CONSERVATION

EAAE  Transactions on Architectural Education no. 67

—
DEMOLITION
Rodica Crișan
Donatella Fiorani
Giovanna Franco
Loughlin Kealy
Stefano Francesco Musso
Petr Vorlík

Editors
EAAE
Transactions on Architectural Education no. 67

Editors
Rodica Crișan, Donatella Fiorani, Giovanna Franco,
Loughlin Kealy, Stefano Francesco Musso, Petr Vorlík This book presents the papers written by 34 participants following
the 7th Workshop on Conservation, organised by the Conservation Network
Graphic layout of the European Association for Architectural Education in Prague,
Lucia Mlynčeková Czech Republic in 2019. All papers have been peer-reviewed. The Workshop
was attended by 51 participants from the following countries: Belgium,
Production Czech Republic, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom.
Petr Vorlík, Klára Ullmannová, Lucia Mlynčeková,
Tereza Poláčková, Gabriela Thompson Hosting institution
Faculty of architecture CTU in Prague
Published by and with gratitude financial support
of the Faculty of Architecture CTU in Prague. Organising Committee
Petr Vorlík, Tomáš Efler, Gabriela Thompson, Irena Fialová, Petra Boudová,
Printed in Prague Jana Bukačová, Martin Čtverák, Tereza Poláčková, Pavel Směták,
Helena Ballošová, Veronika Vicherková
ISBN 978-80-01-06827-4 ebook
ISBN 978-80-01-06826-7 printed Scientific Council
Rodica Crișan, Donatella Fiorani, Giovanna Franco, Loughlin Kealy,
Copyright © 2020 by the authors. All rights reserved Stefano Francesco Musso, Petr Vorlík
 Introduction
Loughlin Kealy
Fragments from the margins

Stefano Francesco Musso

Constructing / Conserving / Destroying

Ellen Rowley
The Architecture of Ultimology: considering obsolescence and
heritage value in Dublin's twentieth century architecture

Petr Vorlík
Prague – demolished and reborn

7
—
6
 Part 1 – Towards the Contemporary Hybrid City and Cultural Complexity

Part 2 – The Force of Everyday Life

Simonetta Ciranna Marta Acierno
Architecture and city between decommissioning and amazing reuse: Discerning modern heritage management from building
the legacy of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries speculation within historical urban landscapes

Carolina Di Biase Mehmet Gökhan Berk

Urban Metamorphoses at the beginning of the third millennium: Life, death and life after death for built environment
Holešovice, a twentieth-century district and its transitional landscape
Donatella Fiorani
Naveed Iqbal, Koenraad Van Cleempoel Unplanned conservation: from Prague to Europe
Adaptive reuse; potentials and compromises between
demolition & conservation with some reflections from Pakistan Federica Marulo
Industrial heritage and urban development: the Dutch experience
Monica Mureşanu, Florin Mureşanu
Living with fractures, a conservation paradox Daniela Pittaluga
Understanding, respect, maintenance and development versus
Antonella Versaci demolition: basic elements of conservation education / pedagogy
Between destruction and conservation: new strategies
of reappropriation of the urban spaces in Paris Lenka Popelová
The need for identification and definition of the values of sixties and seventies
Raluca-Maria Trifa
What future for the past? Contemporary issues in urban heritage preservation Sally Stone
The force of everyday life

Helena Ballošová
Demolition, a creative tool for heritage preservation?

9
—
8
 Part 4 – The Scale of New Intervention Versus Memory
Part 3 – Contemporary Versus Traditional Technologies and Approaches
Rodica Crişan Maria N. McDonald, Rusell B. Roberts, Miguel Angel Calvo-Salve
Conservation vs Demolition: an ethical approach Conservation and Demolition. Memory and Oblivion

Caterina Giannattasio Giovanna Franco

The false antagonism between matter and memory Necessity and legitimacy of demolitions as strategy for conservation.
Reflections on twentieth and twenty-first century heritage
Tereza Poláčková
Demolishing a past we want to forget Marion Harney
Creating the Palimpsest City and cultural complexity: learning from Bath
Sara Rocco
Conservation and demolition to the test of urban regeneration Sara Iaccarino
Stories of demolition: conservation and destruction in Naples’ suburban areas
Emanuela Sorbo
Beyond the demolition in conservation. DIY low-cost factory
conversion as a phenomenon of Bodenständigkeit

Andrea Ugolini, Chiara Mariotti

Conservation vs Demolition of architectural finishes.
Issues and impacts on industrial heritage

Alessia Zampini
From Industrial Revolution to contemporary preservation.
Reflection on historical systems

11
—
10
12 — 13
 changes in the cityscape and potential social uncertainties. As Edward Relph observes,

Raluca-Maria Trifa: Bucharest, Romania

What future for the past? people need places they can identify with, significant areas that have a strong sense of
place (Relph 1976: 147). The built heritage can meet precisely these human needs and is
Contemporary issues in urban often perceived as a driver of identity, due to its qualities: the particular visual appearance
and strong image, easily recognizable by any given observer, the intricate path structure
heritage preservation and topographical feature which ensure a specific coherence of all urban fabric elements,
but also its appealing, strong character, generated by meanings and associations, which
Raluca-Maria Trifa exceed the physical qualities of centuries-old architecture.
“Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism Bucharest, Romania The various successive ideologies in particular in post-war Europe have massively
[email protected] influenced the way of perceiving and relating to the built heritage. This aspect is even
more obvious in the former socialist countries, where the political power tried to impress
Preamble a new identity based on different cultural values, significance and representations. If some
Although the importance of the built heritage is universally acknowledged due European states have understood that heritage can be used as an asset in this approach,
to its multiple benefits, in many European cities there seems to be an open conflict others chose to play the heritage card in a very different way, sacrificing the legacy of
between the desire to preserve the historic architecture and the necessity to trans- the past at the expense of a new type of architecture, more pleasant to the authoritarian
form the urban fabric. Consequently, a large number of heritage buildings undergo regime. The transition to capitalism failed to fully protect the architectural heritage, as
irreversible transformations or are completely demolished in order to make place for market liberalization and the accelerated development of historic cities often favored
new developments, without taking into consideration the irreplaceable losses resulting the demolition of heritage buildings.
from these aggressive actions. Demolition is causing serious damage to historic cities, A paragraph written more than four decades ago makes a perfect summary of
as the destruction of built heritage often leads to social disturbance, economic loss the challenges still faced by the built heritage: «In the conditions of modern urbaniza-
and cultural identity. Certainly, there are some exceptions, as a considerable number tion, which leads to a considerable increase in the scale and density of buildings, apart
of European cities have used the built heritage as an asset in the process of urban from the danger of direct destruction of historic areas, there is a real danger that newly
regeneration, protecting and enhancing the architectural richness of the past. developed areas can ruin the environment and character of adjoining historic areas. […]
This paper tries to provide a series of answers regarding the two concepts that The preservation of historic areas can make an outstanding contribution to maintaining
seem antagonistic: the preservation of built heritage and the urban development. The and developing the cultural and social values of each nation» (UNESCO 1976).
political factor is also questioned, as the relation of the authorities with the inheritance However, the attitude of local governments regarding the built heritage faces
of the past has proved to be a defining element regarding the fate of the built heritage. a certain resistance: while some undertook significant measures in order to preserve
The research is based on a comparative analysis of the built heritage situation in two and enhance their architectural legacy, other European states are critical of this heri-
European capital cities, Prague and Bucharest. tage component and fail to take appropriate actions to safeguard it. In this regard, two
significant examples can be considered and further analyzed – Prague and Bucharest.
Searching for an urban identity in the contemporary city Both capitals of former socialist countries underwent a difficult process of redefining
In an attempt to strengthen the character of a place or to redefine it, the built their identity. In this attempt, the built heritage played an essential role, though the two
heritage seems to have been the favorite subject of spatial planning policies over the last mentioned cities had a very different attitude towards it, during and after the fall of the
century. Even today, the controversy surrounding the historical architecture is far from Iron Curtain.
ending, particularly due to the role that this type of heritage plays in creating a specific
identity. Prague – a good practice model?
Kevin Lynch noted that the identity of a built object relies on a «workable image» Prague is one of the most charming urban centres in Europe. The built frame-
that requires the identification of that object, implies «its distinction from other things, its work, marked by the presence of outstanding works of architecture erected in different
recognition as a separable entity» (Lynch 1990: 9) and must have some meaning for the historical eras and varied styles, harmoniously complements the natural landscape of

138 — 139
observer, whether practical or emotional. Historical cities are, in this sense, fundamental the city. These unique characteristics have been exploited by the local authorities start-
examples that illustrate the concept of identity, as defined by Lynch. The human need to ing with the second half of the 20th century, when, with substantial efforts, a complex
relate to certain places with intrinsic value is essential for the contemporary society, as the conservation and restoration program was undertaken. It should be mentioned that
urban framework is capable of ensuring a sense of familiarity and belonging, despite major such policies were largely due to the socialist ideology, particularly after the “Prague
Spring”, when the political leaders acknowledged the representation value of the built are identified by UNESCO’s experts, who claim that the increasing degree of land use

Raluca-Maria Trifa: Bucharest, Romania

heritage and often used it in their own interest. Heritage was seen as a connecting el- inside the protected area and the constriction of oversized new buildings are affecting
ement of the new power with the past, ensuring its continuity and therefore, providing the cultural value of Prague (UNESCO 2014). Due to the compactness of Prague’s built
its legitimacy (Light et al. 2009: 230). On the other hand, the Czechoslovak authorities framework, part of the historical architecture must be sacrificed in order to allow for new
were more interested in large scale projects, such as housing, social infrastructure development projects. Consequently, the recent heritage, represented by construc-
or retail, which were seen as unsuitable for the historic centre with its narrow streets tions built during the post-war period, is the most affected. Fortunately, such cases
and extremely dense built fabric (Hammersley, Westlake 2013: 189). As a result, the are limited in the city centre and the new developments are slowly moving towards the
historic centre of Prague escaped almost unscathed from communist interventions limit of the protected area, frequently on the site of former industrial facilities, until
and underwent extensive restoration operations (Light et al. 2009: 233). recently abandoned or improperly used.
Except for some questionable interventions made in the last decades of the 20th As a result, the dusty districts of Karlín or Holešovice gained a new lease of
century, Prague knew how to highlight the qualities of its architectural heritage and life thanks to targeted adaptive-reuse interventions and urban renewal operations.
has constantly made efforts to valorize it (even if many restoration interventions were Therefore, an increased number of former industrial sites received new uses (offic-
made in order to support the political power). As a direct consequence, in 1992 the his- es, commerce, housing or culture), among these being “Corso Karlín”, “Vnitroblock”,
toric centre of Prague was listed as a Cultural World Heritage Site by UNESCO (ICOMOS, “La Fabrika” or “DOX – Centre of Contemporary Art”. (Figg. 2, 3) Although the strategy
1992). This distinction attracted a large number of visitors, mainly former emigrants and adopted requires a series of improvements and strategic long term planning, the mea-
Western Europeans (Holešinská, Šauer 2018: 504). In addition, due to its designation as sures undertaken over the last three decades in relation to the built heritage made the
a "European City of Culture" in 2000, Prague has gained an even greater visibility on the Czech capital one of the most desirable cities in Europe.
world tourism stage. This helped increase awareness and funding for Prague’s cultural
scene and architectural heritage, the renovations made during the preparation for the The built heritage of Bucharest: a series of unfortunate events
2000’s event representing an important legacy (Palmer 2004: 215). The efforts made From the perspective of its relation to the built heritage, Romania can be con-
to preserve the historic architecture are still ongoing; as a result, Prague became one sidered a less positive example. The built heritage, everyone’s and at the same time
of the most visited European cities in recent years. (Fig. 1) nobody’s property, had to face over the last half century the brutal decisions of poli-
Nevertheless, the historic area of the Czech capital is under pressure, in part cymakers, as the massive demolitions carried out during the communist regime irre-
due to the huge influx of tourists. The numbers have increased gradually over the last trievably affected the community’s life, the urban character and identity.
decade, starting from 1,460,601 visitors in 2012 to 4,802,203 visitors in 2018 (Prague Compared to the attitude adopted by Prague’s authorities regarding the built
City Tourism 2018). Although tourism remains an important part of Prague’s economy heritage, the situation in Bucharest was dramatically different. Starting from the late
and a determinant factor in urban regeneration, the negative effects of the mass-tour- 1970’s entire historic neighborhoods were razed as part of a grand urban renewal plan
ism has begun to constrain the quality of life of local residents. These shortcomings (Grama 2019: 118), in order to erase its former identity and to make way for a more
include, among others, the emergence of the gentrification phenomenon, change in “appealing” architecture, a new “communist heritage” (Light 2000). Despite this state
function, the increased prices for services or housing, the loss of local traders and the of affairs, Bucharest remained one of the European capitals benefiting from an ex-
impossibility for the city’s inhabitants to enjoy the picturesque areas, now overcrowded ceptional diversity of architectural styles and typologies. (Fig. 4) Thus, on the eve of
(Ouředníček, Temelová 2009; Cooper, Morpeth 1998; Simpson 1999). the newly restored democracy of the 1990's, the first solid measures were taken by the
According to Gregory Ashworth, mass tourism is also a major threat to the cul- specialists in the field of historic monument conservation and restoration. Currently,
tural identity, as the diversity of visitors can facilitate an expansion of the value field, a total of 14.4 % (2853 ha) of the surface of Bucharest (Marin 1997) is represented by
which sometimes is not specific to the history of a place (Ashworth 1995: 70). This the 98 built protected areas, whose limits and regulations were established in 1999.
argument is supported by the residents of Prague’s historical areas, most affected by Nevertheless, a widespread phenomenon of deterioration is affecting the his-
mass tourism, who sense this «invasion» as «a competition for identity» (Hoffman, torical areas of Bucharest, this condition being encouraged by the authorities’ lack
Musil 2009). Therefore, in the context of touristification, the character and identity of of reaction and complicity. Unfortunately, the systematic demolitions started by the
Prague are at risk of being eroded, as an uncontrolled increase in the number of tourists communist regime did not end with its downfall, such actions being carried out in

140 — 141
can lead to «a shift away from “true” history towards a more sanitized and popularized recent years. The abandonment of valuable buildings and the increased number of
identity» (Simpson 1999). demolitions, the umpteen examples of aggressive renovations or intentional mutilation
This menace is completed by real estate speculators, who seize the benefits of the historic fabric (especially due to the much blamed façadism practice, but also
offered by the magnificent urban setting of the historic centre. Some of these threats the uncontrolled development which seems to elude the current legislation), have
Fig. 1) Historical centre Fig. 3) DOX Centre
of Prague, Czech of Contemporary Art,
Republic. (photo Raluca- the industrial heritage
Maria Trifa 2019) adaptive reuse project
in Holešovice, Prague,
Czech Republic. (photo
Raluca-Maria Trifa 2019)

Fig. 2) Corso Karlín, Fig. 4) One view over

former factory Breitfeld the diverse cityscape
Daněk re-designed of Bucharest, Romania.
by Taller Arquitectura, (photo Alberto Grosescu)
early example
of conversion in Prague,
Czech Republic. (photo
Petr Vorlík 2002)

142 — 143
a massive impact on the quality of Bucharest’ historical urban landscape. A number of

Raluca-Maria Trifa: Bucharest, Romania

References

national and international organizations concerned with the fate of the architectural Ashworth, G. J., 1995. “Heritage, tourism and Europe: a European Future for a European past?”,

heritage, ICOMOS and World Monuments Fund included, raised an alarm signal and called in Herbert, D. T. ed., Heritage, tourism and society. Mansell, London, 68–84 

on the Romanian authorities, urging them to stop the destruction of historic areas and Cooper C., Morpeth N., 1998. “The Impact of Tourism on Residential Experience in Central-Eastern Europe: The

to take the necessary measures in order to protect the built heritage (ICOMOS 2014). Development of a New Legitimating Crisis in the Czech Republic”, in Urban Studies, 35 (12), 2253–2275

Yet, the generalized phenomenon of historic buildings mutilation still contin- Grama E., 2019. Socialist Heritage: The Politics of Past and Place in Romania. Indiana University Press, Indiana.

ues, the only difference consisting in the modus operandi. Currently, the aggressive Hammersley R., Westlake T., 2013. “Urban Heritage in the Czech Republic”, in Ashworth G.I., Larkham P. ed.,

interventions to the built heritage are punctual, but they are spread throughout the Building a new heritage: tourism, culture, and identity in the new Europe. Routledge, London, 178–202

city, affecting the entire urban landscape. (Figg. 5, 6, 7) More than that, an impressive Hoffman L. M., Musil, J., 2009. “Prague, tourism and the post-industrial city”, in A Great Cities Institute Working

number of buildings with significant cultural value are doomed to extinction: traditional Papers, No. GCP-09-05, College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs, University of Illinois, Chicago.

houses, modernist buildings or, as expected, large industrial heritage sites. In the case Holešinská A., Šauer M., 2018. “Economic Transition and Tourism Development – Mass Tourism in Prague”, in Klímová, V., Žítek,

of the latter, these large urban areas represent the perfect pretext for new development V. eds., 21st International Colloquium on Regional Sciences. Conference Proceedings. Masarykova Univerzita, Brno, 501–507.

projects. The approach is completely opposite to the one in Prague, as the industrial ICOMOS, 1992. Advisory Body Evaluation for the Historic Centre of Prague, [online] Available

sites are either abandoned or subject to a tabula rasa process, most of the buildings at <https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/616/documents/> (Accessed March 2020).

being completely demolished, despite their certified values. This is the case of the ICOMOS, 2014. Annual Report 2014, [online] Available at <https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/

former Match Factory, “Bragadiru” Brewery, “Assan” Mill, “Wolff” Industrial Halls and Secretariat/Annual_Reports/ICOMOS_AR2014_EN_issuu_20150619.pdf> (Accessed March 2020).

“Malaxa” Factory – now left in ruins or of the former “Luther-Grivita” Brewery, “Lemaitre” Light D., Young C., Czepczyński M., 2009. “Heritage tourism in East and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union”,

Ironworks and “Ford” Car Factory – now subject to new urban renewal projects that in Dallen J. T., Gyan P. N. ed., Heritage Tourism in the Developing World. Publisher Routledge, London, 224–245.

ignored the heritage buildings. (Figg. 8, 9) Light D., 2000. “An Unwanted Past: contemporary tourism and the heritage of communism

in Romania”, in International Journal of Heritage Studies 6 (2), 145–160.

So, does the past have a future? Lynch K., 1990. The Image of the City. M.I.T. Press Massachusetts Institute of

The two analyzed cities, Prague and Bucharest, present a series of similarities Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts and London.

and differences in terms of their relationship with the built heritage. Despite their com- Marin D., Radu F., 1997. Built Protected Areas – the City of Bucharest and its administrative

mon past, dominated by the influence of Soviet ideology, the two cities managed to territory. Research Report, "Ion Mincu" Institute of Architecture Bucharest.

preserve (at least in part) their valuable historical architecture. Prague’s built heritage Ouředníček, M., Temelová, J., 2009. “Twenty years after socialism: the transformation of

was more privileged from this point of view, benefiting over the years from the atten- Prague’s inner structure”, in Studia Universitatis BabesBoyai, Sociologia, 54 (1), 9–30.

tion of the authorities. Bucharest sits at the opposite pole, the systematic destruction Prague City Tourism, 2018. Annual Report, Prague. [online] Available at <https://www.praguecitytourism.cz/file/

made before and after 1989 depriving the Romanian capital of a significant number of edee/en/annual-reports/19006_vyrocni-zprava-2018_en_a4_verze2_web.pdf> (Accessed March 2020).

valuable buildings. Palmer R. et al., 2004. European Cities and Capitals of Culture. City Reports Study Prepared for the European

Even today, the situation of the built heritage in the two cities can be discussed Commission PART II, Brussels. [online] Available at <https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/sites/

in parallel – if the historical architecture of Prague is threatened by the exaggerated default/files/library/palmer-report-capitals-culture-1995-2004-ii_en.pdf> (Accessed March 2020).

interest (especially from tourists), in Bucharest is precisely the lack of interest (of the Relph E., 1976. Place and Placelessness. Pion, London UK.

authorities, community and tourists) that weakens this legacy. In this context, the fate of Simpson F., 1999. “Tourist Impact in the Historic Centre of Prague: Resident and Visitor Perceptions

the built heritage of Bucharest seems to be compromised. The inadequate interventions of the Historic Built Environment”, in The Geographical Journal, Vol. 165, No. 2, 173–183.

to historical buildings or the new architecture, whose emplacement, size, height and UNESCO, 1976. Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas. Nairobi.

appearance do not respect the character of the traditional urban fabric, are far from UNESCO, 2014. Periodic Report – Second Cycle Section II – Historic Centre of Prague. [online]

being restricted by the actors involved in the process of city management and urban Available at <https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/616/documents/> (Accessed March 2020).

development. The future of the built heritage depends entirely on the human factor,
more precisely, on a change in the collective mentality of Romanian society.

144 — 145
More than that, the sustainable development of a city cannot be done in the
absence of the built heritage, as the historic architecture «is of vital importance for
humanity and for nations who find in it both the expression of their way of life and one
of the corner-stones of their identity» (UNESCO 1976).
Fig. 5) Contemporary Fig. 7) Contemporary
interventions in historic interventions in historic
areas: a new apartment areas: a new office
building on the site building at Calea Griviței,
of a partially demolished among the ruins of
house at 38, Maria a large area demolished
Rossetti St. Bucharest, between 2011–2013.
Romania. (photo Bucharest, Romania.
Raluca-Maria Trifa) (photo Alberto Grosescu)

Fig. 8) Former “Wolff”

Industrial site in
Bucharest, currently
unused. Romania. (photo
Raluca-Maria Trifa)

Fig. 6) Contemporary
interventions in historic
areas: an example
of façadism at 59, Vasile
Lascar St. Bucharest,
Romania. (photo
Raluca-Maria Trifa) Fig. 9) Former “Luther-
Grivita” Brewery,
partially demolished
and subject to a new
real estate project.
Romania. (photo
Raluca-Maria Trifa)

146 — 147
The workshop brings together a broad 1. Towards the contemporary hybrid
range of people, from art conservators city and cultural complexity
to architects, engineers, and officials, Do contemporary cities need a blended mix of history and
modernity? How does gentrification impact public or private spaces,
to discuss the issues that have come to be their diversity, and the intricate web of relations in the city?

of crucial importance in the management

2. The force of everyday life
of European cultural heritage. Considering
How can we strengthen the sustainability of the cultural value, ecology,
the roles that critical reflection and aca- economy, and prolonged life cycle of the built environment through
necessary, responsible maintenance? Can we control or manage amateur
demic scholarship have played in develop- alterations (adaptations) driven by consumption and commercial forces?

ing conservation as a cultural practice,

3. Contemporary versus traditional
it will explore how the EAAE Conservation
technologies and approaches
Network can enhance the contribution of
Are traditional and modern technologies sufficiently accessible
these two basic pillars of architecture for or culturally acceptable in a contemporary city? And what is
the role of architects, conservators, municipalities, institutions,
the future of architectural heritage. legislation, participation, and professional ethics?

4. The scale of new intervention

The workshop takes place in the heart
versus memory
of Europe: the City of Prague in the Czech
Is it possible to accept and make meaningful use of small-
Republic. It comprises academic presenta- scale historic heritage in a contemporary city? Or to benefit
contemporary lifestyles? Using current development approaches
tions on the issues identified below as topic and building processes? Can demolition be accepted as a legitimate
option or strategy? Can we accept demolition in the process of
areas, small, intensive group discussions, conservation? Or conservation and restitution after demolition?

and study trips to selected sites.

396 — 397
 List of participants
Marta ACIERNO Carolina DI BIASE
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
[email protected] [email protected]

Francesca ALBANI Fintan DUFFY

Department of Architecture and Urbani Study, Politecnico di Milano, Italy Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Helena Ballošová Tomáš EFLER

Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic
[email protected] [email protected]

Mehmet Gokhan BERK Donatella FIORANI

Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
[email protected] [email protected]

Petra BOUDOVÁ Giovanna FRANCO

Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic Department Architecture and Design, University of Genoa, Italy
[email protected] [email protected]

Jana BUKAČOVÁ Maria Crististina GIAMBRUNO

Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic Politecnico di Milano, Italy
[email protected] [email protected]

Miguel Angel CALVO-SALVE Caterina GIANNATTASIO

School of Architecture, Marywood University, Scranton, Pennsylvania, USA Department of Civil-Environmental Engineering and Architecture, School of Architecture, Italy
[email protected] [email protected]

Maria Teresa CAMPISI Marion HARNEY

Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, University Kore of Enna, Italy University of Bath & University of Westminster, United Kingdom
[email protected] [email protected]

Teresa CUNHA FERREIRA Sara IACCARINO

Faculty of Architecture, University of Porto, Portugal Università di Napoli Federico II, Italy
[email protected] [email protected], [email protected]

Simonetta CIRANNA Naveed IQBAL

University of L’Aquila, Italy Hasselt University, Belgium
[email protected] [email protected]

Rodica CRIȘAN Loughlin KEALY

Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, Romania School of Architecture, University College, Dublin, Ireland
[email protected] [email protected]
 List of participants
Maria LEUS Valentina PINTUS
Faculty of design sciences, Antwerp University & Faculty of Architecture, Department of Civil-Environmental Engineering and Architecture, University of Cagliari, Italy
Hasselt University, Belgium [email protected]
[email protected]
Daniela PITTALUGA
Chiara MARIOTTI dAD-Universita di Genova, Italy
Architectural Restoration University of Bologna, [email protected]
Department of Architecture, Italy
[email protected] Tereza POLÁČKOVÁ
Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic
Federica MARULO [email protected]
Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft & Department of Architecture,
University of Naples, Netherlands & Italy Stefania POLONE
[email protected] Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy
[email protected]
Florin MUREŞANU
Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urbanism, Romania Vincenzo RISO
[email protected] School of Architecture, University of Minho, Portugal
[email protected]
Monica MUREŞANU
Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urbanism, Romania Sara ROCCO
[email protected] Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
[email protected]
Stefano Francesco MUSSO
DAD-Architettura e Design, Genova, Italy Luis BOSCH ROIG
[email protected] School of Architecture, Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain
[email protected]
Annunziata Maria OTERI
Politecnico di Milano, Italy Pavel SMĚTÁK
[email protected] Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic
[email protected]
Andrea PANE
Department of Architecture, University of Naples Federico II, Italy Emanuela SORBO
[email protected] Università Iuav di Venezia, Italy
[email protected]
Serena PESENTI
Dipartimento di Architettura e Studi urbani, Politecnico di Milano, Italy Sally STONE
[email protected] Manchester School of Architecture, United Kingdom
[email protected]
Renata PICONE
Università di Napoli Federico II, Dipartimento di Architettura, Nino SULFARO
Scuola Politecnica e delle Scienze di Base, Italy Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities, Italy
[email protected] [email protected], [email protected]
 List of participants
Raluca-Maria TRIFA
Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, Romania
[email protected]

Tomás Valente LLOVES

CESUGA University College, A Coruña, Spain
[email protected]

Andrea UGOLINI
Department of Architecture, Architectural Restoration University of Bologna, Italy
[email protected]

Antonio Pernas VARELA

CESUGA University College, A Coruña, Spain
[email protected]

Antonella VERSACI
University of Enna Kore, Italy
[email protected]

Veronika VICHERKOVÁ
Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic
[email protected]

Petr VORLÍK
Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic
[email protected]

Alessia ZAMPINI
Architecture Department, University of Bologna, Italy
[email protected]
Conservation – Demolition

EAAE
Transaction on Architectural Education no. 67

Editors
Rodica Crișan, Donatella Fiorani, Giovanna Franco,
Loughlin Kealy, Stefano Francesco Musso, Petr Vorlík

Graphic layout
Lucia Mlynčeková

Production
Petr Vorlík, Klára Ullmannová, Lucia Mlynčeková,
Tereza Poláčková, Gabriela Thompson

Translations
Robin Cassling, Kateřina Valentová, Naděžda Bonaventurová

Photos on pages 78, 79, 150, 151, 248, 249, 346, 347, 404, 405
Petr Vorlík 2019.

Diagrams on pages 244-247 Group 3,

Chiara Mariotti and Lucia Mlynčeková 2019 / 2021.

Printed by Serifa, Jinonická 80, 158 00 Praha 5

Papers Munken Pure 120 g/m2, Munken Pure 300 g/m2
Pages 408

Published by Czech Technical University in Prague, 2021

Faculty of Architecture,
Thákurova 9, 166 34 Prague 6, Czech Republic,
tel.: 224 356 254

ISBN 978-80-01-06827-4 ebook
ISBN 978-80-01-06826-7 printed

Copyright © 2021 by the authors. All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint,

microfilm or by any other means without permision of the publisher.