The column is from A&B issue 2|24
About architecture and architects as if they were heaven. Either good, or not at all. Otherwise - lawsuits, lawsuits, brawls, sulks. The other way it doesn't work. When something changes for the better thanks to criticism, and the criticized reaps the benefits, no one sends the marauders diplomas and chocolates.
Gniezno has a theater, and in front of the theater a square that used to be green, but today - after a reconstruction five years ago - is mostly stone. Iron consistency, on the other hand, was demonstrated by the theater's director. More than a year ago, she sued a city councilman who neatly mocked the unpleasant arrangement of the square. He called the defunct pyramid-shaped fountain standing there a "financial pyramid," and fried scrambled eggs on a bench heated from the sun. The court dismissed the director's suit for - attention, fasten your seatbelts - libel and slander, but the theater's head went in denial: she filed a complaint against the decision. Also to no avail. The theater then unleashed a bizarre survey to prove that the square was great. The tragedy was put to an end by the city authorities: the square is to be largely re-paved and greened. In a few years the theater will probably boast about it.
Threatening court - a shot from a thick pipe. Architects and public and private investors are increasingly reaching for this caliber. And they are already freely providing us today with pouting, hounding, violent phone calls and calls to brush off critical remarks. The trend is intensifying. Both opinions and factual public questions about this or that aspect of some project are the igniters. Architectural hate speech is even becoming more widely publicized by the authorship of a misguided project, hitherto known to those who have read the yellow board on the site. They read in, or rather, they read in, because for the past two years regulations have not required the designer's information to be listed on it. Thus disappeared the last publicly available mention of architects - good, poor, any. Traditionally, the media don't talk about them, investors omit them, now even boards are silent.
Silent instead are activists, more reasonable councilors, professionals with a sense of mission, journalists who want to, and - there are still some - architects who are involved in public affairs. Just let them see some limey design or implementation! Not only do they brazenly report on their authorship, but they also ask questions, digress, and suggest changes. They also give their opinion on local government documents and plans, or check how reality relates to these papers. They come to consultations and speak up! They demand some kind of clearly stated projections, maps, information. They walk around the city and check how the city's investments and renovations are going, take pictures, upload them to the web. They fry eggs on concrete, mock, make performances. Very unpleasant people. On top of that, they are so persistent that sometimes they manage to bring about changes. And those that were one hundred percent impossible. Suffice it to recall the trees on Swietokrzyska Street in Warsaw, which are growing at their best today, having nothing for official opinions that they can not be planted.
There are more and more similar robbery extortions of repairs, and this despite the fact that decision-makers are doing their best to silence or deprecate those who have the audacity to call a hole in the whole. The worst are those to whom it is impossible to ascribe any interest other than the public good. In the face of these oddities, the space-time familiar to investors and officials collapses. How to bite it? How to besmirch it? With what to bribe? Finally, how to silence it when other methods are of no use. Admittedly, it is possible to expel such from some municipal bodies or committees, if one has unwisely invited them to these bodies. But what then? Zero control. And the worst are the laughers, because a sense of humor is also not part of the universe familiar to officials, investors and, yes, many architects. The joke hurts so much that only a lawsuit can relieve the suffering, since the Boziewicz Code can no longer be reached. If it were still possible to prosecute the authors of anonymous memes with a letter of introduction, the world would be a more wonderful place.
It is also sometimes necessary to cover with brawling and sulking the fact that the changes forced by the marauders have only worked out for the good. Because suddenly it turns out that the developer is advertising the estate with an image of the building saved by critics of the original plans for the development. A street or square greened thanks to the "screamers" becomes proof of the authorities' care for the climate. Historic details saved by enthusiasts from being thrown away turn out to be a marketing lure proving investor concern for heritage. And the dilution of developments protested by residents or associations now becomes a credit to city planners. This is how the Eternal Malcontents (a favorite epithet of decision-makers) increase the value of an investment or neighborhood for free.
Or is this not a coincidence, but a deliberate strategy? Let's let go of the reins of paranoia. What would stand out here, thinks the investor, before he starts squeezing PUM out of a plot of land or plowing through EU subsidies. But, since he knows mostly how to reshuffle Excel and employs marketers juggling a few key phrases (apartment, unique, close, bespoke, etc.), he won't come up with anything interesting. He has to rely on other forces. He lures them in by trickery. What he uses as bait are visualizations of overscaled or bizarre objects accompanied by a description so absurdly off-putting from these illustrations that some Eternal Malcontent must react to this dissonance. Surely he'll toss in some good and profitable idea for free, and in the process obsobarate for the entertainment of the wise and sue.
Of course, it would be easier to reach the same result by a different route: consult decently about your intentions, hire real experts, don't obstruct citizens' access to documents and information, explain your intentions and make a few other equally boring moves. However, this would be - to travesty the words of a tenant of the Namiestnikov Palace - a terror of decency. Better already to fight in court, although - as the example of Gniezno shows - it is still difficult to win. But there will also be a patent for this. It is time to introduce a ban on insulting architectural feelings.
