I like to wander around Krakow looking at the buildings, street furniture, and general cultural brick-a-brack. It’s not uncommon to find me boring the pants off the lady A pointing at some obscure feature of Krakow’s architecture while gesticulating wildly and spouting some ridiculous theory. She generally rolls her eyes, quite rightly, and urges me onwards to somewhere where we can discuss the various merits of handbags or ‘light summer trousers.’ Apparently these things are VERY IMPORTANT.
Undeterred I offer the following oddity; something that I’m at a loss to explain. Krakow’s streets are fascinatingly diverse, but there is one almost universal feature: all buildings are built on the same property line. Walk down an old Krakow street and every single building fronts the pavement. You step out of the door and you’re on the pavement, about 2 meters from the road. But, and this is the ‘but’ I want to address here, sometimes a building is set way back from it’s neighbors; I mean a good 20 or 30 meters back. Why? How the hell did this come about?
Let me show you: A classic Krakow street – all buildings front the pavement.
But suddenly you get this: A building of the same period as the surroundings but, inexplicably, 30 meters back from the road.
This is one example (on ul. Jozefa Sarego) but I know of three or four others. Not enough to constitute a style, but enough to make you wonder why and how it happened.
1. Was a building in the street destroyed and there happened to be another building behind it? Unlikely, it’s too close.
2. Did the architect want a garden in front of his project? Why so rare?
3. Are these survivors of older development? Also unlikely since they look like there were built at the same time as the surrounding developments (late 19th century, early 20th).
Any ideas?
Learn more fascinating facts about Krakow past and present.
Odd.
Perhaps this was the equivalent of your “4 bed detached” in the middle of a housing estate?
Do all the ones that are at the back with a garden look like they could have been a single family dwelling?
Does the plot size of the detached ones match the size (width on the street) of the others? If so, it could just be different developments of historical plots. Most built kamienica/apartments but some built homes for their families?
Rich traders or factory owners living close to their workers?
Just speculating.
Scatts: I’ve speculated along similar lines but these don’t seem to be viable answers.
They don’t look all that different from the apartment blocks around so I don’t think they were built a single residences. And even if they were, why not have the garden at the back? The buildings around are pretty grand (or were once), not the kind of places that would have been built for workers.
Hi – nice to hear from you, thanks for getting in touch. I’m abit new to all this blogging palava, so be patient and hopefully my writing will improve with time!!
2 theories on the above:
1. Just after 1257 when town planning first materialised (in what is now Kraków) under the watchful and wealthy eye of Prince Bolesław Wstydliwy, the grand plan was to link all the hamlets together with communication routes. Buildings were built along new streets running in a grid format (approx. 3 streets running parallel away from each side of the newly created market place) and any existing buildings had to be retained in their original positions!
2. These houses originally belonged to the wealthy and influential of Kraków and were allowed to be set back from the new building line (possibly away from the road noise?) during the changes introduced to Kraków’s architecture in the 19th century by the Austrians.
Sorry to be so keen on my first comment – but it’s an interesting challenge you set!
And he works in real-estate, so I dare you to argue with him!
You should visit Lodz if you like “grand” architecture…
http://www.flickr.com/search/?s=rec&w=all&q=piotrkowska&m=text
Dear Author,
Let me tell you what happened in the 1870s and 1880s.
President Jozel Dietl decided that the old river bed of the Vistula, which was between ulica Stradom and Kazimierz District (roughly along the present Dietla street) should be filled up; consequently, the river changed its course, a modern road was made (with the green belt in the middle – the so-called planty Dietlowskie) and a brand new elegant district was created. Incidentally, a number of more affluent Jews who wanted to escape the dirt and poverty of the 19th c. Kazimierz built or financed houses in Dietla, Sarego, Orzeszkowej, Wrzesinska and Sebastiana streets.
I do not know whether this has any bearing on what you have noticed but perhaps it does. The house at the back might have been built a little earlier ( even a decade or so), between the change in the direction of the river and thus it had to be put at a safe distance from the river bank. In order to tell you more I will have to go and see the layout for myself.
Another possible explanation is a garden in front (you could have it if you were rich enough not to care about the prices of the land) or, alternatively, there used to be another building in front.
I am absolutely certain that the Boleslaw Wstydliwy theory can be easily refuted. For centuries after the king’s demise this area remained outside the city walls and the city planning did not take it into account. Another thing – Kazimierz was a separate town and Podgorze too.
As far as I remember after the first partition of Poland the 18th c. Austrian – Polish border was somewhere close. (Podgorze was established by the Austrians who wanted to weaken the position of Krakow).
J.
PS. Sorry, the teacher got the better of me again.
yellerbelly: Please don’t apologize for keenness. It’s genuinely been bugging me what’s going on with these buildings. I often find it’s the little oddities that can lead to interesting insights.
1. The street in question is outside of the Old Town (as are all the other examples I can think of) so I don’t think the planning of the streets from the square could have much to do with it. No reason you should know this of course.
2. The idea that they were built in a different era is the most convincing one so far. I suppose the thing to do would be to look at a an historical map.
Jolanta: I had heard vaguely about the origins of Dietla and the filling in of the old riverbed. I’ve even seen pictures of it shortly after Dietla was built and the trees were mere samplings. A’s grandfather remembers selling firewood there long before the tram tracks were laid… or he might be making things up again.
As you say, it could be that this building is slightly earlier and that it was left intact as development went on around it. Hard to tell. Perhaps I’ll post pictures of the other examples I have in mind, they’re quite different.
The teacher is always welcome here.
Author, initially I thought that the grandfather had been pulling your leg again because I remembered that the tram track reached (probably crossed) Dietla in the first decade of the 20th c. Later, however, I recalled that the very line along Dietla was introduced in the 1970s, to the extreme detriment of the planty Dietlowskie horticultural design. Today the trees in Dietla are a sorry sight, the flowerbeds are long gone, the remaining shrubs are a parody of any decent bush, the benches are occupied by slightly smelly gentlemen of leisure and the grass is covered in canine excrements.
You can find the history of Dietla and of the planty at:
http://www.jakikazimierz.com/index.php?s=1&u=4
Maybe lady A could translate the best bits for you.
J.
Excellent post, really!
Raf
http://uzar.wordpress.com/
Raf: Thanks, really!
But do you have a theory?
Sorry about the above.
In Warsaw there is one similar situation which I can think of – except that the ‘palace’ in question had a tenament building built in front of it.
One theory is that after the palace was built land prices and/or fashions changed and the othe plots on the streets had tenament buildings built on them. The owner of the ‘palace’ then built a rather grand tenament in his garden.
I would guess that the ‘palace’ in your post is slightly older than the tenaments and the owner of the plot just didn’t build on the front of it. There may have been other similar buildings demolished in order to build the tenaments.
http://miasta.gazeta.pl/warszawa/51,73195,3402090.html?i=0
I recognize building on (“at”? damn` it, my poor english) last photo. Behind is Sarego 6, where i’ve lived for one year. :]
At evening hours the building seen on photo is very beautiful inside.
I know for sure that there’s a story behind this building and it’s unusual location but for life in me I can’t remember what was it. If you’re really interested (not just passing fancy) I can dig into my notes. I used to be city tour guide in Krakow.
BTW: I like your site and your sense of humor. J
Nuda: That’s what I love about blogs; you can a question, no matter how obscure, and eventually some kind person will happen along and offer to answer it.
I am very interested in the story, do please tell (if it’s not too much trouble).
Also, I’d love to write a post about Kossakówka, but I can’t find out very much about it. It’s just so bizarre this huge old house sitting in the middle of Krakow (kind of) completely empty.
Glad you like the blog. I write very little on here these days. This was a kind of prototype for Polandian, which is where I dedicate my efforts now.
OK, I will find out.
Kossakówka used to be a large property but was cut substantially when Aleja Krasinskiego was built. You will find a lot of information in memoirs of Maria Pawlikowska-Jasnorzewska (daughter of Wojciech Kossak). Growing up I lived across the street (next door to Teatr STU) and this property had a “secret garden” quality to me as a child.
true – there is lots of odditios in Krakow – have a look at http://www.roomwithaviewkrakow.com – we’re trying to recapitulate on all what’s on in Krakow, including architecture.
Off topic – Help with PM?
lost password
Boss Resurfacing
Boss Resurfacing