Agata: Upon hearing about these small houses without permits, the architectural community was flooded with a wave of holy indignation. And I admit that this idea doesn't seem worse to me than other quantitative solutions - for example, loan subsidies. What I disagree with most are the arguments that the ability to build without architects will lower the quality of space and the stature of the profession. One only has to drive around any suburb to see that there is virtually nothing to lower anymore. Evidently, the participation of an architect in the investment process does not guarantee anything. For environmental and social reasons, of course, we should be concerned about the chaotic sprawl of development - but again - this development is already sprawling. I have analyzed this law, and in my opinion it is more of a marketing ploy playing on Poles' love of houses with gardens and on their dislike of bureaucracy, which, however, is unlikely to change the situation in any significant way. What's more, I believe that if specific areas were set aside for such houses and provided with a good urban planning framework that includes infrastructure construction, then self-building of one's own houses could be an interesting alternative to developer construction.
Nowe Żerniki, Wroclaw
photo: Maciej Lulko
In my opinion, what we need most is a change in the entire urban planning system. Now work is again underway to amend the Planning Law. From the information that has reached me, it may not be the revolutionary change I would expect, but good elements are emerging. For example, urban planning agreements are coming in, i.e. the possibility for local governments to negotiate the conditions for issuing building permits. This is a great tool with which it will be possible to impose various commissions on developers.
You ask for a prescription, and I can only answer this in the following way: what we need most at the moment is a change in the way we view housing and space. We need to stop treating housing as a commodity, and start treating space as a common good and a non-renewable resource. Because already now, under the current legal system, many things are possible. Local plans are still a good tool - they just need to be made for specific needs and with more detailed provisions. We were afraid that lex deweloper would make local plans irrelevant, but after more than three years it turns out that thanks to it local governments are learning to apply urban planning standards, which through lex deweloper entered the system through the back door, so to speak. This example shows that it makes sense to engage in public discussion - thanks to the noise that erupted around this law, local governments are being very cautious in issuing positive opinions, with only one hundred and seventy issued so far. They are also beginning to require developers to be more concerned about the quality of space - in Warsaw, for example, they have introduced the need for pre-consultation of the public for investments created under the developer lex, and mechanisms for developer participation in the cost of infrastructure such as schools and libraries.
What needs to happen soonest is a change in the way local governments look at investment issues. I have the impression that local governments are still living in the reality of ten years ago. Now we have a completely different situation on the market. For example, there is much more interest in real estate construction, because it is the best form of investment. At the same time, we don't need so many new apartments anymore - the quantitative deficit is actually gone. There are more apartments than households. Therefore, we can approach the quantitative issue more sensibly. The main difference is that now local governments can afford to pick through developers' offers, not the other way around. Local authorities need to understand that they can demand from the developer that the development is good, they can negotiate and enter, for example, public-private partnerships, in which not only developers, but also cities will profit. This was well demonstrated by the New Żerniki (a "Superbiuro" proj. consisting of more than 40 studios), where the investment went through with a lot of substantive involvement of the city: first the master plan was created, then the local plan, the division of land, which was then sold with utilities and a development concept. I believe that cities should buy land, consolidate, divide it according to the plan and sell it more expensively, or even better, lease it as land prepared for investment. In New Żerniki, although the investment was made on city land, so there was no question of buyout, but nevertheless the process showed that carrying out such an investment can be a profit for the city. That is, it is possible to ensure quality without subsidizing the investment. All this is possible within the framework of the current law, it just requires a different view of the city's role.
Nowe Żerniki, Wroclaw
Photo: Maciej Lulko
Katarzyna: Which city could be a role model when it comes to such a different outlook?
Agata: Certainly Wrocław with Nowe Żerniki. Although it should be remembered that a big role in this model process was played by the city architect Piotr Fokczynski, and unfortunately since then the city has taken a step backwards and the position was eliminated. For this, since last year, there is a city architect in Gdansk - it became a recognized urban planner Prof. Piotr Lorenc, who is working to ensure that residential investments are carried out differently. Warsaw is making various attempts, though without spectacular success yet. One idea was the construction of the Warsaw Social District (designed by BBGK Architekci) on the site of a former house factory, but unfortunately the process has temporarily stalled. It remains to be seen whether it will get off the ground yet. Warsaw is also working intensively on a new study of conditions to bring the city's chaotic development under control. This has caused a temporary halt in the issuance of building permits, which fills us with hope that later these permits will be issued in a more consistent and organized manner, and that the study itself will have a strong influence on the shaping of the city. It is supposed to include, for example, provisions on the minimum distance from an apartment to a park or services, so that residential deserts are not created.
Warsaw Social District
© BBGK Architects
Katarzyna: What does it look like in Katowice, where there is still a lot of post-industrial land to be developed?
Agata: As far as I know, the city is not very involved in ideas of comprehensive development of larger sites. Even if larger investments are being made, it's without the city's participation. Private competitions are announced, decided later by the developer himself. This was the case with the First District (proj. medusa group), which is being built right behind the Silesian Museum and is stirring up a lot of controversy. A competition is always a step in the right direction, because it gives a chance for higher quality, but in the absence of cooperation with the local government and the public side, the question arises, through whose interests will we judge this quality? Besides, Katowice has a lot of post-industrial land, yet the New Nikiszowiec (proj. 22Architekci), was built in the middle of a forest. It was realized by a municipal company, it has lovely architecture, but when it comes to urban connection with the city, it is a drama.
Sosnowiec Plaza 2.0
© Katarzyna Nowak
Katarzyna: At the beginning you spoke about the moral responsibility of the developer, which can be compared to other service providers. And how do you situate the role of the architect in this arrangement? An architect is commissioned to design a building or a space - to what extent can she influence the developer's good decisions and a good result, beyond the functional solutions and aesthetics of the designed objects?
Agata: I would like to look at the architectural profession as a profession of public trust, but in practice it varies. We don't have a " Vitruvianoath," along the lines of the Hippocratic oath. And yet we have a great responsibility. The developer may not be aware of the consequences of carrying out the investment in this way and not in that way, but the architect already has to be aware of them, and her role should be, among other things, to educate investors and negotiate the best solutions. I believe that architects have part of the responsibility for the quality of the space, which must be realized through good advice, negotiation and argumentation. We don't have the power to force anyone to do anything. We don't have the hard tools. And still, at the end, the developer can always change offices. For this reason, I always try to teach students how to argue as well, and I show them everything in a broader context - so that they realize what consequences their design decisions will have.
Catherine: Who is it worth learning from? To what extent can the patterns we follow in the West be transplanted to Poland, also taking into account cultural and worldview issues?
Agata: We should be treated as part of Europe first and foremost by now and stop saying that we are an Eastern bloc. We've been in the European Union for almost twenty years now, we really wanted to reach Europe, so it's worth abandoning arguments that something can't be done in our country. It is necessary to learn without complexes from everyone who is doing something better. We clearly like Western cities - so let's imitate the solutions that have worked in them. Every year at the top of the rankings of cities best for living is Vienna. And there, a very pro-social spatial policy is in place, which has been oriented to the social role of housing for more than a century. In Vienna, housing has never been subject to speculation, and both the quality and form of housing are highly regulated. Let's learn from Vienna!
Left: Seestadt Aspern
On the right: Sonnwendviertel
photo by Agata Twardoch
Polish buildingculture has many German roots. This can be well seen, for example, in the vocabulary used in construction and concerning the city, in which there are very many Germanisms: roof, glass, screw, market, town hall, trade... So why can't we continue to learn from the German planning system? The Polish system differs from the German system in that in Poland you can build anywhere where it is not forbidden, while in Germany you can only build where it is allowed. In Germany, land is released piece by piece, according to need, and not, as in our country, hurrah-optimistically. Needless to say, where it is easier to live.
I would also like us to learn from the West to take care of our own interests. When you look at the documents that correspond to our condition studies and local plans in various European capitals, you see a great deal of provisions whose role is to take care of equitable development. They contain legal guidelines for the quality of space, respect for the environment, social inclusiveness and the availability of housing and land. They include social commissions assigned to specific areas: for example, when someone builds a housing complex, they have to give up a portion of the apartments for accessible housing and rent according to rules set by the city. Besides, the parameters of development are adjusted according to the distance from public transportation - the closer to a subway stop, the more intensive the development can be. Also, the indicators related to parking are treated quite differently than in our country. In our country, norms such as a minimum of two parking spaces per apartment still persist, while there, in the central zone, the maximum number of parking spaces can even be specified (e.g. 0.5 per apartment). Instead, there are indicators of the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces. Besides, in most cities you can't put apartments farther than 200 meters from the nearest green area, so sometimes the first stage of a development must be a square or park. Places for a kindergarten and all other functions are also envisaged right away, even if not all of them are later administered to the public.
There are many solutions - we need to look at cities that seem good to us and learn from them. I'm sure we can translate many good solutions into our legal language.
Warsaw Social District
© BBGK Architects
Katarzyna: It's a pity that large international offices building all over the world don't introduce some good practices in our country by force of momentum.
Agata: Just why should they self-limit themselves? I'm very skeptical of corporations in general and don't believe they can introduce solutions that are not in their interest. And it is in their interest to best satisfy the investor, who in turn is most satisfied when they make the most money. At the same time, in such large structures the responsibility for a particular work is diluted. I have more hope in smaller, local offices and architects being responsible with their good name for the quality of the project. When I have a particular architect who is responsible with his own name for a particular estate, I think he will care more about making the investment the best it can be.
But in a situation of total anonymity, the personal relationship ceases to matter, and personal responsibility for the result also ceases to work. Therefore, the more the market is taken over by large corporations, the more important local regulations will become. Especially when design begins to be taken over by artificial intelligence - which seems to be the not so distant future. Already, gis systems are being combined with bim systems, and work is underway on software for parametric urban design.
Catherine: Thank you for the interview.
Agata Twardoch
Architect and urban planner, professor at the Department of Architecture at the Silesian University of Technology, member of TUP and Affordable Housing Forum. She co-runs the design studio 44STO. She works on accessible housing and alternative forms of housing, and conducts academic research, open popularization lectures and design workshops. He writes for trade magazines. She designs urban assumptions and advises cities. She is the author of the book "System to Housing. Prospects for the development of accessible housing". In May 2022, the W.A.B. Publishing House will publish her new book "Female Architects. Will women design better cities?".
