Prague will grow in height

The Cycle is Coming to an End: History versus Architect
Contribution by Jiří Plos
Contribution by Richard Biegel

---

The topic of this discussion is the relationship of new construction (including high-rise buildings) in Prague to heritage protection - more generally, to history. It is not just about high-rise buildings, but a holistic approach to the urban development of the city. High-rise buildings represent only one possible segment or manifestation of construction. The requirements of heritage protection represent yet another narrowing of this subset: however, they pose certain questions whose answers have significant consequences for the development of the city. Among these questions, in relation to the height of buildings, it primarily concerns whether, and if so, whether the construction development of Prague can be terminated in any part of it. Whether the development of the skyline of Prague can be terminated at all. Whether the development of the height of construction can be terminated, or its height "level".

Civicness is to a large extent synonymous with intensity. Higher concentrations of construction, for example, reduced infrastructure costs, intensified social life, and allowed for richer information exchange. The city is shaped by very diverse elements and components; it is a social, economic - cultural-civilizational organism. Its development is perpetually marked not only by specific architectural and urbanistic achievements but also by contemporary theories from which specific construction draws. European cities, however, developed in certain phases - among other things, due to the influence of some urbanist theories - largely extensively. One of the theories that significantly influenced urban development was the theory of the green city, another was the theory of functional zoning. They abandoned the model of a European city as a functionally and structurally diverse, layered place - in the most original sense of the word, literally kneaded (the similarity between the words city and dough is certainly not coincidental). Places were extraordinarily concentrated functionally and structurally, emphasizing on one side the efficiency of land use and on the other side the possibilities resulting from this - particularly the high concentration of social life. Both of these facts obviously have positive and negative consequences. In the interest of achieving suitable parameters for living environments, especially hygienic ones, modern theories abandoned the view of the city as significantly concentrated and locally concentrated construction. The consequence was extensive land appropriations of previously undeveloped land with minimal land-use efficiency, increased infrastructure costs, and increased ordinary maintenance costs for the city (increasing operational costs). Heritage protection enters this general urban environment with certain demands and conditions. It is essential to clarify what these are, on what they are based - in other words, to what extent the claims raised in this way are justified and legitimate.

MISSING CONCEPT
I state that a truly serious conceptual discussion about the nature and development of cities in general (and with regard to the interests of heritage protection specifically) has not yet been held and is not being held. Heritage protection, by nature conservative and protective (when we speak of protection, it must also be active and enabling and supporting contemporary construction with an understanding of both current and foreseeably future urban and architectural development of the city and the insertion of new - authentic layers), indeed regularly rather prevents authentic urban and architectural expressions citing a lack of authenticity (?!), a lack of identity (?!), or even a "completeness of urban development" (?!), of certain parts of the city, such as Malá Strana, at a certain (often extraordinarily subjectively determined) date, while for redeveloped parts of the city and new construction it is determined as definitive and non-negotiable.

HERITAGE PROTECTION AS A BRAKE?
Heritage protection is, of course, a historically conditioned phenomenon, and its essence is a social contract - an agreement. The view of heritage protection is variable; many formerly condemned urban and architectural endeavors (among many others Baroque, Art Nouveau, Functionalism) are gradually taken into consideration and subsequently become the subject of its interest, that is, in the best case care, in the worst case protection! This public interest can vary in different parts of the city, but it never stands alone. Alongside this public interest, there are not only private interests (consistently very diverse, and therefore often mutually contradictory), but also other public interests, for which the same applies. The interest of heritage protection differs from the interest of nature and landscape protection, differs from the interest of fire safety, hygiene, or infrastructure. In formulating its requirements, heritage protection must primarily draw from the facts and findings typical and characteristic for it, conditioned by the field. However, it cannot ignore other interests and the broader interrelations among them. Without the ability to weigh the intensity of the protected interest, to hierarchize it and sufficiently qualify and specify it - heritage protection becomes rather a brake on the emergence of new authentic layers of urban and architectural character, which in turn goes against its own interests in future heritage protection.

New construction, especially high-rise buildings, inevitably brings with it a number of desired and undesired externalities. It is usually a very effective urban solution that is economical, especially for the territory, and typically also an interesting architectural challenge. If we take the notion of a city in its essence seriously, then urban structures represent an extraordinary collection or concentration of life and the material world, resulting in a greater pace of life, certainly noise, and a multiplicatively higher operational load, certain security restrictions, but also a higher concentration of social interactions and cultural-civilizational activities. The topic is the integration and harmonization of diverse interests in the area, maximizing or optimizing positive externalities and minimizing negative externalities.



INSUFFICIENT DEFINITION
The fundamental problems concerning contemporary heritage protection in relation to Prague's urban development are found in the following:

• on the one hand, the insufficient specific definition of care conditions (not only protection, but even that!) in the historical environment itself (e.g., PPR),
• on the other hand, the completely inadequate definition of conditions in protective zones (the protective zone of PPR is a typical example) and decision-making conditions.

Both of these facts are consequences of a less than clarified approach from both professional and administrative entities regarding the role of heritage protection in the construction process, in inadequate spatial and functional stratification, and inadequately significant differentiation (hierarchization) of the cognitive values of the city in relation to this stratification. This is more generally the result of a not entirely functional system of heritage protection as a whole, in which there is still little space created for the application of highly qualified individuals with full personal responsibility.

CLOSURE (AS AN EXCUSE)
None of us doubt that different parts of the city are rated differently in various perspectives. None of us will probably question the importance of caring for preserved evidence of the cultural-civilizational development of the city. However, this cannot be equated only with some sort of nostalgia, to which any expressions of current (and future-predicting) urban and architectural development are alien, incomprehensible, and fundamentally hostile. Which not only does not understand but - and this is much more serious - fundamentally does not want to understand! None of us will doubt the importance of individual cultural-civilizational layers; nevertheless, in specific decisions, the same reservations repeatedly appear, which defend new expressions citing some kind of closure. This usually hides behind the guise of not entirely clarified and consistent notions, such as authenticity, identity, and so on. Nevertheless, is not contemporary urbanism, is not contemporary architecture a manifestation of a profoundly authentic character?

THE RIGHT TO A NEW LAYER
If the interest of heritage protection is to be generally respected, then it must be formulated, justified, and relate only to those facts that are subject to heritage protection. In the case of protected areas, it must allow for the emergence of new urban and architectural layers; in the case of protective zones, it must specify only those conditions that are directly related to the object of care. The specific form of this care, however, must in no case be intended as a prohibition of new construction not only in the protective zone but also in the directly heritage-protected area itself. Although one cannot completely eliminate the influence of personal taste and personality traits, the entire system must not be built on subjective personal taste and opinions that are processually uncorrected and uncorrectable.

The development of Prague is not and must not be terminated; otherwise, it will be a city of the dead - a dead city. The development of Prague will, in my opinion, head back toward greater intensification of land use, back to multifunctionality and layering, to greater diversity, to greater economy, and even to a revision of some demands concerning landscape care or demands for public health protection (hygienic), if we recognize that their disproportionate application ultimately turns against the civic nature of Prague, against its richness and diversity, one of the striking elements of which will also be the transformation of the height level of construction, as has repeatedly been the case in the history of this city. If we compare the views of the city over the centuries, but in the last century over decades, we see a clear transformation of the landscape and urban structures and we also see an increase in building height. When evaluating the urban development of Prague, we should also honestly admit that restrictions on building height in certain periods were by no means conducted only "with a sense of harmony and aesthetics of the city as a whole and its parts," more like seen from technical, operational, and safety considerations (the reach of firefighting means, for example), to which we subsequently and sometimes a bit forcibly "read" these aesthetic values.

Jiří Plos
Prague 07. 06. 2007
(edited by the editorial office, images accompanied by the editorial office, repro Manchester Hulme taken from the presentation of Jakub Cigler)