Report from Workshop 1: The Big

Picture

The workshop was held with the aim of obtaining input for the set-up of an urban design com-
petition, the subject of which is an urban design of a large undeveloped area in the eastern
part of the city of Trnava with the working title Quarter.

The workshop took place on 8 February 2023 in the Malý Berlín cultural centre in Trnava.

first panel 9.00 – 10.30

V V V
second panel 10.45 – 12.15
third panel 13.30 – 15.00

The thematic areas and panellists were chosen by the organizer of the competition 2021 s.r.o.,
the staff of the Trnava City Office and PDCS. The workshop was attended by representatives
of the Trnava City Office, city councillors and representatives of investors in the area under
consideration.

This report was drawn up by 2021 s.r.o. and subsequently sent to the Trnava City Office, PDCS
and workshop participants for possible amendments. The report is publicly available on the
website of the Trnava City Office and on the website of the design competition. The conclusi-
ons were used as a basis for the creation of the competition brief.

1
 Panel 1: Local perspective I
a mix of participants – stakeholders outside of the urban architectu-
re expertise – local political representatives, representatives of NGOs,
non-profit organizations and the cultural sphere:
JUDr. Peter Bročka, LL.M., the Mayor of Trnava
Ing. Dušan Zaťko, President of the Urban Development, Transport and
Environment Committee
Ing. Igor Fabián, President of the Social Care Centre, co-founder of
Slovak Pensioners’ Association
PaedDr. Simona Jurčová, curator of the art collection of the Museum
of Western Slovakia in Trnava
Mgr. Michal Koricina, PhD., representative of Lifestarter civic associ-
ation
Mgr. Michal Klembara, director of Malý Berlín cultural centre
Phdr. Terézia Drdulová, MBA, special educator, director of the Early
Intervention Centre Trnava
Synopsis: The panellists were chosen because they represent va-
rious institutions and topics whose agenda is connected to Trnava.
Their activities influence the structure of the city and processes
that take place in it. Invited participants will talk about how
satisfied they are with the city in its current form from the perspec-
tive of their professional agenda and as residents in general. They
are also expected to articulate how the city should be shaped in the
future with respect to their professional needs and the needs of its
residents.
From your personal (as a Trnava resident) and professional perspec-
V
tive, which qualities and which shortcomings of today’s Trnava do
you perceive as the most important?
Qualities: The compactness and scale of the city are an advantage
because of the short distances, walking/cycling accessibility and a
potential for community building. Trnava has a strong base of active
people and organisations involved in public affairs, however, there is
still potential for improvement. Trnava creates many opportunities for
its residents and provides accessible services (schools, etc.). Partici-
pants identified other qualities as well: the great progress in improving
public spaces, creating pedestrian zones and taking care of the histo-
ric centre. The advantageous location close to the capital city as the
main economic centre of the country was also mentioned.
Shortcomings: the city has a large modernization debt and insuffici-
ent budget to implement all of its visions. Poor collaboration between
various organizations which lack the ability to unite behind a common
vision and achieve real collective impact. Trnava supports social pro-
jects, yet it still cannot be called an inclusive city. Residents feel this,
for example, in the lack of barrier-free housing and the general stan-
dard of buildings does not meet the requirements of universal design.
Seniors miss barrier-free housing and services concentrated in a single
location within a walking distance that would make their lives easier
and give them a greater independence. New developments in the city
are not well connected to the public transport network and create di-
fficulty accessing services. The need to improve the quality of primary
schools was mentioned. Visual smog and the number of privately ow-
ned buildings that are in a poor technical condition or the conservative
approach to urban design are also perceived as problematic.
In your opinion, is it possible to define a unique identity (of a resident)
of Trnava? Has this identity changed or developed over time?
Trnava’s identity is shaped by the people and communities. Trnava is
home to many people without permanent residence, students, many
foreigners and members of minorities, so it is a diverse and varied city,
which makes its identity difficult to define. There is no such thing as a
Trnava resident identity per se, but there is a kind of local patriotism.
Over the last 20 years there has been a shift in the perception of a
typical Trnava citizen from a conservative and disengaged one to a
participating resident who is interested in public affairs.
Why do you think a significant part of Trnava‘s residents prefer living
V
in the surrounding villages instead of staying in the city?
Housing availability in the city is relatively low, flats are expensive and
people wish to live in their own house with a garden. The pandemic and
the resulting desire to have a house with a garden and some form of
‚self-sufficiency‘ has probably contributed to this. In the city, people
cannot afford such a property.
2
 On the other hand, the abundance of opportunities (schools, services,
culture, etc.) and the community of people motivates the discussion
participants to stay in the city. These aspects are what drew some
people to the city in the first place. Trnava does not offer barrier-free
housing options (flats or houses), people who need it are then forced
to move to the countryside and miss out on the opportunities the city
offers. Trnava is facing a decline in the number of permanent residents,
while the number of people living and working in the city is increasing.
Residents of the surrounding villages need to use city services but are
forced to travel by car to access them, putting pressure on the city‘s
infrastructure. In addition, they do not contribute to the city budget
with their taxes.
In your opinion, what fundamental attributes and values should be
V
applied to the future development of the city?
Sustainability – sustainable urbanism.
Inclusiveness – i.e. preparing all services, policies and goods with the
diversity of the city‘s population in mind. Adherence to the principles
of universal design from the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. Awareness and education on this topic need to start from
an early age.
Creation of jobs for university graduates, building administrative spa-
ces, spaces for small production and science.
A city cooperating and taking into account the needs of all, a city sha-
ping and educating its inhabitants, communicating, participating and
reflecting.
A city creating a high quality of life for its people and anticipating the
development of society, reacting to change, adaptive and taking into
account the evolution of society also in the context of technological
progress (AI).
What are the key challenges that need to be addressed to bring
V
about an improvement in the quality of life in Trnava for you perso-
nally/for all?
Combining the requirements of all stakeholders, namely developers
and the city, and to improve processes.
Creating a green area separating the ring road from the residential
area.
Broadly mapping the needs of the people and finding common values
that unite these communities.
Urgently address the climate crisis and think about how to cool down
the city.
Adapt the new neighbourhood to all life stages of its inhabitants and
think ahead. Create a comprehensive social services centre caring for
residents ‚from cradle to grave.’
Panel 2: Local perspective II
stakeholders with architectural and urban planning expertise, with an
emphasis on those who have represented the public interest and a
professional perspective on the development of the city in their cu-
rrent or past work in public administration:
Ing. arch. Ondrej Horváth, architect, head of the Urban Development
and Concepts Department
Ing. arch. Tomáš Guniš, architect, former head of the Urban Develop-
ment and Concepts Department (excused himself due to an illness)
Ing. arch. Peter Purdeš, architect, head of the Urban Architecture
Concept Unit
Ing. arch. Miroslav Beňák, architect residing in Trnava, activist
Ing. arch. Pavel Ďurko, architect residing in Trnava
Ing. arch. Jana Ralbovská, architect residing in Trnava
Synopsis: The panellists, given their past experience of being re-
sponsible for reconciling the demands of political representatives,
private projects, the expectations of local stakeholders, authorities
and the legislative environment, and at the same time with a view to
good development, as well as their experience of past development
of the city, should be able to articulate the specificities of the local
environment relevant to the currently planned development. The pa-
nellists who have not worked directly at the City Office should
also be able to engage in the discussion and, perhaps in contrast to
the first group, unencumbered by their experience.
3
V What shapes the image of Trnava for you?
The compactness of the city, the favourable urban scale, the human
scale of the streets, the active people who create and develop com-
munities. The form of the city highlighting the historic core and the
city growing into a landscape with a high proportion of greenery (in
the past Trnava had botanical gardens on its edges run by the univer-
sity).
Pleasant scale of real estate projects and preserved historic core.
Potential for more diverse forms of development not yet present in
Trnava.
What scale does the city of Trnava currently represent? What shou-
V
ld/could be its ideal scale? Should Trnava expand?
Trnava should expand in a regulated way as a compact and inclusive
city, not randomly and uncontrollably. It is necessary to sensitively
define the conditions for the development of the area. Kamenný mlyn
and Pekné pole neighbourhoods serve as negative examples of urban
development. They lack connections to regular public transport co-
nnections, the area has poor permeability, there is a lack of services,
compactness and diversity of functions.
Trnava should develop in the area of Prúdy, it is a natural complement
to the city. Prúdy should have its own local centre meeting the daily
needs of its residents.
In terms of size and estimated planned density, the area under consi-
deration is equivalent to a small Slovak town, so it is essential that it
has its own centre. However, this centre should not be in competition
with the historic centre, which will still retain its importance by offe-
ring services and facilities. It is necessary to prevent the emptying of
the historic centre and to diversify the services to be provided in the
different parts of the town.
What are the visible trends in the current development of Trnava?
V
Currently there is a trend of outflow of inhabitants from the city to the
countryside. The new neighbourhood should satisfy the demand for
a diverse scale and character of housing development. People leaving
for the countryside obviously desire lower density and the presence
of green spaces around them. New developments, both planned and
under construction, are clearly not yet meeting these needs – high
density and genericity of development and housing typology. There is
also a need to create housing for all income categories, because in ad-
dition to the insufficient supply of housing on the market, the financial
factor is pushing people to the countryside where housing is cheaper.
The area under consideration provides an opportunity to bring a vari-
ety of housing typologies, both on an individual and community le-
vel. The city should be sufficiently compact, environmentally friendly
and healthy. There should be good permeability through the area and
connection to the public transport network, good accessibility to the
centre and integration of the neighbourhood into the surrounding
area. It is important to build relationships between the communities
that will live in the neighbourhood and to create free time opportuni-
ties, including through the targeted shaping of the urban environment.
At present, the area under consideration defined in the city master
V
plan is in the forecast stage. Should it be built as it is in the master
plan, i.e. with a large park in its centre?
The large park in the centre is a representation of the size of the green
area defined by the Local Ecological Stability Plan. The design compe-
tition should define how this green space is distributed in the territory
and what form it should take. It is not necessary to have it all concent-
rated in one place. However, it is necessary to create public spaces and
green areas where people will meet and get to know each other.
City councillor Mr. Lančarič suggested creating spaces for community
life which are missing in Trnava – a community centre, primary schools,
kindergartens, a sports centre, connections to the centre and the
surrounding neighbourhoods, highlighting the dominant feature of the
Belluš water tower and an off-level connection to its adjacent garden.
Sufficient separation of the neighbourhood from the landfill site and
the ring road should be ensured.
Vice-Mayor Krajčo drew attention to the need to define the area as
accurately and professionally as possible, since the future form will in
fact be decided by the politicians of the municipal council approving
the master plan. The proposal cannot be changeable based on political
4
will and must be sufficiently detailed and unquestionable.
Panel 3 – Interdisciplinary view
from the outside
Experts on large-scale topics in the fields of human geography, socio-
logy and architecture theory:
Arch. Michal Janák, architect, PLURAL, researcher
Mgr. Lýdia Grešáková, sociologist, Spolka
Ing. arch. Roman Talaš, architect, Urban Development Institute
Mgr. Adrián Gubčo, social geographer
MSc. Lucia Ciranová, presenter of Živé mesto FM show, consultant in
the area of strategic design and innovations
Mgr. art. Martin Zaiček, PhD., architect, researcher and architecture
promoter
Synopsis: The participants are experts in their fields, but they have
no direct relation to the city of Trnava. They cannot be expected to
relate their contributions directly to Trnava or to the area under
consideration. However, they bring expertise related to the issues
of urban development and sustainability in a more general and
abstract framework in an interdisciplinary intersection that is well
applicable to the creation of the competition brief.
What does an ideal city look like?
V
The city should be caring, flexible and robust, able to respond to the
needs of those who live in it, the challenges of the future and unpre-
dictable changes. It should leave enough undefined space for non-
-programmatic activities. There is no one ideal city. There can be many
forms a good city can take, what is important is that it is slow, safe,
healthy, inclusive and developed enough to meet the needs of its
residents but does not run up against the environmental limits. A city
that thinks about the relationship between landscape and built envi-
ronment.
What other attributes of a contemporary city are key?
V
Undefined zones with no clear function, which democratically provide
space for groups that are not part of the middle economic class, play
an important role in cities. Urban development in our country is prima-
rily focused on this social stratum and often neglects the others. Soci-
ety should think about all parts of the population. Empty spaces serve
as landscape reserves, bio-corridors, but they also have a social fun-
ction of engaging diverse groups. For Trnava, which has no dominant
natural features in its surroundings, the presence of green spaces is
important. The city should not be closed, but should be in constant
interaction and able to change and adapt.
The city should be planned „glocally“ (based on local needs but con-
fronted with international discourse). The city should be playful, with
a healthy environment. The city should be open to otherness, the
education of the people leads to this, and Trnava as a university city
should use its potential in this direction – an educated city.
The city should be thought of in an interdisciplinary way. The city is
made up of physical and digital environments, which should mediate
data and these should be used for reflection, improving processes and
bringing new solutions to old problems. Urban master plans should
be more flexible in responding to new needs, be digitised and collect/
supply information. Any desired change in people‘s behaviour must be
based on the fact that the alternative is more convenient for people.
The current city should also think about the needs of non-human resi-
dents.
If we apply these attributes to the city of Trnava and to its historical,
V
political and social roots and its further development on the scale of
the area under consideration, what is your view of the desired nature
of this development?
Development should be gradual and sustainable. Historically, plans to
build new neighbourhoods have often encountered and generated
problems. Cities have not been able to fully implement large urban de-
velopment plans, or implementation has not even started.
Trnava, thanks to its scale, size and the presence of educational and
cultural institutions, has the potential to become a city that creates
opportunities for people, integrates them and creates an attractive
5
environment for them to stay and find employment. At the same time,
Trnava can benefit from its proximity to Bratislava as an attractive
suburb to live in with a good connection to Bratislava.
Trnava could build its development on the connection of the outer and
inner city (especially in the area under consideration), in connection
with cycling transport (regional cycling infrastructure – the proximi-
ty of the Small Carpathians and the Danube Plain) and short walking
distances. It should attract small production and research to the town
and create programmatic diversity. The city should live a 24-hour
cycle and not become depopulated. Focus on mitigating the negative
effects of the climate crisis.
Neighbourhoods and communities are the future of the city, it is nece-
ssary to work with different types of development for different social
groups.
The city should build on the proximity of existing housing develop-
ments by inspiration in its typology, but also by linking to pedestrian/
traffic/bicycle routes.

How to make the design „non-generic“ and bring localism to the

V

solution?
The competition should have a long duration, the participants should
have the opportunity to get personally acquainted with the territory.
The participatory process should involve local stakeholders. Even uni-
versal concepts can encompass local character.