A New National Pantheon
Staff journalist | 11th January 2010

KarlNaylor 18th January 2010

That's all to the good but it might be an idea for the Krakow Post to sit up and take notice of those conservation movements that are now ready to battle with corporate interests and big business to preserve Krakow from being ruined by inappropriate innovations.

Godzka Street is a fine example being littered with tacky kebab houses which along with plastic signage and intrusive neon the Prptect Krakow Heriage Campaign believe violate UNESCO's Statement of Significance.

The following paper will be discussed and criticised and evaluated before Wednesday at 7pm at 20th Jan, 6 pm at the Academy of Arts and Sciences, ul. SÅ‚awkowska 26 Academy of Arts and Sciences when the movement to protect the destruction of trees, unplug the Bonarks Disco Chimney and direct opposition to the new hotel due to be build will be discussed.

The Krakow Municipality and the UNESCO Convention.

The 1972 UNESCO Convention makes it explicitly clear in Article 3 that the State where the World Heritage Site is situated has the explicit responsibility of that State to maintain that heritage as set out in Articles 1 and 2.

Article 3 states

"It is for each State Party to this Convention to identify and delineate the different properties situated on its territory mentioned in Articles 1 and 2 above".

The real problem with regards the responsibility of Krakow municipality is regards the interpretation of Article 4

Each State Party to this Convention recognizes that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State.

Whilst the maintenance and preservation of various buildings in the UNESCO Heritage Site has mostly been adhered to with regards the monuments and buildings as stipulated in Articles 1 and 2, the Krakow municipality has violated UNESCO's inclusion of clause 1 in Article 5 which states categorically that the state or authorities entrusted must,

" to adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes"

This is one reason the building of the Facadist Hotel Sheraton within the boundaries of the World Heritage site was mentioned as a reason for challenging whether Krakow municipal authorities were abiding by the the strict criteria by which UNESCO World Heritage listing is granted.

The subject was a matter of great discussion in Gazata Wyborcza in 2005 when the Hotel Sharaton won the Archi-Szopi prize for the worst new building of the year.

By building the Hotel Sheraton in such a location Krakow municipality violated paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Unesco Convention which states,

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to take any deliberate measures which might damage directly or indirectly the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 situated on the territory of other States Parties to this Convention.

The Hotel Sheraton and the proposed hotel at the foot of the Wawel violates the undertaking not to damage "indirectly" the cultural and national heritage which the Wawel Castle is clearly a totemic symbol of in Polish, European and World Heritage terms

Article 11 makes it clear as well in paragraph 1 that

Every State Party to this Convention shall, in so far as possible, submit to the World Heritage Committee an inventory of property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage, situated in its territory and suitable for inclusion in the list provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article. This inventory, which shall not be considered exhaustive, shall include documentation about the location of the property in question and its significance.

The question is whether Krakow municipality has followed its obligations in informing UNESCO of the nature and design of buildings such as the Hotel Sheraton and the proposed new hotel at the foot of the Wawel and what, if any, joint decision has been discussed on whether such a building ought to be placed near to the Wawel.

Paragraph 2 of Article 11 is also quite clear,

On the basis of the inventories submitted by States in accordance with paragraph 1, the Committee shall establish, keep up to date and publish, under the title of "World Heritage List," a list of properties forming part of the cultural heritage and natural heritage, as defined in Articles 1 and 2 of this Convention, which it considers as having outstanding universal value in terms of such criteria as it shall have established. An updated list shall be distributed at least every two years.

Protect Krakow Heritage demands that the Krakow municipality declare whether the new hotel and underground car park next to the Wawel will be included as part of that "updated list" and whether it has discharged its fundamental responsibility to distribute that list in a transparent and public manner so that all citizens of Krakow are aware of the new construction..

Clause 4 of Article 11 also makes one thing plain,

The Committee shall establish, keep up to date and publish, whenever circumstances shall so require, under the title of "List of World Heritage in Danger", a list of the property appearing in the World Heritage List for the conservation of which major operations are necessary...

This does not merely refer to existing building that must be registered but also to the inclusion of new innovations as is made clear later on in Clause 4 of Article 11,

The list may include only such property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage as is threatened by serious and specific dangers, such as the threat of disappearance caused by accelerated deterioration, large- scale public or private projects or rapid urban or tourist development projects; destruction caused by changes in the use or ownership of the land.( my italics)

The Hotel Sheraton falls into that category as does the new hotel development below the Wawel.

One reason why a committee of architects and UNESCO experts should be appointed to sggest modification to the existing edifice to remove the plate glass structural exterior and replace it with one consituted of stone or brick, paid for at the expense of those responsible for violating the UNESCO criteria in the first place.

One reason why this is necessary is that the last line of Clause 4 of Article 11 states that,

The Committee may at any time, in case of urgent need, make a new entry in the List of World Heritage in Danger and publicize such entry immediately.

This is immediately followed by Clause 5 of Article 11 that gives the UNESCO Committee the right to

..... define the criteria on the basis of which a property belonging to the cultural or natural heritage may be included in either of the lists mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 4 of this article.

With regards the new development beneath the Wawel the reamining two clauses 6 and 7 must have been or should have been applied,

6 Before refusing a request for inclusion in one of the two lists mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 4 of this article, the Committee shall consult the State Party in whose territory the cultural or natural property in question is situated. 7 The Committee shall, with the agreement of the States concerned, co-ordinate and encourage the studies and research needed for the drawing up of the lists referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of this article.

The continued funding of Krakow as a UNESCO World Heritage Site is clearly dependent at this moment on the outstanding need to complete existing revolvation projects but it is not a "given" if the municipality acts in a way that contradicts Article 26 which states,

The World Heritage Committee and the recipient State shall define in the agreement they conclude the conditions in which a programme or project for which international assistance under the terms of this Convention is provided, shall be carried out. It shall be the responsibility of the State receiving such international assistance to continue to protect, conserve and present the property so safeguarded, in observance of the conditions laid down by the agreement.

Should Krakow, meaning here in conjunction with the funding in receives from the national government, fail to preserve the World Heritage Site then clearly, given that most Renaissance buildings have been restored, the funding should no longer come from UNESCO.

This would, of course, be a mutual disaster for Krakow's preservation but the point is that UNESCO must enforce the stipulations with regards why Krakow has been listed a World Heritage Site.

The threat of being removed from being a UNESCO World Heritage Site need only be a cautionary warning, given the consistent violations in local planning aided, abetted and encouraged by incompetant city planning authorities in failing to preserve Krakow's character.

This is not a subjective interpretation by the Protect Krakow Heritage Capamapign but is based on an interpretation of the precise reason why Krakow has been included as a World Heritage Site as stated in the UNESCO Starement of Significance.

The Statement reads clearly that,

The importance of the city is evident in the urban layout, numerous churches and monasteries, monumental secular public buildings, the remains of medieval city walls, as well as urban palaces and town houses designed and built by high-class architects and craftsmen.

The value of the ensemble is determined by the extraordinary accumulation of monuments from various periods, preserved in their original form, with authentic fittings, which combine to create a uniform urban ensemble in which the tangible and intangible heritage is preserved and nurtured to the present day.

When compared to Dubrovnik's main throughfares, the Krakow municipal authorities have failed to preserve a uniform urban ensemble. There are two main factors that UNESCO must consider in their evaluation of Krakow's duty to protect.

Firstly, Protect Krakow Heritage has taken numerous photos available for persusal by UNESCO that demonstrate how the "intangible heritage" has not been preserved and has been blighted by tacky logos, plastic signage and street furniture. This is demonstrated below Florianska

Secondly,there is also evidence along Grodska of horrendous neon lighting and gaudy tacky signage that would not be out of place in a slummy and despoiled British market town which appear along Grodzka towards the Royal Coronation Route to the Wawel.

Numerous examples of tacky lighting exist and another kebab outlets destroying the "intangible" inheritance of the ensemble.Other acts of cultural vandalism exist, including externalised Sky TV football screens to attract Stag Night Tourists whose presence is unwelcome.

Another innovation detracting from the garmony of the ensemble is the use of advertisements draped over building that are not yet even being restored, just as an opportunity to cram more advertising space into a cultural area of world historical significance.

Hoardings must comply with UNESCO's stipulation about Krakow's "intangible inheritance" and nurturing it and not stifling it and eroding it for responsible tourists and those for whom these Renaissance masterpieces are part of the heritage of Poland, Europe and the World.

Until recently there was also the issue of the balloon placed just outside in a narrow strip circumventing the delimited UNESCO World Heritage Site but blighting the "intangible inheritance" by hanging over and looming above both the City core, the Wawel and Kazimierz.

We are here. We are taking a cstand. And we will prevail over rapacious property developers and incompetant bureaucracies.