Inventory of Urbanism (II.)

FINAL REPORT

Inventory of Urbanism 2010
— is a platform for architects and all interested in the creation and protection of the cultural environment
— is a continuous process
— originated at the Institute of Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture CTU

What is it really about?
WHY Inventory of Urbanism:
— There is increasing pressure from both lay and professional communities dissatisfied with the quality of our landscapes, cities, countryside, and individual buildings
— society struggles to find balance between individual and common, private and public interests
— the process of spatial planning is incomprehensible to the public
— this dissatisfaction generates unmanaged conflicts among various groups
— the renewal of interest in landscapes, cities, and the countryside is changing the public's perception of the cultural environment, which manifests as a gradual change in life outlook and style
— our legislation is not prepared for these changes
— even politicians, under pressure from the public today, are realizing that transparent and quality investments in cities and landscapes have long-term significance and meaning

WHAT is Urbanism?
— urbanism is the creation and protection of the environment
— urbanism is architecture
— the arrangement of the environment is both a result and a tool of social agreement
— quality architecture creates a quality environment
— the measure of good urbanism is the long-term satisfaction of people
— urbanism is the most advantageous long-term investment in quality environment
— we are all shareholders in public space
— investment in low-quality public space is a loss

HOW to achieve good urbanism?
— through cultural dialogue
— transparency and clarity of rules
— balance between private and public interests
— care for diversity and richness of the environment
— balance between initiation and control
— balance between creation and protection
— evaluating long-term impacts of decisions
— responsibility of all decision-makers
— respect for the complexity and integrity of problems
— understanding the city as the greatest cultural project of humanity
This summary serves as a basis for further work on the Inventory of Urbanism. Results will be published continuously.

Speakers at the workshop — Jakub Cigler, Tomáš Ctibor, Irena Fialová, Radmila Fingerová, Adam Gebrian, Petr Hájek, Petr Hlaváček, Pavel Hnilička, Petr Hrůša, Jan Jehlík, Roman Koucký, Radek Kolařík, Michal Kohout, Igor Kovačević, David Kraus, Jakub Filip Novák, Ivan Plicka, Jiří Plos, Jan Sedlák, Alena Šrámková, Yvette Vašourková, Zdeněk Zavřel.


INITIATOR

1/ Did the conference completely meet your expectations? What would you change next time?
2/ Which of the ideas shared struck you the most?
3/ Which topic did you miss in the discussion or the presentations?
4/ Do you already have ideas for the topics of the next Inventory?

Jan Jehlík, Head of the Institute of Urbanism, FA CTU
1/ a/ Quantitatively (interest from students, others?) overwhelmingly, we counted on 100 participants, 363 signed up, and unfortunately, we had to turn away about 60 students due to capacity; ultimately, 250 people showed up (I apologize once again to those who were turned away, who could have known...). By the way, the IU website has about 120 unique visitors daily!
b/ Qualitatively (lectures, discussions) it more or less met my expectations, and exceeded them in some way. It was about being heard, not just suspecting how top Czech experts would succinctly express the answer to the question "What is it really about (today in urbanism)". I expected individual directness of opinions, honest exploration of directions and topics, mutual enrichment. And that occurred to a sufficient degree. If there were now an executive firm here that would immediately develop suggestions, I believe it would have plenty of work for the coming year and our profession would visibly improve. Next time there will be a different conference, we will build on the previous one and the subsequent annual accrual. We will invite a different spectrum of speakers (including from other fields), specify the topics. Just an inventory.

2/ I know all the participants quite well, but I was carried away by the wisdom of the vast majority of them. And by the joy of discovery. For example, David Kraus (paraphrased): "I step out my door and the first thing I see is a trash bin." And the power of Mrs. Šrámková's precise statements continues to fascinate me.

3/ The countryside. But not in the spirit of the notoriously and unoriginally denigrated "urban sprawl," but a deeper understanding of this topic. What should we replace the still blindly romantic view with, what really contemporary forms can help the countryside, is it about the relationship village - city or "only" about various settlements in size, topographical, economic spectra, etc.?

4/ We will let it grow, we will water and fertilize it, and when it is a year older, we will conduct a proper inventory. During the year we will better map activities in the area of urban happenings, both theoretical and built. We will connect the web suitably with related others. IU is primarily a platform, not just a conference. It is clear that the building law must change, the approach to spatial planning, the work of various "departments of the main...", understanding urbanism by architects and urbanists as "just" one of the three legs of architecture (it is not an independent field!) etc.
This is also related to the community of people in the IU circle, as the mentioned activities need to be responded to professionally and with appropriate "energetic" strength. This interest will also shape the face of IU, however it will always be malleable and changeable (as discovered by Irena Fialová: when read in English IU is "I-you"). It is not about a new "Association" or amateur activism, but about a space for possibilities. Therefore on the university grounds, it fits there more than in the tight, always outdated
organizations. If there is no interest, nothing happens, perhaps something else, better will occur. Or IU will just remain a club of a few people, maybe a research cell, or a memory of childhood. Well, isn’t that beautiful? :).

FROM THE CONCEPTUAL TEAM

1/ Which of the ideas expressed struck you the most?
2/ What current urban topic did you miss in the discussion or the presentations? Could you state its positive/negative impacts?
3/ Which "Czech" topic would you suggest to the organizers as central for the next IU? And why?

Irena Fialová, architect, educator FA CTU, co-founder of the Golden Ratio
1/ The Inventory convinced me that architecture and urbanism cannot be separated. And that spatial planning is part of, or rather a tool of urbanism. It helped me realize the extent to which the balance of private and public interests in the territory influences the quality of life of people and what affects this balance. I was struck by how updates to the spatial planning law (1992–2006) gradually and imperceptibly eliminated citizens' participation in deciding the future of their municipalities.
I was surprised that some colleagues, particularly from the audience, still believe in the total top-down implemented control of the territory, regardless of the changes our society and the world have gone through in the last decades. The way of thinking of people seems to have enormous inertia - honest and open work with students is, therefore, a fundamental task.

2/ I believe much was expressed, although not entirely clearly formulated and systematized. The search for a conceptual framework for contemporary urbanism accompanied almost every contribution, every discussion of the Inventory. That was the reason for the Inventory. We intentionally avoided vacuous technical words, such as "sustainable development," "settlement unit," "greenery," and instead used ordinary, simple words from a common vocabulary. This search and informal attitude may be negatively interpreted by those who did not understand our effort. Personally, however, I hope that the Inventory will evoke more sympathy than antipathy.

3/ I think it doesn't matter what theme the Inventory chooses next time. I perceive the theme as a kickoff, nothing more. The initiative of the Inventory seeks to open the broadest discussion about the meaning, goals, and tools of urbanism. Part of this opening is also the courage to question and shake what is given, institutionalized, generally accepted. The Inventory is not a revolution or an attack, but an open process of searching for what is solid, what is good for our field and society. I was pleased that the speakers from Fora 2000 on the theme "The World We Want to Live In" spoke in the same spirit as the participants of the Inventory and that these globally recognized thinkers were heard by many of our colleagues from all generations, including students.

Michal Kohout, architect, educator at the Institute of Urbanism FA CTU, co-founder of the Golden Ratio
1/ I was struck by several things. I most enjoyed the open and friendly atmosphere in which some rhetorical noises faded away. But I would highlight rather randomly the mention of improving the community life of the neighborhood not through some intervention in the building structure, but much more effectively, through locally operated information networks. With all due respect to the seriousness of the profession, it is good to be aware of the limits of our work: a quality physical environment is not a necessary condition for a meaningful life. Even in a sick body, a strong life can pulse.

2/ Over the last century (approximately between 1910–2010), our settlements, just in terms of housing construction, have increased by about 400 percent of their original area (not to mention the technical standard), while the population has changed practically not at all. Meanwhile, in the previous hundred years (i.e., between 1810–1910), the population in the Czech lands more than doubled. All this happened as a result of the technological and conceptual shift called the industrial and information revolution, which are the products of our Western civilization. A significant part of the world is now facing these two "great leaps", or is just assimilating them (Chairman Mao, forgive the terminological borrowing, but his slogan fits today's events much better than the social disaster he originally referred to).
Theme No. 1: It is our historical opportunity to try to apply the often painfully acquired experiences we gained on the aforementioned journey.
Theme No. 2: It is our social responsibility to realize what those experiences actually are. We have done very little for this type of inventory specifically in the Czech Republic.
Theme No. 3: The main civilization of today is no longer or soon will not be solely "Western". I see this as an opportunity, but also as a challenge, to hurry with this inventory. It is always good to know who we are, where we come from, and where we are going. In times of confusion (even creative ones), this is all the more true.

3/ Theme No. 2: Wishing that today's "great leaps" do not devolve into "great disasters" of tomorrow.

Jakub Filip Novák, architect
1/ The greatest impression on me was not made by any fundamental opinion, but rather the realization that the individual ideas expressed merge into a powerful current calling for the city to be designed creatively again, not planned technically. Consensus among architects is not a matter of course, even at the most general level. In this sense, I perceive the Inventory of Urbanism as a turning point.

2/ A major problematic topic arising from IU 2010 for me personally is not any classic urban topic, but the limited ability of us architects to express ourselves clearly and unequivocally in a limited space - there is no other. It is also related to the previous question - each of us develops our own complicated language for the same message, and thus in the end, we do not understand each other, nor do we change anything. It is necessary to first work on communication; only once we understand each other can we have a serious discussion. The Inventory is trying to spread understanding through its web application making individual contributions accessible. Some need to be played multiple times for one to grasp them, but none are unnecessary. From now on, they are part of public space and influence not only the architectural scene...

3/ If I were to ignore the work on communication mechanisms, it would be as follows: If in response to the question IU 2010 "What is it about?" I heard "It is about designing the city", then at IU 2011, I would not ask "How to design it?", but "What is preventing it?"

FROM THE AUDIENCE

Ivan Gogolák, second-year student of the follow-up master's program FA CTU
1/ There were quite a few. If I had to pick, it would be the idea by Jan Sedlák about regulation as a guarantee of values, paraphrased: whoever does not prescribe anything, guarantees nothing... This idea prompted me to reassess my position on regulation as a tool of urbanism, which still has its place in design today – the question is its form and extent, but its importance today is evident.

2/ It would probably be a plan for interaction between "urbanism" and the lay public. In the non-commercial promotion of architecture (not construction), we are significantly lagging behind more developed countries. I think we cannot hope for something like enlightenment of the participants. Establishing ideas about the principles of urbanism is a marathon, taking half a century. We should probably start as soon as possible. The question remains whether today's society is able to live in the environment we design and vice versa. The negative aspect I see is the spread of misinformation in society, which (de)forms the end state of cities and municipalities, an example being the recent electoral campaign. Conversely, awareness and motivation could lead to the public having a better idea of what kind of environment they would like to create and preserve.

3/ The discourse of the Czech environment and foreign urban methods subjected to a critical assessment in terms of their contribution to the local landscape and character (not only) of cities or for me an important topic – The Car and the City. From the perspective of these themes, I would personally appeal for the creation of a platform to maintain multi-accessibility in the sense of Jan Jehlík's words about "good conduct".

Michal Fišer, architect
1/ I was struck by more ideas, the contributions were in the overwhelming majority accurate, and it is good that they were expressed. Coincidentally, there was an exhibition (note: right on the street!) of proposals for the transformation of the industrial zone of Ruzyně into a new residential district of Prague 6 just a few steps away. The range of more than 50 exhibited proposals is a report on the state of Czech urbanism: an excess of formalism, inappropriate scales, egocentric visions. Only a single proposal defines without fear and consistently "the order into which a lot of emotion can be stuff" (Šrámková), an order that understands as "initiatory, not regulatory" (Jehlík), dealing with the basic unit – here a transparent urban block, which forms the face of the city, allowing the creation of a unique "modu vivendi" (Sedlák), under which one can imagine both great architecture and "outsiders and the banality of everyday life" (Kraus).

2/ Systematic effort for conducting ideational competitions on strategic and spatial plans. The current practice of obtaining a developer for the spatial plan in the overwhelming majority excludes the criterion of quality. The absence of ideational competitions is a fatal contribution to the continuing destruction of Czech cities and landscapes. An ideational competition is not a panacea, but at least it opens the way to quality assignment.

3/ It is difficult to choose a central topic, I am interested in: – Developer not as a man in the background, but as a full partner between the city and the architect, an equal team member of the city makers, a constructive opponent. – The integrity of perspective, interdisciplinary cooperation, "transportation and engineering works are architecture!" (Jehlík) and, of course, the landscape.

Michal Petr, second-year student of the follow-up master's program FA CTU
1/ During Friday's parade, I was surprised by Mr. Zdeněk Zavřel's presentation and his assessment of world developments after 1990, particularly the situation in the Czech Republic regarding the distribution of property in relation to panel housing estates. Further interesting parallels were brought by Petr Hrůša in his contribution (revision of urban thought after 1990).
For me, the most interesting speech came during Saturday's discussion. "Someone from the audience" spoke out with an assessment of Friday's speeches, during which he listed 25 of the most frequently occurring words in the contributions of individual participants (also two or three forbidden ones :-) This list was then readable in the final report (see below, the reflection by Tomáš Vích).

2/ I missed the presentation of Professor Karel Meier at the conference; I think he could have provided another perspective on the "discrepancy" between urban discipline and spatial planning. I consider this discrepancy very current – there is a lack of some societal consensus on where today's cities should head. This brings a great freedom to all involved.

3/ The topic/division of contributions into General/Public/Practical seems practical to me for the next conference as well, perhaps just a narrower definition of the individual sections. Establishing a more specific theme is not appropriate given the breadth of IU's scope.
The central motive is important to set mainly for the discussion part, where it could serve as a guiding line for the moderator, making the discussion much clearer and more understandable for listeners.

Tomáš Vích, architect
1/ The realization by Jan Sedlák "whoever does not prescribe anything, guarantees nothing" was important to me. It touches not only on the crisis of Czech urbanism but also on the essence of the current economic crisis. Arbitrary individualism living on debt, occupying public space that is "nobody's," which no one takes care of, regulates, or protects, and when so, unfortunately often incompetently. This arbitrariness is the cause of the general loss of trust, loss of faith in the future, and the reason for the stagnation of not only construction investments but the economy as a whole. Selfish individualism paradoxically deprives us of freedom and order. It is a global problem.

2/ I completely missed the topic of sustainable development. Nevertheless, it is a fundamental key to a healthy city and landscape! Most speakers, with the honorable exception of Radmila Fingerová, avoided environmental problems. Among the speakers was Tomáš Ctibor as a developer, but there was no sociologist, conservationist, or ecologist.

3/ Clearly, the theory of sustainable development. I believe it is a horse that, when Czech urbanists/architects saddle it, will step out of their enchanted professional ghetto into the public space, which often rejects it today, as everyone complains. No wonder, as it does not defend the public interest.
I attach a small glossary – a list of 27 "important" words that were mentioned during the first day of IU in individual contributions. The order is random, roughly as they appeared in the contributions that day.
I listed them, as it seemed to me that they circle around one theme, which seems not to be adequately focused and precisely defined: Continuous / residential / diverse / vital / myth / place / meaning / sacred / life / order / feeling / quality / trust / cooperation / contract / rules / character / modus vivendi / multilayeredness / communication / ordinariness / vision / city image / boundaries / density / street / feasibility.
On the contrary, I was surprised that throughout the day the "forbidden" words were not mentioned, and when they were, it was in jest or pejoratively: sustainable development, environmental, ecological, revitalization, community, biocentrism, which collectively express what I believe to be the same as those "important" words. From this perspective, it was significant that while a representative of developers, Tomáš Ctibor, participated, there was no one from sociology, e.g., Jiří Musil, or from ecology, e.g., Martin Skalský from Arnika.