Where is my homeland? Hanácké Dubai!?

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013, the association Za krásnou Olomouc organized a public discussion titled "Where is my home? Hanák Dubaj!?" in the auditorium of the Faculty of Arts at Palacký University in Olomouc, on the occasion of the exhibition of the same name currently taking place at the DOX Centre for Contemporary Art. The discussions "Where is my home?" were also held in other cities across the Czech Republic and were always initiated with the common question "What is home?" DOX is processing a nationwide diagram, in which the responses will be represented by simple graphic symbols. The map will help reveal what connects and divides participants in the discussions from various locations in their ideas of home.

The Olomouc discussion focused on questions concerning the city's identity and quickly turned to the most pressing local issue, the topic of high-rise buildings, particularly the controversial planned construction of Šantovka Tower. The discussion, moderated by architect Martin Lubič, included architect and urban planner Pavel Grasse, architect and author of the specialized analysis of the height zoning of the city of Olomouc David Mareš, architectural historian Rostislav Švácha, and philosopher and political scientist Martin Škabraha. The General Director of the National Heritage Institute (NPÚ) Naděžda Goryczková accepted the invitation, but due to illness, she was ultimately represented by the director of NPÚ in Olomouc František Chupík.

Representatives of the investor and the city were also invited to the discussion. We were interested in ensuring that all parties involved received equal time. We firmly believed that representatives of the city and the investor would also allocate time and participate in the discussion, as their opinions were essential for properly discussing and explaining the entire issue to the public. However, the representatives of the investor, project spokesperson Juraj Aláč and Richard Morávek, one of the representatives of SMC Development, outright declined the invitation. This did not particularly surprise us, given that none of the investor's representatives dared to defend the Šantovka Tower project even at the public debate held this February under the name "High-rise buildings and the development of Olomouc?" organized by o.p.s. Civipolis. However, the state heritage conservation authority, which issues binding opinions on matters concerning public interest, should be able to justify its stance in public, which is why we invited not only the mayor of Olomouc Martin Novotný among the speakers but also head of the building department Eva Hyravou and head of the heritage department Vlastu Kauerovou. Both declined the invitation, believing their participation in a public discussion could be incompatible with their involvement in public administration. The mayor apologized, but has yet to respond to our request for a competent person to attend the discussion. These are bad signals to us citizens; the city is neither capable nor has the courage to explain its stance on the matter. This raises impressions of repeated failures of state administration and self-government among citizens, and significant doubts are growing within them.

From the city's side, the following questions remain unanswered. Does our city even have any idea of what its identity should be for people to feel at home? Does the city have the right to prioritize development in the form of construction at any cost over preserving traditional values, particularly cultural and historical heritage?

The planned construction of Šantovka Tower is certainly not a trivial matter. We are all aware that it would fundamentally and for a long time affect the urban structure of the immediate surroundings of the historical core of the city. Can we even feel at home in our city? After all, alongside the safety that our city provides us, we feel some kind of plots against us; someone wants to harm our idea of home, to disrupt it. "The safety of home should be monitored by someone, in our case, the heritage conservation authorities and then the self-government. They should guard it in our public interest, but instead, the city watches over the interests of someone else, guarding the interests of some entrepreneur who wants to build a skyscraper and intends to sacrifice our sense of security and happiness in our lives," emphasized architectural historian Rostislav Švácha during the discussion.

We see a similar problem in the planned illogical relocation of the post office from Republic Square to the Šantovka shopping center. How is it possible that the city has not taken any action yet? It could have at least requested a detailed analysis from Czech Post to substantiate such actions. The post office is a public service. It assures us citizens that its primary goal is to bring its outlets closer to as many customers as possible. Therefore, we do not agree with the closure of this branch, which is within walking distance for many residents, small entrepreneurs, and large institutions (Faculty of Arts UP, Rectorate UP, Archdiocese of Olomouc, Regional Military Command, Museum of Art Olomouc, Regional Museum in Olomouc, etc.), and is easily accessible by car as well. Opening branches in private shopping centers is, of course, understandable and purposeful, but it should not be done at the expense of closing traditional and functional branches located in cities.

Martina Potůčková, Petr Daněk