The working masses - the resting masses. Architecture of leisure in communist Poland

Abstract This study is an analysis of the modernist leisure architecture in the Polish People’s Republic and its relation to the phenomenon of mass holiday in authoritarian and totalitarian European countries. Modernist holiday resorts designed by the leading Polish architects were a reflection of the local reception of the modern movement. Using the scale of a single building or the entire construction complex, the designers supported the process of building a new identity for the communist society. Modern aesthetics was meant to endorse the authorities’ official policy and create the image of a progressive state. The social program implemented the ideology of a socialist country, while the assignation of resorts to particular workplaces reinforced the labour ethos.


PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Holidays in authoritarian and totalitarian countries were not a purely private issue. In fact, the mass leisure was an integral part of state politics in all its aspects. The architecture of holiday resorts and sanatoriums in communist Poland was supposed to serve as a precisely designed environment for planned collective behaviour. Buildings were not only designed to serve its primary functions but to become a scenography for "new rituals". The architecture of socialistmodernist holiday resorts in Poland presents a wide spectrum of form and scale which were determined by geographic conditions, cultural and social context. After the fall of the communist regime, they became a unwanted heritage of the past -neglected and falling into decay. Future preservation of the most valuable examples of the architecture of leisure raised in socialist Poland is possible only when preceded by understanding of its social, political and aesthetical origins.
view influenced all areas of life-including architecture and urban planning. The shape of architectural space was supposed to determine the crowd's behaviour. Dedicating architecture to the masses encouraged specific design solutions. Viacheslav Schkvarikov, vice-president of the architecture committee of the Soviet Union, described the role of architecture. Replacing a single citizen with the crowd-the nation, he wrote, "Architecture will live and evolve, and achieve great new accomplishments. It will happen only in case it expresses the needs of the whole nation, serve its life and existence, meet its artistic need, ideals and desires" (Nawratek, 2005, pp. 89-90).
The main focus of the research described in this article is the architecture of holiday resorts and sanatoriums, built in communist Poland between 1945 and1989, in the context of social and political changes that took place at the time. The architectural praxis of the period has been compared to analogous architecture in other totalitarian and authoritarian European regimes. This sets a background for the development of both the idea of mass recreation in the Polish People's Republic (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa-PRL) and the accompanying architecture.
The subsequent sections present the current state of research on the subject of post-war holiday architecture in Poland, the issue of mass recreation and modernist architecture of leisure in authoritarian and totalitarian countries (Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Spain under Franco's dictatorship and the Soviet Union and other countries of the so-called Eastern Bloc), and the analysis of the political and social significance of mass recreation in the PRL. The above-mentioned sections set a background for the analysis of selected Polish examples and concepts. The study was carried out on two levelsurban layouts and building complexes, as well as individual sanatoriums and holiday homes. It included a formal analysis of the architecture (based on in-situ survey and projects' analysis) as well as elements of its social reception and political meaning based on archival materials.

The current state of research
The issue of Polish architecture between 1945 and 1989 has recently became an object of growing interest among local scholars. Despite that, the resort and spa architecture remains a question still to be researched. Among the scholarly works dedicated to the matter, Andrzej Szczerski's essay on hotels and resorts built in the 1960s and 1970s (Szczerski, 2015, pp. 143-169) and articles by Błażej Ciarkowski (Ciarkowski, 2017a, Ciarkowski, 2017b deserve attention. However, this remains to be an under-researched topic among architects, especially when compared to the amount of scholarship published by historians and sociologists, who have been analysing the organisation and development of mass recreation in the PRL, analysing them in the context of a widespread programme of the country's modernisation after the Second World War. The mentioned lack of interest in post-war resort architecture among architects and architecture historians seems to be most evident in contrast to the numerous elaborations on the matter written in the 1960s and 1970s and, although on a smaller scale, in the 1980s. During those decades, the most important Polish architectural magazine "Architektura" regularly presented new investments and designs, and offered extensive analyses of issues concerning spa and resort developments in Poland. There were 31 and 23 such articles published in subsequent decades, that is, in the 1960s and 1970s respectively. Similar subjects were discussed in travel magazines and in the newsletter issued by the Association of Polish Architects (SARP) and other less significant publications concerning architecture and construction. At the same time, more general works, which researched the wider spectrum of the phenomenon and issued guidelines for resort design, were published. These include books by Halina Gurjanowa (Gurjanowa, 1975), Elżbieta Wysocka (Wysocka, 1981) and the journals published by the Society of Tourism. In the light of a relatively large amount of research material, the current lack of scholarly interest in the development of the resort and spa architecture in 1945-1989 seems somewhat surprising. In the following section of this article I will try to present an idea that explains this situation.

Modernism, totalitarianism and holiday
For many years modernism has been considered an opposition to 20 th century totalitarianisms (Jencks, 1987: 55-61). The founding members of Bauhaus were juxtaposed with Albert Speer's neoclassicism, just like the soviet constructivists were contrasted with Stalinist socialist realism, triumphant in 1930s and 1940s (Pevsner, 1976: 416). The fact that totalitarian regimes were often based on both modernist philosophy of development and the idea of social Darwinism has often been omitted. The breakthrough was achieved by Karl Popper, who in his Poverty of Historicism pointed out the direct connection between totalitarian regimes and a linear, modernist understanding of historical development (Popper, 1991). It was not until 1980 when Diana Ghirardo became one of the first scholars to research the link between Mussolini's regime and rationalist movement (Ghirardo, 1980). In 2002, Mark Antliff, who also focused on tracing the political involvement of progressive architects in fascist Italy, has pointed out that fascist architecture was conservative and modern at the same time (Antliff, 2002).
In the case of the Soviet Union's architectural history, the constructivist's participation in the first, post-revolutionary stage of constructing the Soviet State is often mentioned. Analyses of the art of the period that is under consideration here often reject the totalitarian character of modernism, seeking the genesis of this cooperation in the ethos of fidelity to art. Those who prefer to believe in the innocence of the avant-gardists' pure intentions claim that generally, the criminal nature of the regimes was unknown at the time (Juszkiewicz, 2013). Unfortunately, when it comes to at least some of them (for example, avant-garde artist Alexandr Rodchenko, who praised the prison camps system), this claim is invalid. (Juszkiewicz, 2013: 11). What is more, in the 1930s when the Stalinist regime started the grand project of modernizing Moscow, once constructivists were working arm to arm with zealous socialist realists. Former constructivist designers, Nikolai Ladowski and Wiktor Wiesnin, along with admitted supporters of reactionary eclecticism, Karo Alabian and Boris Iofan, created a modern metropolis together (Zhuravlev et al., 1987: 82). Such unique symbiosis has been noticed by scholars like Pare, Hudson or Schlegel. At the same time, while analysing political entanglements of the Soviet Union's constructivist avant-garde, Piotr Juszkiewicz, has stressed that the history of the relations between modernism and totalitarian regime should be "reconstructed in the most nuanced manner possible" (Juszkiewicz, 2013, p. 18). Such an attitude seems to be crucial in terms of a long-lasting regime, like the one of Soviet Russia, which was not a monolith, but can be divided into several different periods. After 1956 and the end of Stalinism era, "[t]here was a large democratization of life in the country, which came forth in different forms," wrote Felix Novikov, a prominent soviet architect. "It ranged from the mass release of Gulag convicts to the new open plan residential micro-districts, and entirely glazed façade from the Palace of the Soviets" (Novikov, 2016: 51).
Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes (Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, communist USSR etc.) were all, to some extent, projects of modernization (Leszczyński, 2013: 178;Juszkiewicz, 2013: 11;De Michelis, 2002: 88-89). This was the case in the 1930s, in spite of the triumphant Speer's monumental neoclassicism or Jofan's eclectic social realism, . What was modernised was a costumeyet the main idea remained the same and it concerned building a new society/nation. A common feature of totalitarian states was the subordination of the individual needs to the general will. The crowd was to be more important than a single person. Here the crowd should be understood as "a closed group," gathering at the initiative of the authorities and remaining under their full control (Canetti, 1978). Although the authorities emphasized a spontaneous character of various massive signs of support (assemblies, rallies, etc.), they did not risk confronting an open crowd that gathered spontaneously, from their own initiative.
This specific focus on the crowd and not the individual can be seen in both the characteristics and the scale of the architectural and urban planning, and the scope of realised building projects. This correlation can be easily seen in the undertakings in the field of resort architecture that are the main focus of this article.
Mass leisure and recreation in the non-democratic countries was an immanent part of the totalitarian regime's policy. This was the "carnival time," very different from everyday life. It was seen not only as a chance to patch up poor health and gain more strength for further work, but also as a channel for propaganda and indoctrination. The authorities of the Third Reich treated the construction of the Prora Centre on the Baltic island of Rügen as one of the priority investments of the Nazi state. During the laying of the cornerstone in May 1936, Robert Ley, the leader of the German Labour Front, enthusiastically announced the advent of a new era (Rostock, 2016). Indeed, the complex designed by Clemens Klotz, with its grandeur and scale, was impressive. Simple, sixstorey residential pavilions were to stretch along the coast for 4.5 km. Between them, in the central part of the complex, there was a public space with a square surrounded by arcades supported by pillars that contained sport facilities and a assembly hall. The entire centre managed by KdF (Kraft durch Freude-Strength through Joy) was planned to accommodate as many as 20,000 holidaymakers at the same time (Rostock, 2016, p. 9).
The fascist Italy also treated mass recreation as a tool of regime's policy. In the 1920s and 1930s, several dozen colonies and resorts for children and young people were built (Mulazzani, 2019: 17-18). They were a part of the modernist and inter-war period's obsession with physical agility. At the same time, they were supposed to be a place for forming young Italians' character. Mario Labo, who can be considered the main advocate of colonies, wrote: "Everything from the design [. . .] of the width and types of doors and windows to the form of the banisters, from floor cement, colours, and material-everything together [. . .] will create an artistic form and a visual image that children will always connect with the memories from the colonies" (Irace, 1985, p. 4). This "image" was designed to shape not only the aesthetic (in the spirit of modernism), but also political (fascist) views. Architecture supported ideology by creating a suggestive form, composed into a natural landscape. Although the Fascist Party indicated the direction of development, and even though theoreticians like Labo created "the general principles", colonies in Italy cannot be traced back into a single matrix (Mulazzani, 2019: 20). Nevertheless, the mass character of leisure and its political importance has to be emphasized. In Frankist Spain, the state developed a republican concept of Vacation Cities for Workers. However, it never reached the scale of mass leisure facilities in Italy or Soviet Russia, remaining privileged enclaves (Loren-Méndez et al., 2019).
The situation in the Soviet Union was similar, and, after the Second World War, it became so in all countries of the Eastern Bloc. As stressed (with some astonishment) by Katharina Ritter, "like so many things in the Soviet Union, a holiday was not necessarily a purely private matter" (Ritter, 2012, p. 72). In the 1920s, holiday resorts and sanatoriums were established as "repair workshops for hard-working people". However, holidays in the Soviet Union (and after 1945 also in the satellite states) were not an escape from the universal and continuous mobilisation of citizens united in a joint action. On the contrary, they continued it on a different level. The USSR was a huge labour camp, but also, as Frederic Chaubin rightly pointed out, a giant recreation camp (Chaubin, 2011, p. 13). The Labour Code of 1922 guaranteed workers two weeks of leave per year, and the Soviet constitution of 1936 guaranteed all citizens the right to rest (Omidi, 2017). The industry's dynamic development during the consecutive five-year plans realised during Joseph Stalin's reign also resulted in the expansion of a network of resorts that were part of the plan. Until 1939, over 1800 new sanatoriums were built in the Soviet Union, and they could accommodate nearly 240,000 patients. At the same time, holiday resorts and camps for pioneers were created, which played a role similar to the Italian colonies. The numbers mentioned clearly show the scale of the undertaking and the mass nature of organized recreation taking place in state resorts. They were all products of the era, which perceived architecture as a tool for social change. Their forms corresponded with the following, consecutive stylistic trends-from the constructivism of the 1920s, through socialist realism of the Stalinist era (also referred to as the golden era of Soviet sanatoriums), to late modernism beginning in the late 1950s (Omidi, 2017). It is worth noticing that, despite the monumentalism of Stalinist architecture, it was Nikita Khrushchev, the successor of Stalin, who sought to increase the size and quantity of investments. As the new resorts were to serve the masses, they were designed for family recreation rather than solo stays.
As it was mentioned, the modernist architecture in post-war period supported political and social changes in the Soviet Union after Stalin's death. The dynamics of its evolution was quite the same in other states of the Eastern Bloc. For example, in the 1960s in Czechoslovakia a number of resorts was built in Tatra Mountains as a result of the development of mass tourism in that area. The Czechoslovakia Revolutionary Trade Union even incorporated leisure and recreation of working people into its main agenda (Zaicek, 2016: 59). At the same time, architects searched for a formal design of alpine architecture which, on one hand, would serve visiting crowds, and on the other, would follow the authorities' narrative about "Tatras as a national symbol" (Moravčíková, 2019: 61). The development of mass tourism in post-war period was a common phenomenon. In mid 1950s, Bulgarian authorities decided to take advantage of the natural beauty of the Black Sea coast, giving new investments in the field of architecture of leisure a boost (Beyer, Hagemann & Zinganel, 2013: 57). At the same time, Yugoslavia developed the network of sanatoria and hotels at the Adriatic coast. The architecture supported the official socialist agenda: the modernist forms of newly built assets embodied a vision of "socialist leisure," based on the shape of modest, modern pavilions gathered around a central common space, the "social condenser" (Mrduljas, 2013: 171). The "free time" was supposed to be spent in precisely designed way.

Leisure and modernity in communist Poland
In terms of the political use of leisure, the PRL was not an exception among other non-democratic states. As soon as in 1945, the then president Bolesław Bierut officially took over the former residence of the pre-war president Ignacy Mościcki in Spała, "for the leisure needs of the working population" (Sowiński, 2005, p. 21).
Providing wide masses with organised leisure forced the development of appropriate infrastructure. Pre-war pensions and sanatoriums were not able to serve such a large number of patients and vacationers. Rest has become not only an extremely important element of the modernisation policy of the authorities, but also an instrument of the PRL's propaganda, which opposed pre-war elitism against the egalitarianism of the socialist state.
In the 1960s, architect Edmund Goldzamt, a former leading advocate of socialist realism's doctrine among Polish architects, wrote that "the problem of leisure and tourism acquires more and more importance in the socialist countries. This is due to the increasing urbanisation, democratisation and mass popularisation of the custom of going on annual vacations" (Goldzamt & Szwidkowski, 1987, p. 239). As Chaubin emphasised while analysing the Soviet Union's architecture, the rest was part of the secular ritual. Like every ritual, it required scenography and scenario. The former took shape of progressive, modernist architecture while the latter was the responsibility of political and cultural commissioners. Their reports were often enriched with relations and opinions of actual holidaymakers. They are extremely valuable documents of the era, although their content is not free from the influence of propaganda and censorship.
As the stage design of this ritual, architecture had to meet certain functional and formal requirements. The same goes for the Polish architecture history in the second half of the twentieth century. Therefore, the cognitive gap, or rather the lack of it, may explain the division between "political party" socialist realism and "oppositional" modernism, which is a view is still present in the discourse. Admittedly, although some time has passed since Andrzej Basista's statement that "the term 'architecture of the communist era' is associated with the construction of Stalinist times" (Basista, 2001, p. 19), the conviction of the philosophical neutrality of modernism is still quite common. Adam Kotarbiński stated that with the end of Stalinism, Polish architecture entered a stage of "liberal directionlessness" (Nawratek, 2005, p. 91). Such views were shared by other scholars, like Krzystof Nawratek, who suggested that "in the age of a mature socialist society, nobody cared about the [ideological-ed. B.C.] problems anymore" (Nawratek, 2005, p. 72). Andrzej Szczerski and David Crowley present a different point of view. While considering the issue of architecture in Gierek's times, Szczerski wrote explicitly that "luxury (and therefore also luxurious architecture-B.C.) was obtaining a strictly ideological meaning" (Szczerski, 2015, p. 144). On the other hand, in one of the interviews, Crowley presented a key question in terms of the development of architecture in the Eastern Bloc countries after 1956: "was it depoliticisation of architecture, or was it a sign of a new ideological stance?". The answer may seem a bit shocking. "He believes that the architects were involved in the very centre of power," the English researcher stated, adding that "all architectural infrastructure was permeated by the regime" (Crowley, 2015, p. 77). It refers also to the architecture of leisure.
After the 1956 rejection of socialist realism, architecture turned towards modernism and many considered such shift as the end of politicisation in the field. Meanwhile, the answer to socialist realism was not the architecture devoid of any ideals, but one expressing them in a new way. Modernist "glass boxes" had a strictly defined propaganda function. As Piotr Piotrowski noted, the "communists" who were building the "second Poland" did not need socialist propaganda, but rather modern art which did not violate the status quo (Piotrowski, 2011, p. 177). The seemingly devoid of ideology modernism has thus become a tool for preserving a specific political and social order. It also became a tool for building a new social identity under the conditions of the communist state. The main focus of the state were not "palaces for the people" but "glass boxes". As Krzysztof Nawratek writes, "there was neither time nor will for expressing ideology" (Nawratek, 2005, p. 72). Crowley does not agree with this conclusion, as he perceives the political entanglement of post-war modernist architecture in a different manner. In his opinion, in the times of relative stability, which he describes as "banal socialism", architecture was to calm down society and direct its attention to the present. In the entire Eastern Bloc, after 1956, modernism was thus a regime's attempt to steer towards consumerism (Crowley, 2015, p. 81).
After the Second World War came to an end, organized tourism in the PRL was subordinated to state authorities. This was based on the solutions adopted in the Soviet Union, where from 1921 only the trade unions controlled by the authorities could administer recreational infrastructure. In the times of the PRL, holidays were one of the integral elements of modernisation policy and the new system's peculiar gift for those who, until now, had not been able to benefit from them. The newly established Employee Holiday Fund (Fundusz Wczasów Pracowniczych-FWP) clearly defined the priority objectives. "Thanks to holidays, a miner, teacher, steelworker or textile worker that may have never seen mountains or sea has an opportunity to learn about the most beautiful regions of our country," states a document from the turn of 1946 and 1947 (Jarosz, 2003, p. 21).
The connections between organised leisure and tourism and the PRL's politics were very clear. However, this did not always mean that they were ideologized activities of pure propaganda. The authorities promoted the concept of collective and closed rest in employee resorts, thus limiting individual tourism and permanently linking leisure with the workplace. Cyclical, mass holidays have become one of the symbols of the so-called "small stabilisation" and a permanent element in the life of society's majority. At the same time, communist authorities treated organised recreation as a tool for shaping participants' attitudes according to the official ideology. It was enhanced both by the organisation of holidays and their programme, as well as the accompanying stage design: architecture.
For many holidaymakers and patients, such a two-week trip was the first opportunity to see something more than their hometown. In the interviews, they did not hide how surprised they were by the sight of the mountains or the sea. They praised the amenities provided in the state holiday resorts-bright, spacious rooms, bathrooms, easy access to both canteen and the common room. Political instructors took care of the educational nature of the rest. Holidaymakers and patients made trips to workplaces, took part in lectures and talks. If the centre in which they stayed boasted a cinema-show room, then film projections or artistic performances were set up (Sprawozdania opiekunów . . ., 1954). The modernist architecture of holiday resorts became the scenography for new rituals and social behaviours, and at the same time, they became the symbols of modernity for their users.
The first half of the 1970s is considered the most successful period in the history of the PRL's tourism, which is emphasized by Andrzej Szczerski (among others), who wrote openly about the "decade of holiday architecture" (Szczerski, 2015, p. 143). Such statement is only partly true because such a "boom" would not have been possible without a series of measures taken in the earlier period. The local authorities and state's interest in developing recreational infrastructure was evident as early as in the 1960s.
In the beginning of the 1960s, the planning of the general spa complex in Wisła Ustronie was undertaken by the Provincial Urban Planning Studio at the Katowice Provincial National Council. It is a vital example because it presents the phenomenon characteristic of the PRL-combining the expansion of a network of holiday resorts with the development of industry. Villages located in the Silesian Beskids, such as Ustroń, Wisła, Porąbka or Szczyrk, were considered predestined for the role of tourist and recreation facilities for the population of the Upper Silesian Industrial Region (Jaciow & Piasecki, 1964). Thus, the organisation and growth of the recreational base have been permanently connected with the idea of developing heavy industry-a priority branch of the Polish People's Republic economy. At the same time, both areas were part of a broad modernisation program drawn up by the PRL's authorities. Civilisational progress was to be made through economic development and social change.

New Leisure Urban Complexes
The spread of mass leisure mentioned in the earlier section of this article determined the development in construction of holiday homes and sanatoriums as well as facilities with accompanying functions. The infrastructure of the resorts that were popular since the pre-war years, such as Sopot, Ciechocinek, Zakopane and Szczawnica, was far from sufficient due to the new need of serving thousands of holidaymakers and patients. In order to implement the program outlined by the Party and thus meet the expectations of the crowds, it became necessary to develop new architectural and urban solutions. Their main regulations can be found in numerous articles published in the 1960s and 1970s, when the rapid and dynamic development of holiday architecture in Poland took place.
The new spa and recreational districts were designed both within towns boasting a renowned resort tradition and in the vicinity of centres that previously had other leading functions. The analysis of investments and spatial development projects indicates the leading trends in the new district planning. The most commonly used were the linear layouts, which were eagerly implemented in the mountains, lowland areas and by the sea. They were considered optimal for the geographical conditions of Poland. In the coastal areas and lake districts, it was justified by the linear layout of the shoreline, and in the mountains-the banded arrangement of mineral water deposits and the possibility of using areas with favourable sun exposure. In its basic form, defined by Jan Chmielewski, the linear (banded) layout consists of two component areas: the paramount centre and the interdependent centre (or several centres) (Wysocka, 1981). In the first area, which consisted of existing complexes, the dominating function was to provide permanent and periodic accommodation along with supplementary devices. The second area, which consisted in new holiday districts, (now separated from the main centres with isolating greenery), comprised sanatoriums, holiday resorts and accompanying gyms etc. In a similar way, towns of strictly recreational nature, yet deprived of the function of a resort, were planned. Halina Gurjanowa, who in the mid-1970s made an analysis of the seaside recreational towns' development, noted that "the band structure is beneficial for the implementation of the principle of spatial layout variability and its stepwise development" (Gurjanowa, 1975, p. 127). The possibility of gradual growth of the investments was extremely important in the light of the assumed increase in the number of participants of organized recreation, and limited financial possibilities. The latter often determined that a part of the design was realized fragmentarily or not at all. However, even the analysis of completed structures and the planned ones (projects, competition entries) clearly indicates that socialist authorities perceived mass leisure as a field of state economy to be developed in the future. New urban complexes and whole "leisure estates" were supposed to serve thousands of citizens who, according to the socialist agenda, deserved to spend their free time in the most attractive spots in Poland.
Particularly noteworthy are the two groups of buildings erected near the small town of Ustroń in the mountain range of Beskid Śląski. The first of them was Ustroń-Jaszowiec, designed by Czesław Kotela in 1961 (Winnicki, 1969) (Figure 1). The second is Ustroń Zawodzie, built in 1966-1978, which is the work of Aleksander Franta and Henryk Buszko (Dzielnica Uzdrowiskowo-. . ., 1970) ( Figure 2). They exemplify the changing trends in the design of holiday resort architecture. The design made by Kotela's team included sixteen cozy residential buildings of various typology. They were arranged in a linear layout on the southern slope of the hillside. Such location was supposed to ensure optimal sun exposure, attractive views, and also enabled the creation of a wide foreground with recreational facilities and a promenade-the place of interaction for holidaymakers. The Ustroń-Zawodzie consists of 17 buildings, spread freely among greenery, with an immense hospital connected with the spa by a green area as its centre. Residential buildings took on the repetitive forms of 9-storey "pyramids", each of which could accommodate 200 patients. The architects originally planned that 26 houses and an independent sanatorium would provide accommodation for 6,000 people at the same time (Dzielnica Uzdrowiskowo-. . ., 1970).
Both Ustroń-Zawodzie and Ustroń-Jaszowiec were part of the development strategy for the leisure infrastructure in the Beskid Śląski. Moreover, spa complexes in Wisła and Szczyrk were partially realized (the latter one to a visibly smaller extent). The number of new facilities which were planned to accommodate several thousand people in Wisła alone shows the enormous scale of the entire project. The local authorities of Silesia sought to provide the crowds working in the priority sectors of the economy (heavy industry) with optimal rest conditions, in accordance with the guidelines sent by the Central Committee of Communist Party. Their narrative was typical for communist rhetoric and, at the same time, similar to the ideas of pre-war modern movement. Even the name of the project proposed combining Ustroń and Wisła into one gigantic resort that was "industrial": a Factory (Kombinat) of Health and Leisure (Czernek, 2017: 97).
In the case of spa district projects which were to be implemented in coastal towns, the situation was somewhat different. Gurjanowa, who in 1975 published the analysis of several major centres in Poland, drew attention to the specificity of the Baltic coast (Gurjanowa, 1975). The climate (strong winds from the north) and harsh terrain often made it impossible to build holiday homes directly by the beach, as it was common in Mediterranean resorts. Hence, residential buildings were located perpendicularly to the coast line, and additionally separated from it by a band of greenery. Exceptions include the sanatorium in Kołobrzeg by Goldzamt and Gurjanowa (Figure 3) or Sanatorium in Gdynia-Orłowo, where the building was located right next to the beach, and visitors could admire the waves on the Baltic Sea from the windows of their room.

Figure 2. Sanatorium in Ustroń -Zawodzie. (fot. B. Ciarkowski).
A good example of a typical spatial layout of Polish seaside resort can be found in Kołobrzeg, a town boasting an old spa tradition, although before 1945 it was not within the borders of Poland. In the first post-war years, adaptation of former sanatoriums and holiday houses began. It was not until the 1960s when the construction of a new sanatorium located near the historical centre of the city started. It was separated from the centre by a railway line to the south, and in the north it was bordered by a strip of coastal greenery separating it from the beach and the sea. The green area was turned into a park which served both as a buffer and a space of recreation and integration for the patients. Most of the new resorts were located perpendicularly to the shoreline. They took forms of simple 8-and 9-storey residential towers with adjoining lower pavilions, where common use rooms were located (Figure 4). Only a few resort centres-such as "Kormoran" belonging to the Ministry of Internal Affairswere built inland (but still within the spa district). In 1968, the first large modern physiotherapy institute in Poland was built near the holiday homes and residential and sanatorium facilities ( Figure 5). Designed by Tadeusz Ćwierdziński and Zofia Eldrigowa, the building not only served to improve the physical condition, but also proved the progressive and modern character of the socialist state. The architects wanted to create a facility that was not only functional, but also aesthetically refined. That is why the front and back façade were covered with mosaics, creating an organic, abstract composition, authored by Olgierd Szerląg and Irena Zahorska. A modern sculpture "Motherhood" by Alina Ślesińska was placed in front of the building.
The unrealised projects of the so-called exemplary seaside tourist resort, which were submitted for the competition that took place in 1969 are also noteworthy. A small fishing village with 450 inhabitants, Karwia was chosen as an example. According to the plans of the Provincial Urban Planning Studio in Gdańsk, it was supposed to be a part of holiday resorts' complex, with the centre located in Jastrzębia Góra, 6 km from Karwia (Konkurs SARP . . ., 1969). There, facilities which fulfilled the needs of a higher order were to be built. The smaller complexes boasted only the permanent and temporary service centres used by both holidaymakers and permanent residents.
The competition enjoyed a considerable interest among urban planners, and the first prize was awarded to Bruno Wandtke. The architect's design proposed a band layout with a perpendicular main communication route . The road separated holiday resorts from the place where permanent residents lived. The resort zone was organised in two lines parallel to the coast, divided into smaller segments, each of which had their own service points. Between the zones, a belt containing greenery and sports and recreational facilities was planned. The architect assumed that this area, shielded from the northern winds, will enable organisation of leisure even under unfavourable weather conditions and thus contribute to the holiday season's extension. In other projects, similar solutions were repeated: modernist zoning of functions and separation of the recreational "district" from the existing buildings of the town (Gurjanowa, 1975). On the one hand, such undertakings minimised disruptions in everyday life of permanent residents, and on the other hand, they promoted the separation of holidaymakers from indigenous people. This was written in the top-down imposed regulations, according to which the resting groups were to spend time primarily in their own company. Other matters worth paying attention to are the common spaces and public facilities, which were an integral part of the newly built districts. The spa guests were to integrate primarily within their own holiday resort. In practice, this meant relaxation in the environment of one's own professional group, as individual sanatoriums and holiday houses were assigned to specific workplaces. Contact between residents of different centres was less frequent and took place within common spaces, such as promenades or sports areas. As it was already mentioned, the interaction with local people was limited to the minimum (Sowiński, 2005).
In some cases holiday resorts were designed as independent, almost self-sufficient complexes, like the Kozubnik centre located near Porąbka, in the Beskid Mountains. The complex of 13 modernist buildings erected by the Steelworks Renovation Company (Hutnicze Przedsiębiorstwo Remontowe) took shape of virtually independent and self-sufficient district on the outskirts of Porąbka. Among many amenities, the resort was equipped with its own water intake and greenhouses that supplied the canteen with vegetables (Szczerski, 2015, p. 161). In the collective consciousness, the buildings located in the valley at the foot of Kozubnik Mountain have never existed as an integral part of Porąbka village. One can notice that socio-political meaning of architecture of leisure in communist country was some somehow peculiar. The optimistic vision of holidays was closely connected with the state control of citizens and ideas keeping different social groups separated according to the roman maxim "divide et impera".

Stand-alone holiday centres
As people working in the holiday centres before 1989 mentioned, "each mine (or another large plant or factory-ed. B.C.) had two or three resort buildings-one somewhere in the area, and one in the mountains or by the sea" (Boćkowska, 2017, p. 185). The promise of leisure was to be a motivation for intense work, and the holiday itself was seen as an opportunity to shape the holidaymakers or spa guests' social behaviour. Such shaping was possible not only thanks to planned organisation of joint activities, conducted by qualified instructors. The interaction was also promoted by the described organisation of both spa areas and the architecture of each residential building.
The spatial layout of most facilities was planned according to a transparent scheme. The main entrance led to the reception hall from where one could get to either the social (canteen, cafe, lounge, etc.) or residential part of the building. Such design did not only foster community behaviour, but was also a distant echo of the avant-garde concept of "communal houses". Although these utopian visions did not perform well in everyday use, they proved to be an almost ideal solution for planning accommodation for temporary stay. Patients and vacationers had to adapt to the schedule prepared by the leisure organisers. Communist authorities replaced traditional forms of worship with secular spaces along with their own, specific rituals. Therefore, the resort centres built in communist era boast extensive day-care halls, annexes and club rooms, canteens capable of accommodating several hundred consumers at once. Yet, they also offer relatively small rooms. The Thorez mine's holiday home in Jastrzębia Góra, designed in 1959 by Szczepan Baum, consisted of several light, glazed pavilions, each of which had a different function. The applied modernist architecture was highly praised by the critics. In articles published in the 1960s it was emphasised that its creators " managed (. . .) to escape the monotony of box forms in an original manner" (Popadiuk, 1965, p. 28). The focal point of the complex was a pavilion housing administrative and game rooms, and a cafeteria with a dining room, that could also serve as a common room if necessary. Adjacent to the centre were: on the one side, a multi-storey residential pavilion for adults, on the other-a one-storied pavilion of children's colony. As one can see, the adopted concept assumed almost complete separation of each group of users. In addition, the author of the project, Baum, predicted that designing such a small private space would practically make users spend time together.
The contrast between small private rooms and large, spacious common rooms was a typical characteristic of the vast majority of recreation centres erected in the PRL. Even the most impressive examples of the resort architecture of that time were subject to the same restrictions. The Kołobrzeg sanatorium of Trade Unions' Central Board ( Figure 6) was designed in 1964 for 350 people (in the original version, a larger capacity was planned-500-550 people) and equipped with rooms for treatment, recreation and catering functions. The restaurant and the café were particularly impressive, located in a two-storey, rounded shape pavilion that adjoined the main building from the side outlooking the beach. Thanks to this, patients using the hall could admire the Baltic Sea, which, as it was mentioned before, was a rarity among Polish seaside facilities. Goldzamt and Gurjanowa initially planned to build a "cultural and entertainment" wing with a large cinema and entertainment room for 280 seats (Goldzamt & Gurjanowa, 1964). Although this intention was been realised, it clearly shows that culture (and propaganda) played an extremely important role in the PRL's sanatoria. One can easily recognize that functional schemes and spatial designs of health resorts and holiday houses were supposed to force certain tourists' behaviour. The main entrance led to the lobby and the reception, often decorated with modern artistic handicraft inspired with local folklore. From there, guests could move on to common facilities (the restaurant, the lounge, spa facilities) which were supposed to serve as a space for social activities and were the representative part of the building-spacious, with mosaics or reliefs on the walls. On contrary, guests' rooms were relatively small, as their size was supposed to encourage people to spend more time outside or in common rooms. At the same time, architects took great care to provide each of them with a balcony and a sophisticated view of picturesque natural landscape.
In "Górnik" sanatorium, located in Szczawnica (on the border of the Beskids and Pieniny mountains), architects Buszko and Franta designed accommodation for 90 patients. Despite the spa character of the building, the treatment department was relatively modest. On the other hand, entertainment and social functions were expanded with a great show and cinema hall and a common room. The previously mentioned "pyramids" in Ustroń were slightly more modest in these terms; apart from a spacious canteen accommodating 200 people, only a small recreation annex was provided. The situation was similar in select facilities in Jaszowiec, but, due to their scale, the common spaces were much smaller. In this case, the architects designed an independent, detached shopping and service complex, which allowed patients to satisfy the needs that could not be covered within their own holiday centre (including shops, a cafe, a cinema and a show room) (Winnicki, 1969).
However, such solutions were not common. In most cases the resorts remained independent, self-sufficient units, even if several holiday and sanatorium houses were built in the vicinity of one another. In 1962, in Jelitkowo, which was considered the most beautiful beach in Gdańsk, two holiday resorts were built for the workers of the National Bank of Poland (NBP) (Figure 7) and the Union of Craft Chambers. Both were designed by the same person, an architect Czesław Wyka. He designed light, 2-and 3-story pavilions with flat roofs, partially glazed walls and elegant balconies running along the facade. The resort belonging to the Union of Chambers of Crafts, located next to the beach, consisted of three residential buildings situated perpendicularly to the quay, and a lower, free-standing service pavilion with a common room and a canteen (Kowalski, 1965). The holiday resort of the NBP, even though it was built right next door, had completely independent social facilities. Despite the resorts' full independence, Wyka tried to give them an appearance of a homogeneous complex by unifying architectural forms and introducing a similar colour scheme based on contrasting combinations of white, blue, red and yellow.
A different example of holiday resorts were camping resorts. They were popular especially in the lowland and coastal areas, which to a large extent was a result of the seasonality of local resorts, as they were used only in the summer months. Such camping resorts consisted of repeatable pavilions or small houses and separate social facilities. It was often a prefabricated, predictable architecture, although among it one can find such complexes as the mining holiday resort in Łeba, designed by recognized architects Buszko and Franta (Geppert, 1964) (Figure 8). They created a complex of 25 small houses, each of which contained 4 separate apartments. Simple, modernist cubes were skilfully blended into the coastal landscape of a pine forest (Figure 9). Other campsites were far less impressive, especially ones like Gdańsk-Sobieszewo, where standardised solutions were implemented, and the only distinctive building was a glazed canteen pavilion set up on a pentagonal plan (Figure 10). As had already been mentioned, the organization of space in new spa districts and their location were meant to separate holidaymakers and patients from permanent residents. In addition, the vacationers staying in resorts belonging to specific work establishments were partially separated from each other. What's more, even within one sanatorium or holiday home there were visible "class" divisions-workers and the so-called "intellectuals" were most likely to spend time in their own company (Sowiński, 2005).  It should also be emphasized that in the PRL's socialist society, the division into "equal and more equal" was clearly visible. One can also notice it in terms of holiday architecture. Members of state authorities and committees of the Polish United Workers' Party (PZPR) could use their own facilities, which were usually located in a fair distance from other buildings and boasted a much higher standard. It was manifested mostly in more spacious interiors or in better quality of both finishing materials and equipment. In the Council of Ministers' resort located near Zakopane, the interior of the club room and the dining room was furnished with objects of local, artistic craft. In the same manner, designers decorated the interiors of "Antałówka" resort in Zakopane (architect Eryk Moj), where, in addition, spacious open loggias were designed. They were equipped with UV lighting which made it possible to use them even during the winter months. In addition, a system enabling the collection of dirty laundry without disturbing the inhabitants was introduced. The project description emphasised that the service should remain invisible to the guests (Ośrodek Wypoczynkowy . . ., 1961). Representatives of the people's authorities tried to separate themselves from the crowd of other holidaymakers and service staff working in the centres.
The analysis of selected buildings and urban complexes leads to varied conclusions. The scale and form of architecture as well as complex functional programmes and contribution of artists to its final shape indicate the ambitions and optimism of socialist authorities. At the same time, the political impact is noticeable. The decisions were made by local or central government who followed the idea of modernization of Poland. One cannot omit the authoritarian character of then authorities who expected architects and urban planners to design buildings and estates in such a way that their users were controlled (separate holiday houses for different groups, leisure districts separated from local communities). The socialist idea of equal access to the goods (and leisure of health were one of them) was nothing more but a theory, and the elite character of resorts for members of the communist party committees contrasted with the simplicity of "average" holiday houses.

Conclusion-current reception of PRL resorts
Holiday and spa resorts built in communist Poland were an immanent part of the regime's modernization policy. They were a component of building the new social relations. The described architecture was also a reward for hard work for a socialist homeland, and at the same time, a scenery of longed-for relaxation, a promise of a better future. After the fall of communism in 1989, the system of state sanatoriums and holiday resorts associated with large enterprises began to decline. State holiday resorts relatively quickly passed into private hands. Large state-owned enterprises ceased to exist, and those that survived (including mines) sold their resorts in an effort to reduce "unnecessary" costs. Organisations such as the Workers' Holiday Fund (Fundusz Wczasów Pracowniczych-FWP), which navigated the leisure of hundreds of thousands of Poles in the 1960s and 1970s, lost their importance.
It is not only the system that underwent change. The architecture of modernist holiday resorts has become anachronistic. Soon it has started to be associated with the communist regime and thus has been seen as an unwanted legacy. Modernist forms do not match neither the tastes nor aspirations and needs of the new generation. The pseudo-regional stylisations and often misunderstood vernacularism have been once again in vogue. However, the aesthetics and political connotations are not the main factors that determine the changes in the functioning of the PRL's holiday resorts. The key factor is the shift in social behaviour.
The issue of post-war architecture of leisure, its social and political meaning remains rather largely unexplored area which requires further research. The general outline of the problem presented in this article should become an assumption for detailed, in-depth interdisciplinary research focused on several topics. How did the form of specific buildings, their size and planning affect people's behaviour? Did the mass leisure enhance the sense of collectivism and believing in regime's dogmas? Finally, one should analyse the fate of socialist architecture of leisure after the collapse of communist system and establish its value as a part of cultural heritage.
After 1989, nobody glorified the crowd as a group of citizens. On the contrary, individualism was praised openly. The individual took the place once belonging to the masses. Thus, individual recreation replaced the collective celebration of leisure. Poles were eager to spend their free time on their own, with the closest family members or in small groups. Collective initiatives have become an unwanted relic of the past, just like common meals eaten at the same time by all holidaymakers in a resort. Therefore, spacious club rooms and canteens able to accommodate over 100 people were no longer needed. At the same time, small rooms, which somehow forced holidaymakers to stay in common spaces, became too small for modern standards. Rooms which in the1960s or 1970s were designed to accommodate 2-3 people, now were barely enough for one. The rigid structure of the buildings, which was adapted to meet the old requirements, made it difficult to introduce modifications on a larger scale. The leisure model has also been transformed. Instead of a single 2-or 3-week stay, the Poles began to leave more often for just a few days.
Holiday resorts or sanatoriums that met Adolf Behne's definition of functionalist architecture (De Jonge, 2002) proved to be incompatible with the new times. The system of organized leisure and enormous holiday resorts was, in a way, too large to bear its own burden. Designed for the masses, it was unfit for the times when the crowd was replaced by the individual.
The question architects, architecture historians, preservationists and local authorities should answer in the nearest future is not whether the heritage of socialist modernist architecture of leisure is our common cultural heritage, because the odium of reluctance to buildings raised during the communist era is being put behind, as the number of protected post-war monuments is continuously increasing. However, the rise of social awareness presents the professionals with new challenges concerning the evaluation of post-war modernist architecture of leisure and strategies for its preservation.

Cover Image
Source: Author.