Mira Suchodolska: Who needs an architect? Once they were gone, and everything somehow being built. And the ancient builders were talented, as shown by their works.
Wojciech Gwizdak * : Once the architect and builder might be better to say, he was a man many professions. Inventing, sculpting, painting and murował. But then, in connection with the development of technology, the individual competition is diverged. After what is now an architect? To invent, how to translate customer needs for spatial solutions. When I hear that this would like to have a comfortable home for a family with three children that were garages that there was a place for pets, it begins to combine, how many bedrooms, garage what it should look like environment. This creates architectural design and the building should be not only functional, but also easy to use and attractive. The more you meet the project objectives, the better architecture. The architect is an artist and a technical specialist in one person. That’s also grateful and ungrateful role.
It should be also a specialist in construction law.
I want my lady enrage? Sure can. Because it is right that we have in Poland, sometimes ridiculous. Cluttered and internally inconsistent. It would seem that the case should be simple: where life is at stake and the comfort of the occupants in a given space, the rules should be the sum of the experience and knowledge of generations of designers. So eg. You need to design the stairs to the people after them well and safe it was. Meanwhile, the architects have too much time to waste on the right “not to produce.”
And our laws are such that we are not sure what to build. Whether something is a building or structure. The amendment of construction law, which awaits the president’s signature, it is assumed that some of the budynko-building can be erected without permission. Just register and you. Everyone should be happy. You and your customers, moreover, too.
Happy are the only politicians, because they came up with something that – in their opinion – will meet with general approval. But they do not worry about the consequences of their adopted rules that the rest of society will be reflected hiccup or financial losses. And if you’re using definitions – the building is such a thing, to which you can enter and stay in the middle. A building is eg. The bridge. But there are things at the junction of these concepts. Because what the world? Such rain protecting. This may be a world apart from having a car roof also, eg. One wall, but it can be, and the bus stop or railway. How do I calculate the surface of the building, which recalls the right equipment? You can not. In the case of a building is easy: measured along the contour of the walls. But if the shelter is only one column? Or more, how to measure – from column to column? It makes no sense. The law here is illegible, it can be f reely interpreted, so architects every move roll buoys with officials who have their own opinions on the subject. Meanwhile, the problem is specific, not the same casuistry about. Because shelter, according to the building, can only be built on the application, without applying for permission, provided that it has a 50 sqm. footprint. Just forgotten to define the concept of the Law of the world. If the world is not a building, only the building, there is no floor space, and what then?
Carport is what it seems that it is official. But that piece of cake. Will be eggs with porches. Because the amendment of construction law is a provision that now anyone who is a darn, will be possible to build on an application porch. Even if it was like a minaret.
Because the definition, there is no porch. Neither the definition of the conservatory, or the definition of an arbor – is another hole in the Act. I have this example from the immediate surroundings: neighbor nadbudował garage, put on the walls, in their windows, walker. Normally made extra room, all covered with a gable roof. I said it was a conservatory. Horse with a row of him that proves that it is not. Administrative courts are powerless in such cases, posiłkują at their judgments illustrated dictionaries or Wikipedia. Absurd. With porches is similar: normal person would appear that the porch is the outbuilding at the entrance to the house. The revised construction law can be built on the application porch to 30 sqm. footprint. But on the surface fit an additional two rooms. We can also turret punch at home, and that any height. You see, what will be the result: people will massively extend their porches and conservatories. Diet also deleted the word “household” in a place where we talk about the porches. So you can be free-standing building porches. And so the Parliament opened another gate for crooks.
And maybe this freedom is not the worst – it will be faster and without bureaucracy. I see only one danger: gargameli come to us that are already close to a nightmare. But here przypisywałabym rather blame the city or municipal architect who designs pat disgusting. Now you will not have to.
Officials architects tapping on projects is very little. To clap projects in the office does not have to be an architect, you may not even have education building. I am unable to agree with you on one condition: let the right be consistent, simple and consistent. If everyone has to build what he wants and how he wants – no problem. But in this system should be discarded or redefined in the law a few concepts, eg. Interest of third parties. It is the foundation of the legislation: if anything is built, you can not infringe upon the interests of others. Today the office, when it seems a building permit, the project does not check for beauty or compliance with technical and construction, just verify compliance with the local plan or zoning and that it does not violate the legitimate interests of third parties. This example. The provisions on distance from the border, shadowing, zacienianiu that protect the interests of the administrative proceedings, t hat is usually a neighbor.
Ooops …
As I explain. For example par. 13 construction law says that if you have a window in a room designed for human residence, you should not see the specific piece of heaven. So if someone wants to build next, it can not cover the whole sky to me, it only needs to move away from the border of my plot at an appropriate distance. These items are checked offices. Were it not for this section, would be wrestling: first come, first served, who richer, the higher to build. Each anyone could cover the window. And construction law determines which of the actual interests are protected by law, which are legal interest. As a result I require from a neighbor that I did not build my boundary closer than four feet from the wall of windows or doors. If you meet these requirements, OK, even if my view from the window to get worse.
Please continue, I like to hear about your rights.
You have the right to the sun. Is the relevant provision, which says that if I have a residential building – with living room and bedroom – at least for three hours I instantly have access to sunlight between the hours of 7 am and 17 pm on the equinox. At the same regulation does not specify whether the time of day or sunny. Summer or winter. On this sunny, sometimes it is a problem that if by Warsaw time is 7 am, in the east of the country already 7.30 and 6.30 in the west. And how does this count? So again, we give ourselves to any interpretation of the officials and the courts. Not only that, if someone has already built a house, the man who built on the adjacent plot, must prove that it does not affect the right of a neighbor to the sun. We are the only country in Europe outside of Norway, where the legal interest is access to the sun. If society agrees to eliminate this and many other of their rights, then let us build without permits.
It reminded me of an absurd example, which, moreover, found in one of your articles published in the magazine “Occupation: Architect”. People built residential houses, made under them underground garage. And officials said that this is a multi-family building.
And again bows idea of law, which is not always compatible with the letter. In principle, the idea is that the houses were built in such a way that if one of the owners wishes, eg. Your demolish, it in no way affect the structure of the building next door. But the definition of a single-family home says nothing about whether the buildings can be linked functionally, eg. An underground garage. In the case of the estate officials said that although the buildings are at some distance from each other, but in the underground garage there is dilatation (intentionally created a gap in the structure, dividing a work on whatever part of its construction – ed.). And if you sell your share, the buyer will not feel like you may have to the building, drove his car. The law does not deal with reality. And worst of all – does not react to situations, which provides it with life.
Please clearly define what you mean. Is that the building was freedom, or to comply with?
I want a logical, clear laws that will not be amenable interpretative treatments. Doprecyzujmy them and uprośćmy. Professor Zbigniew Niewiadomski, recent head of the Construction Law Codification Commission, thought that should be given the opportunity to build all of everything, as they gusto, and any disputes will be dealt with in the courts. Well, that would be a real paradise for lawyers. And bane for architects and investors. I want clear rules of interpretation which is not samowolki field conflicts. They would not be if the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development listened professionals, including architects. But officials implementing acts constituting not work with architects. I understand that the provision may not work well, I’m also not always a first time home design comes out, but I correct, I strive for the best solution. Chamber of Architects is willing to cooperate, because of professional practice exposes the inadequacy of law, and the resort is strangely resistant to our attention.
But no legislation in Poland is not in a position to influence the public space. Feel free to Legionowa: ugly buildings, neighborhoods built without infrastructure. Because of diarrhea advertising, billboards, the obstruction will not remember anything. Rozstrzeliwałabym for it.
I, too, but in our working principle of “Wolnoć Tom in his house” if someone wants to intervene, is considered a fascist. However, in countries where democracy is older than ours, for example. In England, the norm is that if someone wants to build on some grounds, meet local councilors commission, which assesses whether something is nice or not. Will it fit into the rest of the building? In many Greek towns can be built only white and blue houses, in the Austrian Alps should be taken into account in the design, to the appropriate percentage of the facade was made of wood. Whether as a society we would agree to such a restriction on the freedom of the neighbors in exchange for future spatial order? We have solved this problem Spatial Planning Act, at 95 percent. well conceived, but so what if those 5 percent. not working and demolishing everything.
What’s left? Throw in the trash all the stupid rules and write construction law again?
It seems to me that we have not exhausted yet possible to modify and improve what we have. Provisions which are, these are, but they work. It is better to try to fix them. It usually happens in the legislation that revolutionary changes made in the audience, they bring more harm than good. And so it is with a large part of the provisions of the amended building regulations. Mention that another “improvement”: you will not need to have a building permit to erect a building family, in some cases, be sufficient notification. 30 days if the county does not object, you will be able to build. But with neighbors application shall have no appeal procedure, did not even know that it took place.
So it may be that I wake up one fine morning and I see that on the adjacent plot someone builds a palace, obscuring my whole world and the sun. Who can I complain to?
Can you go to court. I pay the entry fee on the value of the building in question, and to the lawyer’s fees. And yet you can not: in the case of single-family homes to keep a building permit, but shorten the waiting time of 65 to 30 days. As recently as a few days ago was shortened time to issue a building permit rail investments to 45 days. So give up. I maintain procedures to do the citizens of trouble, which you do not realize even more the case. But no politician has promised something he did not know – that you will not need to have building permits – and the people seemed to be an attractive, so it is difficult to back out now. While the lawyers rubbing their hands because of trouble yet come.
It would be more of them, if not three O. That is the area of influence of the object that stopped nowelizatorów deregulatory zeal.
The idea was to do away with all building permits, but it soon proved to be impossible. Next to this applied to all the houses. But in this case, a catalog of objects turned out to be too wide, because legislators have recognized that sometimes there are cases when a neighbor should be a party. Narrowed provisions regarding construction on the application to where the area of influence of the object is within the plot. Except that once again – not quite know how to OOO determined. Definition in construction law is the most general and do not know how to understand it. Common sense is an area around the building. Earlier this OOO induced the officials, was for them to have a claim if something was not as it should be. Now it will be marked the architect. So, the responsibility shifts to the officials at us.
Well, that building a house is behind me, and around the benevolent neighbors. Otherwise, probably not wychodzilibyśmy from the court.
In Germany, a simple rule applies: the facade of the building, “put” on the ground and see if it does not protrude outline the plot neighbor. If not, it means that OOO does not go beyond the boundaries of the plot. If so, you need to fall into place.
But the law also interferes building my OOO. Because, for example. I parked trucks and front of the house, but a passenger car – no.
tells you about par. 19 of the Regulation on technical conditions to be met by buildings and their location. It was a section of the right idea: to protect people who have an apartment with windows overlooking the parking in front of situations, when at dawn and someone turns the engine warms, and they breathe in fumes and have a noise in the house. But the idea of degenerated in the records, and now we have this situation that when I build house, I do not have the right to put in front of your window, your car, if you do not meet certain requirements for the distance of a parking space – at least 7 m from the windows of living quarters and 3 m of the plot. But bus or truck can park, as I like, because regulations restrict only the possibility of parking cars. Interestingly, this article tells me to stick to the regime in the case of most collective residential buildings except hotels. Which means that if I have a motel, which in its essence, is designed for customers with cars, it is those who came cars, I have stuff somewhere far away from windows, and hotel guests may already be under the window. Where sense and logic?
No. But I’m strangely confident that these provisions, and so hardly anyone respects. And certainly not in the case of single-family housing. I can see through the eyes of the imagination, as clerk charged me on my yard and measures, which stood your ride. As soon as I ran.
have the right, but also responsibility. But I, by designing a building, I have these provisions included in the land use and parking spaces so design it to be in accordance with the regulations. And since it has nothing to do with reality? Well that’s the thing that we are forced to do projects like. Ms. it seems that this example of a single-family home is the height of folly? No. A friend of designing industrial building, next to which was a gas station. And she had to move away from the border of parking spaces of the station, but the fence was parking, also in the prescribed distance. She had a problem, because it came from the provisions that must design its own parking for at least 16 m from that parking lot. Or regulations are unreasonable, or I do not get it. I’m mad because people who invent these flowers, you do not care. And I would love to one or another section reached such an absurd person. They’d be more careful.
These flowers, I guess, there is more.
any likelihood a great meadow. And on it eg. Provision of garbage. It states that the garbage pails can you put in a distance of 3 meters from the edge of the plot, but at least 10 meters away from the windows. Mrs. neighbor on the same principles. So please himself summed up: what should be our big estates.
And again unpleasant conclusion: the law itself, life itself, no one cares regulations.
In the Austro-Hungarian Empire was reportedly a custom that if a recipe does not accept during the year, it should be eliminated or changed.
And with us on some, often important, for safety, to turn a blind eye, and the other, silly, they are enforced.
We live in a matrix, dual reality – actual and officials. In the double-entry accounting – like in the era of Mafia. And yet the law is changing faster than the seasons. I came across the information that since 1989. Number of rules that must be known architect, count the number of pages of laws and regulations, increased thirteen times.
Let’s remember it all?
No chance. The number of laws and regulations already exceeded comprehension by a single person, but so it should be. Too often I feel that Members or officials of the ministry does not depend on us we mere architects, could in a simple, clear and safe way to do our job. The Construction Law Codification Commission to 17 members is up to 11 lawyers, and only one architect, but not practicing. Prime Minister, how can you design?
* Wojciech Gwizdak , architect, president of the Association of Polish Architects Branch Kielce, Kielce member of the District Chamber of Architects and Legislative Council of the Chamber of Architects, lecturer at the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture Kielce University of Technology
No comments:
Post a Comment