Architecture and Housing Culture in Zagreb and Central European Cities in the period. 1880-1940
Faculty of. Architecture, University of Zagreb
From the mid-19th century onwards, urban planning focused on shaping the modern metropolis — a new urban scale defined by innovative public facilities, forms, and living standards, all supported by impressive infrastructure. City authorities, civil engineers, urban planners, and architects were part of a vast network of Central European experts who, in developing new urban centres, exchanged knowledge and practices while adopting and adapting continuously evolving stylistic, typological, and morphological models. These newly designed urban spaces not only shaped the identities of individual cities but also helped define the broader Central European region, explicitly reflecting its political, economic, and cultural ties. The majority of the architectural stock consisted of integrated rental residential buildings, whose transformation reflected the socio- -cultural and economic dynamics of their surroundings. Motivated by the current state of restoration in Downtown Zagreb, five years after the (devastating) 2020 earthquake, our goal is to consider the results of recent research on housing construction in historic urban ensembles of the 19th and early 20th centuries in Central European cities, organised around five key themes: Architectural design of residential buildings in Zagreb and Central European cities in the period 1880–1940 Repurposing and transformations of residential architecture in Zagreb and Central European cities New standards and technological innovations in urban infrastructure in the 19th/20th centuries, and subsequent interventions in individual buildings and block interpolations Housing culture, interior design, and urban planning in the 19th/20th centuries, and contemporary habitation in these spaces Memory of space in the contemporary urban context We are particularly interested in how this culturally and identity-rich heritage is being researched, restored, and safeguarded today, amid the numerous challenges faced by countries in East Central Europe, with whom we share the experience of the 1990s transition, and more recently, the effects of touristification and gentrification in city centres. During this period, much of the housing stock underwent significant transformations, such as conversions from residential to commercial or business use, short-term rentals, and so on. Apart from residential spaces, communal representative areas and their furnishings were also at risk of degradation. These are valuable illustrations of design and the range of artisanal craftsmanship of their time (entrances, staircases, and joinery as valuable examples of both design and artisanal skill). What are the actual needs, possibilities, criteria, and examples of good practices for adaptive reuse, particularly for public and cultural purposes? What are the current practices for the reuse, renovation, and remodeling of historic residential architecture?
A pivotal moment in the period under review is unquestionably World War I and its geopolitical consequences — the disintegration of old empires and the creation of new state entities with new social elites. In addition to the physical destruction, there is also the erosion of memory, with the disappearance of references to numerous significant individuals: the key figures in the urban development process, including investors, owners, tenants, builders, artisans, and companies involved in industrial and craft production, all fading from the city’s collective consciousness. What are the practices for preserving the urban memory of those who shaped the urban planning process in the 19th and 20th centuries?
Sandra Guinand
Ordinary Heritage in Times of Economic Competition. Which Heritage for Off-Centre Areas of Vienna and Budapest?
In Vienna and Budapest, the Gründerzeit housing stock (GHS) refers to the period of industrialisation during the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1848/1967–1918), which saw the construction of historic tenement houses. In recent decades, this GHS has undergone substantial transformations, sometimes demolitions, while, building protection has been slow on the political agenda. These transformations encompass cultural, social, and economic dimensions that extend beyond individual buildings to impact the urban milieu. This is particularly evident in GHS located in the districts situated outside the UNESCO perimeter, which provides affordable housing for low-income households. As Olwig (2001: 349) argues, it is only those people who can afford to, desire to, and who possess the right cultural capital, who can adopt the antiquarian approach. The dimensions of power and powerlessness, centre and periphery, and sometimes wealth and poverty, seem strengthened by ongoing heritage practices and processes. This raises issues around tangible and intangible preservation processes and official criteria that exclude elements of the ordinary landscape which becomes more prevalent in times of economic competition This presentation aims to shed light on the relationships city authorities establish with ordinary heritage, as well as the resulting preservation practices, while also contributing to the heritage debate.