Če boste v Ljubljani nekoga na ulici vprašali, kje je Adamič – Lundrovo nabrežje, bo verjetno samo zmignil z rameni, če pa ga boste vprašali po Plečnikovih tržnicah, bo zagotovo vedel, kje so. Ljudje si pogosto zapomnimomestne prostore po vsebini, po hišah ali po ljudeh, ne po uradnih poimenovanjih. Vsebine tkejo mesto, stavbe in mestne ureditve pa gradijo prostor tem vsebinam, navznoter in zlasti navzven, s tem, da oblikujejo javni prostor.

Javni prostor je po definiciji(1) prostor ali območje, ki je dostopno vsem, ne glede na raso, spol, socialni status, starost…Zanj ni treba plačati vstopnine, niti niso tisti, ki vstopajo, podvrženi kakršnikoli segregaciji. Po vsebini pa je javni prostor mesto, kjer se odvija (uresničuje) naše javno življenje, pa tudi vsaka oblika urbanosti. Je osnovni »material« mesta in skupnosti, in kot tak pogoj za socialno in družbeno dimenzijo bivanja. Širina pojma seveda sega preko okvira fizičnega prostora. Ute Angelika Lehrer v svoji razpravi(2) deli javni prostor na fizični, socialni in simbolni. Fizični je najbolj očiten in se navezuje na pojme, kot so ulica, trg, prostori za piknike, plaže itd. Njegova arhetipska podoba je italijanski trg, kjer je veliko ljudi.

Socialni prostor se ustvarja z dejavnostmi, ki se dogajajo v njem, inmu na nek način določajo »lastništvo«. Te dejavnosti se lahko odvijajo kjerkoli; ne le na krajih v javni lasti (trgih, ulicah, parkih …), pač pa tudi v zasebnih prostorih (kavarnah, restavracijah, barih, pa tudi časopisnih rubrikah, namenjenih pismom bralcev, ter v ostalih oblikah medijev in komunikacij (na primer svetovnem spletu) pa vse do zasebnih domov.(3)

Simbolni javni prostor pa ustvarjajo dejavnosti ljudi in njihovi kolektivni spomini, zato ga je teže označiti, saj obstaja tako v realnosti kot v domišljiji. Gre za izkušnjo, ki se vpiše v kolektivno zavest skupine ljudi. Taka izkušnja, čeprav kratkotrajna, se lahko spremeni v mit in postane del skupne zgodovine. Lahko gre za zgodovinske dogodke, obiske pomembnih osebnosti (papež, ameriški predsednik, angleška kraljica…), lahko za zmagoslavja ali za katastrofe, lahko pa so simbolni prostori tudi intimnejši, kot npr. zbirališča določenih skupin ljudi, kavarne, bari ali ulični vogali. Vedno pa so posredi kolektivna doživetja in močna čustvovanja.

Javni prostor je tisti, ki mesto strukturira, mu daje prepoznavnost. V njem se da intervenirati, tako zasebno kot v imenu skupnega oz. javnega interesa, in pričakovati določen odziv. Zato je javni prostor postal eden od osnovnih pojmov kritične teorije sodobnosti, tako v filozofiji, (urbani) geografiji, umetnosti, kulturnih in socialnih vedah ter urbanizmu.

Javni prostor pomembno vpliva na naše življenje, saj je podaljšek intimnega osebnega prostora in okvir, v katerem se odvija javno življenje. Kvaliteto življenja lahko omogoča in spodbuja, kot npr. v idiličnem okolju nekdanje mestne ali vaške skupnosti, lahko pa je vir frustracij, npr. v predmestjih, kjer smo oropani možnosti javnega udejstvovanja. Seveda so se v sodobni metropoli načini javnega življenja pluralizirali in razpršili. Najprej je tu še vedno tradicionalni »urbani teater«, ki pomeni za različne družbene skupine načine kazanje v javnosti, npr. za kulturne ali politične elite, ali pa teenagerje, ki v mesto hodijo kot igralci na oder. Poleg klasične urbane funkcije - druženja in razpravljanja, kot pri starih Grkih - so se vzpostavili novi, raznoliki, velikokrat hedonistični načini uporabe javnega prostora. Tradicionalnemu javnemu prostoru so se pridružile nove oblike, ki jih najdemo povsod: fitnes centri, gejevske skupnosti, urbani safariji, prostori za žuriranje, pa šoping moli, seks industrija, prostori različnih svetovnonazorskih skupnosti, tematski parki itd.

V današnjem času se pomen javnega prostora na novo oblikuje tudi v pogojih njegove eksplozivne razširitve v globalizirani svet informacij. Razmerje med javnostjo in privatnostjo se z novimi tehnikami in mediji - televizijo, brezžično telefonijo, videom, video nadzorom, sateliti - pospešeno spreminja. To pa ni nujno negativno, saj odpira nova polja kompleksnih interakcij javnega in privatnega, globalnega in lokalnega, in nove možnosti delovanja civilne sfere. Razvijajo se nove strategije, ki sferi javnega omogočajo rezistenco in celo ponoven razcvet. Boj za javni prostor je eden od najmočnejših vzgibov socialno osveščenih gibanj, intelektualnih zavzemanj za svobodo in pravičnost, sodobnih umetniških praks ipd.

Vizualni umetniki so začrtali nove meje, ki določajo razvoj javnih prostorov. Velikokrat nas prav oni opozarjajo na pomen fizičnega javnega prostora. Javno življenje v informacijski dobi se sicer deloma res seli v medijski prostor, a ostaja kvaliteta življenja neločljivo povezana s fizičnostjo telesa in s tem tudi prostora, v katerem se telo (in duša) gibljeta. Naravni zagovornik javnega prostora je civilna družba, ki ga potrebuje kot pogoj za obstoj. Alternativna kultura potrebuje Rog in Metelkovo, otroci potrebujejo Tivoli, zaljubljenci potrebujejo Trnovsko nabrežje z vrbami. Javni prostor, ki je v zadnjem desetletju nastal ob Ljubljanici, je ponovno oživil vsaj del zamrlega urbanega življenja v Ljubljani.

Javni prostor načeloma določa perspektiva pešca. Avto je zanj tujek in pomeni vdor s pločevino obdanega zasebnega prostora. Problem Ljubljane je, da še zdaleč nismo dojeli te njegove rušilne vloge. Avto je v očeh večine nesporni kralj prostora. Zato ga kot ikono sodobnega časa najdemo na zelenicah in pločnikih, pa tudi na bilbordih. Urejena mesta so avte pospravila pod zemljo, jih ustavila predmestnimsrediščemin nadomestila z javnimprevozom. To je ponovno vzpodbudilo razcvet javnega prostora.

Kot odnos med javnostjo in zasebnostjo se tudi odnos med javnim in zasebnim prostorom v zadnjih desetletjih pospešeno spreminja, seveda v večini primerov na škodo javnega prostora. Javni prostor se privatizira. Privatizira se na veliko načinov. Prisvaja si ga kapital, ki vdiranje trži. Osnovna značilnost javnega prostora – njegova splošna dostopnost za vse – je ogrožena z naraščanjem kontrole in varovanja.

Socialna segregacija je drugi napad na javni prostor. S prisvajanjem, nato pa z izključevanjem, nadzorovanjem, selektivno dostopnostjo, s fizičnimi prepovedmi ali na bolj subtilne načine, na podlagi rase, socialnega statusa, finančne sposobnosti, intelektualnega testiranja itd., onemogoča socialno interakcijo.

Privatizacija mesta, prostora običajno poteka izven oči javnosti, hkrati pa javnost postane blago široke potrošnje. Pa vendarle privatizacija javnega prostora ni enosmeren proces, ki bo v končni posledici prinesel njegovo odmrtje. Privatni prostor je lahko javni prostor, npr. v šoping molih.

Tu se pojavi vprašanje o tipologiji javnega prostora. Javni prostor v javni lasti, ali privatni javni prostor – kakšna je razlika?

Razlika ni toliko v lastništvu, kot v tipu uporabe, v tipu urbanosti. V šoping mol, v Ljubljani npr. v BTC, greš zaradi programa, ciljno; v mesto greš svobodno, brezciljno, kot flaneur.

Naslednje vprašanje je, ali niso šoping moli prostor, ki poneumlja, ki je totalitaren, ki prikriva pravo naravo stvari? Menim, da je prostor šopingmola surogat, nadomestek javnega prostora. Kontroliran, usmerjen, nadzorovan, nesvoboden prostor. Ker je zaseben, v njem ne veljajo pravila javnega prostora. Zato sledi vprašanje, ali je v prostoru, ki je narejen in služi zasebnemu interesu, možna svoboda? Odgovor bi lahko bil:možna je, a ne katerakoli svoboda. Tudi svoboda je individualizirana. Če vem, sem svoboden? Ne grem v BTC in sem svoboden?

To je politično vprašanje. Ali je urbanost le urbanost potrošnika, tistega, ki ima denar? BTC je mesto avtomobilov, karikatura mesta, labirint krožišč za brezkončno kroženje avtov v bebavem ritualu iskanja parkinga. Iz zapovedanega uživanja se sprevrača v nasprotje, v simulaker uživanja, ki je v resnici dolgčas ali celo muka. V končni fazi se izkaže, da v to kategorijo surogatov in simulakrov javnega prostora sodijo tako šoping moli, tematski parki(4), pa tudi t.i. »Non Places«(5), kot so banke, bolnišnice, letališča, avtoceste itd. Prostor šopingmola je seveda tendenciozen, saj iz državljanov dela potrošnike. Pravi javni prostor pa, kot smo implicitno povedali že na začetku, ni tendenciozen in omogoča mestni oz. urbani način življenja.

Tekmovanje mest se odraža tudi v obravnavanju javnih prostorov. Vprašanje je, ali tip javnega prostora določa statusmesta? Dokaz za pravilnost te trditve je Barcelona, kjer traja renesansa javnih prostorov že desetletja, pa Pariz, Berlin, Amsterdam in tudi mnoga druga španska, francoska, holandska, skandinavska mesta, itn.

Najbolj uspešna in propulzivna mesta so tudi vodilna v oblikovanjih javnih prostorov. To velja tudi za mesta z močno in živo tradicijo javnega prostora (italijanska mesta s piazzami in ulicami, nemška in skandinavska mesta s peš conami, tudi Ljubljana s Plečnikovimi ureditvami…)

Javni prostor je tudi dodana ekonomska vrednost. V bližini pomembnih javnih prostorov so cene nepremičnin višje. To velja zlasti za zelene javne prostore – parke, gozdove, kjer so ljudje pripravljeni plačati več, da bi lahko živeli v njihovi bližini.

Uspešnost javnega prostora ni prvenstveno odvisna od estetskega oblikovanja, niti od lastništva, pač pa od kombinacije kvalitet medsebojnih interakcij med uporabniki ter lastniki in upravljavci.

Globalizirana arhitekturna estetika, ki se prebija skozi developerske projekte, ne prispeva k kvaliteti javnih prostorov. Dokaz za to trditev je BTC, opevan kot »novi javni prostor, mesto nakupov«, ki je, kot rečeno simulaker, karikatura mesta. Primeri javnega prostora v Ljubljani so torej raznovrstni. Njeni tradicionalni javni prostori so s Plečnikovimi ureditvami postali paradigmatični model arhitekturne vizije idealnega mesta, ki ga sestavljajo arhetipski javni prostori. Za razliko od časa graditve Plečnikove Ljubljane pred drugo vojno, je danes za Ljubljano značilen tudi primanjkljaj javnega prostora. Kongresni trg, kjer smo sprejeli npr. Clintona v nalivu, je še vedno parkirišče. Trg Republike, kjer smo ustanovili državo, je prav tako parkirišče. Južni trg ni realiziran. Privatizacija javnega prostora se kaže v zasedanju nabrežij in trgov z mizicami in senčniki, ki natrpane z mladino in turisti sicer polnijo žepe gostincem in posredno najbrž tudi mestno blagajno, ne prispevajo pa k javnosti. Nima pa Ljubljana mestne kavarne s časopisi in hrano, kot jih imajo »prava« mesta. Ljubljana je nekoč take kavarne imela, danes pa jih imajo mnoga mesta, ki nimajo take lastne urbane tradicije.

Simbolno je to znak, da se pri nas še ni zares pričela renesansa javnega prostora v mestu, drugje pa se pač je. Očitno je naša urbana kultura nizka, ali pa je sploh nimamo. Na mesto gledamo individualistično, ne želimo si zares živeti v njem. Ne razumemo, da pomeni biti meščan tudi nek specifični javni performans.

Temu sta prilagojeni tudi politika urejanja javnega prostora in zakonodaja. Ves javni interes pri urejanju prostora je obešen na varovanje kulturne dediščine. To, konservativno, stališče je absolutno premalo. Javni interes se na ta način udejanja skozi prepoved, zaviranje. Sedaj je investitorjem prepuščeno, da igrajo svojo igro, ki jo pravzaprav uravnoteža zgolj še, kot rečeno, zaščita kulturne dediščine in pa civilna javnost, strokovna in druga. To pa je tudi za investitorje negotova situacija, v kateri morajo ogromno tvegati. Javno mnenje lahko zelo škodi projektom, spomnimo se na primer Kosovelovega spomenika.(6)

Vsi investitorji so prestrašeni, in skušajo odigrati svojo igro v zakulisju, da bi se tako izognili ali pa bi projekte spravili vsaj preko »kritične točke«, kjer je vpliv nanje ni več mogoč. Boj za javni prostor je zato velikokrat tudi neuspešen, saj se ozavestimo prepozno. Prav zadnje izkušnje z gradnjo predorov ali nakupi orožja kažejo, kako se »javno – tajni« posli izjalovijo prej ali slej, škoda, ki je nastala, pa je zelo težko popravljiva. Za Ljubljano bi lahko pomenilo uresničenje nekaterih izmed takih projektov katastrofo, saj bi uničili nekatere njene bistvene kvalitete. Negativni primer špekulativne zlorabe in izigravanja javnega interesa je npr. gradnja stanovanjskega bloka v Grajskem hribu, podobno nevarni so nekateri še neuresničeni projekti, kot je pritisk na Tivoli, pa Novi Kolizej itn. So pa v tej ljubljanski urbani predstavi tudi bolj optimistični toni. Grad postaja z vzpenjačo glavna atrakcija mesta, katere vrednost je neprecenljiva, zato ne razumem pritlehnih kritik, da gre za zgrešen projekt, za katerega je škoda porabljenega denarja. Ne vem, če je bil ves denar porabljen namensko in pregledno, je pa projekt Ljubljano postavil za stopničko više v primerjalni lestvici zanimivih mest. Ko bi le znali izkoristiti potencial, ki ga ima grad kot krona mesta, bi lahko zadihali malo bolj mestno.

Projekti za javne prostore ob Ljubljanici, Gradaščici, na Špici, za nove parke, peš ulice, dodatne površine, ki jih financira in vodi mestna uprava, so potencialni kvalitetni mestni javni prostori. Tudi razstava in ta številka revije ab, Vizije 3 – odprti javni prostor v Ljubljani, se ukvarjata z nekaterimi med njimi. Arhitektura in urbanizem sta, v kolikor sta kvalitetna in javno transparentno urejena, pomembna stebra zagotavljanja javnega interesa in zlasti javnih prostorov, in tudi obrambe proti slabi praksi, nepravilnostim, privatizaciji in tajkunizaciji. Seveda arhitektura in urbanizem sama ne moreta rešiti problema odmiranja javnega prostora.

Imata pa možnost in odgovornost, da tudi pri investicijah, kjer je osnovnimotiv dobiček, sodelujeta s politiko in neodvisno javnostjo v usmerjanju kapitala, da poleg dobička investitorjev upoštevata tudi javni interes in zagotovita kvalitetne prostore za prebivalce. Ta cilj mora biti opredeljen v vseh ravneh organiziranosti družbe, od zakonodaje do političnih programov, strokovnih dokumentov, vzgojno izobraževalnih programov itn.

Vedno znova se moramo spraševati o vlogi in pomenu arhitekturne stroke danes. Čeprav je vprašanje navidez preprosto, je odgovor težak. Že premišljanje o smeri razvoja stroke nas pripelje od ambicij po profesionalnosti do samokritike, nujnosti etične prenove poklica in celo do dvomov o smislu lastnega početja. Neizogiben je sestop iz udobnega, nekonfliktnega sanjskega sveta avtonomne umetniške prakse. Vedno znova je potrebno utemeljiti arhitekturo kot zbir znanj in kompetenc, ki ne zadovoljijo le potreb klientov pač pa predvsem tudi javni interes.

Arhitekti oblačijo mesto z arhitekturo. Ne morejo pa sami kreirati javnega prostora. Veliko bolje je, če ta nastaja v participaciji z lastniki in uporabniki, le tako bo lahko izpolnjeval svoje demokratično poslanstvo.

Miha Dešman

Opombe:

1. www.wikipedia.com, Public space
2. Ute Angelika Lehrer, Ali je za javni prostor še prostor? Mesta, ki se privatizirajo, in privatizacija javnega, v: O urbanizmu - Kaj se dogaja s sodobnim mestom?, Krtina, Ljubljana: 2007
3. Ibidem.
4. Glej: Miodrag Mitrasinović, Provizorična polemika,model tematskega parka in ameriška urbana krajina, ab 155-156, 2002
5. Marc Augé, Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, 1995
6. Poskus postavitve javne skulpture v javni prostor je propadel, ker ni upošteval javnosti.

public space

If you ask a passer by in Ljubljana where the Adamič-Lunder Embankment is, they will probably just shrug their shoulders; should you, however, ask for the whereabouts of Plečnik's Market, they will definitely know where it is. People usually remember city spaces by their content, by houses and people, and not by their official names. It is content that forms a city,while buildings and urban design build space for this content - internally and particularly externally - by shaping public space. Public space is, by definition, an area or space accessible to everyone, regardless of their race, sex, social status, age, etc. There is no admittance, nor are the people within public space subject to segregation of any kind. But its contentmakes it a place for our public life and for every other formof the urban to manifest itself. It is the basic material of a city and its community, which makes it a necessity for the social aspect of living. The term naturally expands beyond the limits of physical space. In her treatise, Ute Angelika Lehrer differentiates between physical, social and symbolical space. Physical space is the most obvious of the three and is related to expressions such as street, square, picnic area, beach etc. Its archetype is the crowded Italian square.

Social space deals with activities which take place there, andwhich, in away, determine its proprietorship. These activities can take place anywhere, not only in public-owned places (squares, streets, parks, ...), but also in private places (cafés, restaurants, pubs, letters to the editor in newspapers, and all other forms of media and communication (such as the WorldWideWeb), all the way to people's homes. The symbolic public space created by people's activities and their collective memories, and is as such more difficult to brand, because it exists not only in reality but in imagination as well.What we have here is an experience that imprints itself into collective memory. Such an experience, though short-lived, can become a myth and subsequently a part of common history. This could be a historical event, a visit from an important personality (the Pope, the American president, the Queen of England, ...), or even a victory or a disaster but a symbolic place can also be one of greater intimacy, like meeting places of various groups of people, cafes, pubs or street corners. Most importantly, collective experience and strong emotions are always involved.

Public space is that which structures city and makes it recognizable. Such space allows one to intervene - privately as well as on behalf of public interest - and to expect a certain response. That is why public space has become one of the basic notions in regard to the critical theory of the present age, be it in philosophy, (urban) geography, art, cultural and social sciences, or urbanism.

Public space significantly influences our way of life because it serves as a prolongation of intimate personal space, and also as a framework for public life. It can enable and stimulate the quality of living as in - for instance - within the idyllic surroundings of a former urban or rural community, but it can also present a source of frustration, e.g. in the suburbs, where one is not given any chance of public activity. Logically enough, ways of public life in the urban metropolis have dispersed and become pluralized. First, there is the still traditional "urban theatre", which serves to some social groups as a means of putting oneself on display, these groups being most notably cultural/ political elites or teenagers, strolling into town like thespians upon the stage.Apart fromthe classical urban function - socialising and debating, just like the ancient Greeks - new, heterogeneous ways of using public space have begun to occur many of themhedonistic in their nature. Traditional public space is now accompanied by new forms which can be found anywhere: fitness clubs, gay communities, urban safaris, party spots, shopping malls, the sex industry, places of various ideological communities, theme parks etc.

Nowadays, the meaning of public space is given new formin regard to the conditions under which it so explosively spreads into the globalised world of information. Due to new technologies and media - television, wireless communication, video and video surveillance satellites - the ratio between the public and the private is rapidly changing. That, however, is not necessarily a negative thing, as it opens new possibilities for complex interactions of the public and the private, the global and the local, and new possibilities for the public sphere to operate in. New strategies are being developed which provide that sphere with resistance and even a new heyday. The battle for public space is one of the most powerful initiatives of socially-aware movements, intellectual strivings for justice and freedom, contemporary artistic trends etc.

Visual artists have outlined new frontiers that determine public space development. It is these artists who usually remind us of the importance of the physical public space. Public life in the information age indeed partlymoving intomedia space, but nevertheless remains a quality of life directly linked to the physicality of the body and by that, of space in which body (and soul) move. The natural advocate of public space is the civil society, which needs it in order to exist. Alternative culture needs the Rog factory and Metelkova, the children need the Tivoli Park, and lovers need the Trnovo embankment with its weeping willows. The public space that has formed along the Ljubljanica River within the last decade has resurrected at least a part of Ljubljana's once inert urban life.

Public space is generally defined by the pedestrian's perspective. To a pedestrian, the car is a foreign body and represents an intrusion by the tin-clad private space. The problem with Ljubljana is that we are far fromcomprehending the car's destructive role. In most people's eyes, the car is still the undisputed ruler of space. That is why it can be found on greenways and pavements and even on billboards as an icon ofmodern time.Well-managed cities have stowed their vehicles underground, away from the city centre, and replaced them with public transport. This sparked a public-space rebirth.

Just like the relationship between the public and the private, the relationship between public and private space has been swiftly changing during the last decades - most of the time at the expense of public space,which is becomingmore andmore frequently privatized. This privatisation takes place in many ways. The public space is appropriated by the capital marketing the intrusion. One of the basic characteristics of public space - its universal accessibility is threatened by the increase in control and security.

Another kind of attack on public space is social segregation. Through appropriation, and subsequently through exclusion, control, selective accessibility, physical prohibition, or subtler methods such as race, social status, financial power, intellect testing etc, it renders social interaction impossible.

Privatisation of space usually takes place far from the public eye, while at the same time, the public becomes the goods of mass consumption. And still, privatisation of public space is not a one-way process that would result in withering of public space. Private space can exist inside public space, in shopping malls, for instance.

And here arises the question of public-space typology. Public or private-owned public space - what is the difference? The difference is not so much in ownership as it is in the type of usage, the type of the urban.We visit a shoppingmall, such as BTC in Ljubljana, because of the programme and with a certain goal; butwhen heading into town,we go freely, aimlessly, like flaneurs.

The next question is; aren't shoppingmalls a space which turns us numb is totalitarian, withholding the true nature of things? I believe the shopping mall space to be a surrogate, a substitute for public space. Controlled, focused, supervised, unfree space. Being private, rules of public space do not apply. Hence the question whether freedom is possible in an artificially created space, with the intention of serving private interest. One possible answer is: not every kind of freedom. Freedom can be individualised as well. If I know, am I free? I’m not going to BTC, thus I’m free?

That is a political question. Does the term "urban" apply only to how urban the one with themoney, the consumer is? BTC is a city of cars, a caricature of a city, a labyrinth of roundabouts with cars engaged in themindless ritual of finding a parking space. The prescribed pleasure is turning into its opposite, into a simulacrum of pleasure, which actually stands for boredom or even burden. Eventually it transpires that shopping malls, theme parks, or even so-called "Non Places" such as banks, hospitals, airports, highways etc. also fall into the category of surrogates and simulacra. The shopping-mall space is of course tendentious, as it turns citizens into consumers. True public space, as implicitly stated at the beginning, is not tendentious and merely enables an urban lifestyle.

Inter-city competition shows also in the way cities treat public spaces. The question here is: does a particular type of public space determine a city's status? Looking at cities such as Barcelona, where public renaissance has been flourishing for decades, or Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam and other Spanish, French, Dutch and Scandinavian cities, it certainly appears so. The most successful and propulsive of cities are also leaders in public-space design. This also goes for cities with a strong and ongoing tradition of public space (Italian cities with their piazzas and streets, pedestrian zones in German/Scandinavian cities, Ljubljana and Plečnik’s landscaping, ...).

Public space also translates into economic value added. Near important public spaces, real-estate prices tend to be higher. This goes especially for green public space, such as parks and forests, as people are ready to pay more in order to live near those places. The success of public space does not primarily depend on design aesthetics or on proprietorship, but rather on the quality of interaction between users on one side, and owners and managers on the other.

Globalised architectural aesthetics making their way through development projects does not contribute to public-space quality. A living proof for this is BTC hailed as the "new public space", the "Shopping City", which is - as said before - a simulacrum, a caricature of a city.

It is safe to say that instances of public space in Ljubljana vary greatly. Its traditional public spaces have - through Plečnik's landscaping - become a paradigmaticmodel for the architectural vision of the ideal city which consists of archetypal public spaces.

Unlike before WWII when Plečnik's Ljubljana was built, the city nowadays faces a lack of public space. Kongresni Square, where we greeted President Clinton in the pouring rain, remains a parking lot. Trg Republike Square, where we founded our country, is also a parking lot. Južni Square has yet to be realised. The privatisation of public space also shows in the way that squares and embankments have been occupied by tables and parasols - the influx of youngsters and touristsmight help fill cash registers (and perhaps, indirectly, the City budget as well), but it in no way contributes to the notion of public. Ljubljana also lacks a coffeehouse with newspapers and food, in the manner of proper cities. Ljubljana used to have such coffeehouses, while those cities that have them today do not come from such urban tradition.

This symbolically indicates that we have yet to witness a renaissance of public space, in contrast to the afore-mentioned cities. Apparently, we either have a very low level of urban culture, or we don't have any whatsoever. Our view of the city is of purely individualistic nature, we don't really want to live in it. We fail to understand that being a townsman demands also a kind of specific public performance.

The policy of public-space planning and the legislation conform to the above notion as well. All public interest regarding space planning begins and ends with preserving cultural heritage. This conservative point of view is certainly not enough. Such formof public interest manifests itself through prohibition and regression. Investors are now allowed to play their own game which is, as pointed out above, held in balance only by the protection of cultural heritage and by the civil - expert and other - public. For the investors the situation seems uncertain, with a significant risk factor to it. Public opinion can be damaging to certain projects, one only needs to remember the incident of the Kosovel memorial.

All investors are scared and are trying to keep their game in the background in order to evade such problems or at least drive their projects past the critical point where it is still possible to influence them. The battle for public space can therefore often be a failure, because we become aware of it too late. It is the recent experience concerning tunnel construction or arms purchases that show how "publicly-secret" deals flop sooner or later, while the damage is almost beyond repair. The realisation of a couple of such projects could turn out to be devastating for Ljubljana, as they would ruin some of the city's most distinctive traits. An example of abuse through speculation and betrayal of public interest is the construction of the residential block on the slopes of the Castle Hill, in addition to other unrealised projects such as the New Kolizej, the pressure on the highly desirable Tivoli Park area etc.

There are, however, more optimistic overtones to Ljubljana's urban show as well. The Castle with its funicular is becoming the city's main attraction, and is as such invaluable; I fail to understand the malicious criticisms about the funicular being a misstep and a waste of money. I cannot say if all the money was spent transparently and for its intended purpose, but the project has made Ljubljana a bitmore recognisablewhen compared to other interesting cities. If only we were able to take full advantage of the castle as the city's crown jewel; then we could feel ourselves slightly more urban.

Public-space projects such as those planned for the Ljubljanica, Gradaščica and Špica embankments, new parks, pedestrian zones, and additional surfaces, financed and run by the city, show the potential to provide the city with quality public space. Both the exhibition and the current issue of AB magazine, Visions 3 - open public space in Ljubljana, also deal with some of these projects. Architecture and urbanism are - when properly managed and transparent to public - cornerstones of securing public interest and public space in particular, as well as defending against malpractice, irregularities, privatisation and capital machinations. It is understood that architecture and urbanismcannot solve public space fromdying out on their own. But they do have a chance and the responsibility to cooperate with politics and independent public in making the capital (even in purely profit-motivated investments) take into account public interest (and not only profitability for the investors), and guarantees quality space for the inhabitants. This goal has to be defined in all organisational spheres of society, from legislation to political programmes, professional documents, educational programmes etc.

Again and again we have to ask ourselves about the role and themeaning of architectural practice today. The question might seem easy, but the answer is not. Thinking about the direction in which this profession ought to be headed brings us to ambitions, self-criticism, the necessity of the profession's ethical renovation, and even to doubting oneself. Leaving the comfort zone of a non-conflict dream world of autonomous art practice is of utmost importance. Architecture needs to be re-evaluated as a convergence of knowledge and competence, which not only satisfies clients' needs but public interest as well. Architects dress the city in architecture. What they cannot do on their own, however, is create public space. It ismuch better for that space to arise from cooperation with owners and users; only thus can public space fulfil its democratic quest.

Miha Dešman