in the pedagogical and social sense?

It turns out that it does, and - similarly to Austro-Hungarian schools -, precisely due to their rational and austere, and yet open and spa ally rich design, Navinšek's schools still work brilliantly today. His schools still manifest a firm intellectual structure, they are methodical, considered and logical, a principle which led the author in their creation. In their simplicity - which, however, includes complexity - the schools give an open and optimistic impression. The floor plan is an expression of the kind of pedagogical culture which is the basis of the school process - either individual, manifested through working in small endemic groups, or collective. Is it democratic or authoritarian? Is it inclusive, or does it exclude? In his me, Navinšek responded by using an open space hall, which is a space of choice and freedom, in contrast with the formal role of the classroom. His halls are in this sense pioneering despite being authoritarian in a certain way. Nowadays, the open space in schools is structured into a whole range of diverse smaller ambients used for individual socialising, forming of communties, project-based work, and studying in smaller groups.

The construction of new schools and especially the competition results, both at home and abroad (in Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, etc.), corroborate the finding that the typological concept of the central hall (without corridors) is a useful and contemporary answer to the needs and visions in our dispersed times, when architecture and education are, in a word, pluralitic. It is the vision of the architect which is materialised through the construction as an intellectual structure, but it is the vision of the users which breathes life into it. Therefore, there is no school without pupils and teachers, both as an institution and as architecture. It is the "hybrid" modernity, or the vital Classicism, to paraphrase Ravnikar, which makes Navinšek's architecture more fresh and relevant today, after all these years, than it has ever been. Navinšek's schools continue to be functional and popular, a pride and joy of their head teachers, teachers, and pupils.

1. Alenka Bibič, an excerpt from the interview with architect Emil Navinšek, 40 000 ur nekega dvoma (40,000 hours of a certain doubt), Tovariš magazine, 1974
2. Neues Bauen is the name of a movement for modern architecture in Germany in the 1920s and 30s, which is some times also called the New Objectivity (Neue Sachlichkeit).
3. In his work Discipline and Punish (1975), Michel Foucault argues that from the Enlightenment period onwards, the mode of power is no longer based on spectacular display but is structured around the gaze. The new power is primarily the power which exposes the entirety of the public space to the gaze and enables control to be established over it. It is precisely for this reason that as a paradigm of this power, Foucault proposes the famed Bentham's Panopticon - a model of prison where the inmates are constantly and ubiquitously exposed to the gaze without knowing who, if anyone at all, is watching them. The prison becomes a model for other institutions such as schools, military barracks, and factories.
4. Edvard Ravnikar, Vitalnost Plečnikovega klasicizma (The Vitality of Plečnik's Classicism), Architects's Bulletin 62/63, Ljubljana 1982.