sng_2016-05-12_high-single-crop_k3

In late 1969, i.e. after Czechoslovakia’s occupation by Warsaw
Pact armies, a newly-named expert commission evaluated the
resulting alternative based on project documentation.
A new opinion from the preservation institute, with an unreadable
signature (Ing. arch. Ján Lichner, Csc. was then director),
reproached the lack of consultation with that institute on
the new design, created in 14 days. For this reason the institute
refused to give an overall position, expressing itself only “... from
the limited perspective of preserving cultural heritage sites as
registered by the state. Referring to the opinion of 11 January
1965 we have no objections in principle to the solution of the
new addition’s integration into the historical cultural site, though
we are not expressing any opinion on the proposed architecture.
Because of generally known technical circumstances, and the
fact that the historical portion’s interior disposition and vaulting
system has already been interrupted, we do not demand a strict
preservation of vaulting on the west wing’s upper floor. However
we ask that the courtyard’s facade expression with its central
feature of a suggested building (chapel 24 ) be preserved, and
the vaulting system of the arcaded corridors. In conclusion, we
hold that from the perspective of preserving cultural heritage
there are no objections in principle to the project submitted, and
we agree with the given request.” 25 As in the previous opinion,
there was no request here that there be a larger view through the
courtyard to the historical building arcades.
Interestingly, Dedeček’s study from back in 1963 included
a view into the courtyard, at the height of one storey; the first
SSA association commission chairman Štefan Svetko consistently
advocated for two things throughout the evaluation: a view
through to the building and eventually an enlarged view – along
with a newer, more contemporary expression of the facing wing
(!), something that by the late 1960s corresponded not just to
Belluš’ classicized functionalist hotel, or to Le Corbusier’s five
points of modern architecture, or to Dedeček’s own program of
dissipating the mono-block, but rather to the dynamic of transformations
in late 1960s architecture in Europe and the world.
32