At the very end of the 1970s, a new generation of architects emerged in Hungary under a dual pressure. On the one hand, their university training had been shaped by the principles and practice of modern architecture, whose doctrines practically overrode all individual paths. On the other hand, they were confronted with the disappearance of traditional Hungarian town centres and their transformation in line with the requirements of the socialist system and the representational needs of power. It was in this environment that Pál Boros began his career. In a lecture written in 2004 for the defence of his DLA degree, he summarised this twofold influence as follows: “University education was based on the principles of classical modernism: Gropius’s fundamental stance of ‘starting everything from zero’ in the first decades of the 20th century; ‘elevating’ functionality into an ‘-ism’ (it became functionalism in its own right); the omnipotence of function in shaping; the apotheosis of the Machine; or Le Corbusier’s Five Points, the material-based shaping of structures. As it later ‘turned out’, even within modernism there were denominations, though by then these were spoken of only in the past tense in the final semesters and special lectures of the Department of Architectural History… The doctrines had already become somewhat desiccated, as by that time the more schematic examples of the international style dominated the scene. All this was made even more bitter by the fact that everyone lived their daily lives in the reality of existing socialism…”[1]
Pál Boros graduated from the Budapest University of Technology (now: Budapest University of Technology and Economics) in 1979. During his studies, the ideas that had the greatest influence on him came from the lectures of János Bakondi and Zoltán Szentkirályi. The legacy of these two ‘masters’ can be clearly traced throughout his later career. János Bakondi gained substantial experience at a very young age through his work on repairing war damage; he took part in the reconstruction of Liberty Bridge, the restoration of the Diósd radio transmitter, and, as a permanent specialist consultant to the State Centre for Monument Restoration Conservation, contributed to the renovation of, among others, the Kossuth and Deák mausoleums, the church of Ják, the Matthias Church in Buda Castle, as well as the roof structures and roofing of the main halls of the Eastern and Western Railway Stations in Budapest, and the reconstruction of Buda Castle, St Stephen’s Basilica, and the monastic complex of Pannonhalma. As a university lecturer, he conveyed all this knowledge with an almost unrivalled clarity of insight and in such a compelling manner that generations of architects still regard him as one of the defining figures of their student years. He was able to present even the most complex systems and interrelations in a clear and illustrative way to his audience. Zoltán Szentkirályi, meanwhile, was one of Hungary’s most influential architectural historians of the second half of the 20th century. At a time when architecture was treated not as an art form but as an industrial sector responsible for mass-production tasks, Szentkirályi openly stood up for the complexity of architectural art. He focused on its historical and theoretical issues, armed with world-class knowledge and erudition.
For Pál Boros, it was these two figures, rather than the dominant ideology of the time, who offered genuine guidance and laid the foundations of his professional outlook. In addition to them, the thinking of Zoltán Farkasdy, Ferenc Török, and of Antal Puhl and Gábor Turányi – who oversaw his diploma project as reviewers – also served as important sources of inspiration. He did not learn about the latest architectural trends of the period at university, but through the articles and examples published in Bercsényi 28–30, a specialist journal. He quickly recognised the significance of Japanese Metabolism, Dutch Structuralism, Postmodernism and other movements, which clearly indicated the crisis of international modernism. Yet he did not define his architectural task in terms of stylistic categories, but in a more complex way: as a form of contemporary behaviour that continues the historical development of settlements.
Alternatives in Kecskemét
In 1979, with his fresh university degree, he began working in his hometown, Kecskemét, at the BÁCSTERV design company, in the office of Gábor Farkas. From his very first years he contributed to the plans and competition entries prepared by the office; among the latter, it is worth highlighting the rehabilitation of the surroundings of Kossuth Lajos Street in Baja (1979), the experimental housing estate in Békéscsaba (1980), and the site development plan for the north-western part of Kecskemét’s city centre (1980), the latter of which won first prize. It was at BÁCSTERV that he met József Kerényi, whose character and architectural outlook – although they did not work together directly – fundamentally shaped the further course of Pál Boros’s career.
József Kerényi was a pioneer who set an example for one of the most powerful trends in 20th-century Hungarian architecture. Through his work, architectural revitalisation – the protection and preservation of the architectural heritage of the past through reinterpreted contemporary use – first appeared in Hungary. Kerényi formulated his uniquely interpreted concept of the ‘monument’ remarkably early, already by the mid-1970s: instead of passive preservation, he advocated the idea of built heritage maintained through active, contemporary use. He worked for twenty years at the Kecskemét-based firm BÁCSTERV, first as a designer and later as the company’s chief architect.
He designed town centres, prepared urban district development concepts for settlements across the Great Plain, and planned residential buildings and public institutions; he also shaped the architectural settings of memorials. He came to understand the simple, rational and economical methods of traditional Great Plain architecture, which adapted to its environment, and he grasped the key interrelations of complex environmental design – those that link together the built and natural environment, climate, patterns of sunlight, interior spatial efficiency and economic considerations. He recognised in rural architecture the accumulated experience of many generations and integrated these insights into the architecture of his own era. Kerényi was the first to recognise the outstanding quality of the Art Nouveau public buildings and private houses in the centre of Kecskemét, the uniquely characterful main square ensemble – exceptional even by European standards – and the architectural values of the Great Plain. He perceived the distinctive silhouette of the church towers on the main square, their role in the overall townscape, and thus the value of the complex urban image as a visually coherent system. For years he fought to preserve the town’s old, often disused buildings and to prevent their demolition. The architectural aspect of Kecskemét’s modernisation is closely associated with his name, and it is above all thanks to his vision that many earlier buildings were transformed and re-used for cultural, educational or mixed purposes. Through his work in safeguarding architectural heritage, an urban environment harmoniously combining old and new had already begun to emerge in the 1970s.
When Pál Boros arrived at BÁCSTERV, Kerényi was already working in a separate office, semi-officially sidelined – a kind of one-man dissident. Through long and fruitful conversations, Boros absorbed everything that architecture meant to Kerényi. In 1984, József Kerényi moved to Budapest, bringing their daily contact to an end, but his formative influence can be traced throughout Boros’s entire oeuvre. Much later, in 2000, at the Hungarian exhibition of the Venice International Architecture Biennale – where the work of both architects was presented – Kerényi articulated the essence of the knowledge he had accumulated in the following way: “Our living cities still make visible and tangible the history and culture of the human being who builds them. Just as the cellular system that makes up the human body renews itself several times over a lifetime, and yet we cannot speak of a new person, because the new cells preserve the knowledge and memory of the old ones, so the constant change and reconstruction of our cities is a healthy, organic process only if, in the meantime, we preserve the character and memory that have developed over the course of history. Only in this way can we defend ourselves against the destruction brought by globalisation. In Kecskemét – in this city that rose from the sandy desert of the Great Plain, long battered and devastated at the meeting point of East and West, yet always reborn – I learnt already in the 1960s, a good decade ahead of the world’s post–oil crisis practice, that we must build in a way that awakens neither sorrow nor nostalgia for the past. Let us not demolish unnecessarily! For the buildings and environments that define the city but are poorly used – and therefore deteriorating – let us seek new, contemporary functions. And as for the new, let us build it in a truly contemporary way, with full understanding of the local culture!”[2]
Pál Boros created his first significant works in the spirit of this ‘neither sorrow nor nostalgia’ principle. In 1982 he was commissioned in Szalkszentmárton to convert the old school building – only during the site inspection did it become clear that what was actually expected of him was its demolition and the ‘design’ of a new community centre, which would have been a copy of Károly Jurcsik’s building in Orgovány. However, Boros insisted on preserving the old building – located in a protected heritage area among the village’s public institutions – and he connected the cart shed in the yard of the neighbouring butcher's to the community centre he created from the original structure. In this way, the building also gained a well-usable covered–open space, whose white-plastered half-walls and timber-beamed roof structure present a striking sight. Keeping portions of the façade walls within the village streetscape was, at that time, a decidedly bold move; it clearly carries the imprint of the preserving, revitalising vision that József Kerényi had already set in motion.
Meanwhile, in 1982 Boros was admitted to the seventh cycle of the Master School of the Magyar Építőművészek Szövetsége (Association of Hungarian Architects [AHA]), together with contemporaries such as Tamás Dévényi, András Ferkai, Dezső Ekler, Ervin Nagy, Béla Pazár and Mihály Rudolf. Among the masters were the great figures of the older generation – István Janáky, György Jánossy and Jenő Rimanóczy – alongside those who brought new directions: Imre Makovecz, György Kévés, Csaba Virág, as well as Antal Plesz and Csaba Bodonyi, who set the young Miskolc-based architectural group on its path. The two-year programme’s lecturers included renowned figures such as György Konrád, Paulhans Peters and András Balczó.
Drawn by the Theatre
After the Master School, Boros Pál was given his first assignment where he could apply all the knowledge he had acquired up to that point and add his own insights gained from József Kerényi’s path. In preparation for the reconstruction of the Katona József Theatre in Kecskemét – a building designed by Fellner and Helmer – the need arose to remodel the service building behind it. The original programme included dressing rooms, a rehearsal room and the theatre’s costume workshop, but Boros and his colleagues also created the possibility of a new type of performance space within the rehearsal room: an intimate studio theatre. (This was one of the theatre’s major experimental periods; with Miklós Jancsó’s presence, the introduction of new theatrical forms was to be expected, which further justified the modernisation of the programme.) The eclectic street façade was retained, so the traces of the transformation appeared only on the courtyard side. At the back, one storey was demolished, and three new levels were added above the ground floor, separated from the original, barrel-domed section by a glass-roofed foyer. Boros linked the two volumes with bridges, and he lifted the foyer out of the realm of everyday backstage work into that of theatrical experience through the use of mirrors and set-like details. Through these gestures, he transformed the interior of the building into a kind of ‘urban space’, in which the magic of theatre itself becomes a living element. The transformation of the service building was a clear success both in the city and among architects, and BÁCSTERV honored it with the title of ‘Best Design of the Year’.
At this time, a valuable – though at first seemingly incidental – ‘intermezzo’ slipped into Boros’s career: together with his BÁCSTERV colleague and friend, Tibor Vas, he undertook the organisation of the historical planning material of the Kecskemét Archives. Through this work he gained deeper and more comprehensive knowledge of the historical roots of the city’s built fabric, and it strengthened a conviction he already held strongly: that it is not style that shapes a building, but its context, the spirit of the living city, and the practical realities of use. He writes about this in his already quoted DLA dissertation: “What emerged from the drawings (…) was that the task itself, and the solutions constructed with the tools available at the time, defined a given building far more powerfully – and in a way valid regardless of period – than the surface phenomena of style. At the same time, accumulated experience lends their buildings an infinite rationality. All this appeared with particular clarity in the buildings of the historical economy, which were relatively styleless. Thus my interest turned beyond the curiosities of the archives to these as well: the granaries standing out on the plains, the twin dry mills, the monumental góré (grain stores), the remnants of 19th-century industry, and even such now-disappeared ‘socialist’ building complexes as the industrial area of Tatabánya. I perceived that these were shaped more strongly by a kind of timeless, overarching knowledge – one far more decisive than style.”
Based on this knowledge, he began the reconstruction of the Katona József Theatre, carried out jointly with Gábor Farkas. In fact, it was the work carried out in the archives that made this commission possible. Within the planning material, Boros and his colleagues discovered the original investment programme and execution drawings by Fellner and Helmer – including the principal masonry sheets, the steel structural plans for the roofs, and detailed drawings of certain doors and windows – which gave them the confidence to embark on the large-scale reconstruction. In addition to restoring the Neo-Baroque ornamentation and carrying out technical and stage-technology modernisations, the usable floor area had to be increased within the existing contours of the building, primarily by incorporating the basement level; and alongside the dominance of the historical style, the period of the transformation itself also had to be expressed. The result achieved nationwide acclaim. Theatre critic Tamás Tarján opened his review of the first performance after the reopening with the following lines: “To the genuine delight not only of local patriots but of every Hungarian theatre-lover, the theatre in Kecskemét has reopened its doors, dazzlingly restored to life. The little island of the gallery’s standing room, preserving its historical atmosphere, pleases the eye just as much as the patina of its corners and ornaments, or the furnishings of the stylish foyer newly opened on the building’s lower level.”[3]
In 1988, soon after the theatre was opened, Pál Boros began working on plans for the adaptive reuse of the former Orthodox synagogue in Kecskemét. It was first proposed that the internationally renowned Ciróka Bábegyüttes (lit. Ciróka Puppet Ensemble) should receive the building as its permanent home. The architect aimed to preserve as many elements as possible; to this, the plans added a timber-clad stage–storage wing, a rendered block along the side property line accommodating the dressing rooms and technical facilities, and a brick building along the rear boundary of the plot for the workshops. The feasibility study was completed – but the designer was then asked to reduce the floor area by 30% for cost-saving reasons. In the following years, the usable area continued to shrink, and the programme itself was transformed, reduced to the designation of a simple ‘event hall’. The idea of using the building as a puppet theatre faded away around the time of the regime change, and the repeatedly revised plans were left awaiting a new programme adjustment. In the end, Kecskemét agreed to host the Hungarian Museum of Photography, and it was realised here, in this building. According to Boros’s idea, the building, which had been in poor condition and abandoned since 1944, was first demolished and then rebuilt, including the Art Nouveau-style undulating attic wall (this refers to the original version of the building, which was designed as a restaurant and dance hall in 1890). Behind it, one can glimpse the trapezoidal, single-storey synagogue, aligned with the street line and adorned with three round windows, together with the lower forebuilding roofed in copper sheeting. Thus the streetscape essentially returned to the appearance it had after 1918, with only the sign indicating the change in function. The entrance and the two doors next to it, as well as the turquoise ceramic decoration running along the top of the attic wall with its wavy line, belong to the Art Nouveau style. The decorative paintings were reconstructed inside, and with the preservation of the sacred, square-shaped space, a ground-floor exhibition hall was created. Above it, on the gallery level, a library and research area were formed, while the spaces beside the entrance accommodated a small bookshop. The townscape was enriched with a long-forgotten, yet still familiar sight from old postcards; the public gained a museum; and the Orthodox Jewish congregation’s former temple was preserved in a way that the activities taking place inside do not violate the community’s memory. The centre of the ceiling above the exhibition space once again bears the colourful Star of David. The architect managed to avoid both kitschy, over-decorated nostalgia and the exclusion of the past from the present. And yet, knowing the successive design versions, the critic was left with a slightly bitter aftertaste: had the first concept been realised, the complex – with its exciting spatial connections and varied façade materials –, organically expanding within the site, would have become so naturally characteristic of Kecskemét as the most acclaimed buildings of József Kerényi in the city.
The Value of the Urban Fabric
The pursuit of complexity ultimately yielded excellent results in another public building. In 1993, the city announced an invited competition for the design of the Kodály Zoltán Singing and Music School. The school had previously operated in the Újkollégium [literally ‘New College’], designed by Valér Mende, which had been returned to the Church. As its new location, the infantry barracks designed by the Pártos–Lechner office were designated; the Soviet army had used the building until 1990. In many respects, this monumental structure contradicted the rapidly spreading principles of reform pedagogy in the early 1990s. Boros resolved this tension by turning the open fourth side of the U-shaped layout inwards, inserting a curved new wing and a single-storey reception area into the enlarged courtyard space. This additive method of composition is enriched with references to architectural history – echoing staircases, colonnades and roof forms appearing throughout the city – and with bold use of colour. Additional elements traditionally found on the exterior of buildings also reappear here, unexpectedly, in the interior spaces. Boros’s colleague and former thesis reviewer, Gábor Turányi, summed it up as follows: “Pál Boros treats the exterior and interior of the building as equals. The same line of thought, the same care, appear inside and outside. Intellectual balance, material prudence. Refinement, professionalism and craftsmanship, meticulous care can be seen everywhere.” Looking at the building’s section is as if the hidden inner secrets of a small city were being revealed to the observant eye. This complexity was a deliberate choice: it gives freedom to the students, saves a vast, obsolete building from demolition, and also provides the city – within the school’s walls – with an elegant yet practical concert hall accommodating 350 people.
It would be difficult to strive for completeness if we wanted to survey everything that Kecskemét has gained from Pál Boros’s gentle yet steadfast and consistently upheld professional outlook. We would have to speak about the restoration and rehabilitation projects he carried out together with Gábor Farkas – including the renewal of the old City Cinema, long out of use, which now accommodates a theatre hall and exhibition space; the plans for the revitalisation of Rákóczi Road; the brick-clad Kisfaludy House; or those ideas that remained on the drawing board, such as the police buildings in Csongrád and Kiskunfélegyháza, and the theatre in Budaörs. Even so, by way of conclusion, I would like to say a few words about two buildings that I consider key works within his oeuvre.
During the block rehabilitation of Bocskai Street in the centre of Kecskemét, Pál Boros created a model residential building that attracted nationwide attention. Mihály Vargha wrote about it as follows: “Small but strong – not showy, but rather a little house filled with visual play and a kind of architectural humour. In its immediate vicinity there is the characteristic small-town, market-town fabric – a mixed picture we have long grown accustomed to. This is why we are pleased to notice when an old building is refurbished, and of course it is most striking when something new is built. Here, directly opposite, there is also something new: a larger new development, now nearing completion, likewise designed by Pál Boros and his colleagues at Építészműhely. The site layout ‘with prior deliberation’ recalls the historic small-town street pattern that evolved over a long period; the new buildings contain a mix of flats, offices and shops. Thoughtful rather than loud, a true accent that fits well into the city – the kind of thing one would wish to encounter time and again elsewhere. It is when form and detailing are not what matter most, but behaviour, proportions and the organic continuation of the town’s atmosphere, even as the designer’s signature is clearly visible on the buildings. (…) It is immediately apparent that Pál Boros knows Kecskemét well and engages with it naturally – in several different ways if needed – always responding to the situation. (…) The nine-unit building is a clean, simple formula, yet with its distinctive façade it is confidently unique, a worthy successor to the architecture of the 1960s and 1970s – for example that of Károly Jurcsik, György Jánossy, Péter Molnár or György Szrogh [5].” The architectural language of the nine-unit building is so naturally simple and playful that the critic places it alongside the best Hungarian precedents: “...a clean, simple formula, yet with its distinctive façade it is confidently unique, a worthy successor to the 1960s and 1970s architecture of figures such as Károly Jurcsik, György Jánossy, Péter Molnár and György Szrogh.” Its façade draws attention through an asymmetric play of elements. Across its two main levels, rendered and brick surfaces alternate in vertical bands, stepping into each other’s space and, towards the side, projecting slightly from the plane, closing the space like a blade. It might appear to be a mannerist joke, yet it is not: here, in this eclectic milieu, it evokes the spontaneous growth of the market town, with interlocking surfaces suggesting a certain roughness and the charm inherent in it – in effect, it renders the very character of the local urban fabric directly onto the façade.
Finally, the last building mentioned – with its puritan simplicity – presents, almost as an essence, the principles that define Boros’s career. That complex, place- and function-based approach which marks Pál Boros’s work most profoundly perhaps shines through most clearly in the funeral parlour of Kiskunfélegyháza, consecrated at the end of 2018. Into the long-neglected part of the cemetery he set, with exceptionally delicate means, a ‘city of the dead’ dressed in the ancient colour of mourning – pure white. A simple, steep-roofed building with two mourning rooms; attached to it are the columbarium walls and exterior spaces offering dignified settings for gathering, waiting and saying goodbye. The building, the walls and the enclosure are all white, complemented by the light grey tones of the roof and the gate. With extremely subtle gestures, Boros expressed the intersection of earthly and transcendent life by leaving a narrow gap along the boundary between inside and outside: beneath the projecting ridge of the steep roof runs an almost imperceptible glass band that lets the inner light shine out, and he similarly detached the top of the tower from its base. This faint separation expresses, in barely perceptible form, the meeting of material and immaterial. In the ‘city of the dead’, this becomes the key idea. In the external spaces, the same theme is symbolised by the alternation of solid, enclosed walls and perforated surfaces. The ribbing of the metal roof continues on the upper, slatted part of the solid boundary wall, on the light grey metal gate grilles, and on the colonnade that articulates the outer space. Through consistent and carefully considered, pared-back solutions, spaces emerged that are quietened and capable of profound spiritual experience.
If every city had at least one architect like Pál Boros – as Kecskemét and its region do – contemporary Hungarian architecture would receive far fewer justified criticisms.
[1] www.epiteszmuhely.hu/boros/irasok/dla_tanulmany/
[2] Új Atlantisz felé (lit. Towards a new Atlantis). A VII. Velencei Nemzetközi Építészeti Biennálé katalógusa (Catalogue of the 7th Venice International Architecture Biennale), Műcsarnok, Budapest, 2000.
[3] Tarján Tamás: Kecskemét Katonája (Kecskemét's Katona). Színház, 1988/3.
[4] Turányi Gábor: Kirándulás Kecskemétre (lit. Excursion to Kecskemét), Magyar Építőművészet 1999/1.
[5] Vargha Mihály: Kicsi, de erős (lit. Small but Strong). Magyar Hírlap, 7–8 February 2004
[6] Ibid.