Contrast or
complement
3
Contrast or complement
Developing and preserving nineteenth century neighbourhoods in post-communist Prague
Maarten Groenbroek student number: S1782428
Master thesis of Architecture and Urban History Faculty of Arts
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen / University of Groningen Dr. A.M. Martin
Dr. C. Wagenaar
October 2013
6
Index
Introduction 9
PART I Prague: transition and urban transformation after 1989 13
1. Post-communist transition in Central and Eastern Europe; the case of Czechoslovakia 15
1 - Social transformation 15
2 - Political transformation 20
3 - Economic transformation 22
2. Background and character of spatial transformation 27
A - Communist heritage 27
B - Post-communist tools 40
C - The household development in post-communist Prague 46
3. Post-communist urban transformation in Prague 49
1 - Commercial development of the urban core 49
2 - Suburbanisation at the urban periphery 52
7
PART II A closer look: Karlín and Žižkov 57
4. Prague’s first suburb: Karlín 63
1 - Morphology and typology 66
2 - Kollárova 14 81
3 - Cornlofts Šaldova 87
4 - North of Karlín: redeveloping the area 92
5 - River Diamond 113
5. The neighbourhood of Žižkov 119
1 - Morphology and typology 124
2 - Rezidence Prokopova 135
3 - Rezidence Jeseniova 140
4 - Alfa Rezidence 147
5 - Central Park Praha 154
6 - Eucon Building 161
7 - Žižkov freight station area 171
Conclusions 181
Sources 187
9
Introduction
In 2012 I visited Prague , in the context of the research module for my study Urban History. I wrote an essay about the effects of the communist city (1945 – 1989) in terms of morphology, typology, programme, architecture and infrastructure on the urban landscape and the everyday life in the city of Prague. While doing my research, in the city of Prague and back in the Netherlands, my interest was also aroused by today’s urban environment of other parts of the city, especially historic, most nineteenth (and the beginning of the twentieth) century neighbourhoods, and their surroundings. I noticed the contrasts: districts with predominantly historic buildings, areas with only complexes built in the 21st century (the former district separated by one road from the latter), and vast areas with marginalized functions and dilapidated buildings, but also completely abandoned areas, within walking distance from the historic neighbourhoods. I suspected a complex relationship of different forces, with major effects on the urban environment in and around these historic neighbourhoods. In contrast to the outskirts of the city, where large housing estates of prefabricated panels, built in communist times, dominate the area, the nineteenth century
neighbourhoods and their surroundings are being characterised by historic buildings, prefabricated panel buildings here and there, and brand new (and sometimes very large) buildings. The degree of interventions after 1989 in this area felt dramatic at some places, because of the contrasts in this urban environment, described above.
In the post-communist society, a market-oriented economy, focused on private initiative, took the role of the centralised, planned economy. Restitution of nationalised property took place. These factors had (and have) implications on dealing with urban issues, the functioning of the real estate market, and for designing the city in Central and East European countries. I wondered which forces play a role at the transformation of the post-communist city of Prague, where these forces came from, and what effect they have on the urban fabric. I was interested in the location of the spatial transformation: where the
10
There is a growing, global consensus about the positive effects of conserving the urban heritage. In most cities around the globe, historic urban areas are just a small part of the total urban fabric, but they play a very important role in the formation of national and local identity, and as places of memory, and are an important part of social and community values essential to define identity, nurture culture, inform education, and to become magnets for economic and creative activity. The historic city should be viewed not only as a unity of architectural monuments and supporting fabric. More and more researchers think the historic city should also be seen as a complex layering of meanings, connected both to its natural environment and to its geological structure, as well as to its metropolitan hinterland.1
The main question of my thesis is: are developers, designers, architects, officials of the authority, and citizens of post-communist Prague involved and/or concerned in preserving the historic urban fabric, typology of the city and the importance of historic buildings and monuments, during the design and
construction of new complexes in and around the nineteenth century neighbourhood of Prague?2 If they are, how are they involved and/or concerned?
To answer these questions in detail, I chose to focus on two historic Prague neighbourhoods, namely Karlín and Žižkov. I will discuss the urban history of these two historic neighbourhoods, to define the urban heritage that could be preserved. In each of the two cases I will discuss post-communist residential projects within the urban fabric of these neighbourhoods. I chose projects of residential complexes instead of commercial or office buildings, because the function of living plays an important role in these historic neighbourhoods. Since 1989 more space is used for commercial purposes and gentrification occurred. These factors enlarge the possibility of change or even disappearance of historic values of living, social and community values, and values of identity. Another important part of both cases form the chapters about the redevelopment areas, River Gardens in Karlín and the area of the former freight station in Žižkov. It can be discussed, especially in the case of the River Gardens project, whether these areas are part of the historic urban fabric, but because these areas are in close vicinity of the nineteenth century neighbourhoods, it is of vital importance that they are aligned with the historic districts. In these chapter some examples of projects with a commercial or office function will be discussed.
1 F. Bandarin, F. van Oers, The historic urban landscape: managing heritage in an urban century, Chicester, 2012, pp. 175-176. 2
11
Next to Karlín and Žižkov, more neighbourhoods exist with a nineteenth century urban background. Even though I have not studied them, more or less the same issues can be found here, as in Karlín and Žižkov. For example vast areas with old railway junctions are waiting to be redeveloped in the nearby future, in Smíchov and Holešovice. And developers advertise their new residential complexes on almost every street corner of the city.
To answer my research questions, I will use books and web sites. Furthermore I’ve been to Prague to experience the historic urban fabric and the new residential projects. Very important for my research were the people I spoke to: Barbora Mluvková, Pavel Kalina, Lukáš Vacek, Michal Kohout, David Tichý, František Štáfek and Jaroslav Šafer. All the information I got from these architects (and one professor; Kalina) was incredibly useful to me in trying to understand the historic urban fabric of Prague and to find out more about post-communist residential projects, and to empathize with the urban issues in and around the historic districts. I’d like to specially thank Barbora Mluvková for the inside stories about Žižkov and all the special geographical maps she gave me, and Lukás Vacek for giving me insight about planning problems and planning processes in Prague. For some residential projects I spoke to the designer(s), for other projects that wasn’t possible. The architects of Baumschlager Eberle sent me images of their project Cornlofts Šaldova, though. In the office of Karlín Group I was allowed to take photographs from the model of the River Gardens project.
Finally, I’d like to thank my teacher, Marijke Martin, for her full support during the process of writing this thesis.
12
Image 2: map of Prague with the inner city neighbourhoods Josefov, Staré Město, Nové Město, Malá Strana and Hradčany, and the nineteenth century neighbourhoods Holešovice, Karlín, Libeň, Žižkov, Vinohrady and Smíchov.
13
PART I
Prague: transition and urban
transformation after 1989
15
1. Post-communist transition in Central and Eastern Europe; the case of
Czechoslovakia
communist transformation can be classified into three main types, according to the author Mariusz Czepczynski in his book Cultural Landscapes of
Post-Socialist Cities: Representation of Powers and Needs: social, political and economic transformation. This division could also be find in the book of B. Wheaton
and Z. Kavan, The Velvet Revolution: Czechoslovakia, 1988-1991. I will follow this division. Many events and decisions made between the years 1988 and 1992 in Central and East European countries had to do with more than one sort of transformation. Therefore, the social, political and economic spheres overlap each other and are closely interrelated. There is an emphasis on spatial effects in this and the following chapter.
1 - Social transformation
Already in 1986 public opinion polls stated that a large proportion of the people from Czechoslovakia did not agree with the policies and ideology of communism and the communist party. But, at that time, there were few public signs of that dissatisfaction.3
In the first months of 1988 the growth of public criticism and the economic difficulties caused the mushrooming of dissident groups and public
demonstrations in Czechoslovakia, for the first time since 1968 (Prague Spring).4 These new demonstrations took place without government approval and
brought out the repressive nature of the communist regime. This generated a wave of negative publicity, in Czechoslovakia, but especially abroad. The
3
B. Wheaton, Z. Kavan, The Velvet Revolution: Czechoslovakia, 1988-1991, Boulder/Oxford, 1992, p. 24-25.
16
repression didn’t help, in view of the fact that more and more demonstrations were held in the summer of 1988. Several major demonstrations were held on important days, like August 21 (twentieth anniversary of the invasion of Czechoslovakia), October 28 (anniversary of the founding of the republic in 1918) and December 10 (fortieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Sometimes the government tried a different strategy than direct repression hoping to reduce the number of demonstrators. For example, the government declared October 28 as a public holiday for the first time since 1968, to let the people know that it now recognised the founding of the republic ánd, as this first free day fell on a Friday, to give them the opportunity to go to their dachas (country cottages) for a long weekend. Still 5,000 protestors gathered on Wenceslas Square and the police seized hard.5 The aims of the protests were freedom of speech and thought, democratic elections, the abolition of censorship, rehabilitation of the victims of political persecution and respecting human rights.6
The developments in Central and Eastern Europe had a powerful impact on both the population and the government of Czechoslovakia. Especially the collapse of communist regimes in Hungary and Poland in 1989 aroused the opposition in Czechoslovakia wanting the same thing. More demonstrations followed, and on Sunday November 26, 1989, 750,000 people (more than five percent of the republic’s population) joined the Letná Demonstration, on the Letná Plain in Prague (see image 4). The aims were the abolition of article 4 of the constitution (guaranteeing the Communist Party’s leading role), support for the general strike, genuine changes in the leadership of party and state (not just a change of some people with the same thoughts) and free elections.7
Only three days later Article 4 was abolished. On December 3 the party would form a federal government which intention was to guarantee free elections, civil liberties and the removal of political influence in the workplace.8 After the breaking of the monopoly of the Communist Party and the formation of an interim coalition only a president had to be elected, to guarantee free elections and forming a real democracy in Czechoslovakia on the basis of political pluralism. On December 22 Václav Havel, one of the most important dissidents of the Czechoslovakian revolution, was elected as president of
17
Czechoslovakia. The events and protests in November en December 1989 in Czechoslovakia are known as the Velvet Revolution, because of the non-violent character of these events.
18
The government agreed that the problems, inherited by the communist regime, excised the reconstruction of society. The following issues were discussed: - egalitarianism in employment under communist regimes had to be abolished, but a free market meant more losers in the labour market. A social provision had to be arranged for those people.
- education was far below par, because of the neglect of certain subjects, suppression of religious education, the narrowing of access and the failure to produce research in the social sciences.9 The students had a distorted view of the outside world, because they weren’t allowed to travel. The new government wanted education on the basis of democratic and humanistic principles. Language teaching became very important, especially the teaching of English. - cleaning up the environment. Recognised as a long term project, included tightening of existing controls and the closing of polluting enterprises. Because of cross-border problems, the government saw that international cooperation and great investment was necessary.
- health care. Under communist regime there was a great lack of funding and the health care service was very inefficient. The new government said that everyone in Czechoslovakia had the right of good, standard health care. Towards the free market system, it was proposed to shift the health care service from the state to the citizen in the future, on the basis of a flexible health insurance system.10
- property which was confiscated by the communist regime was given back to the rightful owners, including land and buildings.
- it also became necessary to create a new, post-communist, master plan for the city of Prague. After a time of constructing large housing estates in the outer zone of Prague, causing a great lack of resources to maintain the existing city, an interim city master plan was approved in 1994, the Land Use Plan of stabilized zones (see image 5). On the map territories and spaces with an agreed functional use were drawn. Most remarkable were the ‘white spots’ on the map, divided into three categories: territories depending on the completion of transit structures, territories depending on a city-wide urban concept and
territories whose function must be specified in an urban study. Thus, mainly areas which were in need of restructuring, because of losing the historical function of the area, like abandoned railway stations and junctions, and areas which were empty and vacated for decades during the communist era.
9 Ibid., 1992, p. 144. 10
20
2- Political transformation
Glasnost and Perestroika
In the 1980s much people already knew the communist system would collapse, sooner or later. Some experts said, in the 1980s, that the centrally planned economy of Central and Eastern Europe had the prospect of at least till the year 2000 or so of relatively good performance without recession.11 There was no major unrest in the USSR, and in countries like Czechoslovakia and the GDR (German Democratic Republic), the centrally planned economy and the political regimes were far from having used up their full potential.12 All communist parties in Central- en East-European states were linked to each other, with the communist party of the Soviet-Union, which set the terms for all the other parties, and therefore making all the other communist countries satellite states of the Soviet-Union. Political reform had to begin in the Soviet-Union; there was no other way.
When Mikhail Gorbachev (born March 2 1931) came to power in the Soviet Union (secretary-general of the communist party) he introduced two concepts: glasnost (openness) and perestroika (political and economic reforms). On the other hand the Soviet communist party was no longer interested in its domination over the other communist parties and states, because the Soviet communist party had to deal with the political and economic problems in the Soviet Union, which were becoming critical.13 In 1989, after the introduction of glasnost, perestroika and losing the interest of the Soviet Union into other Central- en East-European states, the communist power in Czechoslovakia and the other Central and East European countries collapsed, under the pressure of dissidents and thousands of protestors. In September 1989 the first non-communist government was already formed in Poland. From October till December that same year the communist party in Hungary accepted a multiparty system. The Berlin Wall breached, on November 9 1989 in the German Democratic
Republic.14 In 1990, non-communist parties won the democratic elections in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania.
11
G.W. Kolodko, From shock to therapy: the political economy of postsocialist transformation, 2000, p. 9. 12
Ibid.
13 M. Lavigne, The economics of transition: from socialist economy to market economy, 1999, p. 96. 14
21
Political changes in CzechoslovakiaAfter the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia an interim government was formed on December 29 of the year 1989, with Vaclav Havel chosen as president. The main task of this interim government was to lead Czechoslovakia to democratic elections, as the interim government was set partly because of the feeling of unity after the revolution, rather than through democratic votes. The governing organisation was created out of the Citizens Forum (Občanské forum), a movement established during the Velvet Revolution in 1989. This organisation was created out of all walks of society and thus was a broad movement. After the government election a polarization of different political groups within the Citizens Forum became visible. The first group that organized itself into a parliamentary club was the Interparliamentary Group of the Democratic Right.15 The majority of the elected members of parliament belonged to this group. The group emphasized the importance of the market, privatisation and joining NATO. The confidence of this Right wing group grew and their opinion became very visible when the most left-oriented groups were expelled from the parliamentary offices, Obrada and Left Alternative.16 The Right wing became more and more dominant.
One of the spearheads of the foreign policy of the new government was the return to Europe. They wanted to join the EEC (European Economic Community) and the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation), but there were also other new partnerships, like collaboration on economic, transportation and common environmental issues with Italy, Austria, Hungary and Yugoslavia in the so-called Danube-Adriatic Region.
For Havel it was not so much the external threat, from the Soviet Union, that caused his wish to join (Western) Europe, but the internal threats, like the rise of Right-wing politics and the political instability caused by this division; economic difficulties; and also discussions about the federal state, whether the Czech and the Slovak part of the country had to stay to together or not. The plan of joining the NATO was part of the security policy of the new government, also because the internal problems of Czechoslovakia. Being a member of the NATO would acquire collective defence guarantees from the new allies. Joining
15 B. Wheaton, Z. Kavan, p. 164. 16
22
Europe began as an ideal in the times of the Velvet Revolution, but the ideal became more and more as a pressing issue to partly solve internal problems in the social, political and economic field in Czechoslovakia.
At the same time Havel visited Moscow in the beginning of 1990. His goal was to normalize relations with the Soviet Union: to demand a withdrawal of all Soviet troops from the territory of Czechoslovakia and also to decline the activities of Comecon, the economic organisation linking communist states, and more or less the counterpart of the EEC.17
On January 1 1993 Czechoslovakia peacefully split into two separate countries, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. The Czech Republic became a member of the NATO in 1999 and a member of the EU (the EEC continued as European Union in 1993) in 2004.
3 - Economic transformation
Central and Eastern Europe
The ultimate objective of the post-communist transition was the change of the economic system, from centrally planned to market economy.18 Therefore the
post-communist governments launched programmes of economic reform. This process was in the beginning mainly in the state’s hands.
The new governments of the post-communist countries thought it was necessary to change their economic model, because of the reestablishment of private property rights, free market economy and pluralist political life, elements which were hardly present in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the communist era. The post-communist countries sought contact with ranks of national government, international organisations and corporate institutions in developed countries in Western Europe and America. What the developed countries had to offer were their own experiences with the neo-liberal economic
17
Comecon: economic organisation from 1949 to 1991, linking communist states (also Mongolia, Cuba and Vietnam). Its establishment was prompted by the Marshall Plan. Comecon was formally disbanded in June 1991. Source: http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0006083.html, consulted on 03/07/2013. 18
23
doctrines, developed and employed during the 1980s.19 Consequently, the new post-communist governments were searching for a way to implement these
Western economic doctrines into their own context.
Multiple authors discussed the phenomenon of implementing the Western economic model into the post-communist context. Often the authors made a distinction between a moderate/evolutionary approach (‘gradual model’) and a radical/revolutionary approach (known as ‘shock therapy’) for implementing the Western economic model. The speed of the economic reform (slowly/rapidly) and the degree of the reforms (i.e. price liberalisation, demonopolization, privatisation) determine if a country chose for the gradual model of the model of the shock therapy. Many post-communist governments embraced the model of the ‘shock therapy’. The author J.A. Gould expressed the term shock therapy in his book The politics of privatization: wealth and power in postcommunist
Europe: “Poor firms should go bankrupt, bad workers should (temporarily) go jobless, and obtaining resources at every level must become more a matter of
hard work and merit than position and social connections. Above all, communism’s egalitarian society would be broadly split into new groups of winners and losers.”20
Many authors of economic literature were very enthusiastic about the shock therapy approach. Jeffrey Sachs was, for instance, a proponent of the immediate release of all price controls and government subsidies, so a self-organizing market, during the early 1990s.21 He said: “Many of the economic problems solve themselves: markets spring up as soon as central planning bureaucrats vacate the field.”22
Authors like Sachs have contributed to the
popularity of the shock therapy approach. The competition would lead to a more efficient use of resources and to a raise of collective well-being, more than in a society that chose the gradual model. The gradual vision leaned on continental models of capitalism: the state more as a broker and coordinator of difficult
transformational challenges than as a disinterested regulator.23 Some post-communist governments had a preference for the gradual model, Hungary and
19 K. Stanilov, The post-socialist city: urban form and space transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after socialism, 2007, p. 22. 20
J. A. Gould, The politics of privatization: wealth and power in postcommunist Europe, Boulder/London, 2011, p.25. 21
K. Stanilov, p. 22. 22 F. Bönker, p. 7. 23
24
Romania for instance. After all, according to many authors, the choice between the gradual or the shock model didn’t make the greatest difference, but the historical and political-institutional context of a state.
Important is, that almost immediately after the start of the economic reforms, most post-communist countries experienced a drop in output, production and employment, and an inflation of the domestic currency. As mentioned previously, it was thought that the economies of the post-communist countries would recover very quickly and there were expectations of an almost immediate economic boom after the reforms. This was not the case. In 1997, about six or seven years after the start of the reforms, only Poland had regained its gross domestic product (GDP) level of 1989.24 There was some difference between Central and Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union countries. Where the former show slight recovery from 1993 onwards, the latter shows hardly any signs of recovery since1997.25 Overall, the post-communist countries experienced deep recessions in the 1990s, in literature called ‘transformation recession’, ‘transformation crisis’ or ‘transitional recession’.26
Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic
One of the first countries that embraced the shock treatment was Poland.27 But also Czechoslovakia (and from 1993 onwards Czech Republic) embraced this
economic model under the guidance of Vaclav Klaus (minister of finance of Czechoslovakia and, later on, prime minister of the Czech Republic).28 One could
point in the direction of the members of parliament in the Right wing as being responsible for the introduction of the radical economic reforms. They said an
economic downturn was unavoidable during the economic reforms and that such a thing as a gradual reform model would only aggravate this downturn.29 The
24
M. Lavigne, p. 150. 25
Ibid.
26 As sead in K. Stanilov, p. 23, and G.W. Kolodko, p. 85. 27
K. Stanilov, p. 22. 28
The dissolution of Czechoslovakia in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic on 1 January 1993 was a nonviolent event. For more information, read for instance C.S. Leff, The Czech and Slovak Republics: nation versus state, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A, 1997.
29
25
author M. Lavigne stated that the implementation of the shock therapy model, on January 1 1991 in Czechoslovakia, was more an expression of the victory of the post-communist government than out of necessity, as the macro-economic indicators of Czechoslovakia were good at that time (low inflation, low budget
deficit, and very low foreign indebtedness).30 The political victory over communism made that the first post-communist Czechoslovakian government wanted
an exclusion of the communist political and economic model from before 1989, thus a radical break away from the past. With the choice for shock therapy the government of Czechoslovakia more or less excluded any other new economic model, like for example, market socialism: a model where the means of
production are publicly or cooperatively owned and operated in a market oriented economy.31 Also the model of the economic transformation was as
anti-socialist as it could be. The government presented the radical approach strategy to the public in May 1990.
To transform society, a shift from a centrally planned to a market economy is needed, and therefore certain measures have to be made, like
privatisation and restitution of land and property and allowing private initiative and ownership. In the next chapter the effects of these measures on the urban territory in post-communist Prague will be discussed. As it will become clear, economic measures are not the only causes of spatial change, as elements inherited from communist times (politics as well as social rituals) also contribute to changes in the urban environment of Prague in post-communist times.
30 M. Lavigne, p. 118. 31
27
2. Background and character of spatial transformation after 1989
To understand the spatial transformations in post-communist Prague one has to look at the causes that led to them. A part of these causes is described in the previous chapter (social, political and economic transformation). The causes of spatial transformation can be classified in three parts, namely:
- A: communist heritage. During this regime in Prague, from 1945 to 1989, several planning policies were created and implemented, that still have an impact on the city of Prague today.
- B: post-communist tools from the Czech and Prague governments, derived from the social, political and economic changes after the Velvet Revolution in 1989.
- C: the household development in post-communist Prague.
A - Communist heritage
Reconstructing the city centre
28
Image 6: study of reconstructing the centre of Prague , 1953.Source: J. Hrůzy, p. 83.
Constructing panelaký
29
neighbourhoods, for example in Žižkov, it led to dark, dilapidated apartments which were overcrowded.32
The answer to these housing problems was an
approach towards extensive development of large housing estates (in Czech; sídliště) during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.33 Some housing estates were built
within the existing city, others were build around the existing city, and formed vast areas of different housing estates, called města (plural of město, meaning ‘city’ in Czech). Most buildings in these housing estates were constructed from prefabricated concrete panels which were assembled at the place of destination (panelaký means ‘housing estates made from concrete panels’ in Czech) (see image 7). Also a part of Žižkov was swiped clean to replace it with modernist buildings from pre-fabricated concrete panels. More about this subject in the case about Žižkov.
Image 7: residential complex in Lužiny, renovated after 1990. Source: own picture.
32
M.N. Groenbroek, Praag: Wonen en mobiliteit in de communistische stad, 1945 – 1989, Groningen, 2012, p. 14. Not published.
30
31
Infrastructure, popularity of the car, and traffic congestion in Prague and the Czech Republic
In communist Czechoslovakia, owning a car was a symbol of freedom, affluence and status. The communist regime emphasized the facilitation of car traffic, already very important in the Prague master plan of 1953 (see image 9.) In the 1970s the regime came with the Basic Communication System plan (ZÁKOS), a network of motor highways in an around the city. The Highway from
North to South (Severojižní Magistralá) was constructed, trough the inner city of Prague, between the historic centre and the nineteenth century neighbourhoods of Karlín, Žižkov and Vinohrady and through the
neighbourhoods of Pankrác and Nusle, south of the historic city on top of the old ramparts. Major roads well adapted for a large amount of car traffic are still present in nineteenth century neighbourhoods, like Sokolovská through Karlín and Libeň en Olšanská through Žižkov.
32
Image 10: Sokolovská (left) and Rohanské Nábřeží, two large roads that lead through the nineteenth century neighbourhood of Karlín (in the distance). Map: Karlín with the neighbourhood of Invalidovna in the east. Circle and arrow represent the point where the picture is taken, with view to the west (to Karlín).
33
34
The emphasis on the facilitation of car traffic and associated infrastructure during communism, nowadays causes traffic congestion in Prague. This is a major problem, also caused by the popularity of car ownership in the Czech Republic. As said earlier, in communist Czechoslovakia, owning a car was a symbol of freedom, affluence and status. The socio-economic status of many citizens of Czechoslovakia caused that not owning a car was more the rule rather than the exception. After 1989, social, political and economic transformation in Czechoslovakia (and later on Czech Republic), caused an increase of the number of car sales in Prague. This was due to increased incomes, the access to Western markets, declining real prices of cars and petrol, removal of restrictions on
manufacturing and importing cars.34 But also because owning a car was a symbol of status in communist times; this didn’t change after 1989. From 1988 to
1998, per-capita car ownership in Prague rose with 93%.35 Traffic levels have increased threefold since 1991.36 The development of suburbanisation and constructing large shopping malls in the outer zone of Prague in the period after 1989 caused more motorized traffic: citizens go more to these shopping malls by car and are less likely to walk to shopping locations in their own residential neighbourhood.37 At the same time, the sharp reduction of subsidies for public transport has also encouraged the shift to the private car. Between 1989 and 1999 there was a decline of people using public transport in Prague of 19 %.38
The popularity of the car and the decline of the use of public transportation caused a dramatic increase of car traffic and traffic congestion in Prague. In the European Green City Index, Prague scores 26th (of 30 major European cities) on the subject transport: “(...) the limited efforts made to contain or reduce
traffic are the primary reason for Prague’s relatively poor score in this category.”39
Current developing of residential or commercial complexes is almost always accompanied with the construction of large parking garages beneath these new complexes. The increase of car traffic is one of the causes of the urban problems at redeveloping nineteenth century neighbourhoods, for example in Karlín. Future redeveloped areas will be cut off from the rest of the city through
34 J. Pucher, The transformation of urban transport in the Czech Republic, 1988-1998, in: Transport policy, Volume 6, Issue 4, October 1999, abstract. 35
Ibid. 36
Economist Intelligence Unit, European Green City Index: Assessing the environmental impact of Europe’s major cities, consulted on 13/08/2013 in the exhibition of The Crystal, Royal Victoria Docks, London.
37
G.L. Newmark, P.O. Plaut, Y. Garb, Shopping Travel Behaviors in an era of rapid economic transition: evidence from newly built malls in Prague, Czech Republic, in: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, volume 1898 / 2004, p. 165.
38 J. Pucher, abstract. 39
35
major motorways. These problems will be discussed further in the chapter ‘Case of the first Prague suburb: Karlín’.
Prague zoning plans 1999 and 2009
The city of Prague gets a new zoning plan (the name land use plan is also used) once in every ten years, since the communist planning policies begun, with the first communist Prague master plan in 1953 (see image 9) The last zoning plan stems from 1999 (see image 12). In 2009 a proposal for a new zoning plan
was submitted by the Department of Land Use Planning of the city of Prague and the City Development Authority (see image 14).40 However, the zoning plan
from 1999 is still in force.
This 1999 zoning plan was approved on September 9 of the same year. In the map of this zoning plan all current land uses are visible in the form of different colours (zones) on the map of Prague.41 Thus, the functions at every location of Prague become clear. At the same time, the map is the directive for zoning in the future. The empty and/or dilapidated areas - the areas where development is desirable and/or necessary (and were designated as white spots in the interim map of 1994) - already have their own zones, so that it seems clear what is going to happen with those areas in the future. For example, the vast tracks of (still largely empty) land south of the river Vltava and north of the historic neighbourhood of Karlín (now known as the future development project of River Gardens), are already divided, mainly into residential zones, commercial zones, mixed zones and some other zones (see image 13). The guidelines for the zoning plan from 1999 speak about Large Development Areas: areas with a large development potential and areas important for the completion of the city infrastructure and the facilities system.42
40
http://www.urm.cz/en/new-land-use-plan, consulted on 31/07/2013. 41 http://mpp.praha.eu/app/map/VykresyUP/, consulted on 31/07/2013. 42
36
Image 12: Prague zoning plan of 1999, city centre and historic neighbourhoods. Outlined in red: the position of the map of image 12.
37
38
The draft of the Zoning Plan 2009 seems simpler and more comprehensible. The current zoning plan, from 1999, distinguishes 69 functions and 28 colours to describe all different land use types. In the new zoning plan only fourteen different zones are distinguished within four area types (residential areas, production areas, recreation areas and non-urban areas).43 Through this new land use plan, it is easier for investors and developers to revitalise already built-up areas, without the need to make alterations to the land use plan, as is currently the case. Some other important principles of the new zoning plan are: redevelopment and revitalisation of currently dilapidated areas; preference of development within the compact city; and strict regulation of expansion of Prague into open territory.44 Furthermore, the new zoning plan distinguishes large development areas too: on the new map they are called surface modification, also of brownfields (land previously used for industrial or commercial purposes, with abandoned factories or railway yards and/or junctions).
Regulatory plan lacks
Thus, there is a zoning plan (from 1999) and also a draft of a new zoning plan, but Prague misses a regulatory plan with juridical dimension. This especially applies to the vast areas which have to deal with redevelopment in the future. It becomes clear they are designated as redevelopment areas, already divided into zones with different functions and in some cases developers have made a master plan, with an urban concept, and there is a discussion about the appearance of the future buildings. The planning municipality of Prague doesn’t discuss the function of the city and the function of living in those areas within the city of Prague: about how to complement existing neighbourhoods with new projects, about what should be regulated in favour of the well-being of citizens and how those new developmental areas really could be a thriving part of the existing urban fabric.
43 http://www.urm.cz/en/new-land-use-plan, consulted on 31/07/2013. 44
39
40
B - Post-communist tools
Privatisation
Politicians and leading economists in former communist Central and East European countries firmly believed that the introduction of a market economy needed privatisation, especially private ownership. This would improve efficiency and growth.45 There were two parallel methods to implement privatisation in the economy in post-communist countries.46
First, new businesses would be created and current businesses would be expanded as the market evolves. This is a natural tendency. Only from the late 1990s onwards this so-called ‘organic privatisation’, the emerging private sector itself, was recognised more in Central and East European countries.47
Second, much of the state-owned property had to be transferred into private hands. In the beginning of the 1990s. This method was the most popular. This is not very surprising, because the method of rapid privatisation and denationalization of state assets seems to fit the idea of quick and heavy economic reform (‘shock therapy’). The aims of privatisation were to improve efficiency and to foster growth, but the aims could also be political or out of equity
considerations.48 Privatisation out of equity considerations were, for example, dominant in Poland. It allowed workers to decide on the form of the privatisation of the enterprise they worked for and the workers were also represented in the management and got shares in the enterprise.
41
political goals were very important in the privatisation here: Czechoslovakia was the first post-communist country where citizens were allowed to buy shares of state companies at a symbolic price. The only country where physical restitution of industrial assets (in addition to land and housing) was possible from 1990 onwards, was Czechoslovakia.50 All state enterprises in Czechoslovakia would be commercialized.51 To transfer property to private hands as quickly as possible, the government of Czechoslovakia came up with the idea of a voucher programme. The lack of domestic capital in Czechoslovakia was
compensated by offering shares (vouchers) for a symbolic price. In this way the state tried to get more public support for the economic reforms. Many people put their shares in investment funds controlled by banks that remained in state hands. Thus a part of the state companies weren’t really privatised. Corporate
governance was absent, unemployment remained unnaturally low and the Czechoslovak banking system was a mess.52 After an economic crisis in 1997, the
Czech Republic changed its policies, one of the first results being that banks and companies in the energy sector were sold to foreign organisations through public tender.
The author Anna Porter wrote the following text about the Czechoslovakian voucher programme in her book The ghosts of Europe: Central Europe’s
past and uncertain future: “The fast-emerging new enterprises drew an increasing number of speculators who used the voucher system to purchase
state-owned corporations, siphon their value into privately state-owned companies and allow the original corporation to subside into bankruptcy. The Czechs even invented their own word for the practice: “tunnelling.” Miloš Zeman [leader of the Czech Social Democratic Party during the 1990s] labelled privatization “the fraud of the century” and predicted that his country would be “the first state that succeeded in almost completely robbing itself.” Václav Havel talked of the Mafialike way in which former communists exploited the system.”53
The principles of privatisation were not the point, almost everyone in the government of
50
M. Lavigne, p. 165. 51
J. A. Gould, p.65.
52 S.L. Wolchik, Central & East European politics: from communism to democracy, Lanham/Plymouth, 2011, p. 64. 53
42
Czechoslovakia agreed that state companies had to be privatised. The central disagreement was about the speed and the extent of the privatisation and the order of the measures that were to be adopted.54
Until the fall of communism, 99% of the economy in Czechoslovakia was in state hands.55 What was most important of privatising state enterprises was the regulative capacity and the active role of the state government. In countries where the government pursued a quick privatisation of state enterprises, like in Czechoslovakia, the new construction of the sector was very fragile. This was manifested in fuzzy ownership structures without enough involvement from supervised investment funds and state-owned banks. The state left the field to an unregulated, chaotic market of different groups with different interests.56 Although the privatisation process was often corrupted, it led to a reduction in the power of governments, because of new, upcoming, private
owners who took over state companies.57
Restitution and compensation
To privatise enterprises, housing and land, it is necessary to give back the communist property to the former owner, because restoring the dominance of private ownership was supposed to be very important for the transformation from communist society into a market economy.58 This is called restitution. In
most post-communist states in Europe, restitution of land and buildings, businesses and money was most common.59 At first view this seems like an easy
task. This was not the case. Various problems showed up during the process of restitution in the post-communist states in Europe.
1. To identify the former owner can be difficult. The person in question could be deceased or emigrated abroad. It is also possible that more than one person claims the same property.
43
2. Some people will not have the right to claim their property back, because of the establishment of the date of the nationalisations that are to be
compensated. I.e. all confiscated property under communist government will be compensated, but not the property under non-communist governments (for example just after World War II, but before the date of the official installation of the communist government. If the government also returned this property, there was the question of returning the former German property to the Germans. In addition, there were relatively few people who benefited from this
measure.60
3. The proper evaluation of the property will be discussed. What do the former owners get? Compensation in the form of cash payments, through shares or the actual property (land or building)?
These questions demonstrate how difficult the process of restitution could be: full of conflict and vagueness.
Besides the conflicts between different people and the height of the compensation there were also conflicting interests in the goals of restitution itself. The author Kiril Stanilov provides in two different goals of restitution: the moral rationale and the functional rationale.61 The former is to compensate people because of historical injustices, the latter because restitution is needed because of privatisation, to leave investment and distribution to the control of the market economy. It became very clear that some people were satisfied, but even more people were dissatisfied with the outcomes of restitution and housing privatisation in Prague.62 Looking at the moral rationale versus the functional rationale it is possible that some groups are compensated because of the injustice in the past, while other groups of people in the same neighbourhood experience new social hardship because of the re-privatised buildings they live in (increase in rent).
In conclusion, while through the process of restitution a government tries to overcome social injustice, new social injustice and inequality is born, later on leading to (spatial) segregation of people with different socio-economic classes.
60
B. Wheaton, Z. Kavan, p. 159. 61 K. Stanilov, p. 191-192. 62
44
Private initiative and private propertyFor a market economy the small and medium private enterprises are very important. For instance, they supply the large firms with goods and services. In the centrally planned economy those small and medium enterprises had no independency or were totally absent.63 That’s why the large firms in the centrally planned economy were often very inefficient: the activities of small and medium enterprises were ‘internalised’ into the large firms and there was no specialisation in the supply of spare parts and components. The need for the large state companies to be self-sufficient caused the inefficiency.
Next to legalisation of small, medium and large private enterprises the state wanted to privatise residential complexes too. In the 1990s the tenants of some residential complexes were able to buy the house they lived in from the state for ridiculously low prices. Citizens of Czechoslovakia jokingly called these practices ‘the lottery’. Some apartments were recently sold for ten times the amount of money for which the state sold those apartments to tenants, about 15 years ago, sometimes not even renovated.64 According to the architect Barbora Mluvková prices are still rising: “For example an apartment, built in communist
times, in the Jarov-area in Prague was bought for about € 40,000 two years ago and is now sold for double that prize.”
Residential complexes built in communist times couldn’t be returned to the former owner, as government authorities were the owner from the beginning. Because renovating a whole complex is almost impossible when much different people own property in the same building, some residential complexes built in communist times have recently been renovated, for example by the municipality of Prague, before selling them.
Foreign investment and global economy
Experience in the post-communist countries has shown that foreign investment is crucial to provide investment resources and expertise necessary to fuel growth. It brings new technologies, expertise and a different corporate culture and it also gives a country more access to the global economy. Foreign
63 M. Lavigne, p. 34. 64
45
investment is seen as a way of speeding up the process of privatisation by restructuring companies and improve their competitiveness.65 Initially the foreign investment in post-communist countries was concentrated in the manufacturing branch (consumer goods like automobiles, electronics and foods). From the mid-1990s, foreign investors began to own significant parts of former strategic state companies, i.e. the telecom and banking sector.
To give state enterprises, in need of restructuring, in the hands of foreign investors, is an instrument of privatisation. It is speeding up the restructuring of the enterprise. On the other hand, foreign firms choose the companies who are the least in need of restructuring. This means that good structured
companies are in the hands of foreign investors and thus a powerful engine of speeding up the economy. On the other hand, those powerful companies are no longer supervised by the state authorities.66 This means that foreign multinationals could become very powerful with respect to local or state authorities. The question of the authorities is how to open up the property for foreign capital, without handing over a great part of the independence and freedom of action.
An example directly linked to urban transformation is that of the many real estate developers which are active in an around Karlín and Žižkov, since the 1990s, i.e. Sekyra Group, Satpo, RUR, Svoboda/Williams, Torino Praga Invest and Karlín Group. I will highlight the case of real estate developer Karlín Group in the chapter ‘Case of the first Prague suburb: Karlín’, to give an example of the relation that could exist between a developer (with foreign investors) and local authorities.
The establishment of foreign real estate developers did not start directly after the fall of communism. In Czechoslovakia the construction of over 50,000 dwellings started each year before 1989. The number of started dwellings dropped to 10,000 units in 1991 and 7,500 in 1993. In 1994 the first increase showed up in the Czech Republic: 11,000 dwelling units in 1994.67 In 1995 it was around 13,000, up to 41,649 in 2007.68
65 S.L. Wolchik, p. 72. 66 M. Lavigne, p. 171. 67 K. Stanilov, p. 173-174. 68
46
C - The household development in post-communist Prague
There are a few reasons for the growth of the number of dwellings in Prague after 1994. Population growth is not one of the reasons, because there was a population decrease in Prague after 1989, as in many other capitals in post-communist countries.69
The growth of the number of dwellings was caused by:
1. changes in the demographic behaviour of the population of Prague and the Czech Republic. They occurred in conjunction with the transformation of society after the fall of communism in 1989. In the Czech Republic there was a decline of marriage and fertility intensity, a decrease in the mortality rate, and an increase of the intensity of the divorce rate. These changes caused an increase of the number of households.70
2. the reduction of the size of the average household, not just because of the increase of one person households, but also because of the reduction of large households where people shared an apartment with parents or relatives. After the communist period more smaller households became possible after opening up the housing market and the economic recovery.71
3. the economic development and economic prosperity: mortgage financing became possible. In the Czech Republic people are allowed to have a mortgage
since 1996, Czech Republic being the first country where mortgage payment became possible.72
4. the demand from foreigners, like people who want to invest in property or want to work and live in Prague.
Currently not only the number of households, but also the population of Prague is growing again. In 2008, 827 more people were born than deceased in Prague, but the most important contributor of the growth is the high migration balance, with people moving from other Czech cities and the countryside of the
69
K. Stanilov, p. 24. 70
D. Bartoňová, Trends in census households in the Czech Republic in the last third of the 20th century, 2007. In: Czech demography, volume 1, 2007.
71 K. Stanilov, p. 175. 72
47
Czech Republic, and with people moving from abroad to Prague.73 The post-communist transition to a pluralist democracy and a private and market oriented
economy caused the migration of many foreign people to live and work in Prague for a shorter or longer period.
As became clear in this chapter, communist and also post-communist factors caused a spatial transformation in Prague. Together with the household development, a quick urban transformation arose after 1989.
73
49
3. Post-communist urban transformation in Prague
A quick urban transformation arose in the city of Prague after 1989, caused by communist and post-communist factors, but also because of the growth and differentiation of the number of households. The effects of these factors are visible throughout the city, and could be roughly divided into three components: 1 – commercial development of the urban core;
2 – suburbanisation at the urban periphery;
3 – revitalisation of nineteenth century neighbourhoods.
The increase of households is concentrated in the urban periphery and in nineteenth century neighbourhoods. To understand why the increase of households is concentrated in those two areas, it is necessary to look at the development of the urban core of Prague too: Staré Město (old city) and Nové Město (new city, the part of the city centre around Staré Město) (see image 2).
1 - Commercial development of the urban core
The residential function in the city centre of Prague is declining since the beginning of the twentieth century. Other functions, like retail businesses, offices and government buildings took this place. After 1990 the speed of this shift was increasing, caused mostly by the increase of office space (demand from foreign investors and businesses), multipurpose commercial centres and tourist facilities like hotels, restaurants and shops. Around the year 2000 three quarters of all available floor space in the city centre of Prague was occupied by non-residential use.74 Not only existing buildings were taken over by commercial functions. Some buildings in and around the city centre were demolished and replaced by larger and taller buildings (see image 15). The quick privatisation and the
74
50
restitution policy in the Czech Republic made the rapid redevelopment possible. Nowadays leasing a building for commercial purposes can generate as much as 50 times higher revenues than leasing a building for residential use.75 Therefore there has been pressure from owners and developers to take some regulated residential zones and turn them into zones with commercial use. According to the author Luděk Sýkora there are several cases where the local government did not protect residential zones and even promoted commercial use. The last empty plots were sold by the city government to commercial buyers, instead of taking into consideration to turn these plots into public spaces.76
Prague is not the only post-communist city where residents can no longer find a living place in the city centre because of the rapid increase of commercial demand, and the lack of well-balanced housing policies. Actually all large cities in post-communist Central and Eastern Europe experience the same phenomenon of commercialisation in the urban core. The author Kiril Stanilov argues that the centres of post-communist cities are developing towards CBD’s (Central Business Districts), with the consequence of emerging urban problems, like traffic congestion, abandoning of residents from the city core and gentrification. Just like what happened with CBD’s in the developed countries in the West, in the 1970s and 1980s. Since the 1980s, governments in the developed countries are undertaking many initiatives to do something about the problems having to do with the CBD. In post-communist countries this was still not the case at the end of the first decennium of the 21st century.77 As there is not much left of the residential building stock in the city centre of Prague, but the population and the number of households in Prague are still increasing, citizens must have somewhere else to go.
51
52
2 - Suburbanisation at the urban periphery
Suburbanisation in Central and Eastern Europe is much discussed in literature, because of the great impact on urban and non-urban space, actually the most radical reorganisation of metropolitan space in this region after the fall of communism.78 After 1989 in almost every post-communist city large amounts of detached houses were being built, covering the peripheral space around the existing city. Also very large shopping malls and hypermarkets were (and still are) being built at the peripheral zones. In Prague, these malls are especially built at important transport intersections and at the ends of metro lines. For example, large malls were built at the end-of-the-lines Zličín and Černý Most, metro line B.
There are a few reasons why suburbanisation became such an important part of the spatial change in Central and East European cities after 1989. 1. Commercialisation of city centres (and also the commercialisation of historic nineteenth century neighbourhoods). In some cities, tourism is part of the commercialisation. Hotels, restaurants, shops, terraces and other tourist facilities could be find, for example all over the historic city centre of Prague, which is on the World Heritage List of UNESCO since 1992. Now, about five million tourists visit Prague every year.79 There is not much residential space left in the urban cores. If there áre apartments, prices are skyrocketing. Citizens are forced to seek living space somewhere else in the city. Many people end up in suburbia.
2. Citizens were being pushed out of the urban core, but are also drawn to the outskirts of the post-communist city. After 1989 a part of the population did get an higher income, caused by the economic and social changes after 1989. They had more to spend and the possibility of a mortgage loan became possible in many post-communist countries from the 1990s onwards. In combination with the desire to pursue a Western lifestyle and therefore own a house, a piece of land, and one or two cars (not dependent of public transport anymore), many people were drawn into suburbia.
78
J. Novák, A city in motion: time-space activity and mobility patterns of suburban inhabitants and the structuration of the spatial organization of the Prague metropolitan
area, 2007, p. 147.
79
53
3. To build detached houses on pieces of land, bought with the aid of a mortgage loan by a wealthier group of people, is only possible in a society where financial markets are liberalised and privatised, as is the case in a post-1989 society. Before 1989, urban territory in Central and East European cities was expanded mainly by massive development projects of large housing estates, brought up by the communist government. The government’s control (along with
the lack of good infrastructure outside traditional urban boundaries) prevented an urban sprawl.80 The boundary between urban and non-urban area was quite
sharp. After 1989, the privatisation caused an enormous interest in housing developing at the boundaries of the existing city by land owners and real estate developers. On the other side, there were no strict building regulations about where to build new neighbourhoods and where to leave the original function intact (for example agricultural, nature preserves, important landmarks, cultural heritage sites). Therefore it was quite easy to develop real estate on the boundaries of the city. A significant share of the responsibility about the determinations whether pieces of land may or may not be consumed by urban use
was transferred from state to local governments in the 1990s in many post-communist countries.81 Local governments are more susceptible for the pressure of
investors and developers of real estate than state governments. It brings money to the local authorities in favour of municipal works, but probably also to the private pockets of some local officials. As a result, in most post-communist cities, it is quite easy to develop residential neighbourhoods (and commercial areas) at the urban outskirts, even if this development is questionable in terms of agricultural, natural, cultural or historic value.
In Prague the number of construction of apartments and single family houses increased between 1990 en 2003. The construction of apartments increased six fold and the construction of single family houses increased ten times. Most of those new constructions are situated in the suburban periphery.
3 - Revitalisation of nineteenth century neighbourhoods
Next to commercialisation of the city core and population growth, collected by suburbanisation in the outer zone of Prague, there is another visible urban change: the revitalisation and intensification of nineteenth century neighbourhoods. On the one hand this is caused by the demand for office space, on the
80 K. Stanilov, p. 351. 81
54
other by gentrification of those neighbourhoods.Commercial functions in the nineteenth century neighbourhoods
More and more companies found their way to the city centre periphery. On the one hand this was caused by the lack of large office space in the city core (almost every space was already taken), on the other hand the city government of Prague imposed strict regulations on urban form in the city core, to preserve the historical character.82 New buildings were required to correspond with the volume and height of already existing buildings and therefore new commercial buildings were rather small, but corresponding to the prevailing demand of the first half of the 1990s. From 1995 onwards the commercial demand for offices began to change, as already established businesses were exploring ways to satisfy their demands for more and larger office space, in new
buildings, near important streets or major public transport nodes, for a lower rent if possible. In some nineteenth century neighbourhoods, older apartment buildings and industrial buildings were redeveloped and transformed into office space.
Residential functions in the nineteenth century neighbourhood
Traditionally some nineteenth century neighbourhoods of Prague (Karlín, Libeň, Žižkov, Smíchov, Holešovice) are characterised by large groups of lower
educated citizens and a higher share of manual workers.83 Dilapidation of housing is another problem of the Prague nineteenth century neighbourhoods.
During the communist period in the Czech Republic (from 1948 to 1989), the badly managed state-led housing development caused housing shortage. Many Prague residents had to wait for years before they could live in an apartment in one of the communist housing estates. As the demand for a better place was higher than the new building stock, many people were forced to live in dilapidated buildings in the nineteenth century neighbourhoods around the city centre.
82
The historical centre of Prague is on the World Heritage List of UNESCO since 1992. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/616, consulted on 11/04/2013. 83
55
After the fall of communism in 1989, residential upgrading and gentrification developed in these neighbourhoods. At the end of the twentieth century the gentrification and commercialisation process was most visible in the nineteenth century Prague neighbourhood of Vinohrady. The tables of the images 16 and 17 show that the percentage of reconstructed and partially repaired buildings on Londýnska street (a street in Vinohrady) is much higher in 1998 than in 1994. At the same street, buildings with only a residential function decreased, from 29.9% in 1994 to 13.6% in 1998, only 4 years later. There is a large increase in the number of mixed use buildings: combinations of residential, retail and office functions within the same building. Commercialisation often goes hand in hand with gentrification.84 In the city centre of Prague commercialisation prevailed, because of the much higher revenues for property developers, with respect to reconstruction of buildings to luxury apartments. In Vinohrady there was commercialisation too, however, the percentage of reconstruction for residential purposes by property developers is higher in this nineteenth century neighbourhood with respect to the city centre.85
Image 16: Functional use of buildings at Londýnská street in Vinohrady, Prague 2, in percentages of buildings in particular category.Source: L. Sýkora, p. 84.
84 L. Sýkora, p. 85. 85
Ibid.
57
PART II
A closer look: Karlín and Žižkov
58
59
Several neighbourhoods in Prague are shaped during the nineteenth century, like Smíchov, Holešovice, Karlín, Libeň, Žižkov, and Vinohrady (see image 2). To a greater or lesser extent, the morphology and typology of these neighbourhoods originate from the nineteenth century, like urban grid layouts and
buildings with neo-classical facades. Though, many modernist buildings from the beginning of the twentieth century are also a part of these nineteenth century urban fabrics. Revitalisation of nineteenth century neighbourhoods, discussed in the previous chapter, is caused by the demand for more office space and residential upgrading, with more people with a higher socio-economic class moving to those nineteenth century neighbourhoods.
It is possible that there exists friction between the existing (historic) urban fabric and the effects of the post-communist revitalisation in these
nineteenth century neighbourhoods, in the sense that conservation of the former is being threatened by the latter. Much more than in the historic core or in the urban periphery. After all, the urban fabric of the historic core of Prague is protected against major urban transformation by the restrictions of UNESCO, and in the urban periphery (suburbanisation) there wasn’t any kind of urban fabric to take into account at all.
The effects of the revitalisation are visible in every nineteenth century neighbourhood. A walk through Libeň, for example, is currently characterized by many new residential complexes, after tearing down old buildings (see image on page 60). And in the neighbourhood of Holešovice, the old harbour is
gradually taken over by large commercial offices and residential complexes at the waterfront (see image on page 61). Revitalisation of nineteenth century neighbourhoods raises questions. Do the developers take into account the morphology, typology and programme of the historic neighbourhoods when building new complexes and redeveloping dilapidated areas, and are they trying to preserve the historic features of the nineteenth century urban fabric? Are there any zoning plans, regulatory plans and master plans? (in Dutch respectively: structuurplan, bestemmingsplan and masterplan) Are there discussions about the developing and redeveloping plans, and if so, who are invited to join those discussions?
