Architectural Symbols of a City – Case Study

Abstract

The identity of a city is understood as a collection of individual features, which give the city its individual character and distinguish it from other places; it undoubtedly constitutes a cultural value, which should be cherished. A city is made special thanks to its geographical location, landscape values, urban layout and – architecture. In the case of Sopot – a spa located on the Bay of Gdansk, the mosaic of the above-mentioned features has created a unique image of a seaside resort. Sopot architecture is distinguished by a complex of buildings dating back to the turn of the 20th century, which is the largest one in the country. The architecture of the city is dominated by eclectic influences, mainly Neo-gothic and Art-Nouveau, as well as early modernism; it is also possible to find examples of holiday architecture, with characteristic wooden verandas. The identity of a city and its image is not always permanent and unchanging in time. In the case of Sopot, only 5% of the existing buildings were damaged during the Second World War. However, the most important ones, characteristic for the city and located in its representative part, were destroyed. The war was followed by a period of economic stagnation and isolation from the free world, which lasted for almost 45 years. At that time there were no comprehensive revitalisation projects for this prestigious area of the city. The buildings constructed in the 1960s did not create an architecturally and spatially coherent urban tissue. The situation changed in 1989, when Poland regained its sovereignty. Since that time numerous investment projects have been carried out in Sopot, including the prestigious ones, located in the representative part of the city. This paper has been devoted to Sopot architecture – both historic and modern, the dominating architectural trends and the issues connected with the coexistence of “the old and the new”. The buildings characteristic for the city, historic and modern ones, which constituted (or constitute at present) important landmarks in the urban area, and which were (or still are) the city symbols, have been analysed. Unfortunately, some of the buildings constructed over the last 25 years in the representative part of the city are not consistent with its unique character. The decisions made by investors, architects, city authorities and the monument preservation office may have serious negative effects; they may cause degradation of urban space and, as a result, harm its image. In the summary of this paper possible dangers connected with realising investments in the most important city locations, the ones with historic context, have been indicated, and recommendations aimed at elimination of such dangers have been presented. The priority – particularly in cities with an established, unique image – should be to ensure that architectural and cultural heritage is preserved, while new architecture should speak with modern language and introduce new values to its historic surroundings.