Łódź Fabryczna Railway Station – a progress or regress in railway architecture?

Jacek Wesołowski

doi:10.37190/arc230106

Abstract

The radical rebuilding of Fabryczna Railway Station in Łódź, one of the biggest railway projects of post-1989 Poland, has for years raised a lot of controversy – as much on the planning stage as after the opening, if not more. Some are rash and superficial judgements, resulting from not considering the conditions and aims of the project, while others are invariably true. Yet other aspects of the project seem entirely absent from the public debate. One thing is certain: the station is unfinished and does not function as expected. Five years have almost passed since it opened and it’s a good time to attempt a calm critique, backed by the usage experience. For this purpose, reference was made to the original visions of the railway system and initial design concepts, and an in-situ analysis of the facility was performed. The conclusions were confronted with professional publications. As a result, one gets the impression that the object is halfway between modernism and postmodernism. On the one hand, it develops a spatial vision that properly relocates car traffic to the outskirts of the city centre, and on the other – it hinders the creation of an attractive urban space with poorly shaped frontages, rejection of greenery as an architectural material and overscaling of road infrastructure. On the one hand, it introduces the iconic motif of the entrance, while on the other, it violates the historical compositional axis. This is accompanied by many functional shortcomings, and above all, the unused potential of a large usable area. The roots of this lie in the changing concepts – both at the level of the vision of the railway system implemented by the state and of the urban layout, which is the domain of the city.

Full article view is only available on bigger screens.

2023

1(73)

Jacek Wesołowski*

Łódź Fabryczna Railway Station

– a progress or regress in railway architecture?

Research problem and method of analysis

The turn of the 21

century was marked in the architec-

ture of railway stations by a large number of magnicent

buildings that became “icons” of the clearly visible revival

of railway as a means of modern transport. Some of them

are innovative architectural concepts, as well as a valu-

able complement to the surrounding space. Łódź Fabry-

czna Railway Station could follow this trend as one of the

largest investments of the Polish railways. The aim of the

article is to try to answer the questions why it did not hap-

pen, whether it is related to the peripherality of the city on

the map of Europe, the unnished investment, or rather the

defects of its architecture. An additional goal of the author

is to show that the lack of consistency and voluntarism

in making decisions can only lead to bad urban planning.

After a general description of the facility and discus-

sion of the problem of authorship, the essential analysis

begins with examining the genesis of the project, in the

context of early urban visions for the development of the

surrounding post-railway and post-industrial areas and the

concept of developing the railway network of Central Po-

land. Both of these factors shed light on the question of

the rationality of its scale and layout. Secondly, the issue

of integrating the station into the local transport network

is analysed. Thirdly, the issue of retrotting the station

into urban context, namely to what extent the building en-

riches or depreciates it. And fourthly, details of the archi-

tecture of the building itself are discussed. The assessment

was primarily based on functional criteria (how eciently

functional requirements are met), ecological criteria (to

what extent the solutions meet the requirements of times

of climate change), and, where possible, aesthetic criteria

(whether the form evokes associations that can be consid-

ered positive).

Professional literature on the architecture of the build-

ing seems to be relatively modest. The most extensive ma-

terial is a presentation of the new station, illustrated with

photographs and plans, in a leading Polish architectural

journal [1]. It was enriched with original statements by

architects and structural engineers [2], [3] and two texts

of architectural critique [4], [5]. In addition, we have two

technical and scientic articles [6], [7] and two other crit-

ical texts of a more journalistic nature [8], [9].

The main criticisms heretofore focuses on the overscal-

ing of the facility, the lack of integrated and well-designed

greenery, numerous shortcomings in the area of circula-

tion patterns and the unjustied use of historical forms.

Not all important aspects, according to the author, have

been noticed so far, whereas others require polemics. In

addition, most of them were written just after the opening

of the station, which means that they could not refer to the

experience of several years of its operation.

For the purposes of the article, it is of great importance

to rely on unpublished designs illustrating metamorphoses

of the concept in planning phase. References to general

professional literature in the eld of railway architecture,

supported by the conclusions of the analyses described

above, nally allow an attempt to answer the question

contained in the title.

Station’s layout and the authorship

of the design problem

The station is large (440,000 m

), although it is far

from the scale of main stations operating in Europe. Its

dimensions result from the underground location of the

four island platforms and from the site context, dened by

DOI: 10.37190/arc230106

Published in open access. CC BY NC ND license

* ORCID: 0000-0002-6108-8259. Faculty of Civil Engineering,

Architecture and Environmental Engineering, Lodz University of Tech-

nology, Poland, e-mail: jacek.wesolowski@p.lodz.pl

64 Jacek Wesołowski

Fig. 1. General view of the station from north-west.

Marks: X1 – Moniuszki Park axis, essential in R. Krier’s concept,

X2 – Grand Theatre’s axis

(Targowa Street), Z – green square

(source: Google Earth, circa 2018)

Il. 1. Widok ogólny dworca od północnego zachodu.

Oznaczenia: X1 – oś Parku Moniuszki

istotna w projekcie R. Kriera,

X2 – oś Teatru Wielkiego (ul. Targowa), Z – zieleniec

(źródło: Google Earth, ok. 2018)

Fig. 2. Station’s plan at street level, concept of Kolprojekt-SENER-BPK consortium, 2008. Markings: A – railway station with offices,

B – “City Gate”, offices and leisure, C – car park above platform hall, offices, D – sub-surface coach/bus station, E – station piazza,

F – underground roads with car park. A fairly faithful adaptation to the forms of R. Krier’s design is visible, including the reinforcement

of the Grand Theatre’s transverse axis (drawing: J. Wesołowski, 2023, based on [10])

Il. 2. Plan dworca w poziomie ulic, koncepcja konsorcjum Kolprojekt-SENER-BPK, 2008 r. Oznaczenia: A – dworzec kolejowy,

B – „Brama Miasta”, biurowce i rozrywka, C – parking nad halą peronową, biurowce, D – podziemny dworzec autobusowy, E – plac dworcowy,

F – drogi podziemne z parkingiem.

Widać dość wierne dopasowanie się do form projektu R. Kriera, w tym wzmocnienie osi

poprzecznej na Teatr Wielki (rys. J. Wesołowski, 2023, na podstawie [10])

ŁódźFabrycznaRailwayStation–aprogressorregressinrailwayarchitecture? 65

the signicant distance of the pedestrian entrance, which

is related to the emerging downtown trac calmed zone,

from the vehicular approach area, associated with the ex-

ternal road system. The length of the facility measured by

the extremities of the roofs is approximately 380 m, and

the width of the underground complex is approximately

85 m. Spatial layout is determined by the depression of the

pedestrian circulation on level –1 under the street, which

surrounds the void above the central part of the platforms.

These are situated at a depth of about 16.5 m [6], with

the foundation slab reaching 18.2 m [3]. Four island plat-

forms were built. Above their extreme sectors, ceilings

were constructed with two circulation halls: one from

the city centre, accessible mostly by foot and from tram

stops, and the other from the outside, accessible by car and

taxi. In the above-ground part, the building is cut by two

transverse passages. All parts are covered with at barrel

roofs; pointed contours at apex of the projections of ex-

treme ends are a characteristic architectural accent of the

station (Fig. 1). As a result of the recess, parts of the station

building visible from the street are relatively low and long,

with the eaves at a height of about 4 m. From the very be-

ginning, it was planned the new Łódź Fabryczna would be

a through station on the underground cross-city line, and

its current form, still a terminus, is only an interim phase.

The station emerged in three design approaches. The

rst was a study carried out by a consortium of the Span-

ish company SENER with Kolprojekt and Biuro Projek-

tów Kolejowych, completed around 2008 [10] (Fig. 2).

It proposed an almost completely underground platform

hall (there was an option of the full commercial build-

ing over), and the above-ground part, with a commercial

superstructure, adapted quite accurately to the layout set

in the rst concept of the “Nowe Centrum Łodzi” (NCŁ)

[“New Centre of Łódź”], i.e. a new development of the

surrounding areas abandoned by railway and industry de-

signed by Rob Krier (cf. the section Railwaystationand

urbandeterminantsofcontext ). The second approach was

a more urban planning study carried out by a consortium

of the French company SYSTRA (transport systems) with

the participation of the AREP architectural studio (deal-

ing, among others, with projects for French railways); it

was completed in around 2010 [11] (Figs. 3, 4). The most

signicant architectural change introduced by the second

study was the admittance of daylight to the recessed plat-

forms, so that to avoid a dark and overwhelming platform

cavern, in accordance with the latest trends (e.g. at Zara-

goza Delicias, 2003 – shallow tunnel; Berlin Hbf., 2006

and Antwerpen Centraal, 2006 – both in a deep tunnel).

Light was to be provided through a glazed roof between

oce blocks, as well as from the side trench located along

the southern wall of the building (probably not without

inspiration from the Lille Europe Station, 1993). During

the design process, it was believed that this would allow

an insight into the very futuristic building of the new art

museum in the form of a multi-storey horizontal cylinder.

The third and nal development of the architecture was

part of the contract signed by the Torpol-Astaldi- PBDiM-

Intercor consortium, which also comprised the four-track

tunnel leading from the east. The entire contract was val-

Fig. 4. Station and “NCŁ” seen from the north-west,

second concept of SYSTRA-AREP consortium, November 2009.

Return to the “City Gate” form as proposed by R. Krier

(drawing: J. Wesołowski, 2023, based on [11])

Il. 4. Widok dworca i NCŁ od strony północno-zachodniej,

druga koncepcja konsorcjum SYSTRA-AREP, listopad 2009 r.

Powrót do „Bramy Miasta” w układzie R. Kriera.

(rys. J. Wesołowski, 2023, na podstawie [11])

Fig. 3. Station seen from the east, first concept of SYSTRA-AREP,

April 2009. Visible is the idea of a green strip approaching the station,

flanked by carriageways of a planned artery. The strip was to go down

to the level of the vehicular approach area hidden under the concrete

slab of what is now Rodziny Poznańskich Street and the adjacent

pedestrian area. From the west side, the architects proposed,

for the first time, a modification of the R. Krier’s “City Gate” axis

(drawing: J. Wesołowski, 2023, based on [11])

Il. 3. Widok dworca od strony wschodniej, pierwsza koncepcja

konsorcjum SYSTRA-AREP, kwiecień 2009 r. Widoczny pomysł

na doprowadzenie do dworca zielonego klina, jako szeroki pas

rozgraniczający nowej arterii. Klin schodzić miał na poziom placu

podjazdowego ukrytego pod wiaduktem ul. Nowotargowej i płytą.

Od strony zachodniej projektanci proponowali po raz pierwszy

modyfikację osi krierowskiej „Bramy Miasta”

(rys. J. Wesołowski, 2023, na podstawie [11])

ued at PLN 1.76 billion [12]. The Warsaw FBT studio

[13] was responsible for the architectural part (project

2013/14). A long list of cooperating companies is provided

by “Architektura-Murator” and three leading designers

are distinguished: Anna Tomaszewska, Magdalena Boule

66 Jacek Wesołowski

and Tomasz Tomaszewski [1]. It is a pity that profession-

al publications [6], [9] do not mention this authorship,

while the contractor’s website only states 300 architects

worked on it [14]. Structural design was in the hands of

the Cracow company GSBK Biuro Konstrukcyjne [15].

However, it can be assumed that the station was a task so

complex and requiring design exibility that there were

many more authors of individual structural elements [7].

Final design in its ultimate form can be seen in the

NCŁ context in Figure 5. The previously planned longitu-

dinal, axial gallery leading trac to the platforms (typical

for French high-speed railway stations) was substituted by

a pair of side galleries, as a result of which both extreme

platforms were placed under a low ceiling (Fig. 6). This

made it dicult to illuminate the platform hall from the

longitudinal lateral trench mentioned before. However,

the cutting was retained, despite plans for the cylindrical

museum were given up in the meantime; now it partially

illuminates level –1 of the building (Fig. 7). Ultimately,

these galleries are to house a small set of shops, without

which a large station can hardly function [16]. The cir-

culation halls at both ends of the station, located at street

level in the previous design, have been moved to level –1.

From the city centre side, a monumental approach to one

of them was built in the form of an inclined square on

a triangular plan, approximately 130 m long.

It should be emphasized that the architecture of the sta-

tion was consulted on an ongoing basis by committees in

which interested parties were represented: i.e. the railway,

as well as city and provincial councils (the author had the

opportunity to participate in meetings of such a body in

2009–2010, i.e. when the second concept of the station

was debated [11]). Thus, it can be concluded that the nal

form of the station is not only an expression of the creative

will of the architects, but it is a compromise, sometimes

quite distant from the original proposals (cf. April 2009

and November 2009 versions of the SYSTRA-AREP con-

sortium; Figs. 3, 4). Certainly, the authorship cannot be re-

duced solely to the architects cooperating with this design

company, as “Gazeta Wyborcza” claimed [8].

Origin of the project

The decision to thoroughly rebuild the Fabryczna Sta-

tion is related to the project of building a railway line

connecting Wrocław and Warsaw, which, for obvious rea-

sons, was to pass through the Łódź metropolitan area. This

Fig. 6. Middle part of

the platforms (level –2)

with skylighted overall roofing.

Visible is the circulation gallery

above one of the extreme

platforms (on level –1)

(photo by J. Wesołowski, 2021)

Il. 6. Środkowa część peronów

(poziom –2) z bezpośrednim

doświetleniem górnym.

Widoczna galeria komunikacyjna

na piętrze (poziom –1) ponad

jednym ze skrajnych peronów

(fot. J. Wesołowski, 2021)

Fig. 5. Fabryczna Station and its surroundings,

part of the Nowe Centrum Łodzi plan of 2014.

The commercial superstructure flanking the two parts

of the above-ground roofing of the platform hall is shown.

Note the important differences in planned and built physical layout

of the station’s east and west foregrounds

(source: Miejska Pracownia Urbanistyczna, Łódź)

Il. 5. Dworzec Fabryczny i otoczenie,

fragment planu Nowego Centrum Łodzi z 2014.

Widoczna nadbudowa biurowa po dwóch bokach części nadziemnej

hali dworca. Ponadto widoczne istotne różnice w zagospodarowaniu

jego przedpola wschodniego i zachodniego w stosunku do realizacji

(źródło: Miejska Pracownia Urbanistyczna, Łódź)

ŁódźFabrycznaRailwayStation–aprogressorregressinrailwayarchitecture? 67

idea was then developed by combining the Wrocław and

Poznań directions in the form of a project of a high-speed

rail line (HSR) branching out in the Kalisz area (the so-

called “Igrek” or “Y-shaped Line”). The 2005 preliminary

feasibility study showed [17], as one of the two options,

the option of carrying it out directly under the city centre,

with an underground station on the site of the Fabryczna

Terminus, traditionally of the greatest importance for the

city. In this way, the railway would use one of its main

advantages: a direct link to the very centres of big cities.

Łódź Fabryczna location was also favoured by the possi-

bility of using the station as one of the tools for regenera-

tion of the inner city, which suered particularly as a result

of many years of neglect, and then functional marginaliza-

tion related to the emergence of centrifugal tendencies in

trade and services, characteristic of the “urban change” of

the 20

century. The city government supported this idea

and, in the study it commissioned, conrmed the desire to

have a centrally located HSR station [18].

The project was quickly combined with a thorough re-

construction of the entire railway junction in Łódź, lead-

ing to the consolidation of most of the trac of various

ranges at the main station, which the new Łódź Fabryczna

was about to become, with underground platforms on the

four-track cross-city line [19]. Its role as the main transfer

hub from the long-distance railway (including the HSR)

to the regional and urban system led to the expectation of

a serious increase in the daily number of people served,

especially since the regional system was not only to be

“resuscitated” after years of collapse (which is currently

happening), but also supplemented with key missing links

serving the region and its main city, as well as acceler-

ating long-distance trac (this has not been eectively

undertaken). Łódź and the region were to become an area

where, for the rst time in history, railways, as an envi-

ronment-friendly means of transport, play a fundamental

role in mobility.

There are also additional circumstances that should have

been considered when dimensioning the station. HSR,

al-

most always where it was established, caused a large in-

crease in the number of passengers due to the increase

in competitiveness triggered by the reduction of journey

duration to signicantly less than by car, and even less or

the same as by plane (including access to airports, control

and waiting time). Added to the passenger volume should

be the number of visitors to the station, if only to take

advantage of the accompanying retail service oer. If one

of the premises were to accept the comparison with cit-

ies where the railway works well, then there is a parallel

with the station in Nuremberg (over 200,000 passengers

and visitors daily in a slightly smaller city and agglomer-

ation), or in Mannheim (over 100,000) [20]. However, the

number of 200,000 daily station users [21], fourteen times

more than the old terminus at the beginning of this centu-

ry, seems highly unrealistic. A simple calculation assum-

ing a medium-intensive service of all lines to converge in

Łódź showed that approximately 30 trains per hour (of

which approximately 10 high-speed trains) should be ex-

pected. Assuming that each of them means approximately

100 people getting on and o, it would give the range

of 20 h × 3000 passengers – 60,000 passengers per day.

This number could be increased by visitors. For compari-

son: today there are usually about ten trains per hour, but

sometimes only 2–3 (most directions are served by anoth-

er station in Łódź – the peripheral Widzew), and service

facilities are practically non-existent.

Dimensioning the main station in a shrinking but still

large city is not a simple task. In the case of Łódź it was

performed bearing in mind that the investment is to last

for a century, and that the policy of railway expansion in

Poland and in its central region will be consistently imple-

mented. Unfortunately, this did not happen as during the

design work, the government de facto withdrew from the

construction of the HSR (2012), and serious lling of the

gaps in the railway network in the region and in the ag-

glomeration was not addressed at all, leaving large areas

of the province beyond rational rail service. Only the pres-

ent “Centralny Port Komunikacyjny” (a new air-rail hub

planned near Warsaw) design team refreshed the matter

of building the HSR line, but according to the new design

assumptions, so it will not happen soon. The upgrading of

the railway system of the Łódź region is thus, for the time

being, expressed in work on improving the functioning

of what is already there and on the construction of a dou-

ble-track cross-city line. However, this will not meet the

expectations that, given the strong motorway competition,

the railway will be able to take over the transport tasks

that were at the heart of the design of Fabryczna Station.

Dimensions of the station are also determined by the

environmental context: in the SYSTRA’s study, it was

rightly assumed that all car service should be performed

from the east, i.e. from the planned inner ring road, where-

as the west side is to be for pedestrians and integration

Fig. 7. A cutting along the south wall of the station,

originally supposed to admit light to platforms,

currently illuminating unused commercial boxes.

In the background: “City Gate” office blocks redirected

to the axis of Traugutta Street (photo by J. Wesołowski, 2021)

Il. 7. Wykop wzdłuż ściany południowej dworca,

mający pierwotnie doświetlać perony,

a obecnie doświetlający nieczynne boksy usługowe.

W głębi biurowa „Brama Miasta” nakierowana na oś ul. Traugutta

(fot. J. Wesołowski, 2021)

68 Jacek Wesołowski

with trams. In SENER’s study, all this trac was to be

located at the “City Gate”, which forced a two-tier design,

and still did not provide comfortable pedestrian access on

its axis. The expected increase in trac seemed to justify

the resulting dimensions.

Accessibility and transport integration

The issue of the scale of the object does not exhaust the

usability aspect. The functionality of the station should also

be analysed in terms of accessibility and ease of intermodal

transfers, as well as the simplicity and intuitiveness of inter-

nal circulation routes (including the information system).

Internal orientation inside the building should not be

dicult due to its simple structure. As an advantage, it

is worth noting the prominent location of ticket oces,

which is not so common nowadays, in the era of locat-

ing them in a row of shops adjacent to circulation areas.

However, there are problems with some exits. The dis-

advantage is that the stairs leading to the street level on

the northern edge of the building are hidden. While the

entrance from the city is clearly emphasized by the char-

acteristic protrusion of the roof (Fig. 8), the eastern en-

trance from the street level is unintuitive. For unknown

reasons, there is no clear connection between the bridge of

Aleja Rodziny Scheiblerów and the level of the vehicular

approaches below it, where there is not only the entrance

to the station, but also a taxi rank. An eastbound pedestri-

an connection to this square exists, but is indirect and thus

illegible. This should be considered a signicant error in

the layout of the pedestrian infrastructure, which suggests

that one of the city centre streets is the domain of the car

and should not actually be used by pedestrians (Fig. 9).

In addition, in the case of such an extensive building,

it is astonishing that the information system that would

explain the urban surroundings simply does not exist. The

person getting o the train will not know how to get to

the neighbouring streets or public transport stops. But this

error is the easiest to x, and simply requires good will.

Fabryczna Station was conceived as a large intermodal

hub, which is why the project had the ambition to

strengthen

connections between the railway and other means of trans-

port. The station for regional buses and coaches has been

designed below street level on level –1, along the northern

gallery of the station. Easy transfers from the train would

be particularly desirable, given the low density of the rail-

way network in the region, which qualies bus transport

to regain the key importance. Unfortunately, more than

twenty underground bus stands are used to a small extent,

and regional and long-distance trac service is divided

into several points in the city. The largest of them, at the

Kaliska Station, is located outside the city centre, but it

is faster to reach by main roads. Added to this is the at-

rophy of the regional bus network, which renders the real

integration of railways with the regional bus network un-

likely in the near future. However, the designers cannot

be blamed for this, but rather the laissez-faire transport

policy of the local and national governments.

While integration with buses and coaches may improve

in future, connection with the city network is a problem

that is dicult to x. The station is located in the vicinity

of the intersection of two tram routes: latitudinal along

Narutowicza Street and the meridional along Kilińskiego

Street. In the statusquoante, the walkway from the plat-

forms to the stops on the former line was approximately

300–400 m long (depending on the direction), and to stops

on the latter – less than 200 m (if train tickets had to be

purchased, it was extended by approx. 1/3). As part of the

project, it was decided to redirect the latitudinal line to the

station itself, but, as a result of placing the platforms un-

derground, the length of the walkway (assisted by escala-

tors) was reduced to only about 220 m. Yet, not much was

Fig. 8. West gable of the overall roof, entrance from the city centre. Characteristic motif of the station’s architecture

(photo by J. Wesołowski, 2017)

Il. 8. Szczyt zachodni dachu,

wejście od strony centrum miasta.

Charakterystyczny motyw architektoniczny dworca

(fot. J. Wesołowski, 2017)

ŁódźFabrycznaRailwayStation–aprogressorregressinrailwayarchitecture? 69

done with the tram in Kilińskiego Street, except placing

it on the station side of the carriageway. As a result, the

distance increased to approximately 420 m. This is in ob-

vious contradiction to the commonly seen trend to shorten

transfer routes, even at the expense of a new, extended

tram line (e.g. Grenoble 1987, Potsdam 1998, Halle 2005,

Tours 2013), for which an integration tunnel was some-

times built (Linz 2009, Graz 2012).

The railway station

and urban context determinants

The basic reason for the incomplete integration with

the tram system was the original vision of the “New Cen-

tre of Łódź”. Strengthening this investment by the impact

of a busy station should have been a rational choice, but

problems arose when it came to details. The contradiction

between the large scale of the main railway station and the

assumed small scale of the NCŁ blocks required meticu-

lous design and proper staging of the investment in order

to avoid unfavourable “interim states”. In any case, the

large station as a secondary element of a complex domi-

nated by dierent determinants of composition was a sig-

nicant problem, not only in planning doctrine, but also at

its execution and construction stage.

In 2007, an urban plan was adopted based on Rob Krier’s

spatial concept [22]. The architect’s original idea was to orien -

tate the entire complex to the north, towards Park Moniusz-

ki, to which a monumentally conceived exedra, called the

“City Gate”, was to open. Somewhere underground a small

railway station on the line to Warsaw was supposed to be

built, but this was not dealt with in detail at all. The emer-

gence of the main station project changed the situation

completely: it was to be retrotted into the Krier’s con-

cept. This is how the problem was solved by the concept

of Kolprojekt-SENER, as well as the nal proposal of AREP

(Figs. 2, 4). The consequence of the Krier vision, however,

was to move the volume of the station far enough so that it did

not collide with the planned axis. This meant extending the

walkway from the Kilińskiego Street tram by at least 170 m.

During the work on the second study [11], this problem

was constantly underestimated and nally left open, it is

only the latitudinal line trams that was properly brought

to the station. Any possibility of moving the meridional

line closer by means of tram deeper entering the NCŁ

structure, was nally ruled out by a fundamental change

in the urban layout that took place in 2012, i.e. after the

completion of the SYSTRA study, which still referred to

the original Krier’s layout. At that time, for unclear rea-

sons, the “City Gate” was relocated and oriented towards

Kilińskiego Street which made its structure completely

separated. In this way, the original reason for moving the

station away from it vanished, but signicant changes in

its location were probably not even thought of. The new

“Gate” itself, originally planned as an eccentric form by

Daniel Libeskind (with a rather unclear function), has re-

cently taken the form of two quite simple oce buildings

of a conspicuous scale.

The Krier’s axis, which was the original “discovery”

of the Luxembourg architect, which could give the NCŁ

Fig. 9. East gable of the station,

vehicular approach area and the bridge

of Rodziny Scheiblerów Street

(photo by J. Wesołowski, 2021)

Il. 9. Szczyt wschodni dworca,

plac podjazdowy i wiadukt ul. Rodziny Scheiblerów

(fot. J. Wesołowski, 2021)

and the station their proper rank, is visible only in the his-

torical arrangement of the park, and then is completely

obliterated by the arrangement of tram stop shelters and

the side stairs of the inclined square in front of the station.

This huge ramp, about 70 m wide at the station itself, nar-

rows to several meters at the corner of Kilińskiego Street.

It can be said that it is fortunate, because in this way the

lack of a proper continuity of a walkway towards the city

is masked. Instead of a monumental entrance from the

park side, something was created that is a kind of mixture

of baroque pomp and a mannerist surprise, accented with

a historicizing traction pole frivolously placed by tram

line engineers. At the same time, the “City Gate” standing

next to it is not the entrance to the station, but to the emp-

tiness of non-existent (yet?) streets.

This is not the only case of diculties with honour-

ing the urban axes in the NCŁ complex. One of the two

transverse streets-passages separating the above-ground

station complex is the axis of the Grand Theatre (Opera

House), which is also the perspective of Targowa Street.

The building housing the eastern hall of the station pro-

trudes into it by about 10 m, and the entire axis of the

passage is staggered. As a result, the view from the street

to the theatre building was seriously disturbed and with-

out clear reason. It is worth noting that the ocial NCŁ

model does not reveal this disorder (Fig. 5). The expo-

sure of the lifeless one-story superstructure of the central

part of overall roof over platforms also causes an intrusive

impression of randomness. NCŁ, in the future, after the

square planned as the representative centre of the district

is built, is to be one of the most visited.

The north side of the station looks probably the worst.

The three-hundred-meter-long complex faces the street

with long, inactive walls, each part of the building having

a dierent form. The impression of chaos is enhanced by

a cacophony of kiosks of yet another form, struggling to

stay in a row, which contain exits from the underground

level. One of them narrows the pavement , which, due to

the lack of a rational alternative, also serves as a cycle

lane; could not it really be integrated with the building?

70 Jacek Wesołowski

(Fig. 10). Along most of its length, the station side wall

has a deep setback due to the expected oce development,

for which the station structure is designed [3]. Sometime

in the unknown future, perhaps the whimsical juxtapos-

ing the form of low roong of the platform hall, which

is the middle section, with a higher, bizarre plaster wall

with outlines of ornamental gables, will disappear with

erection of oce buildings. Yet today, gables are dicult

to comprehend until one enters the eastern circulation hall

(which will be discussed later in this article). Did the task

of skylighting the platforms really have to entail such awk-

wardness? (Fig. 11).

Here one may refer to Lille Europe Station (1993), which

was built at the same time as a railway and oce complex,

with towers built above the station. Otherwise, it would

probably be not so easy to erect them. In Łódź though, what

is temporary is likely to become permanent. Since there

will be no masking buildings soon, then why is there not

a lawn, but a sea of pavement that demonstrates the aws

of the architectural form? Counting lightly, about 0.7 ha of

greenery could be developed on the underground part of the

station, and only in the area of the planned superstructure.

The overall roof

In the 19

century, the barrel roof seen from the side

was criticized as aesthetically unsatisfying [23]. The nega-

tive eect of the Łódź roof is slightly weakened by the fact

that in the western hall it has a complicated geometry,

with the apex line raised parabolically towards the gable.

Worse, however, that its side wings ow down the oppo-

site curvature to the height of one storey, creating a low

and lifeless frontage wall over a length of 90 m. It will

no longer be masked by anything, and it constitutes an

axial closure of the perspective of the perpendicular POW

Street, which once ended with the neo-mannerist façade

of the demolished railway station with distinctive peaks in

silhouette. Primum–nonnocere…

The shortest route from the tram stop complex leads to

this low wall. From a small mezzanine, which is accessed,

the large roof presents technical details in a not necessar-

ily attractive way. Going from the side of the platforms, it

is hard to guess that it is not the main axis with a monu-

mental ramp, but the side stairs to the mezzanine that are

the shortest way to the tram. All this seems to have been

introduced adhoc, as if by way of a late design amend-

ment. Why, given monumental entrée from the west, users

of public transport, which was supposed to constitute the

majority of commuting in the modal structure, were treat-

ed in such a random way? (Figs. 12, 13).

The eastern hall, on the other hand, hides the most pe-

culiar element of the station: two neo-mannerist eleva-

tions of the former building reproduced in natural scale (it

is their simplied outline that intrigues from the outside

– Fig. 14). Such a procedure, known rather from Disney-

land-style museum scenography, is something completely

new for station architecture, although with its help the only

quite classic interior was created, a very strong accent of the

station. However, by using it in the eastern hall, the authors

of Fabryczna made the whole look very incoherent. They

seem to suggest that the external side, accessible mainly by

car, is more important than the city centre side. It is doubt-

ful whether this is an intended eect or a reaction to the

protests that accompanied the demolition of the old station

building. That this could be the case is evidenced by the

striking contradiction between the details of the dummy

old façades and the heavy form of the roof structure, with

ribs unexpectedly springing from behind the cornices, ad-

ditionally requiring lunettes to accommodate steep gables.

Why was it decided to overwhelm the exhibited histori-

cal form in such a way, instead of striving for the impres-

sion of weightlessness of the structure? Is the association

with the roof of Bálna Budapest, published in the profes-

sional press [1, p. 54], really justied, since there Bálna

buildings end horizontally without gables, and the shape of

Fig. 10. One of the kiosks at the exitway from level –1

on the background of the eaves of the front segment of the station building.

Final form of the street frontage closing the axis of POW Street

(photo by J. Wesołowski, 2021)

Il. 10. Jeden z kiosków kryjących ewakuację z podziemia

na tle okapu dachu pierwszej części dworca.

Docelowa pierzeja zamykająca oś ulicy POW

(fot. J. Wesołowski, 2021)

Fig. 11. A vacuum on the north side of the station, awaiting building over.

A view towards the middle and rear part of the roofing.

To the left: kiosks at the exits from the sub-surface coach station

(photo by J. Wesołowski, 2021)

Il. 11. Pustka po północnej stronie dworca, czekająca na nadbudowę.

Widok na drugą i trzecią część zadaszenia.

Po lewej – kioski na wyjściami z podziemi dworca autobusowego

(fot. J. Wesołowski, 2021)

ŁódźFabrycznaRailwayStation–aprogressorregressinrailwayarchitecture? 71

the barrel is much more uniform and calm? To make mat-

ters worse, a formula was adopted that some cover mod-

ules will be glazed and others dark, but the logic of their

arrangement remains unclear (Fig. 14). What’s more, such

a “mottled” roof, as well as the triangulation of its surface,

makes it dicult to use photovoltaic coating (unlike, for

example, at the Berlin Hauptbahnhof’s trainshed, 2006).

The unexpected triumph of modernism

The multi-level road junction on the east side of the

station must, however, be perceived as a product of mod-

ernist perception of a city. In the rst version of the con-

cept of the SYSTRA-AREP consortium (of April 2009),

the east end of the station was to face a kind of linear

park leading towards the eastern suburbs. At street level,

a pedestrian area, pierced with openings illuminating the

recessed vehicular access area, was to extend to Nowotar-

gowa Street (now Rodziny Scheiblerów). The access way

was partly to be concealed in a transverse tunnel (Fig. 4).

However, in the course of further design work and con-

sultations with the city, the access road system became

more extensive and visible. In addition, it was decided not

to have the exit from the station at street level, but to leave

it on the vehicular access level, which was left uncovered.

In this way, the circulation level of the station overlooks

the mass of a street bridge, with obtrusive ramps running

between the pillars. Contact, even optical, with the distant

greenery has been broken. Somewhere in the back, there

has been some landscaping, lost behind a piled-up mass of

concrete and accessible through a small tunnel under the

road. Due to the isolation from any functional activity, it is

a classic abandoned space that no one needs.

At this point, one can ask how it is that the Zurich sta-

tion, one of the busiest in the world, manages without ex-

tensive road infrastructure, and it is not alone in doing so.

There is a large and expensive road junction in Łódź, but

those commuting by taxi or to the kiss + ride lane cannot

even count on getting o under a roof in the event of rain.

The projecting roof there is purely decorative, it is shallow,

too high, and it does not protect against anything. It looks

as if there is no space under the roof after mock old façades

were forcefully retrotted into the project. Could this par-

adox of car service be a memento for the future eective-

ness of road design at the Fabryczna Station? (Fig. 8).

In addition to the overscaling of roads, which causes

fragmentation of the urban structure, what indicates the

modernist paradigm of the design concept is the above-de-

scribed inability to create proper frontages and honour

urban axes. The possible erection of oce buildings will

solve this problem only partially. Despite the sensitive con-

text, it seems that the building was shaped primarily “from

the inside out”, disregarding most of the relations with the

surroundings – especially those human-scale ones that de-

termine the form of the public space. This is what a mod-

ernist city was notorious for. Against this background, the

“faded joke of the false façades of the former station” does

not yet allow for the qualication of the object as a “post-

modern anachronism”, as one of the critics sees it [9]. Post-

modernism in the urban planning of the NCŁ would, how-

ever, be the implementation of Krier’s vision, and he

re we

have a combination of Disneyland and “Futurama”: both

are attributes of the apogee of the era of modernism in ur-

ban planning…

Summary

The new Fabryczna Railway Station was built over-

scaled, according to the concept of railway operation,

which was to take material form within a decade, but, as

it can be seen today, will rather take decades, if it happens

at all. This undermines the legitimacy of the mode of pro-

ceeding the largest infrastructural projects in Poland and

raises questions about whether there are strategic develop-

ment plans for the country and how serious they are. Apart

from the central and local government, it is municipal au-

thorities who had a signicant impact on the nal formal

shape of the project discussed here. To what extent their

Fig. 12. Main entrance from the tram stop complex

(photo by J. Wesołowski, 2021)

Il. 12. Wejście główne od zespołu przystanków tramwajowych

(fot. J. Wesołowski, 2021)

Fig. 13. North gallery.

Main exit to tram stops to far right, unintuitive and unmarked

(photo by J. Wesołowski, 2021)

Il. 13. Galeria północna.

Wyjście główne na przystanki tramwajowe daleko po prawej,

nieintuicyjne i nieoznakowane

(fot. J. Wesołowski, 2021)

72 Jacek Wesołowski

tendency to succumb to pressure groups present in public

life leads to making decisions in the sphere of urban plan-

ning and architecture, which give projects an illogical and

inecient form? Certainly, however, the faulty mode of

proceedings does not fully explain the fact that Fabryczna

Station as a place of passenger service does not function

properly. However, the purpose of this text is not to inves-

tigate the organisational causes of this state of aairs, but

rather to evaluate the architecture of the building itself.

The rational concept of the underground station with

the superstructure of the main station has been given an

architectural form, the shortcomings of which seem to

overshadow its advantages. Its western entrance has al-

ready become one of the icons of modern Łódź architec-

ture, and is also an original motif in the world of railway

architecture in general. It is a pity that its form hides a cer-

tain falsehood: it “narrowly misses” to serve the main traf-

c from the tram stops, and the external expression does

not go hand in hand with an equally notable internal shape

as on the eastern side. The style of both circulation halls of

the station is completely dierent, and their combination

seems accidental. If the quality of architecture is measured

by the unity of form, capable of giving various elements one

clear expression from the inside and outside, then the Łódź

new railway station seems to be the embodiment of some-

thing quite the opposite. The “mottled” barrel roof itself

gives the impression of randomness, the more so that

each of its parts has dierent tectonics. The impression

of chaos is intensied by the inability to cope with hiding

or unifying the small elements accompanying the object,

contrary to the general formal concept. This may reveal

deciencies in the coordination of the design process.

A feature of good architecture, especially in the case

of a structure whose primary raisond’être is utility, must

be to match the vision to functional requirements and the

realities of the context. A vision that does not meet these

requirements should be modied or rejected in its entirety.

Here, the desire to link directly circulation areas of the

station with the street level clearly contradicts the need

for good integration in the transport system (front), or par-

tially is not even achieved at all and turns into a caricature

(back). On the side of the layout, “venustas” clearly loses

to “utilitas”, which is not forgotten by the row of kiosks

and low, dead walls. If the “utility” of the resulting form

fostered activation of the adjacent street space, it would

only be an aesthetic defect – but it does not.

Today, it is appropriate to set short-term goals for the

“white elephant” of Łódź. The rst is the launch of a basic

service oer (the ve-year non-prot performance period

allegedly related to EU funds has already passed). The sec-

Fig. 14. East circulation hall seen from the gallery on the axis of Targowa Street

(photo by J. Wesołowski, 2021)

Il. 14. Hall wschodni widziany spod galerii na osi ul. Targowej (fot. J. Wesołowski, 2021)

ŁódźFabrycznaRailwayStation–aprogressorregressinrailwayarchitecture? 73

ond is the introduction of clear visual information, preced-

ed by an analysis driven by empathy. And the third one is

masking the deciencies with greenery. Something can be

gained in this way: for example, a good hectare of lawn

and greenery in the place of a dead and unused cobble-

stone surface. This would be a much more civilised way to

expect the future completion of the entire station complex,

which, anyway, will only heal some of the awkwardness.

Against the background of other comparable railway

stations in Poland, and notwithstanding the design aws,

Fabryczna is not completely bad anyway: enough to men-

tion Poznań Główny, where the entire station layout was

disorganized as a result of a misconceived new invest-

ment. Kraków Główny, in turn, is a fairly ecient “station

machine” derived straight from the aesthetics of modern-

ism, completely devoid of ambition to create its own leg-

ible landmark in the city, like the infamous Pennsylvania

Station in Manhattan after the 1960s reconstruction. In

this sense, Fabryczna is trying to t in with the trend of

returning the world of meanings to railway architecture,

which has been around for about three decades.

Progress or regress then? To sum up, the measure sug-

gested in the epilogue of the Edwards’ treatise on railway

stations at the end of the 20

century could be used [24].

As an “urban element”, the Łódź station, despite its cen-

tral location and ambitions in the sphere of semantics,

does not t well into the surroundings and the uses of the

city, constituting an oversized, mono-functional “island”.

The “expression of the structure”, readable from the east,

is disturbed by the dotted chaos of skylights, and more-

over, it is associated with overwhelmingness rather than

with the nesse of engineering art. The “harmony of ar-

chitecture and engineering” is burdened with the random-

ness of a number of elements and details, starting from the

roof nish, and ending with the clash of the street space

with formal brutality of a large roong. “Fusion of design

skills”, despite the inclusion of platform space and trains

themselves within the architectural work, clearly suers

from a lack of formal unication (historicising hall) and

nishing (closed service premises). Finally, the role of

“a bridge across the millennia” is burdened with an an-

ti-ecological aura and is still only an unspecied promise

of a transport hub for the railway of the future.

Translatedby

JacekWesołowski

References

[1] DworzecŁódźFabryczna, “Architektura-Murator” 2017, 02, 36–54,

https://architektura.muratorplus.pl/realizacje/dworzec-lodz-fa-

bryczna_7078.html [accessed: 10.01.2023].

[2] Tomaszewska A., Boule M., Tomaszewski T., Forma otwarta

–oprojekcieŁodzi Fabrycznej, “Architektura-Murator” 2017, 02,

44, https://architektura.muratorplus.pl/realizacje/forma-otwarta-o

-projekcie-lodzi-fabrycznej_7081.html [accessed: 10.01.2023].

[3]

Szefer M., Konstrukcjadworca–oprojekciekonstrukcjiŁodziFa-

brycznej, “Architektura-Murator” 2017, 02, 45, https://architektura.

muratorplus.pl/realizacje/konstrukcja-dworca-o-projekcie-kon-

strukcji-lodzi-fabrycznej-mariusz-szefer_7080.html [accessed:

10.01.2023].

[4] Springer F., Dworzecodwóchtwarzach–oŁodziFabrycznej, “Ar-

chitektura-Murator” 2017, 02, 48–49, https://architektura.murator-

plus.pl/realizacje/dworzec-o-dwoch-twarzach-o-lodzi-fabrycznej-

lip-springer_7082.html [accessed: 10.01.2023].

[5] Załuski D., Dworzec przyszłości – o Łodzi Fabrycznej, “Archi-

tektura-Murator” 2017, 02, 52, https://architektura.muratorplus.

pl/realizacje/dworzec-przyszlosci-o-lodzi-fabrycznej-daniel-zalu-

ski_7083.html [accessed: 10.01.2023].

[6] Giedryś A., DworzecŁódźFabrycznajakomultimodalnydworzec

centralny, “Technika Transportu Szynowego” 2017, nr 1–2, 63–77.

[7] Włostowska R., Majchrzak Ł., Nowy dworzec Łódź Fabryczna,

“Inżynier Budownictwa”, 24.01.2017, https://inzynierbudownic-

twa.pl/nowy-dworzec-lodz-fabryczna/ [accessed: 5.02.2022].

[8]

Springer F., ŁódźFabryczna.Natleinnychpolskichdworcówzpew-

nościąsięwyróżnia.Choćbyskalą, “Weekend Ga ze ta.pl”, 16.12.2016,

https://weekend.gazeta.pl/weekend/7,152121,21123974,lodz-fabry-

czna-na-tle-innych-polskich-dworcow-z-pewnoscia-sie.html [ac-

cessed: 4.02.2022].

[9] Ciarkowski B., Ostatnirezerwatpostmoderny, “Architektura i Biz-

nes”, 27.04.2021, https://www.architekturaibiznes.pl/ostatni-rezer-

wat-postmoderny,7593.html [accessed: 5.10.2021].

[10] SENER-Kolprojekt-BPK, Studiumwykonalnościmodernizacjiod-

cinkaliniiŁódźWidzew–ŁódźFabrycznawrazzdworcemŁódźFa-

bryczna, 2008 [manuscript in: author’s archive].

[11] SYSTRA-AREP, Studiumwykonalnościwrazzprogramemfunk-

cjonalno-użytkowym,koncepcjakoordynacyjnazagospodarowania

terenu Dworca Łódź Fabryczna, 2009–2010 [manuscript in: au-

thor’s archive].

[12] Torpol-Astaldi-PBDiM-Intercor, Nowa Łódź Fabryczna, http://

www.nlf-b2.pl/ [accessed: 4.02.2022].

[13] https://www.fbt.net.pl/portfolio/dworzec-nowa-lodz-fabryczna-w-

lodzi/ [accessed: 5.10.2021].

[14] TORPOL SA, DworzecŁódźFabryczna, https://www.torpol.pl/re-

alization/dworzec-lodz-fabryczna/ [accessed: 4.02.2022].

[15] GBSK Biuro Konstrukcyjne, Dworzec Łódź Fabryczna, https://

gsbk.pl/projects/lodz-fabryczna/ [accessed: 5.02.2022].

[16] Załuski D., Śródmiejskieprzestrzeniepodróży.Dworcekolejowe,

Politechnika Gdańska, Gdańsk 2010.

[17]

WstępnestudiumwykonalnościbudowyliniidużychprędkościWro-

cław/Poznań–Łódź–Warszawa, 2005, Centrum Naukowo-Tech nicz-

ne Kolejnictwa, Warszawa, A. Massel [project head], [manu script

in: PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe, Warszawa].

[18]

StudiumprzebieguprzezŁódźkoleidużychprędkościv-300, PZMiO

Teren et al., 2006, K. Bald [project head] [manuscript in: Urząd

Mia-

sta Łodzi].

[19]

AnalizafunkcjonalnanowegodworcacentralnegowŁodzijakopo-

nadregionalnegowęzłaintermodalnego, J. Raczyński [project head],

[manuscript in: author’s archive].

[20] EHI Retail Institute, Anzahl der Besucher und Reisenden aus-

gewählterBahnhöfeinDeutschlandproTagimJahr2017, www.

handelsdaten.de/deutschsprachiger-einzelhandel/travel-retail-taeg-

liche-anzahl-besucher-reisenden-bahnhoefe [accessed: 9.07.2021].

[21]

Czubiński R., ŁódźFabryczna:“Kosmodrom”czyniezbędnyobiekt?,

“Rynek Kolejowy”, 25.10.2016, https://www.rynek-kolejowy.pl/wia-

domosci/lodz-fabryczna-kosmodrom-czy-niezbedny-obiekt-78700.

html

[accessed: 14.02.2023].

[22] UchwałaNrXVII/279/07RadyMiejskiejwŁodzizdnia28sierpnia

2007r.

[23] Wesołowski J.,Odwozownidokatedry.Halaperonowawarchitek-

turzedworcowej, t. 1: Historia,konstrukcja, Politechnika Łódzka,

Łódź 2013.