številka / volume 234-235
oktober / october 2023
letnik / anno LIII

Skupaj znamo najbolje - slovenski inženirsko-arhitekturni dosežki
Together we know Best - Slovene Engineering and Architectural Achievements

vsebina številke
table of contents

Jurij Kobe Arhitektura in inženirstvo - pogledi
Architecture and Engineering - Views
INŽENIRSKA LJUBLJANA PRETEKLOST
Lara Slivnik Med gradbenim inženirstvom in kiparstvom: Ljubljanske armiranobetonske strešne konstrukcije, podprte z enim stebrom
Raimondo Mercadante Humanizacija arhitekture: Koželjeva urbanistična analiza ljubljanskega Trga revolucije (1973) /Humanizing architecture: Janez Koželj’s urban analysis of Trg Revolucije in Ljubljana
SEDANJOST
Majda Kregar Konstruktivni posegi v prenovi Ljubljanskega gradu Izhodišča za revitalizacijo
Elvis Jerkič Človeška vez - športne konstrukcije v Ljubljani
Ivana Ljubanovic´ Križman Nevidni ustroj Cukrarne
Ana Medved Kaj pokonci drži Center Rog? Pogovor z arhitektom Borisom Bežanom iz Studio BAX
Rok Žnidaršič Strokovne podlage za plovnost Ljubljanice
RAZSTAVA
Skupaj znamo najbolje slovenski inženirsko-arhitekturni dosežki
Kristina Dešman, Maja Ivanič, Špela Kuhar, Špela Nardoni Kovač, Vesna Perovnik, Damjana Zaviršek Hudnik Uvodnik
Gorazd Humar Razvoj gradbenoinženirske kulture v Sloveniji
Gojko Zupan Tehniška dediščina v Sloveniji, utrinki, 2022
Projekti
I. MOSTOVI ZA PEŠCE IN KOLESARJE, BRVI, PREMOSTITVE
II. PROMETNE PREMOSTITVE
III. AVTOCESTNE STRUKTURE
IV. PREDORI
V. STOLPI, VIŠINSKE KONSTRUKCIJE
VI. ŽIČNICE, VZPENJAČE
VII. LUPINE

uvodnik

Arhitektura in inženirstvo - pogledi

Jurij Kobe

... Ali verjameš v pesem, ki je bila napisana, da bi bila prodana? Če je pesem trgovsko blago, ni več pesem. Če je vrč predmet tekmovanja, ni več vrč in podoba boga, ampak je podoba tvoje nečimrnosti in tvojih nizkotnih poželenj...*

... What belief can you have in a poem written for sale? If a poem be an article of commerce, it ceases to be a poem. And if your urn be an article of competition, it ceases to be an urn and a likeness of God; rather, it is in the likeness of your vanity and your vulgar appetites...*

So časi debelih in časi suhih krav. Imeli smo srečne čase Slovenija projekta, še bolj nazaj Slovenskega projekta, velike projektantske hiše, ki je združevala delo pomembnih arhitektov, kot so, če omenimo zgolj nekatere, Vinko Glanz, Oton Gaspari, Savin Sever, Oton Jugovec ..., in vrhunske inženirje gradbeništva, kot so Josip Didek, Franc Belle ..., in so skupaj ali vsak posebej postavljali zgradbe, ki jih danes po vrsti uvrščamo v Docomomo. Nastajale so tovarne, ki so bile inovativne tako po obliki kot po funkciji: Niko v Železnikih, Tomos v Kopru, Učne delavnice Zavoda za gluho mladino, Tiskarna Mladinske knjige v Ljubljani in mnoge druge. To je bil čas, ko so industrijske zgradbe postajale mestotvorne! Revija ab je, spodbujena s temi prizadevanji, ki so bila pri nas takrat redka, a vsekakor inovatorska, v 34. številki iz davnega septembra 1977 iskala razloge, zakaj se vendarle arhitektura večinoma posveča predvsem prostorom za stanovanje, poslovnim prostorom (administraciji) in šolam, torej bivanju in umskemu delu, medtem ko projektiranje prostorov, namenjenih fizičnemu delu, torej tovarnam, obvladujejo predvsem inženirske stroke. Slovenija projekt je prav s svojimi projektanti ene in druge zvrsti projektiral tudi zgradbe za industrijo, ki so bile premišljene in izvirne.

In smo imeli čase suhih krav, čase, ko sta sijaj in moč zasnov Slovenijaprojekta začela izpodrivati cenovno propulzivnejša prizadevanja. V reviji, katere izvod držite v rokah, je bil leta 1980 objavljen članek Mostovi. To je bil čas, ko so se v Ljubljani, mestu z zgledno zgodovino arhitekture mostov, ki so tudi odlični inženirski objekti, v kratkem času v mestnem središču ali v njegovi neposredni okolici pojavili številni novi mostovi, zgrajeni po preprostem vzorcu prekladnega nosilca na betonskih stebrih. Ti so s svojo vsiljivo brutalnostjo grobo degradirali svoje okolje ali celo posmehljivo konkurirali svojim obstoječim zglednim sosedom, kot na primer most nove Karlovške ceste staremu dostojanstvenemu Karlovškemu mostu v neposredni bližini. Zanimivo! A zdi se, da danes govoriti o povezavi med arhitekturo in inženirstvom sploh ni nič nenavadnega. Ali pač?

Verjetno smo res prišli tako daleč, da nam povezanost obeh strok in še nekaterih drugih očitno ni nekaj samoumevnega in moramo to marsikomu samoumevno dejstvo posebej poudarjati. Smo se res premaknili v čas, ko imamo na eni strani arhitekte in na drugi inženirje? In nam ni jasno, kaj je osnovno opravilo oziroma kje se je začelo delo prvih in kje drugih in kje in kdaj se delo obojih srečuje. Mogoče pa je to vprašanje prava priložnost za razmislek o današnjih poteh arhitekture in inženirstva v gradbeništvu! Mogoče je v resnici prav, da o tem razpravljamo prav v današnjem času splošnega prepletanja strok in se vendarle presprašujemo.

In pogled še malo nazaj

V preletu skozi zgodovino vidimo, da se je gradbeništvo (inženirstvo), katerega področje je bilo prvotno konstruiranje večinoma robustnih konstrukcij, kultiviralo v uspešnega oblikovalca tudi subtilnejših form. Že v sredini 18. stoletja so začele delovati visoke šole, ki so vzgajale v zahtevnejšem snovanju in oblikovanju do tedaj pomensko manj zahtevnih konstrukcij; ena takšnih je bila francoska E´cole royale des ponts et chausse´es. Nastajajo inženirske zasnove, ki s svojo formo in materialom govorijo o pomenu zgradbe, ki jo sestavljajo, in govorijo tudi o času svojega nastanka. Ena takšnih zasnov je ikonski Iron Bridge iz druge polovice 18. stoletja, katerega snovalec je bil sicer po izobrazbi arhitekt(!). Od tu naprej pot razvoja te ideje ni bila težka. Pojavljajo se znana imena inženirjev, kot je August Eiffel s svojimi sodobniki, kasneje Robert Maillart in njegovi kolegi, tja do sodobnejših, kot sta Pier Luigi Nervi in zdaj delujoči Santiago Calatrava: vsi oboje – inženirji in arhitekti –, če ne oboje po izobrazbi, vsaj po hotenju in izkušnjah.

In pogled še bolj nazaj

Začelo se je nekako takole: najprej je bil samo arhitekt (vodilni tesar). Bil je tisti, ki se odločil, kakšen pomen ima zgradba, ki jo snuje. Poleg tega, da je znal narisati svojo zamisel za neki objekt, je moral tudi določiti njegove dimenzije glede na njegov namen in število ljudi, ki ga bodo uporabljali, izbrati način osvetljevanja in barve, nato presoditi, kako bo vse to trajno stalo, oblikovati, izbrati material in mojstre. Predvsem pa je vedel za simbolni pomen določene forme in materiala, ki ni bil izbran le zato, da bi vzdržal težnostne sile. Forma, konstrukcija in material, iz katerega so zgradbo zgradili, so sporočali o pomenu zgradbe, kar je bila njihova enakovredna funkcija.

Arhitekt je bil torej skozi več tisoč let tisti, ki je vse to znal ali vsaj razumel osnovne zakonitosti. In nato je prišel teolog, fizik, filozof, astronom, geograf in še marsikaj, Ruđer Boškovic´, za katerega sicer ne vemo, da bi sam kaj lepega zgradil, a je bil visoko izobražen tudi v fiziki in je razumel sestavljanje (tudi) gradbenih elementov, ne le empirično, ampak tudi z računom. In je krepko več kot sto let od zgraditve Michelangelove rimske mojstrovine izračunal potrebno, da se razpoke na konstrukciji kupole bazilike sv. Petra niso preveč razširile. Danes rečemo, da je bil to prvi znani statični izračun. Je bila to prva znana (sicer nenamerna) delitev dela ali pa govorimo o sodelovanju med arhitektom, umetnikom in statikom, oboroženim s specifičnim znanjem?

Pa pogled v današnji svet

No, ne tako daleč nazaj je bila značilnost ljubljanske šole za arhitekturo Plečnika in Ravnikarja z njegovimi nasledniki znanje risanja in iskanja oblik, ki so zrcalile ne le svoj pomen in funkcijo, marveč tudi čas, kulturo svojega, tudi fizičnega okolja, skratka ves kontekst. Bile pa so tudi konstruirane in tudi konstrukcija, ki jo je inženir nato izračunal, je bila vedno enakovreden, tudi eden bistvenih delov pripovedi arhitekture že v zasnovi.

Je ta čas glede na sodobna dogajanja v marsičem danes že minil? Se je danes arhitektura toliko odmaknila od navedenega, da moramo za konstrukcijsko logično gradbeništvo, ki želi slediti tudi nekaterim nekdaj logičnim lastnostim dobre arhitekture, izumljati pojem oziroma izraz inženirska arhitektura, kot je bilo večkrat izgovorjeno in poudarjeno na nedavnem odmevu, na okrogli mizi v Dessi ob razstavi Skupaj znamo najbolje?

In vendar še pogled s strani

Se pa ob teh vprašanjih pojavljajo še druga:
Kje se neha arhitektura in se začne inženirska arhitektura? Ali je ena vrednejša (naše pozornosti) od druge? Mogoče razmišljanja o tem kažejo nedavne in sodobne odločitve tistih, ki naj bi predvsem varovali našo dediščino, torej spomeniške službe. Ta pravkar izkazuje svoje stališče do arhitekture, ki preveč poudarja inženirsko znanje: kako si lahko razlagamo pravkaršnje povsem hladno rušenje ikonske proizvodne hale tovarne Tomos v Kopru? Kako je lahko v kompleksu nekdanje tiskarne Mladinske knjige prav Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije pravkar določil, kateri deli zgradbe s tipičnimi Severjevimi nosilci se lahko porušijo?

In ob tem še:
Zbornica za arhitekturo in prostor je pred kratkim razpisala natečaj za oblikovanje veličastnega mostu preko prelepe dolenjske doline, vključno z ureditvijo okolice, in pri tem povsem prezrla potrebno sodelovanje arhitekta. So sodobne tovrstne dileme oziroma razlikovanja med inženirstvom in arhitekturo vzklila povsem banalno: nekdo (naročnik) je tako želel in mu je uspelo minimalizirati balast projektantov pri načrtu, zbornica pa je temu prisluhnila?
Imamo torej arhitekturo, inženirstvo in nato še inženirsko arhitekturo? Premišljevanje o tem nam pove, kje pravzaprav smo...

... A če svojim ljudem pripovedujem o ljubezni do plovbe po morju in bi se tako vsak od njih trudil zaradi nečesa, kar mu leži na srcu, tedaj bi kmalu videl, da jih ločuje na tisoče različnih lastnosti. Nekdo bo tkal platno, drugi bo v gozdu s svojo bleščečo sekiro podrl drevo. Spet tretji bo koval žeblje in nekateri bodo opazovali zvezde, da bi se naučili poveljevanja. Vendarle pa bodo vsi eno. Gradnja ladje ni tkanje platna, kovanje žebljev in branje zvezd, ampak občutek za morje, ki je eden in v luči katerega ni nič več protislovno, ampak vse združeno v ljubezni...*  (Oba citata sta iz knjige Antoine de Saint-Exupery, 2015. Citadela. Ljubljana: Beletrina, prevedla Špela Žakelj.)

leader

Architecture and Engineering - Views

by Jurij Kobe

 

 

Casting a View Back

There are the best of times, there are the worst of times. There were the happy times of Slovenijaprojekt, and Slovenski projekt before that, a large design office which united the work of important architects such as Vinko Glanz, Oton Gaspari, Savin Sever and Oton Jugovec, and top civil engineers such as Josip Didek and Franc Belle, to mention only a few. Together or on their own, they erected buildings nowadays regularly recognised by DOCOMOMO. Factories were created that were innovative both in their form and their function: Niko in Železniki, Tomos in Koper, Apprentices' Workshops at the Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Mladinska knjiga printworks in Ljubljana, and many more.

This was a time when industrial buildings were becoming city-forming. Inspired by these endeavours, which were at that time as rare in the Slovene space as they were innovative, journal ab in its volume no. 34 from September 1977 set out to look for reasons why architecture is ultimately interested chiefly in living spaces, administrative spaces, and schools, i.e. habitation and mental labour, while the designing of spaces intended for manual labour, that is to say factories, is left to deal with primarily to engineering professions. With its designers belonging to both disciplines, Slovenijaprojekt also designed industrial buildings which were thoroughly thought-out and original.

And we had the worst of times, the times when the lustre and the strength of Slovenijaprojekt's designs began to be supplanted by more audaciously priced enterprises. The journal which you're holding in your hands published an article entitled "Bridges" in 1980. This was a time when in Ljubljana, a city with an exemplary history of bridge architecture and whose bridges also boast excellent engineering, a number of new bridges began to appear which were built following the simple pattern of a deck slab on concrete piers. With their intrusive brutality, they pitilessly degraded their environments or even disdainfully competed with their exemplary existing neighbours, such as the bridge of the new Karlovška Road in the immediate vicinity of the old and dignified Karlovški Bridge.

Interesting. Yet it seems that the talk about the relationship between architecture and engineering is really nothing out of the ordinary. Or is it?
We might well have got to the point when the interrelation of the two disciplines, along with a few others, is not something self-evident, which in turn obliges us to go out of our way to emphasise the fact which is self-evident to many. Have we really transitioned to a time where there is a divide between architects on one side and engineers on the other? A time where we have ceased to comprehend what is the fundamental role of either, ceased to understand where the work of either begins, and at what point the said work makes a point of contact? Perhaps this very question is a genuine opportunity for a reflection on the contemporary paths of architecture and engineering in construction. Perhaps we are ultimately correct to debate this in this contemporary moment of general intertwining as well as the intertwining of disciplines, and question both.

Casting a View Further Back

A rearward glance through history suggests that construction (civil engineering) has cultivated itself from its original field of constructing chiefly robust structures into a successful discipline designing forms which also include those more subtle in character. Already by the mid-1700s, specialised schools had appeared which offered more exacting training in devising and designing constructions which had until then been less demanding in terms of their meaning, one of such schools being the French E´cole royale des ponts et chausse´es. We witness an emergence of engineering designs whose form and material speak to the meaning of the building which they constitute while at the same time testifying to the time of their creation. One such design is the iconic Iron Bridge from the 2nd half of the 18th century, whose designer happened to be an architect (!). From this point on, the development of the idea proceeded unhindered. We recognise the names of engineers such as Gustave Eiffel with his contemporaries, then Robert Maillart and his colleagues, and, more contemporarily, Pier Luigi Nervi and, later on, Santiago Calatrava. All of them were both engineers and architects, if not by qualification then at least by their strivings and their experience.

Casting a View Further Back Still

It all began a little like this: initially, there was just an architect, the head carpenter. He was the one who decided on the meaning of the building being designed. This is alongside being able to draw his idea of a building; to determine its dimensions according to its purpose and the amount of people that would use it; to choose the manner of lighting and colours, and then gauge how all of this may be erected in a permanent manner; and to choose the materials and pick out the craftspeople. But chiefly, he was the one who had the knowledge on the symbolic meaning of a certain form and a certain material, which was not chosen merely so as to withstand the forces of gravity. The form, the structure, and the material that made up the building all conveyed a message of the building's meaning, which was one of their co-equal functions.

 

For several thousand years, the architect was the one who mastered all of the above, or at least understood the fundamental principles. Then came the theologian, the physicist, the philosopher, the astronomer, the geographer the list doesn't end here - Ruđer Boškovic´. Not known to history for having built any illustrious structure, he possessed, however, advanced knowledge of physics, among other things, and he understood the assembly of, for one, structural elements not only empirically but also by means of calculation. A good hundred years after the erection of Michelangelo's masterpiece in Rome, he computed all that was required for preventing the fissures in the dome of St. Peter's from propagating. Today, this is recognised as the first recorded static calculation. This was either the first though unintentional division of labour, or we may regard it as a collaboration between the architect, the artist, and the static engineer equipped with specific expertise.

A View into the Contemporary World

In a not too distant past, the characteristic of the Ljubljana school of architecture featuring Jože Plečnik and Edvard Ravnikar with his successors was not only the knowledge of drafting but also the quest for forms which reflected not only their meaning and function but also the time and the culture of their environment, including the physical environment, i.e. the full context. Yet these forms were also constructed, and the structure, which was in turn calculated by the engineer, was always an equal and key element of the architecture's story already in its design.

From today's perspective, is this time in many ways already a bygone era, judging by the contemporary developments? Has architecture moved so far away from the above that in order to encompass structurally logical construction also wanting to conform to certain - once logical - properties of good architecture, we need to invent the notion of engineering architecture, as was heard being said and emphasised several times during the recent round-table discussion in gallery DESSA accompanying the exhibition Together we know Best: Slovene Engineering and Architectural Achievements?

For all that, a View from the Side

This is not the only question asserting itself:
Where does architecture end and engineering architecture begin? Is one more deserving (of our attention) than the other? Perhaps these considerations inform the recent and contemporary decisions by those entrusted with the protection of our heritage, i.e. the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage? Their attitude towards architecture which overly emphasises the knowledge of engineering has been made known - how are we otherwise to interpret the very recent demolition of the iconic manufacturing hall of factory Tomos in Koper where nary an eyelid was batted? How is it that the very same Institute has mere days ago adjudicated which sections of the building with Savin Sever's characteristic girders are free to be demolished?

Finally, let me add:
The Chamber of Architecture and Spatial Planning of Slovenia has recently issued a tender for designing a magnificent bridge across a beautiful Lower Carniola valley, complete with the layout of the surroundings, whereby it neglected to stipulate the requisite involvement of an architect. Have these contemporary dilemmas, has this differentiation between engineering and architecture been triggered by banality: did someone (the investor) try and succeed in cutting the dead weight of the designers working on the design, with the Chamber accommodating it?
Are there, therefore, architecture, engineering, and then engineering architecture? The mere deliberation is indicative enough of the current state of affairs...

...[I]f I communicate to my men the love of walking on the sea, and each of them is thus disinclined because of a weight in the heart, then you will soon see them diversify according to their thousand. special qualities. One will weave the canvas; another will fell a tree by the light of his ax. Yet another will forge nails, and there will be others who observe the stars to learn how to navigate. And yet all will be as one. Building a boat isn’t about weaving canvas, forging nails, or reading the sky. It’s about giving a shared taste for the sea, by the light of which you will see nothing contradictory but rather a community of love...* (Both quotations taken from The Wisdom of Sands by Antoine de Saint-Exupe´ry, translated by Stuart Gilbert, published by Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1950. )