Klaipėdos urbanistinė raida 1945-1990

LTMiesto fenomeno, žmogaus veiklos jame tyrimai Lietuvoje gal ir nebėra pirminėje fazėje, tačiau vis dar smarkiai veikiami bendrosios politinės konjunktūros. XX a. dviejų paskutinių dešimtmečių sandūroje Lietuvoje būta akivaizdaus žinių apie ikikarinę šalies miestų praeitį „alkio". Projektuojant tęstinumą su ikikarine Lietuva, iš primestos santvarkos grįžtant į „normalybę", siejamą su tąja Lietuva, keli intensyvios pokarinės kaitos dešimtmečiai buvo pasmerkti taip, kaip yra pasmerkiamas bet koks „senojo režimo" laikotarpis, vykstant radikaliai politinei transformacijai. Ieškant galimybių atkurti tarybiniais metais išniekintą „savąjį" kultūrinį klodą, natūraliai augo dėmesys ikikarinei miestų kultūrai. Tačiau, viena vertus, kardinalus „nesavos" praeities atmetimas XX a. 9-10-uoju dešimtmečiais nebuvo įgyvendintas. 2014-2015 m. geopolitinių įvykių fone aktualizuoti Vilniaus Žaliojo tilto, tarybinių veikėjų skulptūrų ir miestų toponimikos keitimo klausimai rodo, kad desovietizacija Lietuvoje neįvyko tokiu mastu, kad prie šio klausimo nebereikėtų grįžti. Antra vertus, skubotas tarybinės epochos pasmerkimas tebegramzdina į užmarštį daugelį su šia epocha siejamų fenomenų. O tai savo ruožtu sukuria situaciją, kurioje vangiai apmąstomi tarybiniu laikotarpiu Lietuvoje vykę sociokultūriniai pokyčiai. Kol grįžimas į neseną praeitį visuomenei tebėra skausmingas, nesugebame adekvačiai apmąstyti ir to, kas tarybiniu laikotarpiu buvo sukurta. [...]. [Iš Įvado]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Miesto planavimas; Urbanizacija; Town planning.

ENKlaipeda's urban development from 1945 to 1990 has almost no meaningful connection to the earlier time period as far as conditions and means of implementation. Industrial enterprises, land, and other economic resources were nationalized. The entire initiative for urban development was in the hands of government institutions. The most important decisions, having the biggest influence on the city's expansion and redevelopment, were not made at the lower levels of the chain of command in Klaipėda or Vilnius, but at the highest levels of governmental organs in Moscow. The local government had very little influence on these decisions, especially during the first decades after the war. Massive resources in the 50s and 60s were thrown into the fishing industry, enterprises related to building and maintaining the fishing fleet, and into the industrial expansion of fishing depots, oil depots and coal processing plants. For this reason, Klaipėda became not only a strong industrial center, but also a meaningful port for export services, and an important intermediate point in the Western-Eastern European axis of communication. During the 1960s, the local and republic governments tried to take the initiative into their own hands. Attempting to slow down the growth of local demand and the expansion of industry that ignored capacities, Klaipeda's growth began to be intentionally limited. For this reason, the postulated model of city expansion at that time, and its most important elements - the linear structural plan and the territorial development to the south - were not fully realized. Nevertheless, the fundamental forces behind the city's development had been put into effect earlier, so the Lithuanian architects planning Klaipėda faced their greatest challenge in adapting to the environment created by these forces.They had to make planning decisions that took into account the consequences of the establishment of complexes such as the Baltija shipyard, the oil depot, the Western boat repair enterprise and the USSR-GDR international ferry terminal. The systematic creation of a humanized environment only became possible in the 60s and 70s with the founding of professional organizations in Klaipeda that could offer urban development plans that paid attention to local facts and conditions. They were the response to Klaipeda's earlier development that had been based on a schematic and standardized arsenal of decisions. The most important catalyst of Klaipeda's urban expansion, and a prioritized site in planning during the Soviet period, has to be the manufacturing zone which expanded with industries under the control of the Union. It is paradoxical that the planning and development of these manufacturing zones was fundamentally dictated by the decisions of the city itself, but local architects did not have a significant role in the actual planning. It was merely left for them to decide where to find living space for the huge number of industrial workers, how to establish a services complex to minimally satisfy workers' needs, to create new roads to access the industries, to expand the flow of public transport and traffic in existent roads, and so on. Following the path of development laid out for Klaipėda by the Union resulted in decisions such as the hurried building up of Leningrad-designed standardized housing projects in the city center, many of which were made for workers from the Baltija shipyard, the port and other workers for Soviet industries. Similar housing projects were the fishing port's residential area, the current Naikupė and Minija streets neighborhood with architecturally pseudo-historical houses, and so on.The appearance of this kind of industry, in turn, required the expansion of transportation corridors (the current Naujosios Uosto - Pilies - Minijos streets connection, P. Lideikio Street , Jūrininkų Avenue and others), and the destruction of others (Nemuno St., once a connection between Uosto St. and Melnragė). The decision to give the Maisto factory territory to the expansion of the fishing port essentially changed the strategy of Klaipeda's development, transforming the city's characteristic clearly radial plan into a linear plan. Because of the extensive industrial expansion that dominated the Soviet period, most of Klaipeda's enterprises had to expand territorially, "overflowing" their initially demarcated borders. It was mostly local enterprises that had to transfer from one place to another; Soviet-controlled and heavy industries transferred their production facilities only in exceptional cases ("Syrius" for example). The relocation of the major source of pollution in the city center - the cellulose and cardboard factory - was never realized. For this reason, in those zones in which the Soviet-controlled manufacturing plants expanded, it was necessary to sacrifice old buildings, street plans and infrastructure, to form entirely new city sectors servicing the needs of industry. [...]. [From the publication]

• Menotyra / Arts
• Istorija / History