Pulling Down Part of the Old Town Hall

Sudek watched the course of events on Old Town Square and the changes to the Old Town Hall unfold during the days immediately after the end of the war, and in the following years as well. Therefore his images include the whole northern part of the town hall after the fire, the course of its demolition and in the end the ruin of the eastern wing behind the scaffolding which remained in the same place for several years after the war. The scaffolding is captured in a total of nine negatives, in rainy weather and fog veiling its construction. It is likely that Sudek chose such weather for taking a picture of the town hall with the intention to give his images an atmosphere of mourning.

The ruin of the town hall became a symbol of the dilemmas that this part of the office building provoked for a long time. The burnt Neo-Gothic wing came into being during the reconstruction in 1838–1848 under the leadership of the Viennese builder Peter Nobile whose original design of the view of the square was redesigned by the Prague building councillor Pavel Sprenger after the public expressed its disapproval (the plans were also modified by the director of the building, Heřman Bergmann).On the controversy surrounding the architect's method of conserving the old building: “Although it was the Emperor's wish that the old age of the town hall be respected, Nobili did not respond in kind – he had the beautiful Gothic staircase pulled down – and his Gothic lacked artistic sensitivity and had the feeling of a military barracks.” Václav Vojtíšek, Výstava „Staroměstská radnice a její památky“, in: Václav Vojtíšek, ed., "600 let Staroměstské radnice v Praze", in: Věstník Hlavního města Prahy, zvláštní číslo, Rada hlavního města Prahy, Praha, 1938, p. 30. The new wing was built on the site of three older burgher houses in the style of a romantic “Empire interpretation of Gothic”.Bohumil Hypšman, Sto let Staroměstského rynku a radnice, Pražské nakladatelství Václava Poláčka, Praha, 1946, díl I, p. 7. The older houses can be seen at in Langweil's model of Prague from 1926–1937, displayed in the permanent exhibition in the Prague City Museum. After tearing down the neighbouring Krenn's house in 1901, which stood between St. Nicholas' Church and this new wing, Nobile's originally unpopular northern facade was unveiled. In addition, the events of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries in the square disturbed the traditional urbanism, built up for centuries.Karel Kibic comments on it as follows: “St Nicholas found itself in an unlikely situation”. Idem, Staroměstská radnice v Praze, in: Staletá Praha V, Orbis, Praha, 1971, p. 61. Thus in 1901 the first of four competitions for the new building of the town hall was announced, all of which took place before the Second World War, although none of them were successfully realized (1904, 1909, 1938).

The issues revolving around removing the remnants of the building or preserving them called for more discussions in the postwar period. Nowadays we will never know if Sudek inclined to the opinion of his friend Václav Rabas, the painter, who called for preserving the relics in the square as a reminder of the barbarous attack.Bohumil Hypšman, Sto let Staroměstského rynku a radnice, Pražské nakladatelství Václava Poláčka, Praha, 1946, Díl II, p. 42 (the discussion about keeping or removing the debris is summed up on pages 41–42). The atmosphere in Sudek's photographs suggests such a view. The jury of the fifth, postwar competition for the new building in 1946 also supported it as they were afraid of pulling down the wing as the “competition” might not “reach to its goal […] the site might be left empty for many years”. Bohumil Hypšman, Sto let Staroměstského rynku a radnice, Pražské nakladatelství Václava Poláčka, Praha, 1946, Díl II, p. 42.

Eventually, the burnt Neo-Gothic wing was demolished in 1948.Karel Kibic, Staroměstská radnice v Praze, in: Staletá Praha V, Orbis, Praha, 1971, p. 61. Only a fragment of Sprenger's east facade has been preserved, in the close vicinity of the bay window of the chapel. The new building was never built. After the last competition for a new building in 1988, the art historian Rostislav Švácha concluded that considering the way it had been destroyed the only meaningful function of such a building would be as a museum of the Prague Uprising.Rostislav Švácha, „Poznámky k účelu uvažované novostavby radniční budovy“, in: Umění XXXVI, č. 5, 1988, pp. 422–425. Compare also the argument of the Ševčík's who commented on the assignment of the last competition as a “sort of monumental programme” – “the town hall as a monument to the town hall, art work, architecture for architecture”; Jiří Ševčík – Jana Ševčíková: „Simulovaný příběh“, in: Umění XXXVI, č. 5, 1988, p. 446. On the issue of the completion of the town hall up to today compare the notes in the text Old Town Hall.