AP07_1.vp


1 Introduction
This paper was prepared at the Faculty of Architecture

CTU in Prague and the Research Centre for Industrial Heri-
tage (VCPD), and was presented at the XIII International
TICCIH Congress in Terni in 2006. The VCPD, which was
founded in 2002, works on issues related to industrial heri-
tage and technical monuments, and cooperates with other
institutions to this end. The Centre gathers information on
significant industrial heritage sites and buildings, which is
compiled in a database for the use of decision-making bodies,
regional planning institutions and investors and institutions
in regional planning and investors.

The paper is based on texts that have been prepared un-
der the research project Aesthetic and Symbolic Dimension of
Industrial Buildings. One of the Classification Categories,
which was carried out at FA CTU in Prague in 2006, and un-
der a project funded by the Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sports, Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Development of
Sectors of Technology and Industrial Architecture in the
Czech Republic with a View to Typology, which was carried
out at VCPD in 2006.

The paper deals with the symbolic-aesthetic dimension
of industrial and technical structures as a possible category
for classifying and evaluating such structures. This category
should play an important role in assessing the value of such
structures so that they are thoroughly and properly assessed
as a part of our cultural heritage. Industrial structures from
the Czech Republic are used as examples, and a specific analy-
sis is made of two bridges.

2 Symbolic appreciation of the world
and its relationship to architecture
First we will consider an observation made by Carl Gustav

Jung about the symbolic appreciation of the world. He started
that real life begins only when we are able to see the world in
terms of its symbolic meaning. According to Jung, this need
and capacity is a part of our natural psyche and it must receive

adequate attention throughout our lives. A symbolic appreci-
ation and interpretation of the world plays an important role
not just in ordinary life, but also in connection with archi-
tecture and urban studies. The theories of C. N. Schultz,
C. Jencks, K. Lynch etc., had quite different foundations, but
all have pointed out that we must maintain a symbolic-aes-
thetic perception of our environment, at every level, from
individual isolated structures to more elaborate structural
complexes. Nowadays, however, we primarily approach the
environment around us with practical perspectives.

Architecture and the environment come to form a mean-
ingful unit when they, too possess this dimension. Technical
and industrial structures can also be perceived as symbolic-
-aesthetic phenomena, which is what was intended by many of
the builders and architects who conceived them. This ap-
proach to perceiving and appreciating these structures should
serve as a useful argument in efforts aimed at conserving
them, as many of these structures are still under threat of
destruction because they are often viewed as having no signifi-
cance or architectural value.

3 The symbol and the industrial
structure
Symbolic-aesthetic values have long been a standard clas-

sification and assessment criterion for other common types of
architectural works. Such values have even been overempha-
sised. Stereotypes have thus far dictated that this criterion is
not applied to industrial or technical structures, because in
their case it is assumed that functional and operational crite-
ria take precedence over aesthetic design. Nevertheless some
completed industrial and technical works are undertaken
with explicitly symbolic-aesthetic ambitions. They are thus
comparable with the construction of churches or representa-
tive residential buildings, and at the time of their origin they
were perceived in this light. A number of important works
were conceived by architects who were also engaged in theo-
retical work on this issue (Antonín Engel, Karel Teige, Jan
E. Koula, František A. Libra, František L. Gahura, Emanuel

©  Czech Technical University Publishing House http://ctn.cvut.cz/ap/ 23

Acta Polytechnica Vol. 47  No. 1/2007

The Symbolic-Aesthetic Dimension of
Industrial Architecture as a Method of

Classification and Evaluation: the
Example of Bridge Structures in the

Czech Republic
L. Popelová

This paper deals with the symbolic-aesthetic dimension of industrial and technical structures as a possible category for classifying and
evaluating such structures. This category should play an important role in assessing the value of industrial and technical structures so that
they are thoroughly and properly assessed as a part of our cultural heritage. This paper was presented at the XIII International TICCIH
Congress in Terni in 2006.

Keywords: symbolic-aesthetic demands, industrial archeology, industrial heritage, conservation.



Hruška). There are some industrial and technical works that
are generally acknowledged as oustanding, especially works
linked to the modernist movement, in which case their func-
tion was almost uncritically glorified and was imposed as the
new aesthetic on most architectural work.

If we perceive and assess industrial and technical struc-
tures from an aesthetic-symbolic perspective, it is clear that
the value of these works is not based only on their functional
and technical components, but also derives from their specific
poetry, monumentality and beauty. In contrast to other types
of architecture they acquire these qualities in very interesting
forms.

That it is necessary to interpret industrial structures from
a symbolic-aesthetic perspective has also been pointed out
by P. Neaverson and M. Palmer in their book Industrial
Archeology and by other authors, such as G. Darley and
B. H. Bradley.

4 Classifying industrial and technical
structures from the perspective of
their symbolic-aesthetic qualities
The categories dealt with here are close to each other, and

can overlap and intermingle from time to time. The catego-
ries refer to individual objects as well as the whole setting of an
plant. Individual branches of industry often incline toward
certain categories, and in this area the typical features need to
be described in greater detail. It will also be interesting to
identify elements that are only locally typical (e.g. inspired by
folk architecture) and those drawn from other cultures (e.g.
the low alpine gables of the Austro-Hungarian railway stations
and the use of brickwork in the Czech environment), and to
think about how these categories are perceived on the subjec-

tive and objective levels, and how the perception of them
today differs from their contemporary perception. Industrial
objects can be viewed as purely technical structures or as
works of architecture, but for our kind of evaluation this
dichotomy has no importance.

The ways in which industrial and technical structures con-
front symbolic-aesthetic demands can be divided into five
categories:
A Unintended symbols
B Stylistic unity
C Intended metaphors

C. 1 Romantic metaphors
C. 2 Technological metaphors
C. 3 Value of standard
C. 4 The grand total

A Unintended symbols
The production and technology character of these struc-

tures gives them an unmistakable expression and form. They
are usually single-purpose objects and freestanding struc-
tures, which have acquired almost archetypal significance on
account of their typicality and immediateness, and in this
sense they also affect the observer´s symbolic perception. The
form of these objects is defined by their structure and their
technical equipment. Some are exceptional examples of an
engineering aesthetic.

This category includes limekilns, mining towers, water
and windmills, smelting furnaces, cooling towers. These ob-
jects have a certain monumentality due to their dimensions
and their functional specialization. The outer appearance of
these structures already identifies the kind of production in-
volved. (Fig. 1)

24 ©  Czech Technical University Publishing House http://ctn.cvut.cz/ap/

Acta Polytechnica Vol. 47  No. 1/2007

Fig. 1: Category A – unintended symbol. Conical lime-kilns. Former Vojtěch – Koněv Ironworks in Kladno near Prague. Built after 1854
(left). A mining tower of Michal Mine in Ostrava-Michálkovice, 1842. Architect of the redevelopment František Fiala, 1913–1915
(right).



B. Stylistic unity
This category includes objects which have been integrated

into the predominant local or historical stylistic and formal
framework. In this way the relationship of the structure to the
surrounding structures has become harmonised, though at
the time of their construction the effort to integrate industrial
and technical structures into their surroundings may have
been somewhat awkward. These structures can be multifunc-
tional or single-purpose objects.

Rather confusing association are created by the reuse of
historical buildings for new production – e.g. in the early
stages of industrialisation factories were built inside cloisters,
castles, residential buildings. (Fig. 2)

C. Intended metaphors
C. 1 Romantic metaphors

In this case, parts or aspects of traditional architectural
styles are used in a new context and are often applied in a very

exalted and exotic way. Production buildings in this category
are thematically stylised. For example, a paper mill may
have been designed like an Egyptian temple (an association
with papyrus), or a carpet factory in the style of Islamic ar-
chitecture (an association with Persian carpets), a tobacco
processing plant as a mosque (an association with the exotic
origin of tobacco). The appearance of the factory may have
served to advertise and promote the goods produced in it.
Other typical examples are 19th century pseudo-gothic “in-
dustrial castles” or water-towers that resemble minarets or
defence architecture. These models borrowed from a glori-
fied version of history, aimed to enhance the significance of
the structure. (Fig. 3)

C. 2 Technological metaphors
The style of the industrial structures may blend with the

modern buildings in the area, thus tending to create a for-
mal unity with them. However, due to the specific forms

©  Czech Technical University Publishing House http://ctn.cvut.cz/ap/ 25

Acta Polytechnica Vol. 47  No. 1/2007

Fig. 3: Category C – intended metaphor (romantic metaphor and metaphor of technology). Winternitz Mill in Pardubice, built
1909–1910 and 1919–1926 by Josef Gočár (left). Ferra a.s. Warehouse in Praha-Holešovice (former L. G. Bondy, a.s.), built
1928–1929 by Josef Kříž (right).

Fig. 2: Category B - stylistic unity. A floodgate. So-called Laudon Pavilion in a Veltrusy palace garden. Built 1792 – 1797 by Matěj
Hummel (left). Feigl & Widrich textile mill (later Textilana, A. G.), Chrastava (Kratzau), built 1904 – 1907 by Gustav Sachers and
son (right).



and accents of production buildings and technical structures
they belong rather to the sphere of metaphors. At the pres-
ent time, in particular built objects metaphorically proclaim
technological the sovereignty of technology and production.
However, this is very often a general expression only, be-
cause in reality their forms are not influenced by the specific
kind of technology located inside them. The form some-
times expresses the metaphor of a fully integrated and
hidden technology that is totally controlled by man. In fact
the control room of a fully automatic bakery can look quite
similar to the control room of a nuclear power plant.

In such cases, the most advanced building methods are
chosen, even in combination with futuristic stylization. This
metaphor symbolises the optimism and the all-powerful po-
tential of the technological era. (Fig. 3)

C. 3 Value of standard
The value and importance of multifunctional objects lies

in their universality, enormous quantity they were built and
their long service to industry. Primarily they are interest-
ing engineering feats and structural innovations: e.g. ceiling
structures, high capacity ventilation, skylight systems, the use
of precast elements and the re-implementation of successful
solutions. Secondarily, they can by important for their ad-
vanced equipment and machinery, which has probably been
replaced several times and may no longer be preserved.

The value of these universal buildings lies in the fact that
they form a part of architecture - they have respected the basic
sense of proportion and have applied the basic tectonic de-
tails and the scheme of the facade is well-balanced. Even their
traditional building materials were in harmony with the rest
of the city. Their industrial function was manifested by great
metal framed windows, chimneystacks, water towers, ramps,
cranes, entrance ways and rail tracks. The whole setting of
such plants can be seen best form a bird’s eye view.

Typical examples of this type of structure are textile mills
and engineering works from the 19th century. We can hardly
include most of contemporary industrial structures in this cat-
egory, because they are often built and assembled ad hoc for
an immediate functional purpose, without any architectural
aim or pretensions. (Fig. 4)

C. 4 The grand total
Here we are speaking about stylistically and somehow

ideologically unified assemblies of buildings and objects.
They include not only production buildings but also houses
for workers, parks, schools, sports and cultural facilities. This
kind of organism emerges as an entity, not unlike the old Uto-
pian falanistera or the urban agglomerations inspired by the
garden or industrial conceptions of cities in the 19th century.
They were based on capital, economic success, and especially
on lofty social ideals with a great deal of optimism. They
aspired to create a platform which would renew harmony in
human life on all levels.

Architecturally – at least on a small scale and for a period
of time such projects achieved a “great unity”, similar to that
achieved by the great historical styles (in the Czech Republic
e.g. Bata’s city of Zlín with its satellites).

5 The Importance of the
symbolic-aesthetic criterion in
evaluating industrial structures
In the European context, the heritage of Czech industrial

and technical structures is very valuable. This discussion of
the topic is a small contribution to promoting a criterion thus
far absent, a criterion that would systematically evaluate tech-
nical structures from a symbolic-aesthetic perspective. Such
an evaluation is an innovation except in the case of some very
exceptional works by well-known architects.

Today we admire many industrial structures for their aes-
thetic appearance, which they acquired from their specific
typological class. Paradoxically, however, association with an
industrial typology nowadays often underlines the thought-
less destruction of such works. Old technology has been
surpassed, and all that remains is the shell of a structure, and
its potential aesthetic value is not usually an adequate motive
for new investors to make an effort to conserve the building.
Moreover, such structures are more complicated to evaluate
than other types of buildings, because their urban impact
tends to be much broader in scope. When they finish serving
their function, it is often necessary to transform much larger

26 ©  Czech Technical University Publishing House http://ctn.cvut.cz/ap/

Acta Polytechnica Vol. 47  No. 1/2007

Fig. 4: Category C – value of standard. An engineering works. Koh-i-noor, a.s. (former Waldes and co.) in Praha. Built 1919–1921 by
Jindřich Pollert (left). A pencil work KOH-I-NOOR Hardtmuth factory in České Budějovice. Built 1846–1862 and later (right) .



sections of areas. It also seems that the public, and especially
the conservation bodies, have not yet learned to appreciate
the quality of these structures. Valuable works are thus dis-
appearing rapidly, without ever having been assessed and
without any thought being given to appropriate ways of
saving them and converting them for new use in the future.

6 An analysis of selected technical
structures – bridge structures
Bridge structures have been selected as an example that

can quite easily demonstrate the application of the sym-
bolic-aesthetic interpretation of a structural work. Two
bridges will be discussed in detail - the Art Nouveau Svato-
pluk Čech bridge in Prague and the Long Bridge in České
Budějovice. Using those examples I will also demonstrate
the difference between the traditional and modern forms of
bridges.

6.1 The symbolic perception of water
In the human mind, water is associated with continuity,

the passage of time, the principle of change, and danger. It is
also seen as a subconscious source of wisdom. For this reason
rivers and water commonly appear in human dreams and
myths.

6.2 Bridges in the organism of the city
Bridges have always played an important role in the ar-

rangement of the city as a whole. They are important compo-
nents of the image of the city and its genius loci. The bridges
of Prague (especially the most famous Charles Bridge) are an
important part of its cityscape, together with many of its
towers. Over the ages bridges have also served many second-
ary functions; for example, they have formed a part of the
fortifications, and dwellings, business and shops have been
located on them, and they have had representational and
leisure functions (e.g. a bridge in Verona, the old London
Bridge, Ponte Vecchio, Ponte Rialto, Chinese bridges). These
historical structures were always to some extent aesthetical-
ly and symbolically cultivated, and were created to form a
harmonious part of the city.

6.3 Svatopluk Čech Bridge (constructed in
1908–1909, architect J. Koula)

This Art Nouveau iron bridge is an example of the cate-
gory of stylistic unity and the romantic metaphor (Figs. 5–9).
The bridge consists of three truss arches supported by two
concrete pillars cladded with stone. In the fact, the bridge cre-
ates a sort of counterpart and at the same time an addition to
the famous Charles Bridge. They are comparable on terms of
two factors: their technical merit and their artistic merit. At
the same time, they represent two different epochs of the
national “golden age”. From the ideological point of view,
Charles Bridge is a manifestation of the universality of the
Catholic faith, symbolised by the well-known gallery of open-
-air statues. On the other hand, the Svatopluk Čech Bridge
glorifies the emancipated modern society of the early 20th

century.
In an urbanistic context, the Svatopluk Čech Bridge is

actually the continuation of a long axis, that starts in the his-
toric market centre, attached to a building of great civic
pride – Old Town Hall on the Old Town Square. The axis then
runs through the former Jewish Quarter along the new and
representative Parizska Street, and then up to the bridge
(Fig. 7). This straight axis was intended to continue through
the triumphal arch above the planned opening in the steep
Letna hill (Fig. 5). The culmination and planned conclusion
of this line was to be a new city quarter, in which government
buildings would be centred. In this way the bridge can be
compared to Charles Bridge, which formed an integral part
of the Royal Route that ran through the complicated organ-
ism of the medieval city. The route symbolically unified the
objects of spiritual power with their temporal counterparts.
At one end of the route is the royal palace, with the cathedral
as a sacred source of authority and power. The reverse view
presents the city as an image of blessed human activity. Here,
one direction complements the opposite directions – the
design represents the way of salvation as a two-way street. The
Svatopluk Čech Bridge also created a specific vista of the new
centre of gravity – the government buildings – in accordance
with the modern belief that all power comes from the people,
not from God.

As regards form, we have already said that the Art Nou-
veau Svatopluk Čech Bridge is the continuation of the trium-

©  Czech Technical University Publishing House http://ctn.cvut.cz/ap/ 27

Acta Polytechnica Vol. 47  No. 1/2007

Fig. 5: Svatopluk Čech Bridge in Prague. Built 1908–1909 by J. Koula. The face side of the bridge (left). The design of the triumph arch
at the Letná hill by J. Koula, 1897 (right).



phalism of Parizska Street (Fig. 7). Stylistically, it is a mixture
of all historical styles, but without religious accents. In a spiri-
tual sense, the artists and architects preferred pre-Christian
motives. The whole project is a manifestation of the optimism
and ambition of the era of prosperity, based on modern man-
agement, modern technology and a modern social system.

The decoration of the bridge is organised on three main
levels (Figs. 5, 6). The lowest level is thematically related to
water. The mid-level is dedicated to man and to work associ-
ated with water. The upper level belongs to protective forces
and beings. In this way all the strategic points and levels of the
bridge are symbolically occupied.

The face of the Svatopluk Čech Bridge is the upstream
side (Fig. 7). Surprisingly, the coats-of-arms of Prague are on
the opposite side, on the rear of the structure, like as is flag of
the nation, which is situated on the stern of a ship. Here, the
flag is protected by the whole mass of the ship. In our case,
this supreme symbol is flanked by a pair of water dragons,
hydras that only the divine Hercules was able to overcome.

Here, these creatures are placed in the role of loyal monsters –
as guard dogs of a sort. This kind of application recalls
lion’s heads that have to hold iron rings in their mouths, or
frightening cathedral gargoyles that facilitate roof drainage.
Below the coats-of-arms we also see the face of the water God,
captured in the wall. He, too, guard the bridge, watching over
everything closely, and perhaps shouting through his open
mouth.

On the face side of the bridge there are two prominent fe-
male figures holding a torch in their hands (Fig. 6). They may
also be symbols of republican liberty, like the Statue of Liberty
in New York. The torches used to have gas lamps on them,
lighting the waterway, ceaselessly welcoming the river and the
approaching boats. In the night, they warned of the poten-
tially dangerous presence of two pillars. These gigantic ladies
stand on pillars formed in the shape of decorative ship bows
festooned with flowers.

The spaces between the arches are decorated with relief
sculptures of naked bodies of real and mythical creatures,

28 ©  Czech Technical University Publishing House http://ctn.cvut.cz/ap/

Acta Polytechnica Vol. 47  No. 1/2007

Fig. 6: Svatopluk Čech Bridge in Prague. Built 1908–1909 by J. Koula. The face side of the bridge with an female figure holding a torch
(left). The railing with identical medallions with female face, “chain” of electric lamps and relief sculptures (right).

Fig. 7: Svatopluk Čech Bridge in Prague. Built 1908–1909 by J. Koula. A specific vista to Pařížská Street (left). The upstream side of the
bridge with coats-of-arms of Prague and water dragons (right).



which play together in harmony. The guidelines of the arches
are marked by a chain of electric lamps that look like grand
pearls, supernaturally taken from the depths of the purifying
water, as in a Wagnerian opera (Figs. 6, 8).

On the terrain level of the bridge there are motifs based
on work related to water. In the centre of the railing panels
there are identical medallions with a beautiful female face and
the Latin inscription: Prague, mother of cities (Figs. 6, 8). The
replication of this image and the inscription are like a sort
of mantra, proclaiming the eternity of the city. Even the man-
dala-like shape of the relief sculptures refers to the world of
universal archetypes. On the top of the railing, above the
pillars there are pairs of urns that borrow their shape from

ancient times and remind us of the process of death and re-
birth from earth and water – a natural cycle (Fig. 7).

The tower gates at Charles Bridge are of a defensive char-
acter. On the threshold of Svatopluk Čech Bridge, by contrast,
all that can be found are some small stone houses crowned by
seven-meter-high columns (Fig. 8). These lean and structures,
placed at a good distance from each other, are inviting to free
and rapid movement, rather than creating an obstacle. They
form as it were open gates indicating just the symbolic begin-
ning and end of the bridge. At the top of the columns there
are small glass structures, and above them stand four poetic
figures of Victory. At night they stand on the light of shining
lanterns. In this connection we can recall the old Christian

©  Czech Technical University Publishing House http://ctn.cvut.cz/ap/ 29

Acta Polytechnica Vol. 47  No. 1/2007

Fig. 8: Svatopluk Čech Bridge in Prague. Built 1908–1909 by J. Koula. Decoration of the spaces between the arches, candelabras and
small stone houses on the treshold of the bridge (left). The threshold of Svatopluk Čech bridge with seven-meter-high columns.

Fig. 9: Svatopluk Čech Bridge in Prague. Built 1908–1909 by J. Koula. The decoration of candelabras – relief works depicting water-re-
lated trades (left), a head of a ram (right).



image of the Virgin Mary standing on the crescent, or the
Lady dressed in the Sun. According to a more ancient vision
the image is reminiscent of the Goddess Nike holding the
branch of victory.

Other impressive vertical features are the candelabras
(Figs. 7, 8, 9), the lower parts of which are decorated with
relief work. These originally depicted several water-related
trades, such as rafters and fishermen. These have today been
replaced by replicas of one of the originals, which depicts
people carrying jugs of water on their shoulders (Fig. 9). The
figures have an air of peace and dignity to them, like the
figures from the Ara Pacis altar in Rome. The same place is
marked by an almost three-dimensional image of the head
of a ram (Fig. 9). This seems to symbolise the nature of the
power of man and according to the ancient models perhaps
the sacred sacrifice – in this case through dedicated human
work. Slightly higher up, there are metal platforms for flow-
ers, which used to decorate the whole structure on holidays
and festivals.

At the highest point of the candelabras there are gilded
images of another life-giving element – the disk of the Sun
with rays of sunshine. Its simplicity recalls the monstrances
carried by the Hussites in front of their troops. At night, this
image is simulated by two hanging electric lamps.

In summary, the symbolic meaning of this bridge is the
celebration of elements of nature, human work and the new
social perspective. On the other hand, Charles Bridge is
guarded by the images of saints, including some Czech com-
patriots, who together help us to pass safely across to the
opposite shore, “the other side”, and they remind us that this
walk is certainly not endless.

6.4 Modern bridges
The metaphor of modern bridges is often indifferent to

their surroundings and to the genius loci of the whole city.
Such bridges create the impression that the problems to be
solved and the particular situation of the place are often artifi-

cially complicated to create an ambitious challenge. In addi-
tion to their radical technical designs and forms, new bridges
are also stylised to be contemporary. This additional articula-
tion can be much stronger than the plain structural design.
Because of its extremity, such an approach can disturb the
genius loci of the surroundings.

6.5 Long Bridge in České Budějovice
(constructed in 1999, arch. R. Koucký,
T. Rotter)

This bridge is an example of the metaphor of technology
category, due to its simple functional structures with typical
production and technical features (Fig. 10). The steel struc-
ture of this cable-stayed bridge is supported by one pillar. Its
typical silhouette resembles the old chain bridges. However,
because of the expected loads and the small span of the river,
this structure seems to be unnecessary.

Hanging cables are attached in the centre of the bridge on
a two-part frame. In the place of the anchorage, this frame
simulates the separation of the parts, and simulates the pull
and the weight of the load. The illusion of deformation also
has an aesthetic function in other parts of the bridge. We see
the rubber-like deformed openings in the steel sheets, which
are part of the side beams (Fig. 10). These openings resemble
the holes that form the inner structure of aircraft. The metal-
lic character and the round shape enhance this association.
The radically outward arched railing also has something in
common with the leading edge of the giant wing of an
airplane. Despite the technoid character of the bridge, how-
ever, the general impression has something surprisingly akin
to the style of Art Nouveau.

The bridge is located close to some traditional houses and
it is not far from the historical centre of the city. From this
point of view, the aircraft metaphor is rather improper. This
new bridge blocks off its surroundings and draws all attention
to itself, a feature that has also been criticised by other archi-
tects and experts.

30 ©  Czech Technical University Publishing House http://ctn.cvut.cz/ap/

Acta Polytechnica Vol. 47  No. 1/2007

Fig. 10: Long Bridge in České Budějovice. Built 1999 by Roman Koucký and Tomáš Rotter. The structure of the bridge (left). The rub-
ber-like deformed openings of the side beams (right). (Authors of figures: Lenka Popelová and the database of the VCPD, CTU
in Prague.)



7 Conclusion
This paper is a contribution in support of a criterion that

will systematically evaluate industrial structures, including
bridge structures, from a symbolic-aesthetic perspective. This
approach should serve as a useful argument in efforts aimed
at conserving and regenerating such structures.

8 Acknowledgments
This research was supported by IG CTU0622115 Aes-

thetic and Symbolic Dimension of Industrial Buildings. One
of the Classification Categories in 2006 and by RP MŠMT
61-66100 Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Development
of Technical Fields and Industrial Architecture in the Czech
Republic and the Creation of a Typology in 2006.

References
[1] Bradley, B. H.: The Works. The Industrial Architecture of the

United States. New York, Oxford University Press, 1999.
[2] Čenský, A.: Návrh na úpravy Letenské pláně dle prof.

J. Kouly. Architektonický obzor. Vol. VI (1907), p. 31–32,
34–35, 37–38, 41–42.

[3] Čenský, A.: O původním návrhu arch. prof. Kouly na
komunikaci letenským průkopem. Architektonicky obzor,
Vol. IX (1910), p. 13, 15–17.

[4] Darley, G.: Factory. London, Reaktion Books Ltd., 2003.
[5] Fischer, J., Fischer, O.: Pražské mosty. Praha, Academia,

1985.

[6] Föhl, A.: Bauten der Industrie und Technik. Baden,
Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Nationalkomitees für
Denkmalschutz.

[7] Hozák, J.: Krása průmyslové architektury. Industriální
architektura – nevyužité dědictví. (Editors: Fragner, B.,
Hlaváček, E.), Praha, NTM v Praze, OA, ČFVU 1990,
p. 10–13.

[8] Jung, C. G.: Duše moderního člověka. Brno, Atlantis, 1994.
[9] Kučera, V.: Architektura mostů. Praha, Vydavatelství

ČVUT v Praze, 2002.
[10] Koula, J.: Návrh vstupu komunikace letenské od arch.

Prof. J. Kouly. Architektonický obzor, Vol. IX (1910),
p. 19–21.

[11] Neaverson, P., Palmer, M.: Industrial Archeology. London
and New York, Routledge, 2000.

[12] Šeneberger, T.: Rekonstrukce výrobně–technických staveb
k novým účelům. Praha, NTM v Praze, 1995.

[13] Urlich, P.: Klasický a abstraktní model v architektuře 20.
století. Praha, Vydavatelství ČVUT v Praze, 1992.

Ing. arch. Lenka Popelová
phone: +420 224 355 322
email: lenka.popelova@fsv.cvut.cz; lenpop@centrum.cz

Department of Architecture

Czech Technical University in Prague
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Thákurova 7
166 29 Prague 6, Czech Republic

©  Czech Technical University Publishing House http://ctn.cvut.cz/ap/ 31

Acta Polytechnica Vol. 47  No. 1/2007