Zprávy památkové péče 2018, 78(6):565-577 | DOI: 10.56112/zpp.2018.6.03

Mladá Boleslav Templ - an evaluation of heritage property intervention

Vít Jesenský¹, Jakub Bachtík²

¹ NPÚ, ÚOP středních Čech

² NPÚ, GnŘ

In the center of the late medieval palace No. 102 in Mladá Boleslav, known as the "Templ", stands a remarkable heritage structure. Its decisive heritage renovation took place between 1969 and 1989, respectively after 1977, when the southern annexes of the palace collapsed. Following up on the previous article, which provides a detailed overview of the course of the renovation, this study deals with an evaluation of the actual heritage property intervention itself and its theoretical and methodological context. The aim of the research was to contribute to resolving questions that are not purely theoretical but are of fundamental importance for the execution of heritage care as a practical field: How does one evaluate a heritage property event / intervention, especially qualitatively? When can we say that an intervention has been successful, and why? What are the characteristics of a heritage property intervention, and what criteria do we use to determine its quality and effectiveness? How do we go about examining them?
Simply from an analysis of basic domestic and foreign literature, one could make the claim that, unlike the research of the inherent values of a heritage property itself, the process of evaluating a heritage property intervention is an unexpectedly unresolved topic in the fields of heritage care theory and methodology. Numerous texts devoted to the concept of heritage property intervention (Hauser) almost always address the advance planning of such interventions; they neglect, however, a systematic analysis of events already executed.
In the research theses, the purpose of research of a systematic evaluation of an intervention was defined as a decisive tool for controlling the practical steps of heritage care and, consequently, of its results - the condition of the properties, the related context, and the behavior and actions of the persons involved. The axiological model as elaborated earlier (Jesenský) became the basic starting point. In it, heritage care is conceived as a systematic realization of the value relationship between subject and object, whereas the helical process of recognizing signs based on a pre-understanding of their meanings is characterized, as is the assignment of value - the degree of significance and its realization - the function. What is decisive is the differentiation of the stage of objective discovery and, predominantly, of the subjective assignment of value. We consider attempts to rationalize evaluations in the form of classification and computations to be problematic; we emphasize a verbal interpretation. To objectify the process of subjective decision-making, we propose a more comprehensive and structured understanding of the historical artifact and the process of evaluation and intersubjective solutions. The evaluator himself, and his value profile, are an important factor in the evaluation process and also must be explored and influenced.
An evaluation of a heritage property intervention can be done in two ways: by evaluating the result, respectively the condition "before" and "after", or by evaluating the intervention process. A comprehensive evaluation must address both. The condition (current state) of a property can be expressed by its heritage value, something which changes after each intervention. A good intervention is one that increases the heritage value of the property. A change in the heritage value occurs under the influence of changes in the signs of the property (including the signs of context), respectively a change of the evaluating entity - its value profile. The cause of the complexity of the evaluation process is the not fully objective nature of the acquired knowledge and not so much the intellectual cognitive evaluation method, in its complex thinking process. At the same time, it is necessary to realize that in the case of the evaluation of an already ongoing intervention, we are dealing with three value stages: during the design of the intervention, after its completion, and during a new evaluation as part of our research. For the outline of our evaluation, we have compiled a working set of meanings and associated types of partial values and signs for our particular case. The process of evaluating a heritage property intervention must address two tasks: 1) assessing whether the objectives and resources were properly defined, and 2) assessing whether the objectives were met and the resources used appropriately. The objective is based on the priorities of the more general visions as well as the specific possibilities, including the heritage value of the property. By resources, we mean planning, activities (recognizing and documenting, maintenance and renovation, use and presentation), personnel institutional and organizational safeguards, and financing. An evaluation of their determination and selection must focus primarily on their compliance with the objectives.
What follows is the application of these theses for the specific evaluation of the renovation of the Templ in 1969-1989 as a heritage property intervention. An evaluation of the change of partial heritage values is carried out, including an assessment of the authenticity and integrity of the property's signs.Since the objectives, but also the values and, of course, the value profile of the event's petitioners and implementers were not explicitly expressed previously, we had to use a reconstruction of them based on their expressed communication (condition of the property, behavior of named persons).
The evaluation summary acknowledges the lack in the minimum evaluation of personnel-related institutional responsibility for the procedure and outcome of the intervention.
In the chapter devoted to a critical evaluation of the partial tasks and methods of research, the authors admit the time and professional constraints as well as the subsequent insufficiently executed surveys of the economic evaluation of the entire event (the need to elaborate the relatively broad context of the period's socialist economy and its documents) as well as lack of evaluation of concrete analogical examples for comparison. One of the most important shortcomings, however, is the considerable degree of resignation to the research of the social factor of the event, the interpretation of the social context, the functioning of the institutions, the relation of the users, visitors, and inhabitants to the given property, their value profile, emotional ties, method of use, etc.
The research results are a reflection of the more general limits of the domestic development of the field of theory and methodology of heritage care, which are based, among other things, in the minimalist research community and its corresponding background.

Keywords: Mladá Boleslav, Templ, history of heritage care, heritage value, heritage care theory, evaluation of heritage property interventions

Published: December 1, 2018  Show citation