Asume la postura de neutralidad

Fig. 4.3 Masterplan of a neighbourhood unit in Stalinvaros, Hungary from 1949 (Biedrzycka et al. 2007, 17)

Fig 4.5. OSA brigade (Ivan I Leonidov et al.), design for the socialist city of Magnitorsk 1930 (Bodenschatz et al. 2015, 184)

Fig. 4.6 Ernst May et al, plan for Magnitorsk, 1956 (Bodenschatz et al. 2015, 185) For Foucault:

[d]iscipline […] analyses and breaks down; it breaks down individuals, places, time, movements, actions, and operations. It breaks them down into components such that they can be seen, on the one hand, and modified on the other (Foucault, 2007, 56-57). Disciplinary normalisation proposes a particular model, optimal to achieving a goal with the highest output at the cost of minimal input. This was the aim of an industrial city.

Bierut’s six year plan was at the forefront of the race to express allegiance to Soviet leaders and his aim was to present the efficiency of Poland. Bierut went to Moscow to receive a fund from Stalin himself to erect a large factory (Miezian 2004). This was a continuation of an agreement which the Polish government made in 1948 with that of the Soviets, concerning financial and economic cooperation (Biedrzycka et al. 2007 36). On 17 May 1949, the six- year-plan committee reached the decision to erect a new steelworks in Poland. The decision involved erecting a new complex which would support a massive steelworks factory that would be capable of producing an unprecedented amount of steel to fuel the military. The city (as it would be later named Nowa Huta) was a symbolic endeavour similar to Stalin’s Tower, as Crowley writes ‘[a]n example of Stalinist fetish for nineteenth-century models of industrial production’ (Crowley 1994, 191). It was to signify to the whole nation the readiness

of the Polish Communist government to take control, yielding a positive output. Nowa Huta was to become the centrepiece of Communist propaganda in the country, a new, hygienic, socialist space. Considering the influences from Soviet Russia and the time in which the proclamations were made, it can be said that the new city had to abide by the rule of Alexander Paperny’s Culture 2 at the highpoint of Stalinism. This was to be the code of the new space which would constitute the foundations of the idea for the urban design. Such a description relates to what Foucault would name an episteme. In spite of the

individual architects differentiation in accepting the new homogenised style they all referred to the October revolution in their divagations. Whatever the approach, the concept of the city from the designers’ perspective, was to create a new world ripe for the post-

revolutionary Marxists: a time when new knowledge is determined, when the old modalities of thinking are not good enough to comprehend new technologies and moral challenges, with which humanity was faced. This episteme would be based on the notion of Marxism, work and comradery. The introduction of this new way of reasoning was propagated by Soviet propaganda.

An example was the language that was to replace the old, habitual Polish way of

communicating. The word ‘sir’ or ‘madam’1_{, which are so important in referring to someone} in Polish, are replaced by ‘comrade’2_{, which devalues gender and recognises the self only as} an element in a group. Another example was the word ‘collective’ which was replaced by ‘party’. In its new meaning the word ‘party’ had the same resonance and everyone, who was not in it was shunned and had problems at work (Baran (ed.) 2014). This change, however, implied hierarchy and leadership of the government. This was all in all an effort to de-territorialise the semantics of the Polish language and re-configure it with Soviet intent so that each individual would start considering themselves according to the new framework of thinking and new spaces for these people as ‘homo-sovieticus’.

The site selection was the first manifestation of Soviet authority. Katarzyna Zechenter, analysed propaganda associated with the city such as period postcards. She claims that considering Krakow’s history as the old capital of Poland as well as the fact that Krakow remained largely untouched by the War, Stalin’s choice of Warsaw as the Capital of the country and placing the new socialist utopia next to Krakow seems to confirm that the site choice was dictated by more than just common sense (2007 661). The specific location of the city suggested building over an old village called Mogiła.

The inhabitants of Mogiła reacted negatively as the land on which the city was to stand was of fertile soil and cut across medieval trade routes between Krakow and Wieliczka (an

1 _{‘Proszę pana’ or ‘Proszę pani’} 2 _{‘Towarzyszu’}

ancient city carved into a salt mine). It also was the site for the remains of a 15th _century timber church as well as Wanda’s Mound (which was associated with deep nostalgic patriotism). The site, therefore, was expected to have a huge archaeological value with potential to uncover historical artefacts dating back to the Palaeolithic age. Tadeusz Binek narrates that the city was to stand partly on the village of Mogiła (1997 159). The authorities had to dispose of several vernacular buildings already standing on that site, those had timber construction painted with calcium, often with straw and thatch roofs. This village dated back to the origin of the monastery of Cistercians from the 19th Century (ibid.). The site was

therefore an unlikely choice for a new architectural intervention at this scale.

IMAGE REDACTED

Fig. 4.7 Vernacular building in Mogiła; Private collection made available on Facebook Marian Kordaszewski suggests that the concept of Nowa Huta was to create an ideal city according to a Marxist intent, one which would not have a place for the sacred (2013 9). It was to stand in contrast to everything which Krakow represented, its regal heritage,

associations with the relationship of the country to the Catholic Church and an old medieval architectural pattern. Those attempts seem to be contesting the traditions that Krakow itself represents. By juxtaposing Krakow against the nearby city of Nowa Huta the Polish people would be presented with an image of the old heritage or new beginning, in a grand ideological game.

The choice of site seems to align with the language of Soviet propaganda, signifying an idea implicitly. In spite of there being little evidence for subterfuge, Miezian points out ‘everyone knows that Nowa Huta was built by the Communists to humiliate conservative Krakow.’

(Miezian 2004 4). Nowa Huta was to be an antidote for the bourgeoisie affect of Krakow, the mother of Polish patriotism. The geography of the city was to be utilised in an attempt to enable the newly formed homo-sovieticus to see only what the governance wanted to present.

One of my interviewees (pseudonym: Marek) shared his impressions of history. He imagined that the site-choice was made when the government dignitaries went to Wanda’s Mound, which would constitute a viewpoint from which Krakow and the new steelworks were visible (interview with Rebel 2013). Marek’s theory is untestable albeit compelling, considering that the location of the city from that one point is between two landmarks that disturb the visible skyline: St. Mary’s church in the centre of Krakow and the Cistercian Monastery (see Fig. 4.8). The new city is framed by the two buildings, that disrupt the skyline of the vista.

In 1949, Tadeusz Ptaszycki (an architect from Wroclaw) won the competition to develop the masterplan for Nowa Huta. By June, an initial masterplan for a city, which would support the factory, was approved by ZOR– Factory Workers’ Neighbourhoods Union3 _{(Slawiński and} Sibila (ed.) 2008 100). Members of Tadeusz Ptaszycki’s team that came to form

‘Miastoprojekt’ included amongst others Boleslaw Skrzybalski, Adam Foltyn, Zbigniew

Sieradzki, Tadeusz Uniejowski, Andrzej Uniejowski, Edward Dabrowski, Marta Ingarden, Janusz Ingarden, Stanislaw Juchnowicz and Tadeusz Rembiesa (Jurewicz (ed.) 2012 10). Those were people educated to be architects and urban designers in prominent universities of Poland: the University of Lwów, University of Wroclaw, Politechnic of Gdansk and Warsaw University. Some of the architects also served as soldiers in AK – national army (Armia Krajowa) which was an unofficial nomadic military force of Poland during the Second World War. Such people were considered to be trustworthy Polish patriots. Paweł Jagło claims that former AK soldiers were under constant surveillance as those were targeted by the secret Communist collaborators as most probable to raise revolt against the regime (Baran et al. 2014 29). Applebaum also quotes Stanislaw Juchnowicz (one of the architects working on the Nowa Huta project) who says: ‘They wanted to change the character of Krakow […] they wanted to create a working class who would change the city’ (Applebaum 2012 388). Juchnowicz refers to the governors of the concept as ‘they’ because the architects’ role was to design accordingly. He continues: ‘it was often necessary to take risks and to engage in the

appropriate sort of politics so that we could realize plans [which were sometimes conflicting with those of the Communists].’ (Lebow 2013 29). Architecture had to endure harsh scrutiny from Warsaw in every aspect of their design process.