Developer criticizes authorities for delays surrounding the demolition at Wenceslas Square

Prague - The developer who wants to tear down an old building in the center of Prague and build a new one in its place criticizes Czech authorities for not yet definitively deciding whether the structure is or is not a cultural monument. This affects the possibility of starting the demolition of this building on the corner of Wenceslas Square and Opletalova Street. The demolition plan has faced criticism from the public and experts alike, and about 50 people protested against it today in front of the Ministry of Culture, called by the association Občanský monitoring.
     The previous city council allowed the current building to be demolished, and the decision was later confirmed by the former Minister of Culture Jiří Besser (TOP 09 and STAN). However, after criticism from various quarters, the case will now undergo new deliberations - the spokesman for the Ministry of Culture, Markéta Ševčíková, told the demonstrators that Minister Alena Hanáková (TOP 09 and STAN) today signed a decision on a review process. "This should take a maximum of two months. During the process, the building is protected, so the owner cannot dispose of it," the spokesperson added.
     According to the protest organizer Vítězslav Praksa, the issue is not just about the building itself, but the square as a whole, as it is a UNESCO heritage zone. "Demolition is absolutely undesirable there," he stated. The gathering was also attended by a quartet of men dressed as monkeys holding signs that read Returners, Death to Prague, and Stop Progress. According to the demonstrators, these were people paid by the building's owner, which is the subject of the dispute. The men, however, did not respond to questions and refused to speak into the microphone.
     For the company Flow East, which wants to build on Wenceslas Square, the long-term uncertainty in doing business is unacceptable according to its statement. Chairman James Woolf stated in today’s press release that the question arises whether this is not an abuse of power. Woolf writes, among other things, that today he would have to advise foreign investors considering doing business in the Czech Republic to invest elsewhere.
     "We have done everything to present our plans, cooperate with our partners and the public, inform key stakeholders about our vision, and we have always fulfilled our obligations. The Czech Republic has never been a country where progress and change were ignored and rejected, and we hope that this will not happen in this case either," he states. He believes that "the best intentions" of Flow East have been rejected "only due to a minority of unelected and irresponsible extremists who want to keep Prague in times of darkness." In addition to opposition to the demolition of the current building, public objections also concern the design of the building that is supposed to replace it. Former President Václav Havel has also joined these objections in the past.
     The so-called appeals commission recommended a new assessment of the case to the minister. The process is led by the Minister herself, with assistance from the commission, and she can also request additional independent expert opinions. The review mainly concerns the decision of the cultural heritage department of the Ministry of Culture, which decided in September that the building would not be declared a cultural monument. It did so despite admitting the building's indisputable qualities and its important place in the Prague Heritage Reserve in its reasoning. However, its staff did not declare the building a monument because they did not want the "consequences of serious legal flaws" in the city heritage officials' statements to "heal the overvaluation of the qualities of the disputed building."
     The city’s heritage department allowed the building to be demolished. Although experts from the ministry labeled its stance as illegal and canceled it, it was only after the legal deadline. The then-Minister Besser therefore canceled his heritage officials' decision because the building's owner had counted on the city council's verdict for half a year, and his ministerial cancellation could reportedly jeopardize the investment.
     Some experts protested against the plan to replace the early 20th-century building with a large new construction already following the announcement of the proposal last year. They pointed out that the Minister of Culture should rather defend the interests of the state in the area of heritage care rather than those of a private investor.