The proposal of new regulations for construction is destroying the city of Prague

The proposed draft of general technical regulations for construction in the capital city of Prague (OTP) is a tragedy for Prague. It prevents the construction of a traditional city and supports sprawling development, the so-called suburban slush. According to the new regulations, we can forget about urban streets, boulevards, squares, and even pleasant nooks. The proposed regulations forbid us from having a compact city where quality public spaces can arise, instead forcing us to build solitary scattered buildings, as we know them in housing estates or suburbs.
The regulations do not reflect new insights in the field of urbanism and architecture. In advanced countries in Western Europe, the problem of urban sprawl has been addressed for over 50 years, seeking ways to maintain urban tradition. Until the Second World War, the development of cities was always associated with their spatial expansion. Today's agenda is the opposite – it addresses the quality of the urban environment, not quantity. Sprawling cities are extremely costly in terms of public and transport infrastructure. The interest of developed cities is to save these costs and prefer financing parks, beautifying squares, or public institutions. And where is Prague heading? On the ranking of global comparisons of quality of life in cities, we are in 70th place! Meanwhile, nearby Vienna has been in first place for two years. Following are cities like Zurich, Geneva, Frankfurt, Munich, Copenhagen, and many others. These cities have one thing in common – they focus on the quality of the urban environment and aim to build a compact city. Prague, it seems, is heading in the completely opposite direction – with its new regulations, it supports the negative manifestations of suburbanization instead of allowing the construction of pleasant and livable urban environments.
The new building law currently defines requirements for landscape protection, for protecting undeveloped areas, and for the economical use of land. Only in this way can we effectively fulfill the idea of sustainable development. Similarly, the government-approved policy of spatial development of the Czech Republic requires the limitation of negative effects of suburbanization. The same line of thinking is contained in many recommendations and reports from the European Communities Commission. Experts agree that a compact city with free landscape around it is better than an expensive suburban slush that connects cities into one sprawling development, which is neither a city nor a village. Why does a specific partial regulation not adhere to these higher principles?
The fight of the new regulation against the traditional urban environment is subtly readable in many provisions. The most glaring is, however, in the section on building setbacks, where it is required that houses be at least as far apart as the height of one of the higher opposite facades. Instead of creating nice streets and squares together, the houses must stand far apart like somewhere in a panel housing estate with strangely unkempt areas belonging to no one. Another unfortunate requirement is the truly excessive demands for building parking lots, which have no equivalent in advanced cities of Europe. In the central parts of cities, understandable reasons lead to a reduction in individual car traffic, not to its support. Prague, on the contrary, forces builders to construct underground parking lots, thus increasing traffic intensity. How can one live in the city under these conditions? In another part of the regulation, we read that it is not possible to increase building in the street. How can this be universally stipulated? Is our city now in a situation where we can say it is finished, that it should be preserved in its current state, that it must no longer develop? A compact, let's say finished city, represents about 20% of the built-up area of Prague. And what about the remaining 80%? Elsewhere, we learn that tree rows in the street can be placed wherever traffic safety allows. Why must this sentence be here? Of course, the project must meet traffic safety standards. It seems to me that this is exactly the argument for those who do not want trees in the streets. It will be similar to the felling of alleys on district roads. Do we want highways in the city, or urban boulevards with alleys, sidewalks, and café and restaurant gardens?
The building regulations also contain a number of enigmas for the average citizen. In a total of 92 places, the regulations refer to standards. However, these are not mandatory but recommended – they do not undergo any legislative approval process. But by merely stating that the dimensions are "given by standard values," without bothering to say what they are, these parts of the standards suddenly become binding for all residents of Prague. Standards are not part of the legal order of the Czech Republic, are not freely available, and are very expensive. Why are these requirements not included in the text so that citizens can read them for themselves? Probably because the regulation would have to be 100 to 200 pages longer. Is it really in the public interest of us Praguers? Do we want to be a city of culture and cultivate an urban environment, or a community of barbarians? Do we want to be in the center or on the outskirts of Europe?