House of Culture Velenje

I. IDENTIFICATION
  • Investor (key institution): Municipality of Velenje
  • Contact person: Ms. Helena Knez, renewtown@velenje.si
  • Year of implementation:
  • Implementation venue

  • Country: Slovenia
  • Region: Savinjska stat. region
  • Town: Velenje
  • Impact: regional

    Total costs: 2407 EUR

    Source per every institution

    • regional: 481.443 EUR
    • other: 1.925.772 EUR
    II. TYPOLOGY
    1. Improved provision of local cultural and social events.
    2. Improved attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist buildings.
    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 building was/ is a product of innovative construction techniques applied with the goal of maximising external and internal aesthetic effects. The reconstruction focused on the improvements of the building's functionality and its harmonization with the 21st century legislative requirements concerning energy efficiency, disabled access, etc. The visual impression has not changed after the reconstruction.

    3. Was the building or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage?
    4. The building was proclaimed cultural heritage in 2005 (See Odlok o razglasitvi Kulturnega doma Velenje za kulturni spomenik lokalnega pomena na območju Mestne občine Velenje in Uradni vestnik MOV, nr. 21/2005). The building is registered under nr. 18560 in the Cultural Heritage Register of the Republic of Slovenia. But building per se does not demonstrate the impact of the regime from the architectural point of view because its architect followed the principles of the European architecture of the period. However, the building did serve as a demonstration of the city's wealth along with the voluntary and political power of the people for the people. Building with its surroundings is still evidence of social development and a showcase for the Yugoslav-type of socialism.

    5. What criteria were applied to make this judgment?
    6. The building was proclaimed cultural heritage in 2005. 90% of original materials were preserved in the process of reconstruction. 95% of the original documentation is still available. None of interventions damaged the original visual appearance of the building which is almost perfectly preserved (95%). Given the improved functionality, the reconstruction represents progress and not regression. It would not make sense to try and reverse it.

    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. This building is key for functioning of the main city square designed to host several thousands of people during different events. The main façade was designed as a city stage upon which grand manifestations took place (city opening, Marshall Tito's visit, visits of foreign dignitaries, etc.). Since the facility is protected as a monument, the public has not had a major impact on the revitalization of the facility. The renovation should take place in accordance with the instructions of the Institute for Protection of Monuments.

    9. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged?
    10. House of Culture is an accent element – the whole city was planned from scratch and the elements ex ante harmonized with one another. This building is one of those key for functioning of the main city square designed to host several thousands of people during mass manifestations and celebrations. The building was designed and constructed as part of a broader plan to create a unique sunny garden city for coal miners and their families following the principles of modern European architecture (e.g. Le Corbusier). Its function is very important from the quality of life viewpoint.

    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. Not relevant.

    13. Other important facts and comments, e.g. critical review.
    14. The subject was built as one of the most beautiful halls of that period in Yugoslavia. The city of Velenje is still an internationally recognised showcase of excellent urban planning and the subject is the centre of many diverse cultural activities, many of them of national importance.

    IV. SUPPLEMENT

    Web site: www.festival-velenje.si/3325