Hello, we're now in the Plaza shopping centre,
and I'd like to know when was the last time you were here.
It's about 5 or 6 years since I was here.
The centre has been running for 10 or 11 years,
so it was interesting for me to walk through to see what it looks like now.
And are you satisfied?
Yes, strictly speaking.
I think that what we were imagining and what we wished to work, works.
I mean the connection with the compact city centre.
This is the city centre, there isn't any highway,
it's tightly connected with the historical core of the city,
so it works well – it's lively.
As a resident, my experience might be a little different…
Do you view it as public space,
or as a private or semi-private space? In what way…
Look…
The inner spaces – both squares,
especially the main one – this three-storey space, where we are sitting now,
is a semi-public space to me. It should be completely public, it would be ideal.
For safety reasons, it naturally can't be functional 24 hours a day,
but from 9 am to 9 pm it works publicly,
that is 12 hours a day, it works as public space,
accessible from the street, from the parking garage, from the park.
It' interesting that…
Because we deal with that topic in other projects too
– in the shopping and leisure centres
– it's interesting that the trend is shifting.
Today, the centres are designed as far more open,
with greater stress on the public space quality and complete openness to the public.
I would almost say, that this particular centre ended a certain phase,
I can feel an endeavour to connect with the public space there,
but today, we are working on those projects which treat it as a wholly public space.
The trend is developing,
the utilitarian shopping centres are in decline.
I don't know what the future of the centres at the highway cross
If we were talking about the park.
-Do you see it as a public space, a public route… -Yes, it's definitely public space.
-Even though it stands on private property? -You can also enter out of the shopping centre,
it isn't necessary to go through this arcade and square where we sit,
there's also open access from Jízdecká Street…
I think that it's an utterly public space.
There are sociological theories, according to which
the space like this is very exclusive for lots of people.
I noticed that there is a casino up here,
which quite surprised me. I had no idea about that.
It's the one that blocked the view of the park.
On one side, it's targeting the middle class,
and on the other, there are lot more casinos in this district.
What do you think about that?
Can an architect influence that or work with that?
Unfortunately no.
The shopping centres – or shopping- -amusement centres – have some rules,
which stop to work if you violate them.
This is a three-storey centre,
and here it's always a problem to fill the third storey
with targeted goods. They have to be targeted
because there aren't people walking randomly
around the passage and square and looking into shop windows…
In this space, they are moving around as in a city.
In an artificial city, which you sociologist don't like,
we architects are divided, one against…
There's a problem in the third storey
– that's why the targeted entertainment activities are usually put here.
I think that the multiplex works very well there. It has to be target shops.
In the original project, we had an amusement centre there (and it worked for a few years).
There were a bar and a restaurant with a beautiful view
of the park through a glass façade.
The glass is still there today, but it's covered now…
And there were gaming machines,
not for gambling, just for games, and other attractions.
I've been at a meeting concerning a similar centre,
where the developer was explaining to the city his conception.
There was an architect, the city representatives,
the politicians were commenting
about the area and about what could be there etc.
And the developer said, very vigorously,
that he knows the key to making it able to sustain
and to prevent vacancy.
How does the dialogue proceed between the architect,
who is responsible for the visuality and the building, and the developer?
Are those people reasonable, or do they indeed 'hold the key'?
Well, that's a large topic.
Architects should really be – as I said a moment ago
– sort of coordinators of the process,
and they should try to balance conflicting interests somehow.
That's how I see their main role.
I wouldn't narrow their role down to aesthetics.
That I wouldn't enjoy, as a conceptual architect – just searching for…
Because the things around us, the shopping windows and pavement etc., that changes,
but the concept of the building has to accept both points of view.
Of course, the developer has his experiences with running a mall; he has the money,
he invests lots of money to the thing, he wants it to work.
The public interest is a bit different,
but they clash with each other, encounter each other. They both have in common
the goal of making people go there and be there.
And that's what needs to be built upon.
I think that neither the districts, the cities nor public administration
have interest those centres being dead.
They want it working. And the others need it working as well.
So there needs to be balanced. It's not simple.
We often encounter some populist views from the side of the public administration,
opinions of certain involved influencing groups.
The view of the administration, unfortunately… I'm somewhat critical in this respect
due to my long-time experience…
The public interest is a broad term, who knows what hides behind it.
I'm a bit critical to that too.
Developers' interest is moved to the other side. Our role as architects
is to be able to combine these things,
and that's no simple position.
Oftentimes, if I can say that, both sides see you as an idiot.
I know that many of my colleagues and even you sociologists
have a sort of aversion to these facilities, but…
I don't have such a strong position on this matter because
it can offer places to meet during the whole year – regardless of the weather.
I'm thankful for any space where it's possible to meet,
and a lot of good centres works that way.
So I don't have that much of a problem with it.
I noticed the way you talk about it – like about a meeting place.
When we are walking around…
The shopkeepers around here are interested in not having people sitting here too long
– these are the circular benches where you can't have a nice talk as we have.
If I'll live long enough, should there be a pedestrian zone (since this is a city centre),
and I'll walk to the theatre across the square and then maybe here
– what will happen with the parking garage?
I understand the question because
it's a building for housing cars, which are dead metal boxes,
they definitely don't bring any life,
but if this changes in the future… That is a big question too because…
And now I'm getting to the role of the architects again
– we can't project buildings for a lifestyle that is minor,
even though we'd often like to share this opinion.
We have a responsibility to our clients,
and we have to keep in mind that 80% of the population can't imagine a life without a car.
Not long ago, I was in Poruba, at a public meeting,
and parking inside the socialist realist buildings' yards is a big topic there.
Everyone wanted to have their two cars in front of the house…
As part of the revitalisation, there was this interesting moment
when a politician stood up, and she said:
My vision is, that this place will be careless
and I'll stand for it.
She is the one who stands behind the revitalisation politically;
she works with the architect on getting cars out of there.
On the other hand, I can imagine that
there would be interest to have those cars here
so that more people could meet and shop here.
What is the role of the architect…
In sociology, we have two positions
– applied one, that is, working for various firms and companies, and academical one.
If I touch upon the public space,
I meet on the one side with architects, e.g. from IPR Prague [Prague Institute of Planning and Development],
which are more of the academic architects, and then with the applied architects…
Do you see a difference there? Can architect say no? And under what circumstances?
Look, I'm the applied architect, the one making buildings real…
I didn't mean that pejoratively at all, I don't see any hierarchy there.
I'm an applied sociologist, for instance.
On the contrary, I'm quite proud that I'm applied architect with big projects realised.
Because there's a big difference between academic discussion and going through the process,
bearing responsibility during the nvestment preparation.
These are two different roles.
And I always liked more the role of being inside the process,
the complicated, often belligerent, realisation of buildings.
But, I have to say,
I think that part of the public and, unfortunately, some of my colleagues and the media
actually overestimate the role of the architects.
I'm saying this utterly outright, knowing that some people won't appreciate it.
The role is overestimated.
When you read in architectonic world journals
that some renowned architect have built something somewhere,
I always smile broadly.
It wasn't the architect who made the thing happen.
The architect shaped the idea and intent of his client.
The idea itself is from someone who comes with it, wants to make it happen,
and expects some effect from it – financial, social or otherwise.
The architect takes the assignment and shapes it.
Of course, he fulfils the role I talked about a while ago – he is the coordinator.
He seeks to harmonise the interest of the client, whether public or private
and the general and common interest, with quality.
But his role…
But he never has the last word. He can't have it. And that's good.
He can't have the last word in the project.
It is such a huge process
– preparing investment construction, dependant on so many subjects…
Because we are in the public space.
We are always in the public space. And that is good.
But the last word – whether realising or not realising the building
in the form that is developed – belongs to the one
– and I'm repeating this knowing that some people won't like it
– to the one who pays for it. Whether we like it or not.
I see a lot sociology in this, when we have various commissions,
but there's a moment when I feel an obligation:
not to build a monument of myself; but to educate the commissioner
because he very often doesn't know what he should want from a sociologist
You are 100% right.
That is our duty. It is actually the architects' duty
to cultivate the client and to guide him through the process.
But you can't violate him.
You can tell him: Watch out, this isn't good, this isn't a good way for a such and such reason.
And it isn't only the coordination of public interest;
you also have to guide the client from the professional stance.
So the role is very strong.
But you won't be the one having the last word. The one saying: Yes. We'll do it this way.
You have to make a maximum effort for quality
and towards balancing the public and private interests and all interests in the construction.
But the truth is, that there is the duty to educate and to work on the clients.
There are such situations
when the things get so far
that you can't agree with the client any more .
If that happens, it's better to leave it. Sooner, the better.
It isn't fair to leave the assignment halfway through the work,
losing time and money.
It's good when you see that either the intention isn't alright,
or that you simply can't find a common interest with the client
and there's no chemistry between you.
Then it's better to end the collaboration as soon as possible.
It happened to me a few times too. Not often, but it happened.
Alright, thank you very much.
Pleased to meet you.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét