sng_2016-05-12_high-single-crop_k3
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
thing that had been outlived in the current rapid developments<br />
in architecture.” (DEDEČEK, undated, p. 4) In other words, this group in<br />
July 1967 was already considering Dedeček’s five-year-old conception<br />
for the SNG front wing on pilotis as a thing outdated,<br />
and called for its innovation. This shows the dynamic changes<br />
in architectural thinking in 1960s Slovakia. In his expert opinion<br />
on construction of the SNG addition, Jozef Harvančík stated:<br />
“... from the perspective of construction, the project features<br />
a desirable unity between technological conception and architectural<br />
expression that is noteworthy for our age. On these<br />
grounds I advocate project approval.” 19 In his opinion, Marián<br />
Marcinka commented mainly on the tall research/administrative<br />
building: “The effort at freeing up the ground level is a worthy<br />
aspect of the design: detaching the mass from engineering<br />
networks, and trying to overlap indoor and outdoor spaces<br />
at ground level; and the liberating maintaining of the gallery’s<br />
individuality and retaining of spatial association between the<br />
current gallery and the river bank... Interesting and resourceful,<br />
too, is the conception of mass of the exhibition portion<br />
from the banks of the Danube, with a calming, dignified and<br />
monumental effect. However, I cannot rid myself of the feeling<br />
that there is still a detail missing overall, something that<br />
would bring everything together... The administration building’s<br />
material solution, and its indoor spatial layout, is not convincing,<br />
seeming not to attain the quality of the other portions, and<br />
fails to come up to the solution of the whole. There is a kind<br />
of incongruity of architectural emphasis on the height of something<br />
that in its content is less essential (administration, photo<br />
lab, residences and the like). I do not think the gallery should<br />
show its architectural authority by emphasizing its height.” 20<br />
Marcinka’s opinion recommended approval, along with setting<br />
interim deadlines for reacting to such suggestions.<br />
A third opinion of an unidentified institution, with unidentified<br />
signature, expressed similar reservations: “The construction<br />
overall is logical in terms of operations and disposition, as it<br />
builds on the existing structure and in a fitting manner places<br />
28
Change language