Architecture is always a political topic. However, there are projects that particularly strongly antagonize the parties to the dispute, and are also used for ad hoc purposes. One of these is the plan to rebuild the Saski Palace in Warsaw.
The debate over building the Saski Palace anew has been going on in the capital for many years. Perhaps the classicist edifice would have stood in its new incarnation for a long time, had it not been for the discovery in 2006 of a well-preserved set of palace cellars. Archaeological work on Pilsudski Square was underway precisely because of the planned "reconstruction" ofthe Saxon Palace - the discovery ofan authentic monument of the past first halted the work, then pushed it back. This is because no one had any idea how, keeping the cellars intact, to place a new building on them. So the basements were backfilled, and the plan to build a palace went into a drawer.
unfinished reconstruction
A few years ago, the plan returned - for proponents of "reconstruction" it became the perfect project to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Poland's independence. The Saxon Society 2018 promoted the vision of restoring the monumental edifice to the capital, building around it the myth of one of the key buildings in the city, valuable both symbolically and architecturally. "Reconstruction" of the palace would finally complete the process of lifting Warsaw from wartime ruins - the absence of the Saski Palace, according to some, is precisely proof that the reconstruction is still not complete.
Warsaw from a bird's eye view in 1919 - the picture shows the Saski Palace and St. Alexander Nevsky Orthodox Cathedral
Source: "Światowid" 1933, author unknown; Andrzej Soltan, "Warsaw Yesterday," Wokół nas Publishing House, Gliwice 1998
debate without a chance for compromise
The debate over whether to build the Saski Palace has antagonized various circles. Most architectural historians or conservators are against the creation of a replica of the defunct building. On the other side of the dispute, however, there are also experts who believe that the palace is missing from the city's space, that this breach is too visible, and since so many historical edifices have been rebuilt, this one should return as well. Each side has many arguments to support its thesis, and there is, of course, no room for compromise.
Just to clarify: the word "reconstruction" should be put in quotation marks in the context of the Saxon Palace, because there is actually no concrete project so far, and no decision has been made on what form the repeatedly rebuilt building should take. There is also no idea what function it should serve, which only confirms the thesis that this dispute is politicized. The idea is not to revitalize the admittedly somewhat dead Pilsudski Square, and no convenient location for corporate headquarters or offices is being sought (for although the idea of moving the Senate to the Saxon Palace was once floated, it quickly proved impossible to implement). "Rebuilding" would thus be a symbolic political gesture, not a project driven by concern for urban space, real needs or even commercial success. Since there is no vision for the development of the hypothetical building, it is also unclear who would finance this investment.
The debate, which has no end in sight, is an interesting example of the condition of Polish architecture in general. Hardly anyone treats it in practical terms (the rule applies: let's build a great edifice, and later we'll think about what it will contain), few consider aesthetic matters (it's impossible to faithfully rebuild an 18th-century palace in the 21st century, but what its modernized version would look like, no one knows), too few analyze this type of project from the point of view of the impact it would have on the neighborhood, the city, the urban layout or transportation. We are still looking for a great effect, we are excited by spectacular large-scale objects, saturated with symbolism, monumental. The debate about building a new Saxon Palace arouses more emotions than even the incomparably more important, more acute, painfully current and affecting many people problem of lack of available housing!
Pilsudski Square in Warsaw - current state
photo: Anna Cymer
silence of architects
Observing the battles between supporters of the construction of a classicist building in the 21st century and defenders of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, poignant in its meaning (which, precisely as a broken colonnade of the consciously unbuilt Saxon Palace, was to be an expressive monument to wartime destruction), one more thing is striking: in the aforementioned debate there is practically no voice of architects or organizations representing them. This is nothing new, as the SARP or architects themselves are reluctant to speak up in discussions on urban development, new investments or projects affecting spatial order. This is understandable: being so strongly dependent on the whims of developers, architects are reluctant to reveal themselves with their views, for fear of losing future orders - unfortunately , this is the result not so much of bad will on the part of designers, but rather of the privatization of the construction or design market.
Pilsudski Square in Warsaw - current state, on the right a fragment of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier
photo: Anna Cymer
Glass edifices on Pilsudski Square
All the more reason to appreciate the gesture of those architects who nevertheless dared to take a stand on this debate, which is after all significant for Warsaw. Marek Budzyński presented his vision, which has been under development for several years, of a modern, green development of Piłsudski Square during a lecture entitled "Architecture and Politics," organized in Warsaw by the National Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning in late October 2019. His concept of glass edifices overgrown with greenery, offset slightly from the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, caused quite a surprise. Not only because few expected the presentation of this vision. The idea of introducing completely new buildings into the space of Pilsudski Square came as a shock. Although this part of the capital has been discussed for years, no one had previously drawn modern edifices in this place, as if the only option was to rebuild the palace or not.
Marek Budzynski analyzed the structure of Pilsudski Square, its history and all the layers from the past that make up its contemporary perception. The author of Warsaw's iconic public edifices, including the University of Warsaw Library and the Supreme Court headquarters, would see the restoration of the memory of all the buildings that once stood here, including the Brühl Palace and theOrthodox Church, but at ground level he proposes the construction of commercial buildings with spaces for rent (providing the income necessary for the site to function), but also full of greenery, being an extension of the neighboring Saski Park.
Warsaw 2118
FAAB studio, which created the project together with the Science.Now studio, has its own - also very modern - vision for the development of Pilsudski Square. Their concept called "Warsaw 2118" accommodates multiple functions: in the basement of the original palace, the architects see a museum telling the history of the place and the idea of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Here they envision space for outdoor art exhibitions and a complex of organically shaped buildings, where they plan both parking for electric vehicles, primarily bicycles, and cultural institutions, cafes or restaurants. Among the attractions would be rest areas equipped with specially selected, air-purifying greenery.
"Warsaw 2118" - Pilsudski Square development concept, proj.: FAAB in cooperation with Science.Now studio
© FAAB
the need for conversation
Both recently presented projects have shown how the voice of architects can be important and necessary. This professional group, recently reduced to the role of executors of developers' assumptions and interests, is, after all, called to create creative visions. The example cited above shows all too clearly how the voice of designers, people educated to create concepts for difficult spaces as well, is sometimes needed. And we're not talking about projects ready to be implemented, but ideas that will open eyes, redirect the debate, make us realize how we've become looped in considering an issue that can be solved in many more ways. Just as it happened with Pilsudski Square. Suddenly it turned out that - although no one has talked about it before - the option of introducing modern buildings there is also worth discussing. Let's talk about it, but let architects join the conversation as well.
