Around some Jewish Architectural Features

Abstract

Central and Eastern Europe were always on the edge of cultural, historical, and political transformations. The constant modifications reshape the architecture and urban realm of cities and urban fabric. Structural and socio-political boundaries are affecting cultural minorities. In most cases, the effect is so critical that the cultural heritage of the minority in terms of archi-tecture and built environment is degrading. The memory, as a collective force to the reality of the city, always follows these modifications. The built environment in these complex areas rather of showing the truth (coexistence of physical realm and built form) is mutating and presenting the fragmentation of its different parts. The phenomenon of Jewish reality and settling stiles in Central and Eastern European cities, its transformations, assimilations and segregations became an operational tool for the research, to build a wider understanding of the problematic aspects. The characteristic generalisation was done in terms of the architectural settings. However, all the cases are specific and need a deep understanding of each one’s problems deeply. In Central Europe, the problem occurs in terms of segregation and closure, while in Eastern Europe, the cases of separation were presented along with condition that leads to structural integration. The Prague Ghetto in the old town, the Jewish settlements of Warsaw city and the shtetl in Eastern Europe state the criticality of the problem of memory in a wider range, from physical build one to the intangible. In Prague, due to the constant pressure of segregation and final demolition of Ghetto, the fragmented pieces of the Jewish culture in terms of a building fabric were left. The space was gone but the memory still alive. Jewish culture’s integration into Warsaw’s build form through years and final demolition of the city during the Second World War left singular architectural pieces of their complex reality in the city, as a fragmented island of memory. In contrast, Shtetl presents a case of physical form while the spirit of the place is absent. Memory as an operational tool ensures the collectiveness, as it depicts the contrast of elements within its architecture and urban form. The coexistence of different part of the city with their specific architectural character and memory ensures the fact of its completeness as a whole.