Sovietinės architektūros paveldas naujų politinių įtampų fone : apie Vilniaus koncertų ir sporto rūmų (nu)vertinimą

LTStraipsnyje siekiama aptarti su Vilniaus koncertų ir sporto rūmų (toliau – VKSR) vertinimu susijusias politines įtampas; parodoma, jog argumentacijos ypatumų analizė gali padėti aiškiau suvokti paveldo vertinimo tendencijas. Nuo 2004 m., kai didžiąją dalį rūmų akcijų iš Lietuvos profesinių sąjungų konfederacijos įsigijusi bendrovė netrukus jas pardavė Šveicarijoje registruotai bendrovei, šio architektūrinio komplekso likimas ėmė priklausyti nuo pragmatinių ir ideologinių interesų. Iš pradžių „sovietmečio reliktą“ siekta nugriauti ir jo vietoje pastatyti naują modernų statinį. Kai 2006 m. Kultūros paveldo departamento (toliau – KPD) dėka rūmų griovimas buvo užkardytas, kito ir su statiniu susijusios intencijos. Šiandien dažniausiai kalbama ne apie „moraliai pasenusių“ VKSR eliminavimą, bet apie istorines vertes ir skelbiama, kokiais būdais statinys bus pritaikomas ateities reikmėms. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Vilniaus plėtra ir europinė integracija; Urbanistinis vajus; Vilniaus koncertų ir sporto rūmų įvaizdis; Daugiafunkcinis centras; Visuomenės interesas; Viešojo ir privataus sektorių bendradarbiavimas; Development and European integration of Vilnius; Urban campaign; Image of the Vilnius Palace of Concerts and Sports; Multifunctional centre; Public interest; Cooperation of public and private sectors.

ENPolitical rhetoric is becoming an important component in the process of urban cultural planning. For example, in the context of the development of the Lithuanian capital of the new millennium, like elsewhere, there were repeated calls for modernization, improvement of investment climate, attracting tourists and highly skilled specialists. All that was related to the intentions to construct (or reconstruct) large public buildings and new complexes and the need for European integration. The Vilnius municipality was planning to establish a multifunctional centre of culture for the approaching important events – celebration of national anniversaries (The Millennium Programme in 2009) and international meetings of the EU (in 2013, Lithuania had the presidency of the European Union). At the same time, there were attempts to demolish the old buildings often symbolizing the Soviet era (thus making way for new constructions on the capital’s prestigious sites) or renovate and adapt them for new needs. Private companies engaged in commercial construction, identified with the city’s modernization, became an important player of post-Soviet urbanism. This article is devoted to the discussion of political tensions regarding the assessment of the Vilnius Palace of Concerts and Sports (VKSR); it is shown that the analysis of argumentation can help us realize more clearly the tendencies of heritage assessment. From 2004, when the company that had acquired the larger part of the palace’s stocks from the Lithuanian Trade Union Confederation sold them to a company registered in Switzerland, the fate of this architectural complex began to depend on pragmatic and ideological interests.In the beginning, there were plans to pull down the “relic from the Soviet times” and build a new modern building on that site. When in 2006 the demolition process was stopped by the efforts of the Department of Cultural Heritage, the intentions regarding that building changed. The public image of the palace changed according to the court rulings. For example, when the building was due for demolition, and later the resolution of the council of the Department of Cultural Heritage was contested in court, the object was deemed to be abandoned worthless ruins. When the court finally ruled out the demolition of the palace, plans emerged to renew this object with the help of EU funds and convert it into a congress centre corresponding to international standards. Thus from 2006 the image of VKSR as a valuable heritage object began to be escalated in the media. Today, rather than talking about the elimination of the “morally outdated” VKSR, its historical value and the ways in which the building could be adapted for future purposes are discussed. Therefore, the change of the image of cultural buildings important in the Soviet era is unavoidably affected by the pragmatic circumstances of post-Soviet privatization, though the aspect of heritage ideologization is not less important. [From the publication]