Elderly nursing home Archa

I. IDENTIFICATION
  • Investor (key institution): The Municipality of Bratislava
  • Contact person: Authors of the project - Zuzana Žalmanová, Peter Žalman
  • Year of implementation: 2004-2007
  • Implementation venue

  • Country: Slovakia
  • Region: Bratislava
  • Town: Bratislava
  • Size of area: 1600 m2
  • Impact: regional

    Total costs: EUR

    Source per every institution

    • regional: 1 185 023 EUR
    II. TYPOLOGY
    1. Improved condition & quality of the public space between the blocks of flats.
    2. Improved support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats.
    3. Improved attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist buildings.
    4. Identified new functions for structures from the era of socialism in 1945 - 1989).
    III. DESCRIPTION
    1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas?
    2. The socialist building was built in the 1980s from the prefabricated panel blocks of flats that make up a small residential group, a block. In the socialist era, the building served as a nursery. After the change in 1990, it was rearranged to serve the needs of senior citizens. The annex building interlocks to the existing 2-floor rectangular mass of the nursery. The architecture of the facade is based on the classical principle of the wall and the gap. The link to the surrounding terrain is important – the garden is a part of the complex. The space between the new accommodation part and existing object is a connecting corridor with a relaxation center and all the facilities

    3. Was the building or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage?
    4. In the socilist period, the building served as a nursery. After he reconstruction, it is a building where the seniors are living or commuting daily in order to relax. The valuable legacy from socialism is not identical in this case, because the renovated building now serves another purposes.

    5. What criteria were applied to make this judgment?
    6. The criterion of innovativeness was applied – the building was renovated in order to provide health, relaxation and recreational services to the community of seniors. The criterion of effectiveness, the criterion of portability and related criterion of sustainable development were applied as well, in terms of quality of life of seniors and their families.

    7. Was the building or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making process about its rehabilitation or conversion?
    8. The project was important for the local community of seniors and teir families, in terms of improving their lives through the provision of services in the renovated building.

    9. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged?
    10. The building was an integral part of the urban agglomeration in the past as well. The territorial integrity was a part of architectural intention and realization even in the time of construction.

    11. Were there attempts to reduced disparities between districts within cities/towns achieved reduced? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged?
    12. There were no differences betweeen the neighbourhoods in this area even in the past.

    13. Other important facts and comments, e.g. critical review.
    14. Most occupants of the renocatev building are people affected by Alzheimer's disease.

    IV. SUPPLEMENT

    There are more than 6 000 people living in Dědina block of flats. The whole revitalization 3 -phases -process took 4 years and the total cost of the project was 11 200 000 EUR. It is one of the first completely reconstructed block of flats as far as the public spaces in Prague are concerned.

    Web site: www.dsarcha.bratislava.sk