XVI, 2015/2

Editorial

This issue has papers from different areas concerning public space in Beijing and Shanghai, architectural heritage, colour, and sustainability issues in management and performing research in public space. Paper from authors Potočnik, Kobe and Kosmatin Fras presents the attitude towards colour in architectural cultural heritage (ACH) valorisation. They explored legislative as a framework for experts in practice. Papers includes brief overview of international (ICOMOS) charters and conventions in the field of ACH. Paper focus is not the technology of documentation, this issue has been already discussed in previous AR issues. Topics of the discussion are wider: relationship and importance of colour values between common (public) and declared (expert) in the field of ACH. Accuracy, precision and singularity of data have relevant role when the reproduction of the ACH monument at stake.

Continued issue of the journal content is focused in the eroding values and the discussion about the importance of the public open space. Location: China, as the most hyper-developing region in the world, so far. Hudnik paper presents selected open spaces in urban bursting cities Shanghai and Beijing. Presentation is not architectural, it is a discussion and critique borrowing the theories of socialism, global economy and sociology. Volatile hyper urbanisation goes hand in hand with laissez-faire capital. However the term of laissez-faire promote non-governmental interference in China does the opposite. Strict governmental capital control produces ideal environment for devastating open space development. Urban boom as Neville Mars describe China’s urban development promote dull narrow capital investment cycle gaining towards fast capital revenues. In the few days in January some clear signs of new global crisis were documented: China Stocks: Trading Called Off for Second Time This Week (see: The Wall Street Jounal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-stocks-trading-called-off-for-second-time-this-week-1452133928). The Hudnik paper may be a start of series of discussion papers about the role of capital investment and the role of open space. Some relation may be foud in Tuna’s paper in previous AR issue.

Our guest researcher at UL FA Juul has prepared an interesting paper about architectural interventions as part of critical spatial practice. Jull starts with the axiom that the public space should not be designed for one part of society (unilateral). Architectural research including political theory gives the paper good framework and starting point to transcript theory in practice. Jull has several practical examples and presents several own projects as action responses in the open public space. Those close relations are much needed in all kind of societies, democratic and “monocratic”.

Authors Vreš and Demšar Vreš are taking great concern about capital investment needs with the canons of architectural design. The project Garden Village Bled promotes glamping and make new ties between tourism and landscape architecture. Paper includes few selected international projects as best practice cases. Case studies are related with architecture, landscape architecture, economy, tourism and last but not least: natural and cultural diversity. They promote the term of sustainability in the manner as C. Alexander pointed: sustain and ability to sustain.

In this manner the last two papers are presented. Young colleges Pezdir and Stare were part of interdisciplinary project research team (Faculty of Economics UL, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering UL and Faculty of Architecture UL, Kaaita, d.o.o.). The aim of the project was to define sustainable management process using social innovation methods. The project was successfully finished in 2015. In the year 2016 we will put efforts to promote results of the project in practice.

Happy 2016.

The Editor