Regeneration of the block of flats in Fifejdy I .- Ostrava

I. IDENTIFICATION
  • Investor (key institution): Statutory City of Ostrava- Urban District Marianské Hory and Hulváky
  • Contact person: Ing. arch. Liana Janáčková , mayor, janackova@marianskehory.cz
  • Year of implementation: 2002
  • Implementation venue

  • Country: Czech Republic
  • Region: Ostrava
  • Town: Ostrava
  • Size of area: 205 m2
  • Impact: local

    Total costs: 3563 EUR

    Source per every institution

    • national: MMR (Ministry of Local Development) - 1 169 EUR EUR
    • other: The city of Ostrava - 2 394 EUR EUR
    II. TYPOLOGY
    1. Improved condition & quality of the public space between the blocks of flats.
    2. Improved involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter.
    III. DESCRIPTION
    1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas?
    2. Public discussion about the project with residents of the target area consider as a new significant experience. During the public meetings it was evident that the lack of experience with the management of discussion on this subject is missing both on the side of the citizens and on the site of representatives of the Town Hall. The citizens expressed a strong distrust, especially in the declared benefits of regeneration but not only in this particular area but also in the other projects presented in other locations. Investor underestimated the need to engage an experienced moderator who is necessary for leading the substantive discussion of that kind.

    3. Was the building or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage?
    4. No. The project is not just about the reconstruction of the residential houses. In this particular case, the rebuilding of heat exchangers to the city library was carried out, renovation and insulation of primary school was made, including the reconstruction of the playing field. The whole settlement was assessed as a part of the city, not as a specific area.

    5. What criteria were applied to make this judgment?
    6. (300 - 600 characters)

    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. see point 1.

    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 initiative for the implementation of the project came from the Municipality at the time of the announcement of the Program for regeneration of housing estates MMR (NV 494/2000). The project aims mainly at rehabilitation of public housing area in terms of clear determination and visual identification of the individual areas- division of the area into the public, semi-public and private space with a clear boundary. A significant (accented by the residents) task of the regeneration was to improve the inner transport area (including parking). Communications were divided into pedestrian, cycling and those designed for motor vehicle and they were all linked into the existing urban network.

    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. The improvement of the whole space between block of flats both from the urban perspective and from the social perspective is clearly visible and is welcomed by the local residents. Furthermore, the principle of hierarchy and classification of the spaces was applied. A significant positive aspect of this project is the homogeneity of the property and houses, which allowed to proceed systematically, i.e. in the first place a home repair was applied and afterwards came the modification of surfaces and subsequent communications. In the long-term effect, the housing estate gradually acquire the reputation of "a good address". Weak point is this area is vandalism. This implies the need for increased care and supervision of the site, which is not entirely successful.

    13. Other important facts and comments, e.g. critical review.
    14. The project shows the need for long-term cooperation of all property owners in the area. It is necessary to maintain the communication with citizens in the long term and take care not only of the project itself, but especially of the subsequent maintenance and supervision of the individual components. In particular, the project demonstrate the need to pay attention to planting a green vegetation which is not demanding in terms of regular maintenance and also to consider the use of the material for the game components (mainly wooden).

    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: