We recently published an article titled "No one wants a new train station in Częstochowa," devoted to the woes of the Częstochowa train station building. Reports of the possible demolition of another post-modern building raised questions - why are we tearing down such young architecture? What is the difference in costs associated with demolishing and erecting a new edifice versus modernizing an existing one? Is it really impossible to reuse an existing structure, locating new, city-forming functions in it? We discuss this with Hubert Wąsek, president of SARP Czestochowa Branch, and Bartlomiej Sarna, spokesman for PKP.
Completed in the 1990s, the edifice by Ryszard Frankowicz was designed for a different Czestochowa - as Filip Springer points out (in an article for Gazeta.pl, "Czestochowa Mutant. This train station symbolizes the ambitions of a city that has been sidelined") - the capital of the province and one of the most important industrial centers in Poland. Today, according to many, the building is simply too big for current needs, does not meet modern standards, is not functional enough, and at the same time its maintenance requires huge financial outlays.
The station building in Częstochowa
Photo: Neo[EZN] / fotopolska.eu | Wikimedia Commons © CC BY-SA 3.0
In 2019, the Polish State Railways, the Municipality of the City of Częstochowa, PKS Częstochowa and SARP Częstochowa Branch announced a competition for the design of an architectural concept covering the Częstochowa Central Station and the development and development of the area around it.
Thetransport heart of our Częstochowa. A fragment of the city with an interesting history of changes, not always the happiest decisions, but still many opportunities and possibilities. The joint decision to seek the best solutions in an architectural competition raises hope for a better tomorrow," the competition organizers argued at the time.
The competition included an implementation part (the design of the Częstochowa Central Railway Station, taking into account the use of the building of the historic shantytown, belonging to the previously demolished Warsaw-Vienna Railway station) and a study part (the concept of development and land use, which would show the possibilities of increasing the commercial potential of the area where the western part of the railroad station and the properties in its surroundings are located). A proposal submitted by the TOPROJEKT studio, created in cooperation with the Paris-based AND STUDIO and Studio Antonini, was cutfrom.
awarded project
© TOPROJEKT, AND STUDIO, Studio Antonini
Today, there is talk of demolishing the existing body of the station, that is, the part located on the west side of the railroad line. This is opposed by activists from the Elanex Group, and they propose using the building for other functions, such as a community center with a mediatheque and library, similar to the award-winning station in Rumi (design: Sikora Wnętrza Architektura). You can read more about it here.
We talk about the station in Czestochowa with Hubert Wąsek, president of SARP Czestochowa Branch, and Bartlomiej Sarna, spokesman for PKP.
An interview with Hubert Wąsk,
president of SARP Częstochowa Branch
Ola Kloc: Let's go back to the beginning - why was the competition not about modernizing the existing block?
Hubert Wąsek: PKP opted for a competition rather than a tender, solely because the station in Częstochowa is one of the unique stations in terms of importance and size. It used to be like that, it was connected with pilgrimage traffic, but now - there's no denying it - it has lost its importance. PKP is modernizing stations all over Poland. No one doubts that the station in Czestochowa needs to be modernized, it lacks basic things like the ability to get to each platform by elevator, that there should be cash registers on both sides of it, the infrastructure needed so that older people or people with disabilities can use it easily. The station, despite the fact that it is not old, in fact it is practically new, unfortunately does not meet current standards - for example, it was recently adjusted to meet changing fire regulations. It therefore requires modernization.
The decision on the competition was not made solely by the PKP board - feasibility studies were prepared, and a workshop was held at the City Hall, to which PKP invited residents, city officials and Mr. Frankowicz, the station's designer. The consultation-workshop was held in November 2017, so quite a lot before the competition was announced. As SARP, we submitted a bid to organize the competition, and it was with us that PKP decided to cooperate. One of the first things we took care of, which we really cared about, was to expand the scope of the competition. We didn't want it to apply only to the building, but to a larger part of the city. This is a very important part of Czestochowa, for which there is not yet an MPZP in force, so we wanted the competition to be two-part - one part, the implementation part, concerning the modernization of the station, and the second , the conceptual part, on how the building and the area around it should function. Among other things, the area includes the bus station and the square in front of the station, an area that partly belongs to PKP and partly to the city. On the other side is a new interchange built by the city. So we wanted to consider the competition in just such a context, and PKP, it is worth noting, decided to organize it jointly with PKS and the City Hall. That is, the City, PKP and PKS, owners of the land, a large area in the center of the city, decided that together they would look for the best solution for the area.
Ola: The competition, however, overlooked the existing shape of the station. Participants did not have access to dwg primers of the existing building or information about its technical condition.
Hubert Wąsek: The realization part of the competition concerned the part above the platforms, not the body itself on the side of Wolności Avenue. An additional difficulty was the location of the transfer center, it was built not on the side of the square, streetcar and bus station, but on the other side, where historically the main entrance to the station was located. This was due to the fact that in this place it was easier to resolve property issues, there was the possibility of obtaining subsidies so the interchange center was built. Consequently, this space was graced. So when organizing the competition, we had to address the fact that the interchange center is not on the side that it should be.
Going back to the question, all the materials we had, and we always make sure to provide as much material as possible to the participants, were made available. Even some of it, which was admittedly not top-secret, but also not publicly available, was given to qualified participants. So they had all the information they needed for the implementation part, i.e. the part concerning the modernization of the station. On the other hand, the large part of the building that makes the biggest impression, the entrance part, the representative part, the "entrance to the city," today is already a relic. These are volumes that need to be heated, that generate concrete costs, that have been standing empty for years. There are voices crying out for a community center to be built in the station - yes, many train stations in Poland have been transformed in this way, but please note what scale these facilities are and in what localities. And see if Czestochowa has a community center, if it works and if there is a need to create a new one.
main hall
Photo: Travelarz | Wikimedia Commons © CC BY-SA 3.0 en
Ola: Maybe it's not so much about this particular function, but in general about looking for a new idea for this facility, which would be city-forming.
Hubert Wąsek: I don't rule out that there were times when this station actually functioned as a multifunctional center, but I don't recall that. The problem is that the spaces generating the flow of people lie on the sidelines, this results in no one looking there, no one passing through there. It would have to be designed to draw people in, to invite them to come. Create a café or any other function that is alive because it has customers, and those customers need to be able to see that it's there. The problem is the location of commercial spaces on the sidelines. It's worth noting what's operating there - a dental x-ray machine and a ballet school. It's better for them that it's quiet, peaceful, that no one looks there. This is a super place for young people, for couples in love, a very interesting space. I would love to learn from someone who has experience how to revitalize such a space, or on the contrary, what other functions to find, which will be good there.
Ola: There are, after all, tools - competitions, design workshops, space mapping - to see if and how this architecture, which is young after all, could be used.
Hubert Wąsek: PKP is in the business of transporting travelers, modernizing stations, not commercializing or dealing with ancillary spaces. The fact that this station had the opportunity, on occasion, to create a function that, if it could be commercialized, would bring in additional income, could have been an added value, but it failed. PKP, in organizing the competition, which stems from the realization of the goals for which the company is established, wanted to get a station that would function efficiently. All of us in Czestochowa want a functional station, contrary to what the author of the article suggested. And such, I hope, will be realized as a result of our competition. On the other hand, the existing building, the one with the commercial part, is just a problem. I suspect that most willingly PKP would sell it, if someone could be found who has an idea for it.
Ola: There have been reports in the media about local entrepreneurs willing for the purchase of the building.
Hubert Wąsek: It appears in the press that the watchmaker and local entrepreneurs who operate in the Craft House want to buy the station. The whole city of Czestochowa was alive with this, and I was also pleased by this news, but also worried, because why only at this stage! There were workshops, there were meetings, there were opportunities created by us to come out with such an idea. Hardly, all the time there are smaller or larger spaces for rent in this building, but I don't think a single watchmaker was interested in them. It turned out that potential buyers didn't contact PKP at all, but only announced it in the press. A short time later, the same press reported that the same entrepreneurs were selling their properties in order to have something to support the Craft House with. It's hard to keep up with this...
Ola: Maybe the problem was that at the right stage information about the possibility of buying the station or demolishing it did not reach residents and potential investors?
Hubert Wąsek: I've thought about this quite a lot, because we want to organize more competitions and do it better and better. At the right stage we inform and create opportunities for discussion, but yes, I resent myself that maybe it should have been publicized even more, announced so that everyone knew. Although I have it in black and white that information was passed on, that something would be done with the station. It wasn't that someone was hiding something. I myself at a certain meeting, long before the competition was announced, when asked if the station would be demolished, I said no. Because at that stage we discussed it with PKP and the matter was not a foregone conclusion. We wanted to organize the competition to see if the building could be left. To give possibilities.
Ola: So where did this decision come from? We talk a lot about re-use, reusing what exists, including in architecture, which puts a huge burden on our environment.What is the difference between the cost of demolishing and building a new station and adapting the one that is already there?
Hubert Wąsek: The building, despite being a young structure, does not meet modern standards and could be modernized. If this could be done, its maintenance costs would be lower.
Ola: And the environmental costs?
Hubert Wąsek: This is related. Just as I have no doubt that I can return an old alarm clock or bicycle for repair and it will still serve me and I won't have to buy a new one, I'm not sure if it works the same for every building, how this economic calculus and environmental benefits are presented. There have been feasibility studies done, of what needs to be repaired, what are the costs of modernization. I point out to those pseudo-city movements that use the argument that demolition is very harmful to the environment, that it doesn't stop them at the same time from shouting even louder to demolish a building from the modernism period, even older, which is located in the Old Market, just because it is actually controversial. This is playing on emotions - we demolish "Pooh" because it's ugly, but we don't demolish the train station because of the cost to the environment. I would be happy to actually talk about something that can be caught, numbers, what are the costs of demolition and what are the costs of maintenance, whether we actually did everything to carry this out wisely, rationally. But let's not reduce this topic to emotions, here we demolish and here we don't demolish.
The waiting room in the passageway above the tracks
Photo: Travelarz | Wikimedia Commons © CC BY-SA 3.0 en
Ola: So why are we so selective in protecting architecture?
Hubert Wąsek: Architecture is an emotion. A train station, in whatever style it may be, is a symbol of the entrance to the city, its gateway. Memories associated with it are intangible values. There are more such buildings in Czestochowa, for example, the Orthodox church, a symbol of the oppression of the invaders, which had to be demolished twice, rebuilt, and today serves residents as a church. And it was decided by chance, a moment in history. This selective protection of buildings is also related to our memory. The original sin of the station is that in connection with its construction, specifically with the planned accompanying facilities, the historic station of the Warsaw-Vienna Railway, a very interesting building with history - not too small, not too big - was demolished. Today it would be ideal.
Ola: Of it, a shawl was preserved. He was included in the competition.
Hubert Wąsek: That's why I say that economics is important. It's not that the decision-makers at PKP are only interested in making the station work, and the rest is not. This little building is actually the last thing we have left of this Warsaw-Vienna railroad (there was still a wall, which was recently torn down), and it doesn't take much to modernize it. The question is why no one has done it so far. Among other things, that's also why we expanded the scope of the competition, to show that this is also a PKP property, that it won't be a much bigger expense to take care of it. Little did we have to explain it to the director, she was interested in history and was very much in favor. It's a little sad that all these defenders don't appreciate it. I know it's a tiny building, but it's listed in the register of historical monuments.
I have said many times: start talking, show these values, because to write that something is an icon of postmodernism is not enough. The station building is interesting, whether it is an icon should rather be judged by architectural historians, not me. But start to act, talk to the conservator, there is a list of modern cultural assets, this is the most important thing to start building awareness at all, to conduct educational activities, so that this building then has this history, these intangible values. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that, when there is a need to call out, not to demolish, one makes a quick story, searches in the archives, and it turns out what a valuable building it is, that the architect, whom no one remembered, is suddenly outstanding, because it sounds better as an argument - such was the case with the Elanex in Częstochowa. Such activities are needed every day, it's just that it's hard and not very media-savvy work.
Ola: It is natural that no one prepares to defend a building years before the owners even think about demolishing it. Rather, we don't think about the fact that the buildings we pass every day could disappear tomorrow.
Hubert Wąsek: The buildings are not taken care of. This is well illustrated by the aforementioned wall of the Warsaw-Vienna Railway, which is a brick and limestone structure. For years, no one came up with the idea of preserving it. Neglected, it eventually began to threaten safety and threaten to collapse.
Ola: Isn't that the role of architects?
Hubert Wąsek: I am very eager to listen to someone who has something new to say, some idea for the station building. The architects actually had a primarily different task during the competition. You talk about the fact that there were no primers, there was no information, whereas to present an "idea for something" you don't need so much data. It can even be done descriptively, what could be there, what measures could be taken to preserve the site. Hardly, one of the people from the Elanex Group participated in the competition and had the opportunity to show how to do what they are now calling for.
I appreciate and respect all the actions. Even though it's too late, that it's not the time, but hope dies last, so maybe someone had an idea for an action that would allow this facility to be preserved, so that we don't have to tear it down. It's also not like PKP is just waiting to demolish it, there are costs too. If it were that simple, they would have demolished it long ago.
Ola: Who would give these ideas? Isn't that the responsibility of the SARP?
Hubert Wąsek: I think that if PKP (which, when it comes to mapping or collecting information, has the most data) saw such an opportunity, they would have taken this action themselves long ago. For now, a good, viable idea is lacking. Unfortunately, too many chances or hopes to save this building are not there. Cooperation with PKP is deep water to say the least, the organization of the competition with them was a very good school. For the opportunities we had, it seems to me that we did everything possible as SARP to preserve this building. To give it a chance. The association is not a city movement, we are not there to put pressure on politicians by playing on emotions. Although I know that these are actions that can actually have an effect.
Interview with Bartlomiej Sarna, spokesman for PKP on the next page
