Boji za prilastitev Stadiona: Analiza pojavljanja koncepta javnega v projektu prenove Stadiona za Bežigradom

• Main Author: Zupan, Metod
• Other Authors: Mahnič, Katja, Vidmar, Igor
• Format: Bachelor Thesis
• Language: Slovenian
• Published: M. Zupan 2020
• Subjects: javnost; javni prostor; dediščinski diskurz; kulturna dediščina; Stadion za Bežigradom; diskurzivna analiza; boj za prisvojitev prostora; the public; public place; heritage discourse; cultural heritage; Bežigrad stadium; discourse analysis; struggles to appropriate space; Monument The; The Monument; sami
• Online Access: https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=117650; https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/Dokument.php?id=131531&dn=; https://plus.si.cobiss.net/opac7/bib/26177539?lang=sl

Stadion za Bežigradom, od leta 2009 uradno prepoznan kot kulturni spomenik državnega pomena, že od leta 2007 ne služi svojemu namenu ter propada. Razlog za to je konflikt med različnimi akterji, vpletenimi v projekt njegove prenove, z vozliščno točko v javni naravi interesov, ki naj bi opravičevali poseganje v objekt. Glede na to, da stadion predstavlja javni prostor ter je kot dediščinski spomenik prepoznan kot javno koristen, morajo biti posegi vanj izvedeni v skladu z javnim interesom. Tega v demokratičnih pravnih postopkih sprejmejo ljudje, ki so prepoznani kot njegovi nosilci. Vključenih je več sektorjev javnosti, ki morajo do rešitev priti z medsebojnim usklajevanjem, saj ima vsak od njih začrtane dolžnosti in domet svoje moči. V projektu prenove Stadiona se je izkazalo, da so v obstoječi zakonodaji sami koncepti javnega površno opredeljeni in nereflektirano uporabljeni tako na strani nosilcev javnega interesa kot teh, ki kot taki niso prepoznani. Kot slednji so se izkazali investitorji, ki svoje delovanje predstavljajo kot javno koristno, javne uslužbence ter predstavnike civilne družbe pa dosledno diskreditirajo. Do nasprotovanj je prišlo celo znotraj osrednjega državnega organa spomeniškega varstva, kjer si uslužbenci niso enotni predvsem glede upravičenosti posegov investitorjev v spomenik. Da je do konflikta sploh lahko prišlo, pa gre vzroke iskati v posebnostih, značilnih za dediščino v sodobnem kapitalizmu, kjer je stanje spomeniškega varstva v rokah gospodarstva ter sodelovanja širše družbe. Poleg tega pa se je za izredno specifičnega izkazal tudi sam Bežigrajski stadion. V zgodovini je namreč služil množici namenov, zato mu pripadnost izkazujejo različne družbene skupine. To je pripeljalo do razkoraka pri vprašanjih, komu stadion pripada in kdo si ga lasti. Bežigrad stadium, which had been officially recognized as a cultural monument of national significance in 2009, has not been serving its purpose and has been dilapidating since 2007. The cause of this is the conflict between various actors involved with the project of its renovation, who use the term public interest as a justification for their proposed interventions into the monument. Because the stadium is recognised as a public place and a heritage site, therefore carrying both a symbolic and a more practical significance to the community, building interventions need to be in line with the public interest. Public interest is adopted by the people that are recognised as its holders with lawful democratic processes. These processes include multiple sectors of the public that have to cooperate, as each of them have differing responsibilities and a limited range of power. As it transpired in the stadium renovation project, the concepts of public are too vaguely defined within the existing legislation and unreflectively used, both by actors that are recognised as holders of public interest and by those who aren’t. An example of the latter are the project’s investors that portray their actions as valuable to the public and consistently discredit public servants. Contradictions also came from the inside of Slovenia’s central authority on monument conservation, where employees disagreed with each other, mainly about the justification of investors’ interventions into the monument. The causes that made the conflict possible in the first place are to be found in the specific state of cultural heritage in contemporary capitalism, where heritage is subjugated to economic needs and cooperation of the society at large. The Bežigrad stadium itself proved to be a highly specific subject to analyse, because of its multiple uses and affiliations throughout history that brought about the discontinuities between the questions of who owns the stadium and to whom it belongs.