17arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 234 • 235 Raimondo Mercadante Humanizacija arhitekture Koželjeva urbanistična analiza ljubljanskega Trga revolucije (1973) / Humanizing architecture Janez Koželj’s urban analysis of Trg Revolucije in Ljubljana (1973) Raimondo Mercadante Uvod Trg revolucije: razvoj Ravnikarjevega arhitekturnega projekta (1960–1983) Zgodovina projekta Trga revolucije sledi preobraz- bam arhitekturne vizije Edvarda Ravnikarja (1907– 1993) v obdobju 20 let dela pri projektu ter razvoju s stališča potreb javnega naročnika, ki so zaznamovale prvotno zasnovo modernega monumentalnega trga v Ljubljani. Po drugi svetovni vojni je arhitekt izdelal študijski projekt (1946/1947) za območje Uršulin- skega vrta – bodočega sedeža Trga revolucije –, ka- mor je umestil Prezidij Ljudske skupščine LRS, Nun- ski vrt, ki je leta 1947 prejelo prvo nagrado. Hkrati je delal še na enem projektu, ki je bil leta 1948 nagra- jen z drugo nagrado ex aequo na natečaju Ljudske skupščine Ljudske republike Slovenije v parku Tivoli (Ljudska skupščina LRS, Park Tivoli, 1948). V študij- skem projektu je predvidel mogočen trg, orientiran v smeri sever-jug, na katerem bi bila sedež ljudske skupščine in nova stavba opere (Mihelič 1983, 38; Ivanšek 1995, 64-66). Leta 1957 je Okrajni ljudski odbor v Ljubljani (OLO) razpisal še en natečaj za ure- ditev središča Ljubljane (sl. 1), in sicer za ureditev območja med Kongresnim trgom, Uršulinskim vrtom ter Titovo in Dalmatinovo ulico. Na natečaju je Rav- nikar skupaj z Vladimirjem Bracom Mušičem in To- netom Pibernikom prejel posebno omembo zunaj kategorije za projektno nalogo Hrami. Že v tem pro- jektu je temo obravnaval z vidika oblikovanja mesta, ki se ukvarja s terciarnimi dejavnostmi, brez stano- vanjskih posegov, in upošteval vpliv stolpnic na me- stno silhueto, o kateri je arhitekt v tistih letih razmi- šljal (Mušič 1960; Ravnikar 1960). Njegovi predlogi so se navezovali na poskus, da bi rešili pred ruše- njem Koslerjevo palačo iz 18. stoletja ob Titovi cesti, Introduction. Trg Revolucije: the evolution of the architectural project by Edvard Ravnikar (1960–1983) The history of the project for Trg Revolucije summa- rized the transformations that occurred over the course of twenty years in the architectural vision of Edvard Ravnikar (1907-1993) and, at the same time, the same evolution of the needs of the public client, which marked the original layout of the modern monumental square in Ljubljana. After the Second World War, the architect had drawn up a study pro- ject on his own (1946/1947) for the Ursuline Garden area - the future headquarters of Trg revolucije - where he planned to locate the Presidium of the People’s Assembly of the People’s Republic of Slove- nia, obtaining the first prize in 1947 (Prezidji Ljudske Skupščine LRS, Nunski vrt, 1a. nagrada, 1947). Con- temporaneously, he worked to another entry, awarded with the second prize ex aequo in 1948 in a competition for the People’s Assembly of the Peo- ple’s Republic of Slovenia at the Tivoli Park (Ljudska Skupščina LRS, Tivoli Park, 1948). In the study, he en- visaged the creation of an imposing square oriented in a north-south direction, which would house the seat of the Assembly and a new Opera house (Mihelič 1983, 38; Ivanšek 1995, 64-66). In 1957, the People’s District Council of Ljubljana (Okrajni ljudski odbor, OLO) announced another competition relat- ing to the layout of the center of Ljubljana (fig. 1), for the renewal of the area between Kongresni Trg, the Ursuline Garden and Titova and Dalmatinova streets. On that occasion, Ravnikar, author of the "Hrami" entry, together with Vladimir Braco Mušič and Tone Pibernik, was awarded an out-of-competi- tion redemption. The project already addressed the Povzetek Trg revolucije v Ljubljani je urbanistična mojstrovina Edvarda Ravnikarja (1907–1993) in je rezultat 40 let trajajočega raziskovalnega procesa oblikovanja središča slovenske prestolnice. Janez Koželj (1945–), Ravnikarjev študent na Oddelku za arhitekturo FAGG v Ljubljani, je v svoji eksperimentalni diplomski nalogi predlagal »poskus potrditve osnovne pravice ljudi, da sami določajo okolje, ki jih obdaja, in pri tem razvijajo individualno in kolektivno ustvarjalnost.« Ključne besede Urbanistično oblikovanje, urbanistična analiza, Ljubljana, Edvard Ravnikar, Janez Koželj Abstract Revolution square in Ljubljana (Trg Revolucije) was Edvard Ravnikar’s (1907–1993) urban planning ma- sterpiece, the outcome of a 40-year research process in shaping the centre of the Slovenian capital. In his experimental thesis, Janez Koželj (1945–), Ravnikar’s student at the FAGG Architecture Department in Ljubljana, intended to propose "an attempt to affirm the elementary right of people to determine their own surrounding environment, developing a process of individual and collective creativity". Keywords Town design, urban analysis, Ljubljana, Edvard Ravnikar, Janez Koželj Sl. 1: Projekt Hrami, Edvard Ravnikar, Vladimir Mušič, Tone Pibernik, natečajna naloga iz leta 1957, iz revije Arhitekt, št. 4, 1960. Fig. 1: Project Hrami, Edvard Ravnikar, Vladimir Mušič, Tone Pibernik, 1957 competition entry, from Arhitekt, št. 4, 1960. 1 18 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 234 • 235 tako da bi skozi del palače speljali arkade, kontekst sosednjih stavb pa bi žrtvovali širitvi ceste, ene glav- nih mestnih osi (Mušič 1958; Mušič 2010). Podrob- nejšo rešitev so najprej naročili arhitektoma Borisu Kobetu in Vinku Glanzu, vendar se je mestna uprava nazadnje odločila za Ravnikarjevo rešitev (Kralj 1963, str. 10). Leta 1960 je bil objavljen jugoslovanski nate- čaj za Trg revolucije (sl. 2), na katerem je bil ob sode- lovanju Franca Meznerja izbran Ravnikar. Urbanistič- ni in arhitekturni program, kakor ga je oblikovala re- publiška skupščina, naj bi vključeval trg za množične prireditve v velikosti približno 15.000 kvadratnih metrov, vizualno vstavljen med Grajski hrib in Rožnik (Šlajmer 1960). Na tem prostoru naj bi stala spome- nik revoluciji in kip Borisa Kidriča: tako bi Ljubljana dobila socialistično urbano okolje, primerljivo s tisti- mi, ki so bila značilna za Beograd in Zagreb (sl. 3). Stavbe, predvidene v Ravnikarjevem projektu (sl. 4), so: uradi predsedstva (zahodna stolpnica) in dela- vskih organizacij (vzhodna stolpnica) ter Dom tehni- ke, stavba v obliki paralelepipeda, v kateri naj bi bili Centralna tehniška knjižnica (CTK) in sedež Društva gradbenih inženirjev in tehnikov, podzemni kino, ve- leblagovnica in podzemno parkirišče za 600 vozil (Kralj 1963, 12–13). Druge natečajne rešitve, na pri- mer projekt Antona Bitenca in Jožeta Kregarja, so predlagale eno stolpnico za sedež Centralnega komi- teja Zveze komunistov Slovenije (CK ZKS) in prizma- tično stavbo za Izvršni svet republike (Šlajmer 1960, str. 56). Po pričevanju zgodovinarja Naceta Šumija, kot ga navaja Peter Krečič, naj bi zamisel o stolpnicah dvojčkih (sl. 5) predlagal Boris Kraigher, vodilna osebnost slovenske in jugoslovanske politike, ki je opravljal funkcijo predsednika Izvršnega sveta repu- blike: model, ki bi ga lahko našli v sodobni ameriški arhitekturi (Krečič 1996, 33; Marušič 1982). Zasnovo novega mestnega središča, strukturiranega kot območje za pešce, posejano s trgovinami, kavar- nami in restavracijami, najdemo tudi v natečajnem predlogu iz leta 1963, za ureditev severnega obmo- čja zgodovinskega središča Ljubljane, okolice Prešer- novega trga, v soavtorstvu s Fedjo Koširjem (Vavken, 1963). Šlo je za nadaljevanje predlogov, s katerimi sta eksperimentirala Johannes H. van der Broek in Jakob B. Bakema na območju za pešce Lijnbaan v Rotterdamu (1949–55). Delo je bilo zaupano podjetju Tehnika iz Ljubljane, za reševanje projektnih vprašanj in težav, povezanih z gradbiščem, pa je bil ustanovljen poseben organ – Investicijski zavod za izgradnjo Trga revolucije (IZTR), ki ga je vodil Jurij Jenšterle. Z Ravnikarjem so sodelo- vali še arhitekti Anton Bitenc, Miloš Bonča, Jože Ko- želj, Anton Pibernik, France Rihtar in Vladislav Sedej ter vrsta drugih sodelavcev;1 podjetje naj bi se nasle- dnjih dvajset let ukvarjalo z bolnišnicami, hoteli, bančnimi poslovalnicami, urbanističnimi načrti, tr- govskimi centri in tehničnim svetovanjem po vsej Sloveniji, občasno pa tudi v drugih republikah. Za spomenik revoluciji, delo kiparja Draga Tršarja (sl. 6), so dolgo iskali pravo lokacijo: leta 1963 je bil izveden poskus z maketo v merilu 1 : 1,2 leta 1975 pa je Rav- nikar razvil novoureditev podzemnih prostorov. Najzanimivejši vidik Ravnikarjevega oblikovalskega pri- stopa so nenehne spremembe med delom pri projek- tu, ki so jih narekovale okoliščine izvedbe (sl. 7), spre- membe vključenih institucionalnih akterjev, predvsem pa arhitektova stalna refleksija, ki so jo spodbujala tudi soočanja s študenti in sodelavci. Leta 1962 so odkrili arheološke ostanke rimske Emone, odkritje je sledilo naključnim najdbam izpred dveh desetletij. Ravnikar je odkritje deloma upošteval in fragmente rimskega zidu vključil v vrt na jugozahodni strani Cankarjevega doma, pa tudi v prehodno območje, pridobljeno z Preteklost Sl. 2: Novo središče Ljubljane, iz Tovariš: ilustrirana revija, št. 13, 6. 4. 1963. Sl. 3: Slika makete, ki prikazuje nove stavbe (označene s črkami) ob že obstoječih (številke), iz Tovariš: ilustrirana revija, št. 13, 6. 4. 1963. 1: Narodni muzej 2: Opera 3: Državni zbor 4: Nama 5: Konzorcij (knjigarna) 6: Komunalna banka 7: Uršulinska gimnazija 8: Uršulinska cerkev A: Trg revolucije B: Spomenik revolucije C: Stolpnici D: Kino E: Poslovna stavba F: Dom tehnike (knjižnica) G: Prizidek h gimnaziji Sl. 4: Edvard Ravnikar, perspektiva območja med Maximarketom in načrtovanim Domom tehnike, iz Jurij Jenšterle, Božo Podlogar, Investicijski zavod za izgradnjo Trga revolucije Ljubljana, Ljubljana 1980 [Vir: Archivio Marco Pozzetto, Dipartimento di Architettura dell'Università di Palermo]. Sl. 5: Edvard Ravnikar, Franc Mezner, zmagovalni projekt za natečaj Trg revolucije 1960, maketa, iz revije Arhitekt, št. 4, 1960. Sl. 6: Drago Tršar, Spomenik revolucije (javni razpis 1962) [Foto: Raimondo Mercadante, januar 2020]. Sl. 7: Ureditev Trga revolucije [Vir: arhiv Jurij Kobe]. Sl. 8: Naslovnica revije Arhitektov bilten št. 4, 1972: karikatura, ki ironizira zmanjšanje višine stolpnic. 2 3 4 1 Vsi sodelavci so bili: Mika Berlič, Radko Blažič, Dejan Bleiweis, Judita Černič, Barbara Demšar, Sergej Dolenc, Miroslav France, Damjan Gale, Ana Gospodarič, Vojka Ivanek, Tomo Jurčič, Štefan Kacin, Mirko Kajzelj, Rasto Konič, Fedja Košir, Tine Legat, Črtomir Mihelj, Marija Pipan, Božo Rot, Majda Sevšek, Mitja Simoniti, Bogdan Spindler, Sonja Spindler, Cveta Stepančič, Marijan Uršič in Filip Vraber. Projektanti statike so bili Ervin Prelog, Jože Coren in Ivo Vodopivec, glej: Jurij Jenšterle, Edvard Ravnikar, »Trg revo- lucije, Ljubljana: arhitekti: Edo Ravnikar s sodelavci«, Sinteza 30/32 (1973), 81. O zgodovini in dosežkih IZTR glej tudi Jurij Jen- šterle, Božo Podlogar, Investicijski zavod za izgradnjo Trga revo- lucije Ljubljana: 1960–1980 (Ljubljana: IZTR, 1980). 2 Ljubljanski dnevnik (28. 6. 1963), 4; Osnovni projekt so razvili s pomočjo fotomontaže, datirane 20. 6. 1975, ki jo hrani MAO, arhiv Edvard Ravnikar (ni inventariziran): Predlog dopolnitve obeležja spomenika revolucije, tako da bo bolje in dokončno pripravljeno za družbeno obredje pomembnih dogodkih politič- nega življenja. Ob tem si načrt prizadeva za čimbolj zaključeno podobo zahodne strani Trga revolucije. 19arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 234 • 235 theme from the perspective of creating a tertiary city, excluding residential interventions and consid- ering the effect of the towers on the urban silhou- ette, a subject of reflection for the architect in those years (Mušič 1960; Ravnikar 1960). These proposals were associated with a project to protect the eight- eenth-century Kozler palace on Titova cesta from demolition, adapting a part of it to an arcaded street but sacrificing the context of the adjacent buildings, to favor the widening of the avenue, one of the main axes of the city (Mušič 1958; Mušič 2010). Requests for detailed design proposals were submitted to the architects Boris Kobe and Vinko Glanz, but ultimate- ly the city administration opted for Ravnikar’s work (Kralj 1963, 10). Thus came the Yugoslav tender for Trg Revolucije of 1960 (fig. 2), won by Ravnikar, with the collaboration of Franc Mezner. The urban plan- ning and architectural program, formulated by the Assembly of the Republic, was to include a square for popular events of about 15,000 square meters, visually included between the Castle hill and the Rožnik hill-park (Šlajmer 1960). This space should have housed a monument to the Revolution and a statue of Boris Kidrič: in this way, Ljubljana would have received a socialist urban environment compa- rable to those that now characterized Belgrade and Zagreb (fig. 3). The buildings envisaged in Ravnikar's project (fig. 4) were the offices of the Presidency of the Republic (west tower) and of workers' organiza- tions (east tower), as well as the “Dom tehnike”, a parallelepiped-shaped building, which would house the Central Technical Library (CTK) and the head- quarters of the Society of Engineers and Technicians, an underground cinema, a shopping gallery and an underground parking for 600 vehicles (Kralj 1963, 12-13); other projects proposed in the competition, such as that by Anton Bitenc and Jože Kregar, pro- posed a single tower, as the headquarters of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and a prismatic building as the Executive Council of the Re- public (Šlajmer 1960, 56). According to a testimony by the historian Nace Šumi reported by Peter Krečič, the idea of the twin towers (fig. 5) would have been suggested by Boris Kraigher, a leading figure in Slo- venian and Yugoslav politics, who held the role of president of the Executive Council of the Republic: a model attributable to contemporary American archi- tecture (Krečič 1996, 33; Marušič 1982). The layout of a new city centre structured as a pedes- trian area dotted with shops, cafes and restaurants was also found in the 1963 proposal, formulated with Fedja Košir, for the competition relating to the new layout of the northern area of the historic center of Raimondo Mercadante Ljubljana, around in Prešeren square (Vavken 1963): it was a resumption of solutions experimented by Jo- hannes H. van der Broek and Jakob B. Bakema for the Lijnbaan area in Rotterdam (1949–55). The work was entrusted to the company “Tehnika” of Ljubljana and a special body was set up in charge of resolving the design issues and problems inherent in the construction site, the Investment Consortium for the construction of Trg Revolucije (Investicijski Zavod za izgradnjo Trga Revolucije), led by Jurij Jenšterle, but in association with Ravnikar were also the architects Anton Bitenc, Miloš Bonča, Jože Koželj, Anton Pibernik, France Rihtar and Vladislav Sedej, as well as a host of other collaborators; the consortium would have dealt throughout Slovenia for twenty years but also, occasionally, in other republics with works such as hospitals, hotels, banking offices, ur- ban plans, shopping centres and technical consul- tancy.1 The monument to the Revolution, the work of the sculptor Drago Tršar (fig. 6), was the subject of various searches for an optimal location: in 1963 an experiment was made with a 1/12 scale model, while in 1975 Ravnikar developed a new basement. The most interesting aspect of the design approach, however, was determined by the continuous chang- es in progress, suggested by the circumstances of implementation of the project (fig. 7), by the change of the institutional actors involved but above all by the architect's reflection, also stimulated by the con- frontation with students and collaborators. In 1962, archaeological remains of the ancient Roman Emo- na were found, which followed the discoveries made Fig. 2: The new centre of Ljubljana, from Tovariš: ilustrirana revija, št. 13, 06. 04. 1963 Fig. 3: Picture of a model, showing the new buildings (pointed out with letters) alongside the already existing ones (numbers), from Tovariš: ilustrirana revija, št. 13, 06. 04. 1963. 1: National Museum 2: Opera House 3: National Assembly 4: Nama 5: Konzorcij (bookshop) 6: Komunalna banka 7: Ursuline Gymnasium 8: Church of the Ursulines A: Trg revolucije square B: Monument to the Revolution C: Towers D: Movie theater E: Commercial building F: Dom tehnike (Library) G: Expansion of the gymnasium Fig. 4: Edvard Ravnikar, perspective of the area between the Maximarket and the planned Dom tehnike, from Jurij Jenšterle, Božo Podlogar, Investicijski zavod za izgradnjo Trga revolucije Ljubljana, Ljubljana 1980 [Archivio Marco Pozzetto, Dipartimento di Architettura dell’Università di Palermo]. Fig. 5: Edvard Ravnikar, Franc Mezner, winning design for the 1960 Trg revolucije competition, model, from Arhitekt, št. 4, 1960. Fig. 6: Drago Tršar, Monument to the Revolution (public tender 1962) [Photo by Raimondo Mercadante, January 2020]. Fig. 7: General layout of the Trg revolucije [Archive Jurij Kobe]. Fig. 8: Cover of “Arhitektov bilten” št. 4, 1972: caricature that ironizes the reduction in height of the towers. 5 6 7 8 1 The collaborators were: Mika Berlič, Radko Blažič, Dejan Ble- iweis, Judita Černič, Barbara Demšar, Sergej Dolenc, Miroslav France, Damjan Gale, Ana Gospodarič, Vojka Ivanek, Tomo Jurčič, Štefan Kacin, Mirko Kajzelj, Rasto Konič, Fedja Košir, Tine Legat, Črtomir Mihelj, Marija Pipan, Božo Rot, Majda Se- všek, Mitja Simoniti, Bogdan Spindler, Sonja Spindler, Cveta Stepančič, Marijan Uršič and Filip Vraber. The care of the static aspects was entrusted to Ervin Prelog, Jože Coren and Ivo Vo- dopivec, see: Jurij Jenšterle, Edvard Ravnikar, “Trg revolucije, Ljubljana: arhitekti: Edo Ravnikar s sodelavci”, Sinteza 30/32 (1973), 81. For the history and achievements of the investment consortium, see also: Jurij Jenšterle, Božo Podlogar, Investicij- ski zavod za izgradnjo Trga revolucije Ljubljana: 1960–1980 (Ljubljana: IZTR, 1980). 2 Ljubljanski dnevnik (28 June 1963), 4; the base project was con- ceived with the use of a photomontage, dated 20 .06. 1975, kept at MAO, Arhiv Edvard Ravnikar (not inventoried): Predlog dopolnitve obeležja spomenika Revolucije, tako da bo bolje in dokončno pripravljeno za družbeno obredje ob pomembnih dogodkih političnega življenja. Ob tem si načrt prizadeva za čimbolj zaključeno podobo zahodne strani Trga Revolucije. 20 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 234 • 235 združitvijo objektov uršulinskega samostana, kjer je bil tudi prehod proti Titovi (danes Slovenski) cesti (1975).3 Kljub prezentaciji arheoloških ostankov, ki so sicer omejeni na posamezne fragmente, so se nekateri kriti- ki pritoževali nad uničenjem velikega dela ostankov rimskega emonskega tkiva (Pirkovič - Kocbek 1984). Do večjih sprememb projekta in s tem podobe mestne- ga prostora je prišlo z zmanjševanjem in spremembo programa: višina stolpnic se je zmanjšala z 80 na 60 metrov, z 12 nadstropji ter pritličjem, kletjo in servi- snimi prostori (vzhodna stolpnica je kasneje pridobi- la še štiri nadstropja, zahodna pa še eno na manjšem tlorisu). Do znižanja stolpnic je po eni strani vodila menjava vladnega programa s poslovnim: republi- škega naročnika sta zamenjali Ljubljanska banka (vzhodna stolpnica) in Iskra, podjetje za telefonijo in elektroniko (zahodna stolpnica), po drugi strani pa je bilo znižanju naklonjeno javno in strokovno mnenje. V članku o poteku del v Ljubljanskem dnevniku iz leta 1967 novinar pojasnjuje zmanjšanje višine: »Načrt so spremenili, ker bi 80-metrske stolpnice zakrile značil- no panoramo ljubljanskega gradu.«4 Leta 1972 je Ar- hitektov bilten, ki ga je takrat urejal Marjan Ocvirk, sprožil obsežno razpravo med zgodovinarji, arhitekti, oblikovalci in intelektualci o vprašanjih, ki jih je spro- žila ta namerna »degradacija« Ravnikarjevega pro- jekta (sl. 8). Med njimi so bili kritik Stane Bernik, obli- kovalca Niko Kralj in Saša Mächtig, arhitekt Janez La- jovic, literarni kritik in filozof Dušan Pirjevec, igralec in dramatik Marko Slodnjak, umetnostni zgodovinar Nace Šumi in novinar Peter Žagar, vsi iz Slovenije, ter kritičarka Antoaneta Pasinović iz Zagreba.5 Peter Krečič je nato leta 1975 v kratkem zgodovin- skem pregledu sodobne slovenske arhitekture6 pozi- tivno ocenil znižanje stolpnic. Ob spremembi namembnosti stolpnic, ki je pomenila popolno redefinicijo trga, saj je ta iz institucionalnega prostora postal emblem mesta in njegovih vodilnih podjetij, opazimo tudi metamorfozo arhitekturnega jezika: prvotno predvideni zavesni zid je zamenjala obloga iz granitnih plošč, pritrjena z vidnimi vijaki, ki se navezuje na Semperjev Prinzip der Bekleidung in dunajske mojstrovine Otta Wagnerja. Vplivu dunaj- skega fin de siècla pa se je pridružilo sklicevanje na skandinavsko arhitekturo. V podstavku Iskrine stol- pnice in v volumnu njene vhodne avle (1976) pa za- znamo elegantno dekorativno rabo opeke, izpeljano skoraj do manierizma: ta poseben način uporabe ope- ke je za kar nekaj let pustil svoj pečat v slovenski arhi- tekturi, verjetno pa ima vzor tudi v delih italijanske smeri Neoliberty, ki se je nekaj let prej pojavila v Tori- nu in jo je Ravnikar poznal iz strokovnega tiska. Pomemben vidik uporabe Trga revolucije za prosto- časne dejavnosti pa je pomenila blagovnica Maxi- market (sl. 9), za tisti čas novost. Odprlo jo je podje- tje Agrokombinat Emona (podjetje se je prvotno specializirano za trženje semen in izdelkov za kmetij- stvo), ki je ponudilo zahodno potrošniško blago na 16.000 kvadratnih metrih trgovskega prostora v pe- tih nadstropjih. Maximarket (sl. 10), odprt leta 1968, je bil poleg mariborske blagovnice Kvik ena od naj- boljših trgovin v Jugoslaviji. Zajemal je blagovnico (sl. 11) s prodajalno oblačil, fotografiskega materiala in tehnike ter z različnimi storitvami, pa tudi bogato izbiro gostinskih lokalov: samopostrežno restavraci- jo s 168 sedeži, restavracijo z 80 mizami, okrepčeval- nico s 95 sedeži in med Ljubljančani zelo priljubljeno slaščičarno, katere opremo je v skladu s takrat so- dobnimi estetskimi tokovi načrtoval Ravnikar in je imela obešen strop iz poliestrskih cevi.7 Pri Trgu revolucije gre predvsem za nov način razume- vanja urbanega prostora, ki ga je Ravnikar povezoval z razvojem informacijske tehnologije in novo vlogo arhi- tekta, ki ne snuje več le statičnih okolij, temveč ustvar- ja živahne prostore druženja, kakršni so značilni za so- dobno življenje. Z njimi je prispeval k ustvarjanju ozra- čja Ljubljane, ki jo razume kot politično prestolnico in kot središče na visoki kulturni in gospodarski ravni. »Prav informatika kot kvalitetna dejavnost ima v tem malem urbanizmu in arhitekturi popolno pred- nost pri izboru možnosti s čim večjo raznoličnostjo okolja in diferenciacijo poslovalnic pred strogimi strukturami. To [Trg revolucije] postaja v resnici vsak dan bolj kraj gibanj, svobodnosti, dostopov in Preteklost 3 Na novem Trgu revolucije, kjer so arheologi našli rimsko najd- bišče, kopljejo in preiskujejo še preostali del 19. insule, Lju- bljanski dnevnik (4. 5. 1963, 1); Jaroslav Šašel, Varstvo spome- nikov, letn. 8: (1962), 273–274, 302–303; glej tudi zapis arheo- loga Jožeta Kastelica, strokovnjaka in Ravnikarjevega prijatelja, v F. Achleitner, F. Ivanšek (ur.), Hommage à Edvard Ravnikar: 1907–1993 (Ljubljana: France in Marta Ivanšek), 207–211. 4 »Stolpnica spet v gradnji«, Ljubljanski dnevnik (16. 5. 1967), 1. 5 »Trg revolucije v Ljubljani«, Arhitektov bilten, 4 (1972), 15–16. 6 Peter Krečič, 1945–1975: 30 let slovenske arhitekture, Dnevnik, 13. 5. 1975, p. not num. 7 Lojze Jakopič, »Izpolnitev velikega načrta«, Ljubljanski dnevnik, 6. 3. 1968, p. 5; Peter Krečič, Edvard Ravnikar, arhitekt, urba- nist, oblikovalec, teoretik, op. cit., p. 36. notranjega prelivanjav neštetih različkih, od vstopov, prehodov, podhodov, stopnišč in zaprte podzemne trgovinske galerije v nasprotju s še vedno zelo običaj- nimi nizanji ločenih zgradb v stisnjene bloke, zaradi prilagajanja produkciji in prometu z nujnostjo grde zadnje strani s tehničnim dvoriščem. Že dosedanji program z banko, poslovnimi površinami, trgovina- mi, gostinstvom in posebnimi storitvami vidno obli- kuje zanimivo družbeno sfero, ki ji bo nadaljna gradi- tev Trga revolucije dodala še nove programe, priredi- tvene možnosti v treh dvoranah, povečanje možnosti shajanja, razstave industrijske produkcije in zelo mnogo možnosti za likovne razstave ter vedno več prireditev na prostem, od gledaliških do družbenih vsake vrste. Z vsem tem nastaja na čisto novih teme- ljih tudi podlaga za zelo potrebno višjo raven našega mestnega življenja, kadar ta raste iz okolja.« (Ravnikar 1973, 83) Gradnja Cankarjevega doma je še dodatno obogatila kulturno ponudbo trga. Cankarjev dom je center za kongrese, koncerte in kulturne prireditve s štirimi dvoranami od 200 do 1406 sedežev. Konstrukcijsko gre za izjemno zapleteno stavbo, pri kateri sta bila ve- lik izziv tudi akustika in funkcionalnost. S Cankarjevim domom se je dopolnilo Ravnikarjevo raziskovanje mo- delov skandinavske arhitekture in iskanje sodobnega načina izražanja monumentalnosti (Mušič 1983). 9 10 Sl. 9: Primeri življenja v okolici Trga revolucije v Ljubljani: notranjost blagovnice, kavarna Maximarket in javna prireditev. Iz: Jurij Jenšterle, Božo Podlogar, Investicijski zavod za izgradnjo Trga revolucije Ljubljana, Ljubljana 1980 [Vir: Archivio Marco Pozzetto, Dipartimento di Architettura dell'Università di Palermo]. Sl. 10: Slika blagovnice Maximarket s sodobnim oglaševanjem in označevanjem (1979). Iz: Jurij Jenšterle, Božo Podlogar, Investicijski zavod za izgradnjo Trga revolucije Ljubljana, Ljubljana 1980 [Vir: Archivio Marco Pozzetto, Dipartimento di Architettura dell'Università di Palermo] Sl. 11: Slika (1979), ki prikazuje notranjost nakupovalnega podhoda s kavarnami, trgovinami in potovalno agencijo Globtour. Iz: Jurij Jenšterle, Božo Podlogar, Investicijski zavod za izgradnjo Trga revolucije Ljubljana, Ljubljana 1980 [Vir: Archivio Marco Pozzetto, Dipartimento di Architettura dell'Università di Palermo] 21arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 234 • 235 Raimondo Mercadante fortuitously in the previous two decades: Ravnikar partially took this into account, integrating frag- ments of Roman walls in the garden on the south- western side of the Cankarjev Dom, but also in the graceful passage area obtained from the unification of the structures of the Ursuline convent, where there was also an underpass for Titova cesta (1975).3 Some observers, however, complained of the de- struction of a large part of the traces of the Roman Emona fabric caused by the works for the new com- plex, despite these archaeological references, limit- ed to single points (Pirkovič - Kocbek 1984). A radical change in the projects and in the physiog- nomy of the urban space occurred with the reduc- tion and change of program: the towers were re- duced in height from 80 to 60 m, distributed over 12 elevations plus the ground floor, basements and ser- vice rooms (moreover, the west tower received four further elevations, the east one, obtained on a re- duced volume). On the one hand, the abandonment of the projects for imposing institutional headquar- ters, which would have been replaced as clients by Ljubljanska banka (east tower) and the telephone and electronics company “Iskra” (west tower), on the other the considerations shared with public opinion and the circle of specialists had led to a re- duction in the impact of the towers. For example, the chronicler of the newspaper "Lju- bljanski dnevnik" lent himself to this kind of analysis in an article on the progress of the works in 1967, who stated how the programs had changed "be- cause two 80-meter towers would have concealed the characteristic panorama of the Ljubljana Cas- tle".4 In 1972, “Arhitektov bilten”, still under the di- rection of Marjan Ocvirk, launched an extensive con- sultation among historians, architects, designers and intellectuals on the questions raised by this in- tentional “degrowth” of Ravnikar's project (fig. 8): the names were those of the critic Stane Bernik from Ljubljana and Antoaneta Pasinović from Zagreb, the designers Niko Kralj and Saša Mächtig, the architect Janez Lajovic, the literary critic and philosopher Dušan Pirjevec, the actor and playwright Marko Slodnjak, the art historian Nace Šumi and the jour- nalist Peter Žagar, all from Slovenia.5 Then in 1975, in a brief historical review of contem- porary architecture in Slovenia, Peter Krečič positive- ly evaluated the corrections in height of the towers.6 Alongside the change in destination of the towers, which implied a total redefinition of the square, which from an institutional place became the em- blem of a city and its leading companies, a meta- morphosis of the architectural language was ob- served: from the curtain wall initially envisaged, it passed to a cladding in granite slabs fixed with sup- ports, with a revival of the Prinzip der Bekleidung by Gottfried Semper and the Viennese masterpieces of Otto Wagner. However, this fin de siècle influence was joined by the reference to Scandinavian archi- tecture, in the elegant decorative use of brick, pushed almost to mannerism, evident in the base and in the volume of the entrance hall of the “Iskra” tower (1976): this particular way of using brick left its mark on Slovenian architecture for a few years but was also probably rooted in the reference to the works of the Italian “Neoliberty” trend that arose a few years earlier in Turin, which Ravnikar knew thanks to the circulation of magazines. An important aspect of the use of Trg Revolucije in terms of space for free time was represented by the “Maximarket” shopping center (fig. 9): a new initia- tive for the times, started by the company “Agrokom- binat Emona”, originally specialized in the marketing of seeds and products for agriculture, which for the first time offered Western consumer goods in a com- mercial space of 16,000 square meters on five floors. The “Maximarket” (fig. 10) opened in 1968, repre- senting, together with the “Kvik” department store in Maribor, one of the excellences of the retail trade in Yugoslavia; in addition, however, it offered a com- mercial gallery (fig. 11) with clothing, photography and technology stores and various services, as well as a wide choice of dining places: a self-service with 168 seats, a restaurant with 80 tables, a snack grill with 95 seats and a patisserie much loved by the Lju- bljana people and furnished to a design by Ravnikar himself based on extremely contemporary aesthetic criteria, with a false ceiling in polyester tubes.7 However, Trg Revolucije represented above all a new way of understanding urban space, which Ravnikar linked to the developments of information technolo- gy and to a new role of the architect, no longer just a creator of static environments but of vibrant plac- es of sociality typical of modern life, thus contribut- ing to create the climate of a Ljubljana understood as a political capital and a pole of high cultural and economic level: "It is information technology itself - with high-level activities in an extremely varied environment and with a plurality of branches - that is favoured in this genre of small-scale urban planning, compared to rigid and inflexible structures. In reality [Trg Revolu- cije] is increasingly becoming a dynamic place, of freedom, made of access and crossing within an infi- nite variety of entrances, passages, underpasses, stairs and an underground commercial gallery: the exact opposite of the usual row of buildings sepa- rated, divided into blocks, so as to conform to pro- duction and traffic, which necessarily results in ugly rear facades with service courtyards. The contents of a bank, office areas, shops, restaurants and ser- vices are already taking shape within an interesting social environment, which the new Trg Revolucije complex will implement with ever new elements; through the possibility of organizing events in three auditoriums, which will increase the opportunities for aggregation, with exhibitions of industrial pro- ductions, art exhibitions and even outdoor events, from the theatre to all sorts of social gatherings. All this creates an entirely new basis for the indispensa- ble high cultural standard of our city, which arises from the context" (Ravnikar 1973, 83). The cultural offer of the square was subsequently further enriched with the construction of the Cankar- jev Dom, a centre for congresses, concerts and cul- tural events with four rooms from 200 to 1406 seats, a structure of great complexity and articulated by significant challenges also for the acoustics and the functionality of the spaces, which completed Ravni- kar’s research on the models of Scandinavian archi- tecture and on the formulation of a modern way of the monumental (Mušič 1983). 3 “Na novem Trgu revolucije, kjer so arheologi našli rimsko najd- bišče, preostal kopljejo in preiskujejo še preostali del 19. insu- le”, Ljubljanski dnevnik (04 March 1963, 1); Jaroslav Šašel, Varstvo spomenikov, Letn. 8: (1962), 273–274, 302–303; see the memoirs of the archaeologist Jože Kastelic, expert on the subject and a friend of Ravnikar, in F. Achleitner, F. Ivanšek (eds.), Hommage à Edvard Ravnikar: 1907–1993 (Ljubljana: France and Marta Ivanšek), 207–211. 4 “Stolpnica spet v gradnji”, Ljubljanski dnevnik (16 May 1967), 1. 5 “Trg Revolucije v Ljubljani”, Arhitektov bilten 4 (1972), 15–16. 6 Peter Krečič, 1945–1975: 30 let slovenske arhitekture, Dnevnik, 13. 05. 1975, p. not num. 7 Lojze Jakopič," Izpolnitev velikega načrta", Ljubljanski dnevnik, 06. 03. 1968, p. 5; Peter Krečič, Edvard Ravnikar, arhitekt, urba- nist, oblikovalec, teoretik, op. cit., p. 36 11 Fig. 9: Fig. 9: Examples of the life around the Trg revolucije in Ljubljana: interior of the shopping centre, the Maximarket café and a public event. From: Jurij Jenšterle, Božo Podlogar, Investicijski zavod za izgradnjo Trga revolucije Ljubljana, Ljubljana 1980 [Archivio Marco Pozzetto, Dipartimento di Architettura dell’Università di Palermo]. Fig. 10: Picture of the Maximarket shopping centre showing contemporary advertising and signposting (1979). From: Jurij Jensterle, Božo Podlogar, Investicijski zavod za izgradnjo Trga revolucije Ljubljana, Ljubljana 1980 [Archivio Marco Pozzetto, Dipartimento di Architettura dell’Università di Palermo]. Fig. 11:Picture (1979) showing the inside of the shopping underpass with cafés, various shops and the Globtour travel agency. From: Jurij Jenšterle, Božo Podlogar, Investicijski zavod za izgradnjo Trga revolucije Ljubljana, Ljubljana 1980 [Archivio Marco Pozzetto, Dipartimento di Architettura dell’Università di Palermo]. 22 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 234 • 235 Diplomsko delo Janeza Koželja: polje delovanja in kulturne reference Janez Koželj (sl. 12), rojen leta 1945 v Ljubljani, je diplomiral na FAGG v seminarju prof. Ravnikarja 31. oktobra 1973, z diplomsko nalogo Vrednotenje urba- nega prostora – raziskava novega Trga revolucije (Koželj, 1973). V njej je analiziral vpliv urbanizma in arhitekture novega kompleksa z dvema stolpnicama, blagovnico in pripadajočimi objekti na ljubljansko staro mestno jedro. Koželj je bil močno vpet v politiko, bil je funkcionar Zveze socialistične mladine Jugoslavije (SKOJ – Savez komunističke omladine Jugoslavije) v Beogradu. Nje- gova prva dela so s področja grafike in oblikovanja spomenikov: za ljubljansko galerijo Škuc je oblikoval naslovnice (1972), z oblikovalcem Miljenkom Licu- lom plakate za Ligo študentov (1973), z Miho Keri- nom in Branetom Kregarjem pa idejni projekt za spo- menik Augustu Cesarcu v Zagrebu (1973) (Arhitektu- ra + beseda 1981, 13–19). Diplomsko delo je bilo del novih tem, ki so se jih lo- tevali Ravnikarjevi študentje v okviru seminarja Soba 25. Odlikuje ga obsežno poznavanje sodobne med- narodne literature s področja urbanizma. V tistih le- tih je temo v Sloveniji obvladoval Leonid Lenarčič, ki je leta 1974 objavil rezultate raziskave o percepcij- skih aspektih mestne vizualne oblike in njihovem po- menu v urbanističnem načrtovanju. Lenarčič je di- plomiral v Beogradu in že leta 1960 sodeloval pri načrtovanju Novega Beograda. Svojo raziskavo je opravil med bivanjem v Londonu na šoli za arhitek- turo Architectural Association. S svojim delom je slo- venski javnosti predstavil dosežke do tedaj v Sloveni- ji manj znanih raziskovalcev, kot so James Gibson, Steen Eiler Rasmussen in Françoise Choay (Lenarčič 1974; Pogačnik 1976; Gulič 2011). Koželjevo delo je tako v analizi in predlogih izboljšav, ki so bile sicer implicitno že nakazane v Ravnikarje- vih oblikovalskih rešitvah prejšnjega desetletja, za- vzela novo perspektivo – perspektivo participacije, na podlagi katere arhitektura in urbanizem prispeva- ta k ustvarjanju konteksta za vsakdanje življenje. V uvodu avtor navaja: »Arhitekturo lahko opredelimo kot sistem znakov, ki lahko nastaja in učinkuje le zno- traj posredovalnega procesa, ki je po svoji naravi družben.« (Koželj 1973, 1) Družbeno razsežnost arhitekture in urbanizma je opredelil kot široko in prevladujočo tudi v odnosu do drugih umetnosti, pri čemer je povzel misel Nikolau- sa Pevsnerja v uvodu knjige Oris evropske arhitektu- re: »Stikom s tako imenovanimi lepimi umetnostmi Preteklost se lahko ognemo, ne moremo pa pobegniti pred stavbami in skoraj nezaznavnimi, a predirljivimi vpli- vi njihovega značaja, pa naj bo ta plemenit ali pro- staški, zadržan ali vsiljiv, pristen ali izumetničen.« (Pevsner 1948, 19-20; povzeto po: Koželj 1973, 2) Koželj trdi, da so temeljne značilnosti družbene na- rave arhitekture v povezanosti med obliko in funkci- jo stavb ter urbanizmom, v povezanosti med materi- alom in tehniko, v fizični prisotnosti arhitekture v grajenem prostoru, v tesni povezanosti med željo arhitekta in prevladujočo politično strukturo. Ob spoznanju o očitni heteronomiji arhitekture glede na družbi imanentne družbenoekonomske moči in sile, se je avtor spraševal o izvoru znakov in sporočil, ki jih posreduje Trg revolucije v Ljubljani, o semiotič- ni ustreznosti arhitekture glede na prejemnike po- sredovanega sporočila (meščane in uporabnike pro- storov), spraševal se je, ali je bila izbira znakov in simbolov zaupana izključno arhitektom in urbani- stom: »Kdo oblikuje red in kdo ga uveljavlja? Kdo kontrolira in vrednoti učinke, ki jih ustvarjajo zgrad- be oz. urbanistične ureditve?« (Koželj 1973, 2) Koželj razume možnost participacije kot razsežnost aktivnega ali pasivnega, neposrednega ali posrednega sodelovanja v procesu odločanja, ki je podlaga za obli- kovanje oblike in funkcij urbanega prostora. Ravnikar- jev učenec je zato odkrito kritiziral ostanke hierarhič- nih in totalitarnih odnosov in praks, izhajajočih iz sis- tema samoupravnega soodločanja, v katerem na koncu dejansko niso upoštevali potreb državljanov. S tega vidika participativni mehanizmi samoupravlja- nja, ki so se nekaj let pred tem začeli uveljavljati v ju- goslovanskem sistemu, ne bi prinesli bistvenih učin- kov (Koželj 1973, 3)8. Med najpomembnejšimi zahte- vami za ustreznost urbanističnega ali arhitekturnega projekta naj bi bile zahteve po formalni »RAZLIČNO- STI FORME« in »potreba po SPREMENLJIVOSTI FOR- ME«; raznolikost in členjenost urbanih prostorov predstavlja mnogoterost družbe in različnost odnosov posameznika s skupnostjo. Koželj je kritiziral tudi pri- stope arhitekturne teorije v Jugoslaviji in trdil, da je bila prednost popolnega »delovanja«; da je imelo po- polno »delovanje« posamezne stavbe kot avtono- mnega organizma vedno prednost pred upošteva- njem navezave na kontekst (Koželj 1973, 4). V skladu s to kritiko je avtor zastavil nove cilje urbani- stičnega oblikovanja, na primer: možnost, da se upo- rabniki mesta v grajenem prostoru orientirajo s pomo- čjo simbolov ter vizualnih in kromatičnih referenc; možnost ustvarjanja vizualno-čutnih povezav med človekom in okoljem skozi skupek pozitivnih ali nega- tivnih asociacij, fantazij, spominov in vtisov krajev, ki jih dnevno prečkajo; možnost ustvarjanja raznolikosti in kompleksnosti v urbanem okolju in končno možnost ustvarjanja estetskih elementov, kot so mestna silhue- ta, materiali in kompozicija. Koželj se je skliceval na tri temeljne modele interpretacije urbanega prostora, in sicer na modele Kevina Lyncha, Gordona Cullena in Jane Jacobs (ki jih navaja po nemški izdaji) (Koželj 1973, 7–13; Lynch 1960; Cullen 1961; Jacobs 1961). 8 O razpravi o vlogi samoupravljanja v urbanističnem načrtova- nju in prenovi mestnih središč, ki je v Sloveniji potekala v se- demdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja, glej: Mercadante, R., (2023) »Between Restoration, Urban Renewal, and Revitaliza- tion: Maribor Old Town during the Late Socialist Period (1978¬1990).«, Architectural Histories 11(1). doi: https://doi. org/10.16995/ah.9618 in Mercadante, R., »The rise and fall of Yugoslav urbanism: the Maribor-Jug plan (1973¬1982).« Terri- torio 103, 1¬24. (v tisku). Glej tudi: »Jugoslovanski prostori v Sloveniji«, POGAČNIK A. (1983). Urbanizem Slovenije: Oris ra- zvoja urbanističnega in regionalnega prostorskega načrtova- nja v Sloveniji, Ljubljana, FAGG. Navedenih modelov ne povzemamo, zanimivo pa je, kako je Koželju uspelo učinkovito uporabiti njihove ideje, kolikor je to mogoče v tako specifičnem konte- kstu, kot je urbano okolje glavnega mesta jugoslovan- ske republike, katerega institucionalni in uradni trg je postal središče nedokončanega ameriško navdihnje- nega mesta, ki se ukvarja s terciarnimi dejavnostmi. Tako naj bi orodja za oblikovanje mesta postali ele- menti Lyncheve analize, kot so pot, rob, soseska, voz- lišče in referenca, pa tudi kategorije tukaj in zdaj, kombinacija, projekcija in recesija, dopolnjeni s Culle- novim pojmom zveznega pogleda (serial vision) in s konceptom, ki ga je vpeljala Jane Jacobs, mnoštvom mestnih funkcij. Po Koželjevih besedah je z vsemi temi značilnostmi izražala »potrebo po ustvarjanju ustrezne stopnje raznolikosti, neprevidenosti in spre- menljivosti prostora« (Koželj 1973, 17). Avtor je od Jane Jacobs prevzel zlasti načelo kakovosti urbanih prostorov, za katere je značilna »NAJUGODNEJŠE STOPNJE RAZNOLIKOSTI KORIŠČENJA PROSTORA. Sle- dnja omogoča zadovoljevanje človekovih bivalvi, družbenih interesov in potreb ter ustvarja stalno pri- sotnost ljudi v urbanem prostoru; daje mu življenje in utrip« (ibidem), kar zagotavlja stalno živost. Element participacije je prevzel iz Lyncheve analize, s katero je ta potrdil pomen »kolektivne reprezenta- cije tako za nadzor kakovosti kot tudi za oblikovanje specifičnega urbanega prostora, skladnega z življenj- skim stilom večine uporabnikov in z njihovim svetov- nim nazorom« (Koželj 1973, 18). Kar zadeva sintezo med arhitekturo in urbanizmom ob upoštevanju antropoloških in kulturnih potreb skupnosti, ki naseljuje prostore sodobne arhitekture, se Koželjev pristop približuje raziskavam, s katerimi se je ukvarjal Team X in pa, v Italiji, Giancarlo De Car- lo (Molinari 2017). Nanje se sicer ne sklicuje nepo- sredno v besedilu, se pa nanje sklicuje Koželjeva bi- bliografija. Med navedenimi deli so Researches on the collective form (Raziskave o kolektivni formi) Fu- mihika Makija, Complexity and Ambiguity in Enviro- nmental Design (Kompleksnost in dvoumnost pri oblikovanju prostora) Amosa Rapoporta in Roberta Kantorja in Stadt für Menschen (Mesto za ljudi) Paul- hansa Petersa (Maki 1964; Rapoport & Kantor 1967; Peters 1973). V praktičnem delu naloge je Koželj evo- lucijo urbanističnega projekta trga obravnaval skozi štiri filtre, odnose do prostora: normativnega, aktiv- nega, čutnega in simbolnega (Koželj 1973, 20). Sl. 12: Janez Koželj na posnetku z razstave Slovenska likovna umetnost 1945 ̶ 1978 [Vir: arhiv revije Sinteza, hrani Muzej za arhtiekturo in oblikovanje, Ljubljana]. 12 23arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 234 • 235 Raimondo Mercadante Janez Koželj's thesis: field of action and cultural references Janez Koželj (fig. 12), born in 1945 in Ljubljana, grad- uated from the FAGG at the seminar of prof. Ravni- kar on 31 October 1973 with a thesis entitled Evalu- ation of urban spaces - a research on the new Trg revolucije (Koželj 1973): in the paper, he intended to analyze the impact of urban planning and architec- ture of the new complex with the two towers, the shopping gallery and all related facilities, on the old town of Ljubljana. Strongly involved in politics, Koželj had been an offi- cial of the Yugoslav Youth League (SKOJ - Savez komunističke omladine Jugoslavije) in Belgrade: his first jobs had been in the field of graphics and monu- ment design: he had designed editorial covers for the Škuc gallery of Ljubljana (1972), posters for the Students’ League with designer Miljenko Licul (1973), a project for a monument to August Cesarec in Zagreb, together with Miha Kerin and Brane Kre- gar (1973) (Arhitektura+beseda 1981, 13-19). The thesis was part of the new research undertaken by Ravnikar’s students in the “Soba 25”, but was dis- tinguished by the extensive knowledge of the con- temporary international bibliography on Urban Studies, a topic treated in those years in Slovenia by Leonid Lenarčič, who in 1974 published the results of a research funded by the Research Council of Slove- nia on the perceptive aspects of urban forms in ur- ban planning applications; Lenarčič, who had gradu- ated in Belgrade, having already taken part in the planning of Novi Beograd in 1960, had carried out his research during a stay in London, at the Architec- tural Association School of Architecture. His work had introduced to the Slovenian public the acquisitions of hitherto little-known scholars such as James Gibson, Steen Eiler Rasmussen and Françoise Choay (Lenarčič 1974; Pogačnik 1976; Gulič 2011). Koželj’s research therefore adopted a new perspective in the analysis and in the enhancement proposals, al- beit already implicitly suggested by Ravnikar’s design solutions of the previous decade, that of participa- tion, on the basis of which architecture and urban planning contributed to the creation of a context for daily life. «Architecture - stated the author in the in- troduction - can be defined as a system of signs, which can arise and exert an impact only within a naturally social intermediation process» (Koželj 1973, 1). This social dimension of architecture and urban planning was defined as broad and prevalent, also in relation to the other arts, taking up a thought by Nikolaus Pevsner in the incipit of An Outline of Euro- pean Architecture: « We can avoid intercourse with what people call the Fine Arts, but we cannot escape buildings and the subtle but penetrating effects of their character, noble or mean, restrained or osten- tatious, genuine or meretricious» (Pevsner 1948, 1920; cited in: Koželj 1973, 2). According to Koželj, the fundamental characteristics of the social nature of architecture resided in the link between form and function of buildings and urban plans, in the link be- tween materials and techniques, in the physical presence of the works in the built space, in the close link between the aspirations of the designers and the dominant political structure. Recognizing the evident heteronomy of architecture with respect to the socio-economic powers and forces immanent in society, the author wondered about the origin of the signs and messages transmitted by Revolution Square in Ljubljana, about the semiotic appropriate- ness of architecture with respect to the recipients of the message transmitted (citizens and users of its spaces), wondered if the choice of signs and symbols had been entrusted exclusively to architects and ur- ban planners: «Who configures and establishes the rules? Who does control and evaluate the effects produced by the buildings and/or by the regulatory plan?» (Koželj 1973, 2). For Koželj, the dimension of participation was in terms of the possibility of taking part actively or pas- sively, directly or indirectly in the decision-making process underlying the formulation of forms and functions of urban spaces. For this reason, Ravni- kar’s student openly criticized the residues of hierar- chical and totalitarian attitudes and practices in the public works system, which ended up not really tak- ing into account the needs of citizens. From this point of view, the participatory mechanisms of self- management launched a few years ago in the Yugo- slav system would not have produced significant ef- fects (Koželj 1973, 3)8. Among the most crucial re- quirements for the adequacy of an urban or archi- tectural project must have been that of formal “vari- ety” and “possibility of transformation”: the variety and articulation of urban spaces should have repre- sented the multiplicity of society itself and the differ- ent relationships of individuals with the community. Koželj also criticized the approach of architectural theory in Yugoslavia, arguing that priority was al- ways given to the perfect «functioning» of the single building as an autonomous organism, therefore without considering the relationships with the con- text (Koželj 1973, 4). In the light of these criticisms, the architect set new goals for urban design, such as the possibility for city users to orient themselves within the built space through symbols and visual and chromatic referenc- es; the possibility of creating visual-sensorial links between man and the environment, understood as the set of associations, fantasies and memories, with positive or negative nuances of the places crossed daily; the possibility of creating new variety and com- plexity in the urban environment and finally the crea- tion of aesthetic values, through the research of ele- ments like the study of the urban silhouette, of the materials and of composition. Koželj referred to three fundamental interpretative models of urban space: those of Kevin Lynch, Gordon Cullen and Jane Jacobs, cited in the German Ullstein edition (Koželj 1973, 7–13; Lynch 1960; Cullen 1961; Jacobs 1961). Without wishing to summarize the thought of these authors, it seems useful to observe how Koželj man- aged to effectively apply their message, at least inso- far as this was useful to the peculiarities of such a specific object of study as an urban environment of a capital of the Yugoslav republic which an institutional and official square had become the center of an unre- solved American-inspired tertiary city. The elements of Lynch’s analysis, paths, edges, neighbourhoods, nodes and references, as well as the categories of here and now, combination, projection and reces- sion, Cullen's serial vision and the multiplicity of func- tions suggested by Jane Jacobs for the city were to therefore become tools at the service of design. All these characteristics expressed, according to Koželj, "the need to create an appropriate degree of variety, unpredictability and changeability of the built space" (Koželj 1973, 17). In particular, the author took from Jacobs the principle of the quality of urban spaces characterized by “ a fair degree of variety in use, with the coexistence of housing, social and aggregative interests and needs” (ibidem), guaranteeing constant animation. The element of participation, on the other hand, was identified in Lynch's analyses, who affirmed the val- ue «of collective representations, both for quality control and for the formation of a specific urban space, which is coherent with the ways of life of the majority of users and with their way of seeing the world» (Koželj 1973, 18). In this way, the approach suggested by Koželj ap- proached the research carried out by Team X and, in Italy, by Giancarlo De Carlo regarding a fusion be- tween architecture and urban planning and to the consideration of the anthropological and cultural needs of the communities that would have inhabited the spaces of contemporary architecture (Molinari 2017). A hint in this sense comes from the other texts cited in the bibliography but not within the text, among which were Researches on the collective form by Fumihiko Maki, Complexity and Ambiguity in Environmental Design by Amos Rapoport and Robert Kantor and Stadt für Menschen by Paulhans Peters (Maki 1964; Rapoport & Kantor 1967; Peters 1973). In the implementation part of the disserta- tion, Koželj reconstructed the evolution of the urban project of the square through four different filters linked to the use of its spaces, normative, active, sensorial and symbolic (Koželj 1973, 20). 8 In the debate occurred in Slovenia in the 1970s about the role of the self-management in urban planning and in the renewal of town centers, see: Mercadante, R., (2023) “Between Resto- ration, Urban Renewal, and Revitalization: Maribor Old Town during the Late Socialist Period (1978-1990)”, Architectural Hi- stories 11(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.16995/ah.9618; Merca- dante, R., (in press) The rise and fall of Yugoslav urbanism: the Maribor-Jug plan (1973-1982)”, Territorio 103, 1-24. See also: POGAČNIK A. (1983). Urbanizem Slovenije: Oris razvoja urbani- stičnega in regionalnega prostorskega načrtovanja v Sloveniji, Ljubljana, FAGG. Fig. 12: Fig. 12: Janez Koželj in a shot during the exhibition "Slovenska likovna umetnost 1945-1978" [Vir: Sinteza arhiv, kept by Muzej za arhtiekturo in oblikovanje, Ljubljana]. 24 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 234 • 235 Preteklost Z normativnega vidika je avtor poudaril štiri različne faze oziroma korake: 1946–47 in 1957–58, potem obdobje okrog leta 1960, čas refleksije natečaja, in nazadnje obdobje gradnje, od leta 1961 do 1973. V prvih dveh fazah je bil za območje Uršulinskega vrta, ki je ležal na osi med Glanzevo stavbo skupšči- ne in načrtovano stavbo izvršnega sveta, prevladu- joč institucionalni značaj, s študijami o lokaciji pred- sedstva Ljudske skupščine LRS in nato s predlogom ureditve trga. V tem času je javni naročnik svojo pozornost usmeril predvsem na skladnost trga s spomenikom, ki naj bi stal na njem, in na možnost zbiranja množic do 120.000 ljudi; poleg tega je odo- braval vertikalni poudarek stolpnic v urbanem pro- storu (sl. 13). V obdobju po potrditvi Ravnikarjevega projekta so programska izhodišča sicer ostala ne- spremenjena, prišlo pa je do postopnega prilagaja- nja družbenoekonomski in politični preobrazbi Lju- bljane in Jugoslavije, ki je na eni strani pripeljala do prestrukturiranja prostora v trg za trgovske in stori- tvene dejavnosti, na drugi pa do izgube središčne pozicije trga v mestu zaradi težnje, da se slovenska prestolnica širi proti severu, medtem ko je širjenje v osi vzhod–zahod ostajalo manj pomembno (Koželj 1973, 22). Možnosti dejavne rabe trga je avtor di- plomske naloge raziskoval z metodo opazovanja: odobraval je uporabo Trga revolucije kot zbirališča na poteh univerza–železniška postaja ter Zvezda–Ti- voli, grajal pa je načine dostopa za avtomobile in pešce, predvsem pa rabo osrednjega prostora trga za parkirišče (sl. 14). S svojimi opažanji je vnaprej predvidel možnost zapiranja mestnega središča in ureditev območja za pešce; zamisel pa se je začela uresničevati šele v devetdesetih letih 20. stoletja (Koželj 1973, 23–24; Mercadante 2022). Avtor je opozoril na odsotnost načrtovanja prostora, namenjenega počitku, meditaciji in druženju, ki bi ga bilo mogoče uporabljati tudi brez vnaprej določenih ciljev, povezanih s potrošnjo ali poslom. Konkretni Koželjevi predlogi so ureditev podhoda pod Šubičevo ulico in ureditev teras na stolpnicah, s katerih bi lah- ko uživali v panoramskem pogledu, kar bi bila lahko tudi turistična zanimivost. Še posebej so ga zanimali podhodi, zato se je tej velemestni tipologiji, takrat novi za Ljubljano, posvetil tudi v nadaljnjih raziskavah in predlagal psihološke in vedenjske usmeritve pri njihovem načrtovanju in oblikovanju (Koželj 1976). Percepcijski vidik prikazuje serija fotografskih posnet- kov in diagramov prometnih tokov pešcev (sl. 15), pri- kazal pa je tudi elemente privlačnosti, kot so zavetje pred vremenskimi vplivi, vonjave in potencialno pri- vlačni učinki prostorov (sl. 16–18). Simbolno polje trga, ki ga poudarjata monumentalnost stolpnic in kakovost uporabljenih materialov (sl. 19–22), pa bi bilo po njegovem predlogu treba še bolj poudariti z elementi, kot so oznake in informacije o kulturnih in političnih dogodkih na trgu. Poseben eksperimental- ni del naloge je bil kratek film, zmontiran iz statičnih posnetkov fotoaparata, narejenih vsakih 5 sekund. Z njim je želel zabeležiti oblike aktivnega in družabnega življenja v urbanem okolju. Še bolj dosledno pa jih je zaznal z vprašalnikom, s katerim je preučeval pogo- stost in razloge za obisk Trga revolucije glede na sta- rost, poklic ali stopnjo izobrazbe oziroma socialne kategorije (preglednica 1). Temu so sledile ankete o vrednotenju nove arhitekture (preglednica 2), ki so pokazale, da trg bolje sprejemajo mladi, medtem ko delavci in nižji uradniki ostajajo bolj zadržani (Koželj 1973, 27–36). Sl. 13: Stolpnici Iskre in Ljubljanske banke z Erjavčeve ceste [Foto: Raimondo Mercadante, julij 2015]. Sl. 14: Slika iz časa konec osemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja, na kateri je še vedno vidna uporaba trga kot parkirišča. [Foto: Miran Kambič, vir: zasebna zbirka Andrej Hrausky]. Sl. 15: Janez Koželj: opazovanje glavnih smeri gibanja pešcev. Sl. 16: Zamiki nivojev. Sl. 17: Območja za prosti čas. Sl. 18: M = mirna območja. H = hrupna območja; neprijetne vonjave (temen trikotnik); prijetne vonjave (bel trikotnik). 1514 13 25arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 234 • 235 Raimondo Mercadante From a regulatory point of view, the author empha- sized four different phases or steps: 1946-47 and 1957-58, the years around 1960 with the reflection on the competition and finally the period of construc- tion, from 1961 to 1973. In the first two phases with the studies on the location of the Presidium of the LRS Popular Assembly and then with the proposal for a variant of the square area, the institutional charac- ter of the Ursuline Garden area was a dominant fea- ture, with an axis between the Assembly Building planned by Vinko Glanz and the planned Executive Council building. In the competition phase, the public contractors focused their attention on the conformity of the square project with respect to the monument to be placed there and on the creation of moments of collective gathering of up to 120,000 people; moreo- ver, he saw favourably the vertical appeal of the tow- ers (fig. 13) in relation to the urban shape. In the pe- riod following the approval of Ravnikar’s project, while the programmatic bases remained unchanged, there had been a progressive adaptation to the so- cio-economic and political transformations of the city of Ljubljana and Yugoslavia, which had led on the one hand to its restructuring as a commercial and tertiary type square, on the other hand to a loss of centrality, due to the continuous expansive trend of the Slove- nian capital along the northern axis, with respect to which the east-west axis was marginal (Koželj 1973, 22). The possibilities of active use of the square were investigated on the basis of observation and the drafting of notes: the author of the thesis appreciat- ed the character of a meeting place of Trg Revolucije as a point on the director University - railway station and Zvezda - Tivoli park but criticized the methods of access for cars and pedestrians but above all the use of the central area as a parking lot (fig. 14), anticipat- ing the trend towards pedestrianization of the centre realized in Ljubljana only starting from the 1990s (Koželj 1973, 23-24; Mercadante 2022). The author complained about the absence of a pro- ject for spaces intended for rest, meditation, sociali- ty detached from a precise reason related to con- sumption or business. As concrete interventions, Koželj suggested the creation of an underpass in Šubičeva ulica and terraces to enjoy the panoramic view from the towers, as a reason for tourist inter- est. He was particularly interested in the theme of the underpasses and devoted further research to this metropolitan typology, apparently new to Lju- bljana, suggesting psychological and behavioural directions in their planning and design (Koželj 1976). The perceptual aspect was illustrated by series of pho- tographic shots and diagrams of pedestrian traffic flows (fig. 15), but elements of attraction were also taken into consideration such as shelter from the ele- ments, smells and the potentially attractive effects of the spaces (figs. 16-18). The symbolic field of the square, present in the monumentality of the towers and in the quality of the materials used (figs. 19-22), should have been emphasized by elements such as the signage and information on the cultural and po- litical events referring to it. A particularly experimen- tal trait of Koželj’s research was the creation of a short film through a static shot with progress every five sec- onds: the goal was to resume the forms of active and social life in urban environments. These goals were pursued even more rigorously through a survey ob- tained by means of a questionnaire, which investigat- ed age, social categories, reasons for frequenting Trg revolucije, frequency of visits based on profession or level of education (table 1). These data were followed by surveys on the appreciation of the new architec- ture (table 2), which demonstrated how the square was more accepted among young people, while it left workers and exponents of the lower white-collar class sceptical (Koželj 1973, 27–36). Similarly, to the positions on the recovery of city cen- tres and their ancient nucleus expressed a few years later in Slovenia by the Marxist-oriented urban plan- ner Rudi Jakhel (Jakhel 1978), Koželj claimed in con- clusion for the spaces of the new Ljubljana square, as for the to be used for pedestrian use, a character emancipated from mere consumerism: Instead of a centre for moral, social, cultural and as- sociative activities, the shopping centre with the shopping arcade, which leaves no room for competi- tion, has become a space with the atmosphere of shopping fever […] Only the beat of the operation of shops and clubs allows and directs life in the square. If Trg revolucije is destined to become a strategic point from which to draw impulses for the new forms and functions of the city, it will first of all be necessary to remove the monofunctionality of its program and adapt it to the real needs of city life (Koželj 1973, 39). Conclusions From this point of view, by way of conclusion, Janez Koželj’s research paved the way for many of the crit- ical arguments against capitalist development which characterized the peculiar socio-economic frame of Yugoslav self-managed socialism, which were fur- ther developed on the most intense issues of “AB” between 1973 and 1980. Furthermore, it was the first step of the life-long campaign pursued by the author as a university professor of city architecture and as a politician and city administrator in the Mu- nicipality of Ljubljana (Koželj 2018, 36). 16 1817 Fig. 13: The Iskra and Ljubljanska banka towers seen from Erjavčeva Street [Photo by Raimondo Mercadante, July 2015] Fig. 14: Miran Kambič, picture from the end of 1980s, still showing the use of the square as a parking lot. [Private collection Andrej Hrausky]. Fig. 15: Janez Koželj: observation of the main directions of pedestrian movement. Fig. 16: Shifts of levels. Fig. 17: Leisure areas Fig. 18: M = quiet areas. H = noisy areas; nasty smells (dark triangle); good smells (white triangle). 26 arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 234 • 235 motivi obiska in aktivnosti uporabnikov / Zaposleni / Gospodinje/ Srednješolci / Študentje / Srednja izobr. uslužbenci / Višja in visoka izobrazba / Upokojenci / Reasons for the attendance of the place Workers Housewives High schoolers University students Middle-educated workers Higher education users Retirees ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Zanimiva pešpot / Interesting route 31 % 12 % 45 % 40 % 21 % 23 % 30 % Sedenje / Place for a stopover 0 % 25 % 11 % 20 % 8 % 19 % 0 % Družabne aktivnosti, zmenki, srečanja / Social activities: dates, meetings 19 % 0 % 22 % 13 % 5 % 0 % 0 % Nakup in opravki / Shopping 38 % 63 % 22 % 20 % 50 % 35 % 40 % Služba / Workplace 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 2 % 15 % 0 % Prehrana / Food and beverage 0 % 0 % 0 % 7 % 10 % 0 % 0 % Radovednost in privlačnost / Curiosities and opportunities 12 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 2 % 4 % 30 % Parkiranje / Parking 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 2 % 4 % 0 % Preglednica 1: Razlogi za obisk trga (Koželj 1973, 29) / Table 1: Reasons for the attendance of the place (Koželj 1973, 29) Vrednotenje arhitekturnega kompleksa / Zaposleni / Gospodinje/ Srednješolci / Študentje / Srednja izobr. uslužbenci / Višja in visoka izobrazba / Upokojenci / Appreciation of the architectural complex Workers Housewives High schoolers University students Middle-educated workers Higher education users Retirees ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Izgled mestnega centra / City centre apperance 10 % 0 % 13 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 16 % Celovitost viz. strukture, skadnost arh. celote, sožitje staro-novo/ Overall effect of the structures, adequacy of the architecture, new/old coexistence 10 % 0 % 29 % 22 % 24 % 42 % 0 % Koncentracija življenja in programa / Density of animation and programme 10 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 14 % 0 % 0 % Obseg in prepletanje programa / Breadth and interest of the programme 40 % 25 % 29 % 22 % 19 % 0 % 16 % Zanimiva in urejena pešpot / Interesting and well-kept pedestrian path 30 % 25 % 0 % 11 % 5 % 0 % 16 % Arhitekturni in prostorskielementi: klopi, ograje, tlaki, ... / 0 % 50 % 29 % 45 % 38 % 58 % 52 % Architectural and urban elements: benches, fences, flooring … Preglednica 2: Ocena arhitekturnega kompleksa (Koželj 1973, 33). / Table 2: Appreciation of the architectural complex (Koželj 1973, 33) Preteklost Podobno, kot je nekaj let kasneje marksistično usmerje- ni urbanist Rudi Jakhel (Jakhel 1978) izrazil stališče o oživitvi mestnih središč in njihovih starih jeder v Sloveni- ji, je Koželj v zaključku pozval, naj bo trg namenjeni pe- šcem in naj kot prostor presega zgolj potrošniško vlogo: »Če naj trg postane strateška točka, iz katere bodo izhajali impulzi za novo obliko in funkcijo mesta, bi bilo treba v prvi vrsti razbiti eno-namembnost njegova programa in ga ustrezno prilagoditi resničnim potre- bam mestnega življenja. Omogočati bi moral različne oblike aktivnosti, ki ležijo onstran potrošnje: družbe- no-politični shodi, gledališča na prostem, letni kino, glasbeno zabavne prireditve, koncerti beat ansambla, ex-tempore, razstava in prodaja umetnin, otroška igra, tedenski sejmi, itd. V prilagajanju prostora zna- čilnosti in obsegu programa se kažejo za najbolj upo- rabne in učinkovite številne izkušnje koriščenja osre- dnje ploščadi in okoliških prostorov trga »na čas«. Proces nadaljnjega razvoja in izgradnje ožjega me- stnega središča in v njem Trg revolucije še traja in od- staja odprt najrazličnejšim vplivom. Pokazal bo, ali graditelji in mesto izkoristili opisane priložnosti.« (Koželj 1973, 39) Sklep Poudariti je treba, da je diplomsko delo Janeza Kože- lja tlakovalo pot številnim kritičnim argumentom proti kapitalističnemu razvoju, ki je zaznamoval spe- cifičen družbenoekonomski okvir jugoslovanskega samoupravnega socializma. Ti so našli svoj odmev v vprašanjih, s katerimi se je intenzivno ukvarjala revija ab med letoma 1973 in 1980. Poleg tega pa je bilo diplomsko delo za Koželja prvi korak vseživljenjskega poslanstva, ki mu je sledil kot univerzitetni pedagog, profesor urbanizma in kot politik, mestni uradnik in podžupan v Mestni občini Ljubljana (Koželj 2018, 36). prevod: Kristina Dešman Bibliografija / Bibliography Monografije / Monographies ACHLEITNER F., IVANŠEK F. (1995), Hommage à Edvard Ravni- kar: 1907¬1993, Ljubljana: France in Marta Ivanšek. CULLEN, G. (1961). Townscape, London: The Architectural Press. JACOBS, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York: Vintage Books, a Division of Random House. KOŽELJ, J. (1973). Vrednotenje urbanega prostora – raziskava novega Trga revolucije, Ljubljana: FAGG (31. oktober 1973). KREČIČ, P. (1996). Edvard Ravnikar, arhitekt, urbanist, obliko- valec, teoretik, univerzitetni učitelj in publicist, Ljubljana: Arhitek- turni muzej. LENARČIČ, L. (1974). Percepcijski aspekti mestne vizualne obli- ke in njih pomen v urbanističnem načrtovanju, Ljubljana: UISRS. LYNCH, K. (1960). The Image of the City, Cambridge, Massac- husetts in London, Anglija, MIT Press. MAKI, F. (1964). Investigations in collective form, St. louis: School of Architecture: Washington University. MERCADANTE, R. (2022) Architettura come architettura. Criti- ca, teoria, progetti e opere da Edvard Ravnikar al gruppo di "AB". Slovenia 1970–1990, PhD thesis, Turin: Politecnico di Torino. MIHELIČ, B. (1983). Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane, Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete: Partizanska knjiga. PETERS, P. (1973). Ein Plädoyer für das Leben in der Stadt, München: Callwey Verlag. PEVSNER, N. (1948). An Outline of European Architecture, Lon- don: John Murray. Poglavja / Book chapters MOLINARI, L. (2017). Theories and practices of re-humanizing Postwar Italian architecture: Ernesto Nathan Rogers and Giancarlo De Carlo, v Á. Moravánszky, J. Hopfengärtner (eds.), Re-humanizing architecture. New forms of community, 1950–1970, Basel: Birkhäu- ser, 229-241. MUŠIČ, V. B. (2010) »Še o poetiki razuma. Nova tveganja s spo- mini na učitelja in čas«. V Anja Planišček (ur.), Ali mora biti ta hiša ravno taka?, Ljubljana: Fakulteta za arhitekturo, 24–31. Zborniki / Edited volumes KOŽELJ J., BLAGANJE D., CAJNKO M. et. al., Arhitektura+beseda (1981). Arhitektura+beseda: Razstava delovanja skupine, zbrane ob časopisu ab, Arhitektovem biltenu, glasilu društva arhitektov Lju- bljane – Ljubljana, Razstavišče Riharda Jakopiča, junij 1981. Enciklopedije / Encyclopedias MARUŠIČ, B. (1982). »Kraigher, Boris (1914–1967) «, v Primor- ski slovenski biografski leksikon (Vol. 2: Kacin - Pirjevec, sez. 8: Kacin - Križnar, 169). Članki / Journal articles GULIČ, P. (2011). »In memoriam. Arh. Leonid Lenarčič, AA dipl. MA (24. julij 1932–31. marec 2011)«, Urbani izziv. Posebna izdaja, 3. i Avtor uporablja imena ulic in trgov, ki so bili v uporabi v času nastanka del: Trg revolucije je danes Trg republike, Titova cesta je danes Slovenska cesta (op. ur.). 27arhitektov bilten • architect's bulletin • 234 • 235 Raimondo Mercadante Avtor: Raimondo Mercadante, Politehniška univerza v Torinu (Politecnico di Torino) raimondo.mercadante@polito.it Doktoriral je iz umetnostne zgodovine (Università degli Studi di Palermo, 2008) in na programu Archit- tetura. Storia E Progetto (Politecnico di Torino, 2022, mentorji: dr. Alessandro De Magistris, Àkos Mo- ravánszky, Michele Caja). Od leta 2010 predava na univerzah Paris IV Sorbonne, Politecnico di Milano in Politecnico di Torino. Objavil je več monografij in člankov v recenziranih revijah. V zadnjem desetletju je preučeval predstav- nike nemške arhitekturne kritike iz obdobja drugega in tretjega desetletja 20. stoletja (ob tem je uredil italijansko izdajo Die Architektur der Großstadt Karla Schefflerja in dve monografiji o delih Walterja Curta Behrendta). V zadnjem obdobju se ukvarja z izseki arhitekturne in urbanistične zgodovine Slove- nije skozi optiko vpetosti v jugoslovanski in srednjeevropski okvir. V letu 2024 bo pri Leuven University Press izšla njegova monografija History, ideologies, conflicts: Slove- nian architecture in the late Twentieth century, from Edvard Ravnikar to the ‘AB’ group, 1970–1990. Sodeluje s katedro za arhitekturno zgodovino in teorijo na Politehniški univerzi v Milanu (predstojnik prof. Alessandro De Magistris) ter se udeležuje mednarodnih kongresov (EAHN, EAUH, AISU) in konferenc. Je član več raziskovalnih skupin in združenj, med drugim mreže GUDesign, raziskovalne skupine, ki se ukvarja z zgodovino urbanizma in izvaja mednarodne interdisciplinarne raziskave. JAKHEL, R. (1978). »O problemih prenove mestnih centrov. Eko- nomski, ideološki in institucionalni aspekti«, Sinteza 41/42, 77–81. KOŽELJ, J. (1976) »Ljubljanski podhodi«, Arhitektov bilten 30/31, 19–20. KOŽELJ, J. (2018). »Razlagati svet in ga tudi spreminjati« (Inter- vju z Janezom Koželjem, Robert Potokar], Piranesi 40 (26), 32–63. KRALJ, D. (1963). »Novo središče Ljubljane«, Tovariš: ilustrira- na revija 13 (6. 4. 1963), 10–15. (1983), 20–23. MUŠIČ, V. B. (1958), »Smrtna obsodba plemenite hiše«, Arhi- tekt 23, 7–12. MUŠIČ, V. B. (1960). »Med natečajema za urbanistično uredi- tev središča Ljubljane«, Arhitekt 4, 49–53. PIRKOVIČ - KOCBEK J. (1984). »Danes, nekoč in Trg revolucije«, Sinteza 65/68 (1984), 155–158. POGAČNIK, A. (1976). »Percepcijski aspekti mestne vizualne obli- ke in njih pomen v urbanističnem načrtovanju«, Sinteza 36/37, 140. RAPOPORT A., KANTOR, R. E. (1967). »Complexity and Ambi- guity in Environmental Design«, Journal of the American Institute of Planners 33(4), 210–221. RAVNIKAR, E. (1960). »Primerjalna študija silhuete Ljubljane v letih 1850, 1940 in 1965« Arhitekt 6, 42–43. RAVNIKAR, E. (1973). »Trg revolucije, Ljubljana: arhitekti: Edo Ravnikar s sodelavci«, Sinteza 30/32, 81–93. ŠLAJMER, M. (1960). »Natečaj za ureditev Trga revolucije v Lju- bljani 1960«, Arhitekt 4, 54–58. VAVKEN, V. (1964). »Natečaj za severni del središča Ljubljane 1963«, Sinteza 1, 16–26. Intervjuji / Interviews KOŽELJ, J. (2020 in 2022), Intervjuji z R. Mercadantejem (16. 1. 2020, Fakulteta za arhitekturo, in 28. 1. 2022, Rotovž, Ljubljana). Sl. 19: Prehod med Maximarketom in Ljubljansko banko [Foto: Raimondo Mercadante, januar 2023]. Sl. 20: Fasada stavbe Ljubljanske banke, obložena z granitnimi ploščami [Foto: Raimondo Mercadante, januar 2023]. Sl. 21: Manjši trg s stavbo Gospodarske banke (danes SID banka, op. prev.) [Foto: Raimondo Mercadante, januar 2023]. Sl. 22: Zamik nadstropij med teraso slaščičarne Maximarket in nakupovalno pasažo spodaj [Foto: Raimondo Mercadante, januar 2023]. Sl. 23: KOŽELJ, J. (1973). Vrednotenje urbanega prostora – raziskava novega Trga revolucije, FAGG Ljubljana, 31. 10. 1973. Fig. 19: Passage between Maximarket and Ljubljanska banka headquarters [Photo by Raimondo Mercadante, January 2023]. Fig. 20: Particular of the cladding with granite slabs of the Ljubljanska Banka building [Photo by Raimondo Mercadante, January 2023] Fig. 21: Small square with the Gospodarska banka building [Photo by Raimondo Mercadante, January 2023]. Fig. 22: Shift of levels between the Maximarket pastry shop terrace and the underlying shopping arcade [Photo by Raimondo Mercadante, January 2023]. Fig. 23: KOŽELJ, J. (1973). Vrednotenje urbanega prostora – raziskava novega Trga revolucije, FAGG Ljubljana, 31. 10. 1973. 19 20 21 2223 Author: Raimondo Mercadante, Politecnico di Torino raimondo.mercadante@polito.it PhD in Art History (University of Palermo, 2008) and in Architecture. History and Project (Turin Polyte- chnic, 2022, advisors: Prof. Alessandro De Magistris, Àkos Moravánszky, Michele Caja), he has lectured since 2010 in Paris IV Sorbonne, Milan and Turin Polytechnic. He has published several monographs and papers in peer-reviewed journals. In the last decade, he has studied some figures of German architectural criticism of the 1910s-1920s (the Italian edition of Die Architektur der Großstadt by Karl Scheffler; two monographs on the works of Walter Curt Behrendt). The most recent period has been focused on episodes of the architectural and urban history in Slovenia, seen through its Yugoslav and Central European framework. His forthcoming work is the book "History, ideologies, conflicts: Slovenian architecture in the late Twen- tieth century from Edvard Ravnikar to the ‘AB’ group 1970-1990", Leuven University Press, 2024. He collaborates with the chair of Architectural History and Theory in Milan Polytechnic (Prof. De Magi- stris) and regularly takes part in International Congresses (EAHN, EAUH, AISU) and invited conferences. He is member of several groups and research societies, including GUDesign network, a researchers gro- up that promotes awareness of the current contribution of Urban Design History through transnational and interdisciplinary research.