Budowanie miasta. Ochrona dóbr kultury współczesnej na przykładzie Lublina

• Autorzy: Landecka H.

Warianty tytułu

EN

Constructing a Town. Protection of Modern Cultural Property Exemplified by Lublin

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

PL

Budowanie miasta jest procesem ciągłym. Przemiany dokonywane są w nowych, dotychczas niezagospodarowanych obszarach, ale także w strefach już wcześniej zabudowanych i zorganizowanych przestrzennie, w których przekształcenia wynikają z konieczności dostosowania do nowych potrzeb funkcjonalnych i standardów użytkowych. W istniejącej strukturze miasta dostrzegano dotychczas potrzebę ochrony historycznych obiektów architektonicznych lub zespołów zabudowy określanych mianem „zabytku”, jako dzieła minionej epoki, którego zachowanie leży w interesie społecznym ze względu na posiadaną wartość historyczną, artystyczną lub naukową W latach 90. XX w. środowiska naukowe architektów, urbanistów, konserwatorów zabytków zwróciły uwagę na zasadność ochrony dóbr kultury współczesnej, powstałych po II wojnie światowej. Stwierdzono, że wiele powojennych realizacji związanych z nazwiskami uznanych twórców poddawanych jest niekorzystnym przebudowom, bez poszanowania ich wartości, a część bezpowrotnie znika z przestrzeni miast. W przepisach prawnych umieszczone zostały ustalenia o konieczności uwzględniania tego typu dóbr. Budowaniu prawnego systemu ochrony dzieł współczesnej architektury i urbanistyki musi jednak towarzyszyć świadomość społeczna i odpowiedzialność zawodowa wszystkich uczestników procesu planowania przestrzennego.

EN

The post-war changes in Poland, marked by the shaping of the people’s government, and reconstruction of the country after the devastation were also significantly reflected in the development of a new architectural thinking. The concept of ownership clearly related to the „state”, „nation”, „community” determined the approach to design. Architects and city planners faced great opportunities for creative action. The destroyed historic buildings needed reconstruction, the intended long-term development plans of the city required urban planning. Most of the spatial concepts were prepared by an open architectural competitions, with the participation of many teams. An example of such selected projects in Warsaw are the following concepts: the Saxon Axis, Marszałkowska residential area, building development at the Victory Square, and the greatest of urban designs – the East-West Route (Trasa W-Z). Exhibitions and presentations of architectural projects were systematically organized in subsequent years in order to evaluate the solutions, primarily in terms of compliance with the demands of socialist realism, but also to present the architectural output. The architectural works of the period of socialism were dominated by solutions formed in the spirit of eclecticism, however, the architects also sought inspiration in the domestic forms, derived from the Polish cultural heritage and folk tradition. Examples include the complex of buildings at the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University designed on the order of university authorities in 1948 by Czesław Gawdzik and Tadeusz Witkowski. The complex of clinics and units of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, distinguished within the university, presented during the Regional Architecture Exhibition in 1951 in Lublin, received positive opinions not only as a solution of great values of urban planning, but also as the design adequately referring to the tradition and regional forms in architecture. The body of the building of the clinics of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine that was opened in 1955, survived to the present day and has become an inherent part of the landscape of the city. As a result of growing awareness of conservation needs of contemporary architecture and urban planning works, called by law „contemporary cultural goods”, in 2003 the professional architects and urban planners started the discussion on the criteria which should be used when selecting objects to be protected. In addition, the team responsible for analysis, designation, selection and preparation of the directory of modern facilities and areas, the value of which would justify special solicitude for their preservation, was appointed in 2009 in Lublin. As a result of the two years of work of experts, a list of contemporary cultural goods was drawn up and provided to the President of Lublin in 2011. Unfortunately the example of Lublin shows that the work of experts is not used in practice. Only a small percentage of the area of the city is covered by local spatial development plans, and only the plans, as documents of the local law, enable the creation and introduction of the principles of protection of contemporary cultural goods. In the absence of such conditions, the cinema „Kosmos” was demolished and disappeared from the area of Lublin in 2011, the building of Gymnasium at ul. Kunickiego has been deformed, the urban layout of the Słowacki housing complex designed by Oskar Hansen has been affected by the expansion of commercial pavilions. The described in the introduction veterinary medicine building at ul. Głęboka has also been sentenced to demolition. The process of urban development, therefore in city’s spatial transformations reflect the interests of various participants in the process. Land development regulations should be the basis of those activities, therefore the districts are obliged by law to draw up planning documents. As can be seen from the statistics, however, only a small part of the Polish territory is covered by the planned development, and at the same time, in many cases the merit of the local plans does not conform to the standards. The role of the urban planner has also changed. From the position of expert and professional in matters of land development who indicates the most appropriate paths of transformation and development directions of the city, the role of the urban planner was virtually reduced to a „draughtsman”, who – as a person professionally prepared, but without the right to give opinions – must prepare the document under the dictation of investors. Until the statutory regulations are introduced, all working professionals in the field of architectural and urban design anyway bear responsibility for their decisions and original designs. In accordance with professional ethics they should be guided by the principle of seeking the solutions reflecting the value of the space not only within the „ordered task”, or the „scope of official activities” but in the context of widely understood conditions with a meaning of „public good”. With such approach, directories of goods recognized as valuable, even if they have no form of a legally binding document, could be used in the current work as a material useful in the decisions of substance. An observation made by Jerzy Szczepanik-Dzikowski, an active architect, seems to be an appropriate summary of this idea: We must finally understand (following most European countries) that the care of architecture is not the law, not legislation, but competent and committed people who care about the city.

Słowa kluczowe

PL

krajobraz kulturowy; nowoczesna architektura; ochrona własności; urbanizacja; rozwój

EN

cultural landscape; modern architecture; protection of property; urban development

• Wydawca: Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN ; Towarzystwo Urbanistów Polskich
• Czasopismo: Biuletyn Komitetu Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: No 253
• Strony: 200--213
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 10 poz., fot.

Twórcy

autor

Landecka H.

• Politechnika Lubelska

Bibliografia

• 1. Danczowska H., 2009, Architekt Tadeusz Witkowski 1904-1986. Lublin, s. 176.
• 2. Garliński B., 1953, Instytut Urbanistyki Architektury. Architektura Polska 1950-1951. Państwowe Wydawnictwa Techniczne, Warszawa, s. 3–4.
• 3. Goldzamt E., 1956, Architektura zespołów śródmiejskich i problemy dziedzictwa. PWN, Warszawa, s. 114–117.
• 4. Grzeszczuk-Brendel H., Klause G., Kodym-Kozaczko G., Marciniak P., 2008, Prolegomena do ochrony obiektów architektonicznych i zespołów urbanistycznych Poznania XX wieku. Wyd. Politechniki Poznańskiej, Poznań, s. 6.
• 5. Kotarbiński A., 1967, Rozwój urbanistyki i architektury polskiej w latach 1944–1964. PWN, Warszawa, s. 133.
• 6. Malkowski T., 2011, Architekt miasta-urzędnik czy wizjoner. “Architektura”, nr 03, s. 38-45.
• 7. Rejestr zabytków czy lista dóbr kultury współczesnej, status dóbr kultury współczesnej, jak chronić i odnawiać obiekty architektoniczne i urbanistyczne. Konferencja. Warszawa, 11–12 maja, 2006.
• 8. Uchwała nr 1688/LV/2002 Rady Miejskiej w Lublinie z 26 września 2002 r. w sprawie miejscowego planu zagospodarowania przestrzennego miasta Lublina – część II.
• 9. Ustawa o planowaniu i zagospodarowaniu przestrzennym z 27 marca 2003 r. (Dz. U. Nr 80, poz. 717 z późn. zm.).
• 10. Witwicki M., 2007, Kryteria oceny wartości zabytkowej obiektów architektury jako podstawa wpisu do rejestru zabytków. Mps w zbiorach archiwum WUOZ Lublin, także [w:] Ochrona Zabytków, nr 1, s. 77–97.