“Beautiful Prague” – Experiencing the antiquity and beauty of a city in the czech society of the 20th century ****************************************************************************************** * Blanka Soukupová ****************************************************************************************** PDF ke stažení [ URL "LM-672-version1-beautiful_prague.pdf"] Urban anthropologists (ethnologists) often begin thinking about research of a city with th that this society (Gesellschaft) ought to be studied through an analysis of the compositio communities that live in it (Zajonc 2003: 179). This is surely one of the possibilities th an understanding of the functioning of urban organisms, specific urban worlds. But, if we that the anthropologist does not necessarily have to construct his thesis from direct and with existing communities, we are offered the possibility of archival research, the possib written sources and, therefore, a choice of other gauges. Our indicator for knowing the ca Czech lands and also, from 1918, of the Czechoslovak Republic, a city that became the symb and modern Czechness will be its relation to monuments. We will follow this relation from the 20th century until 1989. Our starting point documents the logical sequence between the modern Czech society, which is freeing itself - even if only through its elite - from ster provincialism and the institutionalization of monument preservation on a scientific basis. fact, a scientific and enlightening society, the Club for Ancient Prague, was founded only that time, monuments were almost the only source of confirmation of the national construct Czech national society and its way of thinking. The forming and formed nation perceived th its historical continuity and/or connected them with important events in its past. Monumen of the Czech philosopher Jaroslava Pešková a "specific expression of human reality" (Peško were appropriate because they represent some sort of materialization (according to Pešková of memory (Pešková 1997: 34). The building of the Museum of the Czech Kingdom (National Mu Horse Market (today's Wenceslas Square) became a symbol of the Prague revolution of 1849; clock, which was repaired in 1866 and, especially, the building of the National Theater, w stones were laid on May 15, 1868, symbolized the renaissance of the Czech folk living in B Moravia, in two inseparable historical Czech lands. Vyšehrad was thought of as the cradle education and Prague castle as the seat of the Czech rulers and a symbol of erstwhile Czec is, Czech remembrance also had an unambiguous spatio-temporal context (Nora 1991). Monumen personalities of the Czech National Revival were also included in such discourse (Soukupov It was in no way coincidental that one of the first Prague monuments was dedicated to Jose personality of the Czech National Revival. The cornerstone was laid in 1873 during the his the Czech depression. The monument, unveiled only in 1878, symbolized Czech peacefulness, foremost, the invincibility of the Czech nation which could rely on its own strength alone 1997: 54-64). The most important monument of the last century and/or since 1918 was the Sa statue. Even though not all the social groups perceived the Saint Wenceslas cult in the sa no nation represents a unanimous society), the notion of Duke Wenceslas as a peace-loving to defend a culturally mature nation prevailed. (Hojda & Pokorný 1997:113-116, Soukupová 2 34-38, 41-43). At the turn of the twentieth century, specialists such as architects, engineers and expone sciences began to prepare society to include monuments in discussions about the character (and this itself was at the time when the gothic plan of Prague, especially of Prague's Ne 1983: 299), was conceived as a monument). This debate, however, was not necessarily burden past, present and future positions of the nation. Custodians of the past tried to take int the artistic-historical value of monuments. This certainly does not mean that their lines would not sound very understandable in tense times of national existence and that the conf monuments could not include criticism of state politics. An example of such an approach ma protest meeting of the Club for Ancient Prague led by government councilman Luboš Jeřábek 1918, against the construction of military hospital buildings in the Royal Garden of Pragu when approximately 400 people who gathered for a meeting in the Sladkovský hall of the Mun expressed their disagreement about the destruction of the unique monument, only secondaril questionable construction disputed by medical argumentation that the buildings were unsuit needs of a military hospital. The proposal to refer this question to Czech politicians tra of monument protection into some sort of political protest. At the same time, the above-mentioned example brings us to the problem of what exactly was monument. The impulse leading to scientific interest in monuments on an institutional basi the reconstruction of the Prague ghetto at the turn of the twentieth century (Rybár 1991: Bečková 1993) was presented under the catchwords of modernization and the grandeur of Prag intellectual public, led by the writer Vilém Mrštík, was unable to prevent the rapid destr 1991: 104-105). In the beginnings of scientific preservation, included under the term "mon that visualization of human memory: one single construction containing every historical st monasteries, churches, but also agricultural and restaurant buildings, memorials, bridges) statues, but also parks, gardens and the ground plan itself of the historical city. As mem musical, literary and theatric worksalso appeared. Momentous and beautiful were the "ancie embedded in an original whole. Conservationists expected monuments to be protected against modernization. The period between the wars influenced the attitude toward monuments in several directions democratization of society led to the conviction that the protection of monuments could be to many levels of society. Preservationists were indeed convinced that training and educat lectures, outings, walks, tours, reading, exhibitions, etc. would lead to the cultivation Preservation of "old Prague," the awakening of interest in monuments, and also preservatio supervision during the reconstructions in the city were counted on. For the first time, th discussions about so-called natural monuments. Scientific care of monuments even penetrate provinces. On the other hand, however, there was a group of monuments from the beginnings that were in immediate danger. These were baroque monuments into which was projected the n symbols of White Mountain. On November 3, 1918, the Virgin Mary column in Old Town Square but that was only the beginning... (Hojda & Pokorný 1997: 30). The fate of other baroque m in question. The First Republic, however, was also interesting because, for the first time to such an e interests of urbanists and preservationists clashed. This conflict was understandably most Prague. The so-called regulation of the emerging Greater Prague (from January 1, 1922) (Dě 294-299) was performed under the catchword "deaustrofication." The Czech public was comple by the thought that the provincialism of the capital of the Czech lands, provincialism tha reflected in its architecture, was intentional. The hostile Austro-Hungarian Empire allege to change Prague into a metropolis. Thus, apparently only after the fall of the monarchy d cities" make up for the historical delay. Large-scale plans of municipal mass transportati regulation of the Vltava and new city gasworks were designed; a green belt around Prague w (Soukupová 1994: 48, 52-53). The center of the city filled with multistoried buildings (Dě 312]. In the immediate area and outlying districts housing blocks sprang up in green quart II: 314). Attempts at modernization were naturally carried ad absurdum. Contemporary journ called modern architects called existing Prague architecture inappropriate and unmodern. F of view, a new city ought to be well arranged, tailored to rapid relocation of the populat same time, to quality relaxation. Meanwhile there was a widespread wave of migration. Ther 25, 1924, so-called modern architects, under the leadership of Jaromír Krejcar, later vice the Club, founded a competitive Club for New Prague. Its mission was to be the propagation constructions, modern housing, and reconstruction of Prague into a modern European metropo interesting group, the owners of historic houses for whom real estate was a source of inco rule, profit-oriented. It was therefore not a coincidence that interwar care of monuments request for tax relief for those who took good care of their property. During this period, the heightened vigilance of specialists was centered on historic sites gymnastic movement, Sokol, Prague castle as the seat of the President where widespread rec was carried out in the spirit of new state historicism (Dějiny Prahy II: 348-349) and arch research, the completion of the construction of Saint Vitus cathedral, the grounds of Prag Petřín. Another type of interest, however, was aroused by monuments that were designated f the modern age. Such a fate awaited the baroque summer villa, Portheimka, and the so-calle pavilion in Smíchov (1928), which was to make way for a new bridge, or some buildings in P including, perhaps, the area around the grounds of the gothic monastery Na Františku (the grounds). And finally the preservationists concentrated on a demand to preserve the Prague according to them, was threatened by the construction of high buildings - so-called skyscr By solving these complicated tasks, the preservationists tactically strengthened their dec the republic and to the head of state himself. During the opening of the general assembly Club for Ancient Prague paid homage to President T. G. Masaryk. The club selected Ernst De historian, to be an honorary member. On March 5, 1930, it chose as an honorary member Masa took place on the occasion of his birthday. The vote was justified by the president's supp interest in monuments. The First Republic's plans ended at the time of the protectorate. World War II and the tru existence of the Czech nation inclined the preservationists to greater interest in monumen countryside, which itself became an unusual phenomenon. That is to say, it was actually th that permitted the Czech nation to see its own, centuries-old succession of generations th the land. Identification with the Czech landscape was, therefore, a striking compensatory Club for Ancient Prague itself propagating tolerated Czechness was therefore not prohibite to a number of other Czech corporations. In 1941 it even prepared an exhibition on the the Preservation. The end of World War II, therefore, logically brought a new wave of monument preservation Prague, in contrast to other Middle European cities, was almost completely spared from war its importance within Europe increased. It was considered the best preserved urban complex and east of the Rhine. In regard to postwar reconstruction, preservationists actually solv problems: the question of completing the construction of the Old Town Hall, which was part down; renewal of Old Town Square and the completion of the construction of Podskalí under bombarded in February 1945, the renewal of the Gröbe villa, which, after the bombardment, for thieves. At the same time they could concentrate on their prewar tasks, which were pri changes of the Hradčany (Castle Quarter) panorama, the Vyšehrad panorama, the renewal of s spaces (e.g. Bethlehem Square, Kampa, Prague parks) and the strengthening of its instituti they tried to save Portheimka, to remove advertisements from Prague historical buildings ( posters of the Communist publishing house Svoboda on Slovanský dům - the Slavonic House - called Na příkopě), to remove ruthless alterations of memorials during the protectorate, a many valuable monuments, including house signs and imperial graves in Olšanský cemetery. T also met with greedy owners who let their objects decay so they could then tear them down architectonically inappropriate projects (construction of a student city in the New Town) spontaneous reconstructions. Nevertheless, a relation to monuments was developing. Shortly after World War II, monument as documents of the mature architecture of the Czech "metropolis," as a magnet for tourist same time, as national property and a source of national pride. One of the first postwar e Prague Castle in the Middle Ages, presented the Castle as a symbol of Czech history. At th preservationists endeavored to have the Bethlehem Chapel proclaimed as national property a reconstructed. Places connected with the so-called National Resistance, mainly the crypt o Charles Boromeo church on Resslova Street, the hiding place of the assassins of Reinhard H Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, began to be considered national monuments. Also va Jewish monuments, of course mainly as a kind of publicity for the Czechoslovak Republic ab 1005: 47). 1960 saw the opening of the Pinkas synagogue as a memorial to the Czech victims (Soukupová 2005: 51). In 1968, at a time of worsening Israeli-Soviet relations, the synago Both the Maisel and the Old-New synagogues were closed to the public (officially for recon (Soukupová 2005: 52). After the February Revolution (1948), preservationists tactically be monuments a valuable source of education for the construction of a socialistic city. Presi Gottwald positively appreciated their loyalty and donated a financial gift to the Club for (at that time having 378 members from Prague and 70 from other locations). Despite that gesture of Gottwald's, preservationists often had to confront the opinions th preservation was outdated romanticism, an expression of sentiment or bourgeois patriotism. loyalty to the new regime prevented the 1939 demolition of the so-called Brauner house on and Perštýn, a classicist building from the end of the l8th century, seat of the famous Un gathering place of intellectuals and artists. The dům U kaštanu (Chestnut Tree House), ori reconstructed in classical style, the site of the founding of the Czechoslavonic Social De (1878), was also endangered. The future Museum of the Origins of the Czech Worker Movement partly demolished to make way for roads. (Poche 1985: 383) The old-new attempt to harmonize the original character of Prague with the demands of mode move in the city was perceived as the greatest problem of postwar Prague conservation. The mass transportation dragged on through all of the postwar history of expanding Prague, esp called roads on the left bank of the Vltava. Preservationists were especially upset by the in the narrow streets of the Old Town, disturbing the statics of the old buildings. They a skepticism plans of an elaborate construction of underground trains which, according to th the risk of static damage to buildings. (In 1948 the underground railway was even labeled grave.") As early as 1948, the Club for Ancient Prague hosted a lecture by Eng. A. Janouše of vehicles, the straining of roadways with heavy cars and on the bad state of the roads, destruction of Prague cobblestones by the tram tracks. He saw the solution in the construc near factories and/or a reduction of the need for workers to use mass transportation.Nor w for trolley-buses, which were not appropriate because of the overhead wires. The esthetic streets was unequivocally given precedence over the quality of the atmosphere; however, af World War there was an insufficient number of buses (buses had been recommended), and also tires. The first stage of the construction of the underground (called "metro" in Prague) w only in the years 1774 to 1985 (Čech & Fojtík & Prošek 1992: 8). Nor could the traffic pro historic city of Prague be solved. In 1973 the number of autos in Prague rose to more than & Lukáčová & Háber & Prošek, 1975: 52). By December 31, 1990, 428,769 motor vehicles were & Fojtík & Prošek 1992: 5). The preservationists' work was naturally complicated by so-called all-society interest. Fo shortly after World War II, when women made up the essential work force, the Central Natio of the Capital City of Prague decided on the construction of a nursery school in the histo Seminary Garden. The Club for Ancient Prague issued a protest. Even more dangerous than th however, was the government regulation of October 1945 concerning the construction of a hi west and the east of the state. It was to have run in Prague along the Vltava. Apart from an attempt of so-called roadway fanatics to open the narrow streets of Old Town to automob these difficulties was the unavailability of essential building materials for delicate rep buildings. In the 1950s the historical center of the city, which, as a result of the Shoah and the po of the German population, had already visibly begun to deteriorate. This - along with a ch ownership - caused the state to begin taking care of it. Despite the declared interest of leaders in monuments, the care was poor. In December 1950, Member of Parliament Gustav Bar the constitutional conference of the city committee of the Czechoslovak Communist Party in House about Prague as the pride and the heart of the republic, a city with a deep memory. he outlined the large creative plans of the new regime. According to them, the Šverma brid in 1958), a new building of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia Gallery, a large square for manifestations of the people, and a new university complex wou Žizkov, Libeň, and Vysočany would be reconstructed; a new quarter in Pankrác would be buil pioneers were to get their own building; the progressive journalist Jan Neruda was to have monument. Large houses were to be built for workers to alleviate the postwar dearth of hou the university had begun to adapt the Karolinum to its needs. In 1951, the little summer p (Star) was reconstructed to house the Museum of Alois Jirásek. But despite clear instructi Party, there were various concepts of the future appearance of Socialistic Prague. Some Pr wished to remake Prague into a city of skyscrapers, while others pictured extensive quarte houses. A change in the relation to memorials came about only in the 60s. In the Club for Ancient under a new board. At the same time there was an increase in the number of members. Czech began to be interested in the care of monuments in Western Europe. In Prague they concentr renewal of the historic core of the city and the so-called Royal Road, on modifications of the National Theater, and on the problem of an underground train system. A special committ worked on monuments of the Hussite era. During the so-called normalization, there was a drop in the membership of the Club for Anc Under the new social conditions, preservationists concentrated on cultural work and on cel anniversaries of the representatives of the Czech National Revival (e.g., in 1970, the 100 of the death of the painter Josef Mánes; in 1976, the 100th anniversary of the death of th František Palacký), and also of the heroes of the Prague Uprising (1945). In November 1971 dream was realized: the historic core of Prague was proclaimed a state historical reservat this, during those very years, many monuments were destroyed. Enterprises and cooperatives unsuitable modifications of doors and gates that were replaced by standardized metal gates factories and they favored shops in historically valuable buildings. Garages appeared on g Buildings with glass facades (the Máj department store constructed between 1973 and 1975 o of National and Spálená Streets and the House of Children's Books, a steel skeleton from 1 constructed on the site of the Brauner house). A fashionable wave of interest in antiques thefts of relics (from Olšanský cemetery bronze sculptures and metal lanterns disappeared Charles Bridge gilded parts were stolen from statues at the beginning of the 80s). The the often accompanied by vandalism. In the following era, also, the horizons of the city were changing. Tall buildings that sp panorama of Prague rose in Pankrác. In 1965 the Club began its lost battle for the preserv Těšnov station, a neo-renaissance building from 1875, one of the most beautiful stations i Europe (in 1975 it gave way to a north-south arterial road) and architectonically one of t buildings of the rebuilt old Žižkov. At the same time it concentrated on the conservation of Olšanský cemetery, the modification of the baroque building complex of the Benedictine Saint Margaret in Břevnov, the completion of the construction around the National Theater, character the 19th century, Můstek, the Ungelt and the reconstruction of the gothic buildi zvonu (At the Golden Bell) in Old Town Square. To the credit of the Club, the classicist H Na příkopě was saved The greatest work, however, was carried out by volunteers in the seco Olšanský (e.g. in 1977 they put in over 1000 hours of volunteer work). It was apparently t which stretched out over the 1980s, that secured the Club growing favor among average Prag autumn of 1979, it again had more than 1000 members; in 1986, 1189; in1989, approximately there were also memorial gatherings at the graves of leaders of the Czech National Revival journalist Václav Matěj Kramerius, the wife of the composer František Škroup, a creator of journalist Karel Havlíček Borovský; in1979 the playwright V. V. Klicpera; in 1980 and 1989 the composer Bedřich Smetana). The volunteers fixed up the grave of the philosopher Bernar the wife of the composer Zdeňek Fibich. The stimulating Czech society constructed its new the tradition of the Czech National Revival. On the official level, interest grew in the m time of Charles IV (in 1978, the 600th anniversary of his death was celebrated). Promotion tradition was tolerated and even supported. Volunteer activity emboldened the preservationists. In 1979 the Club for Ancient Prague is against the destruction of the iron construction of the Vinohradský Market (1902), in whic a document about the growth of Vinohrady at the beginning of the 20th century. It further against a new television tower on Petřín hill (in 1981 there was a resolution to transfer to the area of Mahler park in Žižkov) and against the callous reconstruction of the Čertov It was successful in the cases of the rescue of the Romanesque Mary Magdalene rotunda in P Přední Kopanina - and the Palace Hotel from the turn of the 20th century, and of the recon classicist chapel in Háje in Prague 4. Nor could they solve the transportation problem in transformed into a crossroads in the second half of the 1980s and lost its human scale. Cl emptied apartments in the center of the city and/or the moving of Praguers to housing esta center contributed to the loss of the intimacy of the historic town. Even before November 1989 the Club for Ancient Prague had openly criticized incompetent au greatest disagreement was over the television tower in Žižkov. It was criticized for its b of the Prague skyline and/or as a metallurgical and petrochemical combine that violates th of Žižkov and Vinohrady. Not less vigorously did the preservationists come to the rescue o School on Commenius Square. The genius loci of old Žižkov actually managed to save it at f twelve! Conclusion Everything began with the demolition of the unique monumental complex of the Prague ghetto first time, to an unprecedented extent, there was a conflict between the demands of urban including all the negative consequences of this process, and its relation to the past. The attached to the various monuments was interconnected with tension and a changed way of thi Czech no longer had to think back on the historical situation of his nation when looking a monument could only authentically document a certain time and esthetically beautify the ci it came into conflict with the so-called majority interest, often even populism, it was in That is, monuments always stood on the border between the past and the passionate present. was perceived as beautiful by specialists. The administration of the city and its ordinary however, could give preference to other values: comfort, presumed usefulness, etc. The soc as a whole was, in a controlled manner, cut off from its past. Therefore it is not surpris also lost the ability to identify with its monuments. However, it did not lose the ability itself during that period. Tolerated and even valued volunteer activity at Olšanský cemete something more than meaningful free-time activity. Every grave of a "nation builder" that could strengthen devalued national identity. Gradually society regained the awareness of c that it would be a pity to lose. This activity could undoubtedly be a certain form of prot ongoing removal of memories that could be reduced to only a certain part of history which purposefully modified. This article is published as a part of the research project "Anthropology of Communication Adaptation (Nr. MSM 0021620843)". As the Czech historian Jiří Kořalka pointed out, T.G. Masaryk and his circle were constant their concept of a modern civil society by the proponents of traditional thinking (Kořalka Archive of the City of Prague (AMP), SK XXII/204 (unless otherwise mentioned, the quotatio archives). Re: the role of monuments as a form of iconographic symbols in the recent past, cf. the co of Miroslav Hroch (Hroch 2005: 17-20). After World War II the Hus cult was at its strongest The main gathering point of the Pragu Town Square with the Hus monument (Soukupová 2005: 40). According to the European historian Miroslav Hroch, the auto-stereotype of a peace-loving defends its existence is the typical auto-stereotype of a small nation (Hroch 1999: 160). E.g., in May 1917 on the society's committee were one government councilor, one librarian, engineer, six architects, three engineers, two lawyers and one JUC, one PhD, one PhC, one one bank official, and one historian - Prof. Josef Šusta. AMP, SK XXII/204, Nos. 170 and 5 year on the board were six architects, two engineers, three doctors of philosophy and one lawyers and one JUC, one academic sculptor, one museum specialist, three high officials an No. 142 E.g. June 10, 1917, the Club for Ancient Prague planned a walk to the baroque Benedictine at Saint Margaret's in Břevnov. AMP, No. 5471. In that same year, members of the club went private collection of pictures of Imperial Councilor Novák, a gothic monastery of an order Benedictines in na Slovanech (Emauzy), a construction site in Podskalí, the Imperial Mill restaurant buildings of the 17th century in Stromovka, and a Roman basilica in Prosek. No. In 1917, the vice president of the Club was the librarian Jan Emler and the second vice pr engineer Eduard Schwarzer. No. 170. The same committee also worked the following year. No. change of regime (in May 1919) engineering councilor engineer Eustach Mölzer became the se Club and professor of architecture Antonín Engel became vice president. AMP, dated. Prague, May 17, 1918. This concept very well illustrates, e.g., a cycle of lectures of the Club from January to Václav Vojtíšek, at that time adjunct to the Archives of the city of Prague, gave a lectur Historical Development of Prague; K. Guth, adjunct of the Museum of the Czech Kingdom on t of Construction in the Middle Ages; architect A. Engl on the Development of the City Plan Prague; V. V. Štech, adjunct of the Museum of the Czech Kingdom on Paintings and Sculpture Ages and the New Age; Professor Z. Nejedlý on Musical Prague; dean of the Philosophical Fa Jan Máchal on the Theater in Prague and K. Hikl on Prague in Literature. Cf. changed statute from 1920. AMP, No. 3995. It is not at all coincidental that one of the first lectures of the Club for Ancient Pragu preservation of monuments during the so-called regulation of Prague. A lecture was given b section council of the Ministry of Education and National Enlightenment, in spring 1920. A In spring of the following year, Eduard Schwarzer lectured about the regulation of the Vlt No. 45. In April 1932 Engineer Mölzer spoke about monument preservation and the regulation Prague. No. 11657. B. Hübschmann lectured about problems of communication in April 1935. N In April 1925 B. Hübschmann gave a lecture at the Club for Ancient Prague on Greater Pragu AMP, No. 9220. AMP, SK XXII/1269, statutes..., No. 20027. - The Club wanted to reach its goal with meetin protests, lectures, outings, tours, discussions with other corporations and individuals, l to people who fostered the goals of the club, publications of periodicals, other publicati about their activity in print, collections, subscriptions, exhibitions, entertainment, soc and support for the founding of similar clubs. Architect Oldřich Tyl became president of t Viktor Rejmann (Reimann), a lawyer, became the secretary. In January 1925 there was a chan statutes. According to them, the task of the club was "to study scientific questions about of cities and villages, to propagate modern urbanism and its international principles, and realize those principles gained through scientific study during the construction of Prague in the Czechoslovak Republic." Only citizens of the Czechoslovak Republic could be members Another change took place in March 1928 when Eng. Vladimír Štulc was elected president, th became vice president, and Eng. Arch. Alois Mikuškovic became the secretary. On December 1 Club, which had not performed any activities, disbanded. No. 1269. Josef Hula, a lawyer, also lectured at the Club for Ancient Prague in April 1937 on this t 10675. E.g., in April 1928 Karel Guth lectured at the Club for Ancient Prague on excavations at P AMP. This theme was addressed in lectures at the Club for Ancient Prague. For example, in Janua lectured on the development of the interior of Saint Vitus cathedral, and V. Birnbaum retu of the Tyrš house (formerly Michlovský palace). AMP, No. 6093, 113. In April 1924 Z. Wirth Černín Palace. No. 7498. On October 30, 1928 the Club for Ancient Prague announced a public poll against the razing AMP, No. 19858. The problem of skyscrapers was dealt with in an April 1938 lecture at the Club for Ancient Kubiček. AMP, No. 12511. AMP, No. 5660. AMP, No. 7574, dated March 6, 1930. This strategy was announced by the Club for Ancient Prague in May 1939. AMP, No. 15037. Presidents of the club were Z. Wirth; a city official (from June 1940), city official Rudo June 1940), and J. Almer (from April 1941). First vice presidents were A. Kubíček, J. Alme 1940) and Z. Wirth (from April 1941). Second vice presidents were Docent K. Guth, Z. Wirth and R. Hlubinka (from April 1941). AMP, No. 25826, 21174, 12790, 32459. AMP, dated Prague, November 22, 1941. Emler, J. (1947) Za starou Prahu. XXII. 9, 66. March 24. 1946. Zdeněk Wirth gave a lecture at the Club about this problem. AMP, No. 4365. Secretarial report. Za starou Prahu, XXII. 9, 76. The Club supported the design of the architect Bohumil Hypšman (Hübschmann), who endeavore dominant feature of Podskalí. (1948) Secretarial report. XXIII, 1-2, 8. - The villa began to be reconstructed, but, beca insufficiency of slate, it was replaced with asbestos-cement (1949). Secretarial report Za XXIV, 1-3, 12. There was a certain continuity in the Club for Ancient Prague in its officials: in March 1 Poche, vice-director of the Museum of Decorative Arts became president; J. Almer became fi president, J. Mannsbarth became second vice president and Eng. Adolf Janoušek became secre 6354, 27673, - From June 1950, the vice president was Eng. Ludvík Prisching, second vice p Mannsbarth and secretary Ministry Councilor Eng. Adolf Janoušek. AMP. - In March 1952 Doce was again voted president, E. Poche first vice president, J. Mannsbarth second vice presid Mayer, an official, was voted secretary. The organization counted circa 1000 members, main professors, architects, artists and students. AMP, XXII, 204. Hubinka, A. (1947) Za starou Prahu, XXII, 9, 68-69. (1947) Regulation of Podolí below Vyšehrad. Za starou Prahu, Bulletin for Monument Preserv Cf. memorandum of the Club presented to the central national committee on March 10, 1948. Memorandum. Za starou Prahu, XXIII, 3-4, 1-2. (1947). Secretarial report. Za starou Prahu, XXII, 9, 76-78. (1948). Secretarial report. Za starou Prahu, XXIII, 3-4, 6-9. Emler, J. (1947) Za starou Prahu, XXII, 9,66. Emler, J. (1947). Za starou Prahu, XXII, 9, 66. Prisching, L. (1947). Za starou Prahu, XXII, 9, 67. (1947) Secretarial report. Za starou Prahu, XXII, 9, 78. Mannsbarth, J. (1947). Za starou Prahu, XXII, 10, 106. In 1950, the Club for Ancient Prague chose the premier, Antonín Zápotocký, as honorary mem April 7, 1950. (1949). Secretarial report. Za starou Prahu, XXIV, 1-3, 15. (1948). Za starou Prahu, XXIII Vaněček, J. (1951) Why do we protect architectural monuments? Za starou Prahu, XXVI, l, 1. (1949) Za starou Prahu, XXIV, 1-3. 1. The history of urban mass transportation is, however, older. In 1897-1905 a network of tra already built in Prague [Fojtík & Liner & Prošek (1980:13). Re: postwar problems, cf., e.g (1947). Za starou Prahu, XXII, 9, 70-71. The Club also protested against the restoration of the tramway lines in Celetná Street in Secretarial report. Cited above, page 8. (1948). Za starou Prahu, XXIII, 6-8, 41-42, 44. Cf. (1949) Za starou Prahu, XXIV, 1-3, 2. - Prague had regular bus transportation from 192 buses appeared in its streets in 1908 (Pošusta & Lukáčová & Háber & Prošek, 1975: 29). Jan After liberation, Prague had only 95 autobuses, many of which were incapable of operating, buses. Transportation was ensured mainly by tramways. (Pošusta & Lukáčová & Háber & Prošek Janoušek, A. (1948). Za starou Prahu, XXIII, 3-4. Janoušek, A. (1947). Lesser Quarter river roads. Za starou Prahu, XXII, 9, 81-82. (1948). Secretarial report. Za starou Prahu, XXIII, 1-2, 7-9. Janoušek, A. (1950). Za starou Prahu, XXV, 4-5, 29. (1951) Who embraces the creation of monument preservation. Za starou Prahu XXVI. 3, 21. (1952) Za starou Prahu XXVII, 1-2, P. 75. Chamrád, V. (1951) Tvorba, 1. - Vice mayor Eng. Chamrád also wrote about a new sport cente arterial roads. Ibid. In June 1959 Architect Alois Kubiček became president, Dr. Jarmila Brožová first vice pres Jaroslav Pudr second vice president, Josef Mayer first secretary, and Dr. Milada Matyášová secretary. From December 1963 Architect Eng. Bohumír Kozák took over as president, A. Jano vice president (from October 1964 Eng. Jaroslav Pudr), Josef Mayer as second vice presiden 1966 Univ. Prof. Karel Krejčí), Dr. Jiří Špét as first secretary (from October 1963 histor Sakař) and Dr. Zdeněk Dušek as second secretary. From June 1969 a new function, third secr over by Eng. Jiří Novák. On December 31, 1962, there were 1109 members (of whom 983 were from Prague), on Dec. 31. 1044 (932 from Prague), on Dec. 31, 1965, there were 1041 (of whom 106 were from outside o Dec. 31, 1966, there were 1050 (of whom 112 were non-Praguers), on Dec. 31, 1967. there we 114 were non-Praguers), on Dec. 31, 1968, there were 935 (of whom 96 were non-Praguers). On December 31, 1969, the Club had 814 members; on Dec. 31, 1970, 823 members; on Dec. 31, members; on Dec. 31, 1973, 823 members (of whom 76 non-Praguers), on Dec. 31, 1974, 838 me January 1, 1975, 871 members and, on December 31, 1975, 962 members. In February 1970 B. K elected president; K. Krejčí became first vice president; J. Novák became second vice pres posts of secretaries were filled by Z. Dušek, Eng. Zdeněk Mertl and V. Sakař. In 1972 Prof Architecture Emanuel Hruška and K. Krejčí (in 1978 O. Hora) were elected vice presidents; František Petroušek and Dr. Oldřich Hora (in 1978 Z. Dušek and F. Petroušek) were elected In January 1980 E. Hruška (in 1988 the lawyer Oldřich Hora) captured the presidency; the v were O. Hora and preservationist Josef Mayer (from 1988 Eng. Architect Karel Firbas a Jiří remaining as secretaries were Z. Dušek (from 1984 Eng. Zdeněk Mertl, from 1985 Eng. Jiří N electrotechnician Josef Hrubeš) and F. Petroušek. In 1974-1982, volunteers worked 11,770 hours; in 1974-1985, they worked 19,349 (work of th Club for Ancient Prague in Olšanský Cemetery II in 1986). The Club stimulated the revitalization of Petřín: the putting of the cable car into servic the restaurant Na nebozízku, the repair of the observatory, and the renovation of the park Even though they were successful in a certain way, in 1983 the Club warned that the constr a television tower would be useless after 2000 because of the progress of technology. AMP, activities...in 1983. Cf., e.g., Announcement of the Club for Ancient Prague 1986 from February 13, 1987, pp. 1- Fuka, Z. (1987). From the activities of the technical committee of the Club for Ancient Pr the Club for Ancient Prague, pp. 18 and 26. Vydání: 9, 2007, 1 Zdroje Bečková, K. (1993). Pražská asanace [Prague Reconstruction]. Acta Musei Pragensis. Čech, J. & Fojtík, P. & Prošek, F. (1992). Pražská městská doprava [Prague City Transportation]. Prague. Dějiny Prahy II [History of Prague II] (1998). Prague, Litomyšl: Paseka. Fojtík, K. & Linert, S. & Prošek, F. (1980). Pražská kniha. [Prague Book]. Prague: Kroužek městské dopravy. Hojda, Z., & Pokorný, J. (1997). Pomníky a zapomníky. [Memorials and Unmemorials]. Prague, Litomyšl: Paseka. Hroch, M. (2005). Národ jako kulturní konstrukt? [The Nation as a Cultural Construct?]. Lidé města, 17, 738. Hroch, M. (1999). V národním zájmu [In the National Interest]. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny. Kořalka, J. (1996). Češi v habsburské říši a v Evropě 1815–1914 [Czechs in the Hapsburg Empire and in Europe 1815–1914]. Prague: Argo. Nora, P. (1992). Les lieux de mémoire, [Places of Memory] 7. Paris. Pešková, J. (1997). Role vědomí v dějinách. [The Role of Consciousness in History]. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny. Poche, E. (1985). Prahou krok za krokem. [Through Prague, Step by Step] Prague: Panorama. Pošusta, S. & Lukáčová, E. & Háber, J. & Prošek, F. (1975). Od koňky k metru. [From Horsetrams to Metro]. Prague: Nakladatelství dopravy a spojů. Prague. Rybár, C. (Ed.) (1991). Židovská Praha [Jewish Prague]. Prague: TV SPEKTRUM. Soukupová, B. (2005). Czech National Identity and Prague. Sacral and Profane Places in the Metropolis. Journal of Urban Ethnology, 7, 2543. Soukupová, B. (1994). Česká a německá společnost středních vrstev v Praze v realitě unitárního Československa. [Czech and German Middle Class Society in Prague in the Reality of Unitarian Czechoslovakia]. In Společnost – postoj – konfl ikt. [Society – position – confl ict]. Lidé města, 5. Prague: Institut základů vzdělanosti Univerzity Karlovy, 47. Soukupová, B. (2005). Tvář města od konce druhé světové války do současnosti. Na příkladu židovské Prahy. [The Face of a City from the End of the Second World War until the Present. The Example of Jewish Prague]. In Kloch, B. & Stawarz, A. (Eds.), Tożsamość społecznokulturowa miasma postindustrialnego w Europie Środkowej. Rybnik & Warszawa: Muzeum w Rybniku, Polskie Towarszystwo Etnologii Miasta, pp. 4353. Vošahlík, A. (1983). Ochrana urbanistických hodnot 19. století. [Conservation of Urbanistic Values of the 19th Century]. In Město v české kultuře 19. století. Prague. National Gallery. Zajonc, J. (2003). Mesto a společenskohistorické procesy: východiska analýzy. [The City and Sociohistorical Processes: Starting Points for Analysis. Some Examples from the City of Nitra]. Slovenský národopis, 2, 178191. Blanka Soukupová [ URL "LM-364.html "]