New Initiative: For a New Prague

FOR A NEW PRAGUE

The current development of Prague is, despite all proclamations, driven mainly by short-term and individual interests of a part of the city's political representation. The ambiguities surrounding the preparation of a new zoning plan, the issuing of developer and architectural competitions, and especially the decision-making regarding changes in the use of large development areas in the recent past are sufficient evidence of this.
Many decisions have hardly been defended, let alone explained clearly. The absence of clearly and understandably established rules creates a feeling among Prague residents that anything is possible and yet nothing is. Suspected or actual clientelism and possible corrupt behavior then lead to lethargy and distrust, or even principled opposition from citizens towards the city's development intentions. As a result, instead of a modern and pulsating city, we have an unhealthy organism, a city that is not very friendly to its residents.

We are convinced that this atmosphere needs to change as soon as possible. We want to believe that the beginning of a new electoral period is always an opportunity to change established orders, and therefore we suggest to Prague representatives to focus on the following steps that could, in our opinion, lead to an improvement in the situation:

1) In a wider discussion with representatives of both professional and lay public (urban planners, architects, heritage protectors, developers, representatives of civil initiatives, active citizens) evaluate the existing development of Prague between 1990-2010 with the aim of identifying the most problematic decisions. Constantly nurture and develop dialogue with the wider public regarding "their" Prague.

2) Organize international workshops and discussions on the city's development strategy with the participation of representatives from successfully developing European (mostly partner) cities (Hamburg, Vienna, Berlin, Copenhagen…) with the aim of applying the maximum usable practices for the future development of Prague.

3) Establish an independent advisory board consisting of representatives of the professional public with clearly defined competencies and terms of office, which would evaluate all significant urban-architectural intentions and provide expert counterarguments to conceptual documents.

4) Prepare systemic changes in city organizations responsible for planning its development so that respected experts, rather than politically vetted managers, head them.

5) For continuity and sustainability of the long-term development of the city and for the day-to-day decision-making of its bodies:
— clarify the role of Prague and its long-term goals in the European and Central European context, its position, and conditions for fulfilling these goals, not unnecessarily vacate space for dynamically developing Central European cities, and utilize Prague's cultural and intellectual potential to strengthen its position,
— precisely specify and adhere to the fundamental principles of city development in individual areas – large development areas, transport and technical infrastructure, heritage protection, limits of buildability on the outskirts of the city, etc.,
— establish binding procedures for fulfilling these intentions (such as issuing architectural ideation competitions for significant areas serving to establish regulations and only then demarcating areas for individual developers, etc.),
— purposefully support and develop quality public spaces and assist in creating quality contemporary architecture.

We believe that only clearly defined goals, well-established rules, and monitoring their fulfillment can lead to the long-term healthy development of the city. Only with a sensitive approach, demanding the highest quality and responsibility, can we connect the old with the new. Prague is among the richest regions in Europe; let's prove that we can use this potential to make Prague a model modern European city - let’s support the hope for possible changes that could pull Prague out of its current, long-term unsustainable situation.

Richard Biegel — art historian, manager of the Club For Old Prague, university lecturer
Jakub Fišer — architect, member of the Supervisory Board of the Czech Architecture Foundation
Adam Gebrian — architect, university lecturer
Pavel Hnilička — architect
Jan Jehlík — architect, university lecturer
Eva Jiřičná — female architect
Jan Kasl — architect, mayor of Prague 1998-2002
Radek Kolařík — architect, university lecturer, member of the Supervisory Board of the Czech Architecture Foundation
Petr Kratochvíl — theorist and historian of architecture, university lecturer
Petr Lešek — architect, Projektil Architekti
Zdeněk Lukeš — architect, historian of architecture
Miroslav Masák — architect, university lecturer
Dan Merta — art historian, director of the Jaroslav Fragner Gallery
Irena Murray–Žantovská — historian of architecture, director of RIBA collections, London
Jiří Musil — sociologist, university lecturer
Martin Peterka — architect, vice chair of the Czech Chamber of Architects
Alberto di Stefano — developer, architect, owner of gallery Futura
Čestmír Suška — sculptor
Alena Šrámková — female architect, university lecturer
Yvette Vašourková — female architect, CCEA
Maxim Velčovský — designer
Josef Vomáčka — publicist, gallery owner
Zdeněk Zavřel — architect, dean of the Faculty of Architecture at the Czech Technical University
Antonín Žižkovský — traffic engineer
and Hana Hegerová — singer

Among the signatories, Professor Alena Šrámková, art historian and manager of the Club For Old Prague Richard Biegel, Professor Miroslav Masák, art historian and director of the Jaroslav Fragner Gallery Dan Merta, architect Adam Gebrian, and architect Ivette Vašourková attended the panel; the press conference was moderated by publicist Josef Vomáčka.
Miroslav Masák emphasized that "success does not come without a prior vision, which requires money but also openness to the world." According to him, these principles are "partially contained in the principles of spatial development prepared by the Development Unit, but there they are too general, too all-encompassing. According to their starting points, we could do everything: we could become the financial and commercial center of Central Europe. These ideas need to be further deepened – not only from the planners’ perspective but also from those with creative potential." He concludes: "The program and the relationship with Europe need to be revised."
Adam Gebrian stated that he would like to "break two clichés: The lay public and the political representation tend to trivialize the word expert. And in such a way that they often say ‘what an expert, what an opinion,’ and therefore according to them it is not possible to recognize who is an expert and who is not." According to Gebrian, an expert is "someone who has a genuinely serious interest in something. And this is precisely this initiative, which will grow and expand in the future, and will be relatively diverse – both in terms of age and profession..." The cliché, therefore, is "breakable. Experts always agree. But it will take a while.
The second cliché concerns the way to approach this. There are only two ways to develop a personality – and it does not matter whether it is a human personality or the personality of a city. And that is removing deficiencies or strengthening strengths. I believe that we spent the last twenty years removing deficiencies, and it is time for us to focus at least on strengthening the strengths for the next twenty years. To do that, we first need to know what those strengths are."
Richard Biegel stated that "discussion is important to realize in what situation we are and why we got there. Vision serves to know what we want in ten, fifty, a hundred years. Because a city is not built for decades, but for centuries. To be able to do this, we need an institution that could guarantee these visions. Prague lacks an institution that would guarantee architectural development in a non-political, expert manner." One of the goals of the initiative is therefore, according to him, not only to name the problems but also to help establish an institution that can guarantee expertise regardless of who is in power.
Dan Merta summarized how the initiative actually originated. As he mentioned, trips abroad played a role, as well as organizing two exhibitions: on the architecture of Vienna and Hamburg. Although these cities are different compared to Prague, examples show that a dialogue is possible if the political establishment listens to experts. That is the foundation. Nevertheless, these examples are not utilized in Prague. At that time, the initiators realized that it was necessary to formulate principles and problems. According to Merta, they were waiting for the election results. They were very pleased with the results, however, the situation in Prague ended up with an agreement between both parties... Therefore, they said they would not wait for a savior anymore and would address all representatives. He emphasized that the call is not only aimed at the mayor, but admitted that it also depends on how the addressed politicians respond to the call. "I believe that the city will start listening to its citizens. And I believe this quite a bit, because politicians have no other choice if they do not want to completely discredit themselves," Merta concluded the introductory part of the conference.
Radomíra Sedláková, curator of the National Gallery, who is not among the signatories of the call, opened the discussion block by reading a text published in the magazine Stavba in 1924, by which the Club For a New Prague was established already in the First Republic. In the following issue, the first and simultaneously last report on its activities was provided. As she reminded, the Club For a New Prague was revived in 1993, however, back then it did not last longer than two meetings. In conclusion, she wished the initiators of the new call a longer endurance.
Jan Kasl stated that the goal is not to establish a new institution, but primarily to stop political urbanism, decisions based on which, for example, the A metro is being built instead of the D metro, which is vital for the city. To halt decision-making according to the wishes of certain groups, ignoring long-term visions in favor of short-term goals. According to him, this is not a closed group of architects, but an open initiative.
A question from the audience arose whether the aim is to create another institution like the City Development Unit. According to Richard Biegel, who took up the question, the right to an opinion at the Urban Development Unit is significantly limited today. "I am not sure that at this moment the Urban Development Unit is a guardian of continuity." Nevertheless, the result depends on the discussion, or rather whether the political representation dares to engage in it. The exact idea is not clear today, but it is important that such an institution returns some competences.
From a representative of the office for promoting the city of Vienna, it was mentioned that political contacts between the two cities exist, for example in the area of social architecture.
Milena Sršňová, editor-in-chief of the magazine Stavba, reminded that the theme of establishing the mentioned office was recently addressed by Roman Koucký in his book The Creator's Office, which is "meant quite seriously" and Sršňová recommends it to the audience's attention.
She asked whether the initiative would have a website. Perhaps surprisingly, Josef Vomáčka replied that the initiators had approached the website only very tentatively and "wanted to avoid it". However, he admitted that the outcome will determine the response.
Josef Pleskot summarized why he did not join the call despite being addressed: "I did not sign the call because I found it weak. Of course, no one will respond to a call from the city hall, no one will come. Of course, they will not talk to us. They must first understand that architecture – primarily urbanism, are political tools. We have to pound this idea into the heads of politicians – regardless of who they are. That is how I think the call should have been formulated. If we are not united, the professional public along with politicians, we will only be one of the interest groups. Otherwise, we will only chastise and lecture intellectually, but we will achieve nothing." According to Pleskot, the principle applies: architecture and urbanism together with politics.
In conclusion, one of the present URM staff members defined himself in opposition to Pleskot's opinion. According to him, architects should not pull in the same direction as politicians; according to him, citizens also make politics.
Jakub Cigler expressed the belief that this initiative should result in a permanently active think tank.
Josef Vomáčka added during the session that all representatives received the text of the call that day, namely January 6 at 9 a.m. In response from Dan Merta, it was mentioned that politicians were not invited to this press conference.
Vomáčka then concluded the entire press conference with a question to the audience: "Do you know how much the Opencard actually cost? This is not a joke. Three million six hundred thousand crowns. The city paid 850 million for it. All those who were involved in it are still sitting there. I think it’s a nice ending."