In September, the seminar Library and Architecture 2009 took place

From September 6 to 8, the 5th anniversary seminar Library and Architecture took place this time in the new National Technical Library in Prague, organized by the UP Olomouc Library in cooperation with NTK. The unconventional venue (previously always in Olomouc) was deliberately chosen so that seminar participants could also attend the subsequent grand opening of NTK (on September 9).

The block of lectures was opened by Ladislav Kurka (Municipal Library in Prague) with a presentation on Summary of the Current Situation of Completed and Planned Buildings. In addition to a kind of retrospective of the Library and Architecture seminar, Mr. Kurka introduced his favorite model of five P's – conditions under which a library can be successfully built: 1) land, 2) money (certainty), 3) partnership (cooperation of architect with technician and librarian), 4) perspective (designing for the future), and 5) flexibility (in designing and decision-making). This was followed by a contribution from Jan Žemlička (Zemlicka & Pruy Ingenieur-Planung) on the topic How Much Architecture and How Much Technology Does a Library Need. Although this was not evident from the title, it was a significantly expressive lecture, which I personally consider the highlight of Monday. Mr. Žemlička is a person who does not mince words, yet he manages to engage with very sparkling opinions. During his presentation, he emphatically criticized architects, who, in his opinion, continue to make the same mistakes in design but do not intend to learn from them. I still remember his comment on the otherwise well-executed Moravian Library in Brno, which has a south-facing glass staircase, thus logically overheating with the necessary cooling in the floor, to which Mr. Žemlička reacted with a literal exclamation: “Why do I let heat in there when I have to cool it down?”. Mr. Žemlička's opinion on the advantages of natural ventilation through windows, which allows for sober use of air conditioning and thus lower operating costs (see the new NTK building), was also very interesting.
After Mr. Žemlička, Milan Bulaty (University Library of the Humboldt University) presented the Berlin Library. The lecture was a beautiful showcase of how functionality in architecture can be combined with beauty and freedom. The new library captivates visitors with its enormous open access (about two million volumes!), as well as charming tables with green worktops, which are a tribute to old German libraries. Gerald Leitner (Managing Director of the Austrian Library Association, Vienna) then focused on the situation in Austria, demonstrating with examples of libraries in Vienna, Linz, and Salzburg, which have become the pride of their cities, how the construction of new libraries can significantly revitalize a whole society. His contribution also debunked older skeptical views that libraries would disappear with the advent of the latest technologies. The opposite has become true; the mentioned new libraries recorded visitor numbers 20-40% higher and became cultural centers where people enjoy spending their free time. The day was then concluded with a presentation of the new NTK by its director Martin Svoboda, followed by a detail-rich guided tour of the entire library.
On Tuesday, we awaited the highlight of the seminar: a panel discussion on the topic National Library – Klementinum or new building, or both? The discussion table was attended by gentlemen Jan Kasl (Best Development Prague), Jan Vácha (National Library of the Czech Republic), Václav Králíček (Institute for the Development of the Capital City of Prague), Jan Benda (Allied Architects International Inc., vice-president, Shanghai), Josef Štulc (National Heritage Institute Prague), Vojtěch Balík (Philosophical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences), and Emil Přikryl (Architecture School of the AVU Prague), with Ms. Daniela Drtinová (Czech Television) moderating. During the two-and-a-half-hour discussion, many very interesting opinions were expressed, which in some cases were completely contradictory. For example, Emil Přikryl stated that, in his opinion and based on his students' projects, the National Library could fit into Klementinum. The idea that the National Library should remain at Klementinum was also supported by Mr. Balík. In contrast, Messrs. Kasl, Vácha, and Štulc argued that it would be better to build an entirely new library. Similar opinions also emerged from the audience; for instance, Ms. Stoklasová referred to Klementinum as a compromise library, while her colleagues recalled the terrible conditions of the National Library employees, the insufficient study room, the fact that Klementinum is located in a flood zone, etc. In general, the most excitement was stirred by Jan Benda's vision, who also voted for a new building, but not for a national library, rather a European one. According to him, this could contribute to the creation of a new identity for the Czech Republic within Europe and could make Prague a European cultural center.
After the discussion, the final lecture of the seminar followed, in which Jan Benda spoke about architecture in the digital age. He divided the lecture into three parts: in the first, he summarized the development of architecture associated with the advent of modern technologies; in the second, he returned to his idea of a European library and analyzed it in more detail. He identified the problem of the National Library as a problem of Czech identity, which is reportedly heavily infused with provincialism and an inability to see one's own culture in a broader context. His projection of Hradčany without St. Vitus Cathedral was particularly striking, which could humorously occur if Charles IV. had not been allowed to demolish the old basilica and replace it with a new construction. Finally, in the third part of his lecture, Benda commented on the current development of construction in China and presented some of the projects of himself and his wife Ivana.
Overall, the seminar was rated by participants as very successful and beneficial, and we can only look forward to the upcoming proceedings and hopefully also the next meeting in two years.