Originally
published by the now-defunct magazine, Poland Monthly, in May 2007.
In
Defence of Communist-Era Architecture
“Ugly” and perhaps “monolithic” are the two words
that spring immediately to mind when one considers the buildings that the Communist-era
bequeathed to Poland. The idea that they might be worth protecting would
probably seem like a joke to most people.
Yet in Warsaw, there are inhabitants who are
passionately dedicated to their preservation and who regard the often soulless
office buildings that have sprung up in their place as committing the same
crime against aesthetics as any hulking apartment block in the suburbs.
To the untrained eye, the structures that the group
of amorphous but committed campaigners – consisting largely of art historians,
local architects and other intellectuals – are bent on protecting may not seem
like the most beautiful buildings anyone has ever beheld. Included among them
is the city’s central train station, the now-demolished ‘Supersam’ supermarket,
which was located near Plac Unii Lubelskiej, and the ‘Rotunda’ building on
Marszalkowska, home to the PKO BP bank and also a common meeting place for
Varsovians.
“When people talk about ‘Communist-era’ buildings,
to my ears it sounds like someone is trying to glorify the period, but this is
not the case at all,” said Jakub Szczesny, partner at the Centralna firm of
architects. “What we are trying to do is highlight the best examples of Polish
architecture, which are often very avant-garde. These buildings were designed
by some of the most daring architects, who were working against the system,
against the ruling regime and against the mental poverty of the time.”
Though attempts to save the Supersam building -
which was designed and built during the early 1960s – proved fruitless, the
combined efforts to halt its destruction have led to an energised initiative,
to stop the same happening again; on the part of those who see architecture as
central to the fabric of our lives.
“The paradox is that many of the buildings that we
consider the best ‘modernist’ architecture of the 20th century are being
demolished, mainly because they are on the best plots of land in the city
centre,” said Szczesny. “The worst examples of architecture from this period
will survive because they are in less important places. We have to do something
because the most valuable architecture from the 20th century will be replaced
simply by commercial buildings in many cases.”
The campaign to prevent Supersam being flattened
began when art historian and editor of the sztuka.net website, Pawel Giergon,
became interested in its fate while researching his MA thesis. When he heard
that there were plans to bring the bulldozers in, he went into action.
“It turned out that the company that owned Supersam
wanted to tear it down and build a large modern structure in its place, since
the building was, allegedly, in a poor technical condition, which was not
true,” said Giergon. “I decided to try and save Supersam as a unique architectural
specimen dating from 1960s Warsaw.”
His passion for the building led to his one-man
protest winning other adherents to his cause.
“I posted a petition on my website which I asked
people to sign and which I then sent to the conservator,” he said. “This lasted
a few months and 2,200 people put their names against it. These were not every
day people. They were those who took an interest in architecture, history and
Warsaw.”
Alas, despite Giergon’s efforts, Supersam was
demolished last year. It will be replaced by a 50,000 square meter office and
retail project, to be developed by the Polish companies Juvenes and BBI
Development NFI, who are scheduled to deliver it by the end of 2009/start of
2010. For Giergon, the event is little short of a tragedy.
“There was no such building of this class in Warsaw
and in Poland only the Spodek [concert hall] in Katowice compares to it; this
is because both buildings were designed by the same architect, Maciej
Krasinski,” he said. “They were 20 years ahead of anything that existed in the
USA and Europe.”
Though a number of other people share these
sentiments, the body that was crucial to Supersam’s survival - the regional
conservator’s office - held a different view, though part of what informed its
position was caused by some confusion in the law.
“Based on the rules concerning the protection of
monuments, the buildings constructed during Communism cannot be considered
‘historical’,” said Maciej Czeredys, deputy head of the Mazowiecki conservator’s
office. “There has always been a border between what is considered modern art
and historical art. The idea behind ‘Supersam’ was modern, not something taken
from history. There is a problem in that there is a gap in the law. We have
quite strict and well-defined rules about how to protect historical monuments
but we don’t have precise laws on how to protect modern buildings.”
For many experts this situation is unacceptable and
the obvious solution is that the law should be changed.
“By destroying Supersam we are showing that we have
a problem with post-war architecture,” said professor Waldemar Baraniewski of
the Institute of the History of Art at Warsaw University. “We should broaden
the concept of "monument" so that it includes objects built from the
period of late modernism to today.”
At the root of the whole debate is the philosophical
question of what we mean by ‘history’. For a number of people the answer is
simple: anything that constitutes the past, but for others the explanation is
trickier.
“The situation is very difficult because a lot of
these [modernist] buildings were not designed to last for centuries,” said
Czeredys. “Supersam was an experiment, an attempt at innovation as far as its
materials and technology were concerned. If we had tried to upgrade the
building, we would have to have changed all the materials that were used, but
if you talk about protecting buildings you have to apply the original
technologies, which is not possible in the current circumstances.”
But for a lot of local architects, whose job it is
to deal with the problem of materials and technologies on a daily basis, this
argument is dubious.
“Supersam was an excellent example of modern
architecture,” said Romauld Kruszewski, partner in the Jasinski Kruszewski
Architekci firm of architects. “In another country, such as Switzerland or
Spain for example, they would have found the money to repair and refurbish this
type of structure and not rely on easy excuses that the building is old and
falling down.”
With Supersam gone, enthusiasts for Poland’s
post-war architecture have plenty of other buildings they can expend their
energies on in defending, though a crucial element to this is ensuring that
they offer a different experience to their users than has to date been the
case. Warsaw’s central train station, they argue, is a building worth
preserving but internally there is much that can be improved, as anyone who has
tried to negotiate its labyrinthine innards will testify.
“We have to make these buildings live, to give them
a second life,” said Szczesny. “Functionally they do not really work, and the
central station is a good example of this. It is totally out-of-date. We should
be trying to find a new way of adapting this beautiful but totally useless building,
from the point of view of the city’s contemporary needs.”
The option of knocking it down is one the architect
will have no truck with.
“We really do have to fight against this stupidity
of commercial pressure that is taking place today,” he says.
No comments:
Post a Comment