The next CV (105) Open Discussion Forum of Urban Planners, organized by the Cracow Branch of the Society of Polish Urban Planners, was held online on February 19. The topic of the meeting - "Monument protection and urban planning now and in the future" - was taken up by representatives of the Society of Monument Conservators o. Krakow at the invitation of TUP.
The main theme of the Forum was the protection of architectural and urban planning monuments in the context of planning issues, and the purpose - to show the problems of monument protection in the face of introduced, pending and needed changes in the regulations of monument protection and space shaping in terms of heritage protection. The topic was taken up in connection with the planned Third Congress of Polish Conservators, which will be held in the second half of October in Krakow, and the invited speakers are members of the expert team and organizers of the panel discussion "Heritage Protection in Spatial Policy".
President of the Krakow branch of TUP, Marceli Łasocha, began the meeting by welcoming the presenters, Prof. Dominika Kuśnierz-Krupa and Dr. Jerzy Wowczak, Prof. UAFM, representing the Krakow branch of the Association of Conservators of Monuments.
conservation planning
The most important legal document on preservation is the Act on the Protection and Care of Monuments, and in planning we take into account immovable monuments, objects and areas. The amendment to the law eliminated the study of conditions, which was an important document containing directional indications for the protection of monuments - and in the absence of an obligation to develop a strategy, only part of it can be transferred to strategic planning. Essentially, the relationship of strategic documents is changing, as indicated by Article 18 of the Law on the Protection and Care of Monuments. Taking into account in the general plan only monuments already covered by forms of protection included in the Communal Inventory of Monuments (GEZ) and modern cultural assets will result in the fact that only in the local plan will it be possible to establish protection for monuments not yet under such protection and to establish area protection, as well as to determine the principles of shaping space taking into account the value of cultural heritage. Since the GEZ is not a statutory form of monument protection, objects included in the GEZ should be taken into account in the local plan, which introduces rules for the protection of cultural assets, but this is not always the case, which is due to the fact that the GEZ is updated on an ongoing basis. The Society of Historic Preservationists (SKZ), with regard to legislative changes, proposes, among other things, the inclusion of regulations related to the protection of monuments and care of monuments in the general plan, the use of the terms defined in the U.O.z.o.z. in the content of the general plan, the participation of the Provincial Office for the Protection of Monuments (WKZ) as an opinion-forming body in the process of qualifying selected objects to the group of "modern cultural assets" due to their potential value as future historic buildings in cooperation with active entities in this matter (SARP, TUP, SKZ and IARP). During the Forum, the postulates developed by the SKZ expert teams were presented, and all of them will be presented at the Congress, along with indications of the possibility of correcting errors.
discussion
In the second part of the meeting, the first question was asked by Grzegorz Buczek (TUP o. Warsaw), referring to the GEZ judgment, assessed as unconstitutional, with regard to the conservation arrangements in local plans, noting that in the planning procedure they are subject to agreement. In view of this, entry in the GEZ is not a tool for historic preservation, and only indirectly triggers the protection of objects or layouts, which is determined in the local plan. In his opinion, in recent years, the municipal register of monuments has become a way to protect objects of modern architecture, modernist buildings that require protection. At this point it is worth mentioning that the entry in the register itself triggers a number of benefits for owners, for example, funds ma renovation of the monument, tax deductions for expenses on maintenance work.
From the point of view of a planner facing challenges with master plans, Anna Pyziak (ZG TUP) drew attention to the effective protection of the GEZ from building demolition, and then focused on areas not covered by local plans where there are monuments in scattered developments, asking about the effectiveness of GEZ protection for new zones and development areas.
Another question as a postulate to the Congress was posed by Marceli Łasocha - how to take into account the provisions of landscapes, not only priority landscapes, and how to implement them in lower-level documents, where recommendations are many, but there is no space for their implementation.
Jan Janczykowski, Malopolska Regional Historic Preservation Officer from 2003 to 2018, pointed out that the previous Law on the Protection of Cultural Assets protected views of monuments, and now it is the task of the local plan. He discussed the problem of protecting the background view of a monument using the examples of a tall building erected on the site of the former SuperSam commercial pavilion, the first commercial building of its kind in the country, at Unia Lubelska Square, affecting the panorama of the Belvedere as seen from the Royal Lazienki Park and the panorama of the old bank of the Vistula River in Warsaw, as well as a high-rise building built behind the protected area of Lubomirski Castle in Rzeszow, which is visible from the main road away from the castle. He also referred to the GEZ: the communal inventory is not a form of monument protection, it is a list of objects that need to be observed, but not necessarily protected in a rigorous manner. Among the objects included in the GEZ are objects of great value, but with an unsettled legal status - in such situations, the JCA does not have the ability to enter them in the register. Registers of monuments, especially the oldest ones, are not verified, some have no boundaries, which causes difficulties in protection.
Prof. Zbigniew Myczkowski pointed out the differences in interpretations of the role of GEZ entry in different provinces, as well as the imperfection of landscape audits, and presented more perfect ways of protection, especially priority landscapes overlapping with cultural parks. He explained that integrated protection needs to be accelerated by municipalities, and that conservation guidelines and principles must give clear indications for new planning regulations, so that the plan as a local act provides reasonable and effective protection, based on real indications of protection, rather than protection for its own sake.
Grzegorz Buczek drew attention to the need to make the terms and content of planning documents consistent and uniform, and stressed that in the case law we have to deal with literal interpretations and semantic-verbal inconsistencies, depending on the subject of the dispute. He also referred to modern cultural assets and lists of outstanding objects, which do not directly affect their protection.
A fragment of the local spatial development plan for the Stare Podgórze - Limanowskiego area - an example of the introduction of protection for an object considered to be a contemporary cultural asset - the building in the corner of Niepodległości Square in Stare Podgórze at Legionów Józefa Piłsudskiego and Jana Zamoyskiego streets, marked with a yellow outline
© bip.krakow.pl
residential building designed by Wojciech Obtułowicz at the intersection of Legionów Piłsudskiego and Jana Zamoyskiego streets
photo: Paulina Liszka
Marceli Łasocha and Paulina Liszka raised the issue of protection of objects recognized as contemporary cultural assets, using examples from Krakow's local plans. They discussed the residential building designed by Wojciech Obtułowicz (realization 1985-1989) on the corner of Niepodległości Square in the Old Podgórze district, for which the local zoning plan for the Stare Podgórze - Limanowskiego area established an order to preserve the shape of the block and its dimensions, and the building of the Central Refrigeration Center (COCH) designed by Stanislaw Ćwiżewicz (realization 1962-1965) on Juliusz Lea Street, together with a spatial mosaic by Andrzej Rohacki, for which, despite the real threat of demolition, total protection has been established, defined as the protection of the maximum external dimensions of the building (an order to preserve the height, roof form and shape of the body of the building).
A fragment of the local spatial development plan for the Lea area - an example of the introduction of protection for an object recognized as a contemporary cultural asset - the building of the Central Refrigeration Center at 116 Juliusz Lea Street with a mosaic
© bip.krakow.pl
the building of the Central Refrigeration Center at 116 Juliusza Lea St.
photo: Paulina Liszka
Sebastian Pietrzyk, a judge of the Provincial Administrative Court (WSA), also spoke in the discussion, proposing: urban planners, despite the inability to establish protection areas at the level of the general plan, should look for ways to introduce directions for the protection of monuments, paying attention to the provision of Article 13b(3)(a), including by means of development parameters, since the general plan of the WKZ agrees only with regard to indicators.
In conclusion, it was stated that the Society of Polish Town Planners and the Association of Historic Preservationists see a gap in the model and a lack of coherence in the field of historic preservation, and are critical of the changes made to the law. It was proposed to formulate a joint postulate by TUP and SKZ on the value of cultural layers of the study documents still in force, which can be used by municipalities in the preparation of development strategies.
The lecture and discussion attracted more than seventy listeners, both from the TUP and SKZ circles in Krakow, as well as members of the Warsaw branch of TUP, among others.
protection of monuments after the removal of the study of conditions and directions of spatial development from the planning system (commentary)
In view of the statutory changes in the issue of protection of immovable monuments, the main problem is the removal of the study, the part of which concerning cultural heritage and monuments and modern cultural assets was the basis for the preparation of local plans. After the amendment, the target development strategy of the municipality, in addition to the model of the functional and spatial structure, should include the directions of conducting policy on the protection of monuments in the municipality, is also to include recommendations on the formation and conduct of spatial policy, determine the principles of protection of cultural heritage and monuments and modern cultural property.
The possibility of drawing up a strategy without including issues of spatial protection of monuments in it, introduced by transitional provisions, weakens the role of the strategy. The lack of an obligation to include guidelines for the protection of monuments and the shaping of space taking into account the heritage will adversely affect local plans, as the regulations also deprive general plans of the possibility of arrangements for the protection of monuments, and for them a mandatory and short deadline for preparation has been imposed. The transitive relationship between the strategy and the general plan and between the general plan and the local plans is therefore important. The relationship between these planning documents in the field of monument protection is undefined in the current legal model, the regulations do not provide for systemic planning of spatial monument protection, so there is legal uncertainty in the translation of the directions of monument protection policy from the strategy to local plans. However, the municipality has the authority to identify the value of monuments on its own and select measures to ensure protection. Although the general plan will not contain directional indications for the protection of monuments, it will not deprive the local plan of the possibility of establishing principles of protection for those areas and monuments that do not yet have such protection, and the protection of a monument and the principles of development of its surroundings regardless of the fact of inclusion in the GEZ should be determined in local plans. The same is true of conservation protection zones, which until now have been indicated in the study - after the amendment, area conservation protection zones, for example, for urban layouts, can be designated only in the local plan, under the obligation of the authority drawing up the plan to determine the principles of protection of cultural heritage and monuments, as well as contemporary cultural assets (Art. 15 sec. 2 item 4 of the Act). The provisions of Article 15 constitute a catalog of principles for the formation of spatial policy, and their consideration is a condition for recognizing the planning act as having been undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the u.p.z.p. In turn, the protection of monuments as constitutionally protected cultural assets takes precedence over the owner's right to develop his own property. In order to prevent inconsistencies in the municipality's spatial policy and possible conflicts related to the individual interests of owners and future attempts to prove the incompatibility of the local plan with the general plan, it would be appropriate to include in the strategy an in-depth analysis of cultural heritage and monuments with general and more specific indications, for example, the need to define conservation protection zones concerning modernist settlements.
There are proposals to introduce the principles of historic preservation in the justification of the general plan, but the justification is ancillary, it is supposed to explain the solutions adopted, giving reasons for the designation of zones and ways to take into account the conditions. Placing additional studies in the justification will probably not be a mistake, but it will not provide a formal basis for local plans. A much better solution may be to specify the findings and recommendations on the formation and conduct of spatial policy, including the principles of protection of cultural heritage and immovable monuments and modern cultural assets, in the strategy. Ideally, this would be a separate part of it (a chapter or subsection) prepared by urban planners and conservators who have so far been involved in determining the principles and directions of spatial development in municipal studies. This would allow consistency in determining the directions of changes in land use, including the determination of the needs for new residential development, the development of communication, technical and social infrastructure systems, and other principles necessary to define a coherent vision of municipal spatial policy.
summary
Issues related to the protection of cultural heritage, in particular, immovable monuments, are among the so-called highly valued values in spatial planning (the term proposed by Z. Niewiadomski refers to the catalog of values specified in Article 1 of the Law on Spatial Planning). Although the arrangements of the plan as one of the forms of monument protection impose protection for objects, the concept of conservation protection is not defined in the regulations, and planning arrangements for historic buildings are sometimes so general that it is difficult to call them conservation protection (without indications for details, protecting only height, etc.).
The principles of shaping space in relation to historic values established in the local plan, including the protection of an object or ensemble, the preservation of which is in the public interest due to its value, in practice sometimes result from the cooperation of urban planners with a conservator or urban planners with appropriate specialized training in the field of cultural heritage protection. At the stage of developing planning documents, valuable objects and areas that constitute cultural heritage are identified, including those not listed in the register of monuments and not included in the records of monuments, based on the adopted criteria and value elements, which are not only the historical values of the objects, but also artistic, aesthetic and scientific values: each time it is necessary to consider what to protect and what needs protection.
Most municipalities in Poland do not have urban conservationists, and some do not even maintain GEZs. It is difficult to talk about a methodology that would organize the process of valuing monuments and planning their protection. In determining protection, one can draw on the professional skills of the community of conservators and urban planners, their experience and professional intuition - this is still more creative and authentic work based on professional responsibility, and in the case of unique and dissimilar monuments probably more beneficial than adopting a single acceptable method of determining a monument for protection.
The protection of monuments in planning studies is also influenced by political and technical factors, balancing the interference of protection and the anticipated effects of implementing protection. At present, in view of the regulations adopted, pending and planned to be amended, there is a threat to monuments for which municipalities are carrying out or planning to carry out protection - and due to the obligation imposed to prepare new planning studies, this threat affects all municipalities.
Paulina LISZKA
Member of the Board of TUP o. Krakow
