Initiative 'New Fukushima'

Simultaneously with the opening of the Forum Nová Karolina shopping and entertainment center, which has colloquially been dubbed "New Fukushima" by citizens, we point out that there are people in Ostrava who critically view this project and whose opinions are marginalized or trivialized by referring to the alleged relativity of such judgments. We have decided to remind the public of these opinions and express them not only through this press release but also with a light performance—a laser show directed at the Forum Nová Karolina shopping center building from the street 28. října, following a similar laser show from 2005. At that time, we criticized the city’s approach to the area and the preparation of a vague development competition. Now, with this action, we want to recall the unfulfilled promises and commitments of the city leadership and the developer on one side and the critical comments of a large part of the Ostrava population on the other. The reasons for our disagreement cannot be expressed in banal oppositions of “like—dislike.” They do not concern the internal spatial layout, materials, or interiors. Our rejection stems from the implemented concept of construction in Karolina, from the idea of Forum Nová Karolina, and from the genesis of the project, which we will outline in several points below. All articles from the signatories elaborating on these arguments and links can be found on Facebook.


Our opinion can be expressed in the following points:

1. A city with prudent leadership strives for the harmonious development of individual parts and supports various business entities from small to large. However, no city leadership seeking the development of its locality can unilaterally support large chains and thus also the construction of a network of shopping centers directly in the new city core or its immediate vicinity, as is the case with the Forum Nová Karolina shopping center. This creates an unequal and disharmonious environment that automatically favors a mono-functional structure and mono-functional buildings, which belong on the periphery, over a poly-functional structure and poly-functional buildings, typical of city centers.

2. Moreover, the new Forum Nová Karolina shopping and entertainment center, part of the alleged new center of Ostrava, belongs to the squandered opportunities of the city for the reasons mentioned above. It is already evident that the new center is not well connected to the existing city core, and the further development of construction towards Vítkovice is also problematic. MultiDevelopment has repeatedly promised the public and city representatives through the media and based on its own press releases extraordinary architecture with the participation of leading architects. Among other things, it promised a functional urban solution for the given location. It was primarily based on these promises that it acquired valuable land from the former industrial zone of Karolina, as stated in official announcements from both the city and the developer.

3. The realized construction of the Forum Nová Karolina shopping and entertainment center also denies the original idea of the Dutch architectural studio OMA (Office for Metropolitan Architecture), whose most notable figure is architect Rem Koolhaas (1944). Following a study from this office, MultiDevelopment embarked on transforming the Karolina area after the development competition in 2005. However, the OMA architectural studio did not participate in the subsequent stages of project development or in the actual realization, as evidenced by the studio’s own website, where the Czech Republic does not appear in the list of projects for the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Russia, Malaysia, USA, or Kazakhstan (see www.oma.eu/projects). It should be noted that the OMA studio distanced itself from the Ostrava realization. In the original study, it sought to ensure that the shopping center would represent a continuation of the street network of the city and that its ground floor would be freely accessible from different sides at all times. A bridge over the Frýdlant track was meant to be designed to serve the public even in the morning and night hours when the shopping center would be closed. The OMA studio clearly took a stand against a closed monoblock, which is the case with the current realization.

4. The assignment of the development competition, the ambivalence of this form of competition, and the course of changes to the land use plan were already highlighted in 2005 by professional organizations such as the Czech Chamber of Architects, the magazine ERA 21, civic associations (Za starou Ostravu, Fiducia), and the professional public. However, the city leadership ignored these suggestions and did not incorporate the relevant points into contractual obligations, including specific fulfillment regarding architecture and urbanism, as stated by current representatives of Ostrava. Mayor Petr Kajnar responded to these objections by stating that the issues remained: “...rather in the moral realm, and they are not in the contracts, so we cannot claim anything now” (Petr Kajnar for ČT, 18.1.2011).

5. We demand that the city guarantees that in the event of the sale of additional public lands or buildings owned by the city, it will require not development competitions but architectural competitions and ensure that the contractual agreement will precisely specify what the developer commits to and what the city requires from them in writing. Failure to meet such obligations must then be sanctioned with a high contractual penalty and the possibility of the city withdrawing from the contract. Only in this way can we avoid the endlessly recurring situations where the developer makes promises before selling land or property but subsequently fails to fulfill those promises with reference to vaguely agreed contracts. This situation is not new in Ostrava; the city is facing a similar problem with the enforcement of obligations in the case of the former municipal slaughterhouse or regarding the lands of the former German House adjacent to the former Ostravica-Textilia department store.

6. In conclusion, we express the conviction that in the case of Ostrava, it is unnecessary to support the emergence of large shopping centers; this city does not need lavish advertising campaigns and bombastic events. What it fundamentally needs is support for creative people, fostering an environment where people do not leave and where they want to continue living in greater numbers than before. Support should therefore be directed towards local institutions, companies, schools, and other entities; it should focus on improving the local quality of life and on supporting everything that arises from the enterprise and creative potential of the local community.

On behalf of the initiative “Nová Fukušima”

Ilona Rozehnalová - owner of the Antiquarian Bookstore and the Fiducia Club,
Martin Strakoš - architecture historian,
Viktor Kolář - photographer,
Rostislav Švácha - historian and theorist of art,
Radovan Lipus - director,
Jiří Surůvka - artist and performer,
Milena Vitoulová - architect (Czech Chamber of Architects),
Vladimír Skórka - musician, author of the fictional documentary Fukushima,
Marek Pražák - artist and performer,
Jiří Hruška - educator,
Petr Šimíček - historian,
Petr Pánek - chairman of the o.s. Pant,
Lukáš Jansa - lawyer,
Jaroslav Němec - visual artist.