About the phenomenon of a compact city, suburbanization, living in a city and measuring the quality of life; about building in a city, construction laws, and the endless case of Prague Construction Regulations; about politics as well as about how they live and which buildings in a city they consider to be of a high quality; all that we have discussed with three architects, urbanists, experts in city planning.

Dear audience, in the next few lessons we are going to lay the foundations of the destruction of cities. We will introduce the main tools used for the destruction of cities, and mention several proven methods of how to continuously smother and weaken cities. We will also discuss a few emergency moves in case the destruction doesn’t go as fast and effectively as required. We will remember positive examples of setting a destructive environment, including my favourite—and as I believe also a future leader in this area—the Czech Republic.

The topic of the first issue in 2016 is architecture and city planning in relation to the specific needs of women and men. Their reflections can facilitate the creation of liberated public spaces. However, we won’t be dealing with large-scale urban planning interventions into urban landscape without relation to everydayness. We are showing small changes with great impact and presenting approaches that lead to the creation of environments pleasant for different users with differing demands. How is it possible to make movement around the city easier for someone who is a caregiver and has another occupation? How is it possible to design a park which can be used by all ages, genders, and social groups?

Built around 1910 according to the design by architect Felix Neumann, the late Art Nouveau house is part of the block development delimiting the main square in Ostrava. The original four-storey house, which is under a preservation order, with a mansard roof and decorated gable, has been generally renovated and modernized; the modifications consist mostly in the improvement of the interior environment while preserving the original spatial arrangement and expanding the usable area. The house is completed by an elevator and necessary social facilities. The most significant modification is a loft apartment taking up two floors, lightened by a newly installed glass wall that respects the original shape of the roof and contributes to the revitalization of the whole house, as well as the square with its modern conception.

The building is a cultural extension of the printing works following the original concept from 2001. From the perspective of urbanistic relations and inner urban space it soothes and unites a formerly fragmented street front, integrating the object of a transformer station into the volume and the façade of a printing company. The cultural function, accessible to the public, is presented through an open console to the street, where it logically connects with the public space. The closure of the original printing works, whose production faced  the street, is now balanced by an open transparent volume. The architecture of the original building, as well as the new extension, does not relate to the surrounding residential façades, it is not camouflaged. It is different, carrying out a different function towards the city and the site. It enriches, diversifies, and enlivens the place.