Reading Warsaw's complicated urban tissue

city as organism new visions for urban life 22nd ISUF International Conference|22-26 september 2015 Rome Italy edited by Giuseppe Strappa Anna Rita Donatella Amato Antonio Camporeale 1 U+D edition Rome as Organism Heritage and Historical Fabric Landscape and Territory Sustainable Design and Urban Regeneration city as organism new visions for urban life 22nd ISUF International Conference|22-26 september 2015 Rome Italy edited by Giuseppe Strappa Anna Rita Donatella Amato Antonio Camporeale Rome as Organism Heritage and Historical Fabric Landscape and Territory Sustainable Design and Urban Regeneration 1 U+D edition Rome ISBN 97888941188-1-0 May 2016 DiAP DiAP Dipartimento di Architettura e Progetto https://web.uniroma1.it/dip_diap/ U+D urbanform and design online journal http://www.urbanform.it/ lpa Laboratorio di Lettura e Progetto dell’Architettura via A. Gramsci, 53 https://web.uniroma1.it/lpa/ DRACo Dottorato di Ricerca in Architettura e Costruzione via A. Gramsci, 53 https://web.uniroma1.it/dottoratodraco/ Contacts email: [email protected] Urban Regeneration Reading Warsaw’s complicated urban fabric Aleksander Lupienko Institute of History, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw (Poland) Keywords: urban history, 19-20th centuries, urban layers, urban tissue destruction, urban planning Abstract Looking at the Warsaw building blocks may be a confusing experience. Layers from different historical periods are scattered around the city, making up only parts of urban blocks. They often dovetail with each other, but are stylistically incongruous. One of the reasons was the unclear building regulations, due to the political situation (the city was under Russian rule), and virtually no urban policy during the formative for the urban fabric years. From 1918 the situation changed, but the mass of building blocks was too huge to deal with by the authorities of an independent, yet poor state. WW2 caused mass destruction of Warsaw urban tissue, which gave the opportunity for big-scale interventions, in favor of communication and representation. Many historical urban blocks were according to the CIAM rules dismantled. Finally, from the 1970s the policy changed again and new buildings were supposed to ill in the gaps in the street fronts, rather than to blow up urban blocks. In my paper I will provide an analysis of some building blocks history and try to evaluate the inal outcome of city fabrics twisted growth. The result is a chaos in buildings heights and styles, but it also plays an informative role. One has to keep in mind, that the irregularity of urban blocks fabric was always one of Warsaws hallmarks. It may be also presumed that the uniformity of street fronts (as in case of, say, Paris or Vienna) is not the only possible pattern of urban growth. city as organism|new visions for urban life 551 Introduction and methodology The subject of Warsaw urban fabric is broad and I don’t intend to describe its development in a detailed way. This paper provides only a brief outline with some remarks of a historian and an analysis of a group of Warsaw’s urban blocks. The main points to which I will adhere include the question of main axes of Warsaw urban development, the problem of urban interventions, and that of urban tissue’s ‘reduction’. I will argue that the urban fabric of Warsaw’s centre is multi-layered with layers stemming from different periods, when different rules of political, economic and technical development prevailed. These rules marked the forms of the plot, as well as the urban fabric and can be traced as ‘historical urban layers’. What is more, because of the urban fabric ‘reductions’, each historical layer is still very visible in the city image. These layers don’t always conlict with each other: they can be seen as parts of one mosaic. Such parts are sometimes quite different in their size, colour and material, but the image they create can be perceived as coherent. I will examine the urban fabric development in the centre of Warsaw, the rules of outlining the streets and the way the plots were being built up. Crucial to that is the political change which altered these rules throughout the last centuries. We can trace such changes by examining the written sources (related to urban regulations, as well as state and municipal interventions), and examining the sequence of detailed city plans. Warsaw’s sources were terribly damaged during the war of 1939–1945, but it is still possible to delve into the urban planning rules. There are also good city plans from 1867, 1897 (the so called Lindley Plan, made for the purposes of a new sewer system), 1930 and from the post-war times. The results of the Warsaw’s urban fabric development can therefore be seen today and interpreted. Forming process 552 First I will examine the question of the axes of growth. Warsaw, the capital of the ‘Republic of the nobles’ (it obtained this status in late 16th century) evolved from two late medieval cities along the main communication route in the North-South direction, connecting Warsaw with Cracow, the former capital. The so called ‘Royal Route’ leading southwards, alongside the Vistula river, was the most developed urban part outside the walls in the 18th century. Many of city’s great nobles’ manors, which were characteristic for Warsaw, many churches with their parvis, as well as two royal residences with their avant-courts were all strung on this main axis. Although the roads leading west were numerous, they were narrower and less important. It was only in the nineteenth century when a process of gaining in importance of EastWest routes gained momentum. A clear case in point was the carrier of an old Senatorska street, which began to link three newly created or reorganised squares: the one in front of the Royal Castle, the one between new Warsaw Town Hall and Theatre, and a square neighbouring new ediices housing economical institutions. Other roads followed, including a new (1824) major thoroughfare of Aleje Jerozolimskie, to the south from the centre. The process of sprawling of the urban tissue towards West and South was conditioned also by location of the main railroad station (1845), and the building of a Citadel at the northern edge of the city after the 1830-31 uprising (the Citadel blocked the urban development in the northern direction). After a century of street development, a new situation became idiosyncratic for Warsaw: the underdevelopment of North-South routes. Beside the Royal Route there was the important Marszałkowska street, marked out in the 18th century, and few others, but none of them enabled a continuous passage through the city. Each of them bent or was closed by building blocks or parks. It was improved only after the city destruction in 1939–1945. The second question is the problem of urban interventions and I will describe them in a more detailed way. The whole situation of the cities in the early modern Republic was catastrophic, because city dwellers were deprived of fundamental rights (in favour of the nobles), which characterised this group in the Western Europe. The biggest city was Warsaw, but it couldn’t boast a coordinated urban policy until 1791, because it consisted of only a small medieval municipality and a ring of private towns around, which were owned by the nobles and church institutions. Each was governed and its space was planned, city as organism|new visions for urban life on a local scale. The Parliament started to impose some regulations by means of special ‘Boni Ordinis’ committees. They were obliged, though, only to maintain the existing street web in order and look after the ire safety and living conditions of the inhabitants. The only interventions in Warsaw were of private sort. It is worth stressing here the outlining, by the king, of new streets at the southern edge of the city (south from the Piękna street), consisting of three round squares connected by a system of diagonal alleys lined with trees. This system bore clear traces of the contemporary French garden designs. After the Napoleonic wars Warsaw experienced an unprecedented development in terms of spatial order. The new Polish Kingdom in union with Russia, its hegemon, was a centralistic state, in contrast to the Republic of the nobles. Warsaw gained almost all the functions of a modern capital of that times (except for the function of the royal court seat). The need for new administrative buildings and ediices housing new institutions led to numerous public orders. Some old nobles’ manors were adapted to the needs of ministerial councils and municipal authorities. There were also state interventions into the urban fabric. As mentioned above, a set of new squares was created along the Senatorska street, leading west from the medieval towns. New bank facilities and a large theatre were built there (Łupienko, 2012). The spatial order was regulated by new laws concerning the appearance of new buildings, which were controlled by a special Building Board (1817). One of many factors taken into account was the appropriateness of a building in the particular urban context. Another aim of the authorities was to prepare comprehensive regulations of the streets, beginning in 1820 and continued until 1860s. It was important because there has been virtually no such attempts before and boundaries of many plots projected into the street space. The streets were meant to be straightened and sometimes widened. A special law facilitating the expropriation for the purposes of street regulation was imposed. What is more, state and municipal funds providing cheap loans were created, to speed up the building of front houses and to promote solid bricks-and-mortar constructions with more than one loor along the main streets (Cegielski, 1971; Łupienko, 2012, p. 85). These efforts were strengthened by establishing a special Committee whose task was to draw up Warsaw’s regulative plan. Works began in 1856. Many new building lines were laid down, and some streets were widened (the most important was the widening of the northern part of the old Royal Route in 1864). The period of 1860s till 1914, in the aftermath of Polish national uprising of 1863–1864, was the most tough. All the mentioned institutions were cancelled. Warsaw, lacking municipal autonomy already from 1831, lost its chance for it until 1918. New dwellings were built according to Russian laws (partly according to the former Polish Building Code of 1820), but these rules began to be challenged after the revolution of 1905 (Roguska, 1980). In the period of 1905–1914 Warsaw saw many new tenement houses of 6 and more loors to be introduced into the old street frontages, bringing chaos into them (Zachwatowicz, 1971, p. 276). Generally speaking no major urban fabric interventions took place in the city, as the political situation (hostile attitude of the authorities towards Warsaw and ‘Congress’ Kingdom) and municipal inances didn’t allow for any ambitious attempts. The regulative work done at that time was limited to - except for the creation of a new district on the southern outskirts of the centre - outlining only some minor streets to support local communication, but also to help capitalistic laissez-faire divisions of bigger plots and speculative building of new tenements. First World War was a chance for Warsaw. The Russians were gone and new German conquerors agreed on so called ‘Great Incorporation’ of Warsaw suburbs in 1916. There was a big need for that as the city was tightly built and the suburbs were extensively urbanised, chaotic and needed badly space regulations (it was the consequence of building and maintaining a ring of fortresses around the centre from the 1880s). After 1918, when new Polish authorities inally gained full sovereignty in Warsaw, a new policy towards city growth began to be worked out. Architects and urban planners had at last an opportunity to draft a regulative plan, the irst comprehensible study of city needs and its development prospects, with real possibility of enacting it. There is no place to study all the plans for Warsaw, I will present instead the main guidelines for the centre. Three new thoroughfares leading from North to South were proposed, by cutting through urban blocks, linking parts of existing streets, cutting part of the Saxon Garden, big 18th century city as organism|new visions for urban life 553 Figure 1. New streets marked out in 1856–1870 and 1871–1914 (black colour), after: Zachwatowicz, 1952, p. 227. 554 greenery just in the urban core, and by building overpasses above some streets going down the river slope. The plan also stressed the diagonal street pattern as the most appropriate for the city and the need for green wedges linking the outskirts with the centre. The political change let also the planners to propose new municipal land divisions, expropriating the military authorities of their numerous barracks, military ields and hospitals (it was a legacy of the Russian rulers) in favour of dwelling needs. A new body governing the spatial urban growth was created after a half-century break: City Regulation and Building Bureau (Szwankowski, 1952, p. 279; Różański 1968, p. 323–325; Kotaszewicz, 2004, p. 18). In 1928 a new Building Code was enacted. It regulated also the policy towards the parcel division and urban building process, giving the power inally into the hands of the municipality (Kotaszewicz, 2004, p. 22). The only full regulative plan for Warsaw from the interwar period was enacted in the early 30s. The centre was crossed by two major transport routes, N-S (as previously) and E-W (with a tunnel under the Saxon Garden and a new bridge). The centre was meant to be city as organism|new visions for urban life Figure 2. The selected part of the Warsaw centre according to the Lindley plan from 1897. One can see laissez-faire urban fabric (1.) consisting of many small privately owned built-up plots. The central part is still occupied by a huge 18th-century hospital. The main Royal Route is also visible (2.). 555 modernised, marked with new public institutions’ ediices (which were insuficient in number during the Russian rule) alongside the historical Royal Route and near the new boulevards to be built by the river coast. Only the minor industry and artisan workshops were to be allowed in the city core. What is more, a modern type of zoning was introduced for the irst time, with zones allowing for building heights from 9 to 22 m and the plot ratio of 50% to 70%, which was quite high, and enabled further increases in density. No attempts were made to restructure the urban core, though there were proposals made by architects (Różański, 1968, p. 329–330; Szwankowski, 1952, p. 281-282; Zachwatowicz, 1971, p. 286). There was no acts facilitating expropriation though, what made big interventions very costly. By the same token there was no possibility of changing the heights of some extraordinary tall buildings along the historical streets, by buying them and restructuring. There was also not enough money to purchase parcels to allow new greenery in the centre. What is more, each private owner of a parcel near a newly regulated street could appeal against the general urban plan. A better situation concerning municipal land ownership appeared after 1935, when numerous urban plots have been gathered by the new Warsaw administration (Szwankowski, 1970, p. 50, 59). But restructuring of the centre remained unfeasible, and the authorities abandoned any ambitious attempts to change it. The only serious discussions and designs were related to outlining a new monumental district alongside a greenery, which had previously military functions, stretching at the southern edge of the 19th century city (Pole Mokotowskie). That district could perform new functions, needed in the city. It was conceived of before 1935, but the works gained momentum after the death of the main Polish interwar leader, Józef Piłsudski and named after him. A big national sanctuary, a monument to Piłsudski and representative buildings (administrative and cultural) would be placed there. Also some sport facilities, dwellings (planned as detached buildings in contrast to the tenements in the centre), greencity as organism|new visions for urban life 556 ery and wide roads were designed there. The district would have modern, avant-garde character with strong monumental and symbolic elements (Trybuś, 2012, p. 260). The reality was much more modest. Counting the executed works, one must mention the marking out of some elements of the N-S route, the southern part of it, called the Alley of Independence (Aleja Niepodległości) (Szwankowski, 1963, p. 138–139). The other big and costly intervention was cutting through of a route from the vicinity of the old towns northwards, leading to the new dwelling district (Bonifraterska street). 10 plots were bought and 36 buildings erased (Szwankowski, 1952, p. 286–287). In the centre, though, only small interventions and corrections (made by the Warsaw Development Committee) took place at that time (Szwankowski, 1952, p. 277). It was due to the very high price of land and not suficient amount of it in possession of the municipality (Kotaszewicz, 2004, p. 32). This tiny municipal possession of land was another legacy of the Russian period, when only 4-5% of plots belonged to the city. More important new dwelling units were built alongside the river slope, as far as the centre is concerned. The major restructuring took place in the former suburbs, a ring of new districts, where enough publicly owned lands were located and which were illequipped with infrastructure. These suburbs were meant to become self-contained unities performing similar functions as the city centre. The most important newly executed dwelling complexes were built in the acquired land near the former Citadel (Żoliborz), former meadows (Saska Kępa), or around older suburbs like Mokotów. These dwelling complexes had an ambitious social aims and program (Olszewski, 1968, p. 302). This huge capitalistic city was ruined during the war. Some demolitions took place after the aerial bombardments of 1939, but it was after the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, when a planned demolition of the left-bank Warsaw took place, conducted by the Germans. The city was conquered by the Red Army in January 1945 and the decision to rebuild it was taken soon afterwards. Already in May 1945 the Capital’s Rebuilding Bureau was created. The irst plans for rebuilding Warsaw stressed the functional division between districts, treating the broadly conceived centre (Śródmieście) as an exceptional one of them, with much less dwelling functions than before. The urban fabric was destroyed, burnt or partly ruined in more than 80% in the whole left-bank city. This destruction was seen by the planners as an unimaginable chance. Not only the urban fabric was ruined, but the new government announced in October 1945 that all the land in Warsaw changes the owner, and from now on it remains in the hands of the municipality. After many decades of weak municipal stake in the urban territory, now all the state, institutional and private owners were expropriated. The Capital’s Rebuilding Bureau had the most powerful possibilities as urban planner ever, though they were limited by a large scale of damage done to the industry. In the irst comprehensive plan of 1946 the rebuilding of the previous urban fabric was abandoned (with the exceptions as below) in favour of creating a new socialistic kind of city. This city was meant to consist of hierarchically conceived parts, from neighbourhood communities, through dwelling complexes to districts. Each had its own set of public utilities. This irst plan was made by experienced planners with an explicit inspiration drew from the ideas of CIAM. The main dwelling unit of urban development was a detached block (Zarzycki, 1973, p. 71–76; Mieszkowski and Siemiński, 2002, p. 73–74). The idea of a ‘social’ dwelling complex lay behind the newly created neighbour communities. It was socialistic in its origin, with roots reaching the interwar period and the activity of Polish avant-garde movements like “Block” and “Praesens”. Egalitarian society of such dwellings should - according to the principles - meet its basic needs for good and healthy home. The same architects designed after war new complexes at the outskirts of the centre (Syrkus, 1973; Górski, 1981, p. 197–216). In 1948 new drafts for the centre stressed the importance of public gatherings space, their monumental urban frame, as well as wide, orthogonally planned routes. New buildings, dwelling complexes and public ediices had the priority over the ruined fabric, guiding the demolition scheme. Main political decisions were most crucial, and even urban planners had to stick to them. That was the time of emerging socialistic realism style in architecture. It prevailed from 1949, stressing the folk-style decorations and spatial coherence of the complexes. It affected also the urban fabric structure, as only the frontage development around inner yards was preferred, though the proposal to adapt older city as organism|new visions for urban life Figure 3. The same part of the Warsaw centre in 1945 with the plot scheme from the interwar period (the hospital already demolished and the land parcelled). Marked in red and brown is the ruined or demolished urban fabric, in blue the extant fabric, new broader streets are also marked. Scheme after Sigalin 1986. 557 back buildings that survived into such complexes was categorically rejected. New dwellings were planned by a new (1948) Workers’ Dwellings Institute (ZOR). Many discussions were invoked by the question of rebuilding the monuments from the past: what should be rebuilt and how exactly (preserving the state from 1939 or omitting subsequent changes, especially from the late 19th century)? The solution was a compromise. The rebuilding comprised both medieval cities and the axis of the Royal Route, with monuments from the 17th till the beginning of 19th century, thus restoring the regular classicist appearance of the axis (Ostrowski, 1980, p. 132–135; Zarzycki, 1968, p. 92–94). A model urban intervention of that time was the building of Marszałkowska Dwelling District (MDM) around new Constitution Square (1950–1952). Dwellings were located in the urban blocks of the southern diagonal street system, building up their edges. The walls of the Square bore marks of a screen-like structure (or a camoulage: Baraniewski, 2010, p. 62), separating new public space from the existing remains of the capitalistic city. It was the irst attempt to build space for folk ceremonies in Warsaw, conducted by the new socialistic authorities, a sort of an experimental plot for social engineering. Such dwelling complexes were built also on the site of former Ghetto in the northern district and e.g. near the Royal Route (Osiedle Kubusia Puchatka from the 1950s), what is seen in the detailed plan below (from 1993). The most important feature of that architecture was irst of all the monumentality. It can be best seen in the biggest urban investment: the Palace of Culture and Science (1952-1955), an extraordinary huge skyscraper in a form of a Moscow-style tower, inserted at the core of Warsaw. A huge parade square, city as organism|new visions for urban life Figure 4. The same part of the city in 1993 (fragment of a contemporary map). 1. the remnants of the 19th-century urban fabric; 2. the main Royal Route; 3. urban fabric from the 1950s (with street frontage); 4. the Osiedle Kubusia Puchatka dwelling complex, mentioned in the text; 5. the Palace of Culture with its huge Parade Square; 6. the ‘East Wall’ complex; 7. detached housing complexes from the late 1950s until 1970s (among others the Grzybów complex mentioned in the text). 558 probably the largest in Europe, was created around it and named after Joseph Stalin. Also the scale of executed central routes was unprecedented. 1947 saw the creation of a E-W route through the centre, leading partially in a tunnel under the historical Royal Route, facilitating for the irst time the communication throughout the city. Also the route N-S was created in three lines: Marszałkowska street was lengthened through the Saxon Garden and further north; a partially brand new thoroughfare was created lengthening the existing line of the Independence Alley. Later a third route by the river was built. The extant pre-war parts of the routes were also widened. After 1956 the socialist-realistic phase of urban planning was over. Frontage development was criticised by the theoreticians (Chmielewski, 2002, p. 108). New period was dominated by central economic planning (which had the priority before the spatial one), in the pace of new 5-year economic plans. The intention of reducing the dwelling function of the centre was forgotten, what could be seen in the general plan of 1956 (Mieszkowski and Siemiński, 2002, p. 104). There was also no urban regulations in the strict sense. Only the functions of urban blocks were regulated, not the building heights (Chmielewski, 2002, p. 128). Architects were preparing their designs according to strict standards, which made their architecture uniform, that is, less dealing with the urban context. The empty space around big detached blocks was perceived as anonymous and was being devastated by the inhabitants (Basista, 2001). According to the plan of 1956, new dwellings were introduced in the centre with the aim of urban densiication and deployment of existing urban infrastructure. This way new complexes of medium height or high detached blocks were built in the northern centre (which will be seen below): Mirów - started before, Grzybów, Mariańska, Emilia, and Złota, city as organism|new visions for urban life Srebrna, Miedziana to the west (these complexes began to be visible in the mid-60s1). The complex Plac Teatralny was located near the rebuilt historical ediices near the Theatre Square. There were also many smaller insertions in the ‘holes’ of existing street frontages. All this was due to the growing population of Warsaw, which was becoming worrying for the authorities (Chmielewski, 2002, p. 110–112). Districts were still seen as self-contained unities with all the social and commercial utilities. The main new dwelling complexes were located still in the old centre and the height of some high-rise buildings surpassed already 10 loors. The complex which was seen as important for that period was the so called ‘East Wall’, i.e. the eastern side of the Parade Square (former Stalin Square). First dwelling blocks in a form of skyscrapers were designed here, as well as large department stores. In the later years the economy, which was based on full employment and extensive industrial development, created even greater need for new lats. To meet these needs dwelling complexes and blocks made with the help of prefabricated elements were introduced, mainly on the outskirts of cities (Słodczyk, 2012, p. 419). High-rise, detached dwelling units became the norm, ruining the traditional appearance of cities, as in case of central part of Warsaw, where a dwelling complex of 19 long buildings, 16-loor high, with 300-400 lats in each, was inserted in the vicinity of the old Saxon Garden. The complex Za Żelazną Bramą was started in 1965 and inished in 1972. Some other new complexes were built in the 1970s near the centre. The last decade of communism (1980s) saw building of the last big complexes in smaller Polish cities. The centre of Warsaw was now built-up. With the change of government after 1989 a new capitalistic period began. New ofice and commercial buildings, as well as modern apartment units were now inserted into the empty spaces, surrounding communistic dwelling complexes. The high price of plots, the selling out of the land, which returned to some of the pre-war owners’ families, as well as the urge to recreate frontage development, where it was possible, led to the birth of the newest urban layer. 559 Conclusion The development of Warsaw urban fabric was more or less chaotic throughout the history. Warsaw virtually lacked regulations allowing broader state or municipal interventions regarding city spatial development until 1820s. What is more, the mature capitalistic period from 1860s to 1920s was also marked by insuficient (in terms of direct interventions into the street web) urban policy, due to the hostile attitude of the Russian authorities. One must admit that also the interwar period was too short, and the state of the Polish economy too weak to allow for bigger urban interventions. Capitalistic Warsaw’s urban tissue was a set of different elements stemming from various times. It included 1) the medieval cities, 2) main early modern Royal Route with residence complexes tied to it, 3) few old diagonal streets leading to the city, 4) remains of urban layouts of former private towns, 5) a dense row of East-West streets, spanning throughout the western part of the city, making up a kind of a rectangular grid, and 6) a system of diagonal streets in the south. Such a city saw a long period of laissezfaire capitalistic development with only partially executed big thoroughfares. The only chance to create a new coherent city appeared after 1945. The capitalistic city was not totally demolished and many fragments of it are still clearly visible. The ideas of the irst years of people’s rule (a coherent city with frontage development) were also later abandoned. The weakness of the ruined country, and - later - cardinal economical shortcomings of the soviet-like regime led to the development of great reinforced concrete blocks, which had little to do with the urban context. This historical urban process can be illustrated by a sequence of city plans. I chose a fragment of the centre, to the west of the Royal Route. The legacy of this process are the historical layers, which evolved here throughout the centuries. They ‘stamped’ Warsaw’s appearance in each new period, while the previous political regime and ‘its’ layer began fading away. The centre of little manors and wooden tenements was partially replaced by a brick-and-mortar capitalistic city. This capitalistic city was mostly destroyed during the 1 ‘Zmierzch »dzikiego zachodu«’, Stolica, 1964, no. 40, p. 8. city as organism|new visions for urban life last war and the remains of it were illed in by new socialist realistic fabric and - later - great concrete dwelling units. Such units are now built around by newest capitalistic fabric. References 560 Baraniewski, W. (2010) ‘Architektura Warszawy w czasach stalinowskich. Marszałkowska Cegielski, J. (1971) Polityka budowlano-mieszkaniowa w Warszawie w latach 1815-1864, in: Warszawa XIX w., vol. 2 (PWN, Warszawa). Dzielnica Mieszkaniowa: historyczny kamulaż’, Kwartalnik Architektury i Urbanistyki 55, vol. 3, 49–64. Basista, A. (2001) Betonowe dziedzictwo. Architektura w Polsce czasów komunizmu (Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa). Chmielewski, J.M. (2002) Okres planistyczny 1956–1965, in: Atlas historyczny Warszawy. Plany zagospodarowania przestrzennego z lat 1916–2002 (Stowarzyszenie przyjaciół APW, Warszawa), 108–129. Górski, J. (1981) Warszawa prawie współczesna. Szkice (PIW, Warszawa). Herbst, S. (1978) Ulica Marszałkowska (Książka i wiedza, Warszawa). Kotarbiński, A. (1967) Rozwój urbanistyki i architektury polskiej w latach 1944–1964. Próba charakterystyki krytycznej (PWN, Warszawa). Kotaszewicz, T. (2004) Międzywojenny okres planistyczny, in: Atlas historyczny Warszawy. Plany zagospodarowania przestrzennego z lat 1916–2002 (Stowarzyszenie przyjaciół APW, Warszawa), 12–61. Krawczak, C. (1975) Prawo budowlane na ziemiach polskich od połowy XVIII wieku do 1939 roku (Wydawnictwo naukowe UAM, Poznań). Mieszkowski, W. and Siemiński, W. (2002) Okres planistyczny 1945–1956, in: Atlas historyczny Warszawy. Plany zagospodarowania przestrzennego z lat 1916–2002 (Stowarzyszenie przyjaciół APW, Warszawa), 65–105. Nietyksza, M. and Pruss, W. (1973) Zmiany w układzie przestrzennym Warszawy, in: Wielkomiejski rozwój Warszawy (Książka i wiedza, Warszawa) 21–47. Olszewski, A.K. (1968) Architektura Warszawy (1919–1939), in: Warszawa II Rzeczpospolitej 1918–1939, vol. 1 (PWN, Warszawa) 287-320. Ostrowski, W. (1980) Zespoły zabytkowe a urbanistyka (Arkady, Warszawa). Roguska, J. (1980) ‘Wpływ przepisów na kształtowanie zabudowy Warszawy w drugiej połowie XIX wieku i na początku XX wieku’, Kwartalnik Architektury i Urbanistyki 25, vol. 3-4, 275-298. Różański, S. (1968) Planowanie przestrzenne Warszawy, in: Warszawa II Rzeczpospolitej 1918–1939, vol. 1 (PWN, Warszawa) 321–346. Sigalin, J. (1986) Warszawa 1944–1980. Z archiwum architekta (PIW, Warszawa). Słodczyk, J. (2012) Historia planowania i budowy miast (Uniwersytet Opolski, Opole). Syrkus, H. (1973) Losy koncepcji osiedla społecznego w Warszawie współczesnej na przykładzie osiedla WSM na Kole, in: Warszawa stolica Polski ludowej, vol. 3 (PWN, Warszawa) 113–154. Szczypiorski, A. (1966) Warszawa. Jej gospodarka i ludność w latach 1832–1862 (Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich et al., Wrocław et al.). Szwankowski, E. (1952) Warszawa. Rozwój architektoniczny i urbanistyczny (Państwowe Wydawnictwo Techniczne, Warszawa). Szwankowski, E. (1963) Ulice i place Warszawy (PWN, Warszawa). Szwankowski, E. (1970) O realizacjach urbanistycznych Warszawy 1919–1939, in: Warszawa II Rzeczpospolitej 1918–1939, vol. 2 (PWN, Warszawa) 49–65. Trybuś, J. (2012) Warszawa niezaistniała. Niezrealizowane projekty urbanistyczne i architektoniczne Warszawy dwudziestolecia międzywojennego (Muzeum Powstania Warszawskiego et al., Warszawa). Zachwatowicz, J. (1971) Rozwój przestrzenny, urbanistyczny i architektoniczny Warszawy międzywojennej (PWN, Warszawa) 275–289. Zarzycki, J. (1973) Ewolucja planu urbanistycznego Warszawy w latach 1945–1949, in: Warszawa stolica Polski ludowej, vol. 3 (PWN, Warszawa) 69–112. city as organism|new visions for urban life