Open Letter from Ivan Kroupa to the Dean and Academic Community of the Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University in Prague
Dear colleagues,
The Faculty of Architecture at Czech Technical University (FA ČVUT) is my alma mater, where I studied, taught, led a studio, headed a department, completed my habilitation, and most importantly, met people with whom we collectively sought what is at the essence of our profession.
In 2007, I left the faculty for UMPRUM. This was partly because I felt that my teaching style and studio leadership did not align with the vision of the new faculty leadership, and partly for a new experience, for a different kind of work. I patiently sought objective justification and understanding for some steps and actions taken by your representation (when the leadership of FA ČVUT did not allow my students to complete their doctoral studies solely because they refused to change their supervisor, despite my offer to finish the work with them without any claim for a fee, or when the representative of FA ČVUT in the accreditation commission blocked the possibility of doctoral studies at the Department of Architecture at UMPRUM for trivial formal reasons). Today, I have lost my patience. That is why I am writing.
As part of my work duties at UMPRUM, I am responsible for the project of artistic workshops UMPRUM in Mikulandská Street. This is to rectify the situation for both UMPRUM and the city, as these workshops disappeared from the city center during the period of restitution and privatization. Your representation - Ladislav Lábus and Jan Sedlák, who are entrenched in approval, primarily heritage protection structures, have negatively affected the discussion surrounding this project. And this in a manner that is unacceptable from a professional and ethical standpoint.
Ladislav Lábus was not present at a single presentation of the project, had no direct and relevant information about it, did not participate in discussions with the authors. Nevertheless, he voted against its approval and his general comment about its poor quality behind closed doors significantly influenced the approval process.
"Which of your projects, Ladislav Lábus, catapulted you to such heights that you would bury someone else's project without having a single piece of information about it? And conversely, which of my projects justifies you in anticipating a poor outcome?"
Jan Sedlák's actions are even less comprehensible. He sits on a non-heritage city commission (the Commission for Urban Development of the City District of Prague 1), which unanimously supports the project. In the OPP MHMP commission, however, he votes against it, and his vote overshadowed the situation to the detriment of the project.
I do not deny anyone the right to an opinion (rather to a free vote here), but neither Ladislav Lábus nor Jan Sedlák raised a single question, stated a single reason, or put forward a single argument to be able to refute or discuss it and defend the project. Everything is resolved only behind closed doors.
"Ladislav Lábus and Jan Sedlák, you are part of the approval structures where quality is not sought, where there is no effort for objectivity, where only servility is counted, the number of consultations, the number of concessions, where the vast majority of members would prefer to see UMPRUM displaced to the outskirts of the city (opinions that treat history, tradition, or property rights without context, arrogantly, unrealistically, naively). You are an active part of the approval processes and structures that were involved (at least assisted) in the displacement of the center of Prague (including the displacement of the elementary school in Mikulandská, which concerns our project). You are pushing UMPRUM out as well, one of the last authentic communities in the city. Your actions represent a professional and ethical failure for me."
Dear colleagues, I have watched with some hope how FA ČVUT has occupied significant positions for the discussion of projects, for the development of the city, and for the development of architecture in the Czech Republic as a whole. Collective responsibility does not work this way. Everyone has that in the commissions and juries - therefore no one is responsible. (It doesn't matter whether this pertains to the situation I am describing, architectural competitions, or the setting of the professional environment.) For me, each person bears full responsibility.
"You, who have long been part of the approval processes, have you ever looked at the city from Letná, what new things have arisen during your decision-making, advising, or during your public functions? Nothing new. Just nonsense, nonsense unnecessary for the city, unnecessary and burdensome for its life, exhibiting on the panorama of the city, changing and degrading its urban environment… This is not what the project of artistic workshops UMPRUM does; it remains within scale, remains part of the structure, is generated by the city and the place, transforms an elementary school into a university (adding new energy to an abandoned, displaced place). Since when is commerce more important than a university?"
Ivan Kroupa
The Faculty of Architecture at Czech Technical University (FA ČVUT) is my alma mater, where I studied, taught, led a studio, headed a department, completed my habilitation, and most importantly, met people with whom we collectively sought what is at the essence of our profession.
In 2007, I left the faculty for UMPRUM. This was partly because I felt that my teaching style and studio leadership did not align with the vision of the new faculty leadership, and partly for a new experience, for a different kind of work. I patiently sought objective justification and understanding for some steps and actions taken by your representation (when the leadership of FA ČVUT did not allow my students to complete their doctoral studies solely because they refused to change their supervisor, despite my offer to finish the work with them without any claim for a fee, or when the representative of FA ČVUT in the accreditation commission blocked the possibility of doctoral studies at the Department of Architecture at UMPRUM for trivial formal reasons). Today, I have lost my patience. That is why I am writing.
As part of my work duties at UMPRUM, I am responsible for the project of artistic workshops UMPRUM in Mikulandská Street. This is to rectify the situation for both UMPRUM and the city, as these workshops disappeared from the city center during the period of restitution and privatization. Your representation - Ladislav Lábus and Jan Sedlák, who are entrenched in approval, primarily heritage protection structures, have negatively affected the discussion surrounding this project. And this in a manner that is unacceptable from a professional and ethical standpoint.
Ladislav Lábus was not present at a single presentation of the project, had no direct and relevant information about it, did not participate in discussions with the authors. Nevertheless, he voted against its approval and his general comment about its poor quality behind closed doors significantly influenced the approval process.
"Which of your projects, Ladislav Lábus, catapulted you to such heights that you would bury someone else's project without having a single piece of information about it? And conversely, which of my projects justifies you in anticipating a poor outcome?"
Jan Sedlák's actions are even less comprehensible. He sits on a non-heritage city commission (the Commission for Urban Development of the City District of Prague 1), which unanimously supports the project. In the OPP MHMP commission, however, he votes against it, and his vote overshadowed the situation to the detriment of the project.
I do not deny anyone the right to an opinion (rather to a free vote here), but neither Ladislav Lábus nor Jan Sedlák raised a single question, stated a single reason, or put forward a single argument to be able to refute or discuss it and defend the project. Everything is resolved only behind closed doors.
"Ladislav Lábus and Jan Sedlák, you are part of the approval structures where quality is not sought, where there is no effort for objectivity, where only servility is counted, the number of consultations, the number of concessions, where the vast majority of members would prefer to see UMPRUM displaced to the outskirts of the city (opinions that treat history, tradition, or property rights without context, arrogantly, unrealistically, naively). You are an active part of the approval processes and structures that were involved (at least assisted) in the displacement of the center of Prague (including the displacement of the elementary school in Mikulandská, which concerns our project). You are pushing UMPRUM out as well, one of the last authentic communities in the city. Your actions represent a professional and ethical failure for me."
Dear colleagues, I have watched with some hope how FA ČVUT has occupied significant positions for the discussion of projects, for the development of the city, and for the development of architecture in the Czech Republic as a whole. Collective responsibility does not work this way. Everyone has that in the commissions and juries - therefore no one is responsible. (It doesn't matter whether this pertains to the situation I am describing, architectural competitions, or the setting of the professional environment.) For me, each person bears full responsibility.
"You, who have long been part of the approval processes, have you ever looked at the city from Letná, what new things have arisen during your decision-making, advising, or during your public functions? Nothing new. Just nonsense, nonsense unnecessary for the city, unnecessary and burdensome for its life, exhibiting on the panorama of the city, changing and degrading its urban environment… This is not what the project of artistic workshops UMPRUM does; it remains within scale, remains part of the structure, is generated by the city and the place, transforms an elementary school into a university (adding new energy to an abandoned, displaced place). Since when is commerce more important than a university?"
Ivan Kroupa
The English translation is powered by AI tool. Switch to Czech to view the original text source.
1 comment
add comment
Subject
Author
Date
Velmi rozumím obsahu dopisu,
Tomáš Vích
03.09.15 11:24
show all comments
