Developers from 1900 are to blame for the demise of old Prague
Interview with Kateřina Bečková, chairwoman of the Club for Old Prague, about the demolition of Josefov and part of the Old Town, but also about the fact that Petřín was to be led by a road and Nerudovka by a cog.
Prague – The people of Prague are rebelling against insensitivity developers and construction entrepreneurs, demonstrate against the demolition of historic houses. They complain that time is bad, they don’t want monuments and they only focus on money.
But around 1900 the situation was old Prague much worse. Construction entrepreneurs had less barriers, as monument care did not exist. Hundreds of historic houses were demolished, the whole of Josefov and part of the Old Town were destroyed.
That is why the Club for Old Prague was founded 115 years ago in order to oppose these interventions and teach society to perceive monumental values. With his help, for example, it was possible to prevent the stopping of Kampa, the construction of a road along the Petřín cliff or the exposure of a cog railway on Nerudova Street.
“Can you imagine that Karlova Street in the Old Town or Mostecká in the Lesser Town would be demolished today? That idea is completely unthinkable, so it is really difficult to compare historical ‘developers’ with today’s ones. The difference lies in the existence of monument consciousness. , which sets certain natural limits of inviolability, “says Kateřina Bečková, chairwoman of the Club for Old Prague, in an interview for Aktuálně.cz.
Aktuálně.cz: The Club for Old Prague has been operating for 115 years. In principle, does it still solve the same problems, ie insensitive interventions in historical Prague monuments, or does its activity change fundamentally during the historical stages?
Katerina Beckova: The content of the club has indeed remained the same for 115 years, differing only in the way the club has ever been able to assert its views. Under the previous regime, the possibilities of expressing a dissenting opinion were very high. Even so, it is more of a miracle that the club has maintained its independent existence throughout. I suppose the main reason for this is the fact that monument care is essentially a non-political discipline.
A.cz: Without the intervention club, would Prague be much different and monumentally poorer?
Let’s not imagine that the Club for Old Prague pampers some list of buildings they have saved. If some monumentally controversial plans were not realized in the past, it often happened through the cooperation of several factors, or even by coincidence. I think that the historical merit of the club is different, it stood at the birth of state monument care, taught society to perceive monument values and shaped its monument consciousness.
A.cz: People today say that we cannot appreciate monuments and that we perform unreadable interventions. But in the history of your club, I read that shortly after 1900, members had to deal with such bizarre things as electric wires for the tram on Charles Bridge or the cog railway on Nerudova Street. How realistic were these plans?
The plans were meant seriously, but opposition to them, instigated not only by the Club for Old Prague, but also by many other associations, made them unworkable. In short, the then council of municipal elders of the Prague City Hall, which in today’s words was the city council, could not afford to demand something like that and lose the electorate.
A.cz: Your club was established in 1900 “at a time of concentrated construction onslaught entrepreneurs for the advantageous use of the plot of the historic city center, which, however, had to be preceded by the demolition of valuable historical buildings, “as you write. Did predatory developers already work then?
In 1900, it was not called a “developer”, but a “construction entrepreneur” and, as today, it was not a repulsive business. At that time, there was no monument law, and if the construction entrepreneur proved to the building authority that the proposed building would be sufficiently dignified for the given place and aesthetically pleasing, nothing prevented him from demolishing the old building at that place. Prague has been breaking at an incredible pace since the 1990s, on the one hand, it was the Prague redevelopment, the construction project of the Prague City Hall, during which the entire Josefov and the adjacent parts of the Old Town were demolished, and on the other hand the private activity of many construction entrepreneurs. Hundreds of historic houses have been demolished in twenty years.
A.cz: So the monuments were treated even harder…
Can you imagine that Karlova Street in the Old Town or Mostecká in the Lesser Town would be demolished today? The idea is completely unthinkable, so it is really difficult to compare historical “developers” with today’s ones. The difference lies precisely in the existence of the monument, which in our current culture sets certain natural limits of inviolability. I would illustrate this as follows: if in 1900 it was the order of the day to demolish anything, perhaps with the testimony of Gothic churches, today the investor will no longer dare to propose the demolition of a Baroque building, even if anything younger is no longer taboo.
A.cz: In the first years of Czechoslovakia, conservationists had to deal with the often insensitive tearing down of Habsburg symbols. For example, which rare monuments have suffered or been completely destroyed?
In such a revolutionary euphoria, I always experience a certain cultural loss. Monuments and symbols of the previous mode are removed. But in two or three generations, negative feelings will fade and initiatives will naturally appear to correct this rapid image-breaking. Today, when the modern Czech state is already natural to us, we have long felt no complete hatred of the Habsburgs, and the restoration of, for example, the monument to Francis I on the Smetana embankment is not felt as any trauma. Many people may not even know he’s back there.
A.cz: Why was the Marian Column on the Old Town Square torn down in 1918 by an enraged crowd? What did he have to do with the Habsburgs when he was erected as a thank you for defending against the Swedes? And what is true about the fact that the same crowd wanted to go to throw statues from Charles Bridge into the Vltava?
It cannot be thought rationally, it was simply an exemplary vandal piece that fits well for the tense period after October 28, 1918. However, the subconscious motive was undoubtedly the injustice of the forced re-Catholicization of the Czech lands, because pre-White Mountain Bohemia was markedly Protestant. It is interesting how little we can empathize with this thread of emotional relationships of our ancestors today, for us it is just a textbook story. I don’t know if the excited crowd liked Charles Bridge either.
A.cz: How real was the threat of stopping Kampa so that the panorama of Hradčany would not be visible?
Really real, even though the panorama of Hradčany would certainly be more or less visible, it would only change the foreground of the well-known “hundred-crown” view. Even in Austria, the construction of a stone embankment and large office buildings on Kampa and the Lesser Town bank were planned at all, as were other coastal sections in Prague. If we are offended today, it is a bit ahistorical, because this way of adjusting the banks was quite common at that time.
A.cz: What decided then?
The preservation of Kampa without the waterfront, but also a free view of the panorama of the Emmaus Monastery in Nové Město had to be fought really hard. Today, we would say lobbying about pink protests, newspaper articles and, above all, interventions against municipalities.
A.cz: What was missing in order to destroy Petřín in the interwar period by the fact that the road connecting the center with Dejvice would lead down the slope? How strong were these efforts?
The so-called Petrin Road was a really long and seriously designed project. It was supposed to be such a serpentine along the Petřín slope, which would start in Malá Strana near the Hungry Wall and end in Břevnov. At that time, she was already solving the already felt problem of transport connections from the south to the west of Prague. In the end, the idea of building the Strahov tunnel was born in the protests against this plan.
A.cz: How did the club work during the communist era? Was it possible to prevent the disappearance of the old Prague districts in favor of the construction of panel housing estates or the construction of the metro?
Under the previous regime, of course, the club could not function as it did under Austria, the First Republic or today. But at that time, its members were many personalities of official monument care, so paradoxically, the ideas of the club in professional monument bodies had perhaps the greatest support in its entire existence. However, the political decision, such as the demolition of the Těšnov railway station, the remediation of Žižkov and Vysočany, was also short for the bodies of monument care, the national club.
A.cz: How difficult was it to fight “hurapakniks” and predatory investors after the regime was relaxed in the 1990s?
In fact, the hardest thing for us was to understand how the club’s role is and how it could be in the new conditions. Where and how to express our opinion as effectively as possible. I think that’s until the mid-90s, before the club gained the certainty that they were in the environment of the state monument care authorities and until these authorities got used to the fact that the club is not their competitor, but an ally.
A.cz: If in the 1990s there was a heated debate in the public about some transformation of historical Prague, then it was the Dancing House. Why him?
I myself am an admirer and admirer of the Dancing House, and I have not yet been to any meetings more than twenty years ago when his first study was discussed. But I remember that the great critic of the building was especially Dr. Dobroslav Líbal, nestor of Czech monument care and then vice-chairman of the club. He blamed him for the breakdown of the quiet street front of the waterfront homes, and in the motif of the dancing pair “Ginger and Fred” he found the decline provocative. He was basically right, but what he called the construction negative, I consider her a plus.
A.cz: So this is often the subjective opinion of the conservationist …
And this is typical for monument care. It is not based on any precise measurement, but on subjective judgments, generational opinions, personal experiences and the emotional attitudes of the evaluators, of which those who have the most support from the professional and lay public should be accepted.
A.cz: What current cases does the Club for Old Prague solve?
Definitely not. For example, we do not want houses in the Prague Monument Reserve to be demolished, because that goes against its meaning. We currently know of several houses threatened with demolition – Václavské náměstí 47, Revoluční 30, Petrská 33. We do not want historic houses to be rebuilt, set up and delivered so insensitively that they lose their character and become a caricature themselves, such as the former Food House on Wenceslas Square converted into a hotel. We do not want new buildings to enter the environment of historic buildings at the expense of their surroundings, because they often do not seek harmony with the place, but undeserved dominance, such as the Crystal House on Vinohradská Street or the planned Line building nicknamed the Polar Bear on Victory Square.
A.cz: Is old Prague still in danger? Or are the laws so “impermeable” that the monuments are essentially safe?
Buildings that are declared cultural monuments are more or less safe and the laws are “impermeable” if they are complied with. But our defensive efforts today often relate to buildings that are not yet protected, are not declared monuments, or even stand in a protected area.
A.cz: What constructions do you have in mind?
Time is running out and what seemed to our predecessors several decades ago as a banal or young building, an unworthy protection, is now beginning to appear in a different light. Very often, strong civic activities are still emerging when investors intend to intervene in the traditional place to which its inhabitants are accustomed, or when they want to demolish a building that the older generation completely overlooked, such as the Žižkov freight station and various industrial heritage buildings, or even despised , for example in the case of the Hotel Praha in Dejvice.
A.cz: In your opinion, what is today’s biggest problem of old Prague?
The problem is definitely not monument legislation, it is sufficient in my opinion. However, the willingness of some investors to follow it is insufficient. The stronger the investor and the bolder the proposal, the harsher the form of pressure on the monument authorities and the effort to ensure clientelism and their positive decision. More than once we read the statement of the monument authority, which figuratively speaking, claimed that black was white, and this statement was substantiated by a multi-page word code.
A.cz: What about that?
If such a binding opinion does not immediately reach the public, which could successfully challenge, but who have no idea that it was issued, it is usually too late to correct it during the months or years that follow. The investor has been “consuming in good faith” all these months and years that it is right, and this is often more important to the appellate body than the fact that black is black and white after all. Simply put, the biggest problem in my opinion is the non-transparency of monument approval.