Urban architecture / Arhitektura gradaFedja VukiÊ

Copyright ∫ 2001 Neidhardt arhitekti d.o.o.Ilica 26, HR-10000 Zagreb

Cover design / Oblikovanje naslovniceBoris LjubiËiÊ

Design and layout / PrijelomVelimir Neidhardt

Translation / PrijevodVladimir Ivir

Production / PripremaStudio Æiljak, Zagreb

Print / TisakKratis, Zagreb

CIP - Katalogizacija u publikacijiNacionalna i sveuËiliπna knjiænica, Zagreb

UDK 72 Neidhardt, V.

VUKI∆, FeaVelimir Neidhardt : urban architecture

= arhitektura grada / Fedja VukiÊ ;<prijevod Vladimir Ivir>. - Zagreb :Neidhardt arhitekti : Meandar, 2001

Tekst usporedo na engl. i hrv. jeziku. -Bibliografija. - Kazalo.

ISBN 953-206-028-6 (Meandar).

1. Neidhardt, Velimir

400706053

5

9

15

125

126

127

132

133

134

137

139

Urban architecture O urbanoj arhitekturi

Local and global influences Lokalni i globalni utjecaji

The architecture of Velimir NeidhardtArhitektura Velimira Neidhardta

AppendicesReferentni prilozi

Biographical note Saæeta biografija

Awards Nagrade

Catalogue of design projectsKatalog projekata

List of publicationsPublicirani znanstveni i struËni radovi

Notes, views, interviewsPublicirani prilozi, razgovori, miπljenja

BibliographyBibliografija - literatura

Projects contributorsSudionici projekata

Illustration creditsIzvori slikovnog materijala

Contents / Sadræaj

5

Ako je arhitektura, prema povjesniËarskim autoritetima,nastala u neurbanim uvjetima, onda je svakako moguÊe reÊi ida se kroz povijest razvijala u gradu pa tek onda na drugimmjestima. DapaËe, nije preuzetan ni zakljuËak da gradnja zgra-da poprima puni smisao tek u urbanoj sredini, dakle tamo gdjearhitektura stvara i predstavlja osnovni okoliπ. Aktualiziramoli danas staru racionalistiËku tezu o prirodnim izvorima kon-cepta arhitekture i graditeljskih oblika, utvrdili smo mjestonastanka, ali tek naznaËili prostor razvoja. Drugim rijeËima,ako je priroda rodno mjesto arhitekture, grad je analogijaprirodne sredine. Ovakve opÊenite rijeËi trebale bi samo posluæiti uvodom zaanalizu pojedinih opusa, trendova i pojava u arhitekturi XX.stoljeÊa, i to zbog Ëinjenice da je onome πto se obiËno nazivamoderno ili modernizam (sve do postmodernizma) baπ gradosnovni prostorni okvir pa i mjera. Dakako, moglo bi se nasliËan naËin vrlo dugo raspravljati o dijalozima i nesporazumi-ma na relaciji od arhitekture do prirode (i natrag), meutimovdje bi samo trebalo upozoriti na neke zajedniËke ili opÊeniteelemente arhitekture nakon 1945. godine, a u teænji da seprikaæu posebnosti jednog opusa od kasnih πezdesetih godinado danas. Pitanje koje se logiËno postavlja svakomu tko æeliuspostaviti odnos globalnog i lokalnog, ili kliπejiziranih zakoni-tosti trenda s kreativnim autorskim udjelom, jest: kako uneËemu πto se medijima obiËno predstavlja kao ultimativna vri-jednost pronaÊi elemente izvornoga? Takvo πto moæe bitiitekako zahtijevna zadaÊa, naroËito kad se govori o arhitekturimoderne epohe, koja je, sliËno opÊem kulturnom kontekstu ukojem nastaje, upuÊena na pojednostavnjene procedure iunaprijed pripremljene recepte. Ali i to je dio urbane scene okojoj, kako smo naznaËili, neÊemo izbjegavati raspravu.DapaËe, kolikogod paradoksalno zvuËalo, pokuπat Êemo opisatijedan arhitektonski opus i iz njega, u pretpostavljenoj uvjeto-vanosti gradom, pokuπati otkriti ne samo elemente onoga πto seobiËno naziva homogenizacijom masovne kulture nego moæda inaznake izvornog doprinosa arhitekture artikuliranju urbanekulture. A to zbog jednostavne Ëinjenice da arhitekti viπe negodrugi stvaraoci pridonose usloænjavanju cjelokupne postaveurbane “prirode”. Kaæe li se da su arhitekti scenaristi, neÊe bitidovoljno, ako se misli da stvaraju samo ploπna proËelja kaopozadine svakodnevnom æivotu. Zapravo oni predviaju æivot

If architecture, as its authoritative historians would have it,first appeared in non-urban environments, it has certainlydeveloped historically in cities in the first place and only thenin other settings. It is, indeed, not too much to say that the artof building acquires its full meaning and significance only in theurban setting, where architecture creates and represents thecore of the environment. Reviving the old rationalist view ofnatural sources of the concept of architectural forms, we haveidentified their place of origin, but we have no more than sug-gested the real setting for their development. In other words,if nature is the birthplace of architecture, then the city is ananalogy of the natural environment. Such general statements are intended as an introduction to apossible analysis of individual opuses, trends and phenomena intwentieth-century architecture, given the fact that what is usu-ally meant by terms such as “modern” or “modernism” (includ-ing also “postmodernism”) finds its spatial frame and true mea-sure in the city. One could, of course, continue this discussionalong similar lines and at considerable length, examining argu-ments and misunderstandings concerning the relationships andpaths leading from architecture to nature (and back). However,we shall confine ourselves at this point to merely noting somecommon or shared elements in post-1945 architecture by wayof a preparation for the analysis of an individual opus evolvingfrom the late sixties to the present day. The question that log-ically faces everybody who seeks to establish a relationshipbetween the global and the local, or between the stereotyperules of a given trend and the creative contribution of an indi-vidual author, is how to identify elements of originality in build-ings that the media usually promote as the ultimate value. Thequestion is indeed quite difficult, particularly with respect tothe architecture of the modern age. Reflecting the general con-text of culture in which it blossomed, Modernism experienceda push towards simplified procedures and ready-made pre-cepts, towards a schematism resulting in various features ofthe urban scene, which, as already indicated, we shall not shirkfrom discussing. On the contrary, in what follows we shall try todescribe an architectural opus which has been seasoned by thecity. Seeking to discover not only elements of what is usuallycalled the homogenization of mass culture, we shall also look forthe original architectural contribution to the articulation of

Urban architecture / O urbanoj arhitekturi

6

kroz trodimenzionalne Ëinjenice ili prostore koji sastavljajusam grad. Zbog toga bi ih se moglo nazvati urbanim artikula-torima, reæiserima æivota u prostoru ili dirigentima koji projek-tiranjem Ëak i nevelike Ëestice gradskog prostora prilaæu ukompleksnu strukturu grada.RazmiπljajuÊi o svemu tome, gotovo je neizbjeæivo prisjetiti sejedne od slavnih Jencksovih definicija ispisane prije dva deset-ljeÊa, a kojom je znameniti teoretiËar pokuπao opisati ono πto jeu meuvremenu postalo globalno poznato kao arhitektura“kasne moderne”. Sam pojam “moderne” ili “modernizma” tomje sloæenicom poprimio konaËno znaËenje, to jest smisaodovrπenog procesa. Ne æeleÊi ovdje raspravljati o pitanjimastilistiËke kronologije ili civilizacijskog optimizma, πto svakakomoæe biti poticajno za neku drugu priliku, trebalo bi samo nag-lasiti da Jencks svojom posloviËno kratkom ali uspjelom defini-cijom inzistira na oznaËavanju “kasnog modernizma” kaoarhitekture izrazito urbanog karaktera. Dakako, jednu zgradunije moguÊe promatrati izvan konteksta, ali ne treba zaboravi-ti da se posljednjih tridesetak godina ionako najviπe projektiraza gradove i njihove suburbane prostore, koji su postali gotovojedina gnijezda suvremenoga æivota. Ipak, reËeni termin imanekoliko slojeva znaËenja obuhvaÊenih jednostavnim situira-njem pojedinaËnog objekta u urbanom kontekstu. To se prven-stveno odnosi na socijalnu odreenost nastanka takve arhitek-ture kakvu obiËno naruËuju velike multinacionalne korporacije,prominentne banke ili pak gradske, a ponekad i dræavne insti-tucije. RijeË je o arhitekturi velikog, reprezentativnog formatai kompleksnih sadræaja koji obiËno obuhvaÊaju i poslovnu ijavnu namjenu, pa je time i reprezentativni uzorak arhitekture“kasnog modernizma”, kojeg predstavlja Jencks, odreensloæenim odnosima liberalnog kapitalizma. Posebni odraz takavsustav nalazi u suvremenim idejama o gradu kao prostoru de-mokratski slobodne razmjene robe i novca, pa tako i arhitek-tonsko-urbanistiËkih struktura. Kada, dakle, govorimo o “kas-nom modernizmu”, ne govorimo samo o arhitekturi nego i ogradu u odreenim kulturnim i ekonomskim uvjetima. SudeÊiprema onome πto je u tom duhu izgraeno tijekom posljednjihtridesetak godina, ne bi se moglo govoriti o nekakvom tipugrada epohe kasnog kapitalizma, kao πto je to bio sluËaj u nekimpovijesnim razdobljima. Prije bi se moglo uoËiti da gradovi, ilibarem njihovi novi dijelovi, nastaju podizanjem takvih veliko-

urban culture, recognizing the simple fact that architects morethan other creative individuals contribute to the overall struc-tural and visual complexity of urbanity. Saying that they areurban stage designers is not enough if this is to suggest theyonly build façades to support the backdrop function for dailyliving. In fact, they anticipate life through various three-dimen-sional modules that make up the city. They may be called urbanarticulators, managers of living in a built environment, or con-ductors who control the ambiental music to be frozen in thecomplex forms of urban structures. Reflecting on these matters, one cannot but recall a famousdefinition of Jencks’s, over twenty years ago, in which thegreat theorist tried to define what has meanwhile become glob-ally known as “Late Modern” architecture. In such a colloca-tion, the term “modernity” or “modernism” acquires its finalmeaning — that of a completed process. Without wishing toembark upon a discussion of chronology of styles, or of the opti-mism within our civilisation — certainly challenging topics intheir own right — we only note that Jencks’s proverbially briefbut effective definition labels “Late Modernism” as architec-ture whose character is distinctly urban. Of course, no buildingcan be viewed outside its context, but over the last thirty yearsarchitectural design has been made mostly for cities and thesuburbia that have become almost the sole nests of contempo-rary living. Still, the term “Late Modernism” itself has severallayers of meaning underneath the simple meaning of a particu-lar individual building in an urban context. In the first place,this architecture is societally determined. Such buildings areusually commissioned by large multinational corporations,major banks, municipal or state agencies, and are designed ona large scale, representative in form, and complex in intendeduses, usually combining business, commercial and public func-tions. Thus, the representative sample of Late Modern archi-tecture defined by Jencks is determined by the complex rela-tionships that prevail in the system of liberal capitalism. Thissystem finds its specific reflection in the contemporary ideas ofthe city as space for a democratic exchange of information,goods, money and everything that one can imagine, and espe-cially of emerging architectural and urban structures.Therefore, the term “Late Modernism” defines not just archi-tecture, but also the city under particular cultural and econom-

7

formatnih graevina koje monumentalnim dimenzijama ilikompleksnim programom tvore cijele gradske Ëetvrti. Dobriprimjeri takvih gradotvornih ideja izvedenih iz sloæenih multi-namjenskih projekata razasuti su posvuda, primjerice poputnovoizgraenih dijelova starih i novih srediπta Chicaga, Parizaili bilo koje druge metropole globalne kulture, u kojima svakapojedina graevina tvori specifiËno æariπte gradskog æivota,definirano ponajviπe poslovnom namjenom. Dakako, traæi li serodno mjesto takve vrste arhitekture, svakako treba poÊi uSjedinjene AmeriËke Dræave, gdje je nakon 1945. ekonomskasofistikacija dostigla najviπi stupanj pa se upravo u ameriËkimgradovima najviπe eksperimentira s velikoformatnimposlovno-stambenim graevinama kojima lokalni komunalnizakoni potiËu osiguravanje prostora za funkcije javne namjene.No to ne znaËi da bismo samo tamo ili samo negdje drugdjemogli detektirati odveÊ izraæene specifiËnosti arhitekture“kasnog modernizma” jer takav tip ili vrsta arhitekture imasvoj uzrok i smisao upravo u impersonalnoj globalnoj kulturimultinacionalnog kapitala koja stavlja u drugi plan lokalnespecifiËnosti i uvaæava ih jedino ako komercijaliziraju sampothvat.Posebnost je urbanih karakteristika toga tipa graevina daarhitekti nastoje uvuÊi u unutarnje prostore zgrada funkcijegrada, uklanjajuÊi Ëvrste barijere izmeu unutarnjeg i vanj-skog prostora rastvaranjem proËelja te Ëestom primjenomtransparentnih staklenih “zidova”. BuduÊi da nema fiksnoodreenih granica izmeu grada i zgrade, unutarnji je prostor“kasnog modernizma” ponajviπe odreen æeljom za slojevitimhorizontalnim i vertikalnim povezivanjem, Ëemu zorne prim-jere navodi i Jencks, opisujuÊi kao “kasnomoderne” i tako raz-liËite graevine kakve su Gunma muzej Arate Isozakija iz1974., New Harmony Atheneum Richarda Meiera (1975-80.),Willis and Faber poslovnu zgradu Normana Fostera (1972-75.)i Piano-Rogersov Pompidou centar dovrπen 1977. Vrlo sliËneprimjere, meutim, koristi i Kenneth Frampton, uvodeÊi usvoju kritiËku povijest moderne arhitekture pojam “produk-tivizma”, kojim se, bez obzira na moguÊe formalne razlikeestetiËke naravi meu pojedinim graevinama, naglaπavajedna vaæna karakteristika suvremene arhitekture, a to jeveliko urbano mjerilo i urbane funkcije u zgradi.

ic conditions. Judging by what has been built in the spirit of thismovement over the last thirty years or so, one cannot speak ofa particular city matrix typical of the era of late capitalism (aswas the case in some earlier historical periods). What onenotes, rather, is that cities, or at least their new parts, grow byagglomeration of large-scale structures whose monumentaldimensions and mixed uses cover whole blocks, even districts.Excellent examples of such urban design ideas realized asmulti-purpose developement projects are to be found every-where — for instance, in the newly built parts of old and newcity centres of Chicago, Paris, or any other metropolis of glob-al culture, in which each individual structure represents a spe-cific focus of urban life, defined in the first place by its businesspurposes. Of course, to find the birthplace of this type of archi-tecture, one needs to go to the United States, where, since1945, the highest degree of economic sophistication has beenreached and therefore experimentation with large-scale office,retail and prime residential projects has been encouraged.Also, municipal regulations stimulate such projects as the bestway to secure adequate space for public purposes. However,this kind of architecture with specifically “Late Modern” char-acteristics thrives almost everywhere, since its root cause andimpetus reside in the impersonal global culture of multination-al capital, which pushes local specificities aside, respectingthem only to the extent that they contribute to the commercialsuccess of the undertaking. The particular urban features of such megabuildings consist inbringing the functions of the city into the inner areas of edi-fices, the removal of static barriers between inner and outerspaces, the provision of several public use levels, and the fre-quent use of transparent curtain wall surfaces. Since no rigidboundaries separate the city and the building, the inner spaceof “Late Modern” buildings is shaped primarily by the desirefor multiple horizontal and vertical linkages. Jencks lists astypical examples of “Late Modern” architecture such diversebuildings as Arata Isozaki’s Gunma Museum (1974), RichardMeier’s New Harmony Atheneum (1975-80), Norman Foster’sWillis and Faber office building (1972-75), and Piano-Rogers’sPompidou Centre (completed in 1977). Quite similar examplesare given by Kenneth Frampton, who introduces the term“Productivism” in his critical history of modern architecture,

stressing the large urban scale and urban functions in thebuilding as its most important characteristic, which transcendspossible formal aesthetic differences among individual build-ings.

9

Pitanjem postoji li bilo kakva refleksija velikoformatne urbanearhitekture u Hrvatskoj nismo samo zapoËeli raspravu o jednojtoËci moderniteta nego i otvorili moguÊnost za preispitivanjepojedinaËnih opusa, meu kojima je opus Velimira Neidhardtajedan od najmarkantnijih. Dakako, treÊina stoljeÊa rada uarhitekturi u nekim okolnostima moæe proteÊi unutar jednogistog druπtvenog sistema, no Neidhardt je imao priliku prakti-cirati arhitekturu πirom prostora jednog sada veÊ nepostojeÊegdruπtvenog sistema koji se itekako razlikovao od liberalnogkapitalizma. Pa ipak Neidhardtova je arhitektura tijekom pos-ljednjih 30 godina bila najbliæa onome πto analogijom premapopularno-znanstvenim izvorima moæe biti zvano “kasnim mod-ernizmom” ili “produktivizmom”, a Ëemu bi se, zbog razliËitostikulturnog konteksta, mogao dati i naziv arhitekturagradotvorne monumentalnosti. To znaËi da su njegova naj-znaËajnija ostvarenja zgrade velikih dimenzija i da su uvijekbitno odreene kontekstom grada. Za poËetak viπe negodovoljno definicija. Vidjet Êemo da je Neidhardtov pristuparhitekturi, razvijan sudjelovanjem u nizu arhitektonsko-urbanistiËkih natjeËaja od konca πezdesetih do druge polovicesedamdesetih godina, doveo do stvaranja nekih kapitalnihobjekata koncem sedamdesetih i tijekom osamdesetih godina,kada je njegov koncept gradotvorne arhitekture razvijen unekoliko inaËica, ovisno o namjeni graevine. Kada, dakle,kaæemo arhitektura gradotvorne monumentalnosti, pomiπ-ljamo na projekte koji su, meusobno usporeeni, Ëesto vrlorazliËitoga oblika, ali im je zajedniËka (autorska) karakteristikata da, za razliku od pojednostavnjenih shema modernistiËkearhitekture, uvode gradske atribute (vedute, poteze, sklopovei orijentacije) kao ravnopravne elemente projektantske pros-torne jednadæbe. Drugim rijeËima, modernistiËku definicijufunkcije nadograuju osebujnim semiologijskim, urbanologij-skim i antroposocijalnim sastojcima, tragajuÊi za komplemen-tarnostima znanstvene metode i umjetniËkog stvaralaπtva.Prije no πto se upustimo u neko od moguÊih iπËitavanjaNeidhardtove arhitekture, a πto svakako implicira i moguÊuraspravu o razliËitosti kulturnog a ne samo urbanog kontekstau kojem nastaju graevine sliËnog koncepta, valja naglasiti, sobzirom da 1969. izrauje svoje prve javne natjeËajne projekte,da su pedesete i πezdesete godine vrijeme koje treba istraæi-vati, æelimo li shvatiti kako se formirala njegova arhitektura,

The question that one can now ask is whether reflexes of large-scale urban architecture can be found in Croatia. Seeking toanswer this question will enable us not only to describe the fateof modernity in this part of the world, but also to examine indi-vidual architectural opuses. The opus that stands out mostclearly in this respect is that created by Velimir Neidhardt. Ofcourse, working in architecture for a third of a century can eas-ily mean working within one single social system. However,Neidhardt was in a position to practise architecture throughoutthe territory ruled by a now defunct social system very muchdifferent from liberal capitalism. Nevertheless, Neidhardt’sarchitecture over the last thirty years came closest to whatcould be called “Late Modernism” or “Productivism”, or —given the different cultural context — “monumental cityscapearchitecture”. This means that his most important designs arelarge-scale buildings essentially determined by the urban con-text. This must suffice as a definition at this point. We shall seelater that Neidhardt’s architectural effort, developed throughparticipation in a number of architectural and urban designcompetitions from the late sixties to the second half of the sev-enties, resulted in several major building projects realized inthe late seventies and through the eighties. During this time,his concept of cityscape architecture evolved in several direc-tions, depending on the purpose of each particular building.Therefore, the term “architecture of monumental cityscape”refers to buildings that greatly differ among themselves inform, but which have one common characteristic impressedupon them by their author: in contradistinction to simplifiedschemata of modernist architecture, they all possess urbanattributes (panoramas, axes, focuses, orientations) as equal ele-ments of the designer’s spatial equation. In other words,Neidhardt supplements the modernistic definition of functionwith distinctive semiological, urbanological and anthroposocialcomponents, seeking to achieve a complementarity of scientificmethod and artistic imagination. Before embarking upon a possible interpretation ofNeidhardt’s architecture, which inevitably implies a discussionof both contexts, cultural and urban, in which buildings basedon a similar concept are designed, it should be noted (in view ofthe fact that his first competition projects date from 1968/69)that the fifties and the sixties are the period that one needs to

Local and global influences / Lokalni i globalni utjecaji

10

misleÊi pritom na duh vremena navedenih desetljeÊa, odnosno,u uæem smislu, na sve ono πto Ëini ukupnu sliku arhitektonskihzbivanja toga desetljeÊa u svijetu i u nas. Dok su se u svijetuliberalnog i neπto manje liberalnog kapitalizma veÊ projektiralei podizale graevine raskoπnih programa i struktura u duhu“kasnog modernizma”, a nije nedostajalo ni projekata eksperi-mentalnog karaktera, u Hrvatskoj su to bila desetljeÊa puneafirmacije prijeratnog nasljea moderne arhitekture u okolnos-tima novog politiËkog sistema. Tada je gotovo cijela jedna gen-eracija arhitekata, roena tijekom prve petine dvadesetogastoljeÊa, ostvarila svoje prve velike realizacije u arhitekturi,koje su u gradu Zagrebu kulminirale opseænom izgradnjom okotadaπnje ulice Proleterskih brigada (danas Avenije Vukovar).Neke od zgrada koje su tijekom πezdesetih podignute na tomreprezentativnom potezu, poput RadniËkog i narodnogsveuËiliπta “Moπa Pijade” Radovana NikπiÊa i NinoslavaKuËana (danas “Otvoreno sveuËiliπte”), do danas su uzorniprimjeri arhitekture koja formatom, sadræajem i urbanimkarakteristikama proπiruje konstruktivna i estetiËka iskustvazagrebaËke moderne tridesetih. DapaËe, NikπiÊeva i KuËanovazgrada u usporedbi s ostalima na sveuËiliπnom potezu najviπese nametnula urbanim karakterom, πto je dobrim dijelomodreeno i samom namjenom. Ne treba nikako zaboraviti nidruge gradnje na tom prostoru, poput stambenih objekataDrage GaliÊa, Boæidara Raπice ili Nevena ©egviÊa, jer sve su tezgrade vrlo dobri primjeri monumentalnog modernizmapedesetih i πezdesetih godina, vrlo tipiËnog za tadaπnju zagre-baËku sredinu, pa Ëak i za politiËku kulturu, o Ëemu najboljesvjedoËi reprezentativna graevina Skupπtine grada ZagrebaKazimira OstrogoviÊa iz 1958. Poput RadniËkog sveuËiliπta iOstrogoviÊeva je zgrada ukljuËila u svoju unutraπnjost aktivanodnos prema gradu, pa se upravo ta dva projekta mogu pribro-jiti meu najznaËajnija ostvarenja hrvatske arhitekture monu-mentalne gradotvornosti u πezdesetim godinama. To su dakakograevine besprijekorno modernistiËkog koncepta, zasnovanena racionalnim konstrukcijama i primjerenoj minimalistiËkojestetici. Uz aktivni odnos prema kontekstu grada oba projektaprilaæu nove kvalitete u zagrebaËku arhitekturu πezdesetihgodina. Zna li se da su neki od autora zgrada u uliciProleterskih brigada bili i profesori na Arhitektonskom fakul-tetu, tadaπnji se pokuπaji ostvarenja korespondencije zgrade i

study in order to trace the evolution of his architecture, bear-ing in mind the spirit that prevailed during these two decades,or, more specifically, what they meant for architectural philos-ophy in the world at large and in Croatia. While the world ofliberal and less liberal capitalism already witnessed the rise ofrichly programmed and elegantly structured buildings in thespirit of Late Modernism, as well as occasional experimentalventures, Croatian architects were busy reasserting the legacyof prewar modern architecture under the conditions of the newcommunist political system. Almost the whole generation ofCroatian architects born before the 1920’s was given thechance to realize their first major projects. In Zagreb, forinstance, this effort culminated in extensive construction alongProleterskih Brigada Street (now Avenija Vukovar). Some ofthe buildings built on prestigious sites in that street during thesixties, like the Moπa Pijade Workers’ Education Centre (nowOpen University) designed by Radovan NikπiÊ and NinoslavKuËan, remain outstanding examples of the kind of architec-ture which — with its scale, function and urban features —extended the constructivist and aesthetic experiences ofZagreb’s modern architecture of the thirties. In fact, comparedwith other university buildings in the same district, NikπiÊ andKuËan’s building had a greater urban attraction than the rest,which was probably due to its function as an adult educationinstitution. Mention ought to be made equally of some otherbuildings in the area, such as the residential buildings designedby Drago GaliÊ, Boæidar Raπica and Neven ©egviÊ, all of whichare fine examples of the fifties and sixties monumental mod-ernism, typical of Zagreb’s urban, and even political, culture atthat time, best witnessed by the representative City Hallbuilding designed by Kazimir OstrogoviÊ in 1958. Like thealready mentioned Workers’ Education Centre, the City Hallhad an interior with an active relationship to the city, so thatthese two buildings belong among the most significant realiza-tions of monumental, cityscape architecture in Croatia in thesixties. They are, naturally, based on an irreproachably mod-ernist concept, rational construction and appropriate minimal-ist aesthetics. In addition to maintaining an active relation tothe contextual matrix of the city, both projects also introducednew qualitative features into Zagreb’s sixties architecture. Ifwe remember that some of the architects who designed the

11

grada mogu promatrati kao vrlo vaæni za formiranje arhitek-ture Velimira Neidhardta. KonaËno, i ne manje vaæno, trebaznati da arhitekt Neidhardt potjeËe iz obitelji koja je hrvatskojarhitekturi dala znaËajna djela: njegov otac Franjo, autor jezagrebaËkog Doma sportova i s Vladimirom Turinom suautorsportskog stadiona u Maksimiru, a stric Juraj, autorNadbiskupskog sjemeniπta na VoÊarskoj cesti u Zagrebu, svojje opus realizirao uglavnom diljem Bosne i Hercegovine, gdjeje djelovao veÊ prije Drugoga svjetskog rata.Drugi je pak utjecaj stizao s one strane dræavne granice, izvisokorazvijenih zemalja u kojima se “projekt” ideologije mod-ernih pokreta dovrπavao dvojako. Na jedan naËin dokrajËili suga arhitekti poput Philipa Johnsona, koji je svoj korporativnimonumentalizam Ëesto mijeπao s populistiËki intoniranim zah-vatima, a sve na temeljima predratnog ultramodernizma, kojeje i sam pomogao postaviti poËetkom tridesetih godina. Idejepredratnog modernizma na drugi su naËin preispitivali europ-ski arhitekti poput grupa Archigram ili Superstudio, CedricaPricea, Piana i Rogersa ili Jamesa Stirlinga, koji suraznovrsnim sredstvima, a napose utjecajem mladenaËkenekonvencionalne kulture, nastojali razblaæiti ortodoksiju mod-ernih pokreta. Drugim rijeËima, ono πto je kasnije postalo poz-nato pod nazivima “kasna moderna” ili “produktivizam”, aËemu bi se posredno mogli pribrojiti dalekoistoËna varijantamonumentalnog metabolizma i razliËita eksperimentalnapreispitivanja biomorfnih sklopova i megastruktura, naodreeni je naËin, informacijama ili za studijskih boravaka uinozemstvu, utjecalo na formiranje arhitekture VelimiraNeidhardta. »imbenici lokalnog i globalnog u ovom sluËajumogu se shvatiti kao sasvim disparatni utjecaji, jer dok je ovdjerijeË o velikoformatnom modernizmu kao izrazu planske snagenametnute s vrha jednog politiËkog sistema, tamo je to bioeksperimentalni duh nastao na valu ogromnih investicija inekonvencionalnih arhitektonskih ideja. Ipak, prirodna pravilai bit naËela aglomeriranja odraæavaju sliËnost u nastojanju dase zgrada logikom æivota aktivno ukljuËi u urbanu strukturu, ito uglavnom uvlaËenjem funkcija grada u unutraπnjost zgradeili pak pretapanjem vanjskog i unutarnjeg prostora, ovisno onamjeni. Dakako, ne treba zaboraviti ni Ëinjenicu da su zgradevelikih dimenzija, bile one javne ili poslovne namjene, uvijekimale i vrlo vaænu funkciju reprezentacije vlasnika-investitora,

buildings in Proleterskih Brigada Street also taught at theFaculty of Architecture, then it becomes clear that their effortat establishing relations of urban correspondence between thebuildings and the city could not but have an effect on the archi-tecture of their student Velimir Neidhardt. Equally, and noless importantly, Neidhardt comes from a family that producedsome important works of Croatian architecture: his fatherFranjo designed the Zagreb Sports Hall and co-designed (withVladimir Turina) the Maksimir Stadium, while his uncle Juraj,author of the Metropolitan Seminary in VoÊarska Street inZagreb, has made numerous projects in Bosnia-Herzegovina,where he started to work before the Second World War. Other influences came from abroad, from the highly developedcountries, where the ideological “project” of the modern move-ments was coming to an end in two ways: one, by architects likePhilip Johnson, who frequently mixed his corporate monumen-talism with populist-inspired interventions, building upon thefoundations of the prewar ultramodernism which he had him-self helped to inaugurate in the early thirties; the other, anddifferent, way that the prewar modernist ideas were being re-examined was taken by the European architects such as theArchigram Group, Superstudio, Cedric Price, Piano andRogers, and James Stirling, who sought to dilute the orthodoxyof the modern movements by various means, particularly byrelying on youthful and non-conventional culture. In otherwords, what was later to become known as “Late Modernism”or “Productivism”, to which we might add also the Far Easternversion of monumental metabolism and various experimentalexplorations of biomorphic clusters and megastructures,played a role in the formation of Velimir Neidhardt as an archi-tect. Such influences reached him through theoretical studyand foreign visits. The local and the global influences to whichhe was exposed were quite disparate: at home, it was large-sizemodernism as an expression of planning power imposed fromthe top of the political system; abroad, it was the spirit ofexperimentation riding on the wave of massive investment andnon-conventional architectural ideas. Yet, the natural princi-ples of agglomeration resulted in both influences leading to asimilarly motivated integration of the building with the logic oflife within the urban structure. This was achieved for the mostpart by drawing the functions of the city into the building’s

12

velike multinacionalne kompanije, uprave grada, pojedincadonatora ili dræavne uprave. Ono πto se nekoÊ predstavljaloklasiËnom kompozicijom zgrade i tradicionalnim repertoaromornamenata, sad je oznaËeno konstrukcijom, velikim staklenimpovrπinama pa i ekstravagantnim izgledom zgrade, dakle svimeonime πto Jencks precizno naziva “apstraktnom reprezentaci-jom”. Ipak, glavna zajedniËka karakteristika “produktivistiËke”ili “kasnomodernistiËke” arhitekture, Ëak i u razliËitim kultur-nim, politiËkim i ekonomskim uvjetima, jest teænja za ekstro-vertnim ukljuËivanjem zgrade u grad, pri Ëemu se novi dekora-tivni “jezik” apstraktnog ornamenta, kojeg je uostalom prvi putprimijenio joπ jedan od otaca modernog pokreta, Ludwig MiesVan Der Rohe, moæe dræati tek sekundarnim obiljeæjem ili tekstrukturalnim sredstvom za povezivanje eksterijera i enteri-jera. Stoga, bez obzira na tip karakterizacije druπtva, uglavnomje rijeË o sliËnoj teænji da se unutar fleksibilnih stijena jednegraevine stvori grad u malom, pa je u tom smislu moguÊepovuÊi znak jednakosti izmeu formalno tako razliËitih zgradakao πto su, primjerice, RadniËko sveuËiliπte “Moπa Pijade”NikπiÊa i KuËana i Yamanashi Press centar Kenza Tangea. Bezobzira tvore li tu njeænu fleksibilnu granicu izmeu zgrade igrada veliki stakleni “zidovi” ili doslovno pomiËne strukture, ilisu pak urbani sadræaji Ëvrsto zatvoreni unutar betonskih zido-va, novi gradotvorni duh izraæen proπirenim funkcijama zgrademoæe se dræati jednim od najznaËajnijih doprinosa arhitekturepedesetih, a posebno πezdesetih godina, bez obzira kako je zvalii u kakvim je uvjetima nastajala.U tom smislu isticanja urbanih ili Ëak urbanomorfnih kvalitetatrebalo bi pristupiti i arhitekturi Velimira Neidhardta, u kojojje na osobiti naËin, Ëak i doslovno, sintetizirano iskustvorazliËitih kultura i jedinstvena sklonost prema projektimabogatog programa i naglaπene urbane dinamike. Kad kaæemdinamike, mislim upravo na ono πto njegove projekte Ëini“gradom u malom mjerilu”, a πto se tijekom triju desetljeÊaiskazivalo djelovanjem na dva paralelna plana. Retrospekcijadosad izvedenih graevina i izraenih projekata, naime, ukazu-je na dvije osnovne autorske preokupacije u Neidhardtovojarhitekturi, na zamaπne arhitektonsko-urbanistiËke zahvate ipojedinaËne objekte u urbanoj matrici.

interior or by fusing the outer and the inner space, dependingon the purpose for which the building was designed. Of course,one should not lose sight of the fact that large-scale buildings,regardless of whether they are intended for public or businessuses, always have an important representative function for theowner/investor. This is equally true of large multinational cor-porations, city administrations, individual donors, or govern-ments. What once used to be represented by the building’s clas-sical composition and traditional ornamental repertory is nowrepresented by its outstanding construction, large glass sur-faces, and ostentatious appearance — what Jencks accuratelylabels “abstract representation”. The main common character-istic of all “Productivist” or “Late Modern” architecture,regardless of the different cultural, political and economic con-ditions in which it is practised, is its desire for an extrovertintegration of the building into the city. The new decorative“language” of abstract ornamentation, first applied by one ofthe fathers of the modern movement, Ludwig Mies Van DerRohe, can be considered only a secondary characteristic or amere structural means to effect the linkage of the exterior andthe interior. Thus, no matter what the social system, the desireremains the same or very similar: to create the city on a smallscale within the flexible walls of the building. It is in this sensethat one may equate two formally quite different buildings suchas, for instance, NikπiÊ and KuËan’s Moπa Pijade Workers’Education Centre and Kenzo Tange’s Yamanashi Press Centre.Regardless of whether the fine flexible boundary between thebuilding and the city is made of large curtain walls or of literal-ly movable partitions, or whether the urban contents are firm-ly closed within concrete walls, the new cityscape spirit whichfinds its expression in the extended functions of the buildingcan be considered one of the major contributions of the fifties,and especially sixties, architecture, no matter under what nameit goes and in what conditions it was practised. It is this approach, stressing the urban, or even urbanomorphic,qualities of his architecture, that one needs to take in relationto Velimir Neidhardt’s designs — the works that in a particu-lar way, even literally, synthesize the experience of differentcultures and the unique propensity for projects with abundantprogrammes and distinct urban dynamics. In saying “dynam-ics”, I have in mind precisely those characteristics which make

13

his projects “cities on a small scale” and which have led himover the past three decades to pursue his objectives on two par-allel tracks. A retrospective survey of his buildings and unexe-cuted designs points to two main architectural preoccupationsin his work: extensive urban design and development projectsand individual architectural edifices within the urban matrix.

14

15

The architecture of Velimir Neidhardt / Arhitektura Velimira Neidhardta

16

»ak i letimiËan pregled Neid-hardtovih natjeËajnih projekatamoæe dati informaciju o genezijednog korpusa arhitektonskihideja koje su gotovo nezamislivebez dubljeg promiπljanja ur-banog konteksta. S jedne strane,dakle, moguÊe je razgovarati ozgradama kao o posebnim cjelina-ma, a s druge pak, o urbanim pro-jektima veÊeg zahvata. Ipak, uobje se dionice mogu pronaÊimnoge zajedniËke karakteristikeveÊ i zbog same Ëinjenice da jeveÊi dio zgrada nastao iz urban-istiËkih studija pojedinih dijelovagrada, ali koji put i obratno, kadje pojedini projektni zadatak

Even a cursory survey ofNeidhardt’s competition entriesreveals the genesis of a body ofarchitectural ideas which couldonly have come from a deepercontemplation of the urban con-text. We can thus discuss build-ings as individual entities on theone hand and larger urban devel-opment projects on the otherhand. But both segments of hiswork display many common fea-tures, owing to the fact that mostof the buildings are the productof a careful study of the largerurban setting. Conversely, how-ever, there have been situationsin which a particular project task

traæio πire definicije. Tako jeNeidhardt kroz interes za gradprilazio graevini, pa svaka anal-iza pojedinih objekata logiËnotreba krenuti od urbanog kontek-sta za koji je projektiran ili ukojem je podignut. »ak i kad jerijeË o projektima koji se nepo-sredno ne oslanjaju na urbanotkivo, poput ranih djela iz koncaπezdesetih godina - hotel Lapad uDubrovniku iz 1969. (s IvanomKolbachom i Biserkom ©avora) ituristiËko naselje “Begova ledi-na” u Makarskoj iz iste godine -moæe se uoËiti jasna teænja kakompleksnom usloænjavanju fun-kcija i sadræaja u horizontalnimslojevima, πto je u sluËaju dubro-vaËkog hotela bilo odreeno kon-figuracijom terena, a i u Makar-skoj je primijenjena sliËna idejaterasaste organizacije prostora.Time se, po svemu sudeÊi, æeljelopostiÊi uklapanje u ambijent, kojije krπevit i dramatiËno nepravi-lan pa stoga moæe vizualno apsor-birati raπËlanjenu arhitektonskustrukturu. Dakako, to je uklapa-nje naËelom suËeljavanja, strate-gijom koncentriranja urbanih

required the definition of a largercontext. Thus, Neidhardt can besaid to approach each individualbuilding through his interest inthe city, and it is logical, there-fore, that the analysis of individ-ual projects should begin fromthe urban context for which it hasbeen designed or in which it findsitself. Even when a particularproject does not directly relate tourban tissue, like his first designsin the late sixties — such as theLapad Hotel in Dubrovnik from1969 (with Ivan Kolbach andBiserka ©avora) and the BegovaLedina tourist settlement inMakarska from the same year —one cannot fail to notice a cleartendency to intricate grouping offunctions and contents in horizon-tal layers. In Dubrovnik this wasinduced by the configuration ofthe terrain, while in Makarska itwas simply the application of thesame idea of a terraced organiza-tion of space. The idea was to fitthe design into the rocky and dra-matically irregular countryside,capable of visually absorbing thehighly articulated architectural

Hotel Lapad, Dubrovnik, 1969

17

funkcija u neurbani kontekst, priËemu neortodoksna raπËlanjenaforma graevine svakako moæepomoÊi funkcioniranju takvaobjekta u prirodnom ambijentu.Naglaπeno skulpturalna pa Ëak iapstraktna forma graevina, su-deÊi prema nacrtima, miπljena jedonekle blisko ondaπnjim ideja-

ronment. The distinctly sculptur-al, even abstract, form of thebuildings (judging by the draw-ings) was close to the contempo-rary ideas of metabolic buildingand somewhat at odds with thethen current trend towardsarchitectural megastructuresthat became ubiquitous in the

ma o metabolistiËkom graenju, aizvan duha tada aktualnih ideja oarhitektonskim megastruktura-ma, kakve su tih godina preplavi-le zapadno druπtvo obilja, a bilesu nerijetke Ëak i u domaÊim kul-turnim uvjetima, unutar kojih jerado poticana simulacija visokogstandarda, posebno u arhitekturi

Model views; site plan, beach level floor planMakete; situacija, tlocrt razine plaæe

structure. Of course, the fittingin this case was achieved throughconfrontation, or the strategy ofconcentration of urban functionsin a non-urban context. In thissituation, an unorthodox articula-tion of the form of the buildingcan certainly ease the fitting ofthe structure into a natural envi-

18

Sections; north and south elevationsPresjeci; sjeverno i juæno proËelje

19

20

tada poletne grane gospodarstva- turizma. A da je formom bogata, bez obzi-ra je li metabolistiËka ili megas-trukturna, hotelska arhitekturabila prisutna u Ëitavoj jednoj gen-eraciji hrvatskih arhitekata, po-kazuje joπ jedan natjeËajni rad zaistu dubrovaËku lokaciju hotela,onaj Milana ©osteriËa, Edvina©mita i Æeljke MiËetiÊ, koji sekompleksnim i zahtjevnim obli-

rich West, but were to be foundalso in this country, simulatinghigh standards of prosperity, par-ticularly in the booming touristsector. The strong presence of formallyarticulated hotel architecture,irrespective of whether it wasmetabolic or megastructural, inthe entire generation of Croatianarchitects is well demonstratedby another competition entry for

Hotel Begova Ledina, Makarska, 1969

the Lapad Hotel: the architectsMilan ©osteriË, Edvin ©mitand Æeljka MiËetiÊ took a differ-ent approach and designed abuilding whose complex anddemanding form sculpturallyimposed itself upon the highlyvaluable environmental charac-teristics of the site. The attitudeof the middle generation ofCroatian architects at that timetowards the current trends is

kom skulpturalno nadreuje viso-kovrijednim ambijentalnim ka-rakteristikama lokacije. Kakav je,meutim, bio odnos tadaπnjesrednje generacije hrvatskiharhitekata prema tada aktualnimtrendovima, svjedoËe kompleks“Solaris” Borisa Magaπa iz 1968. ihotel “Barbara” Zdravka Bre-govca, podignut u Zadru 1970.©to se tiËe same forme, ili pre-ciznije - opne graevina, Neid-

21

Model; site planMaketa; situacija

22

Hotel rooms layout, third level floor plan; modelPrikaz hotelske sobe; tlocrt treÊeg kata; maketa

hardtove mladenaËke hotelskeprojekte moæda je najuputnijeusporeivati s kasnijim kongres-nim hotelom “Adriatic II” Bran-ka Ænidareca (Opatija, 1970/71) ilihotelom “Marina luËica” LovrePerkoviÊa (Primoπten, 1969-72).RijeË je o arhitektonskim modu-lacijama koje svoje daleko podri-jetlo vuku joπ iz avangardnefuturistiËke arhitekture s poËetkaXX. stoljeÊa, a kakve su koncemπezdesetih i poËetkom sedam-desetih postale iznimno popu-larne i Ëeste u tadaπnjoj industrijislobodnog vremena i turizma. O

best reflected in Boris Magaπ’sSolaris Hotels built in 1969 andZdravko Bregovac’s BarbaraHotel in Zadar built in 1970. As far as the form of the buildingis concerned, or more precisely itsoutward envelope, Neidhardt’searly hotel designs can perhapsmost meaningfully be comparedwith Branko Ænidarec’s some-what later Adriatic II conventionhotel (Opatija, 1970/71) and LovroPerkoviÊ’s Marina LuËica Hotel(Primoπten, 1969/72). These arearchitectural modulations whosedistant roots go back to the

avant-garde Futurist architec-ture of the early twentieth centu-ry and which became highly pop-ular and often exploited in leisureindustry and tourism in the latesixties and early seventies. Anarchitectural trend is most easilyrecognized when one finds partic-ular solutions — in this case, ter-race-type hotels — both as pro-jects/designs and as executedbuildings (with an understand-able temporal shift). ThusNeidhardt’s projects, like thoseby other architects engaged inhotel design at that time, were

tome svjedoËi i Ëinjenica koja uvi-jek moæe dati Ëvrste osnove pret-postavci o nekom arhitektons-kom trendu, a ta je da na raziniideje-projekta kao i u stvarnostipostoje sliËni terasasti hoteli, srazumljivim vremenskim poma-cima. I Neidhardtovi su projekti,sliËno projektima drugih arhite-kata koji se tih godina bave hotel-skom arhitekturom, uvelikeodreeni razmiπljanjem o nepra-vilnim graevnim strukturama ipovezanom pretapajuÊem pros-toru komunikacija i zajedniËkihsadræaja hotela, πto se kao ele-

23

ment arhitektonskog oblikovanjasvakako moæe dovesti u neizrav-nu vezu s tada aktualnim trendommetabolizma.BuduÊi da pravi kut, strogi volu-men i ortogonalno odijeljeni pros-tor viπe nisu bili nedodirljivi uzoriarhitektima, bilo je moguÊe ispiti-vati razliËite “nepravilnosti”, πtose u sluËaju brojnih jadranskihhotela pokazalo dvojbenim rjeπe-njem, ali je vrlo dobro moglo funk-cionirati u kontekstu veÊih urba-nih aglomeracija.

largely determined by his think-ing about irregular shapes andthe merging space of hotel com-munications and functional areas.As an element of architecturaldesign, such philosophy can cer-tainly be indirectly related to thethen current trend of metab-olism. Since the right angle, strict vol-ume and orthogonally dividedspace were no longer inviolable,architects felt free to experimentwith different “irregularities”. This proved a doubtful advantagein the case of many Adriatic

hotels, but in the context of larg-er urban agglomerations it func-tioned fairly well.

24

25

Structural scheme, model; southeast and southwest elevationsShema konstrukcije, maketa; jugoistoËno i jugozapadno proËelje

26

Bit Pazar Shopping Centre / TrgovaËki centar, Skopje, 1970

27

Site plan; model, circulation schemesSituacija; maketa, sheme kretanja

Thus, Neidhardt’s competitionentry for the Bit Pazar shoppingcentre in Skopje in 1970 (togetherwith Ivan FraniÊ) summed theexperiences of an internationalbreak with the modern movements’codes of regularity and introducedan unusual composition built on theprinciple of additive modules fittedinto the city in which reconstructionfollowing the 1963 earthquake hadalready begun to produce results.The central theme of this designdoes not reflect the modernistthinking about public space. Thefocus is on the structuring of theinterior space. It is no more just amatter of stressing construction asthe carrier and signifier of function,of which Modernism was so fond,but rather a matter of highlightingthe irregular form of an open sys-tem in order to “say” somethingabout the content of the interior bymeans of the additive form of thebuilding’s appearance.

Tako natjeËajni projekt za trgo-vaËki centar Bit pazar (nastao uzajedniπtvu s Ivanom FraniÊem)u Skopju iz 1970. godine sumiraiskustva internacionalnog raski-da s kodeksima pravilnosti mod-ernih pokreta, da bi u grad, ukojem je obnova nakon potresa iz1963. veÊ poËela davati rezultate,ugradio neobiËnu strukturu sas-tavljenu prema naËelu adicije.Osnovna tema toga projekta goto-vo se i ne doima arhitektonskom uuobiËajenom smislu modernistiË-kog promiπljanja javnog prosto-ra, jer je u æariπtu interesa struk-turiranost prostora. Dakle nijerijeË o naglaπavanju konstrukcijekao dræaËa i oznaËitelja funkcije,kako je to volio modernizam, ne-go o isticanju nepravilnog oblikaotvorenog sustava da bi se i adi-tivnom formom zgrade u javnostineπto “reklo” o sadræaju unutraπ-njosti.

28

Model; sections, upper level floor planMaketa; presjeci, tlocrt gornje razine

29

30

Shopping Centre / TrgovaËki centar, MrkonjiÊ Grad, 1972

31

Two years later, Neidhardt pro-duced a similar design for a shop-ping centre at MrkonjiÊ Grad,where the context itself calledfor a clustered ensemble made upof separately conceived elemen-tary modules rather than a singlemonolithic form. This project,like the Bit Pazar in Skopje, canbe seen as the realization of theidea of modular growth. The indi-vidual parts of buildings haveimportant associative character-istics relating to the architectur-al tradition in an oriental urbancontext. Of course, these areexamples of “abstract” represen-tation of architecture as defined

Donekle sliËan projekt Neidhardtje napravio dvije godine kasnijeza trgovaËki centar u MrkonjiÊGradu gdje je i sam kontekstupravo izazivao na formiranjeansambla strukturiranog od viπeelementarno koncipiranih dijelo-va, a ne na izradu monolitne for-me. I u tom projektu, kao i u skop-skom Bit pazaru, moguÊe je vid-jeti realiziranu ideju o modu-larnom rastu graevine, pri Ëemusvaki dio ima i znaËajne asocija-tivne karakteristike u odnosu naorijentalnu graditeljsku tradicijuurbanog konteksta. Dakako, rijeËje o “apstraktnoj reprezentaciji”arhitekture kako ju je definirao

by Jencks, not a traditional orna-ment. Each module of the shop-ping centre, with its overall form,makes reference to the local lega-cy of housing architecture,repeating its forms only as dis-tant memories. Two years earli-er, in the Bit Pazar project, theform was held together with thethreads of tradition, in a waysimilar to that employed byAndrija MutnjakoviÊ in his 1971National Library project inPriπtina. This means that the dis-tinctly irregular cluster, associa-tive of growth and complementa-tion of modular elements, simul-taneously evokes features of the

Jencks, a ne o tradicionalnomornamentu. Svaki modul trgo-vaËkog centra svojim cjelokup-nim oblikom jest referentan nalokalno nasljee stambene arhi-tekture, a oblike iz nasljea pona-vlja samo kroz daleke reminis-cencije. Dvije godine ranije, u Bitpazaru oblik je uvezan s nitimatradicije na naËin sliËan onomekako je u projektu Nacionalnebiblioteke u Priπtini 1971. godineuËinio Andrija MutnjakoviÊ. ToÊe reÊi da je naglaπena nepravil-na struktura koja asocira na rasti nadopunjavanje prostornih ele-menata istodobno iskoriπtena zastilizirano pozivanje na elemente

Site planSituacija

ModelMaketa

32

North and west elevations; modelSjeverno i zapadno proËelje; maketa

33

local cultural identity. But while MutnjakoviÊ coveredthe National Library with, liter-ally, a cluster of playful domes,Neidhardt relies on spatial blend-ing and merger: at Bit Pazar,the additive structure embracesthe central part, uniquely com-posed and emphasized with a sys-tem of undulating covering mem-branes; in the MrkonjiÊ Gradshopping centre, each componentpart is not only the carrier of par-ticular functions but also a dis-tinct urban sign. It was thusproved in the early seventies thatthe Mediterranean, continentaland oriental contexts can be

equally stimulating for achitec-tural explorations intended toeffect multilayered linkagesbetween the architectural designsolutions and the existing localsituation. We can only speculatetoday how these designs wouldhave worked in reality had theyactually been executed. But evenon the level of an unrealized idea,it is clear that Neidhardt’s cen-tral question was how to makethe unconventional and highlyassociative architectural form,which simply informs the publicabout the complexity of the innerspace, engage in a dialogue withthe dynamics of the town, with-

lokalnog kulturnog identiteta. No ako MutnjakoviÊ s pokrovomBiblioteku stavlja doslovno podmembranu volumenom razigranihkapa, Neidhardt je svojim pro-jektima zamislio pretapanja: uBit pazaru struktura opsluæujesrediπnji dio, koji je kompozicijskiobjedinjen i istaknut sistemomvalovitih pokrovnih opni, a u tr-govaËkom centru MrkonjiÊ Gradasvaki sastavni dio cjeline nijesamo nosilac funkcija nego i za-sebni urbani znak. Pokazalo setako poËetkom sedamdesetih dasredozemni, kontinentalni i ori-jentalni kontekst mogu biti jed-nako poticajni za arhitektonska

istraæivanja usmjerena slojevi-tom povezivanju arhitekture istanja na terenu. Danas je mogu-Êe samo razmiπljati kako biopisani projekti funkcionirali ustvarnosti da su zaista podignuti.No, i na razini ideje jasno se po-kazuje da je osnovno pitanjeNeidhardtove arhitekture bilokako Ëak i nekonvencionalno bo-gatom te asocijativnom formomgraevine (a koja samo govorijavnosti o kompleksnom unu-traπnjem prostoru) stvoriti dija-log izmeu æivog organizma gradai projekta, bez nametanja idealnihshema modernistiËkih rjeπenja.

34

out imposing any ideal schemesor modernist solutions. All theingredients of these projectswere put to a test in his firstmajor project that was actuallyrealized — namely, the competi-tion-winning design for the CityCentre I, Boska departmentstore, Palace Hotel, and theWorkers’ Solidarity Centre inBanja Luka. The project, real-ized in 1973 together with LjerkaLuliÊ and Jasna Nosso, has allthe characteristics found inNeidhardt’s earlier projects.Given the fact that both LuliÊand Nosso had already demon-strated their predilection forunconventional projects on anurban scale, the Boska buildingproved to be one of the most sig-nificant projects realized byCroatian architects in the seven-ties. This project, apart from itsdistinctive architectural traits,had an urban design aura, regu-lating as it did the central part ofthe city by incorporating newfunctions into an existing urbancontext. It is a pity that the pro-ject was not realized in its entire-ty, so that we can only analyzethe design of the sloped terracedstructures composed of irregularcrystalline forms. The architect’sidea was to introduce a new com-positional order into the city,with the controlled dynamics ofarchitectural and urban featuresradiating from the main squareand descending in terracestowards the banks of the RiverVrbas. The project included theshopping centre, the hotel andthe civic hall in an integratedspacing of plazas to enhanceurban outdoor living. It wasdesigned without any direct for-mal reference to the local her-itage, but it was fully adapted to

Sve karakteristike naznaËeneprethodno opisanim projektimamogle su biti provjerene prvomopseænom realizacijom koja je sli-jedila nakon prve nagrade nanatjeËaju za “gradski centar I” srobnom kuÊom “Boska”, hotelomPalace i Domom takozvane radni-Ëke solidarnosti u Banja Luci.Sam projekt, izraen 1973. zajed-no s Ljerkom LuliÊ i JasnomNosso, nosi sve bitne karakteris-tike elaborirane veÊ prethodnimNeidhardtovim projektima. Ar-hitektice LuliÊ i Nosso poËetkomsedamdesetih godina veÊ su viπe-struko dokazale svoju opredije-ljenost za nekonvencionalne pro-jekte urbanog tipa, pa se moæezakljuËiti da “Boska” pripadameu najznaËajnije realizacijehrvatske arhitekture u sedamde-setim godinama. Bez obzira nanemoguÊnost jasnih razgraniËe-nja, treba napomenuti da pro-jekt, osim arhitektonskih poseb-nosti, znaËajno zahvaÊa u podru-Ëje urbanizma tako πto reguliracijeli jedan srediπnji gradskiprostor te ugrauje nove sadræa-je u postojeÊi program grada.Naæalost, projekt nije realiziranu cjelini, πto samo navodi na pom-niju analizu kompleksne struk-ture projektirane cjeline, sastav-ljene od kristaliËnih nepravilnihoblika, koji su prema ideji autoratrebali u gradu stvoriti jedansasvim novi kompozicijski pore-dak arhitektonskih i urbanih vri-jednosti usmjerene dinamike, odæariπta na trgu terasastim spuπ-tanjem prema obali rijeke Vr-basa. Cijeli projekt obuhvaÊa tr-govaËki centar, hotel i kulturnidom, dakle prostor zajedniËkogæivljenja graana kao zasebnucjelinu, pa je i oblikovan bez iz-ravne formalne veze s lokalnimnaslijeem, ali zato potpuno pri-

the existing network of spatialtensions. This was, thus, a pro-ject in the best “Late Modernist”or “Productivist” tradition,where it is difficult to decidewhere architecture ends andurban design begins, because thespatial structure is horizontallyand vertically linked so that itcan be superimposed on theexisting urban contexts and com-munications as a scattered pro-gramme of an entire urban cen-tre concentrated in a limitedarea. In order to integrate thesebuildings into the roster of nu-merous separate vistas, the archi-tects took pains to greatly enrichthe “language” of the alreadyarticulated form, so that fromevery point in the city one gets adifferent view, particularly dy-namic where the “abstract” formof the new edifices comes intocontact with the “figural” façadesof the existing buildings. Only apart of the entire urban pro-gramme has been executed —the department store occupyingthe central place. The building ismerely sculpturally conceivedand quite unconventional in rela-tion to the aesthetic precepts ofmodernist architecture. Its ap-pearance attractively redefinesthe context made up for the mostpart of not very valuable recentbuildings and some historiciststructures. However, the exter-nal appearance of the building isno more than a cloak for the ideafirst found in Neidhardt’s LapadHotel and Bit Pazar projects andlater becoming the hallmark ofhis architecture. The idea can bedescribed as one of total space,that is, comprehensive linking ofthe building’s interior into a sin-gle circulating space, as large aspossible, which can be subse-

lagoen zateËenom stanju srediπ-njih gradskih prostornih tokova.RijeË je, dakle, o projektu u naj-boljoj maniri “kasnog moderniz-ma” ili “produktivizma” zbogËinjenice da je vrlo teπko odreditigdje prestaje arhitektura a poË-inje urbanizam, jer strukturaprostora horizontalno i vertikal-no biva povezana tako da se moæenametnuti postojeÊim gradskimsadræajima i komunikacijama kaorasuti program cijelog jednogurbanog srediπta koncentriranogna malom prostoru. A da bi svegraevine funkcionirale i kaodijelovi posebnih vizura, arhitek-ti su se pobrinuli itekako obogati-ti “jezik” ionako veÊ kompleksneforme pa svaka pozicija u gradunudi i drukËiju sliku, dinamiËnunaroËito na mjestima dodira“apstraktne” forme novoga i “fig-urativnih” proËelja postojeÊihzgrada. Od cijelog urbanog pro-grama izveden je tek dio, u kojemposebno znaËajno mjesto imazgrada robne kuÊe, zamiπljenavrlo skulpturalno i nekonven-cionalno u odnosu na estetiËkepreporuke modernistiËke arhi-tekture, ali zato niπta manjeatraktivno πto se tiËe konteksta,koji se uglavnom sastoji od manjevrijedne recentne gradnje ili his-toricistiËke arhitekture. No, iz-gled objekta tek je vanjski zastorideje koja se u Neidhardtovuopusu javlja joπ u projektu hotelana Lapadu ili u projektu Bitpazar, da bi postala gotovo stalnaznaËajka njegove arhitekture. Toje teænja takozvanom totalnomprostoru, to jest potpunom pove-zivanju unutraπnjosti graevineu πto veÊi cirkulacijski jedinst-veni prostor, koji se moæe dodat-no artikulirati prema æelji koris-nika. Dakako, takav je prostorjedino potpuno iskoristiv u zgradi

City Centre / Gradski centar, Banja Luka, 1973-79

35

quently articulated according tothe user-client’s wishes. Of course,such space can be fully utilizedonly in buildings like departmentstores, but its appearance in theBoska project heralds one of theconstant themes in Neidhardt’slater work, which correspondswell with trends in the Americanlarge-scale urban architecture inthe sixties and seventies.

ovakve namjene, no njegovupojavu u robnoj kuÊi “Boska”moæemo dræati i najavom jedneod stalnih tema u kasnijojNeidhardtovoj arhitekturi, kojakorespondira s trendovima uameriËkoj urbanoj arhitekturivelikog formata iz ranih πezde-setih i sedamdesetih godina.

Aerial viewZraËni snimak

36

Sections; modelPresjeci; maketa

37

38

East and north elevations, ground floor plan / IstoËno i sjeverno proËelje, tlocrt prizemlja

39

West and south elevations, site plan / Zapadno i juæno proËelje, situacija

40

41

Department store “Boska”, plaza, stairway to the underground commercial passage; viewsRobna kuÊa “Boska”, trg, stubiπni prilaz podzemnoj trgovaËkoj ulici; pogledi

42

American architecture has beenmentioned not only to draw com-parisons, but also to note thatsoon after completing the BanjaLuka project Neidhardt spenttwo years in the United States.He spent one year in the Chicagooffice of Skidmore, Owings andMerrill architects-engineers. Working in one of the leading“factories” of Late Modernism orProductivism, Neidhardt was ina position to learn many secretsof urban architecture and tocheck how the ideas that he hadearlier tried in a very differentcultural context worked on alarger scale, backed by muchmore substantial funds. That iswhy his American interludeshould be seen as a period of nec-essary concentration, to explorethe possibilities and needs ofrealization of a range of architec-tural motifs and themes mani-festly present in his earlier pro-jects. The American visit enabledthem to transform gradually intosomething that — viewed fromthe presentday perspective —can be regarded as his perma-nent commitment in architec-ture. It is not even too much tosay that certain tendencies pre-sent in his earlier projectsbecome more clearly visible inthe light of his American phase.While the complex form and totalspace of his previous projectscould be understood and ana-lyzed only in an indirect way,through comparisons with simi-lar foreign examples, in the pro-jects following his Americanexperience such elements wererooted in a direct contact withthe original. Of course, his pre-American projects can be relatedalso to what was happening inCroatian architecture, but archi-

Spomen ameriËke arhitektureovdje ima viπe od poredbenogznaËenja jer netom nakon projek-tiranja urbanog srediπta BanjaLuke Neidhardt provodi dvijegodine s one strane Atlantika,izmeu ostalog i usavrπavajuÊivjeπtine u Ëikaπkoj filijali arhitek-tonske tvrtke Skidmore, Owingsi Merrill.U jednoj od vodeÊih tvornica“kasnog modernizma” ili “pro-duktivizma” Neidhardt je imaoprilike upoznati se s mnogim taj-nama urbane arhitekture i vidjetikako u joπ veÊem mjerilu i s osjet-nijim investicijama mogu fun-kcionirati ideje kakve je sam pri-je toga sreivao u jednom pot-puno drukËijem kulturnom kon-tekstu. Zato ameriËki interludij unjegovu djelovanju valja doæiv-jeti kao fazu nuæne koncentracijena moguÊnosti i potrebe izvedbecijelog repertoara motiva i temaarhitektonskog oblikovanja, kojisu ranijim projektima bili mani-festno iskazani, a u ameriËkom sutrenutku polagano poËeli preras-tati u neπto πto se gledano iz da-naπnje perspektive moæe Ëitatikao trajno autorsko opredjeljenjeu arhitekturi. DapaËe, nije pret-jerano zakljuËiti da u svjetluameriËke faze mogu biti jasnijetendencije izraæene u ranijimprojektima. Naime, dok su kom-pleksna forma i totalni prostor uranijim projektima mogli bitishvaÊeni i analizirani jedino uposrednoj vezi prema sliËnim pri-mjerima iz inozemstva, nakonameriËke faze takvi su ili sliËnielementi imali utemeljenje uneposrednom kontaktu s izvor-nikom. Dakako, projektima nas-talim prije boravka u Americimogu se naÊi srodni istovremeni-ci i u domaÊim uvjetima, ali bilo bivrlo teπko situirati arhitekturu

tecture of this kind can hardly betreated as indigenous and freefrom any external influences.What we are faced with is a glob-al trend whose repercussions areto be found also in local culturalsituations radically differentfrom those that gave birth to andfully embraced large-scale urbanarchitecture as an expression ofthe modern industrial era.Without attempting to evaluate

takva tipa kao samoniklu i liπenuikakvih vanjskih utjecaja. RijeËje o globalnom trendu reperkusi-je kojega se nalaze i u lokalnimuvjetima koji su kulturno bitnodrukËiji od one sredine koja je umodernoj industrijskoj epohi pot-puno prisvojila velikoformatnuurbanu arhitekturu. Ne æeleÊiovdje vrednovati znaËenje utje-caja u arhitekturi, πto svakakomoæe biti poticajno za neku

American studies / AmeriËke studije, 1975-76 Atrium, study sketchStudijski prikaz atrija

43

the importance of influences inarchitectural design, which maybe the proper subject of anotherstudy, I would only like to noticethat the American phase markedan important turning point, or atleast a shift, in Neidhardt’s archi-tectural career. Upon his returnhome, he produced a series ofprojects and studies which ex-pressed his primary and perma-nent interest in the architectural

buduÊu studiju, treba samo nag-lasiti da ameriËka faza znaËi vrlovaænu ako ne prekretnicu ondabarem skretnicu u Neidhardtovojarhitektonskoj karijeri jer nakonpovratka nastaje veliki broj pro-jekata i studija u kojima se oslo-baa, po svemu sudeÊi primarni itrajni interes autora za arhitek-turu srediπnjih gradskih funkcijau velikim urbanim poslovnimkoncentracijama. To se nadopu-

design of central urban functionsin large business concentrations.This work was complementedwith his duties in the CroatianUrban Planning Institute, butwhat is particularly significant isthat all his post-American pro-jects bear a personal stamp. Inview of the scale of the projects,they always have an element of awell-thought out definition ofurbanity.

njuje i angaæmanom u Urbanis-tiËkom institutu Hrvatske, no onoπto se Ëini iznimno bitnim jestËinjenica da gotovo svi projektinastali nakon povratka iz Ameri-ke nose osebujan peËat arhitektu-re koja je gotovo uvijek, i zbogveliËine zahvata, domiπljena odre-enom razinom urbanotvornedefinicije.

The Boston Congress Street Bridge, study sketchesStudija pjeπaËkog mosta u Bostonu

44

In order to underscore the idea,we must go back to the year 1971,which may be regarded as theroot of Neidhardt’s post-Amer-ican phase. That year, a competi-tion was announced for the regu-latory development of Zagreb’snew central zone south of themain railway station, across theRiver Sava in New Zagreb.Neidhardt’s entry, together withLujo Schwerer and BranimirVelniÊ, envisaged a new city cen-tre characterized by a reticularcommunication network and

Da bismo to bolje shvatili, trebase vratiti nekoliko godina una-trag, toËnije u 1971. godinu, u kojuse moæe situirati daleki poËetakNeidhardtove postameriËke faze.Te je godine, naime, raspisanprvi u nizu natjeËaja za regulacijunove srediπnje zone grada Zagre-ba juæno od Glavnog æeljezniËkogkolodvora, na potezu prema pros-torima rijeke Save i u NovomZagrebu. U tom je natjeËaju zasrediπte juænog Zagreba Neid-hardt sudjelovao s Lujom Schwe-rerom i Branimirom VelniÊem,

architectural megastructures.The tenor was almost futuristic,in the spirit of the then currentinternational thinking about thefuture of large urban agglomera-tions. One major differencebetween this conceptual designand those made before (Lapad,Makarska, Skopje) and later(Banja Luka) was that thisdesign showed no trace of formalirregularity or avoidance of rightangles that had characterized hisprojects for relatively smallerinterventios. While such individ-

a rezultat je koncept urbanogrjeπenja novog gradskog srediπtaispunjenog mreænatim potezimakomunikacija i arhitektonskimmegastrukturama. Projekt jegotovo futuristiËki intoniran, uduhu tada aktualnih svjetskihpromiπljanja o buduÊnosti velikihgradskih aglomeracija. Ipak valjaistaknuti jednu vaænu razlikuovoga idejnog projekta u odnosuprema projektima nastalim prije(Lapad, Makarska, Skopje) iposlije (Banja Luka): nema nitraga formalnoj nepravilnosti i

New Zagreb City Centre / Centar Novog Zagreba, 1971 Model viewsMakete

45

46

ual projects sought to incorpo-rate particular urban functionsand properties in the interior ofthe buildings, adjusting the formaccordingly, larger urban designprojects followed the planninglogic, with straight lines and reg-ular megastructures not unlikethose found in Kenzo Tange’surban development designs. Thiswas just an early indication ofNeidhardt’s subsequent architec-tural practice, which has eversince focused on the location des-ignated in the 1971 competitionfor the centre of South Zagreb.This competition entry was thefirst in a series of competitiondesigns and studies for this par-ticular part of Zagreb and thesource of most of his architecturein the post-American phase. Itcan therefore be said that hisarchitecture from the mid-seven-ties onwards has been clearlydetermined by his investigationof visions of Zagreb’s new urbanlines, primarily its urban axis andthe River Sava. The 1971 compe-tition, as it became clear after-wards, provided the initialimpulse for architectural think-ing that continued throughoutthe seventies and eighties anduntil the present day. In order tounderstand the line of thinkingthat Neidhardt has pursuedthroughout this time, it is usefulto read his paper entitled “TheCity — Cradle of the Future”published in the journal Ekisticsin 1983. This text is a summary ofhis urbanological thinking, andits basic idea is to be found in oneof the last sections, where theauthor attempts to outline theprinciples of the urban future. Hepredicts, among other things,that the concentration of popula-tions in the cities of the future

will be less the function of pro-duction needs and more anexpression of individual or groupchoices within the prevailinglifestyles or world views.Moreover, he claims that largecities will tend to transform theirrigid hierarchical structures intonetworks of information units,which will themselves be onlyparts of the global system toenhance human creativity infuture societies. Such a state-ment could be dismissed as utopi-an if it were not backed by theauthor’s more than ten-year longexperience in urban and architec-tural design largely guided bythe dynamics of urban functions.The fact that this text was writ-ten in the now defunct politicalsystem might prompt one toreflect on the social roots of suchfuturological contemplation ofthe city, but we shall confine our-selves at this point to merely not-ing that an urban designer’s orarchitect’s writing cannot but berelated to his/her practical work.Therefore, Neidhardt’s article“The City — Cradle of the Fu-ture” can be taken as a summaryof his theoretical approach tocontemporary urban planningproblems. This approach sees thecity as an arena for an intensiveexchange of individualities, andnot a place where all needs arelevelled; the city offers an oppor-tunity for the assertion of indi-viduals, and not just groups. Thisis a proclamation easily stated asa maxim and applied as a creativeprinciple. Also, it is stimulatingfor practical work in architectur-al design. It proved stimulatingindeed for Neidhardt, who hastaken part in several dozen com-petitions since his return fromthe United States and designed a

izbjegavanju pravih kuteva uarhitekturi kakvu je bilo moguÊezamijetiti u drugim projektimarelativno manjih zahvata. Iako supojedinaËni projekti itekako teæiliza inkorporiranjem odreenihurbanih funkcija i svojstava uunutraπnjosti, kad je predmetprojekta prerastao na razinuvelikog urbanistiËkog koncepta,linije su se, zbog logiËne plan-erske distancije poravnale, agraevine pretvorile u pravilnemegastrukture sliËne velikimurbanim planovima Kenzo Tan-gea. Bila je to viπestruka naznakakasnijih opredjeljenja u Neid-hardtovoj arhitekturi, koja jeuvelike, praktiËno sve do danaπ-njeg dana, odreena lokacijom snatjeËaja iz 1971. godine ili neda-lekim drugim zagrebaËkim lo-kacijama. Bio je to prvi u nizunatjeËajnih planova i studija zajedan dio Zagreba, a iz tih jestudija nastao najveÊi dio Neid-hardtove arhitekture u post-ameriËkoj fazi, zbog Ëega se i mo-æe reÊi da je njegova arhitekturaod sredine sedamdesetih pa dodanas izrazito odreena istraæi-vanjima vizija novih zagrebaËkihurbanistiËkih poteza, ponajviπegradske osovine i rijeke Save.NatjeËaj iz 1971., pokazalo sekasnije, bio je poËetni impulspromiπljanjima koja su inten-zivno nastavljena tijekom drugepolovice sedamdesetih i osamde-setih godina, pa sve do danas. Dabi se bolje shvatila tendencijaizraæena u tom razdoblju, Ëini sevrijednim uËiniti joπ jedan skok uvremenu i obratiti se Neid-hardtovom Ëlanku “Grad - koli-jevka buduÊnosti”, objavljenom uËasopisu Ekistics 1983. godine.Taj je tekst svojevrstan saæetakurbanoloπkih razmiπljanja, atemeljna se ideja moæe izvesti iz

jednog od zavrπnih poglavlja kojepokuπava naznaËiti naËela urbanebuduÊnosti. Tako se, izmeu osta-log, iznosi predvianje o tomekako Êe koncentracija populacijeu gradovima buduÊnosti bitimanje funkcija proizvodnihzakonitosti a viπe izraz individu-alnog ili grupnog izbora unutarprevladavajuÊeg æivotnog stila ilisvjetonazora. DapaËe, Neidhardttvrdi da Êe veliki gradovi teæititransformaciji rigidne hijerarhi-jske strukture u mreæu informa-cijskih jedinica koje bi Ëinile tekdio globalnog sustava humanogstvaralaπtva u druπtvu buduÊ-nosti. Takve rijeËi mogle bi seokarakterizirati tek utopijom daiza njih u trenutku kad su na-pisane nije stajalo gotovo deset-ljeÊe urbanistiËkog i arhitek-tonskog projektiranja uvelikeodreeno dinamikom urbanihfunkcija. »injenica da je tekst na-pisan u vrijeme jednog danasnepostojeÊeg politiËkog sistemamogla bi potaknuti razmiπljanja odruπtvenim korijenima takvihfuturoloπkih razmiπljanja o gra-du, no ovdje Êemo se ograniËiti nakonstataciju da pisana rijeËsvakako ima neke veze s prak-tiËnim djelovanjem urbanista iarhitekta, pa je tako i Ëlanak“Grad, kolijevka buduÊnosti”moguÊe dræati nekom vrsti saæet-ka teorijskog pristupa urban-istiËkim problemima suvremenoggrada. Drugim rijeËima, grad kaoprostor intenzivne razmjene indi-vidualnosti a ne mjesto nivelira-nja potreba, grad kao moguÊnostafirmacije pojedinca a ne samogrupe - to je svojevrsna prokla-macija lako primjenjiva kao mak-sima ili kreativno naËelo, a poti-cajna i za konkretnu praksuarhitektonskog oblikovanja.Nakon povratka iz Amerike

ModelMaketa

47

number of architectural projectsmostly evolving from broaderurban development studies. Thepractical realization of the city asa “cradle of the future” hasbecome his main architecturalpreoccupation.

Neidhardt je autorski sudjelovaona viπe desetaka natjeËaja i arhi-tektonskih projekata koji suuglavnom razvijeni iz πirih urba-nistiËkih studija pa je prakticira-nje grada kao “kolijevke buduÊ-nosti” postalo osnovna preoku-pacija arhitekta.

48

The question that is “eternal” inarchitecture concerns the alwayschallenging relation betweenindividual needs that find theirexpression in the building andthe collective needs and motivesof urban life. Two considerationsenter into play here and notinfrequently act against eachother. The local tradition ofurban living and the global levelof technological development arethe two poles between which thearchitect/urban designer isstretched — from the first large-scale urban plans of the moderntimes to the present day, whenecological sobriety is slowly tak-ing the place of technologicaloptimism. With all its good andbad consequences of urban policyand practice, the city of Zagreb isan excellent example of what acommunity guided by traditioncan do when faced with new civi-lizational circumstances andmeans. Numerous urban plan-ning and design competitionsover the past twenty years havefailed to give a final answer tosome vital questions concerningthe future patterns of life in par-ticular parts of the city. Theproblem may be one of the mac-ro-level — that of a city metropo-lis unable to decide on a definitestrategy for its future. Oneinstance of such indecision is thecase of Trg Francuske Republi-ke, an unarticulated space form-ing the perimeter of the olderdowntown area and marking thebeginning of the western periph-eral district. Though manychanges have occurred since theend of the nineteenth centurywhen the site got its first landuse, the space has remained visu-ally and functionally the same —a hybrid of a meadow and a mili-

Dakako, pitanje koje se domalomoæe nazvati “vjeËnim” u kor-pusu moderne arhitekture —uvijek izazovni odnos pojedinaË-nih potreba iskazanih graevi-nom postavljen nasuprot zajed-niËkim motivima gradskog æivota— jest odreeno dvama osnovn-im Ëimbenicima koji se nerijetkopotiru. Lokalna tradicija grad-skog æivota i globalna razinatehniËkog razvoja jesu one okos-nice izmeu kojih je razapetarhitekt-urbanist, sve od prvihvelikih urbanih planova moderneepohe pa do danaπnjeg trenutkau kojem ekoloπka trezvenost po-malo zamjenjuje tehnoloπki opti-mizam. Grad Zagreb sa svim svo-jim dobrim i loπim primjerimasreivanja urbanog stanja jestizvrstan pokazatelj kolike sumoguÊnosti jedne tradicijomodreene sredine u odmjerava-nju s novim civilizacijskim uvjeti-ma i sredstvima. Brojni urban-istiËki natjeËaji organizirani ti-jekom proteklih dvadesetak god-ina kao da joπ nisu dali konaËniodgovor na bitna pitanja o bu-duÊnosti æivota u pojedinimdijelovima Zagreba. No moæda jeproblem i u makro pristupu gra-da-metropole, koji se nikako nemoæe odluËiti za definitivnu stra-tegiju odnosa prema svojoj bu-duÊnosti. Takav je i sluËaj s Tr-gom francuske republike, near-tikuliranim prostorom koji zat-vara perimetar starog donjegdijela grada i oznaËava poËetakzapadne periferije. Iako je odkonca XIX. stoljeÊa, kad je takvasituacija zacrtana, dosta uvjetapromijenjeno, prostor Trga ostaoje potpuno isti, izgledom i funkci-jom na pola puta izmeu livade iegzercirplaca. Godine 1977. Neid-hardt je s Ivanom FraniÊem zas-luæio drugu nagradu na javnom

tary exercise grounds. In 1977,Neidhardt and Ivan FraniÊ wonthe second prize at a competitionfor the urban development of thispart of the city. Their solutionprovided for a triple-plaza divi-sion to bring this huge emptyspace under a measure of control.The idea is exceedingly simpleand, it seems, easily applied in aspace intended primarily as a linkbetween functionally very differ-

natjeËaju za jedno moguÊe vie-nje buduÊnosti toga prostora,koji je prema njihovu projektutrebalo razdijeliti na tri osnovnadijela, Ëime bi se donekle savladaopostojeÊi ogromni neureeni Trg.Ideja je nadasve jednostavna i,Ëini se, lako primjenjiva na pros-toru od kojeg se prvenstvenooËekuje da obavi meusobnopovezivanje funkcionalno pot-puno razliËitih gradskih sadræaja.

French Republic Square / Trg Francuske Republike, Zagreb, 1977

49

Site plan; spatial flow schemeSituacija; shema prostornoga toka

50

ent urban contents. Neidhardtapplied a somewhat similarapproach in his solution (withZvonimir KrznariÊ) for the newcity centre in Algiers (Hamma).This design, too, consistentlypursues the idea of fragmenta-tion of urban functions, but theoverall space remains integral,being divided into smaller com-ponents with their specific urbancontents by means of quite dis-creet interventions. The firstphase of the Zagreb Trg Fran-cuske Republike project, howev-er, envisages a clearly markeddiagonal axis to secure communi-cation between Ilica and theTreπnjevka sports complex. Thediagonal axis — simply as a line,path, or as a symmetry axis — isto be found in Neidhardt’s otherprojects, too, both architecturaland urban design ones. All thedescribed elements of the design

Donekle sliËan zahvat Neidhardtje zajedno sa Zvonimirom Krzna-riÊem primijenio u urbanistiËkomplanu za novi centar grada Alæira“Hamma”. I u tom je projektudosljedno provedena ideja frag-mentacije gradskih sadræaja, iakouklopljena u jedan cjeloviti po-vezujuÊi prostor, koji je, me-utim, tek diskretnim zahvatimaodijeljen na manje sastavne dije-love posebnih urbanih sadræaja.U prvoj je fazi zagrebaËkog pro-jekta, meutim, jasno uoËljivakarakteristiËna prostorna dijago-nala komunikacije izmeu Ilice itreπnjevaËkog sportskog srediπ-ta, dijagonala koja je kao potez ilios simetrije zamjetljiva i u dru-gim Neidhardtovim projektima,arhitektonskim ili urbanistiËkim.Svi opisani elementi zajednotvore novo srediπte grada koje bimoglo nuditi viπe od monumen-talne reprezentacije, sliËno ideji

for Trg Francuske Republiketogether form a new city centre,similarly to the idea proposed forAlgiers, offering more than mon-umental representation: if quitedisparate contents like a shop-ping centre and a railway station,or a communication thoroughfareand a children’s playground,must be connected, then the mostlogical solution seems to be adivision of the available spacesuch that different functions findtheir place and that the users cango directly from one end of thespace to another. Although thegeoclimatic and traditional con-texts were quite different, boththe Zagreb and the Algiers pro-ject are based on a similar idea offragmentation of space intoplazas and recognition of parallelactivities.

koja je predloæena i za srediπteAlæira: ako se ponekad potpunodisparatni sadræaji, poput trgo-vaËke zone i æeljezniËke stanice iliprometnog poteza i djeËjegigraliπta, veÊ moraju povezati,onda je najlogiËnije postojeÊiprostor raspodijeliti da bi seomoguÊilo logiËno proæimanje ra-zliËitoga, nudeÊi istodobno koris-nicima moguÊnost izravne ko-munikacije s kraja na kraj pros-tora. Iako je geoklimatski i tradi-cijski kontekst potpuno razliËit,oba su projekta, i alæirski i zagre-baËki, zasnovani na sliËnim ideja-ma fragmentacije prostora i afir-macije paralelnih zbivanja.

51

Sections; public space usage scenariosPresjeci; prikazi koriπtenja javnoga prostora

52

Hamma Centre, Algiers, 1984

53

Perspective sketches and the city centre development planPerspektivne skice i plan razvoja centralnog podruËja

54

As a sort of intermezzo followingthese two highly demandingurban development projects,Neidhardt prepared a competi-tion entry for the Telecommuni-cations Building in ©ibenik in1980. This project occupies animportant place in his opus,because it enabled him to try hishand at the “sequential optimiza-tion” method of architecturaldesign, which, simply put, recon-ciles artistic and technical de-mands in the process of designinga building. In this particular pro-ject, the “sequential optimiza-tion” method was used to achievea better functional organization,more appropriate articulation ofthe communications part of thebuilding, and, last but not least,aesthetic matching of the build-ing’s exterior with the urban con-text of the city; at the same time,this method was tried here as a

Kao neka vrsta meuËina, nakondva iznimno zahtjevna urban-istiËka projekta, pojavljuje se1980. Neidhardtovo sudjelovanjena natjeËaju za idejno rjeπenjezgrade telekomunikacija u ©i-beniku. Taj je projekt znaËajan ucjelokupnom arhitektovu opusujer je posluæio za oprobavanjeprojektantske metode “sekvent-ne optimalizacije”, s kojom se, po-jednostavnjeno kazano, pomirujuzahtjevi umjetniËke i tehniËkeprirode u procesu oblikovanjazgrade. Radi πto bolje funkcional-ne prostorne organizacije, prik-ladnije artikulacije komunikaci-jskog dijela zgrade i konaËno, ne inajmanje vaæno, estetiËkog us-klaivanja vanjπtine objekta s ur-banim kontekstom grada, meto-da “sekventne optimalizacije”upotrijebljena je u konkretnomprojektantskom zadatku, ali i kaoprimjer moguÊeg cjelovitog

Telecommunications Building / Zgrada telekomunikacija, ©ibenik, 1980

possible integral, scientific ap-proach to architectural design,putting into practice whatNeidhardt discussed theoretical-ly in his dissertation entitled“The Anthroposocial Factor inthe Theoretical Approach to Ar-chitectural and Urban Design”.The dissertation examined thetraditional relationship betweenthe architect and the user — arelationship that plays a crucialrole in architecture. The authorsought to elaborate a scientificapproach to the practical prob-lem of dynamic interaction be-tween the designer and the userof architectural space, with theaim of giving the user a greatersay in the shaping of his space.The method applied here hasproved applicable to commercialprojects and revealed its evengreater potential for housingarchitecture.

znanstvenog pristupa projekti-ranju, pa je kao takva detaljnoopisana i u Neidhardtovoj diser-taciji “Antroposocijalni faktor uteorijskom pristupu arhitekton-skom i urbanistiËkom projekti-ranju”. Tema disertacije propitu-je tradicionalno postavljen odnosprojektanta i korisnika, dakleodnos od krucijalnog znaËaja umodernoj arhitekturi, kojom sepokuπava utemeljiti znanstvenipristup za praktiËnu realizacijudinamiËne interakcije izmeuonoga koji oblikuje i onoga koji Êekoristiti arhitektonski prostor,da bi korisnik u πto veÊoj mjeriutjecao na konaËno obliËje svogprostora. To je primjer iskazamoguÊnosti metode koja biznaËajnije rezultate zacijelomogla dati i u podruËju stambenearhitekture.

55

Perspective; study sketch, isometric view and basic conceptPerspektiva; studijska skica, izometrija i osnovni koncept

56

Between his two urban designprojects, which clearly showedhis inclination to a dispersiveview of the city, and just beforethe ©ibenik project as a practicaltest of a particular scientificmethod of architectural design,Neidhardt — together withMarijan HræiÊ, Zvonimir KrznariÊand Davor Mance — completedhis most complex project to date,namely, the National and Uni-versity Library in Zagreb. Thisproject is significant not only interms of its size and importancefor the national culture, but alsobecause of its exceptionally sen-sitive location in the city. Thelocation in question is the avenueleading from the main railwaystation, across the river Sava, tothe new parts of Zagreb. Projec-ted as the future centre of Zag-reb, this part of the city remainsfor Neidhardt a constant urbandesign and architectural chal-lenge. The National and UniversityLibrary building can be analyzedon several levels. From a purelyarchitectural standpoint, as anisolated structure, it is a classicexample of Late Modernist aes-thetics, a monumental publicbuilding of the kind that pre-vailed in Northern Americanarchitecture in the seventies.Similar projects that come tomind in this connection includeEugene E. Aubry’s 1975 designof the library in Houston, Texas,and I.M. Pei’s 1979 design for theJohn Fitzgerald Kennedy Li-brary in Boston, Massachusetts.Some parallels could be drawnalso with the kind of architecturepractised by Cesar Pelli in theseventies. The concrete, granite-clad structure which “restrains”the transparent aluminium-and-

Izmeu dva urbanistiËka projek-ta koji su vrlo jasno izrazili teæ-nju ka disperzivnom poimanjugrada i neposredno prije πiben-skog preispitivanja znanstvenemetode u projektiranju, Neid-hardt 1978. zajedno s MarijanomHræiÊem, Zvonimirom Krznari-Êem i Davorom Manceom potpi-suje svoj vjerojatno najkomplek-sniji projekt - zgradu Nacionalnei sveuËiliπne biblioteke u Zagre-bu. Objekt je poseban i kljuËan,ne samo po dimenzijama ili poznaËaju kojeg ima za nacionalnukulturu, nego i zbog iznimno vaæ-ne pozicije koju u gradu Zagrebutaj objekt zauzima. RijeË je oprostoru na potezu od glavnogæeljezniËkog kolodvora prekoobala rijeke Save sve do novogdijela grada koji je do danas zaNeidhardta ostao trajni izvorurbanistiËkih i arhitektonskihizazova jer je i u sluæbenim grad-skim planovima zacrtan kaobuduÊa srediπnja gradska zona.Zgrada Nacionalne i sveuËiliπnebibilioteke moæe se promatrati nanekoliko razina. »isto arhitekton-ski, dakle kao izolirana struktura,ona je klasiËni primjer kas-nomodernistiËke estetike veliko-formatnih javnih zgrada kakvesedamdesetih godina posebnodominiraju u arhitekturi Sjever-ne Amerike. Meu istovrsnimprojektima tih godina svakako seizdvajaju knjiænica u HoustonuEugene E. Aubrya iz 1975., knjiæ-nica John Fitzgerald Kennedy uBostonu I. M. Peia iz 1979., a nekebi se paralele mogle povuÊi iprema arhitekturi kakvu sedam-desetih godina prakticira CesarPelli. Betonska granitom obloæe-na struktura koja “sapinje” tran-sparentni kvadar od aluminija istakla prije svega tvori atrakti-van urbani znak na samom poËet-

National and University Library / Nacionalna i sveuËiliπna knjiænica, Zagreb, 1978-95

Urban axes; aerial view, floor planGradske osi; zraËni snimak, tlocrt

57

glass rectangular parallelepipedis before everything else anattractive urban sign at thestarting point of Zagreb’s newcentral avenue. But what is par-ticularly important is the natureof the space enclosed by thisstructure. It is total space, thatis, a horizontally and verticallyunified whole which can functionby segments or as a totality. Suchspace is more than characteristicof Late Modernist architecture:it was first introduced in Foster’sWillis and Faber building and isto be found in almost all modernoffice and public buildings withlobby space, including those like

ku nove zagrebaËke srediπnjeavenije, no posebno vaæan jestkarakter prostora koji je takvomstrukturom zatvoren. RijeË je ototalnom prostoru, dakle horizon-talno i vertikalno povezanoj cjeli-ni koja moæe funkcionirati frag-mentarno a i u svojoj ukupnosti.Takav je prostor viπe nego ka-rakteristiËan za arhitekturu kas-nog modernizma, uveden joπ Fos-terovom zgradom Willis andFaber i prisutan u gotovo svimsuvremenim poslovnim i javnimzgradama s atrijskim prosto-rima, ukljuËujuÊi i one koje sepoput Rogersova Lloyda obiËnosvrstavaju u trendovsku ladicu

58

Final section, stack areas concept, section sketch; rare book reading room, level-1 floor planIzvedeni presjek, koncept spremiπta grae, idejni presjek; Ëitaonica rijetke grae, tlocrt razine-1

Rogers’ Lloyd building, whichare usually classified as HighTech architecture. The interior space of the newNational and University Libraryis designed for a different kind ofuse than the old library, an ArtNouveau building designed byRudolf Lubynski in 1913. Themost important new featuresinclude free access to most stacksand direct communicationbetween different functional seg-ments of the building. These fea-tures, together with some auxil-iary facilities, are intended tostimulate the transdisciplinaryand even multimedia study of thelibrary holdings. This is the keynovelty in the organization of theinterior space. Another differ-ence is that, in contradistinctionto the old “introvert” building,the new building is “extrovert”and open towards the city. Thismeans not only catering to theneeds of modern library usersbut also having a reference to itsurban context. The latter isachieved by means of a transpar-ent entrance atrium facing northand oriented towards the city’smost attractive vistas. Thecityscape role of architecture isvery much stressed in this

High-Tech arhitekture.Unutarnji je prostor nove nacio-nalne biblioteke dakle koncipiranza drukËiju uporabu od prostorapostojeÊe secesijske zgrade Ru-dolfa Lubynskog iz 1913. godine.NajznaËajnije su novine nepos-redni pristup korisnika veÊemdijelu biblioteËne grae kao i iz-ravna povezanost pojedinih funk-cionalnih dijelova zgrade, πtozajedno s popratnim sadræajimatreba pruæiti podlogu za transdis-ciplinarni pa i multimedijalni ka-rakter prouËavanja grae. To jebitna novina unutarnje organi-zacije prostora koja je, uz to πtoje za razliku od stare “intro-vertne” zgrade “ekstrovertno”otvorena gradu, Ëvrsto utemelje-na u suvremenu koncepciju koriπ-tenja biblioteËne grae, ali je ktome i referentna na urbani kon-tekst preko transparentnog ulaz-nog hala orijentiranog prema sje-veru i najatraktivnijim gradskimvizurama. Ideja projekta novenacionalne knjiænice jasno istiËegradotvorni element arhitekturekroz ugraivanje novih sadræajau joπ neizgraeni i nesreeni diobuduÊeg srediπta grada. U tomsklopu valja promatrati ovu zgra-du, prije svega kao dio novogaZagreba, kao jedan od Ëimbenikanovog urbanog identiteta, kakvihbi u bliskoj buduÊnosti trebalobiti viπe. BuduÊi da je nova Na-cionalna i sveuËiliπna bibliotekaprva velikoformatna zgrada natom potezu, moæe se pretpostavi-ti da Êe se sve zgrade koje na tom

59

60

Entrance level 0 floor plan; atrium —— entrance hallTlocrt razine 0; atrijski ulazni hall

61

62

Atrium; detailsAtrij; detalji

63

64

design, which introduces newurban functions into the stillundeveloped and undefined partof the future city centre. In thissense, the National and Uni-versity Library should be viewedin the first place as an element ofnew Zagreb, a factor of its newurban identity, to be followed byother such elements in the nearfuture. Since the library buildingis the first large structure in thisdistrict, it is to be expected thatall the subsequent structures willhave to take a stand, either posi-tive or negative, in relation to it.This gives an added significanceto this project: it introduces a

prostoru tek trebaju biti podig-nute morati na neki naËin, pozi-tivno ili negativno, odrediti pre-ma njoj. U tome je vaænost ovogaprojekta, koji u postojeÊu mreæupomijeπanih starih i novih urban-ih struktura uvodi jedan novi red,za razliku od stare zgrade Lubyn-skog πto je tek okrunila jedankrak “zelene potkove”. Dok jestara Biblioteka na jedinstvennaËin markirala kraj onodobnogZagreba prema jugu, nova jezgrada putokaz πirenju grada uistom pravcu.Krajnja toËka tog poteza nalazi seu novom dijelu Zagreba, s onestrane rijeke Save, ali na istoj

new order into the existing net-work of mixed, old and new,structures, unlike Lubynski’s oldlibrary which simply completedone side of Zagreb’s “greenhorseshoe” park. While the oldlibrary effectively marked thecity’s southern rim, the newlibrary opens the way for the cityto develop in the same southerlydirection. The end point of the projectedavenue is further south, acrossthe River Sava, but on the sameaxis that runs from Zagreb’sgreen hillside, taking in also thecentre of religious life with theCathedral.

aksijalnoj ravni koja na sjeveruzahvaÊa pribreæni zeleni gradskipojas i markira religiozno srediπ-te grada s katedralom.

Reading areas, level 3 floor plan, reading table; southeast view»itaonice, tlocrt razine 3, radni stol; jugoistoËni pogled

65

66

Northwest view, façade detail; entrance hall, catalogues and reference librarySjeverozapadni pogled, detalj proËelja; ulazni hall, katalozi i referentna zbirka

67

68

This axis has a crucial signifi-cance for the city’s urban growth,since most of its representativebuildings are to be found alongthis line, including, now, the newNational and University Libraryhalf way between the city’s his-toric core and the new housingcomplexes on the other side ofthe river. In 1985, VelimirNeidhardt marked the southern-most point of this important axiswith his design of the INATrgovina office building. Thissolution was based on severalpreliminary urban developmentand architectural studies for thislocation at the point of entry intothe new part of the city. The loca-tion is defined, on one side, by theZagreb Fair grounds built in thefifties and sixties and, on theother side, by undeveloped tractsof land among scattered mass-housing buildings. Until the mid-eighties, this part of the city hadnever aroused any architecturalinterest, even though, empty asit was, it called for interventionsin the form of new buildings thatwould not only breathe life intoan urban district but also standas a sign of identification at theentrance to that part of the city.It was no accident that the prob-lem came to the fore only in theeighties, since this was the timeof re-evaluation of the achieve-ments of modern (twentieth-cen-tury) architecture, particularlyas regards housing construction.At that time, the awareness ofthe effects and defects of NewZagreb became quite strong, andpeople were ready to considerthe failure of the part of the citybuilt over some thirty yearswithout ever acquiring or develop-ing a recognizable urban identity.

Cijeli je taj potez od iznimnogznaËenja za urbani rast Zagrebajer su uzduæ njega nastale najre-prezentativnije graevine grada,meu kojima je i Nacionalna isveuËiliπna biblioteka, koja sedanas smjeπta na pola puta izme-u stare gradske jezgre i novihprekosavskih stambenih naselja.Godine 1985. Velimir Neidhardtobiljeæio je i krajnju toËku toganajvaænijeg zagrebaËkog potezaprojektom poslovne zgrade Inatrgovine, koja proizlazi iz neko-liko urbanistiËkih i arhitekton-skih studija prethodno izraenihza lokaciju na samom ulazu u novidio grada. Taj prostor, definiran sjedne strane kompleksom Zagre-baËkog velesajma iz pedesetih iπezdesetih godina, a s druge ne-preglednim ledinama izmeu ras-prπene stambene gradnje, nije dosredine osamdesetih nikada pos-tao predmetom od znaËajnijeg in-teresa za nove arhitektonskeintervencije, iako je, potpuno pra-zan kakav je veÊ bio, itekako tre-bao nove gradnje koje Êe ne samousaditi novi æivot u jednu urbanuËesticu nego i ponuditi znak zaidentifikaciju ulaza u cijeli jedandio grada. Taj problem nije bezrazloga otvoren tek osamdesetihgodina, kad ionako dolazi od po-novnog vrednovanja dostignuÊamoderne arhitekture XX. stolje-Êa, posebno u stambenoj izgrad-nji. U to je vrijeme oËito sazrelasvijest o dosezima i nedostacimanovog dijela Zagreba, pa je takorazmiπljanje o promaπajima cije-log jednog grada, koji je nastao unepunih tridesetak godina a danije stekao ili razvio neki prepoz-natljivi urbani identitet, postalosastavnim dijelom urbanistiËkoarhitektonske prakse u Zagrebu.

Zagreb urban axis / Urbana osovina Zagreba, 1981-85 Project designs for the Zagreb urban axisProjekti za zagrebaËku urbanu osovinu

69

INA Office BuildingPoslovna zgrada INE

Convention & Trade CentreKongresno - poslovni centar

HotelHotel

National and University LibraryNacionalna i sveuËiliπna knjiænica

70

The INA Trgovina building wasthe first attempt to think aboutthe identity of New Zagreb in anew key. It was the result, also, ofNeidhardt’s long and systematicstudy of the entrance to that partof the city. The beginnings of hispreoccupation with that locationdate back to 1985, when the firstprize at the City of Zagreb com-petition enabled him to work outdesigns for a convention and com-mercial/office centre on the sameline as the INA Trgovina build-ing. The convention centre andluxury hotel forming the ZagrebTrade Centre remain unexe-cuted, but are neverthelessimportant because they witnessthe ideas and conceptual stimulithat guide the process of real-lifearchitectural creation. The per-spective drawings of the site for

Zgrada Ina trgovine prvi jepokuπaj drukËijeg razmiπljanja oidentitetu novog dijela Zagreba ucjelokupnoj njegovoj povijesti, aproizlazi iz dugotrajnog i sis-tematiËnog Neidhardtova bav-ljenja ulaznim prostorom u taj diograda. PoËetak se moæe locirati ugradskom natjeËaju koji je 1985.raspisan za to podruËje i na ko-jem je prva nagrada omoguÊilaNeidhardtu daljnju razradu kon-gresnog i trgovaËko-poslovnogcentra, koji se nalaze u istoj ravnis kasnijom zgradom Ina trgovine.Kongresni centar i hotel visokekategorije ostali su na razini pro-jekta, ali zanimljivi su jer dostagovore o idejnim i konceptualnimpoticajima u procesu nastajanjastvarne arhitekture. Perspektivekoje prikazuju lokaciju na mjestudanaπnje zgrade Ina trgovine

the INA Trgovina building showa structure of a rather differentshape and design than the oneeventually built, while the draw-ings of the hotel and the conven-tion centre show exteriors whichare reminiscent of the classicalvalues of modernist architecture,not unlike Sant Elia’s or Mendel-sohn’s sketches. This effect is dueto the abstract nature of thedrawings, which always presentsituations as idealized ratherthan realistic. The drawings ofthe hotel’s interior revealNeidhardt’s unmistakable pref-erence for total space, in themanner of Late Modernism of thesixties and seventies. However,the proper idea of these unexe-cuted designs can be obtainedonly when they are comparedwith the INA Trgovina building.

prikazuju objekt potpuno drukËi-jeg izgleda i koncepta, a sami cr-teæi hotela i kongresnog centravanjskim izgledom mogu podsje-titi na klasiËne vrijednosti moder-nistiËke arhitekture, na skiceSant’Elie ili Mendelsohna, i tozbog apstraktne razine samogcrteæa, koji uvijek nudi situacijeidealnije nego u stvarnosti. Crte-æi unutraπnjosti hotela, meutim,zorno pokazuju Neidhardtovusklonost totalnim prostorima umaniri “kasnog modernizma” πez-desetih i sedamdesetih godina, nopravi se dojam o tim neizvedenimprojektima moæe steÊi tek uspo-redbom sa stvarnom graevinomIna trgovine.

Convention & Trade Centre / Kongresno - poslovni centar, Zagreb, 1985

71

Isometric view;Zagreb Faireast entranceand hotelperspectives,urban designconcept

Izometrija;perspektiveistoËnog ulazaZagrebaËkogvelesajma i hotela,urbanistiËkikoncept

72

Section,atrium levelfloor plan,east elevation

Presjek,tlocrt razineatrija,istoËnoproËelje

73

74

The overall architectural conceptof this building, its contents, allo-cation of space, and, finally, itsappearance are almost inconceiv-able outside of the context ofZagreb, primarily because of thefact that this was the first large-scale office building erectedsouth of the River Sava, in thepart of the city containing practi-cally only residential buildings.That is why the INA Trgovinabuilding must be viewed as a pio-neering attempt to introduce anew and different identity into atypically unidimensional residen-tial district. The second funda-mental property of Neidhardt’sdesign is the character of theidentity that it introduces intothis part of Zagreb. It brings inelements of architectural tradi-tion and urban growth of down-town Zagreb with its characteris-tic block structures and repre-sentative façades of large-scalepublic buildings. However,Neidhardt’s design does not sim-ply copy the situation character-istic for late nineteenth-centuryarchitecture; rather, reflectingthe spirit of the times, it inter-prets those elements of Zagreb’surban identity which the archi-tect regarded as sufficiently gen-eral to be able to function also ina different context. Acceptingthat New Zagreb, however dif-ferent, was still Zagreb,Neidhardt transferred across theriver a typical representativebuilding-palace occupying practi-cally an entire block. Speakingabout the block, it should benoted that, since there is an openspace inside the building, theINA Trgovina building has thephysical size of a downtownblock, but in the context of NewZagreb it functions as a solitary

Kompletno arhitektonsko obliko-vanje te zgrade, njezini sadræaji,dispozicija prostora i sam izgled,gotovo su nezamislivi izvan kon-teksta grada Zagreba, prije sve-ga zbog Ëinjenice da je to prvaposlovna zgrada velikog formatapodignuta juæno od Save, u dijelugrada koji sadræi uglavnom stam-bene objekte. Zbog toga Ina trgo-vina mora biti promatrana kaopionirski pokuπaj unoπenja druk-Ëijeg identiteta u tipiËno jednodi-menzionalno naselje. Drugi je ne-mimoilazan element toga Neid-hardtova projekta karakter iden-titeta kojeg donosi u novozagre-baËke prostore. RijeË je o ele-mentima arhitektonske tradicije iurbaniteta zagrebaËkog donjeggrada, prije svega o specifiËnojblokovskoj gradnji te reprezenta-tivnim proËeljima velikoformat-nih javnih zgrada. Meutim,Neidhardt nije ovim projektomjednostavno preslikao situacijukarakteristiËnu za arhitekturukonca XIX. stoljeÊa, nego je, suk-ladno duhu vremena, interpreti-rao one elemente zagrebaËkogurbanog identiteta koje je sma-trao dovoljno opÊenitim da bimogli funkcionirati u drukËijemkontekstu. ZnajuÊi da je i NoviZagreb, kolikogod drukËiji, joπuvijek Zagreb, Neidhardt je pre-ko rijeke transponirao jednu ti-piËnu reprezentativnu zgradu-palaËu, koja praktiËno zapremacijeli blok. Kad je o bloku rijeË,valja, dakako, skrenuti pozornostna Ëinjenicu da — a jer je unutarzgrade otvoren prostor — Inatrgovina ima fiziËku veliËinu jed-nog donjogradskog bloka, ali ukontekstu Novog Zagreba onafunkcionira kao usamljena nazna-ka moguÊeg buduÊeg identitetanovog dijela grada.Osim toga, odnos razine projekta

landmark of a possible futureidentity of this part of the city. Another point needs to be madeabout this project. The relation-ship between the quality of thedesign and the quality of its exe-cution reflects an important prin-ciple of Neidhardt’s architecturaldesign, which is also very muchnoticeable in the process of con-struction of the National andUniversity Library. In the caseof the INA Trgovina building, weobserve the architect’s desire,nay, the fulfilment of his duty, toremain at every step the authen-tic interpreter of his project, fol-lowing the process of executionfrom the idea to its completion.Not infrequently, this includes aseries of additional projects andthe design of the interior space ofthe building. Neidhardt insists onthis, trying to make sure thateven the smallest detail that canaffect the building’s appearancefits into the architect’s originalvision. This is another link withthe tradition of urban architec-ture in Zagreb at the turn of thecentury, when the formal princi-ples of modern Croatian architec-ture were laid and when, in addi-tion to the harmonious arrange-ment of the interior space, partic-ular attention was paid to the fin-ishing operations completing thearchitectural envelope. The restrained form of the INATrgovina building in the publicurban space is largely compen-sated for by an interplay of largeglass-covered dark patches andthe light-coloured stone lining,which envelop the glass cube inan elegant traditionally com-posed order. The regularity ofthe stone-covered sections is“softened” by carved roundingsabove the entrance, thus optically

i izvedbene razine zgrade Inatrgovine moæe posvjedoËiti o joπjednoj vaænoj karakteristiciNeidhardtova arhitektonskogoblikovanja, koju je takoer mo-guÊe zamijetiti u procesu nasta-janja zgrade Nacionalne i sveuËi-liπne biblioteke. RijeË je o teænjik potpunom autorskom obliko-vanju zgrade ili moæda o duænostiarhitekta kao najodgovornijegtumaËa vlastitog projekta u pro-cesu neprekidnog praÊenja iz-vedbe zgrade, od ideje do njezinapotpunog dovrπenja, πto neri-jetko obuhvaÊa i niz dodatnihprojekata te oblikovanje enteri-jera pojedinih prostora zgrade.Na tomu se ustrajno inzistira dabi se i najmanja pojedinost kojautjeËe na pojavnost zgrade pod-redila cjelovitoj autorskoj viziji.Time se na poseban naËin podcr-tava veza s tradicijom zagrebaË-ke urbane arhitekture s poËetkastoljeÊa, kad su uspostavljenaoblikovna naËela suvremene hr-vatske arhitekture, i kad je, uzbogato i skladno sreivanje unu-tarnjih prostornih odnosa, naro-Ëita pozornost pridavana potpu-nom i dovrπenom oblikovanjuzgrade.Suzdræanost forme zgrade premajavnom gradskom prostoru iteka-ko je opuπtena meuigrom velik-ih zastakljenih tamnih povrπina isvijetle kamene obloge koja u ele-gantnom tradicionalno komponi-ranom redu “sapinje” staklenikubus. Pravilnost kamenih parti-ja “omekπana” je zaobljenjimatek iznad ulaza pa je tako optiËkiolakπano snalaæenje korisnikakoje ionako veÊ privlaËi posebnooblikovanje okoliπa zgrade s isko-riπtenim elementima arhitek-tonske tradicije XIX. stoljeÊa:kroz πiroke esplanade zgrada bidoslovno trebala naplaviti grad,

INA Trgovina Building / Poslovna zgrada INE, Zagreb, 1985-89 Southeast view, floor plans, façade conceptJugoistoËni pogled, tlocrti, koncept proËelja

75

76

facilitating its identification. Thevisitor is attracted by the strik-ing design of the building’s sur-roundings, using elements ofnineteenth-century architecture:across its broad esplanades thebuilding literally flows towardsthe city, while the access arcades“suck” the city into the building.The interplay of architecture andurban design is complete in thisproject, justifying the conclusionthat this is an original interpreta-tion of Zagreb’s architectural tra-dition. With its size and corre-sponding arrangement of space,the building surpasses every-thing done in Zagreb in publicbuilding architecture. Of course,this is not just a matter of size,though one should not lose sightof the fact that the INA Trgovinabuilding was designed for a citywith the population of over onemillion, but also — despite all itslocal cultural references and con-text — a matter of creative inter-pretation of the domestic archi-tectural heritage in an interna-tional key. This is precisely whatthe terms such as LateModernism or Productivism areintended to signify. If, forinstance, Juraj Denzler’s ZagrebMunicipal Services Building inthe city centre provided a yard-stick for public buildings in a cityof the size that Zagreb had in thethirties, Neidhardt’s INATrgovina building is an exem-plary specimen of a public build-ing in a city several times bigger,when it becomes necessary tolink the old and the new parts ofthe city. The new element thatNeidhardt introduces is thesupremacy of the public contentin the large, connected spaces atthe base of the building, so typi-cal of the Late Modernist archi-

dok ulazni trijemovi uvlaËe gradu unutraπnjost. Meuigra arhi-tekture i urbanizma potpuna je uovom projektu i upravo stoga bise mogao izvuÊi zakljuËak o origi-nalnoj interpretaciji zagrebaËkearhitektonske tradicije jer veli-Ëinom i odgovarajuÊom dispozi-cijom prostora zgrada nadilazisve πto je u Zagrebu izgraeno upodruËju arhitekture javnihobjekata. Dakako, nije rijeË samoo dimenzijama, premda ne trebazaboraviti Ëinjenicu da je Inatrgovina projektirana za milijun-ski grad, ali kolikogod bila refer-entna na lokalno u kulturnojtradiciji konteksta, rijeË je prijesvega o interpretaciji naslijea ukljuËu internacionalno prepoznat-ljive arhitekture, dakle o onomeπto je na svjetskoj sceni svoje-dobno prepoznato kao “kasni mo-dernizam” ili “produktivizam”.Ako bismo rekli da je, primjerice,Juraj Denzler postavio u srediπtugrada svojom zgradom javnihpoduzeÊa parametar zagrebaËke ieuropske arhitekture javne nam-jene u odnosu na veliËinu gradatridesetih godina ovoga stoljeÊa,onda je Neidhardtova Ina trgovi-na uzoran primjer kako na koncustoljeÊa arhitektura jednake na-mjene poprima nove kvalitete unekoliko puta naraslom gradu, ito na toËci spajanja starog i no-vog dijela grada. Novo u Neid-hardtovom projektu jest prijesvega oËito u supremaciji javnogu velikim povezanim prostorimabaze objekta tako tipiËnim za“kasni modernizam” , prostorimakoji su moguÊi i zbog od Den-zlerovih vremena uznapredovaletehnologije gradnje. To novo,dakle, oËito je u poveÊanom udje-lu javnih i komercijalnih prostorau zgradi, pa zatim u izbje-gavanju kompozicije zasnovane

Floor plan, isometric view; southeast cornerTlocrt, izometrija; jugoistoËni ugao

77

tecture. Such large spaces havebeen made possible by theprogress in building technologysince Denzler’s time. In additionto the increased share of publicand commercial space in thebuilding, other novel featuresinclude the avoidance of rigidright angles and the collage-typeexterior of the building. All ofthese features are known inter-nationally, but in this projectthey successfully fulfil the taskof bringing together the localarchitectural and urban develop-ment traditions of the historiccity centre and the new architec-ture of the city districts on theother side of the River Savabuilt during the fifties and six-ties and designed according tothe principles of international

na strogosti pravog kuta, i konaË-no, u kolaænoj estetici oploπjazgrade. Sve te kvalitete afirmi-rane su na meunarodnoj razini,ali u ovom projektu ipak pomaæupribliæiti lokalne arhitektonsko-urbanistiËke vrijednosti povijes-nog dijela grada u novom preko-savskom kontekstu, koji je za-miπljen i izveden prema naËelimainternacionalnog modernizma pe-desetih i πezdesetih godina. Inatrgovina “govori” opÊerazumlji-vim jezikom, iako s jasno izraæen-im narjeËjem: uspostavljajuÊidijalog izmeu lokalno obojenog iglobalno bezliËnog dijela grada,postaje nekom vrsti prevodiocasadræaja i forme iz starog u novo iobratno. Utoliko Ina trgovinaistodobno dotiËe proπlost ali ipokuπava predvidjeti buduÊnost:

modernism of that time. TheINA Trgovina building “speaks”a universally understood lan-guage, but with a distinct localaccent: establishing a dialoguebetween the locally coloured andthe globally impersonal parts ofthe city, it acts as an interpreter,translating the old content andform into the new, and the otherway round.

78

Atrium perspective; façade detailPerspektiva atrija; detalj proËelja

79

80

tradiciju interpretira u novomkljuËu, a buduÊnosti predlaæejedan moguÊi model javnogobjekta. Da je to zaista model,moæe se jasno vidjeti premacrteæima i studijama kojeneposredno prethode poËetkuizvedbe zgrade Ina trgovine,posebno kad je rijeË o projektuposlovnog centra istoËno od Za-grebaËkog velesajma, u kojem jeprvi put elaborirana ideja kasnijeizvedena projekta poslovnezgrade. Cijeli je prostor, naime,artikuliran graevinama velikihdimenzija koje bi prema projektutrebale tvoriti novo gradskosrediπte poslovnog i komerci-jalnog tipa. ©to je posebno vaæno,cijelo je novo srediπte artikulira-no u nizu sklopova izriËito refer-entnih na donjogradsku urbanusituaciju. Stoga bi se moglo pret-postaviti da Ina trgovina svojpuni smisao poprima tek u pot-punoj vezanosti uz kontekst πtoje vrlo jasno naglaπeno u raspore-du sadræaja u zgradi koji nisusamo poslovnog nego i komerci-jalno-javnog tipa. Zgrada Inatrgovine oblikom jest modernapalaËa zapadnoeuropskog tipa, sreprezentativnim srediπnjimdvoriπtem oko kojega su grupi-rani sadræaji prema naËelu dijag-onalne simetrije, πto je naglaπenosmjeπtanjem velike konferencij-

Trgovina building is that of amodern Western Europeanpalace with a representative cen-tral courtyard around which dif-ferent contents are groupedaccording to the principle of diag-onal symmetry. This is addition-ally underscored by the place-ment of a large conference hall inone half of the courtyard andespecially by a diagonal commu-nication line drawn over the vol-ume of the hall. The dominantdiagonal principle is evident alsoin the representative two-storeypublic entrance, placed in a cor-ner and thus contradicting thetraditional placement of theentrance in the middle of thefront wall. Another point to noteis the orientation of the entrancetowards the busiest intersectionin New Zagreb, thus consistentlyfollowing the main idea of thisbuilding as one with mixed busi-ness and public contents. Thearchitect’s ambition for this pro-ject to be something more than amere office building and to serveas an “urban house” is successful-ly realized by means of a distri-bution of space and contents insuch a way that they never clash.Thus, for instance, the public canuse the ground floor and the mez-zanine without in the least dis-turbing the office functions.

ske dvorane u polovicu dvoriπtate posebno provlaËenjem dijago-nalne komunikacije iznad volu-mena dvorane. Dominacija dijag-onala oËita je i u reprezenta-tivnom dvoetaænom javnom ulazukoji ugaonim smjeπtajem negiratradicionalnu dispoziciju ulaza nasrediπtu zidnog plaπta. ZnaËajnaje i orijentacija glavnog ulaza nanajfrekventnije novozagrebaËkokriæanje, Ëime se dosljedno pratiosnovna ideja zgrade Inatrgovine, ona o mijeπanimposlovnim i javnim sadræajima.Ambicije ovoga projekta da budeneπto viπe od obiËne poslovnezgrade i postane neka vrsta“gradske kuÊe” imaju snaænu pot-poru u rasporedu prostora isadræaja odijeljenih tako da senigdje ne poniπtavaju, pa jekoriπtenje prizemlja i mezzaninaod graanstva moguÊe jednakokao i potpuno efikasno poslovanjetvrtke.

In this sense, the INA Trgovinabuilding links up with the past,while trying to predict thefuture: it interprets the traditionin a new key and offers a possiblemodel of a public building forfuture use. The fact that this wasindeed intended as a model canbe seen from the drawings andstudies immediately precedingthe construction of the INATrgovina building, especiallythose for the trade centre to theeast of the Zagreb Fair grounds.These drawings were the firstelaborations of the subsequentoffice building project. The wholearea is articulated by large, rep-resentative buildings that wouldtogether make the new businessand commercial centre of thecity. What is particularly note-worthy is the fact that this newcentre is articulated as a series ofbuilding complexes with distinctreferences to Zagreb’s down-town urban situation. That iswhy it can be said that the INATrgovina building acquires itsfull significance only when direct-ly related to its context, which isvery clearly indicated by the dis-tribution of contents in the build-ing, since these are not merelybusiness offices but also certaincontents of a commercial/publictype. The shape of the INA

81

Façade details; main entrance sketch, conference hall ensembleDetalj proËelja; skica glavnog ulaza, sklop konferencijske dvorane

82

An unusual feature of this pro-ject is that the inner compositionof space, organized — as alreadynoted — on the principle of diag-onal symmetry, is almost no-where visible on the outside of thebuilding. The inner space is madeup of two communicating trian-gles on each floor, which togetherform a rectangle enveloped in astone-lined and glass wall. A sim-ilar composition is to be found inthe National and UniversityLibrary, as well as in another ofNeidhardt’s projects, five yearsearlier, where the central diago-nal communication line againlinks different parts of the spaceenclosed in a rectangular shape.The project in question was theHusar family house, in which thediagonal communication lineserves as the main compositionalaxis, around which space is orga-nized. One is reminded in thiscontext that a similar diagonalline, only applied on a largerscale, was the main axis for theorganization of space in the firstversion of Neidhardt’s 1977 com-petition entry for the regulationof Trg Francuske Republike inZagreb. In the case of the INATrgovina building, the diagonalline is physically present on theground floor, mezzanine and firstfloor, and only imagined on theremaining three floors. The factthat the INA project cannot befully understood without consid-ering its urban context is borneout by the numerous studies of thenew city centre that Neidhardtprepared before embarking onthe design of this building. Thestudies, presented as competitionentries on several occasions,develop different stages of theidea of a new city centre to theeast of the Zagreb Fair grounds.

NeobiËnost je projekta u tome danutarnja kompozicija prostora,provedena, kako je reËeno, premanaËelu dijagonalne simetrije,gotovo nigdje nije uoËljiva s van-jske strane jer je nutrina zgrade,na svakoj etaæi sastavljena oddva komunikacijama spojenatrokuta, cjelovito uklopljena upravokutnik i ovijena plaπtemkamene obloge i staklene opne.SliËnu kompoziciju, osim u pro-jektu Nacionalne i sveuËiliπnebiblioteke, Neidhardt je primije-nio i u jednom pet godina stari-jem projektu, u kojem srediπnjakomunikacija takoer dijagonal-no povezuje pojedine dijeloveprostora u zatvorenom pravokut-nom bloku graevine. RijeË je oprojektu obiteljske kuÊe Husar, ukojem dijagonalna komunikacijafunkcionira kao glavna kompozi-cijska os uzduæ koje je orga-niziran prostor. Treba se, dakako, podsjetiti da jesliËna dijagonala, samo u neπtoveÊim razmjerima, istaknuta kaoglavna os organizacije prostora iu prvoj varijanti natjeËajnog pro-jekta za regulaciju Trga fran-cuske republike u Zagrebu 1977.U zgradi Ina trgovine ta je dijag-onala stvarna u prizemlju, mez-zaninu i prvom katu, na tri je pre-ostala kata zamiπljena. Da ovajNeidhardtov projekt ipak nijemoguÊe potpuno razumjeti izvanpromiπljanja urbanog kontekstapokazuju brojne studije za pros-tore novog gradskog srediπta usklopu kojih je i nastala zgradaIna trgovine. Te studije razrai-vane u obliku natjeËajnih radovadonose u nekoliko etapa razvi-janu ideju novog srediπta istoËnood kompleksa ZagrebaËkog vele-sajma.

Diagonal patterns / Dijagonalne kompozicije

83

INA Trgovina building; National and University Library, Husar family house,Trg Francuske RepublikePoslovna zgrada INA trgovina; Nacionalna i sveuËiliπna knjiænica, obiteljskakuÊa Husar, Trg francuske republike

84

The monumental structure, withindividual buildings makingwhole blocks, is a very clearattempt at a modern interpreta-tion of the urban matrix of down-town Zagreb. Individual build-ings are planned as vital genera-tors of urban life, and as suchanything but single-function.This is particularly well illus-trated by the projected high-class hotel with the LateModernist motif of a spaciouslobby-cum-plaza. Such an enclo-sed square is an internationallyrecognized solution for large-scale buildings, but somewhatsimilar solutions, on a much small-er scale, can be found in some ofZagreb’s public buildings de-signed and built at the turn ofthe century, the most obviousexamples being some banks, suchas, especially, Josip Vancaπ’s1899 First Croatian SavingsBank. The same city-buildingqualities are to be found inDenzler’s already mentionedMunicipal Services office build-ing, but also in several otherthirties buildings such as StankoKliska and Anton Ulrich’s resi-dential and office building at Pre-radoviÊev Trg (1939/40). Similarelements remained a recogniz-able characteristic of the Zagrebarchitecture after 1945, appliedfor the same reason, though in aformally somewhat different way.Therefore, city-building can beseen as the legitimate centralcomponent of Neidhardt’s archi-tecture, although, because of theparticular location in which it isapplied, its importance goes wellbeyond the established Zagrebtradition. What remains un-changed is the desire to involveeach individual building in theactive life of the city.

Monumentalna struktura velikihrazmjera, unutar koje blokovetvore Ëitave graevine, vrlo jejasan pokuπaj suvremene inter-pretacije urbane matrice iz sjev-ernog dijela grada, dok su pojedi-ni objekti zamiπljeni kao velikigeneratori gradskog æivota, kaoobjekti koji nisu monofunkcional-ni, πto se posebno dobro vidi uprojektu hotela visoke klase sklasiËnim “kasnomodernistiËkim”motivom velikog ulaznog hala-plaze. Takav zatvoreni trg jestmeunarodno prihvaÊena temavelikoformatne arhitekture, ali sedonekle sliËna izvoriπta u manjemmjerilu mogu pronaÊi i u zagre-baËkoj arhitekturi javne namjenejoπ na prijelomu stoljeÊa, πto jemoæda najbolje izraæeno pojedin-im arhitektonskim projektimabankovne namjene, posebno pa-laËom Prve hrvatske πtedioniceJosipa Vancaπa iz 1899. Na neπtodrukËiji naËin istu gradotvornostnalazimo i u veÊ spomenutoj Denz-lerovoj zgradi gradskih poduzeÊaali i u drugim objektima zagre-baËke moderne tridesetih godina,poput stambene i poslovne zgra-de na PreradoviÊevom trgu Stan-ka Kliske i Antona Ulricha iz1939/40. SliËni elementi jesu ka-rakteristika zagrebaËke arhitek-ture i nakon 1945. godine, primi-jenjeni iz jednakih razloga, iakoformalno na neπto drukËiji naËin.Stoga se gradotvornost moæepromatrati kao legitiman uporiπ-ni element i u Neidhardtovoj ar-hitekturi, iako smjeπtajem nad-rasta onu dimenziju kakva je uZagrebu postala tradicijom. Alinepromijenjena ostaje teænja dase pojedinaËni objekt aktivnoukljuËi u æivot grada. A da takvi isliËni elementi nisu sluËaj u Neid-hardtovoj arhitekturi, pokazuje iprimjer projekta za poslovnu

Large-scale architecture / Velikoformatna arhitektura

85

New city centre to the east of the ZagrebFair grounds (1985); hotel perspectivesNovo gradsko srediπte istoËno od ZagrebaËkogVelesajma (1985.); perspektive hotela

86

That such elements are no mereaccident in Neidhardt’s architec-ture is shown by his design of theExportdrvo office building in theprojected new city centre to theeast of the Zagreb Fair grounds.Just as the INA Trgovina build-ing refers to Zagreb’s architec-tural heritage through the filterof a contemporary interpreta-tion, the Exportdrvo buildingdoes the same by fully opening

zgradu “Exportdrva” u jednoj odstudija za novo gradsko srediπteistoËno od ZagrebaËkog velesaj-ma. Kao πto je zgrada Ina trgovi-ne referentna na zagrebaËkomoderno nasljee tek kroz filtarosuvremenjene interpretacije,tako je i zgrada “Exportdrva” uprizemnom dijelu rastvorena jav-nim gradskim prostorima s pra-vom urbanom plazom u sredini.No da bi svi ti projekti poprimili

puni smisao, da bi javni prostori unjima zaista æivjeli treba svakupojedinaËnu zgradu promatrati usklopu cjeline urbanog plana ikroz potencijalne veze izmeuzgrada u pretpostavljenoj dogo-tovljenosti buduÊeg gradskogsrediπta.

its ground floor to urban publicspaces, with a veritable urbanplaza at the centre. But it shouldbe noted that each of these indi-vidual designs gets its full signif-icance, and the public spaces cancome to life, only in the context ofthe overall urban plan for thenew city centre, where, oncecompleted, links between indi-vidual buildings will be estab-lished.

Exportdrvo Office Building / Poslovna zgrada Exportdrvo, Zagreb, 1985

87

North elevation, perspective, ground floor plan, conceptual sketches; perspectiveSjeverno proËelje, perspektiva, tlocrt prizemlja, konceptualne skice; perspektiva

88

Though it is impossible to predictthat the whole new city centrewill be built according toNeidhardt’s designs, it remainstrue that his proposals, as well asthe designs realized to date, arehighly stimulating for furtherthinking about the future shapeof New Zagreb, particularly in sofar as they introduce contents ofthe kind that have been absentsouth of the River Sava so far.While it may be too early toassess the ultimate value of theopus of a still active architect, onecan safely point to the cosmopoli-tan urban vision as one of themost interesting aspects ofNeidhardt’s architecture, notonly because he thus continuesthe uninterrupted modern tradi-tion of the Zagreb architecture,but also because his designsapproach city-building in whatone might call the postindustrialway. Why postindustrial? Thereare at least two novel elementsthat Neidhardt has introducedinto the Zagreb modernist tradi-tion as the presumed expressionof the industrial era (both beforeand after the Second World War):one is the opening of the regularrectangular volume of the build-ing to provide spaces for publicuse, and the other is the collage-type aesthetics to overcome therigid uniformity of the materialmaking the building’s exterior.Different combinations of mate-rials are used — as in the case ofthe new National and UniversityLibrary and the INA Trgovinabuilding — for both functionaland aesthetic reasons. Thus,large exterior sections made oftransparent glass do not only letmore light into the interior, butalso make for a dynamic contra-puntal relationship inside the

Iako nije lako prognozirati, hoÊe licijelo srediπte biti izgraeno pre-ma Neidhardtovim projektima,moæe se primijetiti da i ovako ela-borirane ideje pa i dosad podignu-te graevine nude viπe nego zan-imljiv poticaj razmiπljanjima obuduÊnosti Novog Zagreba, po-sebno u odnosu prema onim sadr-æajima kakvih do sada s juænestrane rijeke Save nije bilo. Iakoje za konaËne zakljuËke o vrijed-nostima joπ æivog arhitektonskogopusa zacijelo rano, veÊ sada semoæe istaÊi tema vizije kozmopo-litskog grada kao jedna od najza-nimljivijih u Neidhardtovoj arhi-tekturi, ne samo zbog konstantneprisutnosti takvih ideja u moder-noj tradiciji zagrebaËke arhitek-ture nego i zbog posebnog, reklibismo - postindustrijskog, tretma-na gradotvornosti u njegovimprojektima. Zaπto postindustri-jskog? Zbog barem dva elementakoji predstavljaju novinu u odno-su na zagrebaËku modernistiËkutradiciju kao pretpostavljeni izrazindustrijske ere (bez obzira radilose o razdoblju prije ili poslije Dru-gog svjetskog rata): rastvaranjeËvrstog pravokutnog volumenazgrade prostorima javne uporabei estetika kolaænog tipa kojom senadilazi rigidna uniformnost umaterijalu oplate graevine. Da-paËe, materijali se, kao u zgrada-ma nove Nacionalne i sveuËiliπnebibilioteke i Ina trgovine, mijeπa-ju iz funkcionalnih ali i estetiËkihpobuda, πto Êe reÊi da transpar-entnost velikih staklenih partijanije samo put k veÊoj koliËinisvjetla u unutraπnjosti nego idionica “priËe” nutrine zgrade udinamiËnom sravnjenju s arhitek-tonikom punih masa. Dakako, nijerijeË o tradicionalnom dekorunego o jeziku “apstraktne repre-zentacije”, drugim rijeËima o ne-

building with full-mass sections ofthe walls. This is by no means atraditionally decorative feature,but rather an example of the lan-guage of “abstract representa-tion”, that is, non-representation-al volumes which together act asa whole. It goes without sayingthat large-scale cityscape archi-tecture completely rejects tradi-tional ornamentation and eventhe traditional arrangement ofthe façade. Also, in contradistinc-tion to the modernist architec-ture, it stratifies the rigid volumeand opens the building to its envi-ronment. In this sense, being emi-nently urban, Neidhardt’s archi-tecture possesses certain newqualities compared with the clas-sical modernist designs of thethirties and even fifties. This iswhere we should look for ele-ments that can be identified asexpressions of a postindustrialurban consciousness —conscious-ness of the size and position of thebuilding in the city for which it isdesigned. Seeking to identify the socio-political roots of the architecturethat we have labelled the “archi-tecture of monumental cityscape”would probably require a sepa-rate study, since the elements ofpostindustrial culture in Croatiain the eighties have not beendescribed even in bare outlines. In Neidhardt’s case, the postin-dustrial experience should beintepreted as the experience ofstrictly urban architecture, whichpresupposes also the internation-al applicability of such experi-ence. The local situation inCroatia at that time offered fewclear characteristics of postindus-trial society, and therefore pro-jects and designs like those pro-duced by Neidhardt were indi-

figurativnim volumenima kojidjeluju kao cjelina. Ne treba nispominjati da gradotvorna arhi-tektura velikog formata potpunonegira tradicionalnu ornamentikupa Ëak i tradicionalnu dispozicijuproËelja kuÊe, ali se Ëini vrijednimuputiti na moguÊu razliku premamodernistiËkoj arhitekturi, raz-liku iskazanu raslojavanjem stro-gog volumena i veÊim otvaranjemzgrade prema okruæju. Time iNeidhardtova arhitektura, kaoeminentno gradotvorna, poprimanove kvalitete u odnosu premaostvarenjima klasiËnog modern-izma tridesetih pa Ëak i pedesetihgodina ovoga stoljeÊa. Tu bi senegdje mogli potraæiti elementikoje Êe biti moguÊe identificiratikao iskaze postindustrijske urba-ne svijesti, πto znaËi svijesti oveliËini i poloæaju objekta u graduza koji se projektira.Pokuπaj traæenja druπtveno-poli-tiËkih korijena arhitekture kojusmo prethodno oznaËili sintag-mom “gradotvorne monumental-nosti” vjerojatno bi iziskivaoposebnu studiju jer niti unajπirim okvirima nema u Hrvat-skoj osamdesetih godina cjelovi-tih elemenata postindustrijskekulture. Postindustrijsko, dakle, u Neid-hardta treba tumaËiti kao poseb-no iskustvo naglaπeno urbanearhitekture, πto podrazumijeva imeunarodnu razinu primjenetakvih iskustava. Jer ako je o lo-kalnome rijeË, teπko bi u tadaπ-njoj Hrvatskoj bilo moguÊe iden-tificirati karakteristike postin-dustrijskog druπtva, pa stogaprojekti i izvedene zgrade poputNeidhardtovih predstavljaju viπeusamljene posebnosti negoli du-boko ukorijenjen druπtveni stan-dard. Dakako, ne treba zaboravi-ti da jedna zgrada moæe stvoriti

Vision of cosmopolitan city / Vizija kozmopolitskoga grada, Zagreb, 1981-92

89

Zagreb as it could be; urban activities simulation modelMoguÊi Zagreb; maketa simulacije urbanih aktivnosti

90

vidual endeavours rather thanwell-established and deep-rootedsocial standards. Of course, oneshould not forget that a singlebuilding can not only create aparticular spiritual climate butalso determine a particular urbansituation and thus define a partic-ular cultural situation. While it istrue that projects such as theNational and University Libraryand the INA Trgovina buildingare not expressions of the well-established standards of theZagreb architecture for publicbuildings in the seventies andeighties, their exceptional impor-tance for Zagreb and the whole ofCroatia cannot be denied. Neidhardt’s architecture doesnot emanate from an affluentsociety, but it consciously seeksto realize its tenets and worktowards its acceptance by freeingthe building from formal her-metism and introducing pro-urban characteristics and con-tents into large, interconnectedinterior spaces, and finally by the“abstract representation” of theexterior, whose totality functions

ne samo posebnu duhovnu klimunego i odrediti konkretnu urbanusituaciju i na taj naËin ispunitiuvjete za definiranu kulturnusituaciju. Teπko bi, meutim, bilobraniti tezu da su projekti poputNacionalne i sveuËiliπne bibliote-ke ili zgrade Ina trgovine izraziuvrijeæenog standarda zagre-baËke arhitekture javne namjenesedamdesetih i osamdesetih god-ina, ali se ovim projektima nemoæe zanijekati izniman znaËaj ukontekstu Zagreba i cijeleHrvatske.Neidhardtova arhitektura neproizlazi iz druπtva obilja alisvjesno ostvaruje njegova upo-riπta i pokuπava utjecati na smis-lene tokove pribliæavanja istom,kako oslobaanjem zgrade odformalnog hermetizma, tako iunoπenjem prourbanih karakter-istika i sadræaja u velike poveza-ne unutraπnje prostore te napos-ljetku “apstraktnom reprezenta-cijom” vanjskog izgleda koji ucjelini funkcionira kao urbaniznak. Uz to, njegovi su projektina poseban naËin referentni nazagrebaËku modernu tradiciju,

as an urban sign. In addition, hisprojects refer in a particular wayto the Zagreb modernist tradi-tion — not, of course, by replicat-ing particular forms and solu-tions, but by carefully examiningand absorbing certain character-istics, particularly those thataffect the building’s multifacetedrelationship to the urban context.When we, thus, speak about thearchitecture of monumentalcityscape, we have in mind not atrend but an idea that has beenpresent in the Zagreb architec-tural thought, and borne fruit,throughout the modern period,from the second half of the nine-teenth to the end of the twenti-eth century. Zagreb’s modernhistory is marked by architectureof a distinctly urban character,and architects like Neidhardtdeal with problems very similarto those of their predecessors,only anticipating the increasedpopulation and physical area ofthe city. In other words, the postindustri-al phase of the Zagreb, as well asCroatian, architecture is con-

dakako, ne doslovnim prenoπe-njem oblika i rjeπenja nego stu-dioznim analizama pojedinihkarakteristika, ponajviπe slojevi-tog odnosa zgrade prema urba-nom kontekstu. Govorimo li,dakle, o arhitekturi gradotvornemonumentalnosti, ne govorimo otrendu u zagrebaËkoj arhitekturinego o ideji koja plodno æivi uarhitektonskoj misli tijekomcijele moderne epohe, od drugepolovice XIX. stoljeÊa sve dokonca XX. Suvremena povijestZagreba obiljeæena je arhitektur-om izrazito urbanog karaktera patako arhitekti poput Neidhardtarjeπavaju gotovo sliËne problemekao i prethodnici, uz nuæno poπti-vanje faktora poveÊanja stanov-niπtva i gradske povrπine.Drugim rijeËima, postindustrijs-ka faza zagrebaËke pa i hrvatskearhitekture obiljeæena je redefi-niranjem tek tridesetak godinastarog dijela grada s juæne stranerijeke Save i pripadajuÊim prob-lemima, poput uspostavljanja no-vog gradskog srediπta juæno odæeljezniËke pruge te ugraiva-njem novih sadræaja u jedno-

Central Zagreb riverfront area perspective (1981)Perspektiva gradskog srediπta i priobalja Save (1981.)

91

cerned with a redefinition of thepart of the city south of the Sava,no more than thirty years old,and the solution of its many prob-lems, including the shaping of anew city centre to the south ofthe railway line and the incorpo-ration of new contents into thehitherto monofunctional NewZagreb. These facts should betaken as a starting point for anydiscussion of Neidhardt’s archi-tecture. An awareness of thechanges that have taken place inZagreb since the thirties of thiscentury helps to explain whysome individual buildings aremore extrovert in relation totheir urban context and why theyare necessarily designed alongdifferent lines than those exem-plified by the classical modernistbuildings of the thirties.There is time and place for every-thing, as the saying goes, andtherefore the presumed postin-dustrial/postmodernist phase inCroatian architecture in theeighties derives its formal vari-ety from the essentially changedurban conditions in which it

funkcionalni Novi Zagreb. Od tihËinjenica treba poÊi kad se raz-matra arhitektura VelimiraNeidhardta, πto znaËi da trebauraËunati promjene koje su se uZagrebu zbile od tridesetih godi-na do danas da bi bilo razumljivozaπto su neke pojedinaËne grae-vine ekstrovertnije u odnosu pre-ma urbanom kontekstu i zaπto suoblikovane drukËije od klasiËnihostvarenja modernizma tridese-tih godina. Sve u svoje vrijeme, reklo bi se,pa tako i pretpostavljena postin-dustrijska/postmoderna faza hr-vatske arhitekture tijekom osam-desetih godina temelji svoju for-malnu raznolikost na bitnimpromjenama urbanih uvjeta ukojima je projektirana i u kakvese ugrauje. Zagreb viπe nijegrad s kraja XIX. stoljeÊa negomilijunska metropola, podloæan unekim svojim dijelovima svimpozitivnim i negativnim aspekti-ma kaotiËne i nagle urbanizacije.Stoga Neidhardt tijekom posljed-njih godina veÊim brojem svojihprojekata postavlja pitanje o mo-guÊnosti stvaranja novih urbanih

evolved and into which it was tobe implanted. Zagreb is no longerthe city that it was in the latenineteenth century — it is now amillion-strong metropolis, dis-playing in some of its parts all thepositive and negative aspects of arushed and chaotic urbanization.

Zagreb Urban Cross —— city axis spanning the Sava river (1985-92)Studije kriæiπta gradske osovine i Save (1985.-92.)

Zagreb Fair southentrance perspectivePerspektiva juænogavelesajamskog ulaza

92

ra i vanjskim izgledom itekakorazliËit, drugim rijeËima suvre-mena zgrada postindustrijskeprovenijencije.

Pipeline Headquarters building.Typologically, it follows the tra-dition of the classical Zagreboffice-cum-residential building ofthe kind built in the early twenti-eth century. But its treatment ofthe interior space and the exteri-or appearance is quite different,making it a modern building bornout of a postindustrial inspira-tion.

poteza kakvi su obiljeæili razdo-blje definiranja zagrebaËke urba-ne sheme, od posljednje Ëetvrtinedevetnaestog do tridesetih godi-na dvadesetog stoljeÊa. Jedan od-govor bi moæda mogao biti naenu projektu zgrade Naftovoda iz1989., koji se tipoloπki naslanja naklasiËni zagrebaËki tip poslovno-stambene zgrade s poËetka sto-ljeÊa, ali je oblikovanjem prosto-

That is why Neidhardt is increas-ingly exploring, in his recent pro-jects, the possibility of shapingnew urban structures as a contin-uation of those that helped todefine Zagreb’s urban matrixbetween the last quarter of thenineteenth century and the thir-ties of the twentieth century. Onepossible answer could perhaps behis 1989 design for the Adriatic

Adriatic Pipeline Headquarters / Zgrada Jadranskog naftovoda, Zagreb, 1989-91 Model views, floor plan;west façadeSlike makete, tlocrt;zapadno proËelje

93

94

Competition perspective, floor plan; final design perspectiveNatjeËajna perspektiva; tlocrt; konaËna perspektiva

95

96

Prethodni projekt, skupa s pro-jektom Svjetskog trgovinskogcentra iz 1991., ponajbolje iskazu-je potencijalni karakter arhitek-ture gradotvorne monumental-nosti u suvremenom Zagrebu,kako dimenzijama arhitektonsko-urbanistiËkog zahvata tako iestetikom proËelja, a ne trebazaboraviti ni pretpostavljenimijeπani vanjsko-unutarnji ka-rakter prostora koji se premaprojektu pretapaju cijelom povr-πinom Svjetskog trgovinskogcentra.

World Trade Centre / Svjetski trgovinski centar, Zagreb, 1991

It was precisely the former pro-ject, together with the 1991World Trade Centre design, thatbest expressed the potential ofthe architecture of city-buildingmonumentality in presentdayZagreb — both with the scale ofthe architectural and town-plan-ning intervention and with theparticular aesthetics of the exte-rior, as well as with the plannedblending of the exterior and inte-rior spaces over the entireground-floor area of the WorldTrade Centre.

Site plan, isometric view; elevation, floor plan, sectionSituacija, izometrija; proËelje, tlocrt, presjek

97

98

Metropolitan axis / Os metropole, Zagreb, 1992

99

rio u odnosu prema potezu nadkojim je dugogodiπnje aktivnorazmiπljao) i tako logiËno nas-tavio ideju zapoËetu joπ prvimplanom za novu srediπnju zonuZagreba. Na taj se naËin, sustav-nom kombinacijom arhitekture iurbanizma, uspostavio jedan po-sebni work-in-progress kojem jezgrada nove Nacionalne i sveuËi-liπne biblioteke srediπnja polaziπ-na toËka, a zgrada Ina trgovinekrajnja juæna granica kontinuira-nog osmiπljavanja uzduænog sre-diπnjeg poteza Glavni kolodvor -centar juænog Zagreba.

of life on what used to beZagreb’s periphery. This is thetopic that Neidhardt has system-atically explored for more thantwenty years, and now he hasdeepened his explorations (orwidened them to include theentire axis), logically continuingthe idea already present in hisfirst urban development plan forZagreb’s new city centre. In thisway, by systematically combin-ing architectural and urbandesign and planning solutions, hehas produced a particular, sus-tained work-in-progress, inwhich the National and Univer-sity Library building is the start-ing point and the INA Trgovinabuilding the southern end-pointof a central axis linking the MainRailway Station and the NewZagreb city centre.

SliËan je postupak proveden1992. u planu za novu metropol-sku osovinu Zagreba, Ëime seautor ponovno vraÊa svojoj traj-noj temi, prostorno izravnovezanoj uz zgradu Nacionalne isveuËiliπne biblioteke. U tom jeprojektu primijenjeno naËelo po-vezujuÊih reprezentativnih pro-Ëelja, koja definiraju sveËani ka-rakter glavnog poteza, a dublje uboËnim zonama predvia sedrukËija vrst arhitekture. Taj jeplan orijentiran k buduÊem Zag-rebu jer nastoji cjelovito povezatipotpuno razliËite dijelove grada,staru jezgru na sjeveru i novu najugu, ali je jednako orijentiran ina oæivljavanje usitnjene urbanestrukture Trnja kao muzejazagrebaËkog periferijskog æivota.To je tema kojom se Neidhardtsustavno bavio viπe od dva deset-ljeÊa a sada je produbio (ili: proπi-

A similar procedure can beobserved in the 1992 plans forZagreb’s new metropolitan axis,Neidhardt’s constant preoccupa-tion and a direct continuation ofhis work on the National andUniversity Library building. Themetropolitan axis project relieson the principle of linked repre-sentative fronts which define thesolemn character of the city’smain thoroughfare, while a dif-ferent kind of architecture is pro-posed for deeper, side-street sec-tions. The plan is geared towardsthe future Zagreb, in which itsvery different parts — the oldhistoric core in the north and thenew development in the south —will be linked together into acoherent whole; but equally,however, it seeks to give new lifeto the fragmented urban struc-ture of Trnje as a living museum

Partial isometric view; urban design compositionDjelomiËna izometrija; arhitektonsko-urbanistiËka kompozicija

100

Sections; conceptual sketch, perspectives, isometric viewPresjeci; koncept spomenika, perspektive, izometrija

101

102

St. John the Evangelist Church / Crkva Sv. Ivana evanelista, Zagreb, 1991

SliËan se kontinuitet ideja moæeutvrditi i u Neidhardtovu projek-tu crkve Sv. Ivana evanelista unovom dijelu Zagreba, koja svojizrazito urbani karakter,potvren u profanim projektimamonumentalnim mjerilom i kom-pleksnim pretapanjem prostora isadræaja, iskazuje neobiËnimoblikom ali i inovativnim koncep-tom medijski potpuno oprem-ljene crkve, koja elektroniËkimsredstvima treba stvoriti novuvrstu religioznosti, kakvu bismomoæda mogli zvati i urbanom. Tozbog Ëinjenice da je projektompredvieno opremanje zgrade snekonvencionalnim sredstvimapostizanja funkcije zgrade, sred-stvima koja inaËe nisu uobiËajenau sakralnoj arhitekturi, a moguÊeih je sresti u zgradama sasvimdrukËijih sadræaja.

A similar continuity of ideas canbe observed also in Neidhardt’sdesign for the Church of St. Johnthe Evangelist in New Zagreb,whose distinctly urban character,seen in the monumental scale notunlike that of the secular build-ings and in the complex blendingof different spaces and contents,is underscored by an unusualform and an innovative concept ofaudio and video electronicsdesigned for a particular kind ofreligiosity that might go underthe name of urban religiosity.The design calls for the installa-tion of unconventional equipmentto enhance the sacral functions ofthe building — the kind of multi-media equipment that is usual insome other types of buildings,but not so far in churches.

103

Perspective, floor plan;projection patterns, sectionPerspektiva, tlocrt;sheme projekcije, presjek

104

skih mijena. Uz to, pravilnouoËeni elementi urbane dinamikepotakli su arhitekta na stvaranjeotvorenoga koncepta crkve kojaje svetiπte, ali i generator socijal-nih okupljanja drugih vrsti. Ute-meljenje takvom konceptu nae-no je u povijesnim ali i suvreme-nim referentnim graevinama.Neidhardt je tako na sebi doslje-dan naËin pokuπao razrijeπiti jed-nu od temeljnih dvojbi koja sepostavlja pred crkvenu arhitek-turu u zemljama bivπeg istoËnogpolitiËkog bloka. Jer u tim je zem-ljama proces graenja novih sa-

atmospheric changes. In addition,the correctly observed elementsof urban dynamics stimulated thearchitect to adopt an open conceptof the church, whereby the churchis a place where the religious ser-vice is held but where also socialgatherings of other kinds areheld. The justification for such aconcept is to be found in both his-torical and contemporary refer-ence buildings. In this way,remaining faithful to himself,Neidhardt tried to resolve one ofthe key dilemmas facing churcharchitecture in the countries of

SliËan interes za inovativnim eks-perimentom Neidhardt pokazujei u natjeËajnom radu za æupnucrkvu u zagrebaËkom predgrauVolovËica 1994. godine. Umjestovirtualne stvarnosti multimedi-jskog slikovnog zalea oltara,kojeg je primijenio u projektucrkve Sv. Ivana evanelista,ovdje stijenu iza oltara rjeπavapotpuno transparentno, te takovizualno produbljuje prostor crk-vene lae na otvoreni atrij s dra-matskim fokusom na velikom kri-æu i teksturi njegove pozadinekoja odslikava stanja atmosfer-

A similar interest in innovativeexperimentation is evident inNeidhardt’s 1994 competitionentry for the parish church in theZagreb suburb of VolovËica.Instead of the virtual reality ofthe multimedia backdrop for thealtar as applied in the design ofthe church of St. John theEvangelist, at VolovËica the wallbehind the altar is transparent,thus visually deepening the naveand projecting it into the openatrium, with a dramatic focus on alarge cross and the texture of itsbackground, which reflects the

Parish Church / Æupna crkva, VolovËica - Zagreb, 1994

105

socijalnoj dimenziji projekta,odnosno u njenoj funkcionalno ioblikovno otvorenoj strukturikoja potiËe zateËeno stanje kon-teksta. Stoga ovaj projekt elabo-rira ideju crkve koja nije samopastoralni objekt nego i subjektaktiviranja kvalitetnijega zajed-niËkog æivota.

social development in alreadyformed settings. In the case of theparish church of VolovËica, theanswer was found in the distinct-ly social dimension of the project,its functionally and formally openstructure, which stimulates therespect for the context as alreadygiven. Neidhardt’s design elabo-rates the idea of the church whichis not merely a pastoral buildingbut also a subject which activatesa greater quality of collectiveliving.

kralnih prostora donekle reverzi-bilan u odnosu na povijesni: dokje Crkva u drugim dijelovimaEurope tijekom proteklih pede-set godina logiËno rasla uz πire-nje zajednice, taj je proces biouvelike prekinut u zemljamabivπeg socijalizma. Stoga sedanas kao jedan od kljuËnih prob-lema pred arhitektima postavljapitanje kako novim pastoralnimgraevinama slijediti kontinuiteturbanog i socijalnog razvoja uveÊ formiranim sredinama. UsluËaju æupne crkve u VolovËiciodgovor je pronaen u izraæeno

the former eastern political bloc.It should be noted that in thesecountries the process of sacralbuilding construction is in a wayreversible compared with theactual historical process: while inthe rest of Europe the Churchgrew naturally, step in step withthe expansion of the religiouscommunity, in the former socialistcountries the growth was in mostcases halted. That is why thearchitects designing new pastoralbuildings today must first answerthe crucial question: how to main-tain the continuity of urban and

106

Architectural elements, section;model and floor planArhitektonski elementi, presjek;maketa i tlocrt

107

108

slojno - sadræajnom i oblikovnomarhitektonskom revitalizacijomte dvosmjernom urbanistiËkomregulacijom, prema unutraπnjo-sti bloka i od unutraπnjosti premavanjskom prostoru. Valja tako-er primijetiti i oblikovne inova-cije. Prisutne su varijacije kojeprate mijene suvremene arhitek-ture, ponajbolje izraæene svjet-skim ostvarenjima, poput zgradetelekomunikacija “Canal +” uParizu Richarda Meiera ili uglov-nice Mannheimer VersiecherungAG u Mannheimu HelmutaJahna.

angles: with a substantive andformal architectural revitaliza-tion and a two-way planning reg-ulation — from the outsidetowards the inside of the blockand from the inside towards theoutside. To this should be addedalso certain formal innovationsenvisaged within the block whichreflect the changes in architec-tural design, best expressed insuch realizations as RichardMeier’s Canal+ Telecommunica-tions building in Paris or HelmutJahn’s Mannheimer Versieche-rung AG building in Mannheim.

Ako se hoÊe predvidjeti autorskodjelovanje Velimira Neidhardtatijekom sljedeÊih godina, trebalobi, uz veÊ istaknute elementearhitektonskog oblikovanja, kaopoticaj za razmiπljanje uzeti nekiod recentnih projekata, prim-jerice onaj za gradski blok uztvornicu Badel, izmeu MartiÊe-ve, Vlaπke i DerenËinove ulice teKvaternikova trga. Program togpozivnog natjeËajnog rada jestsreivanje jednog od trajnih pro-blema danaπnje gradske jezgreZagreba, a to je regulacija pros-tora unutar bloka koji je tijekompovijesnih promjena ostao izvanfunkcije pa tako i nedovrπen uurbanoj slici danaπnjega grada.Kao pozvani autor Neidhardttoj aktualnoj temi pristupa viπe-

If one wished to predict thefuture course of Neidhardt’sarchitectural work, at least overthe next few years, one ought toconsider — in addition to thealready noted elements of archi-tectural design — also some ofhis more recent projects, forinstance, the city block next tothe Badel Beverage Plant,between MartiÊeva, Vlaπka andDerenËinova Streets and Kvater-nikov Trg square. This competi-tion grapples with one of theperennial problems in the pres-ent city centre, since the spacewithin that block has remainedundeveloped and unused, a gap inthe city’s urban fabric. As theinvited architect Neidhardt ap-proaches the task from two

Badel City Block / Blok Badel, Zagreb, 1992-96

109

Isomertic view; perspective, floor plansIzometrija; perspektiva, tlocrti

110

U projektu za realizaciju uglov-ne, poslovno-stambene zgrade ubloku Badel, uz ©ubiÊevu ulicu,zajedno s prof. M. BegoviÊem i D.Manceom, 1993. godine, primjer-no je ostvarena urbana simbiozaniza suvremenih namjena unutarosebujnoga arhitektonskog kor-pusa s repernim oblikovanjemnovog, kozmopolitskog gradskogobiljeæja.

Furthermore, the office-cum-housing building of the BadelBlock in ©ubiÊeva Street, design-ed in 1993 for execution withProfessor Miroslav BegoviÊ andDavor Mance, is a sophisticatedexample of contemporary officefunctions within the architecturalform of a postindustrial land-mark.

Model views, floor planSlike makete, tlocrt

111

North, south and west elevationsSjeverno, juæno i zapadno proËelje

112

Potpuno nova studija istoga blo-ka ostvarena zajedno s profe-sorom BegoviÊem u listopadu1996., strukturira prostor uzpomoÊ dvije ortogonalne trgo-vaËke ulice. Jedna je otvorena,dok druga, zatvorena, kulminiraatrijem kao klimaksom arhitek-tonske kompozicije. Trokutasti

An entirely new design study ofthe same block, was worked outwith Professor BegoviÊ in Octo-ber 1996. The urban block wasstructured by two perpendicularshopping malls, one being open-air and the other glass covered.The latter mall ended in the tri-angular atrium plaza. Being the

atrij udomljuje gradski trg naglobalnim zasadama, prema su-vremenim urbanim i komunikaci-jskim obrascima kakvi se npr.nalaze u bloku Sony Center naPotsdamer Platzu u BerlinuHelmuta Jahna.

peak of the urban design compo-sition, the atrium plaza emanatesan attractive big city life. Such anew urbanity provided by global-ly networked communication pat-terns is of a generic type likeMurphy/Jahn’s Sony Center inBerlin’s Potsdamer Platz.

113

Perspectives and sectionPerspektive i presjek

114

do danas, unatoË razliËitim nam-jerama i planovima, neurban-izirane pa Zagreb joπ uvijek neæivi na obalama svoje rijeke.Neidhardt pristupa artikulacijiupravnih zgrada u tom osjetlji-vom gradskom prostoru s mje-rom i iskustvom arhitekta koji seveÊ dugo bavi metropolskimtemama. Stoga rasporeuje cijelikompleks u tri cjeline unutarkojih se rasporedom funkcija imasa volumena omoguÊuje nesamo vrlo dobro funkcioniranje

left bank of the Sava hasremained unurbanized until thepresent day, and Zagreb cannotbe said to live on its river.Neidhardt approached the artic-ulation of the administrativebuildings in this highly sensitiveurban space with caution, draw-ing on his long and rich experi-ence of an architect preoccupiedwith metropolitan themes. Thus,he divided the entire complexinto three wholes, within whichthe functions and volume masses

NatjeËajni rad za kompleks zgra-da Vlade i dræavne upraveRepublike Hrvatske iz 1996.godine iskazuje puni kontinuitetautorskoga koncepta u pristupudogradnji povijesnog prostoragrada Zagreba sjeverno od Save.Arhitekt se opredjelio za horizon-talno πirenje volumena zgradaËime se morfoloπki i vizurnousklauje jedna nova funkcija utom dijelu grada s logikom kon-teksta. Povijesno gledajuÊi, sjev-erne obale rijeke Save ostale su

The 1996 competition entry forthe Croatian Government andadministration complex reflectsthe author’s consistent approachto the architectural design of his-toric Zagreb to the north of theRiver Sava. Neidhardt opted fora horizontal spread of the build-ings in order to visually and mor-phologically reconcile a new func-tion in that part of the city withthe logic of the existing context.Viewed historically, and despitea series of ideas and plans, the

Croatian Government Centre / Zgrada Vlade, ministarstava i dræavne uprave, Zagreb, 1996

115

tan u arhitekturi poslovnih iupravnih zgrada, a njihov ur-banitet se znaËenjem generatorasvjesno hoÊe ugraditi u postojeÊiprisavski zagrebaËki kontekst.

vicinity. The government build-ings are designed in the spirit ofthe contemporary internationalmodernism which prevails in thedesign of recent business andadministrative buildings. It isthis idea of urbanity thatNeidhardt consciously tries tobuild — as a generator — intothe existing architectural con-text of the left bank of the RiverSava in Zagreb.

cjeline nego i garantira gradskikarakter toga velikog prostora.Sve to, dakako, uz pretpostavkuda bi novi upravni prostor trebaobiti viπe od ËinovniËkoga eldora-da koji se gasi svaki dan u pet satiposlije podne, nego bi dapaËemogao biti novi urbani prediokoji privlaËi graane, a moæda ipotencijalne ulagaËe u izgradnjususjednih prostora. Zgrade Vla-de su, dakle, oblikovane u duhusuvremenog internacionalnogmodernizma kakav je dominan-

are arranged in such a way thatthe whole can properly functionand at the same time preservethe urban character of this largespace — all this, of course, pro-vided that the new administra-tive complex is more than amere bureaucratic Eldorado thatturns its lights off at five o’clockin the afternoon. Rather, itshould be a new urban spaceattractive to visitors and possiblyalso stimulating for investorsto build more buildings in the

Site planSituacija

116

Sections, sketches, floor planPresjeci, skice, tlocrt

117

118

119

120

objekti, a kad se kaæe kapitalni,misli se uz dimenzije i na znaËajobjekta u urbanom kontekstu,mogu svrstati meu one produk-te arhitektonske misli kakvi zaci-jelo pretendiraju na daleko veÊuulogu od sasvim praktiËne svrheza koju je objekt projektiran. Nji-hov je znaËaj, poglavito zgradaIna trgovine i Nacionalne i sve-uËiliπne biblioteke, izniman za bu-duÊe definiranje rasta Zagreba,pri Ëemu bi raskorak izmeu opÊekulturne situacije i idejne osnovetih graevina mogao biti viπe po-ticajan nego πto bi eventualnoostao usamljenim primjerom gra-dotvornog razmiπljanja. No, pred-vianja takvog tipa nisu predme-tom ovog teksta, koji je tekpokuπao pribliæiti neke motivejednog orginalnog opusa suvre-mene hrvatske arhitekture.Neidhardt nastavlja autorskidjelovati uz neprekidnu brigu ograi svojega opusa, dokazujuÊivjerodostojnost i adaptabilnostprojekata pred novim izazovima.U nerazdvojnosti autora i djelaproæima se æivot opusa s dinami-kom konca XX. stoljeÊa. Pokazu-je se to u Neidhardtovim projek-tima iz 1997. do 1999. godine.Primjerice, zgradu INA trgovi-ne u Zagrebu transformira ustoæerni upravni objekt u skladusa suvremenim informacijskim iposlovnim potrebama naftnetvrtke INA, a u Nacionalnoj isveuËiliπnoj knjiænici u Zagrebudovrπava lateralni dio zgradedopunjujuÊi ga novim radnimprostorima javnih ustanova. Ta-kav work-in-progress pridruæujedjelima vremensku kontekstual-nost, odnosno vitalnost arhitek-tonske recentnosti.

formal or substantive referentiallinks with the urban context.That is why Neidhardt’s capitalprojects — capital both in termsof scale and in terms of their sig-nificance — belong among thoseproducts of architectural thoughtthat aspire to the role that goesfar beyond the practical purposefor which the building in ques-tion is designed. Their impor-tance, particularly in the case ofthe INA Trgovina and theNational and University Librarybuildings, is exceptional, as theydefine the future growth ofZagreb. The discrepancy be-tween the general cultural situa-tion and the conceptual plan ofthese buildings might provestimulating, rather than frus-trating as an isolated example ofarchitectural thinking alongurban design lines. Such conjec-tures will be eschewed at thispoint, however, since the pur-pose of the present text has beenonly to examine the motifs andachievements of an original opusin modern Croatian architecture.Neidhardt continues his archi-tectural work, paying constantattention to the structure of hisopus and proving the credibilityand adaptability of his projects inthe face of new challenges. Theinseparability of the author andhis work gives life to this opusand invests it with late twenti-eth-century dynamics. This isevident in Neidhardt’s 1997 till1999 projects. Thus, for instance,he transformed the INA-Trgovi-na building in Zagreb into anadministrative headquartersfully in line with the moderninformation-processing and busi-ness management requirementsof the INA Petroleum Industriesgroup; in the National and Uni-

ZakljuËci bi ovoga sumarnog pre-gleda arhitekture Velimira Neid-hardta mogli biti razliËiti. Nasta-vimo li naznaËenim putem o post-industrijskom karakteru njegovearhitekture u posve atrofiranomindustrijskom okoliπu hrvatskekulture, strategija se monumen-talne gradotvornosti moæe ËinitiËak i utopijom dok joπ u urbanojstvarnosti nije moguÊe prepoz-nati cjelovite naznake grada kojinije izravno vezan uz klasiËneindustrijske oblike proizvodnje.Ako je rijeË o Zagrebu, valja pri-mijetiti da je arhitektura tijekomproteklog stoljeÊa i pol bila utopi-jska u smislu stvaranja novihurbanih situacija ili pak zbogomoguÊivanja pretpostavki zanovi rast grada. U tom smislu,koji je donekle postao odreenupravo unutar onoga πto se obiË-no naziva modernom ili moder-nistiËkom arhitekturom, defini-rani su obrisi i strukture suvre-menog Zagreba, pa bi se analogi-jom arhitektura Velimira Neid-hardta mogla svrstati meu onepojave koje urbanizmu dodajuznaËajne poticaje upravo pojedi-naËnim graevinama. Stoga na-ziv monumentalna gradotvornostnije drugo doli πifra za pristuparhitekturi koja se dokazujedaleko znaËajnijim karakteris-tikama nego πto je to moguÊeopisati na papiru koji u arhitek-tonskom oblikovanju podnosiraznolike, Ëak i one nemoguÊe,ideje.No, ovdje nije rijeË o papirnatojarhitekturi nego o vrlo realistiË-nom promiπljanju urbanih situaci-ja unutar kojih se Ëak i potpunonovi karakter gradskih dijelovanastoji artikulirati pa i animiratigraevinama, ali uz formalne ilisadræajne veze s kontekstom.Stoga se kapitalni Neidhardtovi

A number of different conclu-sions can be drawn from thisbrief overview of VelimirNeidhardt’s architecture. Focus-ing on the postindustrial charac-ter of his architecture, given thecompletely atrophied industrialenvironment of the Croatian cul-ture, one might consider hisstrategy of urban monumentalitysomething of a utopia at the timewhen Zagreb’s urban realitydoes not yet show signs of directlinkage with industrial modes ofproduction. But where Zagreb isconcerned, it should be pointedout that its architecture has beenutopian for the past century anda half, in the sense that it con-stantly created new urban situa-tions and/or preconditions for thecity’s further growth. This wasparticularly true of what is com-monly known as modern or mod-ernist architecture, which de-fined the outlines and structuresof contemporary Zagreb. Byanalogy, Neidhardt’s architec-ture can be regarded as a devel-opment that significantly stimu-lates city growth with individualbuildings. Hence the label “archi-tecture of monumental city-scape”. It is nothing but a codename for a particular approach toarchitecture in which the charac-teristics of individual buildingshave the significance that goeswell beyond what can be repre-sented on paper (which itself canstand all, even impossible, ideasof architectural design). In Neidhardt’s case, however, weare faced not with “paper archi-tecture” but with a very realisticassessment of urban situations,within which individual buildingsseek to articulate a completelynew character of whole urbanenvironments, but always with

Continuation / Nastavak Perspective sketch of the Land Registry hall, INA Headquarters new interiorsPerspektivna skica dvorane Gruntovnice,novi interijeri zgrade INE

121

versity Library in Zagreb, he isjust completing the lateral sec-tion to add more space for variouspublic institutions. Such work-in-progress is intended to give thesebuildings a new temporal contex-tuality, and it demonstrates thevitality of Neidhardt’s architec-tural solutions.

Appendices / Referentni prilozi

125

te Poslovna zgrada INA trgovine uZagrebu. Takoer je nagraen unatjeËaju za kompleks zgrada Vlade,ministarstava i dræavne uprave Re-publike Hrvatske u Zagrebu. Od 1969. godine aktivno objavljujestruËne i znanstvene radove u doma-Êoj i inozemnoj struËnoj perodici iËasopisima. U knjizi “»ovjek u pros-toru”, objavljenoj 1997., postavljaantroposocijalnu metodu projektira-nja. Od 1970. izlagao je na svim rele-vantnim grupnim i revijalnim izloæba-ma arhitekture i urbanizma u Hrvats-koj, a i na meunarodnim izloæbamaod kojih je najznaËajniji XIX. Trie-nnale u Milanu. Dugogodiπnji je Ëlan ipredsjednik Udruæenja hrvatskih ar-hitekata (1995.-99.), te pridruæeni ËlanameriËke arhitektonske asocijacije(Associate of the American Instituteof Architects - AIA).Od 1979. bio je honorarni asistent na

katedri za urbanizam Arhitektonskogfakulteta u Zagrebu, a od 1991. djelo-vao je kao honorarni docent. Na kate-dri za projektiranje izabran je 1993. zahonorarnog izvanrednog profesora napredmetima Arhitektonsko projekti-ranje VIII i Integralni rad. Od godine1994. stalni je nastavnik Arhitekton-skog fakulteta u svojstvu izvanrednogprofesora te zapoËinje predavati pred-met Zgrade za rad i trgovinu.Neidhardt 1996. osniva tvrtku zaarhitekturu Neidhardt arhitekti d.o.o.u Zagrebu. U nerazdvojnosti stvar-alaπtva i nastave, usporedno vodivlastiti arhitektonski atelijer i preda-je na Arhitektonskom fakultetuSveuËiliπta u Zagrebu, na kojem je1999. izabran za redovitog profesora.

in Zagreb. He has been awarded asignificant competition prize for TheCroatian Government Centre inZagreb. Since 1969, Neidhardt hasregularly published scholarly and pro-fessional papers in national and inter-national publications and periodicals.His book dealing with the anthroposo-cial method of design entitled Man inthe Environment (»ovjek u prostoru)was published in 1997. Neidhardt hasshown his works (since 1970) at allmajor architectural exhibitions inCroatia and participated in interna-tional exhibitions, among them at theXIXth Triennale in Milan, Italy. Heis a long-standing member andPresident (1995-99) of the CroatianArchitects Association and anAssociate of the American Instituteof Architects. In 1979, Neidhardt was appointedpart-time Urban Design StudioLecturer at the Chair of UrbanStudies, Faculty of Architecture,Zagreb University, and was promot-ed to part-time Assistant Professor in1991. In 1993, he was appointed part-time Associate Professor ofArchitectural Design VIII andIntegral Design at the Chair ofArchitectural Design. In 1994 hejoined the full-time faculty staff asAssociate Professor of Architecture,with courses on Commercial andOffice Buildings. Neidhardt has established his ownarchitectural design firm Neidhardtarhitekti d.o.o. in Zagreb, and since1996 continued both practising andteaching architecture. In 1999 he wasappointed Full Professor ofArchitecture.

Roen je 7. listopada 1943. u Zagrebu,u obitelji koja je u XIX. stoljeÊu izNjemaËke doselila u Zagreb. Meumnogim poslovnim ljudima i industri-jalcima, Ëlanovi pohrvaÊene obiteljiNeidhardt jesu i braÊa Juraj i Franjo,oba arhitekti, a Franjo je otac Velimi-rov.Neidhardt je diplomirao 1967. na Ar-hitektonskom fakultetu SveuËiliπta uZagrebu. Od 1968. do 1970. bio jesuradnik Majstorske radionice likov-nih umjetnosti profesora DrageGaliÊa. Magistrirao je 1978. na Arhi-tektonskom fakultetu u Zagrebu izpodruËja urbanih i prostornih znanos-ti. Akademske godine 1974.-75. boravioje kao stipendist zaklade “Zlatko iJoyce BalokoviÊ” u Sjedinjenim Ame-riËkim Dræavama na Harvard Univer-sity, Department of City and RegionalPlanning, i dijelom programa naMassachusetts Institute of Techno-logy. Nakon toga, do svibnja 1976. dje-lovao je u atelijerima Skidmore,Owings i Merrill u Chicagu. Istegodine, nakon povratka u domovinu,pristupio je UrbanistiËkom institutuHrvatske.Godine 1990. stekao je stupanj dokto-ra znanosti obranom disertacije “An-troposocijalni faktor u teorijskompristupu arhitektonskom i urbanistiË-kom projektiranju” na Arhitekton-skom fakultetu u Zagrebu. Izabran je 1980. za Ëlana-suradnika,1990. za izvanrednog Ëlana, a od 1991.akademik je - redoviti Ëlan Hrvatskeakademije znanosti i umjetnosti. Za stvaralaπtvo je dobivao viπe priz-nanja, meu kojima su nagrade“Vladimir Nazor” Ministarstva kul-ture za najbolja ostvarenja u arhitek-turi i urbanizmu 1989. i 1995. godine,te nagrada “Viktor KovaËiÊ” Udruæe-nja hrvatskih arhitekata za najboljearhitektonsko ostvarenje u 1979.Neidhardtovi najznaËajniji natjeËajniprojekti nagraeni su prvim nagrada-ma i ostvareni, primjerice, nova zgra-da Nacionalne i sveuËiliπne bibliotekeu Zagrebu, najuæe gradsko srediπte srobnom kuÊom “Boska” i viπenamjen-skim domom kulture u Banja Luci uBosni i Hercegovini (sa suautorima),

Born in Zagreb, 7 October 1943, to afamily whose ancestors had comefrom Germany and settled in Zagrebin the nineteenth century. TheNeidhardts soon became Croatizedand were well-known as businessmenand industrialists. Two of them, thebrothers Juraj and Franjo (the latterwas Velimir’s father), were architects. Velimir Neidhardt earned his B.Sc. inArchitecture at the University ofZagreb in 1967. Between 1968 and1970, he attended the MasterWorkshop run by the architect andprofessor of architecture Drago GaliÊ.He obtained his M.Sc. in Urban andEnvironmental Studies from theFaculty of Architecture, ZagrebUniversity, in 1978. He spent one academic year,1974-75, at Harvard University(Department of City and RegionalPlanning) and, partly, MIT as theZlatko and Joyce BalokoviÊ Scholar.This was followed by an invitation towork in the Skidmore, Owings andMerrill Architectural Design Studiosin Chicago. Returning to Zagreb inJune 1976, Neidhardt joined theUrban Planning Institute of Croatia. He earned his Ph.D. from the Facultyof Architecture, Zagreb University, in1990 with the dissertation entitled“The Anthroposocial Factors Theoryin the Approach to Architectural andUrban Design”. He was elected Alternate Member ofthe Croatian Academy of Arts andSciences in 1980, Associate Member in1990, and Full Member (Academician)in 1991. For his works he has beenawarded many prizes, such as theVladimir Nazor Awards for exellencein architecture for the years 1989 and1995 from the Croatian Ministry ofCulture, and the Viktor KovaËiÊAward for excellence in architecturefor the year 1979 from the CroatianArchitects Association. His majorcompetition first prizes have beenexecuted, such as the National andUniversity Library Building inZagreb, the City Centre I of BanjaLuka in Bosnia and Herzegovina(with coauthors), and the INAPetroleum Company Office Building

Velimir Neidhardt / Biographical note / Saæeta biografija

126

Nagrada “Vladimir Nazor” za arhi-tekturu i urbanizam u 1989. za poslov-nu zgradu INA trgovine u Zagrebu.Nagrada “Vladimir Nazor” za arhi-tekturu i urbanizam u 1995. za real-izaciju zgrade Nacionalne i sveuËiliπneknjiænice u Zagrebu (s M. HræiÊem, Z.KrznariÊem i D. Manceom).

Marijan HræiÊ, Zvonimir KrznariÊ andDavor Mance).Vladimir Nazor annual award by theRepublic of Croatia for architectureand urban design in 1989, for thedesign of the INA Trgovina officebuilding in Zagreb. Vladimir Nazor annual award by theRepublic of Croatia for architectureand urban design in 1995, for theNational and University LibraryBuilding in Zagreb (with M. HræiÊ, Z.KrznariÊ and D. Mance).

Nagrada “Viktor KovaËiÊ” Savezaarhitekata Hrvatske za zgradu robnekuÊe “Boska” u Banja Luci, Bosna iHercegovina (s Ljerkom LuliÊ i Jas-nom Nosso), kao najboljem arhitek-tonskom ostvarenju u 1979.Nagrade l4. i 17. ZagrebaËkog salonaza projekt Nacionalne i sveuËiliπnebiblioteke u Zagrebu, 1979., te za stu-diju centralnog gradskog prostora Za-greba i priobalja Save, 1982. (s Marija-nom HræiÊem, Zvonimirom Krznari-Êem i Davorom Manceom).

Viktor KovaËiÊ award given by theCroatian Architects Association, forthe design of the Boska DepartmentStore at Banja Luka, Bosnia andHerzegovina, as the best architectur-al design in the year 1979 (with LjerkaLuliÊ and Jasna Nosso). Fourteenth (1979) and Seventeenth(1982) Zagreb Salon awards for thedesign of the National and UniversityLibrary in Zagreb and for the urbandevelopment study of central Zagreband the Sava riverfront area (with

Awards / Nagrade

127

Catalogue of design projects / Katalog projekata

1969 Hotel Lapad, Dubrovnik(with I. Kolbach and B. ©avora) 16Hotel Begova Ledina, Makarska 20

1970 Bit Pazar Shopping Centre / TrgovaËki centar,Skopje, Macedonia (with I. FraniÊ) 26

1972 Shopping Centre / TrgovaËki centar,MrkonjiÊ Grad, Bosnia and Herzegovina 30

1973-79 City Centre I / Gradski centar I., Banja Luka,Bosnia and Herzegovina(with Lj. LuliÊ and J. Nosso) 34

1975-76 American studies / AmeriËke studije 421971 New Zagreb City Centre / Centar Novoga Zagreba

(with L. Schwerer and B. VelniÊ) 441977 French Republic Square / Trg Francuske Republike,

Zagreb (with I. FraniÊ) 48 1984 Hamma Centre / Centar Hamma, Algiers

(with Z. KrznariÊ) 52 1980 Telecommunications Building /

Zgrada telekomunikacija, ©ibenik 541978-95 National and University Library /

Nacionalna i sveuËiliπna knjiænica, Zagreb(with M. HræiÊ, Z. KrznariÊ and D. Mance) 56

1981-95 Zagreb urban axis /Urbana osovina Zagreba 68

1985 Convention & Trade Centre /Kongresno-poslovni centar, Zagreb 70

1985-89 INA Trgovina Building /Poslovna zgrada INE, Zagreb 74

1977-95 Diagonal patterns /Dijagonalne kompozicije 82

1985 Large-scale architecture /Velikoformatna arhitektura 84

1985 Exportdrvo Office Building /Poslovna zgrada Exportdrvo, Zagreb 86

1981-92 Vision of cosmopolitan city /Vizija kozmopolitskoga grada, Zagreb 88

1989 Adriatic Pipeline Headquarters / Poslovna zgradaJadranskoga naftovoda, Zagreb 92

1991 World Trade Centre / Svjetski trgovinski centar,Zagreb, (with Z. KrznariÊ and D. Mance) 96

1992 Metropolitan axis / Os metropole, Zagreb(with Z. KrznariÊ and D. Mance) 98

1991 St. John the Evangelist Church /Crkva Sv. Ivana evanelista, Zagreb 102

1994 Parish Church /Æupna crkva, VolovËica - Zagreb 104

1993-96 Badel City Block / Blok Badel, Zagreb(with M. BegoviÊ and D. Mance) 108

1996 Croatian Government Centre / Zgrada Vlade,ministarstava i dræavne uprave, Zagreb 114

1997-00 Continuation / Nastavak 120

Presented works / Prikazana djela

128

1976. - Sear’s Store, Seaview Square,NJ (elementi oblikovanja robne kuÊe);1976. - Dow Chemical Industrial Park,Freeland, MI (studija oblikovanjaindustrijskog parka);1976. - MD project Chicago, IL (studi-ja atrija poslovnog tornja).

Radovi u UrbanistiËkom institutuHrvatske, 1976. - 1994.

1976.-77. - urbanistiËki plan Petrinje;1976.-78. - prostorne analize za urban-istiËki plan Nove Gradiπke;1977. - prostorni plan opÊine Petrinja(s Fedorom Wenzlerom);1977. - programske analize za pros-torni plan opÊine Nova Gradiπka;1977. - programske analize i smjerniceza prostorni plan opÊine Æupanja;1977. - urbanistiËki projekt istoËnogdijela glavnog gradskog trga, NovaGradiπka;1978. - urbanistiËki projekt stambenezone “Zlata”, Nova Gradiπka;1978.-84. - revizija natjeËajnog rada(1978.), novelirano idejno rjeπenje(1979.), tender projekt (1979.-81.) iizvedbeni projekt baze srediπnjeg kor-pusa (1983.-84.) Nacionalne i sveuËiliπ-ne biblioteke u Zagrebu - voditelj pro-jekta (s M. HræiÊem, Z. KrznariÊem iD. Manceom);1983. - projekt aneksa upravne zgrade“Gradskih groblja” na Mirogoju uZagrebu;1983. - studija regionalnog parka pri-rode “Miruπa”, Kosovo (s DragutinomKiπom);1983. - provedbeni urbanistiËki planstambene zone “Rade KonËar”,Sesvetski Kraljevac;1985.-86. - detaljni urbanistiËki planpodruËja ©kaljari, Kotor, Crna Gora;1986. - idejna urbanistiËko-arhitekton-ska studija ansambla ulaznih termi-nala regionalnog parka prirode“Miruπa”, Kosovo;1986.-89. - poslovna zgrada INA trgo-vina u Zagrebu - idejni projekt za do-bivanje graevinske dozvole, izved-beni projekt suterenskog dijela,umjetniËki nadzor na izvedbenom pro-jektiranju, autorsko praÊenje real-izacije;1985.-95. - Nacionalna i sveuËiliπna

architectural design)1976 - Sear’s Store, Seaview Square,NJ (formal elements of departmentstore architectural design)1976 - Dow Chemical Industrial Park,Freeland, MI (formal improvementdesign study)1976 - MD Project, Chicago, IL (officetower atrium architectural designstudy).

Work done at the Urban PlanningInstitute of Croatia, 1976-1994

1976-77 - Petrinja master plan1976-78 - preliminary analyses for theNova Gradiπka master plan1977 - physical plan for the municipal-ity of Petrinja (with Fedor Wenzler)1977 - programming analyses for themunicipality of Nova Gradiπka physi-cal plan1977 - urban design of the easternfront of the main square, NovaGradiπka1978 - urban design of the Zlata resi-dential zone, Nova Gradiπka 1978-84 - revision of the 1978 competi-tion entry for the National andUniversity Library in Zagreb,amended schematic design (1979),design development (tender) project(1979 - 81), and final design and con-tract documents for two stories of thecentral part of the building (1983-84)— project leader, (with M. HræiÊ, Z.KrznariÊ and D. Mance)1983 - addition to the Zagreb Ceme-teries Administration building atMirogoj1983 - Miruπa Regional Nature Parkproject, Kosovo (with Dragutin Kiπ)1983 - Rade KonËar residential zoneurban design project, SesvetskiKraljevac1985-86 - ©kaljari district urbandesign project, Kotor, Montenegro1986 - urban and architectural designstudy for the entrance terminals tothe Miruπa Regional Nature Park,Kosovo1986-89 - INA Trgovina office build-ing, Zagreb — schematic design forthe preliminary building permit,architectural supervision of designdevelopment, author’s field monitor-

Radovi u arhitektonskom birou “Me-dveπËak” u Zagrebu, 1968.-74.

1968. - projekt hotela “Preko” u Pre-ku, otok Ugljan (suradnik);1969. - projekt stambenog naselja“BaπËeluci” u Jajcu, Bosna iHercegovina (suradnik); 1969. - urbanistiËko-arhitektonsko rje-πenje naselja “Tuleg” u Konjicu,Bosna i Hercegovina;1970. - upravna zgrada Policije, Mrko-njiÊ Grad, Bosna i Hercegovina, real-izirano (s Lujom Schwererom);1971. - stambeni objekti S-21 i S-23,MrkonjiÊ Grad, Bosna i Hercegovina,realizirano (s L. Schwererom);1972. - urbanistiËko rjeπenje srediπtaPodravske Slatine - projekt stam-beno-poslovnog objekta, PodravskaSlatina;1972. - urbanistiËko rjeπenje i projekttrgovaËkog ansambla u srediπtuMrkonjiÊ Grada, Bosna i Hercegovina;1972. - projekt novog srediπta, DugoSelo;1973. - projekt turistiËkog naselja“Kuve” kod Rovinja (s L.Schwererom);1972. - projekt hotela “Jaz”, Preko;1973.-74. - projekti Doma radniËke sol-idarnosti i robne kuÊe “Boska”, BanjaLuka, Bosna i Hercegovina (s Lj.LuliÊ i J. Nosso).

Radovi u atelierima Skidmore,Owings i Merril, Chicago, 1975.-1976.

1975. - Franklin Tower South Block,Philadelphia, PA (idejni projekti hote-la i poslovnog bloka);1975. - Chicago-Tokyo Bank, Chicago,IL (studije detalja unutarnjeg ure-enja);1975. - Congress Street Bridge,Boston, MA (urbanistiËko-arhitekton-ska studija povezivanja prostoraizmeu zgrada Boston City Hall iFanneuill Hall u priobalnoj zoniBostona - varijantni projekti pjeπaË-kih mostovnih poteza);1976. - Sixty State Street, Boston, MA(studije ulaznog prostora poslovnogtornja);1976. - Sear’s Store, Rockaway, NJ(elementi oblikovanja robne kuÊe);

Work done at the MedveπËak Archi-tectural Design Studio in Zagreb,1968-1974

1968 - Preko Hotel, Preko, Island ofUgljan (co-worker)1969 - BaπËeluci housing project,Jajce, Bosnia and Herzegovina (co-worker)1969 - Tuleg housing project, Konjic,Bosnia and Herzegovina1970 - Police Headquarters, MrkonjiÊGrad, Bosnia and Herzegovina, real-ized (with Lujo Schwerer)1971 - S-21 and S-23 residential build-ings, MrkonjiÊ Grad, Bosnia and Her-zegovina, realized (with L. Schwerer) 1971 - Podravska Slatina town centreproject1971 - housing-cum-commercial build-ing, Podravska Slatina1972 - MrkonjiÊ Grad shopping centreproject, Bosnia and Herzegovina1972 - Dugo Selo new town centreproject1973 - Kuve tourist village develop-ment project near Rovinj (with L.Schwerer)1972 - Jaz Hotel project, Preko, Islandof Ugljan1973-74 - Workers’ Solidarity Centreand Boska Department Store, BanjaLuka, Bosnia and Herzegovina, real-ized (with Lj. LuliÊ and J. Nosso).

Work done at the Skidmore, Owingsand Merrill Studios, Chicago, IL1975-76

1975 - Franklin Towers South Block,Philadelphia, PA (schematic designfor the hotel and office towers)1975 - Chicago-Tokyo Bank, Chicago,IL (detailed interior design studies)1975 - Congress Street Bridge,Boston, MA (urban development andarchitectural design study to linkBoston City Hall and Fanneuill Hallon the Boston shore front — variantdesigns for the linking of pedestrianplazas)1976 - Sixty State Street, Boston, MA(studies for the plaza entrance to theoffice tower)1976 - Sear’s Store, Rockaway, NJ(formal elements of department store

129

dizajn rasvjete proËelja (6/92.); projek-ti funkcionalnih izmjena prostora udijelovima II, III i IV (9/92.); projektdvostrukih modularnih (kompju-torskih) podova (9/92.); dizajn obradbiproËelja graevnih dijelova XI, XII iXIII (10/92.); - voditelj projekta (s D.Manceom i Z. KrznariÊem). Projektpreureenja prostora u kompleksuNSB za trgovaËki centar uz ulicuHrvatske bratske zajednice (1994.-95.), s D. Manceom.

Konzultantski poslovi

Konzultant za Europu tvrtke Schmidt,Garden i Erikson, Architects -Engineers, Chicago, IL (1976.-1981.).

Radovi u slobodnom stvaralaËkomdjelovanju (izbor)

Projekti obiteljskih kuÊa:

1969. - kuÊa Kudera, Stari Grad naHvaru;1970. - kuÊa Delfar, Rovinj;1971. - dvojni objekt Lavrinc, Karlo-vac;1971. - kuÊa PijetloviÊ, Jajce, Bosna iHercegovina;1977. - kuÊa Kudera, Hrastje kod Jas-trebarskog;1979. - kuÊa Buljan, DediÊi, Zagreb;1982. - kuÊa Husar, ©estinski vrh,Zagreb;1983. - kuÊa AkaloviÊ, Bijenik, Zagreb;1984. - kuÊa PetkoviÊ, Remete, Zag-reb;1988. - kuÊa Drave, Gornje Prekriæje,Zagreb;1989. - kuÊa PreseËki, Novalja naPagu;1990. - Richard Penner Residence,California (studija);1992. - kuÊa Lauπ, PantovËak, Zagreb;1993. - Ohanesian residence additionproject, Pottstown, Pennsylvania;1997. - kuÊa Ostoja, Somuni, Zagreb;1997.-98. - kuÊa TomaπiÊ, Gornje Pre-kriæje, Zagreb;1999.-00. - kuÊa Damvergis, MedveπËi-na, Zagreb.

design of elevator lobbies (4/1992),design of restroom facilities (5/1992),design of interior partitioning system(3-11/1992), design of façade lighting(6/1992), functional emendations ofareas in the lateral parts II, III andIV (9/1992), design of double modularfloors (9/1992), design of façades forbuilding parts XI, XII and XIII(10/1992) — project leader, (with D.Mance and Z. KrznariÊ). Schematicdesign for the transformation of com-mercial premises into a shopping cen-tre along the Hrvatske Bratske Za-jednice strip within the National andUniversity Library complex (1994-95), with D. Mance.

Consultancy work

European consultant to Schmidt,Garden and Erikson, Architects -Engineers, Chicago (1976-81).

Freelance work (selection)

Family houses:

1969 - Kudera, Stari Grad, Island ofHvar1970 - Delfar, Rovinj 1971 - Lavrinc, semi-detached, Karlo-vac 1971 - PijetloviÊ, Jajce, Bosnia andHerzegovina 1977 - Kudera, Hrastje near Jastre-barsko 1979 - Buljan, DediÊi, Zagreb 1982 - Husar, ©estinski Vrh, Zagreb1983 - AkaloviÊ, Bijenik, Zagreb 1984 - PetkoviÊ, Remete, Zagreb 1988 - Drave, Gornje Prekriæje, Zag-reb 1989 - PreseËki, Novalja, Island of Pag1990 - Richard Penner Residence, Ca-lifornia, (study)1992 - Lauπ, PantovËak, Zagreb 1993 - Ohanesian Residence additionproject, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 1997 - Ostoja, Somuni, Zagreb1997-98 - TomaπiÊ, Gornje Prekriæje,Zagreb 1999-00 - Damvergis, MedveπËina,Zagreb.

knjiænica u Zagrebu - projektiranje iautorsko praÊenje realizacije - prikazprostora I. etape izgradnje NSB spripremnim radovima (1985.); arhi-tektonsko-urbanistiËka studija rjeπe-nja I. etape zgrade i okolice (1986.-87.); idejni arhitektonski projekt, pro-jekt za dobivanje graevinske dozvoleI. etape izgradnje (1987.); rasporedradnih mjesta i dispozicija opreme I.etape, dopuna uvjeta ureenja prosto-ra I. etape (1988.-89.); autorske inter-vencije u projektu za izvoenje I.etape (1988.); interijersko rjeπenjesustava stropova, obloga i podova(1988.-89.), novo idejno rjeπenje atrija(1989.); idejno rjeπenje proπirenja I.etape (lateralni dijelovi, 6/1989.), obli-kovanje oploËenja proËelja i prateÊihpovrπina oko zgrade, idejno rjeπenje iprojekti poteza lokala uz ulicu Hrvat-ske bratske zajednice u sastavu kom-pleksa NSB, prostorno-programskaosnova umjetniËkog ureenja novezgrade NSB (1990.); prostorno-pro-gramska osnova umjetniËkog uree-nja NSB s posebnim dispozicijsko-in-formacijskim prilogom (5/91.); arhi-tektonski prilozi za program vizualnihkomunikacija (3/91.); dizajn ovjeπenihstropova NSB u mjerilu 1:50 (5-6/91.);dizajn kamenih obloga proËelja, podo-va i vanjskih prateÊih povrπina; inter-ijerska dispozicija prostora osnovnogkorpusa NSB (7-10/91.); dizajn rasv-jetnog stupa za okolicu NSB (9/91.);pregledni dispozicijski tlocrti u mjer-ilu 1:200 (11/91.); projekti za obradbujavnih prostora na lateralnom dijeluproπirenja I. etape izgradnje NSB(11/91.); idejna faza projekta unutraπ-njeg ureenja lateralnih dijelova II,III i IV, zbirki grae posebne vrste(razina 2) te perimetarskih prostorana razinama mezanina, 1., 2., 3. i 4.kata osnovnog korpusa (1991.-92.);detaljni dizajn sustava spuπtenih stro-pova i definicija rasvjetnih tijela (2-11/92.); dizajn proËelja i stropa glav-nog atrija (3/92.); nova prostorna dis-pozicija sustava obradbe knjiæniËkegrae (4/92.); dizajn kamene oblogepretprostora dizala (4/92.); dizajn oplo-Ëenja sanitarnih prostora (5/92.); di-zajn fiksnih interijerskih obloga i sus-tava pregradnih stijena (3-11/92.);

ing of the project’s execution1985-95 - National and UniversityLibrary, Zagreb, design and execu-tion process — Stage 1 master planand preparatory work (1985-86),Stage 1 architectural and urbandesign study of the building and itssurroundings (1986-87), Stage 1schematic architectural design for thebuilding permit (1987), Stage 1 interi-or design layout of workstations, fur-niture and equipment, amended land-use and urban development require-ments (1988-89), architect’s interven-tions in the working drawings forStage 1 building execution (1988-95),interior design: system of ceilings,panelling and flooring (1988-89), newdesign for the atrium (1989), schemat-ic design for extended Stage 1 build-ing (lateral parts, 6/1989), claddingand flooring design for elements ofthe surrounding plazas, schematicdesign of commercial premises alongthe Hrvatske Bratske Zajednice stripwithin the National and UniversityLibrary complex (1990), outline ofspatial arrangement of permanentfine arts exhibits in the Library(1990), with a visual-informationalsupplement (5/1991), architectural ele-ments for the Library’s visual commu-nications programme (3/1991), designof suspended ceilings for the Library,scale 1:50 (5-6/1991), design of granitecladding for the façades, floors andadjoining surfaces, interior designallocation of spaces in the Library’smain building (7-10/1991), design ofthe lighting pylon for the Library’sexterior (9/1991), new schematic lay-out plans, scale 1:200 (11/1991), designof public spaces in the lateral exten-sions of the Stage 1 building (11/1991),conceptual framework of interiordesign for the lateral parts II, III andIV, for special holding depots (Level2), and for perimeter spaces on themezzanine, first, second, third andfourth floor levels in the main building(1991-92), detailed design of the sys-tem of suspended ceilings and lightingfixtures (2-11/1992), new design of thefront and the ceiling of the main atri-um (3/1992), new layout of the bookprocessing department (4/1992),

130

UrbanistiËko-arhitektonske studije iprojekti:

1972. - studija πest lokacija za hotelSheraton u Zagrebu;1979. - prijedlog pjeπaËkog i pros-tornog povezivanja povijesnih i novihdijelova srediπta Zagreba, s M.HræiÊem, Z. KrznariÊem, i D. Mance;1984. - idejna urbanistiËko-arhitekton-ska studija poslovnog srediπta shotelom, trgovaËkim i kongresnimsadræajima uz ZagrebaËki velesajam;1990.-1991. - poslovno-stambena zgra-da Jadranskog naftovoda u Zagrebu -autorsko direktivno projektiranje inadzor nad izradbom tehniËke doku-mentacije i interijera;1991. - novelacija programa i novoidejno rjeπenje aneksa upravnezgrade “Gradskih groblja” u Zagrebu- autorsko direktivno projektiranje inadzor nad izradom tehniËke doku-mentacije; 1/1992. - projekt moguÊnosti iznajmlji-vanja prostora u lateralnom dijeluproπirenja I. etape izgradnje Nacio-nalne i sveuËiliπne biblioteke uZagrebu; 3/1992. - prijedlog prostorne dispozici-je za Hrvatski audiovizualni arhiv ulateralnom dijelu Nacionalne isveuËiliπne biblioteke u Zagrebu;3/1992. - osnove programa vizualnihkomunikacija Nacionalne i sveuËiliπnebiblioteke u Zagrebu;1993. - idejni projekt viπenamjensketrgovaËko-poslovno-stambene zgradeu bloku Badel u Zagrebu sMiroslavom BegoviÊem i DavoromManceom;1996. - nova urbanistiËko-arhitektons-ka studija bloka Badel u Zagrebu s M.BegoviÊem;1998. - idejno arhitektonsko rjeπenjekompleksa INA Headquarters uAveniji V. Holjevca u Zagrebu, novasjeverna dogradnja uz postojeÊuposlovnu zgradu; 1998. - projekt viπestambene zgradena Majcenovom putu u Zagrebu;1998. - studija ureda agencije HIDRAu prostorima NSK u Zagrebu;1999.-00. - studija obnove zgradeCentra za organsku kemiju za potrebeKnjiænice HAZU u Zagrebu.

Urban and architectural designstudies and projects

1972 - study of six locations for theZagreb Sheraton Hotel 1979 - proposal for pedestrian andcommunication links between the his-toric and new centres of Zagreb, (withM. HræiÊ, Z. KrznariÊ and D. Mance)1984 - preliminary urban and archi-tectural design for the Zagreb FairBusiness Centre, with hotel and con-ference facilities 1990-91 - office-cum-residential build-ing of the Adriatic Pipeline in Zagreb:author’s directive design and supervi-sion of the design development andinterior design 1991 - project emendation and newschematic design for the ZagrebCemetery Administration buildingaddition: author’s directive designand supervision of design develop-ment 1/1992 - study of possible space rentalin the lateral extension of Stage 1 ofthe National and University Libraryin Zagreb 3/1992 - proposal for the CroatianAudiovisual Archives layout in thelateral extension of the National andUniversity Library, Zagreb 3/1992 - outline of the visual communi-cations programme for the Nationaland University Library, Zagreb 1993 - mixed-use office-cum-housingbuilding project, Badel city block,Zagreb, with Miroslav BegoviÊ andDavor Mance1996 - new urban and architecturaldesign study for the Badel city block,Zagreb, with M. BegoviÊ1998 - architectural design for theINA Headquarters new north addi-tion, Zagreb 1998 - housing building project archi-tectural design, Majcenov put,Zagreb1998 - study of the CroatianInformation and DocumentationAgency offices in the National andUniversity Library in Zagreb1999-00 - conversion of the OrganicChemistry Centre building into theLibrary of the Croatian Academy ofSciences and Arts in Zagreb.

Arhitektonski i interijerski projekti:

1987. - interijer poslovne zgrade INAtrgovina, Zagreb; 1987.-90. - interijer lokala u poslovnojzgradi INA trgovina - prostor sluæbeSDK (1987.), sa Slavicom RadiÊ-VukoviÊ; Duty Free Shop, Privrednabanka i Prodaja bonova (1988.);reprezentativni prostori na mezaninu,te 3. i 5. katu - umjetniËke realizacijeostvario Æelimir DrakuliÊ (1989.); pro-dajni centar INA trgovina i Rent-a-Car, 1990.;1991.-92. - interijer ureda generalnogdirektora u poslovnoj zgradi INA(ranije INA trgovina) u Zagrebu iumjetniËki nadzor izvedbe - tekstilnuaplikaciju u blagovaonici ostvarilaVanda »rnja;1992. - interijer dijela korisniËkihprostora na razini “0” I. etape izgrad-nje Nacionalne i sveuËiliπne bibliotekeu Zagrebu s Z. KrznariÊem, D. Mance-om, M. HræiÊem, B. AntunoviÊem, A.MeπtroviÊ i S. RadiÊ-VukoviÊ;1993.-95. - interijeri zbirki s graomposebne vrste, te edukativnog sklopa,total prostora Ëitaonica i relaksivnihprostora Nacionalne i sveuËiliπne bib-lioteke u Zagrebu s D. Manceom i S.RadiÊ-VukoviÊ;1994.-95. - arhitektonski i interijerskiprojekti ugostiteljskog kompleksaJana na uglu BakaËeve i ulice PodZidom u Zagrebu;1997.-98. - arhitektonski i interijerskiprojekti transformacija prostoraposlovne zgrade INA u Zagrebu uvelike radne prostore s informaci-jskom infrastrukturom tipa trading-floors - ostvareno u tvrtciNeidhardt arhitekti d.o.o.;1998.-00. - arhitektonski i interijerskiprojekti uredskog prostoraGruntovnice - Zemljiπnoknjiænogodjela OpÊinskoga suda u Zagrebu uzgradi Nacionalne i sveuËiliπneknjiænice - ostvareno u tvrtciNeidhardt arhitekti d.o.o.;1999. - novi VIP ulaz Poslovne zgradeINE, Zagreb;1999. - nove garderobe Nacionalne isveuËiliπne knjiænice u Zagrebu;1999. - grafiËki i TV studio HRG usklopu poteza lokala NSK u Zagrebu.

Architectural and interior design pro-jects

1987 - interior design of the INATrgovina office building, Zagreb1987-90 - rental areas in the INATrgovina building: Public AuditService, 1987 (with Slavica RadiÊ-VukoviÊ), Duty Free Shop,Privredna Banka and Coupon SaleCounters, 1988, representativelounges in the mezzanine and on thethird and fifth floors, 1989 (art workÆelimir DrakuliÊ), INA TrgovinaSales Centre and Car RentalService, 19901991-92 - interior design of the INADirector General’s office in the INABuilding (formerly INA Trgovina) inZagreb, (textile applications in thedining room by Vanda »rnja)1992 - interior design of user space onLevel 0 of the National and Univer-sity Library in Zagreb, Stage 1, (withZ. KrznariÊ, D. Mance, M. HræiÊ, B.AntunoviÊ, A. MeπtroviÊ, and S.RadiÊ-VukoviÊ) 1993-95 - interior design of the specialcollections departments, educationalfacilities, open access stacks readingfloors, and recreation amenities of theNational and University Library inZagreb, (with D. Mance and S. RadiÊ-VukoviÊ) 1994-95 - architectural and interiordesign of the Jana restaurants com-plex in Zagreb 1997-98 - architectural and interiordesign for the transformation of theINA building into an open landscapeand trading floor type of office space,Zagreb, (within Neidhardt arhitektid.o.o.)1998-00 - architectural and interiordesign of the Land registry office inthe lateral part of the National andUniversity Library building inZagreb, (within Neidhardt arhitektid.o.o.)1999 - VIP entrance of the INA Head-quarters building, Zagreb1999 - new cloakrooms of the Nationaland University Library in Zagreb1999 - graphic and TV studio HRG,new rental space of the National andUniversity Library in Zagreb.

131

nog ulaza u ZagrebaËki velesajam;1989. - pozivni natjeËaj za poslovno-stambenu zgradu Jadranskog nafto-voda na obali rijeke Save u VeslaËkojulici u Zagrebu (prva nagrada i odabirza izvedbu);1990. - pozivni i javni natjeËaj zakompleks poslovne zgrade “Astra”u Zagrebu, s Z. KrznariÊem i D.Manceom (otkup);1991. - Svjetski trgovinski centar,hotel A kategorije, shopping centar iistoËni ulaz u Velesajam u Zagrebu, sZ. KrznariÊem i D. Manceom (podije-ljena prva nagrada);1991.- æupna crkva Sv. Ivana evan-elista u naselju Utrine u Zagrebu;1992. - oblikovanje prostora ulice Hr-vatske bratske zajednice i srediπnjegtrga u Zagrebu, s Z. KrznariÊem i D.Manceom;1993. - pozivni natjeËaj za arhitekton-sko rjeπenje bloka Badel u Zagrebu -pozvani autor-voditelj natjecateljskegrupe (podijeljena prva nagrada);1994. - pozivni natjeËaj za arhitekton-sko rjeπenje æupne crkve u naseljuVolovËica u Zagrebu (druga nagrada);1996. - kompleks zgrada Vlade, mini-starstava i dræavne uprave RepublikeHrvatske u Zagrebu (podijeljen drugiplasman i pravo na sudjelovanju udrugom krugu natjeËaja);1997. - natjeËaj s meunarodnim po-zivnicima za idejno urbanistiËko-arhi-tektonsko rjeπenje zgrade ZagrebaË-ke banke u Zagrebu, s M. BegoviÊem(Ëetvrta nagrada).

invitation (first prize, commissionedfor realization)1990 - Astra Office Building project,Zagreb, by invitation, with Z. Krzna-riÊ and D. Mance (purchase) 1991 - World Trade Centre, five-starhotel, shopping mall, and easternentrance to the Zagreb Fair, Zagreb,with Z. KrznariÊ and D. Mance (exaequo first prize)1991 - St. John the evangelist parishchurch, Utrine, Zagreb 1992 - Zagreb’s urban axis — UlicaHrvatske Bratske Zajednice and newmain square, Zagreb, with Z. Krzna-riÊ and D. Mance1993 - Badel city block developmentproject, Zagreb, by invitation asauthor and project team leader (exaequo first prize) 1994 - Parish church, VolovËica, Zag-reb, by invitation (second prize)1996 - Croatian Government Centre,Zagreb, (ex-aequo second placementand eligibility for Stage 2 of the com-petition)1997 - Zagreb Bank Headquarters,Zagreb, with M. BegoviÊ (competitionwith international invitations —fourth prize).

UrbanistiËki i arhitektonski natjeËajniprojekti

1969. - hotel “Lapad” u Dubrovniku, sIvanom Kolbachom i Biserkom©avora (otkup);1969. - turistiËki ansambl “Begova led-ina” s hotelom od 500 kreveta,Makarska (druga nagrada);1970. - Centar snabdijevanja “BitPazar” u Skopju, Makedonija, sIvanom FraniÊem (treÊa nagrada);1970. - turistiËko naselje StojaValovine u Puli, s Maricom Perak iBenedettom Tardozzijem;1971. - srediπte juænog Zagreba, sLujom Schwererom i Brankom Velni-Êem (otkup);1973. - srediπte Banja Luke u Bosni iHercegovini, s Domom radniËke soli-darnosti, robnom kuÊom i hotelomPalace, s Ljerkom LuliÊ i JasnomNosso (prva nagrada);1976. - Dom umirovljenika na Iblerovutrgu u Zagrebu;1977. - Trg Francuske Republike uZagrebu, s I. FraniÊem (druga nagra-da);1978. - Nacionalna i sveuËiliπna bib-lioteka u Zagrebu, s M. HræiÊem, Z.KrznariÊem i D. Manceom (prvanagrada);1980. - zgrada telekomunikacija u©ibeniku (druga nagrada);1981. - pozivni natjeËaj bez rangiranjaza varijantne studije srediπnjeg grad-skog podruËja i priobalja Save uZagrebu, s M. HræiÊem, Z.KrznariÊem i D. Manceom;1983. - natjeËaj Ëasopisa “»ovjek i pro-stor” za ureenje jednog prostora uZagrebu (Muzej Viktor KovaËiÊ);1984. - meunarodni natjeËaj za rjeπe-nje srediπta Hamma u gradu Alæiru, sZ. KrznariÊem;1985. - poslovno srediπte istoËno odZagrebaËkog velesajma u Zagrebu(prva nagrada i povjerena daljnjarazrada projekata za viπenamjenskuzgradu Kongresnoga centra);1985. - poslovna zona 2 i 3 istoËno odZagrebaËkog velesajma u Zagrebu(prva nagrada i povjerena razradaprojekata i izvedba Poslovne zgradeINA trgovina);1986. - pozivni natjeËaj za rjeπenje juæ-

Urban and architectural designcompetition entries

1969 - Lapad Hotel, Dubrovnik, withIvan Kolbach and Biserka ©avora(purchase)1969 - Begova Ledina tourist complexwith a 500-bed hotel, Makarska, (sec-ond prize)1970 - Bit Pazar Shopping Centre,Skopje, Macedonia, with Ivan FraniÊ(third prize)1970 - Stoja Valovine tourist settle-ment, Pula, with Marica Perak andBenedetto Tardozzi1971 - South Zagreb city centre, withLujo Schwerer and Branko VelniÊ(purchase)1973 - Banja Luka city centre with theCivic Hall, department store andPalace Hotel, with Lj. LuliÊ and J.Nosso (first prize)1976 - Retirement Home, Iblerov Trg,Zagreb 1977 - Trg Francuske Republike,Zagreb, with I. FraniÊ (second prize)1978 - National and UniversityLibrary, Zagreb, with M. HræiÊ, Z.KrznariÊ and D. Mance (first prize)1980 - ©ibenik TelecommunicationsBuilding, ©ibenik, (second prize)1981 - Central Zagreb and the Savariverfront area, by invitation — vari-ant studies without formal ranking,with M. HræiÊ, Z. KrznariÊ and D.Mance1983 - »ovjek i Prostor competitionfor architectural design for a publicplaza in Zagreb (Viktor KovaËiÊMuseum), Zagreb 1984 - Hamma City Centre in Algiers,international competition, with Z.KrznariÊ1985 - Zagreb Trade Centre, Zagreb,(first prize — commissioned designfor a multi-purpose Congress Centre)1985 - central business district, zones2 and 3 to the east of the Zagreb Fairgrounds, Zagreb, (first prize — com-missioned design for the INA Trgo-vina office building)1986 - Zagreb Fair SouthernEntrance, by invitation, Zagreb 1989 - Adriatic Pipeline Main Officebuilding on the banks of the RiverSava, VeslaËka Street, Zagreb, by

132

paper).“Kevin Lynch i Maks Fabiani” (KevinLynch and Max Fabiani), Prostor, vol.2, no. 3-4, Zagreb, 1994, 291-299.Architectural aspects of homeinjuries prevention, Sigurnost, vol. 47,no. 2, Zagreb, 1995, 87-108 (collectivepaper).“Nova zgrada Nacionalne i sveuËiliπ-ne knjiænice” (A new building of theNational and University Library),Graevinar, vol. 47, no. 10, Zagreb,1995, 601-612 (collective paper).“Naπa arhitektonska skulptura” (Ourarchitectural sculpture), Vjesnik, Zag-reb, May 27, 1995 (on the eve of theopening of the National and Univer-sity Library).Croatia, Triennale di Milano, XIXEsposizione Internazionale - Identityand Difference, Electa, Milano, 1996,332-341.Towards the visions of urban future:Croatia’s prospects, Forum ofNational Acedemies of Sciences andEngineering, Bosphorus University,Istanbul, May 31- June 1, 1996.“»ovjek u prostoru” (Man in the envi-ronment), ©kolska knjiga, Zagreb,1997, 196 pp.“Hrvatska izloæba” (Croatian exhibi-tion), Katalog hrvatskog muzejaarhitekture (Catalogue of the Croa-tian Museum of Architecture), Zag-reb, 1997, 3-5.“Urbana rasprava ususret ZagrebuXXI. stoljeÊa” (A discussion on townplanning for Zagreb in the 21st centu-ry), Prostor, vol. 6, no. 1-2, Zagreb,1998, 67-78.“Kultura i gospodarstvo - komple-menti urbane vizije Zagreba XXI.stoljeÊa” (Culture and economy -Complementary elements of the 21stcentury’s vision of Zagreb), RazvojZagreba: prilozi za strategiju hrvat-ske i europske metropole, Gospodar-ska komora Zagreb, Zagreb, 1999, 35-51.“Podsljemenska obiteljska kuÊa” (Ahouse at the bottom of mtn. Sljeme),Graditelj, no. 3, March 2000, 16-18.“Zagreb joπ uvijek simbol europskeperiferije” (Zagreb — still a symbol ofEuropean periphery), Vijenac, no.161, Zagreb, 4 May 2000, 20-21.

method used in the design of the©ibenik Telecommunications Buil-ding), »ovjek i prostor, no. 343, Zag-reb, 1981, 24-27.“The City, the Cradle of the Future”,Ekistics - Problems and Science ofHuman Settlements, vol. 50, no. 301,Athens, 1983, 288-289. “Robna kuÊa u Banja Luci” (BanjaLuka department store), Arhitektura,no. 182-183, Zagreb, 1982, 68-69 (col-lective paper).“Velika kuÊa na maloj parceli: dilemeoko naπeg pristupa parcelaciji” (Alarge building on a small lot: Dile-mmas about land parcelling practicein this country), Arhitektura, no. 186-188, Zagreb, 1983-84, p. 94.“Knjiænica” (Library), TehniËka enci-klopedija, Miroslav Krleæa Lexico-graphic Institute, vol. 9, Zagreb, 1984,71-95.“Individualno u kolektivnom” (Theindividual in the collective), »ovjek iprostor, no. 422, Zagreb, 1988, p. 17.“30 godina nagrade ‘Viktor KovaËiÊ’”(Thirty years of the Viktor KovaËiÊaward), »ovjek i prostor, no. 440-441,Zagreb, 1989.Arhitekti Ëlanovi JAZU (Architects— members of the Yugoslav (nowCroatian) Academy of Arts andSciences), Rad Hrvatske akademijeznanosti i umjetnosti, no. 435 (mem-ber of the editorial committee headedby Drago GaliÊ), Zagreb, 1991. “Akademik Drago GaliÊ, 1907-1992(nekrolog)” (Academician Drago Ga-liÊ, 1907-1992 — obituary), VjesnikHAZU, no. 7-8, 1992. “Hrvatska u prostoru” (Croatia’sphysical space), chapter in the specialpublication of the Croatian Academyof Arts and Sciences entitled Hrvat-ska — zadatosti i usmjerenja, HAZU,Zagreb, 1992, 23-28 (collective paper).“Drago GaliÊ, 1907-1992”, obituary,Ljetopis HAZU, vol. 97, Zagreb, 1993,755-58.“Drago GaliÊ, 1907-1992)”, Æivot umje-tnosti, no. 51, Zagreb, 1993. Architectural Aspects of the HomeInjuries Prevention in Croatia, TheSecond World Conference On InjuryControl, Abstracts, Atlanta , Georgia,May 20-23, 1993, p. 165 (collective

“Arhitekt i buduÊnost” (The architectand the future), »ovjek i prostor, no.195, Zagreb, 1969, 9-11.“Unapreenje æivotne okoline i una-preenje druπtva” (Environmentalimprovement and social improve-ment), »ovjek i prostor, no. 233, Zag-reb, 1972, 21-23. “Suradnja arhitekata i sociologa ustvaranju prostora mjesne zajednice”(The collaborative effort of architectsand sociologists in designing the localcommunity environment), Proceedingsof the Yugoslav Architects’ SocietyConference and Architecture Days,Skopje-Ohrid, Macedonia, 1977.“Metajezik URBAN: upotreba kom-pjutora u urbanistiËkom i prostornomplaniranju” (URBAN metalanguage:computer usage in urban design andregional planning), Proceedings of theRegional and Physical PlanningSymposium, vol I, topic II, paper 2(with D. Boras), Yugoslav Institutefor Urban Development and Housing,Belgrade, 1977, 37 pp.“Profesionalna arhitektonska praksau SAD” (Professional practice ofarchitects in the United States), »ov-jek i prostor, no. 308, Zagreb, 1978,22-23.“O pjeπaËkom i prostornom povezi-vanju povijesnih i novih dijelovasrediπta Zagreba” (On pedestrian andambiental linkages between the his-toric and new parts of centralZagreb), »ovjek i prostor, no. 321,Zagreb, 1979, 21-24 (collective paper).“O arhitektonskom konceptu Nacio-nalne i sveuËiliπne biblioteke” (On thearchitectural concept of the Nationaland University Library in Zagreb),Arhitektura, no. 168-169, Zagreb, 1979,95-100 (collective paper).“Stvaranje kompjutorskog jezika zapotrebe urbanistiËkog i prostornogplaniranja” (The development of acomputer language for urban andregional planning), Arhitektura, no.172 - 173, Zagreb, 1980, 95-99. “Prilog analizi procesa arhitektonskedefinicije: metoda sekventne optimal-izacije u projektiranju zgrade teleko-munikacija u ©ibeniku” (A contribu-tion to the analysis of the architectur-al process: Sequential optimization

List of publications / Publicirani znanstveni i struËni radovi

133

tectural culture), »ovjek i prostor, no.526-527, Zagreb, 1998, p. 6.“Opstojnost Udruæenja hrvatskih ar-hitekata” (The continued existence ofthe Croatian Architects Association),»ovjek i prostor, no. 526-527, Zagreb,1998, p. 15.“Odnosi udruæenja i Ëlanova” (TheMember - Association relations), »ov-jek i prostor, no. 528-529, Zagreb,1998, p. 13.“Da, ima nade za arhitekturu” (Yes,there is hope for architecture), »ov-jek i prostor, no. 530-531, Zagreb,1998, p. 18.“Raspravljana naËela ustroja Komo-re” (Discussion of the principles of theprofessional architectural chamber),»ovjek i prostor, no. 530-531, Zagreb,1998, p. 18.“Pitalo se za miπljenje” (Opinion wassought), VeËernji list, Zagreb, 3March 1998, p. 19.“Odnosi sa svijetom” (Relations withthe rest of the world), »ovjek i pros-tor, no. 532-535, Zagreb, 1998, p. 17.“IzvjeπÊe predsjednika Udruæenjahrvatskih arhitekata (CroatianArchitects Association President’sReport), »ovjek i prostor, no. 540-543,Zagreb, 1999, 10-11.“Fotografija u arhitekturi” (Photo-graphy in architecture), »ovjek iprostor, no. 540-543, Zagreb, 1999,p. 71.“Suvremena pouka moderne tradici-je” (Contemporary lesson of moderntradition), Oris, no. 2, Zagreb, 1999,88-91.“Obiteljska kuÊa na Gornjem Prekriæ-ju” (Family house in Gornje Prekriæje- Zagreb), »ovjek i prostor, no. 544-545, Zagreb, 1999, p. 35.“Najtuænije desetljeÊe zagrebaËkearhitekture u 20. stoljeÊu” (The sad-dest decade of Zagreb architecture inthe XXth century), Vijenac, no. 162,Zagreb, 18 May 2000, 20-21.“Bez cesta za Europu Zagreb ostajedijelom Balkana” (Without highwaysto Europe Zagreb will remain a partof Balkans), interview to MarinkoBobanoviÊ, Vijesnik, Zagreb, 10September 2000, p. 20.

“Chicago — 150 Years of Architectu-re”, VeËernji list, Zagreb, 3 December1984, p. 10. “Grad lijepoga lica” (A lovely face ofthe city), VeËernji list, Zagreb, 29-30December 1984. “OËuvajmo urbanistiËko dostojanstvonove zgrade NSB u Zagrebu” (Let uspreserve the dignity of the newNational and University Library inZagreb), protest against plannedbuilding in front of the new library’satrium, May, 1991.“Sjaj i bijeda redizajna” (Splendourand misery of redesign), Vijenac, no.14/II, Zagreb, 7 July 1994, p. 26. “Arhitektura arhitektima” (Architec-ture to the architects), interview, Ve-Ëernji list - Obzor, Zagreb, 21 May1995, p. 20.“Kulturologija obnove i globalno oz-raËje (Cultorology of renewal andglobal influences), Prostor, Vol. 4, br.1 (11), Zagreb 1996, 121-122.“RijeË Predsjednika Udruæenja hr-vatskih arhitekata” (A word from thepresident of the Croatian ArchitectsAssociation), »ovjek i prostor, specialissue no. I for the UIA BarcelonaCongress, Zagreb, June 1996, p. 5. “Ne smijemo bjeæati od teme monu-mentalnosti” (The theme of monu-mentality cannot be avoided), inter-view to Kreπimir Rogina, Arhitektu-ra, no. 212, Zagreb, 1996, 039-049. “Iskaznica arhitektonske profesije”(A professional portfolio of archi-tects), Tko je tko u hrvatskoj arhitek-turi (Who is who in Croatian architec-ture), Biblioteka Psefizma, Zagreb,1997, 10-11.“Standardi arhitektonske struke I-IV” (Standards of professionalism inarchitectural practice I-IV), »ovjek iprostor, no. 516-519, no. 520-521, no.522-523, no. 524-525, Zagreb, 1997. “Pojam arhitekt” (The notion of arhi-tect), »ovjek i prostor, no. 520-521,Zagreb, 1997, p. 8.“120. godiπnjica Udruæenja hrvatskiharhitekata” (120 years of the CroatianArchitects Association), »ovjek i pro-stor, no. 524-525, Zagreb, 1998, p. 6.“Javni natjeËaj - temelj hrvatske arhi-tektonske kulture (Open competition -the foundation of the Croatian archi-

“Izazov ‘Izazova’” (The challenge of‘Izazov’ /Challenge/), interview byMarijan Vogrinec with a group ofyoung architects about the meaning,purpose and direction of contempo-rary architecture, Vjesnik, Zagreb, 23July 1971.“Odakle toliki prostorni defekti u Zag-rebu” (Why so many defective urbandesign solutions in Zagreb), Vjesnik,Zagreb, 6 July 1971. “Maksimalan angaæman stvaralaËkihsnaga” (Maximum involvement of cre-ative potential), contribution to a dis-cussion on the topic “ Are we coveringthe Adriatic with concrete?”, Vjesnik,28 February 1973, p. 9. “Prostor dat buduÊnosti” (Space ear-marked for the future), contributiondiscussing the architectural competi-tion for the area of Trg FrancuskeRepublike in Zagreb, »rnomerec, no.16, Zagreb, 1978.“Promet je dio oblikovnoga konceptagrada koji bi morao pridonijeti kvali-teti slike grada” (Traffic system ispart of urban design that should con-tribute to the quality of a city’simage), contribution to the roundtable discussing the traffic masterplan of Zagreb, »ovjek i prostor, no.332, Zagreb, 1980, p. 11. “Stanley Tigerman: moj najdraæi pro-jekt — onaj slijedeÊi” (Stanley Tiger-man: My favourite project — the nextone), interview, »ovjek i prostor, no.330, Zagreb, 1980, 17-19. “Arhitektura sedamdesetih godina”(Architecture in the seventies), con-tribution to a round table held on 12November 1981, Arhitektura, no. 178-179, Zagreb, 1981, 42-43. “Djelovanje u prostorima SR Hrvat-ske” (Country-wide activity in Croa-tia), introductory text for the exhibi-tion commemorating thirty-five yearsof work of the Urban Planning Inst-itute of Croatia, »ovjek i prostor, no.357, Zagreb, 1982 (collective paper). “Esej za grad” (An essay for the city),Radio Zagreb Third Programme, 7May 1983.“Grad, kolijevka buduÊnosti” (Thecity, the cradle of the future), Danas,no. 100, Zagreb, 1984, 49-51. Opinions of visitors to the exhibition

Notes, views, interviews / Publicirani prilozi, razgovori, miπljenja

134

stoljeÊa u naπoj suvremenoj arhitek-turi, Arhitektura, br. 204-207, Zagreb,1988., str. 22;RADOVINOVI∆, Ranka. Staklo,Ëelik i mramor - ZagrebaËka arhitek-tura osamdesetih, Vjesnik, Zagreb,20. XII. 1989., str. 9;MAROEVI∆, Ivo. Definicija centra inecentra, Arhitektov bilten, br. 101-102, Ljubljana, 1989.;PREMERL, Tomislav. PovratakpalaËe - Velimir Neidhardt - nagrada“Vladimir Nazor” u 1989. godini, »ov-jek i prostor, br. 446, Zagreb, 1990.,str. 8-11;MAROEVI∆, Ivo. Emotivni racional-izam, »ovjek i prostor, br. 444, Zag-reb, 1990.;MAROEVI∆, Ivo. ZagrebaËka arhi-tektura osamdesetih godina, predgo-vor katalogu izloæbe, Galerija “Modu-lor”, Zagreb, 1990., str. 20;DOMI∆, Ljiljana. S peËatom zmaja,Start, br. 571, Zagreb, 8. XII. 1990.,str. 52-55;FIO, Lovorka. Svjetski trgovaËki cen-tar - projekt za 21. stoljeÊe, Vjesnik,Zagreb, 13. VI. 1991., str. 14;FIO, Lovorka. Biblioteka u sjeni - apelza NSB, Vjesnik, Zagreb, 13. VI.1991., str. 14;DAKI∆, Slavko. Velesajam i Svjet-ski trgovaËki centar - Zagreb u Bos-tonu, VeËernji list, Zagreb, 6. VI.1991., str. 9;JENDRI∆, Doroteja. Uz 26. zagre-baËki salon arhitekture i urbanizma -kuÊa za buduÊnost, VeËernji list, Zag-reb, 21. V. 1991., str. 31;—-. Katalozi ZagrebaËkih salona,1970. - 1994.;©TRAUS, Ivan. Arhitektura Jugosla-vije nakon 1945., Sarajevo, 1991., str.160, 161, 186;—-. Arhitekti Ëlanovi JAZU, RADHrvatske akademije znanosti i umjet-nosti, br. 437, Zagreb, 1991., str. 174-179;BRDARI∆, Darko. Kako Êe izgledatizagrebaËki WTC, Vjesnik, Zagreb, 8.VI. 1991., str. 8;KUSIN, Vesna. Neka bude istina,Vjesnik, Zagreb, 28. VII. 1991., str.14;FIO, Lovorka. ©to Êe biti s NSB?,Vjesnik, Zagreb, 3. VIII. 1991., str. 12;

Di. ©t., Zgrada INA Trgovine na Zag-rebaËkom velesajmu - gradnja u pro-ljeÊe, Vjesnik, Zagreb , 24. XII. 1985.,str. 7;M. So., Novo u Novom Zagrebu - Sizloæbe - dijelovi, VeËernji list, Zag-reb, 25. XII. 1985., str. 7;RAZOVI∆, Maja. Muzejsko juËer -informatiËko sutra, Vjesnik, Zagreb27. XII. 1985, str. 15;KULTERMANN, Udo. Zeitgenossi-sche Architektur in Osteuropa, Du-Mont Verlag, Köln, 1985., str. 210;PASINI, Sineva. Prekrojena kockaNSB, Vjesnik, Zagreb, 4. X. 1986.;JURI©I∆, Mirjana. Kocka za novostoljeÊe, VeËernji list, Zagreb, 24. XI1986.;—-. Arhitektura u Hrvatskoj, temat-ski br. Ëasopisa Arhitektura, br. 196-199, Zagreb, 1986., str. 75, 76, 81, 83,89, 91, 92, 95, 98, 100, 125;—-. Poslovno-trgovaËki i kongresnicentar, hotel poslovnog centra,poslovni objekt INA Trgovina iExportdrvo, Juæni ulaz u ZagrebaËkivelesajam, »ovjek i prostor, br. 404,Zagreb, 1986., str. 8, 13, 15;Da.Lo., INA Trgovina pod krovom,Industrogradnja, Zagreb, 28. V. 1987.,str. 1;D.L., U posjeti INA Trgovini, Indus-trogradnja, Zagreb, 11.VI. 1987.,str.1;—-. Likovna enciklopedija Jugoslavi-je, JLZ “Miroslav Krleæa”, knjiga 2.,K-Ren, 1987., str. 451;M.S., Najljepπa u Novom Zagrebu,Industrogradnja, Zagreb, 7. VII.1988., str. 8;©IGIR, Mirjana. Upad u prekosavskuspavaonicu, Nedjeljni Vjesnik, Zag-reb, 2. X. 1988., str. 8;GOTOVAC, Frano. Arhitektura snagei moÊi, Nedjeljna Dalmacija, Split, 13.XI. 1988., str. 18;KOSI∆, K. Kada aneks upravnojzgradi? (izvod iz razgovora), Komu-nalni vjesnik, br. 35, Zagreb, 28. XI.1988., str. 8-9;RAZOVI∆, Maja. Dogodit Êe se jez-gra - zgrada INA Trgovine - antici-pacija juænog gradskog centra?, Da-nas, br. 356, Zagreb, 13. XII. 1988.,str. 73-75;MAROEVI∆, Ivo, Tradicija XIX.

Diktat svrhe i ekonomije, Vjesnik,Zagreb, 15. V. 1979.;PASINOVI∆, Antoaneta. Prijedlogvrijedan paænje, Vjesnik, Zagreb, 18.III. 1980.;(R.), Radni sastanak u Majstorskojradionici akademika Drage GaliÊa,Vijesti JAZU, br. 1, Zagreb, 1980., str.23;(R.), Radni sastanak u Majstorskoj ra-dionici akademika Drage GaliÊa,Vijesti JAZU, br. 2, Zagreb, 1980., str.12-14;“Banja Luka 1969-1979.”, NIGRO“Glas”, Banja Luka, 1980., str. 86 i 90;(R.), Robna kuÊa u Banja Luci,Arhitektura, br. 182-3, Zagreb, 1982.,str. 68-69;MARINOVI∆-UZELAC, Ante. Ne-koliko pogleda na urbanizam Zagreba- tragom natjeËaja za srediπnjepodruËje, »ovjek i prostor, br. 370,Zagreb, 1984.;PASINOVI∆, Antoaneta. U koπmaruarhitekture, Vjesnik, Zagreb, 14. V.1982.;CVETKOVA, Elena. Korak premaËovjeku, VeËernji list, Zagreb, 15-16.V. 1982., str. 11;CRNOBRNJA, Boπko. Salonska po-buna arhitekata, Start, br. 350,Zagreb, 19. VI. 1982., str. 50-51;(R.), NatjeËaj Ëasopisa »ovjek i pros-tor za projekt preoblikovanja i uree-nja jednog prostora u Zagrebu,»ovjek i prostor, br. 362, Zagreb,1983., str. 32;(R.), Studije centralnog gradskogprostora Trnja, Novog Zagreba i pri-obalja Save, »ovjek i prostor,br. 370, Zagreb, 1984., str. 19-21;KORI»AN»I∆, D. Put u srediπtegrada, Trnje, Zagreb, 26. III. 1984.,str. 6-7;PREMERL, Tomislav. OsmiπljavanjebuduÊnosti, Oko, Zagreb, 11-25. IV.1985., str. 12;M.So., Prednost bræima - pripreme zaizgradnju poslovnog centra krajVelesajma - rezultati natjeËaja, Ve-Ëernji list, Zagreb, 11. VI. 1985., str. 7;RAZOVI∆, Maja. Novi centar novogagrada, Vjesnik, Zagreb, 12. VI. 1985.,str. 7;J.B., Uz Velesajam pet zvijezdica, Ve-Ëernji list, Zagreb, 12. VI. 1985., str. 7;

(R.), NatjeËaj za idejno rjeπenje hotelaB kategorije u Dubrovniku-Lapad,»ovjek i prostor, br. 196, Zagreb,1969., str. 10-14;PASINOVI∆, Antoaneta. Mlada gen-eracija hrvatskih arhitekata, Tele-gram, Zagreb, 8. VIII. 1969., str. 18;SEKULI∆-GVOZDANOVI∆, Sena.Majstorska radionica profesora arhi-tekta Drage GaliÊa u Zagrebu, Arhi-tektura Urbanizam, br. 59, Beograd,1969., str. 27, 30 i 32;PASINOVI∆, Antoaneta. VelimirNeidhardt, Tlo, br. 6-7, Zagreb, 13. II.1970., str. 35;(R.), NatjeËaj za izradu idejnog rjeπe-nja turistiËkog ansambla “Begova Le-dina” u Makarskoj, »ovjek i prostor,br. 205, Zagreb, 1970., str. 4-5;I.©., Arhitektonski projekti - poticajstvaralaπtvu mlade generacije, Vjes-nik, Zagreb, 14. VII. 1971.;SEKULI∆-GVOZDANOVI∆, Sena.Majstorska radionica prof. GaliÊa,»ovjek i prostor, br. 234, Zagreb,1972.;»ORAK, Æeljka. U funkciji grada,Vjesnik, Zagreb, 26. V. 1973.;(R.), Prikaz makete natjeËajnog radaza centar I u Banja Luci, Arhitektura,br. 148, Zagreb, 1974.;PASINOVI∆, Antoaneta. Torzo ilijednog dana jedan Salon, »ovjek iprostor, br. 255, Zagreb, 1974., str. 8 istr. 16;—-. NatjeËaj Trg Francuske republikeu Zagrebu, »ovjek i prostor, br. 308,Zagreb, 1978., str. 12;.PASINOVI∆, Antoaneta. Mrtva trkaili drugi red za drugu fazu, »ovjek iprostor, br. 308, Zagreb, 1978., str.14;—-. Druπtvo arhitekata grada Zagre-ba (izdavaË): NatjeËaj Trg francuskerepublike, sekundarni centar, Zagreb,1978.;(R.), NatjeËaj za izradu idejnog pro-jekta Nacionalne i sveuËiliπne bib-lioteke u Zagrebu, »ovjek i prostor,br. 303, Zagreb, 1978.;©TAJDUHAR, Meri. Narcis u Trnju,Vjesnik, Zagreb, 20. V. 1978.;(R.), 14. zagrebaËki salon i oko njega,»ovjek i prostor, br. 315-316, Zagreb,1979., str. 9 i str. 17;MALEKOVI∆, Vladimir. 14. zagre-baËki salon arhitekture i urbanizma.

Bibliography / Bibliografija - literatura

135

1997., str. 194;ROGINA, Kreπimir (urednik). Tko jetko u hrvatskoj arhitekturi, Bibliote-ka Psefizma, Nakladniπtvo Udruæenjahrvatskih arhitekata, Zagreb, 1997.,str. 302-303;BISBROUCK, Marie - Françoise iMITTLER, Elmar (urednici) ThePost - Modern Library between Func-tionality and Aesthetics, Proceed-ings of the seminar of the LIBERArchitecture Group, Paris, 22-26 Jan-uary 1996, Special issue of EuropeanResearch Libraries Cooperation: TheLIBER Quarterly, Vol. 7/1997, 1,Akademische Druck-u. Verlagsan-stalt Graz / Austria, str. 5, 8, 20;JENDRI∆, Dorotea. Uz izloæbu hr-vatske arhitekture u BeËu - Djelo-tvorno usporeivanje, VeËernji list,Zagreb, 23. I. 1998., str. 19;SKENDER, Dubravka. Die neueNational und Universitätsbibliothekin Zagreb - gebaut für das nächsteMillenium, B. I. T. on line, Ausgabe 4,StandOrt Verlags - Gmbh, Wies-baden, 1998, 323-329;RAKOVI∆, Vidoje. Graditelj zagre-baËke urbane osovine, Graditelj, br.05, Zagreb, 1998., str. 10-12;MUTNJAKOVI∆, Andrija. Europ-ska kuÊa - U povodu desetogodiπnjicepalaËe INE, »ovjek i prostor, br. 532-535, Zagreb, 1998., str. 62-63;—-. Block Badel Zagreb, Croatia,Katalog sedam projekata bloka, Badel1862 d.d., Zagreb, 1998., projekt br. 1; BUTKOVI∆, K. Industrija - pokretaËrazvoja. S okruglog stola “Teze zastrategiju Zagreba”, Komunalni vjes-nik, br. 207, Zagreb, 30. VI. 1999., str.2-3;PREMERL, Tomislav. ZagrebaËkaarhitektura u dvadesetom stoljeÊu(VII). Povratak gradu i novi izazovi,Vijenac br. 140 / VII, Zagreb 1999.,str. 16-17;PREMERL, Tomislav. Moderna kojatraje. Kultura: Inventura stoljeÊa,Vjesnik, Zagreb 5.-6. I. 2000., str. 18;GALOVI∆, Kreπimir. O izgradnjiSveuËiliπne knjiænice: Secesijskoremek-djelo, Vijenac br. 171/VIII,Zagreb 21. XI. 2000., str. 22.

ti I, Leksikografski zavod MiroslavKrleæa, Zagreb, 1995., str. 626 i 540;—-. Otvorenje zgrade NSB-a - govordirektora dr. Ivana Mihela na otvore-nju Nacionalne i sveuËiliπne biblioteke28. V. 1995., »ovjek i prostor, br. 492-499, Zagreb, 1995., str. 5;STIPANOV, Josip. Nova zgrada Na-cionalne i sveuËiliπne knjiænice - pose-ban otisak iz Vjesnika bibliotekaraHrvatske, br. 1.-4., Zagreb, godinaXXXVIII/1995., str. 28-38;PASINI, Sineva. Potomak dinastijekoja je gradila Zagreb, Gloria, br. 98,Zagreb, 22. XI. 1996., str.37-40;—-. Realizacije 95. Katalog ostvarenjahrvatskih arhitekata u 1995., Udruæe-nje hrvatskih arhitekata, Zagreb,1996., str. 26;POPARA VU»ETI∆, Sandra. XIX.Meunarodni Triennale u Milanu - Hr-vatske arhitektonske priËe, Kontura,br. 45/46, Zagreb, 1996., str. 52-53; (R.), Nagrada Vladimir Nazor projek-tantima NSB, »ovjek i prostor, br.505-507, Zagreb, 1996., str. 22-23;KUSIN, Vesna. Zgrada Vlade u drugikrug, Vjesnik, Zagreb, 11. IV. 1996.,str. 19;JENDRI∆, Dorotea. Skup razliËitosti- hrvatski arhitekti na Triennalu uMilanu, VeËernji list, Zagreb, 24. IV.1996., str. 17;CRN»EVI∆, Branka. Vladina palaËadovodi Zagreb na Savu, VeËernji list,Zagreb, 29. IV. 1996.; str. 8-9;—-. Nouvelles Alexandries, Institutfrançais de Barcelone i Bibliotequenationale de France, izdanje uz izloæbudvadesetak novih zgrada knjiænica usvijetu, 1996.;JENDRI∆, Dorotea. PrepoznavanjerazliËitosti, VeËernji list, Obzor, Zag-reb, 11. V. 1997., str. 20;M., J. Predstavljena knjiga “»ovjek uprostoru” akademika Velimira Neid-hardta - Metoda svrsishodnijeg pro-jektiranja, Novi list, Rijeka, 13. XI.1997., str. 14;PREMERL, Tomislav. Simbiozaznanstvenog i umjetniËkog, »ovjek iprostor, br. 522-523, Zagreb, 1997.,str. 49;SEDLACEK, Frantisek (editor).AWA 97 - Award Winning Architec-ture, Prestel, Munich - New York,

(R.), NSB u getu?, VeËernji list, Zag-reb, 2. IX. 1991., str. 22;MAROEVI∆, Igor. Poslovne zgradeINE u Zagrebu, katalog izloæbe,Galerija Modulor, Zagreb, 1992.;PASINI, Sineva. U trbuhu hrvatskepameti, DANICA br. 19. u NovomVjesniku, Zagreb, 9. IX. 1992.; str.14B-15B;STUPARI∆, Di. Posjet zgradi biblio-teke, Novi Vjesnik, Zagreb, 11. XII.1992., str. 27c;R. Iv., Gradnja ne smije stati, VeËer-nji list, Zagreb, 11. XII. 1992., str. 11;(R.), NSBH potkraj 1994., VeËernjilist, Zagreb, 4. III. 1993., str. 2;(R.), Gradnja NSB neÊe stati, Vjesnik,Zagreb, 4. III. 1993., str. 25;– URETEK, D. Dokaz ispravnosti hr-vatske politike - predsjednik TumanjuËer je posjetio NSB, Brodarski insti-tut i INU, VeËernji list, Zagreb, 31.III. 1993., str. 1 i 3;(R.), Naπi oslonci razvitka - Predsjed-nik Tuman posjetio NSB, Brodarskiinstitut i INU, Vjesnik, Zagreb, 31.III. 1993., str. 3.PASINI, Sineva. Nacionalna i sveuËi-liπna biblioteka - staklena kocka punaknjiga, Vjesnik, Zagreb, 3. IX. 1993.,str. 12;KULTERMANN, Udo. Architecturein the 20th century, Van NostrandReinhold, New York, 1993., str. 224-225;GREGL, Zoran et al. ZagrebaËke uli-ce, Naklada Zadro, Zagreb, 1994., str.86 i 89;BU©ELI∆, Nada. NSB - za godinudana, Vjesnik, Zagreb, 10. VI. 1994.,str. 41;—-. Naslovna stranica s prikazom spo-meniËke instalacije za kip AugustinaKaæotiÊa, Graditelj, br. 4, Zagreb,1994.;KUSIN, Vesna. Poruπena zemlja (ne)treba arhitekte - 29. ZagrebaËki salon,Vjesnik, Zagreb, 6. XI. 1994., str. 24-25;POPARA VU»ETI∆, Sandra. Utka-na u gradsku panoramu, Svijet, br.10,Zagreb, 12. V. 1995., str. 20-24;JURI©I∆, Mirjana. Do ljepotice krozTrnje, VeËernji list, Obzor, Zagreb,21. V. 1995.; —-. Enciklopedija hrvatske umjetnos-

137

Branko PrekratiÊ, Marijan Sever,Bruno ©imuniÊ, Ante ©egedinZvonko ©kunca, Milko SpaËek,Zlatko VuËiniÊ, Vlado ÆivkoviÊ.

Elevators & escalators / DizalaAntun BerkoviÊ, Nikola CindriÊ,Dalibor »izmar.

Electrical engineering /ElektrotehnikaOgnjen Bergam, Branko »orko, IvanHusar, Ivan IvankoviÊ, BrankoJurak, Marijan Klancir, Adolf Klarin,Vladimir KolariÊ, Jaroslav Kudera,Miroslav Malagurski, Ivan MenjaËki,Zvonimir MoËkoviÊ, Ivan PeÊnik,Marijan Pinhak, Vinko PeriniÊ, IvicaRadovËiÊ, Æeljko SariÊ, ZdenkoPreseËki, Miloljub VujiËiÊ, BoæidarVuletiÊ, Branka Æitnik.

Commercial, hotel and restauranttechnology / Tehnologija hotelskih,ugostiteljskih i prodajnih prostoraTereza MatiÊ, Ivanka PetroviÊ, AnteAntoniÊ, Nenad JanjiÊ, ZlatkoNovak.

Building physics & acoustics /Graevinska fizika i akustikaZdenko CrviÊ, Zlatko Leitner,Branko Somek, Vladimir ©imetin.

Fire protection / Zaπtita od poæaraKatarina Mundorfer, Josip DekoviÊ,– ura BelobrajiÊ, Zdravko Poæar,Antun KneæeviÊ, Dinko Kaleb,Magdalena AniËiÊ.

Maintenance & shelters / Odræavanjei skloniπtaIvan Valek, Radovan Volmut, MijoZagorac.

Quantity surveying / Troπkovnici inadzorMate ButoroviÊ, Zdenko CrviÊ,Dubravko LjubiÊ, Miodrag Parmak,Vesna PastuoviÊ, Veljko PeroviÊ,Zlatko Pleπko, Franjo PopËeviÊ,Stjepan Sunek, Mirjana ©aban,Vjeran ©tambuk, Hari VladoviÊ-Relja.

Landscaping / Hortikultura i oprema

Dragutin Kiπ, ©ime Ricov, KsenijaSineliÊ, Pavao Ungar, Sonja Vavra- VarjaËiÊ.

Interior design / InterijerBoæo AntunoviÊ, Slobodan JoviËiÊ,Franjo Kamenski, Zdenka MagdiÊ,Andrea MeπtroviÊ, Marko MurtiÊ,Slavica RadiÊ - VukoviÊ.

Design development captains /Nosioci arhitektonske provedbeZdenko CrviÊ, Hrvoje Davidovski,Franjo Kamenski, Aleksandar Laslo,Dunja LinariÊ, Neda Morsan,Ognjenka RaπËiÊ - MatkoviÊ,Miroslav Pak.

Architectural design collaborators /Arhitektonski suradniciEstera BaπiÊ, Sanja BeretiÊ - Æic,Vladimir BerkoviÊ, Josip BistroviÊ,Stjepan BiraË, Leonija Bubenik,Vanja Car, Zdenko Cener, JagodaCrnËeviÊ, Mirica Crnolatac, AnkicaDeliπimunoviÊ, Miro DragomanoviÊ,Antun Ester, Gordana FabijanoviÊ,Kreπimir Feleter, Æeljka Fotak,Jadranka Golik, S. Grebenar,Gordana Groman, Ruæica Hanzir -IliÊ, Ilinka Hariπ - MikiÊ, KatjaHariπ, Gordan Jelinek, KatarinaJeramaz, Miroslava JuriËev - Koæul,Biserka Kavran, Ivica Kiπ, SanjaKrniÊ, Sanja MaduniÊ, SanjaMaraviÊ, Jelena MarijanËiÊ, K.MarkoviÊ - GlavaËeviÊ, AndrejaMeπtroviÊ, Ljiljana MironoviÊ, InesMoπtak, Dora Neidhardt, RajkicaNovaËiÊ, Æeljko Novak, Viπnja Peleπ,Ljiljana PeËur, Tomislav Petrinec,Melita RaËki, Slavica RadiÊ -VukoviÊ, »edomir Ramljak, SankaRatkoviÊ, Ognjenka RaπËiÊ -MatkoviÊ, Nela Rubin, MarioSchwerer, Rada Senker, NikolinaSimiÊ, Z. Snajder, DubravkoStaniπiÊ, Ivana StipetiÊ, Mira Tadej,Darinka SoriÊ, Darko ©avoriÊ, Iva©avoriÊ, Vlasta ©egrc, Tomislav©krtiÊ, Vlatka ©utalo, JasenkaTomek, Sonja Vavra - VarjaËiÊ,Vlatka VidoviÊ, Stojan Zafauk, Z.ZrinπËak.

Other collaborators / Ostali suradnici

Marija Geæin, Jakob JeliÊ, LjubicaKangler, SreÊko MajiÊ, LoraNeidhardt, Nikola Posavec, OlgaRukavina, Ljubica Rod, MelitaSimichen, Mirjana StanËiÊ, – uraSlonjπek, Boæo ©poljariÊ, NataπaVojnoviÊ.

Models / MaketeIvan AniËiÊ, Miπo AntunoviÊ, MiroBajiÊ, Antun BrËiÊ, Stijepo GamzeljaVilim Kmoch, Slobodan KolbachBoro KovaËeviÊ, Ante Lui, VladimirMiliÊ, Darko PeterËiÊ, AlmazSarajliÊ, Ivica SusoviÊ, Toπo ©tras-berger.

Perspectives and artistic interven-tions / Perspektive i umjetniËkeobradeBranka Kaminski, Æelimir DrakuliÊ,Kreπimir Feletar, Marko Piljek,Slavica RadiÊ - VukoviÊ, SlobodanVukoviÊ, Dinko ZlatariÊ.

3-D CAD models / 3D CAD prikaziIva Kuπan, Tomislav Kuπan, DavorinFulanoviÊ, Dragutin Vukovojac.

Photographers / FotografijeDamir FabijaniÊ, Zvonimir BarbariÊ,Vilko Belijan, Petar Dabac, FjodorFatiËiÊ, Siniπa Hrg, AleksandarKaroly, Mio VesoviÊ.

Clients representatives /Predstavnici investitoraMirko Koæulj (INA - trgovina, INAd.d. Zagreb)Zdenka MagdiÊ (National andUniversity Library / NSK)Anka ©vaiÊ (Croatian Ministry ofJustice / Ministarstvo pravosuaRH)

Clients high officials / Visoki duænos-nici investitoraMiroslav Fajerbah, Ivo MaraviÊ(INA - Trgovina) Veseljko VelËiÊ, Ivan JurkoviÊ,Milan BoæiÊ, Andrija MohoroviËiÊ,Ivo Delalle, Edo ©midihen, Stipe©uvar, Petar PiskaË, Ivan Mihel,Josip Stipanov (National andUniversity Library / NSK)Davor ©tern CEO (INA d.d. Zagreb)

Coauthors / SuautoriIvan Kolbach, Biserka ©avora, IvanFraniÊ, Lujo Schwerer, BranimirVelniÊ, Ljerka LuliÊ, Jasna Nosso,Marijan HræiÊ, Zvonimir KrznariÊ,Davor Mance, Miroslav BegoviÊ.

Part-coautorship / SuautorstvodijelovaNeda Kaminski, Slavica RadiÊ-VukoviÊ.

Consultants / KonzultantiDrago GaliÊ, Ivan Bauer, Vladimir Bedenko,Miroslav BegoviÊ, Damir Boras,Ivica Fizir, Eugen FrankoviÊ, MijoGabriÊ, Andrija MohoroviËiÊ,Zvonimir RadiÊ, Josip RogliÊ, MatijaSalaj, Dubravka Skender, DionisSrebrenoviÊ, Lujo Schwerer, Neven©egviÊ, Edo ©midihen, GodfreyThompson.

Structural engineering /KonstrukcijeMijo BalenoviÊ, Filip Filipec,Vladimir Fras, Vladimir GaliÊ,Vladimir IliËkoviÊ, Zvonko JureπaDanijel Kajzer, Bruno MargitiÊ,Zdravko MikotiÊ, M. MiπiÊ, IvoPodhorsky, Æeljko RaËiÊ,Aleksandar OlujiÊ, Ivan TurËiÊ,Dragutin ©krtiÊ, Miljenko SrkoË,Anselmo TomljenoviÊ, P. ÆelaliÊ.

Transportation planning / PrometDuπko »iËovaËki, Mate JuriπiÊ,Branka PeroviÊ, Julius Pevalek,Damir Poloπki.

Civil engineering / Ceste, temeljenjei vodotehnikaKreπimir BoæiÊ, Alojzije Car, Damir»orko, Damir DevËiÊ, VladimirKrivoπiÊ, Mladen ©ribar, DragutinVukovojac, Marko Vrkljan.

Mechanical engineering / TermotehnikaAnte Bailo, Slavimir Brachtel, PetarDonjerkoviÊ, Rudolf DragoviÊ,Miodrag DrakuliÊ. MiroslavFilipoviÊ, Zdravko KoporËiÊ, SlavkoMamiÊ, Boris Masnec, Ratko PeËariÊ,Branko Peh, Nikola Planinπek,

Projects contributors / Sudionici projekata

139

Photographs / FotografijeMio VesoviÊ cover / naslovnica, 14. Aleksandar Karoly 16, 31, 33, 44-45,47.Vilko Belijan 20, 23-24.Petar Dabac 27-28.Velimir Neidhardt 40-41, 89, 110.Marija Braut 41.Siniπa Hrg 57, 69.Damir FabijaniÊ 59, 61-67, 75, 77, 79-83, 92-93, 107, 121.Kreπimir TadiÊ 81.

Drawings / CrteæiBranka Kaminski 49,51-54, 69, 71, 78,85, 87, 90-91, 94, 95, 102.Slavica RadiÊ VukoviÊ 75-76.Kreπimir Feletar 84.Marko Piljek 96.Davor Mance 97.

3-D CAD models / Digitalni prikaziTomislav i Iva Kuπan 98, 100-101,108-109, 112-113, 118-119.

Illustration credits / Izvori slikovnog materijala

Architectural design studio /Druπtvo s ograniËenom odgovornoπÊu za arhitekturu

Founded / osnovano 1996.Ilica 26, HR-10000 Zagreb

Juraj Neidhardt1901 - 1979

Franjo Neidhardt1907 - 1984

Anja Neidhardt1936

Velimir Neidhardt1943

Tatjana Neidhardt1945

Dora Neidhardt1970

Architects within the family / Arhitekti u obitelji

142

This issue was sponsored by /Ovo izdanje omoguÊili su:

Ministry of Culture — Republic of Croatia / Ministarstvo kulture Republike Hrvatske

I.C.F. d.o.o. Investicije / Konzalting / Financije, 10000 Zagreb, A. von Humboldta 4B

Podne obloge d.o.o. HR - 10000 Zagreb, KaraπiËka 22a

VELIMIR NEIDHARDT was born in Zagreb, 7 October1943. He earned his B.Sc. in Architecture at theUniversity of Zagreb in 1967. He spent one academicyear, 1974-75, at Harvard University and, partly, MIT asthe Zlatko and Joyce BalokoviÊ Scholar. This was fol-lowed by an invitation to work in the Skidmore, Owingsand Merrill Architectural Design Studios in Chicago 1975-76. He was elected Full Member (Academician) of theCroatian Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1991. For hisworks he has been awarded many prizes such as theVladimir Nazor Awards for excellence in architecture forthe years 1989 and 1995, the Viktor KovaËiÊ Award forexcellence in architecture for the year 1979. His majorcompetition first prizes have been executed, such as theNational and University Library Building in Zagreb, theCity Centre I of Banja Luka in Bosnia and Herzegovina(with coauthors), and the INA Petroleum CompanyOffice Building in Zagreb. His book dealing with theanthroposocial method of design entitled Man in theEnvironment (»ovjek u prostoru) was published in 1997.He is a long-standing member and President (1995-99) ofthe Croatian Architects Association and an Associate ofthe American Institute of Architects. He earned his Ph.D.in 1990 from the Faculty of Architecture, ZagrebUniversity. In 1994 he joined the full-time faculty staff asAssociate Professor of Architecture, with courses onOffice and Commercial Buildings. Neidhardt has estab-lished his own architectural design firm NEIDHARDTarhitekti d.o.o. in Zagreb, and since 1996 continued bothpractising and teaching architecture. In 1999 he wasappointed Full Professor of Architecture.

VELIMIR NEIDHARDT roen je 7. listopada 1943. uZagrebu. Diplomirao je 1967. na Arhitektonskom fakulte-tu SveuËiliπta u Zagrebu. Akademske godine 1974.-75.boravio je kao stipendist fondacije "Zlatko i JoyceBalokoviÊ" u SAD na sveuËiliπtu Harvard, s dijelom pro-grama na sveuËiliπtu MIT. Nakon toga, do svibnja 1976.djelovao je u atelijerima Skidmore, Owings i Merrill uChicagu. Od 1991. akademik je - redoviti Ëlan Hrvatskeakademije znanosti i umjetnosti. Za stvaralaπtvo je dobi-vao viπe priznanja, meu kojima su nagrade “VladimirNazor” za najbolja ostvarenja 1989. i 1995. godine, tenagrada “Viktor KovaËiÊ” za najbolje arhitektonskoostvarenje u 1979. Neidhardtovi natjeËajni projekti na-graeni su prvim nagradama i ostvareni, primjerice, novazgrada Nacionalne i sveuËiliπne knjiænice u Zagrebu i naj-uæe gradsko srediπte s robnom kuÊom “Boska” i viπe-namjenskim domom kulture u Banja Luci (sa suautori-ma), te Poslovna zgrada INA Trgovine u Zagrebu. U svo-joj knjizi “»ovjek u prostoru”, objavljenoj 1997., postavljaantroposocijalnu metodu projektiranja. Zasluæni je Ëlan ipredsjednik Udruæenja hrvatskih arhitekata (1995.-99.),te pridruæeni Ëlan AIA (Associate of the American Insti-tute of Architects). Godine 1990. stekao je stupanj dokto-ra znanosti na Arhitektonskom fakultetu u Zagrebu, a od1994. zapoËinje predavati predmet Zgrade za rad i trgo-vinu u svojstvu izvanrednog profesora. Neidhardt 1996.osniva tvrtku za arhitekturu NEIDHARDT arhitektid.o.o. u Zagrebu, te usporedno vodi vlastiti arhitektonskiatelijer i predaje na Arhitektonskom fakultetu na kojemje 1999. izabran za redovitog profesora.

FEDJA VUKI∆ was born in 1960. He graduatedfrom the Department of Art History at the Facultyof Philosophy in Zadar.He taught at the School of Applied Arts and Designin Zagreb from 1987 till 1994 and has been teachingat the University of Zagreb School of Design since1994.He has published articles, critical reviews and orig-inal scientific papers in the fields of fine arts, visualcommunications and the history of modern archi-tecture and design in various Croatian and interna-tional periodicals, daily newspapers and magazines.In 1995 he was awarded a grant from TheWolfsonian Foundation in Miami Beach for hisresearch project on the History of ItalianAdvertising in the First Half of the 20th century.He was an editorial staff member of the architec-tural magazine »ovjek i prostor, and has been onthe staff of the art magazine Æivot umjetnosti since1993. He is also a member of Croatian section ofAICA.VukiÊ has published several monograph studies onCroatian architects and artists.In 1996 he published the book A century of CroatianDesign (both on Croatian and English). In 1997 anexhibition based on that book was staged in theKloviÊevi dvori Gallery in Zagreb.VukiÊ is a founding member of IDC - InternationalDesign Center (1998).

FEDJA VUKI∆, povjesniËar umjetnosti, roen je1960. godine. Diplomirao je na Filozofskom fakulte-tu u Zadru 1984. Pohaao je poslijediplomski studijna Filozofskom fakultetu u Zagrebu od 1985. do1987.Nastavnik je na ©koli primijenjene umjetnosti idizajna u Zagrebu od 1987. do 1994., a zatim je pre-davaË na Studiju dizajna na Arhitektonskom fakul-tetu SveuËiliπta u Zagrebu.U hrvatskoj i inozemnoj struËnoj periodici te dnev-nom, tjednom i revijalnom tisku objavljuje Ëlanke,kritike, recenzije kao i izvorne znanstvene radove izpodruËja likovnih umjetnosti, vizualnih komunikaci-ja, povijesti moderne arhitekture i dizajna.Stipendist je Zaklade Wolfsonian u Miami Beachu1995. godine sa znanstvenim istraæivanjem:Povijest talijanske reklame u prvoj polovici XX.stoljeÊa.»lan je uredniπtva Ëasopisa Æivot umjetnosti od1993. te Ëlan uredniπtva Ëasopisa »ovjek i prostor urazdoblju 1993.-95.»lan je Hrvatske sekcije AICA.Objavio je viπe monografija o suvremenimhrvatskim arhitektima i likovnim umjetnicima.Godine 1996. objavio je knjigu StoljeÊe hrvatskogdizajna koja je prevedena na engleski jezik snaslovom A Century of Croatian Design. Natemelju te knjige 1997. godine bila je postavljena iistoimena izloæba u Muzejskom galerijskom centruKloviÊevi dvori u Zagrebu. VukiÊ je jedan od Ëlanova utemeljitelja IDC - Meu-narodnog dizajn centra 1998.