Monumental folly

The companies allegedly involved in this cultural destruction are now facing criminal charges; as is the construction firm which, in May, apparently crushed up a 2,300 year-old Mayan temple in Belize (one of the largest in the country) to use as gravel for road-fill. At least here, in the New Europe, our democracies and regulatory systems now have the safeguards in place to prevent the wanton destruction of irreplaceable monuments. The same thing couldn’t possibly happen here! Or could it? I imagine that as you read this piece – expecting me to confound that particular view with some striking counter-examples – you are already at the stage of retorting about how impossible it is to deal with historic building conservators. These guardians of the nation’s heritage have become notorious for tying listed buildings up in red tape when- ever efforts are made to bring them back to life. This may be true of buildings whose cultural value is undoubted, but what of those that are under-appreciated but nevertheless represent the fabric and life of the city in previous eras? I remember often sitting outside my local pub in Warsaw’s Praga district, glancing across the street with concern at a once-grand 19th century tenement, worrying that if nothing was done to preserve it soon it would simply collapse. It was by this time very rundown and mostly the abode of “problem tenants”. Such buildings are still common in Praga, which was mercifully spared the destruction of WWII, leaving it as perhaps the capital’s most authentic and atmospheric district. In the case of this particular building, renovation would certainly be costly and carried out without the prospect of any financial return if the tenants carried on living there. It seems, however, that a solution agreeable to both the local authorities and developers was eventually found: sell the property, evict the tenants, demolish the eyesore and construct a nice, shiny office building in its place. Whether future generations will admire the solution’s neatness was one factor that wasn’t included in the equation; but what is certain is that another small piece of what remains of Warsaw’s history is now lost forever. Perhaps it is easier to mete out this kind of treatment to some historic properties than it is to others. Nobody loves the abstract forms of post-war modernist architecture, especially when it was built in the communist 60s and 70s, do they? Well, in Prague it turns out that they do. Since the 1970s a park to the west of the city centre has been graced – some say blighted – by the Hotel Praha, a huge communist showpiece that dominates the local area. Unlike the brutalism of much of the architecture of the era, the structure of the hotel is characterised by curves and waves that appear to billow above the landscape. Some architectural historians believe it to be unique. The announcement of the latest owner’s acquisition of the hotel and its plans to demolish it to make way for a posh school prompted hundreds of architects, preservationists and historians to picket the hotel and the developer’s offices. Plans are now being drawn up to sue the Czech culture ministry (which was only too happy to wash its hands of a costly white elephant and reminder of less happy times) for hurriedly rubber-stamping the scheme without any kind of public consultation. I’m not denying that the region desperately needs modern facilities. Nor am I saying that developers and private investment will not play a crucial part in achieving this. But if we are not careful, in the rush to do so we might find ourselves repeating the same kind of unforgivable cultural vandalism. Maybe none of these considerations matter as long as companies are profitable, the public purse is full and new projects can go ahead. However, we have to remember what replacing or restoring old buildings is all about: improving the living environment and people’s quality of life. In these times when ‘sustainability’ is one of the main buzzwords of our industry, we need to realise that this can’t be done by putting profit before heritage in every case. Otherwise we could end up bulldozing our own pyramids.