The cycle closes: History versus architect

The Cycle Closes: History versus Architect
Contribution by Jiří Plos
Contribution by Richard Biegel

---

The spaces of the Czech Centre in Prague hosted on Thursday, June 7, the last lecture and discussion meeting of the year organized by the studio A1Architects. This evening was umbrellaed under the topic History versus Architect, and the word "versus", the connecting link of all eight previous debates, was truly appropriate in this case. The title of the evening, which was presumably meant to encourage participants to step out of the traditionally defined controversy of two camps, indeed concealed the polarity of heritage protection - architecture. Presentations by the invited experts, among whom - said with a certain degree of exaggeration - Richard Biegel and Karel Ksandr defended the colors of the first team, and on the other side faced Jakub Cigler and Jiří Plos, reportedly sparked the longest discussion of the entire cycle. The director of the Czech Centre Prague, Dana Brabcová, was able to invite those present for traditional wine only after two and a half hours. On this occasion, she also mentioned a pleasing promise that the Czech Centre is considering cooperation with the A1 studio next year, when foreign participation could also be involved in the cycle. However, whether this will be through transmission technology (the evenings could be watched online this year, see www.versusarchitekt.cz) or in another form, the initiators and organizers of the event Lenka Křemenová, Jakub F. Novák, and David Maštálka did not want to reveal just yet.

First to speak was Richard Biegel, a long-time representative of the Club for Old Prague and since last year also a teacher and secretary of the Institute of Art History at Charles University. With a typical lively presentation, he outlined the current state of the heritage-architecture debate with the help of numerous images. According to him, it has reached the position of two antagonistic groups, defined by radical representatives of both camps, who work with a schematized idea of their opponents.
In fact, the real conflict, according to him, does not lie between the architect and the heritage specialist but between architecture and its commercial derivation. The outcome of this distorted perception is: "to rebuild means to revive, whereas to repair means to create an open-air museum", which results in the fact that architects lose their most natural ally - the protector of historical architecture.
According to him, the misunderstanding is primarily the fault of the distorted and shifted perception of the terms both groups argue with. Therefore, in his contribution, he attempted primarily to uncover these misleading meanings and clarify the content of the words - see Biegel's Illustrated Glossary of Terms.

Jakub Cigler, a former teacher at the AAAD and primarily a partner in the office CIGLER MARANI Architects, has participated in several projects during his professional career - including those for the historic center of Prague. (Let’s mention, for example, the Portheimka - the completion of Barvit's presbytery of the Smíchov Church of St. Wenceslas /2001-2003/, for which he received the award from the Club for Old Prague for the best realization in historical buildings or the debated housing project on the Vltava bank near the Herget Brickworks in Malá Strana, 2004.) As a creative architect, he presented a somewhat different perspective on this issue. A sentence with which he began his speech could serve as the motto of his contribution: "Nothing is eternal." People long to stop time, to reach fame and immortality, to create works that are forever lasting and revered… and according to Cigler, architects are the foremost representatives of these motivations. However, "time tests everything, and it is foolish to make judgments about eternity." Heritage protection, according to him, is an institution that must not be devalued by a provincial isolated environment. The broader consensus over time and space it is assessed by, the more valuable its conclusions are. The monument defends itself over time, and it depends on the level of society whether it stands or not… And this applies conversely as well.

As the third speaker, Karel Ksandr illustrated his thoughts on the topic, who during his professional career participated in the reconstruction of such significant modern architectural monuments as the Müller Villa by Adolf Loos and currently the Tugendhat Villa in Brno by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. The vice-chairman of the Club for Old Prague and current deputy director of the National Museum shared with those present primarily his experiences from these reconstructions. The entire discussed issue could, according to him, be summarized in the sentence that Loos said after completing the Müller Villa: "An intelligent builder, that's the whole secret of architecture." According to Ksandr, this also applies to monuments. From experience, he knows that it is possible for architects and heritage specialists to complement and respect each other. He compared their collaboration to the harmony of a surgeon and an anesthesiologist. Such a great team functioned precisely during the restoration of Loos' villa in Střešovice, while at the Tugendhat villa, unfortunately, this working atmosphere did not arise - primarily concerning the city's political representation.

Lastly, Jiří Plos presented his reading paper, the secretary of the Czech Chamber of Architects and a teacher at the Faculty of Architecture of the Czech Technical University (law) and the Faculty of Art and Architecture at Liberec University (law and urban construction). He first questioned the thesis that the building development of Prague - even in some of its parts - such as Malá Strana, could be finished, and hence the height of the buildings could thus be finished as well. (In the subsequent debate, R. Biegel questioned whether heritage protection worked with such a concept.) On the contrary, he perceives the diversity and intensity of construction as one of the fundamental city-forming characteristics and a way to counteract the extensive development of the locality. Protected areas must also provide space for the emergence of new urban and architectural layers. In conclusion, he outlined his opinion on the future development of Prague. According to Plos, it will head "back to greater intensification of land use, back to multifunctionality and layering, to greater diversity, to greater economy, and even to a revision of some landscape care demands or public health care demands (hygiene), if we recognize that their disproportionate application ultimately turns against the urbanity of Prague, against its richness and diversity, one of the prominent elements of which will also be the transformation of the height level of buildings, as has happened repeatedly in the history of this city." (see the editorially shortened paper Prague Will Grow Up)

In the subsequent discussion, Richard Biegel pointed out that it is always beneficial to talk about a specific city. Jakub Cigler reminded that it is not correct to view both groups as homogeneous: architects and heritage specialists also battle within. Karel Ksandr lamented that new creations do not focus, for example, on Jižní Město, where new centers could arise. Practically all participants criticized the "dual-track" (meaning the separation of expert and executive roles) of heritage protection. According to Plos, this removes the responsibility from heritage specialists. According to Cigler, the increase in bureaucracy makes an architect "a coordinator of nonsense" and agrees with others that there is absolutely a lack of vision on the political level. Authorities only deal with a flood of issues and do not even have time to form an opinion. Is this due to the four-year cycles of local government, as mentioned by Jiří Horský in the audience? The participants did not know the solution. Moreover, according to them, even the otherwise great Venice Biennale did not offer one.

It is therefore clear that topics for discussion persist. Let’s hope that we will have the opportunity to search for answers to some questions at similar meetings after the holidays. Let us be surprised by what form the organizers will choose next time.