Local planning in the national provisions of the Polish Building Code of 1928 - a forgotten legacy

ABSTRACT

Since the political transformation initiated in 1989, there has been a continuous discussion in Poland on the directions of reforming the spatial planning system and the principles of shaping space. It has been accompanied by numerous statutory changes. Despite this, the issue of the quality of local space and the importance of urban composition in the spatial policy remain an unresolved, pressing problem requiring new regulations. In the search for these solutions, the historic Ordinance on the Law of Building and Development of Settlements of 1928, which created the system framework in the spatial development of the country reborn after World War I, is of particular importance. 95 years after the promulgation of this regulation, the system solutions adopted at that time as crucial to Poland's spatial development were analyzed. The aim of the study was to identify tools introduced in 1928 for shaping space at the local level, in the nature of operational urban planning instruments. The identified regulations were confronted with contemporary solutions. The results indicate a strongly marginalized range of tools of real space shaping in the current legislation and the need for changes, referring to the solutions identified in the study as a forgotten legacy.

KEYWORDS:

• Polish Building Code 1928
• operational urban planning instruments
• regulations of the Polish planning system

Introduction

On February 16, 1928 the President of Poland, Ignacy Mościcki, signed the Ordinance on the Law of Building and Development of Settlements,¹ commonly known as the Polish Building Code. After Poland regained independence in 1918, this act became the first universally binding law, creating a system framework for the spatial development of the country reborn after 123 years.

Earlier regulations in the Russian, Austrian and Prussian partitions were based on different administrative structures with different competences, different land registration systems, different geodetic systems and their graphical representation.² They were written in different languages and served different purposes, including those of a political nature. Only in the Austrian partition, which offered the greatest degree of freedom were laws written in Polish. These laws, created under the autonomy of the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria,³ were enacted separately for individual cities (e.g. Lwów, Kraków, Bochnia, Tanow, etc.) and dealt with a variety of issues (shaping of buildings, issuing of building permits, technical requirements, etc.). The law in the Russian partition was based on the Russian Building Act.⁴ It was accompanied by a high degree of discretion on the part of the tsarist authorities. These requirements resulted in dispersed development, also to disintegrate the Polish community and limit potential rebellions.⁵ The laws of the Prussian partition⁶ were the most demanding and often restrictive, but shaped buildings in the most compact way. These regulations were mutually inconsistent, posing a serious challenge to the unification of the legal framework.

In these conditions, the foundations of 1928 Building Code were formed. Obviously, the Polish-language regulations that were in force in Galicia were used first. The German occupation of Warsaw during World War 1, preceding Poland's regaining of independence, also had an impact on the shape of the new law. At that time, the German authorities issued a decree specifying the methods for drawing up building plans. With this decree, a ‘regulatory obligation’ was introduced for the city of Warsaw and other large cities.⁷

Leading Polish architects and urban planners (Tadeusz Tołwiński, Roman Feliński, Antoni Jawornicki, Adam Paprocki, Karol Jankowski, Romualt Gutt and many others), educated in Munich, St. Petersburg, Riga, Vienna, Zurich or Wintherthur, among others, worked on the regulatory and development plans created at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries in the partitioned areas. Their knowledge and accumulated experience, as well as the formation of the Society of Polish Town Planners in 1923,⁸ contributed to a lively exchange of ideas and, ultimately, to the provisions of the 1928 Ordinance.

February 2023 marks the 95th anniversary of its promulgation. This act of law, modern by the standards of the time, was an attempt to create the planning framework needed to merge different socio-economic and settlement systems. It was a peculiar compilation of regulations in the field of spatial planning and development, principles of real estate management, design and implementation of construction investments.⁹ It was a source of law for new planning solutions taking into account the needs of modern and functional shaping of space at different scales. On the basis of the new regulations, new development plans were drawn up for Gdynia in 1928, Poznan in 1929, Warsaw and Lodz in 1931 or Krakow in 1939. It also fostered the creation of many important projects, including the Central Industrial District, which before the outbreak of the World War II was a main source of economic revival in Poland.¹⁰

Particularly important in the provisions of the new law were unified rules for spatial planning and urban design at the local level. The relevance to local space is underlined by the very title of the ordinance referring to the development of settlements defined in the body of the act as cities and towns, health resorts, rural settlements, workers’ colonies, as well as clusters containing at least 10 residential buildings in a group. The law thus referred, to a large extent, to the implementation of a variety of urban developments, regardless of their location.

The outbreak of World War II thwarted the intended spatial development and led to the dramatic destruction of Poland. The country occupied by Germany and the Soviet Union was wiped off the map of Europe. More than 5 million Polish citizens was killed, including more than 3 million of Jewish origin.¹¹ According to available estimates, the volume of buildings destroyed in cities amounted to over 520 million cubic metres, of which about 70% were residential houses. 80% of buildings in Kołobrzeg were destroyed, 75% in Warsaw, 70% in Stargard, 65% in Wrocław and Grudziądz and 55% in Gdańsk.¹²

The end of the war brought further problems. The re-established Polish state, with new borders and a reduced area of 76,000 square kilometres, was fully dominated by the Soviet Union. These changes resulted in migration processes, including the forced resettlement of part of the population. Under the supervision of the Soviet authorities, a monopoly of the Communist Party was introduced, resulting in a lack of civil liberties and numerous economic problems. The definition, understanding and application of property law was changed, putting ‘social property'¹³ in the foreground. In reality, this has led to a complete disrespect for private property resulting in numerous expropriations.

In terms of spatial development and land management, the Central Office for Spatial Planning was established to serve the centrally controlled economy. However, the three-tier planning system (national, regional, local)¹⁴ was retained. The 1961 planning Act also reinstated the division into general and detailed local plans¹⁵ abolished immediately after the war.

Notwithstanding the criticism of the 1945–89 period, especially the lack of freedom and respect for private property, the spatial planning regulations of the time recognised the need for planning documents of different levels and degrees of accuracy. They drew heavily on the solutions of the interwar period. How they were subordinated to political decisions and how they were implemented in the socialist era was a separate issue.

In 1989, Poland began to regain its independence. The constitution of the Republic of Poland was changed. The importance of private property was restored, although reprivatisation itself did not find a full, systemic solution. In order to limit the expenditure of the state budget, it was assumed that the return of illegally expropriated land could only take place on an individual application through administrative or judicial proceedings.

Also spatial planning required new measures. Unfortunately, as a result of the earlier, long-standing disrespect for private property and free market principles, the importance of local planning was also strongly depreciated in society. In the new reality, it was replaced by the need for quick investment activities and maximization of profits resulting from rapidly rising property prices.¹⁶ The general and detailed spatial development plans created during the socialist period¹⁷ under the 1994 Act on spatial development,¹⁸ ceased to be in force at the end of 2002. The new law adopted in 2003¹⁹ created the base for strategic planning in municipalities,²⁰ but did not create mechanisms for public participation in planning.²¹ On the basis of a locally adopted strategy, municipalities were allowed to create spatial development plans covering all or any parts of their territory. However, no rules were created for the compulsory preparation and adoption of new plans, allowing local authorities to abandon planning work. Instead, the law allowed uncoordinated investment activities on the basis of individually issued administrative decisions replacing missing plans. It was only in July 2023 that the requirement for municipalities to create new general plans by 2026 was reinstated.²² These plans should shape the requirements for successively created administrative decisions or local plans.

Against this background, the work analyzes the solutions adopted in 1928, confronting them with those in force today.

It focuses on the instruments of implementation of urban development projects at the basic level, referred to today as instruments of operational urban planning (IOUP), i.e. tools for the implementation of visions, intentions, plans and concepts.²³ Identification of the system solutions of the interwar period and comparison of their scope to the regulations functioning today should show the directions of changes made and determine the extent to which contemporary regulations make use of the legacy of the Second Polish Republic.

Polish Building Code of 1928 in research studies

Even in the inter-war period, the literature on the subject addressed the question of how to implement the legislation of 1928, including the rules for preparing and adopting development plans, and the difficulties of interpreting them against the background of the administrative and court decisions.²⁴ Contemporary literature has significantly deepened the spectrum of issues analyzed. They concern the development of the construction law in the territory of Poland,²⁵ its anchoring in the history of urban planning regulations and the difficulties of unifying the legal principles in the areas of the Second Republic.²⁶ The studies present various analyses of the operation of 1928 regulations, including the evolution of construction freedom and the rules for restricting that freedom,²⁷ the evolution of technical and construction regulations,²⁸ or the evolution of instruments for managing spatial development policy and the institutions authorized to manage it in Poland.²⁹ The research also shows the evolution of the rules for creating and granting building permits, performing of technical functions in construction industry or the supervision of state services over these activities.³⁰ The literature addresses the issue of the cultural context and quality of architecture shaped in the interwar period.³¹ The issue of cultural change, is presented in the light of changes in planning regulations, showing the impact of the 1928 ordinance on planning law after 1945.³² This ordinance is also referred to in the context of the conditions of contemporary spatial chaos,³³ the methodology of plan-making,³⁴ or the rules of land parcelling.³⁵ It is also referred to in many case studies.³⁶ Some published works attempt to compare regulations of 1928 with contemporary regulations. They refer to the requirements of the current Building Law,³⁷ or confront the rules functioning in both periods with regard to the location of new buildings in relation to the plot boundary.³⁸ However, a broader comparison of inter-war and contemporary operational urban planning instruments is not reflected in published research.

Materials and methods

The author assumed the need to identify the instruments for the implementation of urban development projects at the local level introduced by the 1928 ordinance and to confront them with the instruments in force today. The requirement was assumed to identify the provisions with the greatest influence on the quality of space. Influence interpreted as the impact on the cultural and natural environment, especially the possibility of shaping functional and aesthetic space, creating spatial composition as well as the form of development and the character of public spaces.³⁹ The author analyzed the content of the ordinance in its consolidated version, i.e. also taking into account all additional amendments introduced by 28 February 1939. A comparative analysis was made of the provisions of the legal acts in force today, according to the status as at 31 July 2023. The study should illustrate the evolution of the regulations considered in both time periods as necessary for the expected urban transformation. For greater precision, the analysis was carried out in thematic groups.

The author has identified groups in relation to the types of IOUP and accompanying actions for the metamorphosis of urban space, assuming the least favourable situation, i.e. dispersed property structure. The need for effectiveness then requires broad cooperation between public institutions, investors and property owners in the form of; potential restrictions on investment opportunities, strong planning regulations, plots consolidation and division, implementation of public investments as well as pressure and incentive for investment activities.⁴⁰ This set of actions was used to identify 5 distinct groups of IOUP.

Group I. Principles for limiting investment opportunities.

This group covers the basic types of rules that condition the use of property and the permissibility of development.

Group II. Types of planning and development control documents.

This group includes a number of instruments that actually shape spatial development, including the ways of defining terms in planning regulations, the types of documents enacted, the degree of detail and the scope of the plans in matters of location, functionality, design and materials, as well as composition and aesthetics.

Group III. Principles of applying the instrument of consolidation and division of plots.

The instruments included in the group relate primarily to the degree of compulsory consolidation and division, as well as its relationship to other requirements or provisions of the plans.

Group IV. Planning requirements for the implementation of public investments and their co-creation with private investments.

The instruments of Group IV mainly include requirements concerning the realisation of public spaces and facilities and the possible co-creation of these projects with the realization of private investments.

Group V. Instruments of pressure and incentives for investment activities.

The last group includes instruments for intended spatial change of a non-planning nature, especially the promotion of planned development, forms of private-public cooperation and a palette of instruments of pressure and financial support. The author resigned from identifying Group V instruments as they go beyond planning regulations, especially the 1928 ordinance.

With regard to contemporary legislation, the analysis focused mainly on the solutions of the Act on Spatial Planning and Development (ASPD)⁴¹ shaping the framework of planning activities in Poland since 2003. The final element of the study should be a comparison of the IOUPs identified in the work and the determination of the main changes in the principles of transformation of Polish urban space. The study was therefore divided into stages covering the identification of the 1928 IOUPs and their comparison with the instruments in force today, together with an indication of the key differences and potential conclusions.

Ordinance of 1928 and its operational urban planning instruments

In stage 1 of the analysis, the author identified the operational urban planning instruments of 1928 in all 4 groups.

In Group I, 2 instruments were identified concerning the compulsory preparation of a development plan for the creation of new public spaces and in the areas of urban municipalities (Table 1).

Table 1. Principles for limiting investment opportunities in the provisions of the 1928 ordinance - Group I.

No	Article	Simplified Characterisation of the Record or Quotation
		Basic conditions for the implementation of the investment
1.	Article 4	The establishment of public spaces in urban communities is possible only on the basis of a development plan
2.	Article 7	The regulation and correctness of the development of cities and towns (urban communities) requires the preparation of development plans

Source: Author's own elaboration.

In group II, the author has identified a number of instruments of operational urban planning important for the study (Table 2).

Table 2. Types of planning and development control instruments in the provisions of the 1928 ordinance - Group II.

No	Article	Simplified Characterisation of the Record or Quotation
		Definitions or explanations of key terms
1. 1.	Article 4	Public space defined as: streets, roads, squares and all other areas designated for public use
2. 2.	Article 6.	Settlements defined as: cities and towns; health resorts, rural and factory settlements, workers’ colonies; clusters of at least 10 residential buildings
3. 3.	Article 75	Consolidation defined as the action of combining all the plots included in an area of consolidation into a single unit and (…) subdividing this area so that the newly created plots are suitable for development, in accordance with the regulations in force and with the development plan (…)
		Types of plans, their scope and basic requirements
4. 4.	Articles 7, 8 and 9	Development plans drawn up as General or Detailed Plans. For urban municipalities: General Plans required for the entire settlement, Detailed Plans required to be drawn up on the basis of a General Plan, for the whole or part of a settlement In other cases, Specific Plan required when necessary.
5.	Article 10	General plans should set out: functional division, traffic layout, public spaces and greenery, zoning by type of development: single or multi-storey, compact, clustered, detached, mixed, specifying (…) permitted height and density of development, cross-sectional and longitudinal profiles of arteries (…)
6.	Article 11	Detailed plans shall determine: arterial regulatory lines, front building lines, the level of streets and squares, the manner in which building areas are developed (…), and in particular: the maximum built-up area of the plot, the location of building lines other than the front building line (…), the outlines and maximum height of individual buildings, the outlines of fences.
7.	Article 14	The minimum required distance between building lines shall be 12m
8.	Article 17	Building blocks should be created in such a way that they can be purposefully, hygienically and economically built up.
9.	Article 20	Plans should protect the aesthetics and character of the village. Required removal of disfigurement caused by inappropriate development. The development is to be shaped in such a way as to ensure sufficient air circulation.
		General building regulations
10.	Article 178	Buildings shall be erected either directly on the property boundary or at least 3m from the boundary
11.	Articles 181–186	The maximum height of buildings has been defined: up to 22m, from the side of the street no greater than its width or the distance between the building lines designated by the plan, from the courtyard, for residential buildings with daylight access on one side, no greater than the distance from the opposite plot boundary or other building wall, for other buildings max. 150% of the aforementioned distance when the erected building can contribute to the beautification of a street or square, the authority (…) can allow the height to be exceeded
12.	Articles 262–263	The faces of buildings should be constructed in such a way that they do not disfigure the square, street or courtyard. The (…) surfaces of the walls, visible from any public transport routs, should be similarly constructed. Buildings should not be painted in bright colours or at all glaring colours.
13.	Articles 264–266	In rural community settlements with development plans, new front buildings should be erected at the building line and, in the absence of a plan, at least 3.5 m from roads. In neighbourhoods with compact development character, buildings with the approval of the authorities may be erected at the line of existing buildings, less than 3.5m. The space between the buildings and the road must not be used for subordinate outbuildings, but should be used for gardens (…)
14.	Article 337	In localities where the landscape deserves protection, (…) the authority may refuse permission for the new construction, alteration or change of buildings if these works would cause a disfigurement of the landscape (…)
		Requirements for local regulations
15.	Article 408	Local regulations should govern: the width and manner in which streets, squares and roads are laid out (…) the principles for passing on the costs of streets development to plot owners; the size of the smallest building plots and the manner of their connection to streets; the minimum size of the undeveloped area of the plot, including the size of the courtyard and the manner of its arrangement; the method of constructing the protruding parts of buildings (…) such as porches, bay windows, balconies, etc., the method of fitting openings in external walls and the method of hanging and displaying signboards, shop windows, advertising inscriptions, etc.; specific conditions for the construction of new buildings along public spaces including rules for the construction of parts of buildings visible from these spaces the method of covering roofs and installing eaves and gutters (…) the method of fencing plots on the side of streets and on the side of other plots
16.	Article 409.	Local regulations may impose greater restrictions, but may also allow an increase in the height of buildings specified in the ordinance
17.	Article 410	By means of local regulations, the following may be established: a prohibition on the erection of residential buildings on undeveloped streets, a prohibition on erecting (…) buildings along streets and squares of historic or artistic value that would alter the distinctive character of the village, street or square

Source: Author's own elaboration.

Table 2 draws particular attention to:

• a strongly limited number of definitions with a broad concept of public space,

• building line not defined but understood as the line for the (compulsory) location of the surface of the external wall of the building,

• the use of numerous undefined terms or phrases such as disfigurement, inappropriate development, subordinate outbuildings, glaring colours, etc,

• 2 levels of plans shaping the local space,

• the general level of the plan, taking into account decisions on the layout of public spaces, as well as the function and typology of development required (compact, clustered, detached, mixed),

• the detailed level of the plan requiring an urban design concept, providing a precise framework for the formation of a compact urban space comprising the location of its buildings and their surroundings, including the location of public spaces,

• the plan as an instrument of hygiene and development economics that guarantees, through the required shape and location of the building, its proper lighting and ventilation,

• counteracting landscape disfigurement by giving public authorities the right to assess aesthetics and possibly refuse building permission,

• a far-reaching range of detailed, optional requirements that can be included in local plans.

Group III includes the most relevant regulations, defining the relationship between the land development plan and the plan consolidation and division of plots as well as the necessity of using both instruments in the creation of new development in the areas of urban municipalities (Table 3).

Table 3. Principles for the use of the instrument of consolidation and division of plots in the provisions of the 1928 ordinance - Group III.

No	Article	Simplified Characterisation of the Record or Quotation
1.	Article 3.	New plots in the settlements are created on the basis of an approved consolidation and division plan (…)
2.	Articles 52–55	division of plots within the administrative boundaries of urban municipalities may only be carried out on the basis of consolidation and division plan, linked to a development plan in such a way as to ensure development entirely consistent with that plan.
3.	Article 58	In areas requiring a development plan, office approval of the consolidation and division plan is conditional on the creation of the required plan

Source: Author's own elaboration.

Group IV contains solutions binding investment activities of private investors with their participation in the costs of public investments (Table 4)

Table 4. Planning requirements for the implementation of public investments and their co-creation with private investments in the provisions of the 1928 ordinance – Group IV.

No	Article	Simplified Characterisation of the Record or Quotation
1.	Article 20	By means of local regulations, it is possible to prohibit the erection of residential buildings on undeveloped streets in towns,
2.	Articles 64–65	For consolidation and division plans with an area larger than 1 ha, the possibility of obliging the owner of the parcelled land to establish and maintain public spaces (streets, roads, squares, parks) at his/her own expense, assuming that the area of public spaces does not exceed 25% of the parcelled area (for parcels smaller than 15 ha) and 35% of the parcelled area (for parcels larger than 15 ha).
3.	Article 66	The maintenance of public spaces created under Articles 64–65 by the owners of neighbouring plots shall be carried out free of charge.
4.	Article 67	After the development of 1/3 of the newly separated investment plots, the municipality (at the request of the owners of these plots) should take over the management of the public spaces
5.	Article 174	The costs of providing new roads and squares up to 20m wide (roadway, pavement, sewerage, lighting to the standard specified in the Regulation) may be transferred to the owners of real estate adjacent to these roads or squares, as well as to non-neighbouring owners who obtain benefits from the arrangement of these spaces
6.	Art. 408–410	Local provisions should regulate in a binding manner: rules for passing on the costs of street development to plot owners, an obligation on plot owners to participate in covering the costs of replacing the permanent or fixed surface of streets and squares with a surface made of improved material, the obligation to lay out and maintain on the plots slopes and ditches required for the drainage of the land as well as the manner of their arrangement the obligation to establish and maintain gardens in front of houses

Source: Author's own elaboration.

Among those provisions, the following should be highlighted:

• a requirement for individual investors and private property owners to contribute to the cost of public investments,

• 2 levels (national and local) of shaping the participation in question,

• the possibility to exclude the development of residential buildings along undeveloped roads,

• criteria for municipalities to take over the management of privately developed public areas.

Legal instruments of 2023 against the requirements of 1928

Stage 2 of the analysis allowed the author to compare the main IOUPs of the inter-war period identified in Stage 1 with the solutions in operation today. The results of the comparison are presented separately for each group of instruments (Tables 5–8).

Table 5. Group I. Comparison of investment opportunity limitation rules.

No	Type of Instrument	Use of the Instrument in Regulations of 1928	Use of the Instrument in Regulations of 2023
1.	Investment opportunities only on the basis of the plan	YES, in urban municipalities and newly formed settlements	NO, possible alternative based on individually obtained administrative decision ^46
2.	Creation of public space as a condition for investment opportunities	YES, in urban municipalities and newly created settlements	NO, no legal requirement

Source: Author's own elaboration.

Table 6. Group II. Comparison of types of planning instruments and development control methods.

No	Type of Instrument	Use of the Instrument in Regulations of 1928	Use of the Instrument In Regulations of 2023
1.	Detailed definitions, including glossary of terms	NO, no glossary of terms, very limited number of definitions, a number of undefined terms understood through the prism of expert, architectural and urban planning knowledge	YES, large and growing number of terms defined. 35 definitions included in the (APSD) Glossary of terms. The legislator aims to define terms and requirements understood through the prism of legal knowledge
2.	2 levels of local spatial planning	YES, general and detailed	NOT currently, two types of plans required from 2026 by the (APSD) amendment of July 2023.
3.	A palette of detailed and mandatory requirements included in the plans shaping the urban composition, including the location of public spaces, location and the form of buildings as well as their surroundings on building plots	YES, especially in the detailed plan	NO, creation of urban composition required only in special cases: Local Revitalisation Plan^47 or implementation of specific residential developments.^48 The absolute majority of planning requirements, which can precisely define the location and form of a building and the parameters of the surrounding space, optional.
4.	Plan as a guarantee for proper ventilation and daylightening of buildings	YES, (responsibility for correctness of solutions rests with the planner)	NO, (responsibility for the correctness of the solutions rests entirely with the project designer)
5.	Possibility for authorities to assess the aesthetics of a project	YES, with possible refusal of building permission	NO - opportunity granted only to the office of the Conservator of Monuments with respect to design activities at monuments ^49

Source: Author's own elaboration.

Table 7. Group III. Comparison of the principles of applying the instrument of consolidation and division of plots.

No	Type of Instrument	Use of the Instrument In Regulations Of 1928	Use of the Instrument in Regulations of 2023
1.	Close relationship between the development plan and the consolidation and division of plots	YES, in urban municipalities and newly formed settlements	NO, in the absence of a plan alternative possibility of division based on general regulations.^50 In areas covered by the plan, consolidation and division requirements only optional^51
2.	Consolidation and division plan as a compulsory instrument for creation of plots	YES, in urban municipalities and newly created settlements	NO, instrument entirely optional, used occasionally^52

Source: Author's own elaboration.

Table 8. Group IV. Comparison of requirements for implementation of public investments and their co-creation with private investments.

No	Type of Instrument	Use of the Instrument in Regulations of 1928	Use of the Instrument In Regulations Of 2023
1.	Requirement for private property owners to participate in the costs of improvement and management of public spaces	YES, optional	NO, subject to the possibility of imposing an obligation on the developer to build or reconstruct a road to serve the traffic needs of the new development^53 or as part of an urban planning agreement concluded in special cases (specific residential development area; regeneration area; integrated investment plan -from 2026.^54)
2.	2 levels (national and local) of cost-sharing arrangements	YES	NO
3.	Possibility to exclude residential development along undeveloped roads	YES, optional	NO, subject to point 1
4.	Possibility for municipalities to take over management of (privately developed) public spaces	YES	NO, subject to point 1

Source: Author's own elaboration.

The comparative analysis reveals the regression that has taken place in the contemporary Polish spatial planning system in the sphere of the examined IOUP groups.

The biggest weakness remains the lack of a legally required general plan for municipalities and the possibility of development based on an individually obtained administrative decision, not linked to any local spatial policy document. The statutory amendments introduced in July 2023 should change this state of affairs by 2026, but far too late.

An equally big weakness is the way in which the creation of public spaces and the buildings that co-create these spaces remains in contemporary regulations. The principle, evident in the 1928 regulations, of planning built development as an integral element of the urban composition has been replaced by the provision of investment opportunities where the quality of space is almost exclusively the result of investor expectations, including the need to maximize profit.⁴² The importance of the building line⁴³ originally understood as a line of obligatory location of the external wall of a building has been completely marginalized. The requirement for compact (contiguous) development along streets, common in the structure of cities of the Second Republic, was replaced by considerable freedom in the location of free-standing forms. Despite the exponentially increasing number of new legal definitions contained in contemporary acts of law and the complexity of these acts, urban design in planning has lost its meaning completely, and the quality of space has become exclusively the result of individual investment decisions. Unlike in the inter-war years, modern planners (due to the lack of requirements) do not specify the form and location of development, leaving investors with a great deal of investment freedom. As a result, the solutions designed by architects, based on liberal plans, often astonish the planners themselves. This is accompanied by the inability of the administrative authorities to assess the aesthetics of the designed solutions in the process of approving building documentation. The notion of protection against landscape disfigurement remains in the realm of historical concepts. This lack is explained by the need to limit the role of subjectivism and the related administrative discretion. On the other hand, this discretion is a guarantee of the quality of created spatial solutions in some of the functioning legal systems of other countries.⁴⁴ In Poland, the right to subjective assessment is granted only to the Office of the Conservator of Monuments and is therefore limited to conservation activities.

A separate issue is the marginalization of the instrument of consolidation and division. This instrument, conditioning the possibility of investment activities within the administrative boundaries of cities before World War II, is currently treated as an unnecessary slowdown and impediment to the planning process. Modern regulations allow for comprehensive consolidation and division of plots, however, a survey conducted in 2015⁴⁵ showed an almost total lack of interest of municipal authorities to use this optional tool. Thus, the contemporary planning process takes place in isolation from the instrument of consolidation and division of land plots to the obvious detriment of the emerging development structure.

Finally, the problem of modern regulation is the strongly limited possibility of obliging private property owners to contribute to the costs of improving neighbouring public spaces. The need for participation, widely perceived and required in the interwar period, is today reflected only in relation to a legally limited catalogue of cases. Mainly in revitalization areas or as part of a specific form of housing development carried out under separate legal acts. New regulations enacted in July 2023 and binding from 2026 partially extend the scope of participation to areas covered by integrated investment plans to be created at the request of the investor. However, these solutions only marginally link the implementation of public investments with their co-financing by private beneficiaries. This makes the existing IUOPs ineffective in this area as well.

Conclusion

The study reveals the huge turnaround that has taken place in the Polish legal system for shaping urban space.

The implementation of the modern legal framework, undertaken in the inter-war period, was interrupted by the outbreak of the World War II and the loss of statehood, followed by the communist system imposed on Poland. Against this background, the freedom regained in 1989 also brought problems in the way space was shaped. The principles of a market economy and the need for rapid economic growth were not accompanied by well-established, stable and generally accepted principles of spatial planning and care for urban space. Nor was the spatial transformation accompanied by a transparent process of re-privatisation.

Each of the 4 groups of instruments analyzed has therefore undergone significant transformations. Individual investment opportunities have been liberalised to a degree that makes it very difficult for local authorities to act in favour of coherent and valuable space, especially public space. This is despite the steadily increasing volume of legal acts and the number of definitions they contain. In the inter-war period, less defined concepts and terms, but a greater role for the profession of expert urban planner, made it possible to shape local space considerably more fully. Against the backdrop of continuous changes in the Polish planning system, it is worth remembering the legacy of the 1928 Presidential Ordinance and its innovative solutions reflecting a different way of thinking about the shaping of the urban space.

Data available within the article

The author confirms that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

This work was financed by Cracow University of Technology

Notes on contributors

Wojciech Korbel

Wojciech Korbel is a researcher and licensed architect, working both as an associate professor at the Faculty of Architecture of the Krakow University of Technology and in his own architectural studio. He mainly deals with architectural and urban planning design of public-use buildings. His research focuses on the impact of legal solutions on spatial planning, urban and architectural design and the investment process. Recent research has focused on the preferences of Polish local governments regarding expected changes in Polish legislation for better protection of spatial order in Poland

Notes

1 Ordinance on the Law on Construction and Development of Settlements of February 16, 2028, Notice of the Minister of Internal Affairs of February 28, 1939 on the announcement of the unified text, (Journal of Laws 1939 No. 34 item 216).

2 Śleszyński et al., ‘Studies on spatial chaos’, 78.

3 Building Act for major towns in the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria with the Grand Duchy of Cracow of 4 April 1889, Journal of Laws and National Ordinances for the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria with the Grand Duchy of Cracow No. 31 of 1889.

4 The Laws of the Russian Empire, Volume XII, Part I according to the 1900 edition and the 1906–1912 amendments

5 Śleszyński et al., ‘Studies on spatial chaos’, 77.

6 The Prussian Building Line Act of 1875 (Prussian Code of Laws of 1875: 561) along with Prussian Housing Act of 1918 (Prussian Code of Laws no. 9).

7 Bankowska, Belof, Chmielewski, Havel, Korzeń, Majda, Przesmycka, Tomczak, Centenary of SPTP, 19

8 Ibid.,13–15

9 Brzezicki et al., Legal aspects, 14–15.

10 Zawada, ‘The Central Industrial District’, 197–204.

11 Ministry of Foreign Affairs RP, The report on the losses sustained by Poland, 35.

12 Piwońska, ‘The main consequences of the World War II’, 96.

13 Constitution of the People's Republic of Poland adopted by the Legislative Assembly on 22 July 1952, Article 3.

14 Decree of 2 April 1946 on the planned spatial development of the country. Journal of Laws (1946). No. 16 item 109.

15 Act on spatial planning. Journal of Laws (1961). No. 7, item 47, Article 13.

16 Havel, ‘Neoliberalization of urban policy-making’.

17 Act on spatial planning. Journal of Laws (1984). No. 35, item 195, Article 25.

18 Act on spatial development. Journal of Laws (1994). No. 89, item 415, Article 67.

19 Act on planning and spatial development. Journal of Laws (2003). No. 80, item 717.

20 Dąbrowski and Piskorek, ‘The development of strategic spatial planning’, 574–575.

21 Damurski, 'From Formal to Semi-formal', 1570.

22 Act on planning and spatial development. Journal of Laws (2003). No. 80, item 717, as amended; amended July 2023.

23 Ossowicz, Operational urbanism : outline of theory, 5.

24 Szymkiewicz, Building law and development of settlements.

25 Krawczak, Construction Law in the Polish Lands.

26 Sosnowski, ‘Legal regulations in the field of spatial planning’, 51.

27 Blażewski, ‘Limitations of the freedom of construction’, 201–210.

28 Smarż, ‘Historical outline of building regulations in Poland’, 421.

29 Sosnowski, ‘Urban management’, 197.

30 Zwolak, Slawomir, ‘Building Police from historical perspective’, 28–29.

31 Moskal, Elwart, Kapołka, Studies on architecture and urban planning in interwar Poland

32 Zawadzki, ‘Concepts of spatial planning’, 83.

33 Śleszyński, Markowski, Kowalewski, ‘Studies on spatial chaos’, 79.

34 Kolipinski, Bartłomiej, ‘Methodological issues of local planning’, 19.

35 Cepil and Figlus, ‘Parcelling of rural land in the interwar period’, 31–33.

36 Kociuba, ‘The role of spatial planning in the development of the city of Lublin’, 181.

37 Nowakowski, ‘The first Polish construction law’, 28–31

38 Nieroda, Dobrzanski, Jachym ‘Single-family housing - special implementation conditions’.

39 Lynch, Good City Form; Naya et al., ‘Quality of public space’, 478–479.

40 Ossowicz, Operational urbanism : an outline of theory, 31–33.

41 Act on planning and spatial development. Journal of Laws (2003), No. 80, item 717 as amended.

46 Act on planning and spatial development. Journal of Laws (2003). No. 80, item 717 as amended, Article 4.

47 Ibid., Article 37f.

48 Act on facilitations in the preparation and realization of housing investments and accompanying investments. Journal of Laws (2018) item 1496, Article 6.

49 Act on the protection and care of historical monuments (2003), no. 162 item 1568 as amended, Article 25.

50 Act on real estate management. Journal of Laws (1997). no. 115, item 741 as amended.

51 Korbel, ‘A big problem with a thin line’, 32–33.

52 Ibid., 32–33.

53 Act on public roads. Journal of Laws (1985). No. 14, item 60 as amended. Article 16.

54 Act on facilitations in the preparation and realization of housing investments and accompanying investments. Journal of Laws (2018) item 1496, Article 20; Act on planning and spatial development. Journal of Laws (2003). No. 80, item 717 as amended, Article 37i, Article 37ea.

42 Bradecki and Twardoch, Contemporary trends in housing development, 5–6.

43 Korbel, ‘Big problem with a thin line’, 31–32.

44 Spatial Planning in Europe, ed. Zakrzewska Półtorak.

45 Regulatory Impact Assessment, 48.