Add new comment
Diskusní příspěvky vyjadřují stanoviska čtenářů, která se mohou lišit od stanovisek redakce. Všechny příspěvky musí být schváleny redaktorem dříve než budou zveřejněny.
Redakce archiweb.cz ctí v maximální možné míře svobodu slova, nicméně ve vyjímečných případech si vyhrazuje právo smazat nebo opatřit komentářem příspěvek, který se netýká tématu diskuse, porušuje platné zákony ČR nebo dobré jméno portálu, obsahuje vulgarismy nebo má reklamní charakter.
Redakce archiweb.cz ctí v maximální možné míře svobodu slova, nicméně ve vyjímečných případech si vyhrazuje právo smazat nebo opatřit komentářem příspěvek, který se netýká tématu diskuse, porušuje platné zákony ČR nebo dobré jméno portálu, obsahuje vulgarismy nebo má reklamní charakter.
1. atelieér OMA se od stavby N. Karoiny ve výsledné podobě distancuje:
Studio OMA pracovalo na konceptu před šesti lety a tím skončily jakékoliv jeho vazby. Rozumím tomu tak, že developer dále odkazuje na projekt jako „založený na designu OMA / Rema Koolhaase“. To by mohla být pravda, ale studio OMA nebylo nijak zapojeno do projektu realizované budovy. Opět platí, že zapojení studia OMA se zastavilo po vypracování konceptu před šesti lety.
Z toho, jak to chápu, použil developer koncept studia OMA k tomu, aby instruoval architekta budovy, která bude brzy otevřena. Chtěl bych zdůraznit, že toto neznamená, že jde o budovu studia OMA. Pro nás je výraz „za tím vším stojí ateliér OMA s architektem Remem Koolhaasem“ nesprávný.
Doufám, že toto prohlášení o zapojení studia OMA je dostatečně jasné.
Pěkný den,
Anselm van Sintfiet
OMA
pro nevěřící viz též: http://www.ostrava.in/stavby/oma-rem-koolhaas-a-nova-karolin a.html
2. S lávkou Evy JIřičné je to podobné. PO vypracování studie byla investorem odmítnuta s odůvodněním , že je to "příliš drahé". Realizovaná lávka sice připomíná návrh EJ, ale bylo použito jiné technické řešení a na realizaci se ateliér EJ nepodílel. Zeptat se můžete přímo jí.
Takže tolik o účasti arch. hvězd na Karolině ......
Někdy si říkám , že by architekti mohli ty své zprávy alespoń aktualizovat.
The City of Ostrava issued MULTIDEVELOPMENT the Urban Permit for a perimeter block office building of this scale, which was according to their Master Plan. Further, the ‚solitaires‘ you refer to have long been the pattern in Cerna Louka (Black Meadow) so I dont exactly understand if you mean these objects have a ‚parasite‘ affect on themselves or the new solitaires have a parasite affect on the old solitaires? In every case, this is a zone of solitaires and urban discontinuities, that in fact, illuminate the total disparity of industrial mining activities immediately adjcent to and surrounding historical town centers. Exactly which ‚good‘ First Republic urban structures do you refer to in this context??
Finally, if there was a winning urban scheme years ago why was this not implemeted into the Ostrava Master Plan? Perhaps you should focus your complaints on Ostrava City Planning rather than misdirecting and misleading your comments in relation to the reality which exists in this area today.
Moravska (not Slezská) Ostrava between Cihelni street and river has solid urban raster which is even duplicated ...!!!)... in Karolina housing block urban plan (the X, you can see from plan is "citation" of Camillo Sitte "X"-block not far away), so any apologia of "solitairs" looks like traditional hypocrisy. There is no excuse and everybody knows that.
Claim for authorities in Czech and especially Ostrava is like "I followed orders" in Nuremberg process.
There are no excuses made and no excuses needed. And, Czech authorities are not different than any other country - the planning process is difficult to establish, maintain and upgrade for future growth...we work now to improve this where there is the will and a legal mechanism. Subjective arguments are not valid in rational dialogue or debate, neither are self-righteous or rhetorical statements.
In every case, I appreciate your difference of opinion, and especially that you engage with me in English.
Umim cesky (spatne ale asi to nevadi) a tady bidlim uz dvacet let. Pracoval jsem behem dvacetpet let v sedmi ruznych zemich a samoreme mam jine urbanisticky-architektonicky nazory nez vy...a to je proste ok...
ale 'Nuremberg' uz je moc, osobni a dost abdurni v tenhle kontext a proto budu to ignorovat.
To be honest I personally think this one building "under" we are talking, is maybe the best from Karolina: at least it respects street line and its office building so there wasnt much space to do some eveilish floor plans (unlike overpriced flats nearby which are only shade of any old flat in the current city). Old block next to is quite "massive" and "monotone", so even scale seems reasonable. And thing its currently unoccupied ghost building is just small freckle on beauty which actualy goes with bland, empty facades. But these are - as You say - only personal preferences.
Because main thing in Karolina case isnt even architectural, tis clearly political (!!!): Ostrava along with Prague, Ústí nad Labem and Liberec is one of the most corupted city in the CZ. Left or right, it doesnt matter: Jatka on Cihlení was fraud, Dum umění extension is fraud... even small public contracts like interroirs are corrupted. So yes, with all these cancelled voting, cuts and so on people are really p*ssed off and I personally must sympathize with them, because in this situation anger - not rationalism - is the last thing that left.
I was very angry for many years here because of this 'understructure' that i didnt understand and would never be part of, but then one has to choose - leave, fight or be patient...I fought for a while until my projects started to be sabotaged by the other side...so I went into the 'patient' mode until they would start falling from the 'understructure' into court and...and until a confident group of 'changemakers' could build momentum for a new system...like they have in Vienna for example....its on the way
dont be angry...be part of a change...
I appreciate your engagement in the discussion on Archiweb. Although I live and work in Praha, I grew up near Ostrava and I regularly visit and observe the transformation the town goes through. My reaction on Archiweb was in no way a reaction on the architecture itself that is being developed in the Nova Karolina area. I merely pointed out that I think the problem of Nova Karolina is the lack of a masterplan. We could call it a development plan, a regulation plan or a long term sustainable urban vision. Or shall we say, in the light of current erection of the buildings, a lack of a meaningful urban concept. It is the spaces between the buildings that matter. I would have want to see a series of spaces that have logic, density and size and that are enclosed by the buildings as an environment that could be characterised as public realm - „městský prostor“. When I walk around and through these spaces, my impression is that the buildings simply don’t talk to one another. They talk to the distant outside right through the exaggeration of their architectural gestures, massing and distinct modernity. But I see them as a series of self depicted solitaries – some more successful than the others – which create urban discontinuity as you point out. So what went wrong ?
I think I am right to say that the comparison to Cerna Louka is irrelevant. Cerna Louka is a fair ground with pavilions in a park which are meant to mono-function as temporary exhibition pavilions. Similarly to other fair grounds in Olomouc, Praha or Brno. As you are well aware the recent architectural competition for Cerna Louka was an attempt to regenerate this area with a new vision and new urban thinking. After the encouraging results due to the fact that Ostrava didn’t win the Capital of culture the Ostrava Municipality was unable or unwilling to proceed with further development of Cerna Louka. An opportunity still waiting to be rescuscitated.
Similarly to Nova Karolina, Ostrava Municipality has failed to sustain a major role and control of its urban development, which I believe, has been given up to the commercial developer via a developer competition. You are right that that’s where the town has failed and is continuing to do so as it disrespected the results of a major international competition. It has damaged the whole architectural community and the role of architectural competitions has yet again been ridiculed.
To let the Ostrava people choose the most beautiful scheme without serious debate simply on a basis of a public questionnaire was an irresponsible act and the easiest way of moving the responsibility away from the responsible. I myself was very seduced by the artificially lit and well crafted models at that exhibition.
The “First Republic” I am referring to is in fact just across the road from Nova Karolina – the old town north of 28. Října. Although never completed in its entirety it has a comfortable city character and appropriate scale and hierarchy of public spaces. I am not yearning for this be replicated in NK as I am well aware we don’t live in the 20th century and development and planning mechanisms differ from those used previously. I am simply pointing out that the obvious qualities present in that part of the city are not present in Nova Karolina which seems to distance itself from it by the urban discontinuity you are referring to.
And this is where the minor but important responsibility of us - architects comes to my mind.
viz http://ostravablog.cz/komentare/nova-karolina-park-jako-pruc hod-k-chramu-konzumu/
@ Jana Pyšková: Zkuste na konci fotoreportáže (ze všech ostatních serverů bylo prohlášení OMA stáhnuto): http://ostravablog.cz/tema/karolina-pred-kolaudaci/ + je tam videorozhovor s Lubošem Kočím...