Grafični tečaj, 1971; Božo Podlogar
Grafični tečaj, 1971, Jovo Grobovšek
O vzrokih migotanja listov trepetlike
Bogdan Reichenberg
K pojavu in delovanju Sobe 25, razvpitega Ravnikarjevega seminarja v letih 1971-72 na ljubljanski šoli za arhitekturo, lahko pristopamo na več načinov. Prvi je objektiven, z opisovanjem okoliščin, dogodkov, dejstev in časovnega konteksta in vodi k splošnim ugotovitvam, pomembnim za umeščanje fenomena v strokovno-časovni lok šole. Drugi je subjektiven. Nekateri, ki smo imeli možnost biti zraven, lahko gledamo na življenje in delo Sobe 25 osebno, spomine in izkustva motrimo iz časovne distance, kar pomeni, da lahko nekatere stvari, povezane z njo, vidimo bolje, spet druge se nam od-mikajo v prostore pozabe. Za dobro vrednotenje sta potrebna oba pogleda: če je prvi
osredotočen, analitičen in vodi v logično zaključevanje, je drugi razpršen, periferen, povezan z osebnimi izkušnjami in vodi v občutkovno dojemanje. Ker je bilo v povezavi s prvim povedanega že mnogo (Jurij Kobe), dodajam kamenčke v mozaiku celote v drugem, osebnem vidiku.
Soba 25
Odločitev za Ravnikarjev seminar v četrtem letniku šudija, ko je bila šola izrazito bipolarna, je bila samodejna. Na eni strani pragmatični Mihevc s svojimi asistenti in na drugi kritični Ravnikar, ki je svoje odslovil. V dilemi med recepti ponujenih rešitev in večnim dvomom, med načelno varnostjo in tveganjem, med afirmacijo in kritično dis-tanco, se nas je mnogo odločilo za slednje. Soba 25, v kateri smo posedli za risalnimi mizami, je bila velika predavalnica v dru-
gem nadstropju šole, v predelu, ki ga je zasedal Ravnikar. Seveda pa to ni bil edini prostor, zaseden z njegovimi študenti. Na vrhu, na podstrešju, so bila nebesa, tu so sedeli tisti, ki so bili povabljeni v delo na projektih. Bili so povsem samosvoja kasta, v neprestanem stiku s profesorjem in počasi so se navzemali njegovih navad. Spoznal si jih že na stopnišču, ravna pot, pogled v glavnem usmerjen v tla. Potem sta bila tu še dva majhna kabineta nasproti Sobe 25, v njih so se znašli oni, ki so bili povabljeni na bližnje delo s profesorjem in kot pomoč pri študijskem procesu. Vsem smo neznansko zavidali, Ravnikar je bil ikona, namenjena nekim drugim ljudem, in sami smo bili spočetka, kljub velikim pričakovanjem, bolj na margini njegove pozornosti. To pa seveda ne pomeni, da nas je ignoriral. Nasprotno, s posebnimi poudarki v učnem procesu smo bili deležni neke pozornosti. Že takoj v
začetku je organiziral dobro obiskan grafični tečaj, kjer smo v proučevanju kaligrafije in tipografije, dobili vpoglede v grafično oblikovanje in likovno kompozicijo. Tečaj je bil uvod v svobodno katedro, serijo seminarjev z vabljenimi zunanjimi predavatelji, sociologi, filozofi, pa tudi nekaterimi uspešnimi arhitekti. Dobro pripravljene ekskurzije (Budimpešta, Dunaj, Praga) so razkrivale Ravnikarjev odnos do Fabianija, Plečnika in Wagnerja. Posebnost pa so bila predavanja. Bilo jih je malo, vendar so bila odlično pripravljena in povsem zasedena. Teme so bile njegov izbor, običajno brez neposredne povezave z delom v seminarju in so bile, kot gledam danes, povsem povezane z njegovim pogledom na razvojni lok. Razlage različnih stališč, primerjave in analize; o mnogočem smo, vsaj jaz, slišali prvič, v povezavah in predstavah, ki so iritirale občutja in si tako iskale udobno mesto v spominu. S prikazom
Urbanistični tečaj, 1971-72
On Reasons for Flickering of Aspen Leaves
Bogdan Reichenberg
There are many ways in which one can approach the phenomenon and activities of Room 25, the notorious Professor Ravnikar's seminar in the years 1971-72 at School of Architecture in Ljubljana. The first one is objective; it describes the circumstances, events, facts and time contexts, and leads to general conclusions which are important for placing the phenomenon in the professional-time line of the School. The other one is subjective. Some of us, who had a chance to participate, can view the life and work of Room 25 from a personal point of view; we can observe memories and experiences with a time distance, meaning that some of the related facts can be seen more clearly, while
others retreat into oblivion. Both points of view are necessary for a good evaluation-if the first one is focused, analytical and leads to logical conclusions, the other one is dispersed, peripheral, linked to personal experiences and leads towards emotional perception. /Is many things have already been said about the first (Jurij Kobe), I'll add some stones to the mosaic of the whole to the other, more personal view.
Room 25
The decision for Professor Ravnikar's seminar in the fourth year of my studies, when the school was distinctly bi-polar, was automatic. On one side there was the pragmatic approach of Professor Edo Mihevc and his assistants, and on the other side there was the critical approach of Professor Ravnikar, who dismissed his assistants. In
the dilemma between the offered solutions and eternal doubt, between safety and risk, between affirmation and critical distance, many of us chose the latter. Room 25 was a large lecture room on the second floor of the school, with students behind drafting boards, in the area of the school building appointed to Ravnikar. Of course, this was not the room where his students worked. At the top, in the attic, were the heavens, with those students who were invited to help Professor with his own projects. They were a unique caste, they were in constant contact with the Professor and they slowly adopted his habits. You could recognize them on the staircase, walking a straight path with eyes mainly focused on the floor. Then there were two small cabinets, opposite Room 25, occupied by the students who were invited to work more closely with the Professor and help with the study process. We envied all
of them, as Professor Ravnikar was an icon, an icon meant for others not for us, and we were initially, despite great expectations, on the margin of his attention. This doesn't mean that he ignored us. On the contrary, we did get some attention through special emphasis in the learning process. Right at the beginning he organised a well attended graphic course, where we studied calligraphy and typography and got insight into graphic design and visual composition. This course served as an introduction to Open chair, a series of seminars with invited external lecturers, sociologists, philosophers and some successful architects. Well organized excursions (Budapest, Vienna, and Prague) revealed Professor Ravnikar's attitude towards Fabiani, Plečnik and Wagner. Professor's lectures were really extraordinary. There were few of them, but he was always well prepared and fully occupied. The lecture
Bogdan Reichenberg: Univerza Maribor, 1973
in analizo Wagnerjevih stikov in vplivov je na primer dokazoval odvisnost Plečnika od teorij Johna Ruskina in Williama Morrisa (Arts and Crafts), kjer imata umetnost in lepota predvsem družbeno poslanstvo, utemeljeval moderno kot nadaljevanje klasičnih principov, izpostavljal urejanje mestnih trgov skozi dela Camilla Sitteja in na primeru vhoda v preprosto vrstno hišo razlagal razkošni mini-malizem Heinricha Tessenowa. Generacija, ki so jo mnogi zaradi burnih dogodkov nedavno minule študentske revolucije, zasedbe fakultet, razgrajanja in ekscesov imenovali anarhistična, je z nabito polnim prostorom predavalnice venomer dokazovala, da ji gre predvsem za arhitekturo.
Kabinet
Delo v seminarju je potekalo skozi seminarske naloge. Teme prvih je generiral Peter Gabrijelčič, v tem času njegov neformalni edini asistent. Kasneje so s profesorjevim soglasjem nastale še druge, alternativne. O gramoznicah, črnih gradnjah, pnevmatski arhitekturi, podstrešjih, stanovanjski gradnji, v katerih je Ravnikar na sebi lasten način spodbujal razmišljanja z neprestanim iritiranjem in postavljanjem novih vprašanj. Kmalu sem se, na osnovi ene teh nalog, znašel v privilegiranem položaju. Povabili so me v kabinet, kjer je že sedel Peter Gabrijelčič, in tam sem ostal do konca študija. Če je bila risalnica mesto, kamor je Ravnikar zavil bolj poredkoma, se je v kabinetih pojavljal vsak dan, dopoldne in popoldne, njegov celodnevni urnik je bil v celoti namenjen študijskemu in strokovnemu delu. Napredovanja v nalogah pa zato niso
bila nič lažja, njegove intervence nikoli niso bile sugeriranje rešitev, temveč odpiranje polja za analitično razmišljanje o problemih in pripravo konceptualnih izhodišč. »Ne, ne, arhitekt mora poznati filozofijo, premalo berete«, je dejal neko dopoldne ob moji vneti razlagi seminarske naloge. Ko je nato beseda nanesla na Artuh Schopenhauerja (Svet kot volja in predstava), sem se znašel na terenu, ki me je zanimal in sem ga do neke površne mere poznal. Predvsem Shopehauerjevo iracionalno in ateistično samoto, prebiral sem o njegovih nasprotjih s Heglom, vplivih na Nietzscheja in Wittgensteina, zaradi radovednosti sodeloval v filozofskih krožkih Vekoslava Grmiča v Mariboru. V debati, ko sem izpostavljal drugačna, bolj metafizična izhodišča, temelječa na filozofski antropologiji in eksistencializmu, me je z argumenti pobil. Bil sem iritiran do te mere, da sem tekel domov (v študentsko naselje), popadel vse
knjige, ki sem jih v zvezi s tem imel, si izpisal posamezne bolj argumentirane trditve in se popoldne ponovno izpostavil. Končala sva z vprašanji in dvomi, v vikendu, ki je sledil, sem s celim paketom problemov šel do Grmiča, da bi dobil vsaj malo pogleda v to, česar nisem vedel. Do podobno vehementne debate nikoli več ni prišlo, kljub temu, da so se posamezne teme velikokrat vračale. Neka logična posledica je bila odločitev, da si bo treba argumentirano odgovoriti na temeljna vprašanja, in vpisal sem študij filozofije, skupaj z Jurijem Kobetom in Alešem Vodopivcem, študij filozofije. Bili smo trije, skoraj že diplomirani arhitekti, nekakšna senzacija na oddelku za filozofijo. Vztrajal sem do zaključka drugega letnika, a odgovorov nisem našel. Namesto njih se je pojavljalo vedno več vprašanj.
Druga prednost kabineta je bila, da sem lahko občasno zvečer šel v gostilno v Brezovico.
Peter Gabrijelčič: Univerza Maribor, 1973
topics were his choice, usually without any direct link to the seminar work and were, as I see it today, connected with his vision of the development. Interpretations of various viewpoints, comparisons and analysis; a lot of things were revealed for the first time (at least for me), connections and images which aroused the senses and sought their comfortable place in our memories. By showing and analysing Wagner's contacts and influences he, for example, argued Plecnik's dependence on theories made by John Ruskin and William Morris (Aits and Crafts), where art and beauty share primarily a social mission; he based the modernism on the continuation of classical principles; he exposed city square planning through Camillo Sitte's work and he explained the luxurious minimalism of Heinrich Tessenow through a simple entrance into a semi-detached house. The generation, that many called anarchistic due
to turbulent events of student revolution, occupation of faculties and various excesses, filled over and over again the overcrowded lecture rooms, and showed that its primary interest laid in architecture.
The Cabinet
Work in the seminar consisted of seminar projects. The first topics were generated by Peter Gabrijelcic, his only informal assistant at the time. Later, with the Professor's consent, there were other topics, alternative ones. We tackled gravel pits, illegal constructions, pneumatic architecture, attics, residential buildings, etc., issues through which Professor Ravnikar stimulated us to think by constantly irrirating and asking new questions in his own unique way. I soon found myself, based on one of these tasks, in a privileged position. I was invited to join
the cabinet, where Peter Gabrijelcic already sat, and I stayed there until the end of my studies. If Professor Ravnikar seldom appeared in the drawing rooms, he was present in the cabinets every day, in the morning and in the afternoon, his daily schedule was entirely devoted to his academic and professional work. But progression in tasks was not made easier because of that, his interventions were never suggestions of solutions, but encouraged analytical thinking about the problems and the preparation of conceptual premises. »No, no, an architect must be familiar with philosophy, you should read more«, he said one morning when I excitedly explained a seminar project. When we started discussing Arthur Schopenhauer (The World as Will and Representation), I found myself in familiar territory as I was interested in it and knew a thing or two as well. Especially Schopenhauer's irrational
and atheistic solitude, I've read about his conflicts with Hegel, influences on Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, and I participated, out of curiosity, in Vekoslav Grmič's philosophy club in Maribor. In this debate, when I exposed different, more metaphysical arguments, based on philosophical anthropology and existentialism, he defeated me with his arguments. I was so irritated that I ran home (to the student campus), read all books I had on the subject, made notes of the more well-argued claims and in the afternoon I tried again. We ended with questions and doubts and during the following weekend I took a whole package of problems and went to see Grmič, to get more insight into certain areas I knew nothing about. Such vehement debate never happened again despite the fact that certain topics did return. The decision, that some basic questions needed an argumentative answers, was almost a logical
Šport, 1972
Ravnikar je še vozil, imel je zelenega Peu-geota 404, pa naju je s Petrom peljal tja, v staro furmansko gostilno. Ob neki priliki ni bilo prostora znotraj, pa so nam, na profesorjevo željo, postavili mizo na dvorišče, pod velik nadstrešek gospodarskega poslopja. Sedeli smo tako tam, srkali vino, bil je poletni večer in debata je nanesla na drevo, ki je stalo zraven. Bila je dokaj visoka trepetlika (populos tremula, op.p.). Vprašal je, zakaj listi tega drevesa tako migotajo, v čem je vzrok. Nisem imel pojma, izmotaval sem se z vzdušjem, ki nastane, ko svetloba posije skozi, Peter pa je začel razvijati teorijo o klorofilu in povečani absorbciji svetlobe, čemur je Ravnikar pritrdil in dodal še nekaj svojih ugotovitev. Njuno razpravo sem lahko le poslušal, bilo mi je neprijetno. Drugi dan sem šel v knjižnico in prebral vse, kar sem v zvezi s tem našel. Da bi prihodnjič vedel.
Mariborska univerza
Med seminarskimi projekti, ki so presegli raven običajnih študijskih nalog in postali družbeno angažirani, je potrebno omeniti projekt Mariborske univerze. Šlo je za kompleksno urbanistično študijo, ki je razvijala idejo Univerze, vraščene v mestno jedro. Maribor je tedaj že organizirano preraščal obstoječo višješolsko raven in ustanovitev druge slovenske univerze je bila le še vprašanje časa. Osnovno izhodišče te študije
-	vehementno jo je vodil Peter Gabrijelčič
-	je bilo dejstvo, da je potrebno univerzo in njene bodoče prostorske kapacitete, integrirati v prostore mesta, s čimer naj bi se ustvarila protiutež tedaj že očitnim znakom propadanja mestnega središča. Znamenita rdeča knjiga z luknjo pa je bila v bistvu tudi alternativa mestni urbanistični stroki (in velikem delu tudi občinski upravi), ki je, združena okoli mariborskega Zavoda za ur-
banizem, zastopala stališče, da je treba za lokacijo nove univerze v smislu ideje kampus a poiskati prostore nekje na obrobju mesta, pod Pekrsko gorco. Turbulentnemu nastopu študentov skozi razstave in javne razprave, in posledičnemu nasprotovanju posameznih forumov in institucij (ob prepričevanju vodstva tedanje Pedagoške gimnazije v smiselnost lokacije bodoče Pedagoške akademije v njihovo bližino sva bila s Petrom javno označena za dolgolasa huligana), se je bitki za pravilno vrednotenje izhodišč v odločilnih trenutkih pridružil tudi Ravnikar sam in v pronicljivem nagovoru mariborskim oblastnikom razložil usodnost, pa tudi odgovornost za morebitne posledice nepreverjenih prostorskih odločitev. Na koncu je vendar prevladalo spoznanje, da bi integracija univerze v mestno jedro usodna napaka. Oblikovanje univerzitetnih programov znotraj mestnega središča naj bi spodbudilo mestni razvoj,
predvsem pa v posameznih prostorskih formacijah vzpostavilo številne in pregledne vsebine univerzitetnega mesta v mestu -rektorat s študijsko knjižnico na Slomškovem trgu, tehniške fakultete na Teslovem trgu, ekonomsko-poslovne na Rakuševem trgu, Pedagoško akademijo v prostoru pod Kal-varijo, študentsko naselje ob robu parka in na Lentu. Doktrina je zmagala in njena praktična aplikacija se je lahko pričela. Kljub temu, da so posamezni predlogi kasneje doživeli neljube spremembe, danes središče mesta napolnjujejo univerzitetni programi, razporejeni ob peš smereh, na obali Drave je v izgradnji še zadnja med predvidenimi šolami, Medicinska fakulteta. Preko trideset tisoč študentov vsak dan polni ta prostor, lahko si le predstavljamo, kako revno bi bilo mesto brez njih.
consequence. So I, together with Jurij Kobe and Ales Vodopivec, enrolled in the study of philosophy. And there we were, the three of us, almost graduated architects, sort of a curiosity in the Department of philosophy I persisted until the end of the second year, but found no answers. All I got was more questions.
Another advantage of the cabinet was that I could join the Professor occasionally at the inn in Brezovica. Professor Ravnikar was still driving, he had a green Peugeot 404, so he took me and Peter to that old carters' inn. On one such occasion there wasn't enough room inside, so they placed a table on the patio, under a large roof of the outbuilding. We sat there, sipped wine and debated; it was a summer evening and we started talking about a nearby tree. It was a fairly tall aspen tree (Populus tremula). He asked, why do aspen leaves flicker, what's the reason?
I had no idea, so I tried to equivocate by blaming the atmosphere and light, while Peter started developing a theory about chlorophyll and increased absorption of light, to which Professor Ravnikar agreed and added some observations of his own. I could only listen to their discussion and I felt uncomfortable. The next day I went to the library and read everything I could find on the subject. So I would know next time.
University of Maribor
Among the seminar projects which transcended the level of usual study tasks and became socially engaged, I must mention the University of Maribor project. It was a complex urbanistic study of the idea for a university, integrated into the city centre. Maribor was already outgrowing the existing college level and the establishment of the
second Slovene university was only a matter of time. The basic premise of this study - vehemently led by Peter Gabrijelcic - was the fact that the university and its future spatial capacity needed to be integrated into the city centre, by which a counterweight to the obvious signs of city centre degradation would be created. The famous red book with a hole in the cover, basically served as an alternative to the city urban planners (and the majority of the municipal government), which, gathered around the Maribor Institute of Urban Development, claimed that the location for a new campus should be on the outskirts of town, near Pekrska gorca hill. Turbulent appearances of students through exhibitions and public debates, the consequent objections from various forums and institutions (while persuading the leadership of the High School for Education on advisability for the new Academy for Pedagogy to be located
near their school, Peter and I were publicly labelled as 'long-haired hooligans'); this battle for proper evaluation of issues was joined in the decisive moments by Professor Ravnikar himself. He gave an insightful speech to the authorities of Maribor and explained the fatality and their responsibility for potentially unverified spatial decisions. In the end it became clear that anything other than the integration of the university with the city centre would be a fatal mistake. The formation of university programs within the city centre would encourage urban development, and it would establish numerous and transparent content of the university town in individual spatial formations - rectorate with academic library on Slomšek Square, technical faculties on Tesla Square, economic and business ones on Rakušev Square, Academy of Pedagogy in the space under Kalvarija, student campus on the edge of the park and on Lent.
BRlZlftskl Sp003€Dlkl IZ a?esTA pR€isinq m 6ou neon r?ea?skecn so prv i zApis vsLovercskcff) je
zika m OBseqAJO pRidi
Grafični tečaj, 1971; Bogdan Reichenberg
Mariborsko letališče
Opogumljen z razvojem projekta Univerza sem Ravnikarju omenil namere Maribora po izgradnji novega letališča. Takoj je podvomil v smiselnost take investicije v prostoru, kjer so na razdalji 100 km tri velika letališča, Ljubljana, Zagreb in Graz. Razpravljali smo tako o možnosti postopnih korakov, ki naj bi pričeli z aktiviranjem in dogradnjo obstoječega športnega letališča ter kasneje, če bi se predpostavke najavljene ekonomske učinkovitosti projekta izkazale za resnične, nadaljevali s širitvijo in novogradnjo. Bil sem vesel in zadovoljen, videl sem konkretne povezave med delom na fakulteti in prostorskimi problemi domačega mesta. Nameri in načinu izvedbe take alternativne študije sem se dogovoril s pristojnimi občinskimi službami. Sestavili smo manjšo študijsko skupino in pričeli z delom, analizami, predlogi in variantami. Kmalu je prišlo vabilo za
udeležbo na sestanku, kjer naj bi strokovne službe predstavile možnosti in pogoje nadaljnjega razvoja letališča.
Na vabilo sem se odzval radoveden, a hkrati oborožen z našimi, do tedaj pripravljenimi izhodišči. Sestanka se je udeležilo mnogo ljudi. Vodstvo občine, politični predstavniki, člani urbanistične komisije in novinarji, posedli smo za veliko mizo. Namesto pričakovane razprave o dilemah, prostorskih omejitvah in programu je takoj po uvodu sledila predstavitev zasnove novega mednarodnega letališkega kompleksa. Projekte so profesionalno izdelali beograjski arhitekti, z utemeljitvami, urbanistično zasnovo, plani, perspektivnimi prikazi. V živahni razpravi, ki je sledila, so vsi po vrsti izkazovali naklonjenost ter s svojim odobravanjem ustvarjali vzdušje neke posebne vzhičenosti, evforije nad predstavljenim. Ne spomnim se nobene kritične misli, nobenega vsebinskega
vprašanja. Bil sem globoko prizadet zaradi dveh stvari. Najprej, sestanek je bil v Mariboru, prisotnih 25-30 ljudi iz mesta in dva iz Beograda. Vsi so govorili srbsko, kot kakšni lakaji so tekmovali v izraznih artikulacijah srbskega jezika. In dalje, predstavljen projekt je bil neke vrste tipski načrt letališke zgradbe, kakršne so že stale na nekaterih jugoslovanskih letališčih. Malo pred koncem sem si izboril besedo. Dvorana je obmolknila, ko sem, edini, spregovoril v maternem jeziku. Predstavil sem alternativno zasnovo in izrazil dvom nad videnim. V debati, ki se je razvila, so se oblikovale čudne situacije, posamezniki iz občinske uprave so, ko so zagovarjali beograjski predlog, z mano govorili srbsko, sam sem, uporno, tudi gostom, odgovarjal v slovenščini. Bil sem iritiran in užaljen, boril sem se, večkrat stisnjen v kot. V nekem trenutku sem izpostavil, da je naše delo nastalo v seminarju prof. Ravnikarja, ki tudi
sam stoji za predstavljenimi alternativnimi ugotovitvami. Učinkovalo je do te mere, da naj bi v nadaljevanju pristojne službe, vendar proučile variantni predlog. Bilo je mučno, vendar sem bil zadovoljen, predstavil sem študijo in stal na branikih slovenskega jezika. Nekaj dni sem nato ostal doma. Po ponovnem prihodu na šolo sem zaznal, da nekaj ni v redu. Peter je omenil, da so Ravnikarja obiskali predstavniki mariborske občine in mu očitali anarhistične izpade njegovih študentov, ki za imenom profesorja skrivajo svoje koristi. Bil je besen, srečala sva se na hodniku, name je izlil svojo jezo. Nisem povsem razumel, ugovarjal sem, da ni dobro verjeti vsemu, kar so mu natvezili. Kasneje sem še mnogokrat v mislih preigraval ta najin zadnji, problemski pogovor. Sem bil premalo prepričljiv ali sem se preveč zme-del ob njegovem nepričakovanem izbruhu. Vsekakor nanj nisem bil pripravljen, zadnje,
Razstava Soba 25, 1971
The doctrine won and its practical application had begun. Despite the fact, that some suggestions underwent some undesired changes, the city centre is nowadays filled with university programs arranged along the trails and the last school, the Faculty of Medicine, is being built on the Drava river bank. Now over 30,000 students fill the city. We can imagine how dull the city would be without them.
Maribor Airport
Encouraged by the development of the University project, I mentioned the plans to build a new airport in Maribor to Professor Ravnikar. He immediately voiced his doubts about such an investment in a place where three large airports (Ljubljana, Zagreb, and Graz) exist in the radius of 100 km. We discussed the possibility of gradual steps, which would
start with the activation and completion of the existing sport airport and later, if the assumptions of announced economic viability of the project proved to be true, would continue with expansion and new construction. I was happy and pleased; I saw a direct link between the work on the faculty and spatial issues of my hometown. I agreed with the intention and the manner of implementation of this alternative study with the competent municipal services. We put together a small study group and began with, analysis, suggestions and variants. Soon there was an invitation to participate in a meeting, where professional services would present the possibilities and conditions for further development of the airport.
I responded with curiosity and, at the same time, I was armed with our well-prepared starting points. There were many of us at the meeting. We all sat at a large table: the city
council leaders, members of the town planning commission and journalists. Instead of the expected discussion on dilemmas, spatial constraints and the program, they immediately after the introduction, presented the concept of the new international airport complex. Projects were professionally made by architects in Belgrade, and they contained arguments, urban masterplan and prospec-five surveys. In the lively discussion that followed, everyone expressed their affection and appreciation, creating a unique atmosphere of euphoria and enthusiasm about the presented project. I don't remember any critical remarks or substantive questions. I was deeply affected by two things. Firstly, the meeting was held in Maribor with 2530 people from the city and two from Belgrade. Everybody spoke Serbian, like lackeys they competed in expressive articulation of Serbian language. Secondly, the presented
project was some soil of ready-made plan of an airport building, similar to those already built in several airports. Right before the end I managed to say a word or two. The hall went silent when I started speaking in my mother tongue. I presented the alternative concept and voiced my doubts about what I had seen. In the debate which followed, strange situations arose, individuals from municipal government spoke Serbian when they addressed me, I, stubbornly, replied to them and guests in Slovene. I was upset and offended; I fought hard but was often backed into a corner. At one point I told them that our work was conceived during the seminar of Professor Ravnikar, who also supports our alternative findings. This proved efficient and they promised that relevant departments would examine our proposal. It was toilsome but I was pleased, I presented our study and stood on the bulwark of Slovene language.
kar bi si lahko v tistem čudnem sestanku na mariborski občini očital, je bila borba za koristi, za projekte torej. Brez dvoma pa sem s svojim nastopom dregnil v sisteme in strukture gospodarsko-političnega establišmenta, v namero, ki so jo nekritično in brezkompromisno zagovarjali vsi. Tu ni bilo več manevrskega prostora kot v primeru mariborske univerze, šlo je le za brezkompromisno izvedbo vnaprej dogovorjene aktivnosti. Letališče, kot okno v svet, nujno potrebno za nadaljnji razvoj mesta. Po tem pogovoru na hodniku so se razmere na šoli zame spremenile in nič več ni bilo tako kot prej. V ohlajenem odnosu sem čutil, da je potrebno oditi, sicer pa je že odbil čas diplome.
Danes je letališče, izgrajeno po tistih beograjskih načrtih, 'enfant terrible' mesta. Neprestana izguba, stečajni postopki, odprodaja privatnim investitorjem, lov za prevozniki, odsotnost prometa in podobno so le posamezni naslovi člankov lokalnega časopisa, ki odkrivajo vso bedo tega projekta. Nikoli ni zaživelo, nekaj časa, še v obdobju Jugoslavije, je delovala le redna linija do Beograda. Akterji tedanje velike akcije so utihnili, kolat-eralne žrtve so padle, nekritična investicija je povzročila probleme, ki so ostali.
Za sklep
Ko skušam tako po štiridesetih letih strniti
občutke tedanje Sobe 25 in svoje epizode v njej, se mi kažejo kot školjka. Trda, prepoznavne oblike, z barvitim oklepom in mehko notranjostjo. Če pa jo prislonim k ušesu, se mi zazdi, da slišim zanosni hrup generacije, - ki si je z uporom, s pogumnim odpiranjem problemov, glasnim izjavljanjem stališč predstavljala, da spreminja svet, - in Ravnikarjev bariton: »Dajte, dajte, koga pa to sploh zanima ...«
Povzetek
Širši kontekst delovanja Sobe 25 v letih 1971-1972 označujejo leta študentskih revolucij na eni in polariziranega stanja na šoli za arhitekturo na drugi strani. Generacija študentov, željna sprememb, je s samoiniciativnimi akcijami pritegnila pozornost. Ravnikar je takoj uvidel možnost strokovnega preboja in dviga kvalitete študijskih procesov. Poleg obče poznanega je mogoče v zvezi z delom in okoliščinami risalnice 25 nanizati tudi mnogo osebnih zgodb, ki vse po vrsti sestavljajo mozaik te, v marsičem posebne celote. Moja zgodba je preplet objektivnih okoliščin in osebnih vtisov v povezavi s posameznimi projekti seminarja, ki so postali družbeno odmevni.
Bogdan Reichenberg
Risalnica, 1970
I stayed at home for a few days. Upon returning school I sensed that something was wrong. Peter mentioned that Professor Ravnikar had a visit from the representatives of Maribor municipality who had reproached him for the anarchistic outbursts of his students, who hid their benefits behind Professor's back. He was furious, we met in the corridor and he poured his anger out on me. I didn't understand any of it; I objected that he is not to believe everything they said. I often contemplated on this, our last problemsolving conversation. Was I not convincing enough or was I too confused by his sudden outburst. In any case, I wasn't prepared for it; the last thing I could blame myself for, as far as that Maribor meeting is concerned, is any kind of struggle for benefits, for commissions. I undoubtedly managed to stir up the system and structure of economic/ political establishment and their intent, uncritically and uncompromisingly advocated by all, with my performance. There was no room for manoeuvres like there was in the case of Maribor University. It was an uncompromising implementation of a prearranged activity. The airport, a window to the world, is absolutely necessary for the further development of the city. After the conversation in the corridor, the situation at the school changed for me and nothing was the way it was before. With the change in our relationship I felt that it was time to go; after all, my gradua-
tion was around the corner. Today the airport, built according to the plans from Belgrade, is the 'enfant terrible' of the city. Constant loss, bankruptcy proceedings, sell-off to private investors, search for air-carriers, absence of traffic and similar fill the local newspaper articles, which reveal all the misery of this project. It never came to life, for a while, during the time of Yugoslavia, the only regular flights were to Belgrade. Those involved in this grand action fell silent, collateral damage was done, and uncritical investment caused persistent problems.
Conclusion
As I try to summarize my feelings about Room 25 and my episode in it, it all appears in the shape of a shell to me. Hard, distinctive, with a colourful shell and soft interior. If I press it to my ear, I seem to be able to hear the inspiring noise of my generation -who thought it was changing the world with rebellion, brave approach to problems and loud voicing of their views - and Professor Ravnikar's baritone:»Oh come on, come on, nobody is interested in that...«
Abstract
The broad context of Room 25 in the years
1971-72 is marked by student revolutions on one side and the polarized state of the school of architecture on the other. A generation of students, eager for changes, managed to attract attention with self-initiated actions. Professor Ravnikar immediately saw the possibility for professional breakthrough and better quality of the study process. Apart from the well-known, we can list many personal stories connected with the work and circumstances surrounding Room 25, all of which create the mosaic of this special period. My story is a combination of objective circumstances and personal experience linked to certain seminar projects, which became socially acclaimed.