ReNewTown NEW POST-SOCIALIST CITY: COMPETITIVE AND ATTRACTIVE GOOD PRACTICE REPORT FOR SLOVENIA

Transcription

1 ReNewTown NEW POST-SOCIALIST CITY: COMPETITIVE AND ATTRACTIVE GOOD PRACTICE REPORT FOR SLOVENIA Final Version Compiled and edited by Irena Ograjenšek With contributors from the City Municipality of Velenje and the FELU Research Team (M. Bavdaž, A. Cirman, P. Domadenik, K.K. Mihelič, I. Ograjenšek, J. Sambt) The ReNewTown project is implemented through the CENTRAL EUROPE Programme co-financed by the ERDF. Ljubljana, February 2012

2 I. Introduction When selecting the good practice examples from Slovenia we tried to account for all project-relevant key areas: Improving the provision of local cultural and social events. Improving public spaces between blocks and flats. Providing support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats. Improving the attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist-period building. Promoting the involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter. New functions for structures from the area of socialism (in case of Slovenia that is the period ). We were trying to look beyond the borders of the City Municipality of Velenje and identify examples which, if possible, resonate across borders, like the example of the Hostel Celica or Metelkova Autonomous Cultural Centre, which are internationally renowned. We ended up with the following list of examples in pre-identified key areas: Key area Improving the provision of local cultural and social events Improving public spaces between blocks and flats Providing support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats Improving the attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist-period building Promoting the involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter New functions for structures from the area of socialism (in case of Slovenia that is the period ) Examples House of Culture Velenje Renovation of the Open Air Cinema New City Library Center Nova Metelkova Autonomous Cultural Centre NA Business Zone Rudarski dom Hotel Paka Renovation Faculty of Economics National Assembly Renovation of the Open Air Cinema Maximarket Department Store Metelkova Autonomous Cultural Centre Hostel Celica 1

3 The only area with no good practice example is Improving public spaces between blocks and flats. It should therefore come as no surprise that this is the area of pilot action within the ReNewTown project in Slovenia. II. Catalogue of Selected Good Practice Examples The catalogue includes (in alphabetical order) the following examples: Business Zone Rudarski dom. Faculty of Economics. Hotel Paka Renovation. Hostel Celica. House of Culture Velenje. Maximarket Department Store. Metelkova Autonomous Cultural Centre. National Assembly. New City Library Center Nova. Renovation of the Open Air Cinema. 2

4 RECORD CARDS FOR GOOD PRACTICE I. IDENTIFICATION Name of initiative (project): Implementation venue: Size of area: Impact: Business zone Rudarski dom country region town Slovenija Savinjsko- Šaleška Velenje [m2] local municipal regional [ EUR] Total costs: Source: * the name of source: ERDF Important stakeholders concerned EU fonds national regional other* Municipality of Velenje Source (per every institution, in EUR): Investor (key institution): Municipality of Velenje Contact person (title, first name, surname, ): Year of initiative (project) implementation: Tanja Ževart, renewtown@velenje.si Year of construction: 1973, Year of extension: 1976, Year of renovation: 2009,

5 II. TYPOLOGY* 1. Provision of local cultural and social events Not improved Slightly improved Importantly improved 2.a Condition of the public space between the blocks of flats 2.b Quality of the public space between the blocks of flats 3. Support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats 4. Attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist buildings 5. Involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter Not identified Identified 6. New functions for structures from the era of socialism (in ) * this part is output from database of initiative and it shows basic typology of goood practice 4

6 III. DESCRIPTION Description of good practice contains answer on the followed question: 1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas? (description between characters) The development of adequate locations for business zones is an important element of promoting business. Namely, one of the main identified shortages in stimulating investments is the lack of adequately equipped business zones and facilities. Municipality of Velenje has decided to renovate the production hall, which was no longer used for its original purpose, and to turn it into a publicly supported infrastructure for business. Municipality of Velenje allocated the facility for the production needs of the regional business incubator SAŠA. 2. Was the building (or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage? (description between characters) The facility does not have a special status as an official cultural or architectural heritage. 3. What criteria were applied to making this judgment? The facility was not given a special status as an official cultural heritage, neither by the municipality, nor by the state. 4. Was the building (or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making about its rehabilitation or conversion? 5

7 It took more time as originally planned to find an optimal solution for the adaptation and for the preparation the project proposal. This was due to the fact that it was not known in advance which activities will be performed by the businesses in the incubator and we needed to adjust the space to the actual needs as much as possible. Therefore we had a preliminary public call for young companies. They were given a chance to express their needs in terms of space and activities. We used this information for further planning, as we wanted to make the facility as functional as possible for the end-users. 5. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? The basis of the Velenje city master plan, which has partially been maintained until today, ensured a balanced and functional development of all city areas. There are no drastic development disparities among city districts. 6. Were there attempts to reduced disparities between districts within cities/towns reduced? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? The basis of the Velenje city master plan, which has partially been maintained until today, ensured a balanced and functional development of all city areas. There are no drastic development disparities among city districts. 7. Other important facts and comments. (e.g. critical review) 6

8 The facility was renovated in two phases. First we renovated the offices (400 m²). We equipped them with ICT infrastructure. We renovated and equipped fifteen offices and two conference rooms. Kitchen and toilets are also available within the facility. The rest of the facility (around 700 m²) is allocated to production activities. In this parts of the building SAŠA incubator provides space for five businesses that deal with business activities and for one business company that deals with production activities. This phase was followed by the second one, in which the production hall was completely renovated (1300 m²) and is now available to start-up companies with production activities. Six spaces/cells of different sizes are available, together with joint facilities (conference room, kitchen, toilets). 7

9 IV. SUPPLEMENT Web: 8

10 RECORD CARDS FOR GOOD PRACTICE I. IDENTIFICATION Name of initiative (project): Energetska učinkovitost Ekonomske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani Energy Efficiency of the Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana country region town Implementation venue: Slovenija Central Slovenia Ljubljana [m2] Size of area: 15,900 Impact: local municipal regional [ EUR] Total costs: 2 million EUR Source: * the name of source: Important stakeholders concerned Source (per every institution, in EUR): Investor (key institution): EU fonds national regional other* Government of the Republic of Slovenia Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana FELU s own investment funds Contact person (title, first name, surname, ): Prof. Dr. Irena Ograjenšek, irena.ograjensek@ef.uni-lj.si Year of initiative (project) implementation: Year of initiative implementation: ongoing since

11 II. TYPOLOGY* 1. Provision of local cultural and social events Not improved Slightly improved Importantly improved 2.a Condition of the public space between the blocks of flats 2.b Quality of the public space between the blocks of flats 3. Support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats 4. Attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist buildings 5. Involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter Not identified Identified 6. New functions for structures from the era of socialism (in ) * this part is output from database of initiative and it shows basic typology of goood practice 10

12 III. DESCRIPTION Description of good practice contains answer on the followed question: 1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas? (description between characters) Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, was built in the 1970 according to the plans of the architect Jože Koželj. The pre-energy crisis construction plans did not take into account the problems of energy inefficiency and CO2 emissions which became the focal managerial point first with the energy crisis and then with the climate change. In order to save energy and reduce FELU s carbon footprint the following investments have been made so far: - In 2000: insulation and renovation of the roof. - Since 2001: renovation of the central heating and cooling system (floor-by-floor). - In 2006: insulation and renovation of the façades. - Currently being implemented: installation of solar cells on the roof; this will reduce the use of fossil fuels by at least 10%. 2. Was the building (or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage? (description between characters) The FELU area and buildings so far do not have a special status as an official cultural or architectural heritage. 11

13 3. What criteria were applied to making this judgment? None so far. 4. Was the building (or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making about its rehabilitation or conversion? FELU is a school of national and international importance; as such it also tries to be a leader when it comes to sustainability issues. The local community might not be aware of FELU s efforts in the area of carbon footprint reduction but will benefit from them in a long run. 5. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? The whole quarter where FELU is located has been in the focus of urban planners for the past few years because of some ongoing projects that are importantly changing its outlook (e.g. the Stožice Hall complex). 6. Were there attempts to reduce disparities between districts within cities/towns? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? These attempts are ongoing. Therefore their success cannot be evaluated yet. 7. Other important facts and comments. (e.g. critical review) 12

14 One of the typical characteristics of the socialist era buildings is their energy inefficiency and consequently high carbon footprint. Therefore, one of the main challenges in the process of these buildings revitalisation is the question how to make them energy efficient. With its numerous initiatives some already implemented, others ongoing, some still in planning FELU is a best practice example in this area. FELU before and after: 13

15 IV. SUPPLEMENT Web: FELU online: 14

16 RECORD CARDS FOR GOOD PRACTICE I. IDENTIFICATION Name of initiative (project): Hotel Paka Renovation country region town Implementation venue: Slovenia Savinjsko- Šaleška Velenje [m2] Size of area, : 5887 Impact: local municipal regional [ EUR] Total costs: 3,5 MIO Source: Gorenje Catering * the name of source: (Gorenje gostinstvo, d.o.o.) Institute for the Protection of Important stakeholders concerned Cultural Heritage of Slovenia Source (per every institution, in EUR): 3,5 MIO Investor (key institution): EU funds national regional other* Gorenje Catering (Gorenje gostinstvo, d.o.o.) Contact person (title, first name, surname, ): Mr. Stanko Brunšek, director, info@hotelpaka.com Year of initiative (project) implementation: Year of construction: , Year of renovation:

17 16

18 II. TYPOLOGY* 1. Provision of local cultural and social events Not improved Slightly improved Importantly improved 2.a Condition of the public space between the blocks of flats 2.b Quality of the public space between the blocks of flats 3. Support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats 4. Attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist buildings 5. Involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter Not identified Identified 6. New functions for structures from the era of socialism (in ) * this part is output from database of initiative and it shows basic typology of goood practice 17

19 III. DESCRIPTION Description of good practice contains answer on the followed question: 1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas? Hotel Paka was designed by the Slovenian architect Stanko Rohrman, who was the only Slovenian representative of functionalism. The hotel was opened in 1961 and was a centre of social life in the "new" city. Unfortunately the hotel was somewhat slow in meeting the demands from guests and the needs of society in general and was therefore gradually losing its significance. After the ownership change in 1993, the new owners (Gorenje Gostinstvo d.o.o.) decided to do a thorough renovation, which was finished in During the renovation there was no special cooperation among stakeholders. The owner, the investor and the architect, Matjaž Durjan Ph.D., cooperated with the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia. All of the interventions made outside and inside of the building were coordinated with the institute. 2. Was the building (or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage? Hotel Paka is one of the rare projects by architect Stanko Rohrman, the only Slovenian representative of functionalism. Because of this and due to the fact that the facility is part of the city centre, the hotel is protected as a architectural monument. The city centre represents a special cultural heritage in Slovenia, due to its specific and basic urban planning setting. 18

20 3. What criteria were applied to making this judgment? The facility is segmented into three functional sections (e.g. three separate sections of the exterior). There is evidence of Le Corbusier's influence. The facility is part of the city centre. 4. Was the building (or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making about its rehabilitation or conversion? The Hotel Paka represented a centre of social life in the new city, which was visited by numerous important guests, statesmen and important representatives from the social and political life. It was also important for the local community. During the renovation the local community did not participate in this process. The hotel gained a lot of new capacities, such as modern hotel capacities, wellness centre, catering, congress tourism infrastructure and two movie theatre halls. After the opening of the renovated hotel these new capacities proved to be an important asset for the city. 5. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? In implementing the project the basis of the Velenje city master plan, which has partially been maintained until today, ensured a balanced and functional development of all city areas. The facility brought new and modernized programmes to the city centre. 6. Were there attempts to reduced disparities between districts within cities/towns reduced? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? The basis of the Velenje city master plan, which has partially been maintained until today, ensured a balanced and functional development of all city areas. There are no drastic development disparities among city districts. 7. Other important facts and comments. (e.g. critical review) 19

21 IV. SUPPLEMENT Web:

22 RECORD CARDS FOR GOOD PRACTICE I. IDENTIFICATION Name of initiative (project): Hotel Celica country region town Implementation venue: Slovenija Central Slovenia Ljubljana Size of area: Impact: [m2] One building within the 12,500 m2 Metelkova complex local municipal regional [ EUR] Total costs: 2 million EUR Source: * the name of source: Important stakeholders concerned EU fonds national regional other* City Municipality of Ljubljana, Student Organization of the University of Ljubljana City Municipality of Ljubljana, Student 21

23 Source (per every institution, in EUR): Investor (key institution): Contact person (title, first name, surname, ): Organization of the University of Ljubljana City Municipality of Ljubljana (75.3%), Student Organization of the University of Ljubljana (24.7%)** Prof. Dr. Irena Ograjenšek, Year of initiative (project) implementation: Year of initiative implementation: 2003 II. TYPOLOGY* 1. Provision of local cultural and social events Not improved Slightly improved Importantly improved 2.a Condition of the public space between the blocks of flats 2.b Quality of the public space between the blocks of flats 3. Support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats 22

24 4. Attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist buildings 5. Involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter Not identified Identified 6. New functions for structures from the era of socialism (in ) * this part is output from database of initiative and it shows basic typology of goood practice III. DESCRIPTION Description of good practice contains answer on the followed question: 1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas? (description between characters) Hostel Celica is housed in the renovated building of a former military prison of the Yugoslav National Army. The investment was a joint venture between the City Municipality of Ljubljana and Student Organization of the University of Ljubljana. The hostel is run by a non-profit organization Zavod Šouhostel. Between 2001 and former prison cells have been reconstructed into comfortable hostel rooms. More than 80 national and international artists participated in this creative cell renewal (see for the list of artists). Consequently, each cell is a completely unique and priceless work of art. 2. Was the building (or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage? 23

25 (description between characters) The whole Metelkova City Autonomous Cultural Center area including the hostel is now registered as immobile cultural heritage with the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia. 24

26 3. What criteria were applied to making this judgment? The fact that the hostel was created out of the former military prison that a symbol of the Yugoslav National Army and repression was created into a symbol of openness and understanding. 4. Was the building (or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making about its rehabilitation or conversion? The local community recognised the need for the capital city of a new country to have a unique youth hostel. 5. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? Yes; during the rebuilding process, which is deemed very successful. The formerly closed military area of Metelkova is now open to general public and the hostel s appearance visually appealing; in addition, the hostel became a meeting point of different cultures and religions. 6. Were there attempts to reduce disparities between districts within cities/towns? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? The most important success is that the formerly closed military area of Metelkova is now open to general public and the hostel s appearance visually appealing; in addition, the hostel became a meeting point of different cultures and religions. Also, new jobs were created with the hostel establishment. 7. Other important facts and comments. (e.g. critical review) 25

27 Hostel Celica in Ljubljana is rated among the most popular hostels in the world, therefore it is usually booked out long in advance, especially in the summer season. The hostel is situated some 300m from the central bus and train station of Ljubljana. It is less than 10 minutes walk (700m) from the main city square (Prešeren square) which is in the very heart of the city centre. There are 20 different rooms former prison cells in the hostel of which each has its own style. These include simple cells, large dormitories for 12 people, and rooms for 4 and 5 people with their own bathroom. By default, the dorms are single gender unless you form your own group. There is an apartment for up to 7 guests and the wheel-chair friendly room is situated on the ground floor. One of the former prison cells was converted into a place for prayer, meditation and contemplation. In the six niches on the walls, the five major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism) have their altars and the sixth niche was left empty for all other religions and beliefs of the world. The Point of peace was officially blessed by the highest religious representatives of the before-metioned religious groups in Slovenia. All in all, the hostel represents a very successful example of how a symbol of repression can be sucessfully transformed and revitalised. IV. SUPPLEMENT Web: Hostel Celica: Ljubljana Info: Registry of Cultural Heritage: 26

28 RECORD CARDS FOR GOOD PRACTICE I. IDENTIFICATION Name of initiative (project): Implementation venue: Size of area: Impact: KULTURNI DOM VELENJE/HOUSE OF CULTURE VELENJE country region town SAVINJSKO- SLOVENIJA ŠALEŠKA VELENJE [m2] local municipal regional [ EUR] Total costs: ,00 Source: * the name of source: Important stakeholders concerned EU fonds national regional local Ministry of Culture Municipality of Velenje Source (per every institution, in EUR): , ,00 Investor (key institution): Municipality of Velenje Contact person (title, first name, surname, ): Helena.knez@velenje.si Year of initiative (project) implementation: Constructed: / Renovated in period II. TYPOLOGY* 27

29 Not improved Slightly improved Importantly improved Not applicable 1. Provision of local cultural and social events 2.a Condition of the public space between the blocks of flats 2.b Quality of the public space between the blocks of flats 3. Support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats 4. Attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist buildings 5. Involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter Not identified Identified 6. New functions for structures from the era of socialism (in ) * this part is output from database of initiative and it shows basic typology of goood practice III. DESCRIPTION 28

30 Description of good practice contains answer on the followed question: 1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas? The building was/ is a product of innovative construction techniques applied with the goal of maximising external and internal aesthetic effects The reconstruction focused on the improvements of the building's functionality and its harmonization with the 21st century legislative requirements concerning energy efficiency, disabled access, etc. The visual impression has not changed after the reconstruction. 2. Was the building (or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage? The building was proclaimed cultural heritage in 2005 (see Odlok o razglasitvi Kulturnega doma Velenje za kulturni spomenik lokalnega pomena na območju Mestne občine Velenje in Uradni vestnik MOV, nr. 21/2005). The building is registered under nr in the Cultural Heritage Register of the Republic of Slovenia. But building per se does not demonstrate the impact of the regime from the architectural point of view because its architect followed the principles of the European architecture of the period. However, the building did serve as a demonstration of the city's wealth along with the voluntary and political power of the people for the people. Building with its surroundings is still evidence of social development and a showcase for the Yugoslav-type of socialism. 29

31 3. What criteria were applied to making this judgment? The building was proclaimed cultural heritage in % of original materials were preserved in the process of reconstruction. 95% of the original documentation is still available. None of interventions damaged the original visual appearance of the building which is almost perfectly preserved (95%). Given the improved functionality, the reconstruction represents progress and not regression. It would not make sense to try and reverse it. 4. Was the building (or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making about its rehabilitation or conversion? This building is key for functioning of the main city square designed to host several thousands of people during different events. The main façade was designed as a city stage upon which grand manifestations took place (city opening, Marshall Tito's visit, visits of foreign dignitaries, etc.). Since the facility is protected as a monument, the public has not had a major impact on the revitalization of the facility. The renovation should take place in accordance with the instructions of the Institute for Protection of Monuments. 5. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? 30

32 House of Culture is an accent element the whole city was planned from scratch and the elements ex ante harmonized with one another. This building is one of those key for functioning of the main city square designed to host several thousands of people during mass manifestations and celebrations. The building was designed and constructed as part of a broader plan to create a unique sunny garden city for coal miners and their families following the principles of modern European architecture (e.g. Le Corbusier). Its function is very important from the quality of life viewpoint. 6. Were there attempts to reduced disparities between districts within cities/towns reduced? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? Not relevant. 7. Other important facts and comments. (e.g. critical review) The subject was built as one of the most beautiful halls of that period in Yugoslavia. The city of Velenje is still an internationally recognised showcase of excellent urban planning and the subject is the centre of many diverse cultural activities, many of them of national importance. IV. SUPPLEMENT Web:

33 RECORD CARDS FOR GOOD PRACTICE I. IDENTIFICATION Name of initiative (project): Renovation of Veleblagovnica Maximarket - Maximarket Department Store country region town Implementation venue: Slovenija Central Slovenia Ljubljana [m2] Size of area: 22,500 Impact: local municipal regional [ EUR] Total costs: 6 million EUR Source: * the name of source: Important stakeholders concerned Source (per every institution, in EUR): Investor (key institution): EU fonds national regional other* Poslovni system Mercator d.d. Ljubljana Poslovni system Mercator d.d. - own funds Contact person (title, first name, surname, ): Prof. Dr. Irena Ograjenšek, irena.ograjensek@ef.uni-lj.si Year of initiative (project) implementation: Year of initiative implementation:

34 II. TYPOLOGY* 1. Provision of local cultural and social events Not improved Slightly improved Importantly improved 2.a Condition of the public space between the blocks of flats 2.b Quality of the public space between the blocks of flats 3. Support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats 4. Attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist buildings 5. Involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter Not identified Identified 6. New functions for structures from the era of socialism (in ) * this part is output from database of initiative and it shows basic typology of goood practice 33

35 III. DESCRIPTION Description of good practice contains answer on the followed question: 1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas? (description between characters) Veleblagovnica Maximarket, one of the Slovenian oldest deparment stores, was designed by the architects Edvard Ravnikar, Anton Pibernik and Vladislav Sedej. For the first time it opened its doors to the public on November 23rd, From the very first day it represented a cosmopolitan lifestyle with goods being on display and sold from all parts of the world. After being acquired by the largest Slovenian retail chain Mercator, the department store was given a major overhaul in It reopened in October 2011 and is now again up to speed with regard to the latest trends in retailing both from the viewpoint of space utilization and goods display. 2. Was the building (or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage? (description between characters) Maximarket has been registered as immobile cultural heritage with the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia since

36 3. What criteria were applied to making this judgment? It s a prime real estate in the city centre of Ljubljana, directly opposite the building of the Slovenian National Assembly; not only an architectural landmark but also a symbol of cosmopolitan lifestyle both in the socialist times and now. 4. Was the building (or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making about its rehabilitation or conversion? The department store is frequented by the locals and tourists alike; however, none of the groups were consulted about the renovation. 5. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? No attempts to this effect were necessary territorial cohesion in this part of the city has been achieved a long time ago. 6. Were there attempts to reduce disparities between districts within cities/towns? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? Yes, but not in the framework of this initiative. However, the retail chain Mercator has been investing heavily in other districts within Ljubljana, thus creating important new jobs. 7. Other important facts and comments. (e.g. critical review) 35

37 The story of Maximarket can be compared to that of West Berlin s Kaufhaus des Westens : its primary function was to serve as a display area for the successes of a given (in case of Maximarket socialist) political system. Contrary to similar stores selling famous Western brands in the former USSR to tourists and political functionarities only, local population was always shopping in Maximarket without limitations, meeting in the famous Maximarket restaurant or coffee shop, visiting fashion shows and other events staged in the underground passage, etc. With the 2011 renovation, the legend of Maximarket got a new push; so did the famous advertising slogan Meet me in Maxi which has been used for decades and is a firm part of the locals vocabulary. IV. SUPPLEMENT Web: Maximarket: Registry of Cultural Heritage: veleblagovnica-maximarket 36

38 RECORD CARDS FOR GOOD PRACTICE I. IDENTIFICATION Name of initiative (project): Avtonomni kulturni center Metelkova Metelkova City Autonomous Cultural Center country region town Implementation venue: Slovenija Central Slovenia Ljubljana [m2] Size of area: 12,500 Impact: local municipal regional [ EUR] Total costs: Not known Source: EU fonds national regional other* * the name of source: Squatters** Important stakeholders concerned City Municipality of Ljubljana Source (per every institution, in EUR): **Squatters various alternative interest groups which provided an Investor (key institution): enormous amount of volunteer work for the upkeep of the alternative community Contact person (title, first name, surname, ): Prof. Dr. Irena Ograjenšek, irena.ograjensek@ef.uni-lj.si Year of initiative (project) implementation: Year of initiative implementation: ongoing since September

39 II. TYPOLOGY* 1. Provision of local cultural and social events Not improved Slightly improved Importantly improved 2.a Condition of the public space between the blocks of flats 2.b Quality of the public space between the blocks of flats 3. Support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats 4. Attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist buildings 5. Involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter Not identified Identified 6. New functions for structures from the era of socialism (in ) * this part is output from database of initiative and it shows basic typology of goood practice 38

40 III. DESCRIPTION Description of good practice contains answer on the followed question: 1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas? (description between characters) Metelkova City (full name in Slovenian language: Avtonomni kulturni center Metelkova mesto, 'Metelkova City Autonomous Cultural Centre') is an autonomous social and cultural centre in the heart of the capital city of Slovenia, Ljubljana. It is located on the site of the former military barracks which served as the Slovenian headquarters of the Yugoslav National Army, the ultimate symbol of the socialist Yugoslavia. The area was squatted in September 1993 and has been maintaned mostly with volunteer work ever since. The site consists of seven buildings. Most of them originate from the pre-socialist era but underwent alterations during the socialist period necessary to accommodate the needs of the Yugoslav National Army. The squat is named after the nearby Metelko Street (in Slovenian: Metelkova ulica), which owns its name to the 19th-century Slovenian Roman Catholic priest, philologist, and unsuccessful language reformer Fran Metelko and played an important role in the co-called Slovenian Spring of 1988 which was the first of the major milestones on the road towards Slovenian independence. At Metelkova City a range of activities have been held. These include an art gallery, bars, artists studios, space for designers, offices of cultural organisations and concerts featuring different types of live music from free jazz, heavy metal, noise, to dub and techno. The Metelkova area also features a very popular Youth Hostel called Celica, housed in the renovated building of a former military prison (see e.g Was the building (or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage? (description between characters) On August 2, 2006, the Inspectorate for the Environment and Spatial Planning of the Republic of Slovenia demolished one of the buildings, known as the Small School (in Slovenian: Mala Šola), after several previous attempts were successfully thwarted. There are plans to rebuild the school. The whole area is now registered as immobile cultural heritage with the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia. 39

41 3. What criteria were applied to making this judgment? Primarily the importance of the civic movements hosted within the complex. All other factors are not in favour of such a decision: we are talking about a prime real estate area in the heart of the capital city; naturally the authorities would prefer to see other uses than an alternative autonomous cultural centre. 4. Was the building (or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making about its rehabilitation or conversion? The area is very important to the local alternative cultural scene and also hosts a number of alternative movements (e.g. lesbian and gay rights movement, anti-racist movement ). Because of this it was targeted by a group of Nazi-Skinheads in 1994 whereas the local community arranged itself with the going-ons in the complex (especially the small businesses). 5. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? Not so far but the fact that authorities have been tolerating the squat for almost two decades now is encouraging. Also encouraging is the fact that the formerly closed military area is now open to general public. 6. Were there attempts to reduce disparities between districts within cities/towns? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? Not so far but the fact that authorities have been tolerating the squat for almost two decades now is encouraging. Also encouraging is the fact that the formerly closed military area is now open to general public. 7. Other important facts and comments. (e.g. critical review) 40

42 From the Story of Metelkova (see URL in the Supplement) we learn about the important role Metelkova has been playing when it comes to alternative civic movements. We learn that Metelkova as a cultural centre was first conceived in 1990 when the Network of Metelkova was formed and 200 partner organisations came together to propose a new, creative, peaceful use for the former military barracks. In 1991, following the Ten Day War for Slovenia s independence and consequent the Yugoslav People's Army's withdrawal from the site, the Network for Metelkova petitioned the newly independent Slovenian government for rights to the space. Favoring a car park or other new urban development over a rogue hippie commune, the City of Ljubljana decided in 1993 to demolish the old, unmaintained buildings. The Network of Metelkova and friends responded by squatting the site on September 10th, 1993 and creating 'Metelkova Mesto' - an independent (anti)cultural centre. Over 200 individuals got down to business creating living spaces, setting up concerts, exhibitions, readings and other events. Unable to extract the compound's new occupants, city officials responded by cutting off the water and electricity to Metelkova Mesto ('Metelkova City') and filing legal suits against its inhabitants. It seems, however, that the new challenges only served to bolster the strength of the community, however, and Metelkova began to thrive more than ever before as a centre of cultural, political and artistic activity. Although the future survival of the Metelkova community is still uncertain, it is now commonly agreed that a European capital city needs an area in which autonomous cultural and social movements can flourish. Metelkova as an internationally-renowned alternative culture community in the centre of Slovenia's capital, often draws comparisons to Copenhagen's Kristiania. Dedicated to organising social and cultural activities for the public, Metelkova has a nonstop events schedule and is arguably the best after-dark destination in Ljubljana, serving both local population and tourists. 41

43 IV. SUPPLEMENT Web: The original Slovenian site: The Story of Metelkova: Registry of Cultural Heritage: 42

44 RECORD CARDS FOR GOOD PRACTICE I. IDENTIFICATION Name of initiative (project): Državni zbor Republike Slovenije National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia country region town Implementation venue: Slovenija Central Slovenia Ljubljana [m2] Size of area: NA Impact: local municipal regional [ EUR] Total costs: NA Source: * the name of source: Important stakeholders concerned Source (per every institution, in EUR): Investor (key institution): EU fonds national regional other* Republic of Slovenia National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia Contact person (title, first name, surname, ): Prof. Dr. Irena Ograjenšek, irena.ograjensek@ef.uni-lj.si Year of initiative (project) implementation: Year of initiative implementation: ongoing 43

45 II. TYPOLOGY* 1. Provision of local cultural and social events Not improved Slightly improved Importantly improved 2.a Condition of the public space between the blocks of flats 2.b Quality of the public space between the blocks of flats 3. Support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats 4. Attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist buildings 5. Involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter Not identified Identified 6. New functions for structures from the era of socialism (in ) * this part is output from database of initiative and it shows basic typology of goood practice 44

46 III. DESCRIPTION Description of good practice contains answer on the followed question: 1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas? (description between characters) The National Assembly Building of the Republic of Slovenia (in Slovenian: Stavba Državnega zbora Republike Slovenije) is a modernist palace in the capital city of Ljubljana housing the legislature of Slovenia. Built between 1954 and 1959 by the Slovenian architect Vinko Glanz, the National Assembly Building is located in the Square of the Republic in the city centre of Ljubljana, the capital city of Slovenia. Despite its name, the building houses both the National Assembly (lower house) and the National Council (upper house) of the legislature; however, the upper house has a primarily advisory role. Before the constitutional reforms of 1992, the building was known as the Skupščina, after the name (Skupščina Socialistične Republike Slovenije) of the tricameral communist-era legislature. It is also colloquially referred to as the Parlament. The four-story building is externally relatively austere. The façade is covered in Karst marble, with green granite from Oplotnica below the windows. The only decorative element is the main portal, supported by five pilasters enclosing four double oak doors, which support a mass of intertwined sculptures by Karel Putrih and Zdenko Kalin, depicting scenes from everyday life, focusing both on work activities in the realm of farming, fishing, shipbuilding, industry, etc. as well as family life and children plays. The center of the building is occupied by the 422 m 2, 150 seat Great Hall, where the lower house convenes. Formerly rectangular, it was renovated into an amphitheater in The Small Hall on the ground floor houses the upper house. Renovations und upgrades in the building are ongoing; both of exterior, interior, infrastructure and technical equipment with the goal of supporting the legislative process in the best possible working environment. 2. Was the building (or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage? 45

47 (description between characters) The building has been registered as immobile cultural heritage with the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia. 46

48 3. What criteria were applied to making this judgment? The building is a prime example of modernist architecture with distinct intertwined sculptures around the main portal. 4. Was the building (or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making about its rehabilitation or conversion? The building is of unique national importance it is a symbol of Slovenian independence. That is why the public was shocked and griefed when on May 18, 2010, the front façade of the parliament building was severely damaged by students who threw granite rocks removed from nearby pavement at the building's main entrance (the cost of broken glass alone was around 27,000 EUR). The incident happened during the student protest against the proposed law on the introduction of mini jobs that would curb student work. Another incident happened on August 27 th, 2011, when a car crashed into the portal. There was a common agreement that all damaged parts must be brought back to their original state. 5. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? No attempts to this effect were necessary territorial cohesion in this part of the city has been achieved a long time ago, with the Square of the Republic s landmarks (National Assembly, Maximarket, NLB) forming one of the focal points of Ljubljana s and Slovenia s political life (Slovenian independence was formally declared and celebrated in the Square of the Republic in June 1991). 6. Were there attempts to reduce disparities between districts within cities/towns? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? Yes, but not in the framework of this initiative. 7. Other important facts and comments. (e.g. critical review) 47

49 The building still serves the purpose for which it was originally designed. However, renovations und upgrades in the building are ongoing; both of exterior, interior, infrastructure and technical equipment with the goal of supporting the legislative process in the best possible working environment while at the same time preserving original architectural elements of a building that has a long time ago became one of the landmarks of Ljubljana and Slovenia. IV. SUPPLEMENT Web: Slovenian National Assembly: Wikipedia on the Slovenian National Assembly: ia 48

50 RECORD CARDS FOR GOOD PRACTICE I. IDENTIFICATION Name of initiative (project): New City Library Center Nova Implementation venue: Size of area: Impact: country region town SAVINJSKO- SLOVENIJA ŠALEŠKA VELENJE [m2] local municipal regional [ EUR] Total costs: ,00 Source: * the name of source: EU fonds national regional other* Ministry of Culture Municipality of Velenje; PILON (private) Important stakeholders concerned Source (per every institution, in EUR): , , ,00 Investor (key institution): Municipality of Velenje and Pilon (private investor) Contact person (title, first name, surname, ): Helena Knez, renewtown@velenje.si Year of initiative (project) implementation: December 1971; June

51 II. TYPOLOGY* Not improved Slightly improved Importantly improved Not applicable 1. Provision of local cultural and social events 2.a Condition of the public space between the blocks of flats 2.b Quality of the public space between the blocks of flats 3. Support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats 4. Attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist buildings 5. Involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter Not identified Identified 6. New functions for structures from the era of socialism (in ) * this part is output from database of initiative and it shows basic typology of good practice 50

52 III. DESCRIPTION Description of good practice contains answer on the followed question: 1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas? The old facility, known to the local population under the name NAMA, was constructed as the answer to the consumer needs of the local population. Its external appearance was partially following functionalistic guidelines. After revitalisation the facility gained a completely new look that followed urban and social activities, which took place in the immediate vicinity of the facility. In the facility itself, activities were introduced that responded to the educational, cultural and consumer needs of the local population. The facility is located in the heart of the city centre. It is bordered on two sides by pedestrian zones and on the other two by the business/living complex. The architect was also guided by this fact. He introduced large glass surfaces to the sides that were bordering the pedestrian zones in order to enable the visitors to observe the events, activities that take place beneath them. Visitors enter different levels through the outer staircase and with the help of the elevator that offers a panoramic view. This increases the attractiveness of the facility. By doing so, the architect tried to bring the facility/the visitor closer to the urban events. 2. Was the building (or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage? The facility is located it the immediate vicinity of the city centre and was protected as a monument of state significance by the Ordinance amending the spatial components of the Municipality Velenje long term plan for the period and the Official Gazette of the Municipality Velenje No. 17/88, 7/01 and 13/04. The renovation and the revival of the city centre also included the renovation of the facility "NAMA" that was once a shopping mall in the city centre. With the resettlement of shopping malls (modern and large multi-complexes) into the city suburbs, the existing facility needed a drastic change - physically as well as conceptually. The facility itself was not protected as a cultural heritage, but gained in significance after its revitalisation/renovation. For the renovation its author, architect Rajter Uroš, received the Plečnik award for second place. This is the most prestigious award in the field of architectural design in Slovenia. 3. What criteria were applied to making this judgment? 51

53 The main argument that the facility received quality renovation is the Plečnik award for second place. This is the most prestigious award in the field of architectural design in Slovenia. The facility represents a new quality in the urban environment, from the architectural as well as economic and cultural point of view. 4. Was the building (or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making about its rehabilitation or conversion? When the decision was made to execute the revitalisation of the facility, five public debates took place. The participants were experts, interested public, cultural workers, representatives of the Municipality Velenje and private investors. The project was presented and the participants were invited to give amendments, suggestions. The expressed opinions were included in the final project as much as possible. The project was approved by all investors and stakeholders. 5. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? The basic motive for the investment by the Municipality Velenje was the relocation of the city library into a bigger and more modern facility. Velenje library, which is located on the second floor of the facility, is a host for many cultural and other events that enrich the cultural realm and the people in it. It is perceived as one of the providers of various cultural and informative events for all age groups. By hosting different events they achieve different objectives such as promotion and offering assistance to members on how to use library's materials and services. By carrying out its mission it effectively joins people of different ages, social, educational and social status. It also has a wider regional influence, as visitors come from near-by municipalities (e.g. Šmartno, Šoštanj...). 6. Were there attempts to reduced disparities between districts within cities/towns reduced? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? 52

54 This was not the focus of revitalisation. 7. Other important facts and comments. (e.g. critical review) IV. SUPPLEMENT Web: azvoj-3.html 53

55 RECORD CARDS FOR GOOD PRACTICE I. IDENTIFICATION Name of initiative (project): Renovation of the Open Air Cinema Implementation venue: Size of area: ~2000 Impact: Total costs: country region town Slovenia Savinjsko- Šaleška Velenje [m2] local municipal regional [ EUR] EU fonds national regional other* Source: Local donors, * the name of source: volunteers Youth Centre Municipality of Local public Important stakeholders concerned Velenje Velenje institutions Source (per every institution, in EUR): ,00 Investor (key institution): Youth Center Velenje Contact person (title, first name, surname, ): Mr. Dimitrij Amon, dimitrij.amon@kunigunda.si Year of initiative (project) implementation: Year of construction: , Year of renovation: 2009,

56 II. TYPOLOGY* 1. Provision of local cultural and social events Not improved Slightly improved Importantly improved 2.a Condition of the public space between the blocks of flats 2.b Quality of the public space between the blocks of flats 3. Support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats 4. Attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist buildings 5. Involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter Not identified Identified 6. New functions for structures from the era of socialism (in ) * this part is output from database of initiative and it shows basic typology of goood practice 55

57 III. DESCRIPTION Description of good practice contains answer on the followed question: 1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas? The renovation of the open air cinema is particularly denoted with the revival and the continuation of the volunteering tradition in Velenje. In the framework of the 50th anniversary of the Municipality Velenje and on the mayor's initiative, the Youth Centre Velenje became actively involved in the revival of the work brigades and volunteering. With volunteering activities and support from the sponsors they managed to revive a once culturally important venue, which is also nowadays devoted to sport and culture. Until 2011 over 2000 working hours of volunteers were put into renovation and maintenance of the open air cinema. Local donors supported the project by contributing construction material, engineering hours and equipment worth over EUR. 2. Was the building (or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage? Open air cinema does not have a special status as an official cultural heritage. The construction of the facility as well as its renovation by volunteers is nevertheless important to the local environment and represents an essential part of the cultural heritage and identity of the Municipality Velenje. In the future the Youth Centre Velenje plans to set up a volunteering remembrance park next to the facility. 56

58 3. What criteria were applied to making this judgment? The construction of the facility is not complicated and does not entail special architectural characteristics. In the consciousness of the local population it represents a venue for cultural events and entertainment, but in particular a facility that was built and renewed into its previous form and function with the help of volunteers. 4. Was the building (or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making about its rehabilitation or conversion? Open air cinema was built between 1952 and 1953 by volunteers, as a part of the project "The Remediation of the Sinking Area by Velenje Lakes". The area was managed in a way to ensure development of sport, tourism, cultural activities and entertainment. After a few years the sinking area expanded and several facilities needed to be demolished, thus the activities in this area were put on hold. In the framework of the 50th anniversary of the Municipality Velenje and on the mayor's initiative, the Youth Centre Velenje became actively involved in the revival of the work brigades and volunteering. With volunteering activities and support from the sponsors they managed to revive a once culturally important venue, that is also nowadays devoted to sport and culture. 5. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? 57

59 The basis of the Velenje city master plan, which has partially been maintained until today, ensured a balanced and functional development of all city areas. The project of open air cinema renovation needs to be considered from a different functional point of view. There are a lot of important cultural as well as sporting events and activities In the Velenje coal mine sinking area. With the renovation of the open air cinema the area enriched its cultural offer, as well as its entertainment activities. 6. Were there attempts to reduced disparities between districts within cities/towns reduced? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged? The basis of the Velenje city master plan, that has partially been maintained until today, ensured a balanced and functional development of all city areas. There are no drastic development disparities among city districts. 7. Other important facts and comments. (e.g. critical review) 58

60 In the cultural context, the renovation of the open air cinema represents an important infrastructural and symbolic asset. Since the cinema opening there were a lot of different events (over 20 projections of art films, 7 concerts, 75 sporting events - ice rink, several NGO social gatherings, a celebration of the Statehood Day...). There are plans to improve the functional and technical set-up of the facility. It is envisaged to set up a volunteering remembrance park next to the facility. The open air cinema is managed by the Regional Multimedia Centre Kunigunda, which is a programme unit of the Youth Centre Velenje. IV. SUPPLEMENT Web: