Open Letter from Architects to the Municipal Council of the City of Krnov

Dear Madam Mayor, dear Madam Deputy Mayor, dear Mr. Deputy Mayor, dear members of the city council of Krnov.

We grew up in the city of Krnov. We have an architectural education. We gather experiences from other cities and abroad. We perceive the unique qualities of our city and have the need to continually return to our roots.

Unfortunately, during our regular visits to the city, we observe how the qualities of the city are being degraded and lost as a result of unnecessary decisions made by responsible representatives of the city. Decisions are not preceded by adequate public debate; they are neither visible nor audible in their infancy. They subsequently appear as completed projects, with which nothing can be done, or it is already too late for discussion. The proposed solution is neither the best nor the cheapest and often does not stand up to comparison with the original solution.

We do not want to watch the devastating changes but rather offer help in addressing the issues that the city is dealing with. The city of Krnov has a great underutilized qualified potential of architects who know the locality of Krnov, have a positive relationship with the city, and are interested in its future. Unfortunately, this potential lies dormant and is not activated.

Public investments
One of the recent plans from the city representatives regarding the reconstruction of the municipal baths prompted us to write this open letter. In particular, the way public funds and public space are handled, and the refusal to cooperate with the professional public.

The process through which such a significant and costly construction, like the municipal baths, is being prepared is perceived very negatively by us. We feel the need to point out some erroneous steps that have occurred in the project preparation process.

Firstly, it involves the direct assignment of a study to a design office without verifying the return on investment and economic sustainability of the project. Aquaparks in the Czech Republic are, in 99% of cases, loss-making facilities subsidized by operators. The designer's argument that only an extensive offer of attractions will yield profit and economic return on investment is obviously purpose-driven. The likely future contractor of the project will, of course, support the economic optimism of the client and will not scare them with red numbers in the economic balance. After all, the responsibility for inadequately invested funds and for irreversibly changed environments does not rest on their shoulders. We want to say that the assignment of a study for 300,000 CZK to a designer with 40 years of experience in designing pools is not a genuine economical step. It is strange that there is money for the expansion of the municipal baths, but not for the mere reconstruction of the existing facility of the municipal baths.

Secondly. It is a great shame for the present and future generations that architectural competitions are not announced for such projects in Krnov. It is a respected fact that architectural competitions generally represent a democratic method, a way to achieve goals in the awarding of public contracts in the field of architecture and urban planning. The main benefit is the transparency in the selection of proposals and the achievement of optimal or even extraordinary solutions on the given topic. They guarantee that the best results will be achieved in terms of urban planning, architecture, operation, and, not least, also economically. The jury selects from multiple proposals and evaluates the fulfillment of all assigned criteria. From this perspective, it is currently the only way to ensure that public resources invested in the development of the urban environment are invested responsibly. A positive side effect of preparing such a competition is also the necessity to define the assignment, during whose drafting and approval, the overall appropriateness of the project often reveals itself.

Thirdly. If the assignment was defined at all, it was not consulted with the Committee for Architectural and Urban Development of the city of Krnov, nor was it addressed within the city council. Such a long-term commitment from the city must be planned with the knowledge of wider societal support, involving associations, civic groups, and the public – future users of the building. Not as an investment currently supported by a few individuals who will not be responsible for the city's commitments after their term of office expires. We believe that it would be beneficial to learn from neighboring regions before assigning a study regarding how successful and costly operating and planned aquapark projects are. For instance, halted aquapark projects in Jeseník and Ostrava are a wellspring of experiences.

However, the plan for the reconstruction of the municipal baths is not the only topic significantly playing with the city's expression. The ongoing land adjustments, which may define the landscape for eternity, as well as the form of flood protection modifications, studies on building near the pilgrimage church on Cvilín, the reconstruction and completion of the Sokolovna by architect Leopold Bauer, the reconstruction of the green belt of the wall circuit, and among the smaller, yet not less significant, the reconstruction of the riveted bridge on Opavská Street next to the library, and not least the reconstruction of Mikulášská Street, which is currently underway under the management of the investment department.

The aforementioned actions are merely those of which we are currently aware, but there are likely others already in progress that will only appear again in the implementation phase, at which point there will be no opportunity to voice any opinions. We consider this state alarming.

Too much is at stake for these procedures to be overlooked. The image of the city, which will be defined for several future generations, is at stake. Are the responsible representatives of the city aware of the impacts of their decisions, which will be evaluated by future generations long beyond the horizon of their terms?

Cooperation
Given the above, we offer the city of Krnov cooperation in the form of an open discussion platform that would take place several times a year. The platform is not intended to criticize on the surface but to point out unnecessary projects, the qualities and potential of considered solutions, to search for new topics, consult strategies, and seek the most suitable solutions in the conditions of Krnov. We are interested in discussions that enhance the future form of the city.

The discussion platform would involve responsible representatives of the city, departments of the Municipal Office, representatives of architects, and possibly local associations and active public representatives. From the city's side, we would expect a positive and open attitude towards discussions, presenting planned projects in advance, and the participation of responsible representatives.

We offer our capabilities for the benefit of a more cultured environment in which our descendants will live.

The main topics of the Platform would be:

• commenting on considered topics and investments – their meaningfulness, without political dreaming
• identifying the values of the city and their vigorous protection (the historical development has created qualities that are being devastated by current practices)
• defining true priorities for development
• discussions on topics and solutions

The result would always be a report from the discussion with clear conclusions and recommendations. The text would be public. The conclusion would be presented at the City Council and the Executive Committee.

The future image of the city lies in our hands. An image that has been built over centuries and some epochs have left an indelible imprint on it. The baroque fortifications, but especially the development of the railway and textile industries, and the unprecedented social, cultural, and economic boom of the city that followed. Here we can find strong roots of the image of the city.

The post-war era plunged the city into confusion and chaos. The face of the city was pushed aside and ideological slogans and populist opinions prevailed. Let us not allow these attitudes to persist any longer and let's seek together a way to create a city of the 21st century. A city that is contemporary, open, beautiful, and poetic.

We firmly believe that the fate of our city is not and will not be indifferent to responsible people, and that they will seek solutions in greater connection with civil society. We are ready for discussion.

Sincerely, architects

Ing. arch. Zdeněk Eichler

Ing. arch. Adam Halíř

Ing. arch. Tomáš Machovský

Ing. arch. Ondřej Volný