sng_2016-05-12_high-single-crop_k3

down and changed the character of cities from Ružomberok
to Považská Bystrica, Brezová pod Bradlom etc. I believe
that the totalitarian power can particularly be seen in urban
planning. (...) Cities lost their original character and became
disrupted urban structures that today, after 1990, are hard to
stick back together again. It is there where the totalitarianism
can be felt.” 52
Professor Šlachta again summarized the opinion expressed
in the public discussion at the SNG: “It is not important
if I like it [the architecture of SNG] or not. Some may like it,
some may dislike it. For me it is a very aggressive piece of
architecture that does not belong in this environment.” 53
Even now on this occasion he did not reply to his own
question: “I failed to find out who decided that the winning
design for this competition would be V. Dedeček's
submission. (...) The project that was implemented later was
approved by the Ministry of Culture Committee with Ing.
arch. Ivan Šimko, Ing. Šimon Luběna [Kuběna], Ing. Šoula as
experts, all of them from the former Ministry of Construction
and Technology, plus Professor Martin Kusý.” 54
2007
on 29 th March the newspaper Bratislavské noviny
published information about the decision of the Slovak
government to reconstruct the SNG and an interview 55
by Juraj Handzo with the general director of the SNG
Katarína Bajcurová. The statements 56 of one of the
co-authors of the reconstruction, architect Martin Kusý,
were also published on this occasion. The articles triggered
a new wave of criticism by the adversaries of the gallery.
Professor Matúš Dulla again – this time in the introduction
to the architectural guide Slovenská architektúra od Jurkoviča
po dnešok (Slovak Architecture from Jurkovič to the present
day) – commented on the SNG extension: “The era that
ventured to build large housing estates was also able to
116