Prague actually exploded into those panel housing estates...

Jiří Horský: Do you remember your "Žižkov" beginnings at the Department?
Ivo Oberstein: Two years after graduating from the Faculty of Architecture, I was accepted into the newly established Prague Department of the Chief Architect. In 1963, about a year into my work, I was invited by the senior colleague Stanislav Horák to collaborate with him on a theoretical sanitation study of the lower part of Žižkov.
Regarding the old neighborhoods – Smíchov, Holešovice and Žižkov… Of course, this was related to the new spatial plan for Prague. At that time, Žižkov was among the most neglected areas of Prague: extremely high density – 700 people per hectare, quite terrible sanitary conditions, apartments without bathrooms, heating with stoves, shared toilets in the hallway… In today’s Prokopova Street, there was also preparation for a bypass of the so-called “throat cutter” radial… Everything suggested that Žižkov would be heavily impacted. I must emphasize that our task was purely theoretical. It was about an urban study of redevelopment, which was to provide documentation for calculating modernization according to the then-current standards for housing. Along with visualization, it was to become a source of information for the new spatial plan. Thus, the task arose to process a study with the placement of prescribed typical apartment buildings – with setbacks so that at least a third of the apartments would have sufficient sunlight, etc. We were to calculate how many residents would leave Žižkov, as new housing would have to be built on vacant land on the outskirts of Prague to accommodate such numbers. We proposed to sanitate the most neglected part of Žižkov towards the east from Prokopova Street. We were not convinced of the necessity to demolish in the area around St. Prokop's Church towards Prague. We knew that even a mere sketch could harden – and then one could want to continue designing according to it. An assistant, Chalupníček from Umprumka, was photographing the area for us, and I drew the vision of redevelopment into his panorama shot from Vítkov. The specific project was developed much later by the State Institute for Reconstruction of Towns and Objects.

Stanislav Horák and Ivo Oberstein, perspectives of lower Žižkov: contemporary state and proposal; published in The Architects´ Journal 21, June 1967

BEAUTIFUL ESTATE ŽIŽKOV

The atmosphere at the Department of the Chief Architect was never really discussed… Even less in connection with the redevelopment of Žižkov.
I say that at the Department of the Chief Architect there were at that time some architects who were artists – nobles, like Jiří Novotný, for example. Zdeněk Císař wondered how I had ended up in the Department. Where do I have that little star with the hammer and sickle on my lapel, the tiny one in dark red glass… Well, I have never owned one, nor has Císař. So, in that fourth floor on Pařížská Street, where I worked, I had it good. Once we were invited to the National Committee of Prague 3, where we met with the chairperson and the head of the construction department. Gradually, we unfolded what the redevelopment of Žižkov would mean, and the clerk looked at my panorama and said: Jesus, that would be a beautiful estate! And at that moment, I felt a chill. I don’t mean to say that I realized everything right then, but it was just chilling. Instead of Žižkov, albeit on the northern slope and with overcrowded blocks, etc., but still instead of Žižkov – an estate! At that time, I was glad that my work ended with the study. I continued to work on the urban design of Ďáblice, led the project for the reconstruction of the Vinohradský triangle, parts of Libeň, but mainly – for many years up to the realization – projects for new districts of Jihozápadní Město: Stodůlky, Lužiny, and Nové Butovice with parks and lakes.

Lower Žižkov, photo by Irena Stehli from the 70s

What was your opinion on Žižkov back then?
For example, Malá Strana was also considered for sanitation at the time of the cleansing of Josefov. And that Nerudovka would be demolished! Today it seems unbelievable. I always had respect for districts that were alive. One time Jirka Novotný came to me, suggesting that I could be tasked to try re-sanitation of Josefov. So the way it was first sanitized, which was wrong: for instance, the courtyards inside the blocks are only ten meters wide… But I immediately recalled that thanks to that narrow courtyard, my friend Milan Klíma met a nice girl, because he caught sight of her on the opposite balcony… I already refused the re-sanitation of Josefov’s sanitation. I gently said that I just couldn’t manage that, that I wouldn’t be able to do it. Another time, a traffic engineer from the second floor of Pařížská came to me, that he was working on a study of the Old Town automotive ring. That cars must run on Národní and Příkopy and that the width ratios are narrow, and that we cannot demolish the National Theatre, he literally said, but across the street, what building is that, it must be demolished and the ring must have two lanes in each direction. I also objected that I wouldn’t paint that. You are twenty-seven, you’re an apprentice, you draw well… But I held my ground. Or there was a study task written up regarding the Mouse Hole on Můstku. By the way, from the Union of Architects. The street 28. října is supposedly narrower than the Národní třída, so it needs to be widened… That was quite a time. But I cannot say that instructions were coming only from somewhere in the ÚV KSČ. Not that I wanted to defend the ÚV, God forbid, and by the way, Jiří Gočár also sat in that ÚV… As Jindřich Malátek said about him: the last representative of Czech big bourgeoisie in the Central Committee! I actually quite liked that. Who was behind all the ideas? Today it is said to be the Bolsheviks. But I say it was architects – architects-bolsheviks, perhaps.

Allow me to return to the question of Žižkov…
I can’t escape the memory of the survey of those apartment blocks: damp, rotten, the densities… I can’t imagine that the then-nationalized construction industry would want and could refurbish such buildings. There were no brickworks, no bricklayers, craftsmen – just panel factories and one kind of windows, doors, handles… The main goal back then – politically – was mass production, that prevailed above all. And I had the feeling that these ideas also wanted to be pushed into the core of the city. But still – let’s set aside the issue of panels for now. Nowhere in Europe would a neighborhood in such a condition, in my opinion, be allowed to exist: the buildings would be demolished, they would certainly not be repaired.
That it didn’t happen? I have my own theory: Malá Strana, which was once also hygienically written off, has eventually become a "Bethlehem." It saved itself, along with the famous view of Hradčany and Prague. I think even the preserved Žižkov has such potential.

Jindřich Krise, urban planning study of the surroundings of Vítkov Hill with regard to sanitation and modernization, 1979

It’s as if there is some internal conflict within you. On the one hand, you perceive the atmosphere or undefined values of the place, on the other hand, you would like to repair the neighborhood from the ground up…
Yeah, probably. In Karlovy Vary, you see a rock similarly stuck next to a tenement. You’re on the fifth floor and you’re still looking into the rock. Žižkov similarly – against all assumptions of good urbanism, stands almost entirely on a steep northern slope. Urban structures, crammed together. What conditions can there be for good living? Today, fortunately, coal is no longer used for heating, but when I think back to how things were back then… To save these structures would require a miracle. I see quality in diversity and in the fact that it is located close to the center. There is an urban landscape here that simply cannot be imitated. It’s the memory of the place. Many painters found their motives here for the same reason. Žižkov has all kinds of faults, but against the possibility of just having panel buildings here…

Photo from the area of the so-called Žižkov school, the archive of the

In the conversations, we try to analyze mainly the objective – professional characteristics that condition specific Žižkov qualities.
It’s like when someone approached me some time ago asking for a definition of what beauty is. To get it into building law… Nevertheless, if you want, in my opinion, it is crucial for Žižkov that the blocks are built on a steep slope and there are thoroughfares with a great gradient. You see streets that end in a staircase, but above them, a tram runs: sometimes it looks almost picturesque. And there is also a church, not huge, but nicely placed, surrounded by houses that, thanks to the views from the slope, appear somewhat deformed, which in itself creates a certain tension, rooting Žižkov's romance. The streets lead down, up, providing pedestrians with a whole range of views and local passages. Just walk a bit, perhaps a little, and suddenly you see the roofs of houses somewhere deep below you… I never imagined that this part of Žižkov could be demolished. Even though from the standpoint of modern hygiene requirements, it goes against all rules.

Don’t you think you’re prioritizing visual values over spatial and functional qualities?
The Žižkov blocks brought the greatest profit even on the slope. If you were to design longitudinal rows of houses down the slope, you would end up with fewer square meters of living space. It’s really about the houses built perpendicular to the slope.

Was it even possible to propose a different building composition back then?
I don’t know how I would have been constrained by the economics of the assignment. Denser construction couldn’t have happened here anymore. I would probably have painted the blocks like Hartig. Likewise, I think the main transport routes are designed well. Hartig did what he could: the northern slope was simply the cheapest in terms of land prices. And wealthier tenants chose better housing in better-equipped houses elsewhere – perhaps in the nearby Vinohrady. On that beautiful Vinohrad slab.

Jindřich Krise, urban planning study of Žižkov - broader transport relations, 1979 (drawing detail)

MEMORY OF THE PLACE, MEMORY OF MAN

Let’s return to sanitation. At the time of the planned panelization of Žižkov, it was already known that, for example, in the Berlin district of Kreuzberg, modernization of 19th-century houses was applied using resident participation. It was commonly discussed in professional circles that urban planning concepts could hide the memory of the place. That is, in the circles of architects in the West…
However, in the 1960s, we couldn't use such models with Stanislav Horák here. In those years, in fact, no one was just casually traveling to Berlin. Moreover, in the GDR, that is, in the so-called East Germany, nationalization of construction work and craftsmanship had not reached the absolute level as in Czechoslovakia. Nevertheless, for example, at the Union of Architects, where I served on the competition committee, various dissenting voices began to merge in the late 1960s. For example, with Professor Janů. Back then, he was projecting demolitions and a system for replacing housing units, which were to be exchanged after thirty or forty years – like cars. I also remember his plan where he demolished the entire Dejvice and left only Hradčany standing. These were our representatives of the left avant-garde, who leaned on the Athens Charter…
Life, however, ultimately showed a different development. Methods to improve the block and how to improve housing were pushed through. And one more thing: Prague actually exploded into those panel block estates – and what did that cause? Dilution of densities in existing housing.

From the Prague exhibition of Kreuzberg reconstruction, early 90s

How did you perceive the very evacuation of residents?
When I deal with a housing block, which I experienced during the project for the reconstruction of the Vinohradský triangle, it’s as if I’m touching a living organism. When you are proposing to demolish a house (all houses had been nationalized), the residents must be moved somewhere. During the sanitation of Žižkov, it was determined that they would move to the estate in Čimice. I had employees from Žižkov, speaking the local Žižkov dialect robustly, and then one was relocated to Čimice. When she later came to me with her son, I asked him, don’t you miss Žižkov? And the boy looked at me like I was an idiot. In Čimice, he had football, woods, and in the apartment, a bathroom, central heating. And we were saying that it was a shame about the demolished Žižkov… Life is simply stronger.
Sometimes it’s surprising. When we were designing the new Stodůlky, displaced residents from Vinohrady sent me letters. Saying they were doing well there, that they didn’t have to go to the cellar for coal, and that they even had stores there already. But at the end, someone added: Mr. Architect, we always used to buy a three-meter Christmas tree for Christmas. And that’s not possible here, Mr. Architect, there's a low ceiling! I say that the memory of the place is like the memory of a person. When nothing remains to hold onto, it’s like when you have complete amnesia and forget everything.
But since I mentioned Stodůlky. In the middle of the designed estate, we advocated for preserving the original village with the church. And that there could have been panel buildings in the place of the village! Go see it today, look at how the new architects behave. In the view behind St. James' Church, an office monstrosity rose westward. We didn’t allow ourselves that when we were proposing the placement of panel buildings. We left the church as the dominant feature. We didn’t want to cut down trees either… and proposed the restoration of the original Panská Garden – now part of the park. We were then accused of preserving a museum of poverty. How many new apartments could be built there! And today there’s a museum of Beverly Hills…

From the Prague exhibition of Kreuzberg reconstruction (the same building after reconstruction), early 90s

What would you say to your colleagues at the meeting where the Athens Charter is formulated?
You fools, you’ll see…! Of course, I don’t know. However, at that time, this line of thought made sense! Coal, chimneys, smoke, diseases – and especially densities. Those scared me.
When we were designing the modernization of the Vinohradský triangle, we preserved the existing blocks. But I have one pain from that time. It did not seem wise to us that the residents would be displaced in the first phase – that is, six months before the realization: a house without residents quickly deteriorates. Until about a month before the start of modernization. By the way, the residents of Vinohrady received apartments from the state in our new Stodůlky. Pianist Rokl pleaded with us along with neighbors from one building to allow them to stay even during the extensive reconstruction, saying they wouldn’t be able to return. And they indeed stayed, then he thanked me. They survived the modernization in the building… Nevertheless, back then I naively thought everyone displaced from Stodůlky would return to Vinohrady. Only later did I find out that virtually all the renovated apartments were occupied by officials from the then Central National Committee of Prague. That unsettled me then. They wouldn’t go to panel buildings in Žižkov – nor to Stodůlky, but they liked the modernized Vinohrady. So in the end, I was convinced that we were not modernizing for Vinohrady, but for those officials.
But I am still proud of one thing. That I – already as the chief architect of Prague – saved the old Žižkov school. It was to be demolished in 1990; someone had even stolen the bell and the clock… I was called to the new mayor's office, apologized for a moment and ran through the school, all the way to the roof trusses. It was dry, perfect, and so I declared that demolition was unnecessary. I was then accused by the construction firms already preparing to demolish. But I turned out to be in better standing with Prague 3.

How do you see the future of Žižkov? Specifically, what conditions would modernization require nowadays?
Today’s situation in a market economy allows only for minor urbanism – filling in gaps. Once all the gaps are filled, the worst state of buildings and blocks will be sought, buildings will be demolished and new ones built. However, I did not notice one thing. Namely, that there would be talk about the quality of Žižkov's brick tenement houses with wooden ceilings. Modernization of panel buildings is simple: the roof is insulated, the facade is restored, windows, doors, installation core, craftsmanship elements are replaced… But once you start repairing brick buildings built roughly until 1930, you often have to first count on the demolition of wooden beam ceilings – due to wood pests sometimes even with a new roof. New steel ceilings are extremely costly. More economical reinforced concrete ceilings load the longitudinal bearing walls, and you will also find out that the internal load-bearing walls are interspersed with flue chimneys for coal heating, therefore concrete ceilings cannot hold. And you are incidentally at the reason why in Paris they decided to only keep the facade facing the street, and built a new concrete house in the back. Repairing the original brick with wooden ceilings is expensive, labor-intensive, and the return on investment is sometimes not in sight.
Nowadays, however, there seems to be no ideological platform. Let alone an urban one. But urbanism today? More of a development. Nobody wants urban planners today. Everything flows naturally, today is not for urbanistic thinking.

Thank you for the interview.
Jiří Horský

---

Doc. Ing. arch. Ivo Oberstein (1935, Zdice)

1961-69 urban planner at the Department of the Chief Architect of the capital city of Prague
1968 author of the winning proposal for the urban concept of Jihozápadní Město
1969-89 head of studio 7 for the realization of Jihozápadní Město at the Project Institute of the capital city of Prague
1990-94 chief architect of Prague
until 2007 educator at the Faculty of Architecture of ČVUT