Head of Club of Old Prague, has publically stated “it is a good

Václavské náměstí 47
NOT a Cultural Monument
■
■
■
■
H
ead of Club of Old Prague, has publically stated “it is a good building but
does not have the quality to be necessarily listed as a cultural monument”
M
ofC decided the building “does not meet the conditions for declaring
an object as a cultural monument in the sense of the provision § 2 of the
law no. 20/1987 Coll., on state monumental care in the later rules”
V
N47 is not of “exceptional artistic or historical value” as law on monumental
care requires of cultural monuments
C
ity of Prague Report dated 2007 highlights valuable buildings in Prague 1
■ VN47 is not included in this list
■ O
ther buildings on VN not protected are highlighted as valuable in this
report

City of Prague report from 2007 identified four valuable buildings on Wenceslas
square (in green frame) in addition to current listed cultural monuments (in red). VN47
was not been included in either of the groups.
o
riginal neo-Renaissance façade designed by author of the National Museum
Josef Schulz, was destroyed in 1922
■ a lleged authorship of Bohumír Kozák of the 1922 works cannot be proven
■ Kozák never mentioned the building in his works
■ P
roven Kozák buildings that he completely designed are not listed (e.g.
Avion Palace (LUXOR), Palace Broadway)
■
922 rebuilding was not artistic but utilitarian
■ 1
■ 2 floors added
■ Original neo-Renaissance façade ripped off
■ n
umerous construction and statics imperfections and faults identified (damp,
structural cracks)
Well-respected experts on VN47:
■
JUDr., PhDr. Jiří Plos describes the
building as average already when build,
then deteriorated with re-buildings
■ A
rch. Zdeněk Lukeš describes the
building as “second league”
■ theoretician of architecture Adam
Gebrian says the architecture of
the building “is neither unique, nor
exceptional in the context of Prague”
Václavské náměstí 47
Myths explained
■
Myth:
“The architects have, at the beginning of the 20th century began to
realize the dominance of the National Museum on Wenceslas Square and
have therefore retreated from the use of a corner tower motif.”
Truth: No other VN building can compete with the National
Museum whether it has the corner accent or not. Any other
argumentation, as noble as it may sound, is absurd. It was at the
end of the 19th century and until the year 1920 that most of the
VN buildings with corner or height features were constructed
(1912-14 Palác Koruna, 1914 – 16 Palác Ligna, 1904-06 Hotel Evropa etc.).
In the 1920s two floors were added and the original
façade was ripped off
■
M
yth: “The architectural values of the building lie especially in the
implementation of the current facade.”
Truth: The 1922 alteration was utilitarian and economical,
neo-Renaissance windows were kept in the first three floors, for
example. The technical execution of the façade from 1922 onto the older
masonry shows new damages all the time and despite maximum efforts
the owner cannot stop the deterioration. Repair is impossible due to
the technology used and the impossibility in matching the original
colour (since the original material is unavailable), texture and grain of
the original surface.
■
M
yth: “The harmonious interplay of these styles of the building exhibit in
the whole and in detail and thus synthesizes the best of what contemporary
architecture offered.”
Truth: The design is rather typical for architecture of the period,
which reflects the economic impulse in the post war period. The style
corresponds to the period and is in no way the “synthesis of the best
that contemporary architecture offered”.
■
Myth: “The concept of the house is based on measured height and regulation of
the deliberate suppression of corner dominants.”
Truth: Integration (suppression) of the corner feature or tower into the mass
of the new two storeys indisputably increased the mass of the building. In
1920, when the extra floors were added, a regulation was in effect for the VN
buildings stating they must have a height feature. Architect Kozák had great
difficulties with approval of his solution since it was breaking this regulation.
Václavské náměstí 47
Myths explained
■
M
yth: “Cubism is manifested mainly in the details; the corner is created very
imaginatively, in the form of which are used two polygonal bays and the
interplay of their bevelled surfaces.”
Truth: The corner bays do not bear any signs of cubist morphology.
This solution of the corner bays is traditional and does not represent
anything exceptional. The position of the bays is defined by the original
position of the balconies on the building from 1880.
Building from 1880
■
The current building from 1922.
M
yth: The building has high artistic, architectural and urban values.”
Truth: In comparison with other VN buildings it is an average building
(second league) as Zdeněk Lukeš, prominent historian of architecture,
also stated. These alleged values have not been pointed out by anyone
for the past 80 years. Information of the building’s architectural values
started appearing only when demolition was proposed.
■
M
yth: “This building has a unique place in
the works of Bohumír Kozák.”
Truth: If we compare this building with
other works by architect Kozák such as
the Thomayerova hospital, telephone
and telegraph centre, which are both
cultural monuments and with Palác
Avion with the Luxor passage or the
building in Pevnostní 565/4 that are
not listed as cultural monuments, it
is obvious that this was an ordinary
commercial commission for this
architect. The main argument that
denies this untrue statement is the fact
that architect Kozák himself never listed
this building among his works.
A work of Kozak, Vaclavske namesti 41,
valuable and not listed
Václavské náměstí 47
Detailní historie
Valuable architectural elements of the original building are not preserved in the
current building
old vn47
■ T he original building was constructed for the Benes family, as a residential building.
It was sold to Česká chmelárská společnost a.s. in 1920 and extended and converted
into offices for the by the construction company Dušek, Kozák, Máca (DKM).
■ It is possible that Josef Schulz,
architect of National Museum,
designedtheoriginalneorenaissance
facades in 1880. In spite of Schulz’s
reputation his façade was destroyed
and replaced after 40 years by the
current one following the DKM
design. The aim of the changes were
utilitarian – to increase the volume
by adding two floors and reduce the
stucco finishes of the façade as part
of so-called purisation.
Muzeum
■ T he neorenaissance façade by Schulz was replaced by a new, at that time modern one
with teraco surface.
orner tower, which was very typical for the Prague panorama and corner buildings
■ C
was removed.
■ The composition of the 1920 façade
and the aestheticism of ornaments
used on the building, applied, however,
on the older neorenaissance masonry
is of only average quality mainly
neoclassicist.
cracks on façade
■ The technical execution of the façade
from 1920 onto the older masonry
shows new damages all the time and
the deterioration process cannot be
stopped despite maximum attempts
from the owner.
■ T he 1920 reconstruction corner bays do not bear any signs of cubist morphology.
This solution of the corner bays is traditional and does not represent anyting
exceptional.
Václavské náměstí 47
Support within the Media
Zdeněk Lukeš:
foto: Lidové noviny



Praze bych pál osvícené investory, špikové architekty z rzných zemí a více mezinárodních
soutží, ekl v on-line rozhovoru serveru Lidovky.cz historik architektury Zdenk Lukeš.
Zdeka Lukeše se tenái ptali zejména na osud konkrétních staveb. Dále je zajímalo, pro se v hlavním
mst narozdíl od ostatních svtových metropolí nedaí snoubit staré s novým? "Cesta zpt od totality k
demokracii je, jak vidno, dlouhá a klikatá," odpovdl architekt.
Václavské námstí? Dokonalá galerie všech styl
A co íká demolici domu na rohu Václavského námstí a Opletalovy ulice? "Myslím si jen, že nejde o
njaké špikové architektonické dílo. Pvodní cenný neorenesanní dm byl ve dvacátých letech zbaven
dekorace a navýšen o dv patra. Stavba je zajímavá, ale za památku bych ji neoznail," tvrdí architekt.
Václavské námstí je podle architekta Lukeše dokonalá galerie všech architektonických styl od baroka
pes klasicismus, historismus, secesi, art déco, konstruktivismus a funkcionalismus, sorelu až po
souasné styly. To je pro nj typické. A docela mu to sluší.
"Snad se dokáme i revitalizace podle námstí dle projektu Jakuba Ciglera," uzavírá architekt.
“I only think that it is not exceptional architectural
work. The original neo-Renaissance building was
rid of decoration and had two extra floors added
in the 1920s. The building is interesting but I would
not call it a monument.”
(Lidové noviny, 9 May 2012
Richard Doležal:
r ozhovor
“I think that the Wenceslas square is – unlike the
Old Town - a place where new buildings should be
built. This building is not exceptional in any way
and therefore could be replaced by a construction
representing this era.”
(Lidové noviny Esprit, 2 May 2012)
Acitekt ricad Dležal, akladatel
kanceláře DaM, se nadil ostaě,
ystudal e Šýcasku a Česku
sbíá cenění.
(8)
E15 > ZPRÁVY > NÁZORY > ROZHOVORY > JAKUB CIGLER: KRIZE ÚPLN ZMNILA…



1.3.2012
* E15: Podívejme se na souasné projekty v centru Prahy, které kvli bourání starších dom
vyvolávají vášn. Vám osobn se líbí zamýšlená novostavba takzvaného Kvtinového domu
na rohu Václavského námstí a Opletalovy ulice nebo Novomlýnské brány na konci
Revoluní?
Jako architekt bych objekty navrhl jinak. Ale na druhé stran by bylo nefér hlasovat proti. Oba
projekty leží vzhledem ke své poloze na neuviteln citlivé misce vah. Na Václavském námstí se
budovy neustále mnily už od dob Karla IV. I když prostor je stále pesn daný. Praha se vyvíjí. A te
je otázka, kde je ta hranice. Která budova má takovou hodnotu, že má právo další desítky let zstat
netknuta. A jaký objekt už do této kategorie nepatí, navíc když jeho majitel na zbourání intenzivn
tlaí. I když ada odborník, s nimiž si bžn rozumím, tvrdí, že by se tyto objekty bourat nemly, tak
jsem spíš lehce pro jejich zbourání. Ale je pravda, že když slyším opanou argumentaci nkoho, koho
si vážím, tak znejistím. Pestože obdivuji Prahu kvli tomu, co nám tady zachovali naši pedci, tak si
myslím, že bychom si njaký posun mohli dovolit. Nemli bychom zaujímat postoj, že každá zmna je
k horšímu, a radikáln konzervovat. Je poteba dívat se na Prahu novýma oima.
Jakub Cigler:
“Buildings on Wenceslas square have been
continuously changing since the times of Chatles
IV. Even though the space is exactly defined. Prague
is developing. And now the question stands where
is the line. Which building is of such a value that it
has a right to remain untouched for more decades
and which building no belongs to that category
even when its owner is pushing for demolition. Even
if a number of experts with whom I usually agree
claim these buildings should not be demolished I
am slightly more in favour of the demolition.”
(E15, 1 March 2012)
Václavské náměstí 47
Changing Decisions
■
June 2010 – Expert Committee of Prague City Hall allows for VN47
replacement with new building
VN47 current
Head of Club of Old Prague: “The Ministry of Culture do not question the qualities
of this building, they say that it is a good building but does not have the quality to be
necessarily listed as a cultural monument, I guess we all agree with this in the end.”
■
June 2010 – Prague City Hall confirmed
demolition possible in statement
■
January 2011 – Ministry of Culture
withdrew June 2010 statement
■
May 2011 - Ministry of Culture cancelled
their withdrawal
■ A
pril 2012 - Ministry of Culture initiates
review for potential of listing building
a monument
■ S eptember 2012 - Ministry of Culture
declares the building should not be a
cultural monument
In Prague 3 September 2012
No. MK 59673/2012 OPP
File mark: MK-S 5052/2012 OPP
DECISION
The Ministry of Culture as an authorised state administration body on the level of state
monumental care determined by the regulation § 2 par. 1 of the law no. 20/1987 Coll., on state
monumental care in the later rules,
does not declare
building no. 1601/II on the plot no. 27, together with the plot no. 27, cadastral
office Nové Msto, Prague 1, Opletalova 1, Václavské námstí 47, as cultural monument.
Conclusion
Due to the above-mentioned reasons the Ministry of Culture did not declare the building
in question as a cultural monument because it does not meet the conditions for declaring
an object as a cultural monument in the sense of the provision § 2of the law no. 20/1987
Coll., on state monumental care in the later rules.
Mgr. Petra Ulbrichova
Head of the Department of Cultural monument protection
at the department of monumental care of the Minisitry of Culture.
■ N
ovember 2012 - Ministry of Culture
asks for legal review of their September
decision
Degradation of buildings due to delays
in administrative process.