Persistent Scatterer Interferometry (PSI), a remote sensing technique, is used for detecting surface deformation in the cities of Prague and Ostrava. PSI is able to detect vertical movements with an accuracy of less than 1 mm for a long time series of the SAR data, but the maximum detectable rate of movement is only a few centimetres per year. This technique is quite suitable for detecting recent movements in most Prague localities. On the other hand, in Ostrava and its surroundings, affected by undermining, where subsidences (1992-2006) amount to decimetres per year, movements cannot be fully detected by the PSInSAR technique. The paper presents results of analysing PSI data for two localities in Prague and one locality in the Ostrava areas. The localities are strictly situated in built-up areas with many suitable reflectors. Data from the ERS-1/2 and ENVISAT satellites covering a 13-year period for the Prague (1992-2005) and a 14-year period for the Ostrava (1992-2006) area were used. Annual movement velocities and time-series of reflectors were determined. At these three localities, where different types of movements were identified, the application and possible limitations of PSI in urban areas are shown., Pavel Kadlečík, Vladimír Schenk, Zuzana Seidlová and Zdeňka Schenková., and Obsahuje bibliografii
Recenzentka vychází z toho, že zrod socialistické kultury v Československu po únoru 1948 předjímal také nový přístup k urbánním konceptům a společenské funkci architektury, která začala být chápána jako prostředek aktivní proměny „přírodního prostředí“ v „životní prostředí“ a stala se tak politikem. První recenzovaná publikace je podle ní zatím jedinou větší prací věnovanou komplexní historii takzvané Nové Ostravy a jejích satelitních sídlišť, která v této nejprůmyslovější oblasti Československa od konce čtyřicátých let minulého století vznikala. Její autor zde sleduje sovětský vliv a problém sovětizace české architektury, zároveň se ale snaží vidět pod rouškou příklonu k sovětským vzorům návrat či počátek specifického československého vývoje. Ve druhé práci pak autor zaměřil pozornost na takzvané kulturní domy jako multifunkční zařízení určené k všestrannému vzdělávání veřejnosti, které se staly typickým dobovým fenoménem, jehož zhodnocení může poukázat nejen na hlavní rysy vývoje architektury a urbanismu za komunistického režimu, ale také na měnící se chápání společnosti, respektive „lidu“. Přes dílčí historické nepřesnosti a omyly obě publikace Martina Strakoše podle recenzentky znamenají jednoznačný přínos pro pochopení dobové atmosféry v architektonických a urbanistických kruzích a zároveň historikům umožňují nahlédnout do nepříliš prozkoumaných oblastí „budovatelské“ epochy., b1_The reviewer of these two publications starts from the premise that the birth of Socialist culture in Czechoslovakia after February 1948 also anticipated a new approach to the concepts of urban planning and the social function of architecture, which began to be understood as an active way to change the ‘natural environment’ into a ‘living environment’, and this function thus became policy. The first publication considered here, whose title translates as ‘The New Ostrava and its satellites: Chapters in the history of architecture from the 1930s to the 1950s’, is, according to the reviewer, so far the only large comprehensive history of what is called Nová Ostrava (New Ostrava) and its satellite housing estates, which were built in this region, the most industrial of Czechoslovakia, from the late 1940s onwards. Its author, Martin Strakoš, traces the Soviet influence and the question of the sovietization of Czech architecture, but also tries to see, beneath the veil of the inclination to Soviet models, a return to specifically Czechoslovak changes or the beginning of new developments. In the second work under review, whose title translates as ‘Community arts centres in the Ostrava region in the context of twentieth-century architecture and art: The cornerstones of society’, the author, again Strakoš, focuses on community arts centres (kulturní domy, literally ‘houses of culture’) as multipurpose facilities intended for the all-round education of the public, which became a typical phenomenon of the period, the assessment of which can help to throw light not only on the main features of the development of architecture and urban planning during the Communist regime, but also on changes in understanding society and the ‘people’., b2_Despite their occasional historical imprecision and mistakes, Strakoš’s two publications make, according to the reviewer, definite contributions to our understanding of the atmosphere amongst architects and urban planners at the time, and they also provide historians with insight into a largely neglected aspect of the era of ‘building Socialism’., [autor recenze] Doubravka Olšáková., and Obsahuje bibliografii