Heritage zones in Brno – participants in the debates completely miss the essence of the matter

The Ministry of Culture in Brno is preparing to declare two heritage zones. This intention has recently been the subject of many passionate discussions, with the Office of the City Architect of Brno organizing virtual meetings in the form of round tables broadcasted on YouTube; however, most participants seem not to have familiarized themselves with the materials and completely miss the essence of the issue. As a result, the debates are in many ways interesting and enriching, but they somewhat sidestep the topic of the zones.

I have been following with interest the recent events organized by the Office of the City Architect broadcast on the internet. However, my enthusiasm for the organization of these debates quickly waned after I discovered that none of the discussants could explain why heritage zones should actually be created in Brno or what the possibilities are for protecting Brno's exceptionally rich heritage, particularly from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. From the comments of the discussants and the moderator, it might seem that the sole motivation for declaring the zones is the issue of so-called late registrations, that is, that Brno, due to administrative errors from the past, lost heritage protection for the majority of previously protected buildings and that the zones are meant to be a quick remedy. However, this is not entirely the case—the issue of zones and late registrations is indeed somewhat related, but only indirectly and primarily in a completely different way. Unfortunately, the explanation cannot be summarized in three sentences, and a brief excursion into history is necessary. Without knowledge of this history, one cannot orient oneself in the problem, and it is not surprising that the current debate largely devolves into descriptions of specific experiences from participating architects about what they have managed or failed to promote elsewhere in heritage zones. The core of the matter is not addressed at all within the allocated time for the discussion.
The first law on cultural monuments was in effect in Czechoslovakia from May 1958 (Act No. 22/1958 Coll.). As is common with the very first national heritage laws, it had to contend with the need to protect an enormous number of buildings, but it was not possible to list or register all of them right away. A monument was thus defined rather generally in this law, and its status was confirmed by entry in the state register of monuments, for which the respective provincial national committee was responsible, and which was actually maintained by the State Institute for the Preservation of Monuments. Later, committees were created at the national committees for registration; according to the legal interpretation of the time, a decision by the national committee was an administrative act, and the entry in the register was merely an evidential matter.
Thus, it became the case that entries into the newly renamed central register of cultural monuments continued even after 1988 when Act No. 20/1987 Coll., which is still in effect today, was already in force. This new system fundamentally changed the "creation" of a cultural monument. All previously registered monuments remained, but a new process for declaring cultural monuments by the Ministry of Culture was established. From this point on, the entry was truly just an administrative matter that did not change the status of the thing; what mattered was the declaration itself, and we no longer speak of registrations of cultural monuments after 1987. Moreover, the perspective on what can even be declared a cultural monument has also changed. Leaving aside ideological perspectives, a significant change was that only an entire entity could be declared a monument, not just part of it. Thus, while according to the old law, a facade alone was registered as a monument in many cases, this was no longer possible under the new law. For the protection of valuable areas, the law newly defined heritage zones (heritage reserves were already enshrined in the 1958 law, though very vaguely). Here, logical protection also included, for example, the protection of the facades of houses in valuable areas.
Since the 1980s, therefore, heritage zones have begun to be delineated in many cities that had a similar architectural heritage to Brno. In cities with historically or architecturally valuable constructions, extensive areas with blanket heritage protection often arise. The largest of these is the Prague Heritage Reserve, covering an area of 8,660 hectares, which is unique not only within the Czech Republic but also in Europe. The proposed extent in Brno is approached by the quartet of heritage zones in Ostrava (Moravská Ostrava, Ostrava-Přívoz, Ostrava-Poruba, and Ostrava-Vítkovice). Although smaller in area (up to 200 hectares), similar zones in terms of building character can be found in Zlín or Hradec Králové, where, like in Brno, there is a ring around the city heritage reserve.
The reason that the declaration of a heritage zone (or zones) in Brno did not take place in the past was primarily that the facades of houses on historical streets leading from the city center were protected through "rapid registrations" at the turn of the validity of the old and new law. This largely concerns the heritage of late historicism, Art Nouveau, and modernism (which also includes the renowned Brno functionalism). After the courts ruled that the so-called late registrations are invalid and the affected objects are not cultural monuments, it can be considered illusory, given the complexity of the "re-declaration" mechanism for individual objects as cultural monuments, and the return to the heritage status for the original number of objects is also impossible due to increased preservation standards. Thus, it is vital to discuss the possibilities for effective blanket protection. Fortunately, there are monuments in the region that were declared later fully in accordance with the current law.
When protecting facades, one must be cautious—while some buildings deserve total protection for their qualities as newly designated cultural monuments (in the past, values "behind the facade" were not recognized), others have their value solely in the facade (that is, they determine, enhance, or complement the character of the area). Zone protection was created precisely for these cases and is generally respected in administrative practice. If it were not for the completely specific situation in Brno described above, the zones would have certainly been established long ago. It is now necessary to return to the topic and address the heritage zones or other regulations of valuable areas in the broader city center. However, heritage zones will not solve (and cannot fundamentally solve) the protection of former monuments where more was protected than just the facade. In those cases, it is necessary to reassess their comprehensive value in the current perception of knowledge and embark on a path of new declaration as a cultural monument.
It is probably superfluous to elaborate at length on the reason for protection; Brno, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, was a city that, through rapid development and growth, earned top-notch architecture—often of European significance. After the establishment of Czechoslovakia, the newly established regional metropolis became one of the places where the principles of modernity took deep root. Given the century of construction activity, it is logical that all valuable buildings are spread across a vast area of the "broader" center of Brno (similarly to, for instance, Vienna, Berlin, Wrocław, or Kaunas). It is unsuitable to establish (extend) a reserve for the protection of such a vast area—the reserve is an effective tool in city cores surrounded by walls with a high number of cultural monuments. Urban heritage zones serve well when combined with other tools (protection plans, urban planning, regulatory plans) to manage cultural heritage across large areas with fewer cultural treasures that possess quality urbanism.
There are, of course, also alternatives to zones—such as the regulatory plans frequently mentioned in discussions. Compared to zones, they have several advantages and disadvantages; personally, I am convinced of the indisputable benefits of heritage zones, which lie, on the one hand, in relatively easy delineation of the object of protection and, on the other, in the detailed possibilities of defining protection through the creation of binding so-called protection plans for the authorities. However, that is a different topic that cannot be addressed without defining the object or goal we aim to achieve. Perhaps this text will contribute to that.