So, I think that the greetings should come first.
-Good afternoon. -Good afternoon.
I was asked to make an interview with you about this object – Quadrio.
When I was coming, the first thing that came into my mind was, that there's no place to sit.
Should we sit here on a blanket or shall we stand?
What do you prefer?
It's too bad you have to stand here…
It's true that you can sit here, but it's also true that it's connected with some consumption…
Exactly.
So the benches aren't allowed here…
Who banned them?
Because… It's an ugly matter, maybe I don't want to talk about it…
But anyway, it's because they were at Národní třída.
By the station?
No no, under the trees.
The municipal district came to a conclusion that it didn't do well
and it had to remove them.
Some were planned, and in the end they aren't here.
Don't take this as an excuse, though there might be more of them from my side…
The benches do belong into a public space, sure,
but it doesn't have to be only benches,
it can also be something that anchors you in the space.
It might look as if the architect has everything figured out from beginning to the end,
that he has made a decision and…
Was it stated in the assignment that the benches won't be here, or was it a gradual thing?
It was during the final stage, after some…
The local authority is worried
that it will attract homeless people a lot
and that it can't be sure
whether the space will be under control in this way.
It's a delicate matter
I'm telling it to explain…
Honestly, it's hard to say where is the border
whether these things should be left alone,
or whether should they be regulated in some way, limited,
and I think it works differently from place to place.
It's a delicate matter.
You were making plans of the office building, so you have some idea how it looked here before.
Such an idea is forgotten very quickly…
But if you should evaluate the change
if you look at it now, and then you look back how it looked like before – has it changed for better?
Are you satisfied with it?
In the past, it was all about the subway station that used to be here,
which basically carries with it only the access to the metro and nothing more.
It didn't offer anything else. And then there came the sales booths…
They were at the front.
In my opinion, they significantly degraded the place in their own way, because they had horrible standards.
Building an object here, which is then filled with people
– the apartment house, the offices, plus everyone in surrounding buildings,
whether they're offices, hotels or residential buildings,
they all changed the life of this place,
made it move, in a way.
I think that the statue was the crown of the work,
it became an attractive place,
as the old squares, streets etc.
The space didn't actually exist there, and then the people found it.
You say that people are somehow finding it.
I'm curious, what is your idea – who are these people?
What are those people who find the place like?
Because it isn't all the people, you know…
When you say that the parasite object can be entered only by some people,
can all the people find a way here or…?
In what way…?
Discussion like this seems to me very strange.
Yes, the space does belong to someone, all the way to this line, we can draw it here somewhere;
but none of the people who are coming here views it this way.
Absolutely anyone can come here
– from the social spectrum, professional spectrum etc.
It is totally a part of the city.
Like the inner courtyard and the gardens in the Florentinum,
well we are not there, but I would like to talk about it,
because there are many parallels, even though they are two different projects.
I would be critical if it is public space when it is privatised.
That is, I don't mind someone owning it, but
it's the privatisation of the usage through the consumption that bothers me.
I think that the criticism of public space privatisation or some masquerade
when the private owners spread out into the open space…
Because they spread outside, they gain new options to generate income.
I think that the criticism is also due to the rise in numbers of such places.
The increase of semi-private, pseudo-public spaces replaces other areas,
it lowers the diversity – that's one of the main criticisms.
At the same time, with reducing the diversity, there are fewer places where other people can go,
those who don't belong here
– they either don't have an example to follow, or money,
or opportunity.
So even if we can pretend it's for all,
only a certain type of people is actually spending time here.
And the way the area is made contributes to how some people are spending time here more
and how others don't.
For example, grandma won't sit here, because there is no bench.
And I'm not saying that it is…
Yes, exactly, and it's too bad it isn't here,
and the life in the centre, unfortunately, brings along such things…
Certain social groups, which are shunned by the district and dealt with in this way.
I don't know whether it is good or bad, I don't like it as an architect.
If there were a bench and someone who would make the place safe…
Without people being thrown out of here or restricted.
It's about the safety in this space…
- Do you mean social safety? Social control? -Yeah. Yeah.
If I'm to go down this road…
I wonder what it used to look like here…
By setting the things differently, materially and functionally, by setting the use differently,
one sort of people was displaced…
-But it was just this one type of people. -It was just one type.
The grandma wouldn't sit here back then, with a grandson.
Back then, she wouldn't.
What seems interesting to me is the role of the architect.
Having some limits set from the outside,
and at the same time designing the space here, or in Florentinum
– outdoor space, public spaces actually,
even though, in a private block of buildings…
What are the future users going to be like,
and whether I, as the architect, can somehow use that to influence the other players
whether I can tell them what is needed,
or whether I accept the pressures and adapt to those which limit my vision and space?
Generally, I imagine that everyone can go there, but in real life, it doesn't work that way,
it is commercialised, so if there aren't any benches, no one will sit here,
so it can easily happen that the use of the space or the life of the space is limited.
I get what you mean.
I'm interested in your experience.
Yeah, there are things
within the architect's assignment that have some limits,
but there is also a space for you there.
It is one thing to accept the assignment
if the architect doesn't feel too bound by it
if it isn't beyond his scope.
For example, we mentioned now the question of the gated community.
I can imagine an architect saying:
Look, I won't design gated community for principal reasons
– that is, my social opinion on how the people should live.
Or, I can say:
I wouldn't like to live in a gated community,
but I'll try to design a good gated community
because I respect that there are places or types of people,
who want to single themselves out, who want to have their own.
It's just a band, a community,
which doesn't want to be confronted with the broad public.
Whether that's good or bad, it's just a phenomenon that is here for some reason…
We could discuss the social trends for hours…
It was always kind of here, in different forms.
When I come up with some development,
with some building,
then there are two options, two situations:
Either the new object becomes something that's inaccessible to the public
and allows in only the people who belong there
– that's what I call an urban parasite,
because it uses the surrounding infrastructure,
whether the traffic or the various pubs or the place itself – the pavement, the square…
Or it is something, that both take from and brings to its surrounding.
I think that in all of our projects, my chief goal
is the level that satisfies the investor,
like the office spaces – which someone will buy, someone will sell, someone will rent etc.
That is the commercial side of it, but there is also an option – you don't have to buy anything,
you can go to tram, and you don't have to go around it so far,
or you can just stay here and look at the Kafka…
There are many levels.
I think that this should be considered.
Especially such a large object, like the Quadrio or Florentinum
should bring something to the city.
So, this place
– the assignment seemed right.
There was a passage, there was going to be a piazzetta
which would disperse the people into the surrounding streets
and draw them to itself, to the place…
And the fact, that the Veuve Clicquot costs that much…
That is another thing that goes along with not being in Quadrio but in Prague 1.
So this is how I answered it to myself.
And the limits that I got familiar with ex-post, at the end
– the benches – these were the things that I couldn't change.
And then there's metro ventilation kiosk; we too tried to – we knew that from the beginning
– but we decided to minimise their impact, because if there was some parallel wall…
But, I say that maybe just now we have a better idea for that, that could…
I think we talked over enough. Do you agree?
Sure. Yeah.
Then it's time to finish. Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment