Professor Ing. Arch. Miroslav Baše
Czech Technical University, Prague - Czech Republic
E-mail: base@fa.cvut.cz
Cities in Transformation - Could be Central European Identity regenerated?
Introduction
Opportunity has been offered to new EU member states to compare particular city development and
consequent differences towards the West which are a logic outcome.
A. Transformation in the past
These differences are not resulting only from the 2nd half of 20th century, when Central-Eastern
Europe has been developing as a part of Eastern Block but they are of older nature, reflecting the
political situation before and after 1st world war (the collapse of Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the
rise of new independent states).
Turning to cities, these two situations have been influencing their development and their appearance.
Within these newborn states, there have been common tasks to establish (or re-establish) many new
institutions and adequate buildings for them.
Despite principal political changes, several basic phenomena remained: the character of the country,
traditions within regional milieu, etc.
Continuing with the comparison, we can mention situations (within Austrian-Hungarian Empire),
similar to the West, when Empire’s best architects have been educated and practicing throughout the
whole territory, while after the split they have been limited by new political borders. On the other site,
specific national/regional cultures, which might have been gone, reappeared. Position and importance
of many Empire’s provincial cities has been promoted (new Capital cities).
Empire’s centralized power has led to typified public buildings and city arrangements; these
tendencies have been continuing during socialist governments’ time. Poland has been relatively free
with its conception of urban planning and architecture; its urban planning methods and theories have
been respected in the West.
West has been strengthening its multi-cultural societies, while Central-Eastern Europe just opposite
(Exodus of Germans, holocaust erasing Jewish communities).
Another phenomenon, which increased the differences, was the scope of war damages and the ways of
renewal. For example Prague, Krakow, Budapest fortunately avoided severe damages except marginal
ones; other cities did not (Dresden, Warsaw).
Another issue, which meant the different ways, was the historic preservation and care of monuments
generally. Well preserved Prague, due to its richness and also to stagnation, has chosen different way
than many western, namely German cities, which underwent “die zweite Zerstörung” inside;
socialistic cities mainly did not have the reason to intervene inside, but they surrounded older built-up
areas by layers of prefab tenement houses.
After the “velvet” revolution the situation changed in many aspects; historic parts of cities, centrally
located, registered multiplied pressure for the development of central functions and for promotion of
their operational niveau.
Question could be defined as follows: are we going to erase the differences or just opposite, to support
them? It depends; the “backwardness” of Central-Eastern Europe has to be properly interpreted; many
features, achieved by the West are not culturally attractive enough to be followed (particular imprints
of the market economy); among others to be followed is, first of all, the settled democracy,
multicultural societies/communities, value of education and frequency of interactions.
There is a need for a unifying language for the future cultural exchange and/or integration: from the
Central-European point of view, it is unfortunately not former German one, but wide-spread English.
Its role as a gate to the whole world is also enabling the necessary Central European interactions. It
could be seen in many ways and circumstances, including Internet, easing the inter-nationalization of
education, promoting wide spread tourism, commercial and cultural connections over boundaries, etc.
This means another transition: cultural shift from German based knowledge and wisdom to AngloSaxon one, with all good and bad consequences for the continuity and legitimacy of Central Europe
(reduction of isolation, introduction of the superficial international life style, the suppression of local
culture and tradition).
B. Transformation at present
The following text is commenting thesis by Mr. Werner Sewing from Berlin.
1. Urban Economy
Many industrial cities in CR are shrinking according to their recent importance; this trend is allEuropean one. The transition to post-industrial economy is painful in major industrial regions of NW
Bohemia (Most, Chomutov) and N. Moravia (Ostrava-region). Prague with its metropolitan area is the
only region in CR which is over the EU defined prosperity level meaning no need to be subsidized.
The shift to information society is also most visible in Prague.
The importance of small and medium size towns is growing, apparently for their higher flexibility to
deal with new problems and demands. Large cities, namely Prague are expanding to surrounding
regions, creating spontaneous, not sufficiently regulated clusters of family houses, commercial and
industrial areas.
2. Social Spatial Patterns; New Urbanity
New economic principles have led to the expulsion of residents out of the centre and to transfer it to
non-residential, mainly administrative and commercial functions. The invasion of visitors (reaching up
to 100 millions a year) was reflected in drastic change of city ground floor. The profile of culture has
been changed. Market economy has brought more visible social differentiation.
Suburbanisation is a threat. Traditional settlement structure of the countryside is very dense and
possibilities to expand everywhere could mean disastrous environmental changes.
3. Cities and Culture: Ide ntity and City Marketing
Nowadays, most of heritage symbols have been commercialised and in its identity stepped down and
changed to tourist “commodities”. Collective memory and experiences differs from generation to
generation. Nowadays, our cities are full of criminality, full of visitors, full of evident foreigners, but
the young people recognized that this is a normal picture in all other cities. There are inherited features
from the socialist time.
4. Cities, Architecture and Urban Planning
Last two decades of the 20th century brought reconciliation with classical, concentrated form of city,
which could be called “European”; recognized differences have come from different economic
situations. At present, entrepreneurs in CR need the so called “green light” for their expansion and
profits and they received it in the form of “de-regulation” as a most adequate reflection of human
rights. Obligatory Master plans are still being required with easy rounds of changes and with doubts of
many self-government representatives treating them as a burden without serious goal. The important
stream of investments is oriented out of towns, to the open countryside; if possible, than to be attached
to existing settlements (the cheapest way).
The architectural tasks are reflecting present time; most of them are administration spaces or building
of financial institutions, building for sports and recreation. The time of public buildings is gone, or did
not arrive yet. They absence can be seen as a demonstration of individualism and lost sense (and need)
of public, of community.
5. Cities as Polis and Regio
The present situation of cities could be besides others treated as an agglomeration of numerous layers,
levels and proportions of knowledge, culture, production, information and visions in particular space
and time which altogether creates basic phenomenon, called “European City”. It is more and more
complicated to find out a new engine for regeneration of Polis and of Res Publica. City is spreading in
many directions not only in space but also socially. It is difficult to say, what kind of an arrangement
would be adequate for a new vision of a city.
6. Conclusions
I do believe in social need to return to communities, to social cohesion, which is nevertheless not
possible to reach by planning itself. Devalued word “sustainable” development or better, “the
sustainable way of life” would remain as a political phrase only without upgrading the way of life
value. The role of education has to be re-valued and more modest material demands should become
more frequent.