The Genius loci Issue in the Revalorization of Post-Military Complexes: Selected Case Studies in Legnica (Poland)

Abstract

Barracks built at the turn of the 20th century and in the 1930s in garrison towns in the Western Borderlands of Poland serve as the focal point of their cultural landscape. Traditions, which grew around these structures during three independent periods (pre-war German times, the totalitarian post-war period and the contemporary free-market economy), form a continuous narrative of how the military contributed to development and helped shape the sense of local identity. Simultaneously, historic barracks complexes are a dissonant heritage due to the complicated history of these lands, known as the Recovered Territories, which includes a change in nationality, exchange of population and the Iron Curtain. After the army was restructured, many of these barracks were decommissioned and repurposed. Some of the adaptations obscured the barracks’ typological differentiators, which diminished their value as archives of cultural and social history. The study described in this paper conducted by the author helped to identify the features that differentiate military installations from other historic architecture and diagnose which of these features must be preserved in order to maintain the genius loci of the barracks complexes, i.e., their scholastic potential and sentimental value. Based on the acquired knowledge, this paper analyzed two adaptations of barracks in Legnica, one from each period of intensified militarism. This analysis resulted in the formulation of recommendations for future restorations of other barracks that still remain in their original form.

1. Introduction

Barracks were always an important element of the identity of local communities, especially in Polish borderlands, which had always been subject to territorial disputes and therefore had a strong military presence that helped give the local populace a sense of stability. One of such areas is Silesia, which is part of the Polish Western Borderlands or the so-called Recovered Territories as they have been called since the end of WWII. This study looks at current trends in the management of decommissioned historic military barracks complexes in the Western and Northern Borderlands of Poland by examining two revitalized barracks complexes in Legnica. Legnica is situated in southwestern Poland in the Lower Silesian region. It is approximately halfway between the cities of Görlitz and Wrocław. Legnica reflects the problems and phenomena occurring in many other places in the Recovered Territories. Parts of Silesia, Brandenburg, Pomerania, Warmia and Masuria were adjoined to Poland at the end of WWII after centuries of Austrian and Prussian supremacy. This sparked a massive shift in population and severed the ties between the cultural landscape and the local community. These areas can therefore serve as a model for research concerning the management of historical buildings in culturally heterogeneous cities, i.e., heritage that has mixed cultural and ethnic origins [1].

The term genius loci in the title of this paper means the spirit of place and is universally used to encompass various intangible aspects of cultural landscapes. It stands for intangible dimensions of heritage and the spiritual value of place. It has been the object of interest of monument preservation organizations, e.g., ICOMOS, for many years. In the Kimberly Declaration, ICOMOS committed itself to take into account the intangible values, such as memory and attachment to a place, whereas the Declaration of Foz Do Iguaçu (2008 ICOMOS Americas) specified the tangible and intangible components of heritage as essential in the preservation of the identity of communities that have created and transmitted spaces of cultural and historical significance. Spirit of place is defined as the tangible (buildings, sites, landscapes, routes, objects) and intangible elements (memories, narratives, written documents, rituals, festivals, traditional knowledge, values, textures, colors, odors, etc.), that is to say the physical and the spiritual elements that give meaning, value, emotion and mystery to place [2]. It is generally accepted that behind the term genius loci is a very broad concept connected to monuments understood as archives of authentic sources for cultural history, social history, industrial history, etc. [3] Therefore, it allows for a holistic view of the city and its components. After all, the identity of places results from a wide variety of factors, including a number of intangible values, as described by Christan Norberg-Schulz in “Genius loci” [4] or Kevin Lynch in “Image of the city” [5].

The history of garrison towns in Polish Western Borderlands is tripartite, but it revolves around military complexes in a continuous narrative. Military facilities in the studied area were primarily built in two periods when Prussia, and later Germany, pursued a policy of intensified militarism. In the garrison towns of that time, the army was at the core of social and economic life [6,7,8]. It was the agent of the state. Therefore, military edifices gave the cityscape a propagandist feel. These state-financed complexes demonstrated power and wealth—the “perfect architecture” [9]. Mostly built around the 1871 Franco-Prussian war, they utilized the template of entre cour et jardin palaces. The palace-like barracks represented the so-called “architecture of power” (Herrschaftsarchitektur). They lent prestige to the city landscape and contributed to the city’s expansion and modernization. The arrival of the military gave the local construction market a boost. A growing number of military personnel and their families relied on local catering and services [10]. In time, the local communities and military units implanted in them formed a strong social bond [11]. At the beginning. the relation was antagonistic because, before the construction of the barracks, soldiers were traditionally billeted in private homes, which was met with opposition [12]. Once the barracks were built and the city was given the status of garrison, this relationship gradually became friendly [13]. The rhythm of city life became adapted to the dynamics of the army marching in, marching out or marching through. Eventually, every time troops returned from a campaign they received a warm welcome. The townspeople organized a feast and decorated their houses with the colors of the regiment or commissioned frescos to be painted in mess halls, etc. [14]. In addition to economic prosperity, hosting a garrison was prestigious because garrison towns were routinely inspected by high state officials or even royalty [6,7,8,10,14,15]. Through generations, historic army barracks served as a reminder of past splendor for the native citizens.

After the exchange of population, these stately complexes became dissonant heritage [16]. The social perception of monumental historic buildings is an important aspect ofurban identity, and in the case of garrison towns, the most noticeable structures are the barracks. They were a symbol of the past splendor of both the city and the local society, who was no longer welcome [17,18]. It took a long time for the new community to become acquainted with the architectural heritage in all of the Recovered Territories. For example, in the capital of Lower Silesia, Wrocław, in the initial period, as evidenced by period journals [19], the most evident traces of the German past—monuments, inscriptions, street signs—were removed or devastated, streets were renamed and cemeteries were razed. This de-Germanization was carried out by removing the spire-steeple of “the most Prussian buildings” and covering the Grunderzeit facades with greenery. In fact, these actions were planned at the systemic level and stimulated by the authorities [20]. Many of the public edifices in the Recovered Territories at that time were demolished for the same reason [21]. Today we can only speculate about the exact motivations for their razing, but, e.g., the Main Post Office in Wrocław was stripped for construction material in 1953 [22], and the Silesian Museum of Artistic Crafts and Antiquities in Wrocław, stripped of exhibits and deemed too large to host the operetta and the pantomime combined, gave way to a much more needed primary school in 1964 [23].

However, the barracks found an unlikely ally in the Polish and Soviet armies who used them to station their troops, but over the circa 50 years that these armies needed to restructure and decommission the barracks, the social climate in the Recovered Territories changed. [24] The barracks were no longer viewed as culturally foreign but rather as valuable architectural heritage and as local symbols, which is evidenced by various publications [25,26] and websites showcasing old postcards and pictures: Liegnitz.eu; fotopolska.org; https://hkknos.eu/pl/historischer-rundbrief (accessed 19 July 2021). Once again, these structures became the bearers of local tradition. However, this time it was the heterogeneous tradition of both the pre-war city and the post-war garrison [27]. However, most of the post-military facilities have not been formally recognized as heritage. Moreover, there are two approaches to historic barrack complexes: Pre-modern structures are revitalized with minimally invasive measures, while the 1930s barracks are freely dismembered and transformed.

During my preliminary research, I identified the main features that distinguish military architecture in the cityscape and that need to be preserved when designing adaptive reuse so that the barracks maintain their value as cultural property and are recognizable by the viewers. In the second part of the study, I analyzed the results of the survey, which allowed me to verify the selected typological determinants using an unbiased trial sample. These results were also applied to measure the success of urban regeneration efforts in the chosen case studies and to formulate a potential list of good practices for future regeneration efforts. Furthermore, the paper displays the difference in perception and treatment of the 19th-century former military barracks and the post-military complexes from the 1930s.

The value of former military barracks as cultural artifacts has already been recognized in the field of heritage and urban studies [28,29,30], in addition to post-military sites being universally regarded as heritage [31]. Nonetheless, in garrison towns—especially in areas of mixed cultural and ethnic background, such as Polish western borderlands—military architecture is even more important. It constitutes the medium for intangible values and local customs [32]. Here, military structures carry the tradition of a place that cannot be transmitted by the people because the indigenous inhabitants were expelled. Today, sustainability involves not only the conservation of raw materials and ecological versatility, but also cultural diversity and preservation of the cultural landscape and intangible values. There is much to be gained from focusing on how historic post-military complexes contribute to the city landscape. Army compounds complete the cultural landscape in that they are an account of their past and an explanation for the manner in which they evolved spatially [33]. Without them, local traditions cannot be sustained by the cultural landscape, which has become fragmented. This is why their preservation is crucial.

Legnica is one of those Silesian cities whose cultural landscape was shaped under the influence of the army. The reason Legnica is a good source of case studies is because it displays many aspects of the researched topic. It lies in the Western Borderlands of Poland in the Recovered Territories and was an important garrison in the network of military outposts both in Prussia and Nazi Germany. Although, before Prussian rule, Legnica was already one of the largest strongholds in Silesia [14], the Prussians were the first to turn it into a permanent outpost for troops. This did not immediately lead to the construction of barracks, as until 1714, Brandenburg-Prussia did not have a standing army [34]. As a result of conscription introduced at that time, the army grew from 40,000 to 80,000 soldiers [35], who required permanent lodgings for training and stationing. Therefore, from 1870 to 1913 and later in the 1930s, consecutive barracks complexes were built around the town. In 1947, the exclusive rights to use eight barracks complexes (Figure 1) and their surroundings were granted to the command of the Northern Military Group of the Soviet Army. In the territory of Poland, the Soviets claimed 59 military facilities covering a total area of approximately 700 km². In Legnica, the Russians had exclusive rights to use more than 160 sites, covering approximately 17 km² of the town and including more than 1200 buildings [11,36]. A significant benchmark in the research on military heritage is the end of the Cold War because the resulting demilitarization severed the link between garrison towns and the army that, in some cases, had lasted for centuries. The resulting closure of military bases clearly had major land-use implications [37], marking the end of an era of within-use building adaptations and the beginning of new-use adaptations. Since 1993, Legnica has been largely affected by the decommissioning of military complexes and post-military property, which were ceded to the commune and included in and brought under the civic budget. For the officials, the management of the recovered property was similarly challenging as immediately after the war. The lack of appropriate legal regulations, poor technical condition and the sheer scale of the complexes stood in the way of their swift overhaul [38]. Abandoned facilities deteriorated, becoming a symbol of the negative effects of the political transformation. The buildings were losing historical value and needed to be adapted to new uses in order to thrive. This prompted the local governments to sell post-military compounds to anyone who was interested in buying them, even at the cost of extensive refurbishment and remodeling of these historical sites. This led to new problems, as facilities from the turn of the 20th century were treated as proper heritage, while complexes from the 1930s were mostly regarded as brownfield investments.

The choice to study Legnica also stems from the fact that it was a garrison town for 251 years. Legnica offers the unique opportunity to research eight complexes, which were intentionally built as barracks and not converted for military use (as is the case with some post-military complexes analyzed by other authors [39]). The analysis of a historic town with such a long history of relations with the army also offered the opportunity to evaluate the treatment of former military architecture from different periods.

The map in Figure 2 shows the location of garrisons in Prussia. The Recovered Territories cover a significant portion of the II, III, V and VI Army Corps with a few additional locations within the I Army Corp. Based on the map, this research has the potential to influence 77 cities in present day Poland, with many more possible beneficiaries throughout the German territory (

Table 1. Table listing Prussian garrisons on the present territory of Poland, arranged by Army Corps.

II
	Stolp	Słupsk
	Schlawe	Sławno
	Coeslin	Koszalin
	Belgard	Białogard
	Kolberg	Kołobrzeg
	Treptow an der Rega	Trzebiatów
	Naugard	Nowogard
	Gollnow	Goleniów
	Stettin	Szczecin
	Alt-Damm	Dąbie
	Stargard	Stargard
III
	Woldenberg	Dobiegniew
	Landsberg	Gorzów Wielkopolski
	Crossen	Krosno Odrzańskie
	Cüstrin	Kostrzyn nad Odrą
	Züllichau	Sulechów
	Sorau	Żary
V
	Bojanowo	Bojanowo
	Fraustadt	Wschowa
	Freistadt	Korzuchów
	Glogau	Głogów
	Görlitz	Zgorzelec
	Hirschberg	Jelenia Góra
	Jauer	Jawor
	Kosten	Kościan
	Krotoschin	Krotoszyn
	Lauban	Lubań
	Liegnitz	Legnica
	Lissa	Leszno
	Löwenberg	Lwówek Śląski
	Lüben	Lubin
	Neutomischel	Nowy Tomyśl
	Ostrowo	Ostrów Wielkopolski
	Posen	Poznań
	Rawitsch	Rawicz
	Sagan	Żagań
	Samter	Szamotuły
	Schrimm	Śrem
	Schroda	Środa Wielkopolska
	Sprotau	Szprotawa
	Wahlstatt	Legnickie Pole
VI
	Bernstadt	Bierutów
	Beuthen	Bytom
	Breslau	Wrocław
	Brieg	Brzeg
	Cosel	Kożle
	Freiburg Schlesien	Świebodzice
	Ghurau	Góra Śl.
	Glatz	Kłodzko
	Gleiwitz	Gliwice
	Grottkau	Grodków
	Kreutzburg	Kluczborg
	Leobschutz	Głubczyce
	Militsch	Milicz
	Namslau	Namysłów
	Neisse	Nysa
	Neustadt	Prudnik
	Ober Glogau	Głogówek
	Oels	Oleśnica
	Ohlau	Oława
	Oppeln	Opole
	Pless	Płaszów
	Ratibor	Racibórz
	Reichenbach	Dzierżoniów
	Rybnik	Rybnik
	Schweidnitz	Świdnica
	Sohrau	Żory
	Strehlen	Strzelin
	Striegau	Strzegom
	Wohlau	Wołów
	Ziegenhals	Głuchołazy

).

The history of all garrison towns is more or less the same, which is why solutions that work for one of them can be easily implemented in other military towns. The history of garrisons and their barracks was similar, for example, in Lüneburg, Erlangen or Legnica. The bases had usually been developed since the 1880s, with most of the additional construction happening after the reintroduction of conscription in 1935. In the post-war period, the barracks were taken over by supervising forces (British and American in the case of West-Germany and Soviet in the case of the Recovered Territories). Subsequent base closures were a part of the general drawdown of forces at the end of the Cold War. Presently historic buildings have been refurbished and converted for alternative uses such as businesses, restaurants, shopping and housing, as well as university buildings. The difficulties in dealing with post-military complexes and their significance in the identity of local communities are exemplified by the cases of Scharnhorst Kasernen in Lüneburg converted into the Leuphana University or the Artillerie and Panzer Kasernen in Erlangen, converted into mix-use development.

When we look at the growing exigencies of today’s military training, it becomes obvious that most barrack complexes, which fall out of use, will be decommissioned. These complexes will require out-of-use adaptation or will become brownfields. Brownfields have been defined as sites that (1) have been affected by former uses of the site or surrounding land; (2) are derelict or underused; (3) are mainly in fully or partly developed urban areas; (4) require intervention to bring them back to beneficial use (5) and may have real or perceived contamination problems [40].

In general, sites that are underused yet extensively developed by different anthropogenic activities and located in urban centers of cities are considered brownfields. Environmental policies introduced restrictions to reduce the pressure on greenfield sites, making brownfield redevelopment an attractive option for advancing urban development [41,42]. Therefore, it is important to promote brownfield redevelopment as a sustainable means of urbanization. There are plenty of advantages of brownfield redevelopment that can be taken advantage of [43,44,45]. These include [46] reduced pressure on greenfield sites, the promotion of utilization of renewable resources, renewal of old communities, redevelopment of brownfields into community, commercial, industrial or other hubs and employment opportunities. Therefore, an important first step to adopting a successful land-use strategy is understanding these sites, especially the specific features connected to each type of brownfield. This paper is a part of a larger research project and examines one type of brownfields: The post-military complexes. The reuse of decommissioned industrial and military areas as a means to tackle urban sprawl has become an increasingly urgent matter since the end of the Cold War and has been the focus of at least two major European Union Programs, i.e., MISTER (Military and Industrial Sites Reuse) and TIMBRE (Tailored Improvement of Brownfield Regeneration in Europe). The overall conclusion is that brownfield redevelopment prevents or limits urban sprawl, resulting in more efficient use of infrastructure, and preventing urban decay [47]. Therefore, given the similarities in the morphology of garrison towns listed above (Table 1), this study has the potential to positively influence stakeholders partaking in the process of urbanization in at least 77 cities.

On the basis of the premise that post-military complexes are a vital element of the cultural landscape for local communities and that this element needs to be preserved in order to give the local populace a sense of belonging, the research hypotheses are as follows:

• Due to their innate functionalism as a whole, pre-modern and modern barracks complexes share common features in terms of layout and stylistics that make them stand out from the cityscape;
• Barracks complexes from both periods are equally important to sustaining the cultural landscape in garrison towns;
• Nevertheless, barracks complexes from the 1930s are treated with less reverence during revitalization;
• The standardized and unified forms, which make military structures easy to recognize in the urban space, can be quantified into a typology and used to identify features that must be preserved during revalorization in order to maintain the scholastic values of barracks complexes;
• Based on the quantity and quality of the preserved characteristic typological and stylistic features identified in the first part of the study, it is possible to assess past regeneration and revitalization projects and plan successful ones in the future.

2. Materials and Methods

The research was conducted using both conventional means available to an architecture historian and the interactive technique of online survey. The employed method was a combination of quantitative and qualitative analyses and comprised the following: A query of literature sources, a query of archives, on-site observations, a photo inventory and a survey.

2.1. Literature Sources and Query of Archives

An essential component of this research project was the study of literature, which focused on critical studies of historic military complexes and the meaning of these structures to the local populace [10,48], as well as on the history of Legnica [6,13,15,35,49]. Over the last few years, research into the regeneration of historic architecture [50], specifically the regeneration of post-military structures, has gained momentum. Areas such as Italy [9,39,51], Great Britain [52] or Eastern Europe [53,54] have received their own studies. However, the demilitarization of the so-called Recovered Territories in the Western Borderlands of Poland is, in many respects, exceptional due to the geopolitical turmoil these territories went through at the end of WWII and after the Cold War. The uniqueness of the resulting changes in the social perception of historic military complexes inspired this study. The second element of my research into this topic was the query of source materials in both private and public archives (designs, documents and historical plans). The purpose of this query was to recreate the original stylistics and spatial features of barracks complexes and identify the changes introduced by within-use regeneration and new-use adaptation. Courtesy of administrative units of the municipal office in Legnica, the Witelon State University of Applied Sciences in Legnica and private owners, I was granted access to the original designs of adaptive reuse.

2.2. On-Site Observations and Photo Inventory

The results of the literature and archival studies were then rectified through on-site observations and field examinations, and supported by photo inventories. This aspect of the research focused on identifying urban regeneration projects that concerned the revitalization of post-military complexes. During on-site observations, I concentrated on identifying the typological and stylistic features that are unique to barracks complexes, categorizing adaptations and finding the potential applications of revitalized historic post-military facilities in cultural tourism. Based on the resulting inventory, I devised a questionnaire for the next stage of this research project, i.e., the survey.

2.3. Survey

Based on literature studies mentioned in Section 2.1 and on-site observations, I established the preliminary determinants and carriers of genius loci, which I subsequently verified and validated through an anonymous survey asking the respondents to recognize barracks complexes under different circumstances and to plainly state what features helped them to discern barracks complexes among other urban formations (typologies). The survey was conducted as a part of a project reviewed by the National Science Centre, Poland, and according to its standards in line with the principles of good practice, prior to being conducted, the survey was reviewed separately by:

• Personal Data Protection Officer at Wroclaw University of Science and Technology.
• The Head of the Chair of the History of Architecture, Art and Technology.
• The Dean of the Faculty of Architecture at Wroclaw University of Science and Technology.

After the Dean issued formal permission, the survey was conducted on survicate.com, which is a third-party customer experience platform. The survey consisted of a questionnaire and photographs. The goal of the survey was to help in formulating a comprehensive definition of historic barracks complexes as a genre, whose typological features were defined as features that help viewers to recognize barracks complexes among other urban morphologies. The anonymous internet survey was conducted over two rounds among the 3rd-year students of the Faculty of Architecture at Wrocław University of Science and Technology as well as their friends from outside the faculty with whom they decided to share the link. The result was an unbiased test representative sample of 171 respondents.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire contained 26 questions, divided into four parts.

The first part with 5 questions was designed to diagnose the respondents’ ability to recognize post-military architecture in the cityscape. The respondents were shown either a picture of a historic barracks complex (question 1) and asked to choose its proper typology or four pictures of different historic buildings and asked to identify the historic barrack complex among them (question 2). They were then asked to list those features that they thought best characterized barracks complexes and historic military architecture and to demonstrate that they can recognize historic architecture by estimating the age of the depicted structure.

The second part of the survey was related to the fact that the post-military complexes under study lay in territories that have historically belonged to different nations. The purpose of the 6 questions in this part was to establish whether the general public had any animosities towards the barrack complexes. The first question asked respondents if they thought that military architecture constituted proper heritage. The next question asked them to decide what action they would take regarding historic barrack complexes: (i) Preserve them in an unchanged state, (ii) subject them to revalorization or (iii) demolish them to make way for new investments. The third question was designed to determine if the nationality of builders mattered for the value of a given facility. It was followed by three questions designed to check if the respondents can discern the nationality of the presented structures.

The third part of the survey was designed to determine what would constitute a successful regeneration. It started with an open question aimed at creating a list of the most desired or suitable uses of post-military brownfields. This was followed by a question about the possible extent of intervention within a protection and revalorization program. The last question asked the respondents to identify a regenerated post-military complex amongst other regenerated historic sites.

The purpose of the last stage was to verify the previous findings. The respondents were presented with photos of 8 revalued post-military facilities and asked to rank them in order from best to worst. They were then shown each picture separately. The accompanying questions were as follows: (i) Would you have recognized the revalorized facility as a military facility if you had not been notified in advance? (ii) What is your overall impression of the renovation of the building in the barracks complex? (iii) Can you define the purposes of the facility in the barracks complex (e.g., dormitory, stable, riding hall, etc.)? (iv) In what period was the presented structure built?

The last part of the questionnaire collected information about the age of the respondents and whether or not their education included architecture or urban design. There was also a field for comments.

The survey was constructed under the principles described by Blackstone [55].

Table 2. Example of a frequency distribution table for the survey.

Which of the Presented Sites Is a Historic Military Complex?	Frequency	Percentage
	54	58.1%
	8	8.6%
	31	33.3%
Total valid cases = 173; no response = 81

presents the sample frequency distribution. The analysis of the results was purely quantitative using univariate analysis including frequency distributions. This method allowed me to quickly validate the preceding in-depth literature and field study.

Together, the query, database and questionnaire formed the basis for the final examination (comparative analysis, evaluation and synthesis) of the wide-ranging typological features of historic barracks complexes, and the potential noninvasive adaptive reuse.

The goal of the case study analysis was to confirm the overall findings and illustrate them with specific and relevant examples from the Recovered Territories. Two barracks complexes were chosen from the available list of researched historical sites, one from the turn of the 20th century and one from the 1930s. These choices were suitable for the two main purposes of this study, which were to discuss the stylistics and typology of barracks from both periods of increased militarism and to compare the management and understanding of tangible and intangible values of each of them.

3. Results

3.1. Case Studies: Frequent Practices in Barracks Complexes Regeneration

Many studies have identified attributes that make a building adaptation “successful”. This success can be measured in relation to the economy, location and land use, as well as in legal, social, physical and environmental terms [50]. In my opinion, what drives the reuse of post-military compounds is mostly the need of a local community to feel rooted in its cultural landscape. An adaptation of a historic site allows the society to retain the social and cultural capital embodied in its buildings, which ensures social sustainability. As in the case of any monument, it is safe to argue that historic architecture offers past, present and future generations the possibility to learn history by experiencing historic buildings, which are tangible links to the past with many rich layers of historical and cultural experiences.

The complex ethnic roots of the historic structures in the Recovered Territories made them a dissonant heritage and an ambiguous asset. Present generations of inhabitants could not directly treat them as their inheritance. After they were abandoned, historic barracks complexes were mostly ceded to municipalities that could not manage them because of their scale and quantity. This motivated the authorities to facilitate their sale with any means possible. Many complexes were partitioned and sold as separate buildings to private investors who remodeled the historic edifices. In extreme cases, post-military complexes were treated as brownfields and the buildings there were demolished. However, the approach differed depending on the age of the complex. Decommissioned military sites from the late 19th and early 20th century were regarded as proper “cultural heritage” and therefore subjected to building restoration measures through conservative reuses. In contrast, former military barracks from the 1930s were perceived as buildings with little architectural value so their dismemberment or extensive refurbishment was commonly accepted in urban planning and urban policy guidelines. Such sites belong to the category of “ignored” structures, which are not significant in the history of architecture and do not arouse the interest of local conservation institutions. Without proper supervision, they will undergo refurbishment and adaptation, which will change their original dimensions and décor, thus obscuring their original form [56].

The basic difference in how barracks are treated during the regeneration process results from the fact that the complexes from the 19th century are usually registered as monuments whereas the pre-WWII barracks are simply historic buildings that are not formally protected. Furthermore, the amount of consideration and protection depends on the function of the building within the complex. Barracks complexes from both studied periods consist of buildings and structures that had various functions, i.e., dormitories, headquarters, guardhouses, infirmaries and manèges but also comprise outbuildings, i.e., garages, warehouses, stables, hospitals for animals and workshops, which are less likely to undergo revalorization.

In the case of some historical buildings and structures, the revitalization is facilitated by the fact that the process does not change their purpose, as in the case of railway stations (e.g., the Main Railway Station in Wroclaw). The possibility to retain their original function also contributes to the preservation of their authenticity. The main problem of within-use regeneration of historic military complexes is related to obsolescence and secrecy surrounding military activity, which is why active military objects cannot host, e.g., cultural tourism. The use of industrial or military complexes is related to innovation because the changing technology and warfare require new facilities to be constructed. At the same time, the function of industrial heritage [57], or historical post-military complexes, is the main attribute of their authenticity and integrity, and also supports their educational use. Historic military or industrial complexes are decommissioned precisely because it is impossible to prolong their current function. In such cases, the only solution that allows such a structure or complex to remain in the society is to change its function. Adaptation of historical architecture requires it to be adjusted to the needs of users, which undermines the historiographic value, authenticity and genius loci of revitalized complexes. However, there are examples of historic structures whose users do not have “amenities”, such as balconies added to the barracks, etc. (A Hotel in Barracks in Góra Kalwaria). Moreover, some investors decide to keep the original dimensions of outbuildings, without extending the superstructure so that it is 4 times the height of the original design (Gdańsk Wrzeszcz Barracks—old manège). Investors see a profit in the purchase of vast land, which, after the rehabilitation of the existing buildings, will make it possible to increase the intensity of development, while at the same time being able to boast about the historical surroundings (Kępa Mieszczańska in Wrocław). However, by increasing the intensity of development, they destroy—for the sake of temporary profit—the cultural capital of the places entrusted to them, which in fact are the core of their marketing strategy. To introduce a function that better matches the needs of 21st-century society, the characteristic stylistic and spatial features of the complexes are obliterated, along with all the immaterial values they represent.

Figure 3 shows the graphical representation of data in the table (

Table 3. The list of barracks in Legnica with information on adaptation and newly introduced functions of the regenerated objects (numbers relate to barracks indicated in Figure 1).

No. in Figure 1	Name before 1945	Name after 1945	Period	Adaptive Reuse Actors	Adaptive Reuse State
1	Scharnhorst Kaserne	at Poznańska street	1935–1936	private investors;	adapted to residential and services
2	Ziethen Kaserne	at Słubicka street	1934–1935	private investors, the state treasury, the commune of Legnica;	adapted to vocational school, residential and services
3	Füsilier Kaserne	at Chojnowska street	1938	private investors, the state treasury, the commune of Legnica;	adapted to residential and services
4	Füsilier Kaserne	at Kawaleryjska street	1935	private investors;	adapted to services
5	Grenadierkaserne	at Hutników street	1874–1882	private investors; the commune of Legnica;	adapted to vocational school
6	Standortlazarett Liegnitz	garrison lazaret at Złotoryjska street	1937	private owners, the state treasury;	no regenerative or protective activity
7	Kasernen Siegeshöhe	at Złotoryjska street	1935	private investors, the commune of Legnica;	adapted to residential and services
8	Funkerkaserne	at Rzeczypospolitej lane	1913; 1935	private investors, the state treasury, the commune of Legnica;	only partially adapted to residential

), i.e., the share of adapted complexes in the general pool of barracks in Legnica and the new function of regenerated structures. Amongst the eight barracks complexes, seven have been adapted in various ways. Whether the chosen design solutions and regeneration projects for the implementation of these new uses are appropriate is a separate issue. It seems that although the barracks from the late 19th century are subject to adaptation just as often as the barracks from the 1930s, the adaptation designs of the former show much more respect towards the genius loci and ambience with regard to historical detail, decor, etc., than in the case of the latter facilities. Since the subject of this study is not Legnica’s garrison in the broad sense, but the maintenance of the historiographic potential of the revalorized barracks complexes from different periods, only two representative examples of barracks in Legnica are analyzed.

3.2. Tangible and Intangible Values of Barracks Complexes

In his fundamental work “Genius loci—towards the phenomenology of architecture”, Christan Norberg-Schulz notes that architecture represents a means to give man an “existential foothold”. The publication defines the identity of places as the result of a number of factors, including intangible values, which help to better understand the complexity and richness of the city phenomenon. A similar philosophy laid the foundation for the institutionalization of this idea in the form of recommendations on the protection of the historic urban landscape (HUL) adopted during the UNESCO General Conference in 2011. The general conclusion that can be drawn from both publications and documents is that a place is not only constituted by shapes and dimensions but also by continuity of invisible values [58], such as the cultural characteristics of each space that evolve through time and are evoked when this space is called into mind [59]. This quality is rooted in local history and based on reminders of historic personalities and events that had an immediate relationship with the place. It also helps to distinguish one place from the other.

In its history, Legnica was a garrison for Prussian, German, Soviet and Polish troops. Initially underestimated as a strategic vantage point, Legnica gradually tightened its relations with the military, thanks to which it reached and enjoyed a strong economic position and high administrative rank before the war. Due to its location, it was a place where numerous military units were stationed. Their presence not only stimulated the construction market but gave a boost to the services and trade market as well [60]. The erection of the first barracks complex was the crowning moment in the development of the city before the outbreak of WWI [15]. The presence of the troops bestowed prestige on the local populace particularly because the expanding garrison was the reason for frequent visits by members of the imperial court in this otherwise marginal town. The army became a prominent actor in the social life of the city: Military displays graced local holidays while military associations participated in local affairs [14]. Shortly after WWII, due to the concentration of barracks complexes and the city’s location in disputed territories, Legnica was occupied by the Soviet Army Forces. This further complicated the perception of the historic architecture by the newly established Polish community, now associating the barracks with both the Nazi and the Soviet overlords. The barracks complexes were associated not with prestige and modernization, but with oppression and the lack of social freedom [16]. The central barracks complex and its surroundings were even nicknamed “Little Moscow” [61,62]. From the end of the First Silesian War, in the summer of 1742, until the withdrawal of the units of the Russian Army, Legnica served as a garrison for various military units, which is reflected in its physiognomy constituting the genius loci of the city [63]. After the withdrawal of foreign troops, the barracks stood abandoned for years, attracting urban decay. This coincided with the increase in the acceptance of multiculturalism and “diversity” in the cultural landscape and the outbreak of interest in the pre-war history of the city [64]. Monographs were written reminding everyone that Legnica functioned as a garrison not only when the Russian Army was stationed here, but also earlier, and that these relations with the military were a source of pride and contributed to local development. The preservation of barracks complexes and their reintegration into social life in a revalorized form has thus become a condition for supporting the sustainable cultural landscape.

Research on military complexes has shown that, globally, in terms of tangible values their worth is twofold. Firstly, they constitute a repository of original architectural tissue that can be analyzed as historic and scientific evidence. Secondly, they mostly constitute real estate value. The main aim of the barracks’ reuse is profit-driven [9]. Many developers and policymakers see them as brownfields [65,66]. During adaptation, very little or no consideration is given to institutionalized cultural tourism or barracks as a cultural capital. No barracks complexes adapted to new uses, apart from museums (e.g., Collins Barracks Dublin, Berwick-upon-Tweed Barracks), offer guided tours or are the subject of historiographic narratives. This lack of readily available information and consideration for the cultural value of barracks leads to the obliteration of the ambience of barracks complexes, when main typological features—material carriers of the genius loci—are distorted. It produces a kind of paradox. We want to preserve historic sites because of the authenticity of their substance, but in order to maintain them, we need to modernize or adapt them to a new function, which in turn transforms them. Spatial relations, original dimensions, ascetic stylistics and modularity are features that help viewers to recognize military complexes and identify the related intangible assets. These are the determinants of the cultural capital of post-military complexes, and their preservation should be an absolute priority of any sustainable revalorization project of the barracks complex. These policies, however, should not petrify the cultural landscape but rather lead to a new quality.

3.2.1. Revalorization That Respects the Genius loci

The late-19th-century Grenadier barracks (Figure 4) are located right next to the historic center of Legnica. For the local populace, the barracks symbolized the ascension of Legnica in the ranks of imperial cities. They were the first barracks to be purposefully built here in the years 1874–1888, after decades of billeting. The complex had an urbanizing effect on the town, as it was built on the outskirts, at Grenadierstrasse (presently Hutników Street), which was specifically delineated for this investment [67]. The three dormitory buildings and the accompanying outbuildings were arranged on a grid plan along the perimeter of the quarter, whereas their interior was used as training grounds (Figure 5). The author of the design was most likely Theodor Becker [15], a building surveyor (Baurat) who arrived from Berlin to hold office in Legnica at the beginning of 1874. The original technical drawings of the complex have been lost, but it seems likely that the Baurat brought the design with him from Berlin, as the construction began in the same year he arrived. This would make the investment even more prestigious. Barracks were built of red brick, which came from the renowned local Peipe’s brick factory. The buildings represent the style of historicism, Gründerzeit. In that period, barracks were designed to stand out from the urban backdrop with emphasis placed on their majestic qualities and importance to underline their purpose. In the spirit of architecture parlante, the most common styles were Gothic Revival and Romanesque Revival, which are immediately associated with the army and strongholds. The barracks belonged to the category of Herrschaftsarchitektur—architecture representing the power of the state [68]. The façade tectonics of the Grenadier barracks was sculpted with stone socles, quasi-machicolations, pilaster strips and ceramic friezes. Friezes, ledges and lintels were formed from bricks arranged in a rowlock and soldier course. The crowning lintels were decorated with ceramic moldings. Pilaster strips were topped with sculptures. Windows were painted white and partitioned with muntin. The dormitory buildings had a two-bay plan divided into rooms with 10–15 beds—approximately 45 m² each. Soldiers inhabited three stories, and the common washrooms took up the basements. Officers and non-commissioned officers with families lived in apartments placed in the side wings of dormitories. There were four apartments per building, positioned to overlook the landings of side staircases. A canteen, a bakery and outhouses for horses and forage complemented the array of buildings.

The Grenadier barracks were listed in the inventory of monuments in Legnica, and were indicated as eligible for entry in the register of monuments. After demilitarization, the Grenadier barracks remained empty for 5 years, until they were taken over by the Witelon State University of Applied Sciences in Legnica. Over 20 million PLN in state subsidies (the cost estimate is available in the archives of Witelon State University of Applied Sciences) was spent to renovate two barracks and auxiliary buildings and adapt them to be used as higher-education facilities (Figure 6). The clinker-brick-lined facades were renovated and fitted with new wooden windows with muntin. The adaptation did not change the structural design. Wooden ceilings above the corridors were replaced with reinforced concrete on steel beams; however, brick-infill-floor on I-beams of the so-called Klein-type and cloister vaults over chambers were preserved and renovated. The dormitory rooms were turned into lecture halls with additional fixtures fixings hidden behind suspended ceilings installed under high vaults. The wide staircases designed for battalions of soldiers easily accommodate crowds of students. The representative entryway became the main hall of the university. The stable was refurbished with the latest multimedia and serves as a multifunctional auditorium that can be divided into smaller independent lecture rooms with retractable partitions. To fit the requirements of contemporary legal standards, the buildings were thermally insulated on the inside and the insulation material was hidden behind the plasterboard. This style matched the original appearance, as the interiors were all originally plastered.

In the case of this facility, the new function matches the style and spatial layout flawlessly. The location of the complex within the cityscape—right outside the historic old town, near two exit roads but in a residential neighborhood—makes it the perfect school campus. It is easily accessible for commuters using public transport as well as cyclists, despite the lack of bike routes. The residential quarters shelter the school from the direct street hubbub and provide pieds-à-terre for students. Its appearance matches its educational purposes. The lofty barracks buildings create a majestic impression on the viewers, which perfectly reflects the dignity of this educational facility. The choice of function prevented the grandiose training grounds in the courtyard from redevelopment, which now allows the viewers to experience the vastness of the complex and unobscured vistas of the stately palatial barracks. By thoroughly analyzing the source documents (design documentation held by Witelon State University of Applied Sciences and Studies and provided by the Legnica City Hall) we can learn how a properly selected function helped to adapt these former barracks to new tasks in a non-invasive manner.

However, due to the lack of funds, the southernmost dormitory building remains dilapidated and threatens to collapse. If it decomposes, its loss and the unfeasibility of its anastylosis and reintegration would undermine the very essence of this successful revitalization (Figure 7).

3.2.2. A Revalorization That Is Antagonistic to Genius loci

As the revalorization of the Grenadier barracks complex was underway, efforts were made to find a suitable investor and to carry out the revitalization of the barracks complex at Złotoryjska Street in Legnica. This complex was built during the upsurge of militarism in the 1930s. By then, Legnica had regained its status as a garrison town. This position required new and more modern barracks. Therefore, their construction was vigorously conducted under the supervision of the military construction office headed by the chief building surveyor Richard Rasch [14]. At that time, the Legnica garrison was enlarged to about 10,000 soldiers (compared to 78,000 inhabitants).

Seven new complexes that were similar in appearance and spatial arrangement were built to house the expanding number of troops and meet the requirements of the new army. This expansion of the garrison was completed in 1935 with the construction of barracks on the southern outskirts of the city, in the Złotoryjski Forest (Kasernen Siegeshöhe), for anti-tank infantry (Figure 8).

The complex encompassed 7.81 ha of a plot-size block with four three-story dormitory buildings, two-story headquarters, a sports hall and nine outbuildings—warehouses and workshops. The buildings forming the complex are located on the perimeter of the plot, leaving an open training ground in its center. From the side of Złotoryjska Street, a group of three buildings was placed on a plan of the letter “H”—with two side buildings flanking a perpendicular third building located in the middle of a small courtyard and bordering a vast training ground on the other side (Figure 9). Nine one-story outbuildings (of which eight have survived to this day) enclosed the complex on the opposite, southern side of the square. The dormitory buildings were oriented along the N–S axis, allowing for the best insolation and ventilation of infantry rooms.

The buildings were constructed using techniques and materials traditional for the 1930s. The dormitory buildings had a three-bay plan for better use of the space. The external, structural and partition walls were made of ceramic solid bricks on cement-lime mortar, finished with cement-lime plaster colored yellow ocher and, in the part of the plinth, cream-colored. The decorations were complemented by inter-window panneau with sgraffito coats of arms of neighboring towns, such as Jawor, Strzegom or Jelenia Góra. Cellars were decked with a brick-infill floor on I-beams of the so-called Klein-type, whereas the upper stories were decked with a suspended beam-and-block floor. In the entire building, the corridors were topped with a reinforced-poured-concrete slab. Hipped roofs (38–40 degrees) were made of mixed materials, i.e., reinforced concrete and wood, and covered with red ceramic plain tiles. Dormers provided lighting in the attic. The windows and doors were made of timber and painted white.

When the war ended, the Russians inhabited the complex, and in 1993, it was taken over by Polish authorities. Like the Grenadier complex, the complex at Złotoryjska Street remained abandoned for 9 years, suffering from technical degradation and urban blight. Things began to improve in 2002 thanks to the involvement of the Society for Social Housing (Towarzystwo Budownictwa Społecznego: TBS). At the cost of ca. 8 million PLN per building, the society transformed the barracks into a multi-family housing estate (Figure 10), providing much-needed affordable housing.

The complex is situated on the main southern exit road, which is convenient for commuters using public transport and car owners. Unfortunately, there are no bicycle lanes, and the sidewalks are in bad condition. One of the outbuildings was torn down to provide space for a supermarket that provides basic products to inhabitants. The complex is mostly surrounded by forests, which creates a favorable microclimate. Therefore, there are significant chances for successful revitalization. Based on the analyzed design documentation, it is clear that the adaptation of the complex was associated with significant transformations in terms of the materials used, shape and detail and the functional solutions. This sometimes resulted in the complete obliteration of the architectural character of the buildings and of spatial relations between the buildings in the complex.

Despite many years of vacancy, at the time of revalorization, all the partitions were in good technical condition. However, in order to accommodate the new function, buildings in the complex were put through extensive remodeling. To comply with the applicable standards, the external walls were insulated with 12-cm-thick Styrofoam and mineral wool and covered with new cement-lime plaster. Regrettably, the selected tinge of the finish varied significantly from the original color scheme, ranging from bright fluorescent green to light yellow (Figure 10). The existing, original wooden window and door joinery were entirely replaced with plastic elements, without internal muntins. The ceramic plain tiles covering the roof were replaced with large-format modern tiles. The existing reinforced concrete stairways and landings on the ground and first floors were demolished to make way for the newly designed entrance porches and ramps for the disabled. To cater to the needs of contemporary civilian inhabitants, the elevations were furnished with newly designed reinforced concrete balconies on a rectangular, trapezoidal or semicircular plan, mounted on external columns made of steel or reinforced concrete shafts (Figure 10). This stood in stark contrast to the original austere and functional style of the military dormitory and deprived it of authenticity. Although technological modernization was necessary, the additional balconies and the change in color of the elevations do not seem indispensable.

One of the main features of military complexes, which also defines this genre, is the typical land-development plan. Therefore, the new zoning plan that was presented to the public (Figure 11) seems most disconcerting, as it allows housing to be developed on the 0.9 ha of centrally situated training grounds. The construction is currently underway, as shown by aerial pictures in Figure 9.

3.3. Determinants of Genius loci and Their Importance for the Scientific and Historical Value of Post-Military Complexes

Based on literature studies and on-the-spot observations, I established preliminary determinants and carriers of genius loci, which were subsequently verified and validated through an anonymous survey. The respondents were asked to recognize barracks complexes under different circumstances and to state what features helped them to recognize barracks complexes among other urban typologies.

Barracks complexes, regardless of the period they were built in, constituted dense, autonomous quarters, comprised of various buildings. Headquarters and staff buildings, which were the most prestigious and often visited by the civilians, were located close to the gate and were the most representative. Peripherally built dormitories, due to their dominant height among other buildings in the complex (usually 3 stories), acted as screens that obscured the internal training grounds. In the compounds from the 1930s, there is a clear tendency to position the dormitories on the N–S axis so as to allow for the most beneficial insolation of the sleeping quarters. Depending on the type of units stationed in the complex, the dormitories were sometimes complemented with manèges. The drill squares were adjacent to outbuildings: Riding halls, stalls, warehouses, garages and workshops, all of which were one-story tall. In the case of artillery barracks, stables were frequently located on the ground floor of dormitory buildings and the yard abutted coach houses and forage warehouses. The complexes also included low-rise buildings: Bakeries, food warehouses, armories, as well as hospitals, mortuaries, hospitals for horses, solitary confinements, etc.—all arranged on a grid plan. The buildings were stately but scarcely decorated with prefabricated moldings, which were unified throughout the whole facility. In the 19th century, barracks were mostly built of brick, and in the 1930s, they were plastered and painted with unobtrusive hues of yellow ocher. The height of the buildings and the density of the decorations receded towards the back of the complex and away from the main road that runs adjacent to the facility.

The anonymous survey conducted by the author has shown that what helps respondents to recognize barracks complexes are mainly the spatial relations between buildings in the complex. This may result from the fact that exceptional artistic or decorative features rarely define military buildings. This genre is characteristic because of the morphology and is recognizable by typological traits attributes. The distinguishing attributes listed by the respondents include:

• Repeatable, functional buildings.
• The detachment of the complex from its urban surroundings by means of a wall or more often a grid arrangement of buildings that form a perimeter around a training ground.
• A clear hierarchy of buildings indicated by their height, embellishment and position (i.e., more important buildings in the center flanked by outbuildings).

The poll-takers indicated modularity, repeatability and ascetic decoration as key architectural features.

According to 94.4% of the respondents, historical military architecture should be considered cultural heritage. Furthermore, 25% of poll-takers stated they preferred the complexes to be preserved unchanged, as only their original form will allow them to demonstrate the architectural and urban thought required by the military. On the other hand, 75% of respondents stated that, after demilitarization, the historic barracks should be subject to revalorization so that the buildings can continue to be a testimony of history. Regarding the term “protection and revalorization”, 82.5% of the interviewees understood this to be retaining the outer shell unchanged with possible interior adaptation. Among proposition for new functions, the respondents listed: restaurants (8%), hospitals (12%), apartment buildings (16%), schools (16%) and museums (24%). Only a minority of respondents would agree to far-reaching transformations if at least a minimal amount of tissue was preserved.

Regardless of the above, when shown examples of adaptations, the respondents tended to accept even destructive adaptations that disrupted the spatial relations, as long as they produced new social values in the complexes. They were then asked to rate eight urban regeneration projects of barracks complexes. The reviewers evaluated them in direct proportion to the degree of interference: Overwhelmingly, they ranked an adaptation that was the most invasive and distorted both the dimensions and style of the adapted building as the most appropriate (Figure 12). Conversely, they awarded the lowest rank to the revalorization project that used forms of permanent ruin with built-in service capsules (Figure 13).

Next, the participants were asked to think about each picture separately and describe four features: The time of construction, the legibility of the architectural genre, the primeval function within the military complex and their subjective opinion of the revitalized structure.

In the case of far-reaching interventions, the features that distinguish barracks complexes were completely removed, making these complexes no longer recognizable as barracks complexes. When asked to describe the photo (Figure 13), half of the respondents admitted they would not identify the building as post-military had they not known its prior function.

The respondents were also asked to express their opinion on the two barracks complexes that have been selected as case studies for this paper. In the case of the regenerated 19th-century Grenadier barracks, 73.9% of the interviewees stated they had no difficulty in recognizing the genre and 87.5% correctly identified the period of construction. In the case of the Siegeshöhe barracks, the majority of participants stated they would not recognize the complex as former barracks and they had difficulties with identifying the time of construction.

To verify, they were then presented with a fresh batch of examples of urban regenerations of various types of complexes: Postindustrial and two post-military (an iconic realization and a peripheral intervention). Indeed, 37.5% of respondents mistook the postindustrial complex as post-military and only 25% recognized the peripheral intervention in a post-military complex.

Nonetheless, the survey has shown that revitalization projects should be supplemented with a specific spatial identification system. Even with model and award-winning adaptation projects, 22.6% of respondents who were shown a picture of a revitalized barracks complex thought they were looking at a regenerated postindustrial complex, and 12.9% of them mistook the barracks for a hospital. When shown three pictures to choose from, the respondents were also unsure, and 38.6% of them considered a mine complex that was transformed into a museum to be a revalued barracks complex. Even a seemingly small and inconspicuous sign on a dormitory building that was adapted to hotel functions was noticed and praised. The respondents opined that a complex, which used to be separated from its urban surroundings (due to strategic concerns), thanks to a successful and well-marked revitalization, became a local highlight without losing its identity (Figure 14).

What was reassuring was the fact that the respondents declared no attachment to the nationality of the historic architecture, although they did not hesitate when probed to determine the nationality of the displayed examples of post-military complexes. Since the area of research is an ethnically sensitive one, the perceived neutrality of historic architecture is very important for its proper preservation.

As the subject of revalorization of post-military complexes is very broad, there are numerous examples of Prussian (and German) barracks that support the findings.

The barracks built before WWI, regardless of the new function, receive more adequate makeovers. The Artillery Barracks in Olsztyn, built in 1887, were adapted for business and residential functions in 2014 under the name Koszary Park. New functions were introduced into these buildings in a way that preserved the layout and architectural form of the historical barracks, thus sustaining the educational value of the regenerated complex. The exteriors were restored and the manège left unbuilt, which helped to maintain the spatial relations and the genius loci; only the interiors were adjusted to new functions.

Similarly, the 1935 Scharnhorst Kasernen in Lüneburg underwent only minor alterations during adaptation for the Leuphana Univeristy campus, with major changes focusing on providing extra lighting through skylights in roofs.

The Hussar Barracks in Gdańsk built in 1903 were adapted for the Wrzeszcz Barrack District—a mix-use development. It comprises schools, shops and services that occupy the former cavalry dormitories. In 2004, they were complemented with a newly built residential district that took up the space of the outbuildings and manèges. Unfortunately, to obtain enough space for the residential district, the outbuildings (stables and riding halls) were razed, which leads to ambiguity in the perception of the complex (Figure 15).

In 2007, the barracks of the Königs-Jäger-Regiment zu Pferde No. 1 (later 15th Uhlans Regiment) built in 1905 were also adapted for a mixed-use development called City Park. During the revitalization process, historic dormitories, garages and warehouses were transformed into hotel and commercial spaces, but the inner manège and training grounds were redeveloped. The new buildings resemble the historical part of the complex thanks to the use of historicizing style and red brick in elevations. Nevertheless, the redevelopment severs the spatial relations between the original buildings in the complex.

In all of the abovementioned cases, the main functions introduced into the revitalized barracks were high-end services. Regardless of the age of the barracks, regeneration for residential purposes seems to introduce extensive changes to both interiors and exteriors.

The Artillerie-Kaserne in Erlangen, dating back to 1914, was taken over by the allied forces after the war and renamed Ferris Barracks. After closure in 1994, the complex was acquired by the city of Erlangen. Older structures from the original Artillerie-Kaserne were protected. Refurbishment converted them for alternative use such as services, university buildings and housing. Although the buildings were protected monuments, the apartment buildings were retrofitted with balconies and roof terraces for convenience (Figure 16).

In Freiburg, the decommissioned barracks from the 1930s were refurbished to create a neighborhood with affordable housing in the city center: District Vauban. The barracks, however, were extensively restructured by the inhabitants who added balconies, verandas and changed the shapes of openings, etc. (Figure 17) The urban plan for the barracks was also altered, and only 12 out of 28 army barracks were retained, which obliterated the hieratic plan of tightly delineated training grounds.

In the same manner, the gendarmerie barracks in Wrocław (Poland) were turned into a housing estate. The training grounds were reduced to inner streets and redeveloped. Spatial relations were distorted even further as each of the barracks was fenced off, which created gated communities. The dormitories were turned into residential buildings by adding balconies, porte-fenêtres and changing dormers into skylights.

The above-mentioned examples confirm the difference between the sensitive treatment of historic barracks and the lax approach to the facilities from the 1930s. As a general rule, the outbuildings in the complexes were more extensively refurbished and expanded than dormitories and headquarters. The genius loci is, in most cases, neglected by both the public actors (planning) and real estate developers (actual investment process). In both types of former military barracks, the entities involved in preservation and enhancement pay very little attention to intangible values.

3.4. Post-Military Complexes as Drivers for Cultural Tourism Inspired by Genius loci

In the 21st century, the army went through a significant process of restructuring [69]. Not only were the troops withdrawn from the cities, but their number was also reduced in favor of, e.g., private contractors. Moreover, it seems that human participation in future conflicts is going to be limited to the absolute minimum, i.e., to exercising command over autonomous weapons [70]. Furthermore, warfare has changed [71]. It is no longer hand-to-hand combat fought en masse by troops of opposing forces, but rather a struggle that has shifted to surrogates: Proxy war, armed drones, autonomous weapons systems, cyber propaganda, informational or psychological warfare deployed over public opinion, hybrid warfare, etc. [72]. It seems plausible that, very soon, the idea of a standing army will seem ridiculous to our descendants and the notion of military prestige—chivalry, valor, honor—will become incomprehensible to them. The narrative of changing supremacy, pride and reservations has been spun around barracks, and only by preserving these structures can we keep the story alive. Even though their within-use adaptation has been exhausted, their significance as symbols of hidden meanings remains vital, and their potential as tourist destinations grows with the opening to the public.

The interest in historical military structures is evident and proven by thematic websites concerning the history of a given locality, where barracks constitute a significant portion of their content. These include liegnitz.eu, fotopolska.eu, etc. There is also evidence for this in various urban exploration (urbex [73,74]) and geocaching activities in Strzegom [75], Świnoujście [76], Żary [77] and Ostrów Wielkopolski [78]. The attractiveness of this type of tourism stems from its novelty and obscurity, from the fact that it leads the participants off the beaten path. Local authorities are aware of the benefits of tourism and therefore emphasize selected themes to describe the region, ensure transport accessibility, accommodation and catering facilities. This is why some towns perceived as resorts have a rich tourist infrastructure aimed only at a specific group of tourists. However, there is a growing demand for fewer commercial attractions [79]. In the age of the Internet, users exchange information about interesting, forgotten places worth visiting, many of which are post-military locations, such as shooting ranges, abandoned barracks, etc., which have previously been inaccessible. They are usually placed either in districts of historic architecture or in secluded areas of greenery and can constitute additional attraction while sightseeing in urban centers or while strolling through the woods. Military compounds comprised many buildings and housed various functions, from dormitories for foot soldiers to armories and manèges to warehouses and workshops. These were arranged around a central courtyard or paddock and coupled with shooting ranges. Because of this multitude of elements, such compounds were usually placed outside of towns to allow for an easier arrangement of these structures. Townships extended their road network to reach these compounds and provided the necessary infrastructure. Therefore, street names referred to the barracks, e.g., An den Kasernen (presently Jagiełły Street in Wrocław) or were named after military units that were stationed there, e.g., Grenadierstrasse (at present Hutników Street in Legnica), Kaserne Strasse (presently Adama Mickiewicza Street in Namysłów leading to the former Dragoon Barracks). Military compounds required railroad spurs, which stimulated the expansion of the railway network. The statistics on www.opencaching.pl, established in 2006, show a large increase in interest in geocaching in Poland over the years. It is visible in the number of both active caches and of their discoveries. In September 2011, there were 5844 active caches compared to 50,104 in September 2021. The number of discoveries rose from 345,550 in 2011 to 3,218,833 in 2021 (Figure 18).

Geocaching has already been recognized as a valuable means of cultural tourism in small towns [80] and is indicated as tool for popularizing military destinations [81]. At present, e.g., the municipality of Ruda Śląska [82] utilizes it for promotion. This shows that the authorities may easily use geocaching at the systemic level to popularize the traditions innate in the barracks complexes. In fact, studies show that well-managed and marketed military heritage can attract domestic and international tourism [83,84]. The urbex and geocaching tourists usually plan their visits along hiking and trekking in the area, where the main appeal is the historic architecture or wild nature, and the military installations constitute a rewarding challenge to complete en route. Even though such tourist activities can already be observed as indicated above [82], it would be interesting to see more of them included at a systemic level to promote active cultural tourism the likes of the described geo-touristic experiences [85]. This, however, requires the genius loci of military complexes to be preserved because it is the quality sought by people who participate in urban exploration and geocaching.

4. Discussion

The intention of this study is not to give definitive answers to the presented questions, but rather to serve as a voice in the discussion that has recently become international [39]. This research proposes two issues for discussion: The preservation of tangible and intangible (genius loci) values of barracks and the difference in how former military sites are treated depending on whether they were built before 1900 or in the 1930s.

The tangible and intangible aspects of the role of post-military complexes as cultural heritage are slowly beginning to be recognized [9,10,52,53,86,87]. However, with regard to the topic of this study, this process is especially painstaking because the barracks constitute a dissonant heritage. They were taken over from a former enemy state as a result of WWII, but then became the post for native troops, and thus require a sensitive approach. This heterogeneous tradition makes historic barracks complexes the biggest assets in the endeavor to maintain the genius loci of garrison towns and designates them for preservation. Nevertheless, most of the post-military facilities have not been formally recognized as heritage. This is why this study, which probes the general public’s opinion on the subject, is so vital in the discussion on the social value of post-military complexes. The abovementioned study conducted by the author helped to identify the features that differentiate military installations from other historic architecture and diagnose which of these features must be preserved in order to maintain the genius loci of the barracks complexes. This research proves that barracks are indeed recognizable in the cityscape and are expected to remain part of the local landscape, which corresponds to the findings of the abovementioned authors. Therefore, the answer to the question of social significance of barracks complexes is a positive one.

Some authors focused on aspects related to the real-estate value of post-military complexes and the economic viability of their revitalization [39,54]. This proves the relevance of this study’s goal to identify the features that must be preserved in the revitalization process. The case studies explored in this study support the claim that such distinguishing features exist and can be catalogued, and that by preserving them during the conversion efforts, we can create culturally and scholastically viable sites, which are also profitable. Post-military complexes can also be the focus of cultural tourism. Part of their appeal, their genius loci, comes from reclusiveness because they were inaccessible before demilitarization. Therefore, as long as their original spatial features are preserved, they have the potential to appeal to “urban explorers”.

In numerous cities, military compounds including barracks, depots and shooting ranges have suddenly been relinquished, only to become brownfield investments.

The presented case studies have demonstrated the different attitudes towards barracks based on when they were built, as pointed out by many authors [9,39]. This begs the question of whether barracks should be recognized as a typological group and therefore subjected to a set of guidelines regardless of their age or if only specific sites should be selected for preservation. Since the purpose of heritage protection is to enrich society and cater to its cultural, educational and emotional needs, in answering this question, I concur with Cacciaguerra and Gatti, Urbaniak, Tunbridge, Camerin and Camatti and Gastaldi, Bagaeen and Clark as well as Venter [9,10,32,39,52,83].

There are two approaches to this process, the first one concerning pre-modern structures that are revitalized with minimally invasive measures and the second approach concerning the 1930s barracks that are freely dismembered and transformed. When analyzing the two primary examples in this study and the seven examples (ordered in the text according to the extent of the changes in the original style and spatial relations between the buildings) it becomes evident that some functions seem to require more aggressive transformations (housing) than other (services). With historic post-military complexes, there are many ways of revitalization and revalorization. However, it would be oversimplifying to say that the scope of transformation differing from non-intervention to complete redevelopment results solely from the planned new use. The agent initiating the revalorization has a significant impact on the scope of the intervention as well: Either change oriented, resulting in extensive redevelopment, or moderate, aiming to preserve as much of the original architecture and spatial relations as possible without petrification. The grassroots organizations, as in the case of Niel Barracks (Figure 13), tend to be the least invasive, as compared to mild changes exercised by public institutions, e.g., in Erlangen (Figure 16) and most invasive refurbishments by private investors, e.g., in Legnica (Figure 10) or Wrocław (Figure 12). A separate issue is the role played by the authorities. Through carefully designed land development plans, the authorities can exercise control over the extent of changes in regenerated complexes. Indeed, historic barracks elicit far more positive emotions and therefore receive better-suited adaptation efforts than contemporary compounds.

Nevertheless, this study has shown that the general public expects buildings from both of these periods to be preserved by adapting them to new functions. The aforementioned relationship between barracks as a part of the cultural landscape and local populace can be systematically used to develop and strengthen the local identity [88]. The analyzed case studies show that regeneration efforts are a long way from matching the goals of sustainable regeneration [89]. It is therefore necessary to develop a strategy, a modus operandi, for the post-military heritage that would extend its existence while fully preserving its spatial and dimensional features and also allow for adaptations that are profitable for future investors. Examples can be found among domestic and foreign urban renewal designs of barracks complexes. Although none of these endeavors are free of errors, it is possible to find the right way of revalorizing them. Therefore, the results of this study can be used to establish good practices for future conversion efforts both in the investigated territory as well as on a global scale.

5. Conclusions

The present study is an attempt to determine the extent to which former military complexes are currently treated as cultural heritage, while raising awareness of how the genius loci of former military sites, if properly cultivated, may provide solutions in terms of cultural, economic and social sustainability. Barracks complexes, like every element of urbanized space, have their own history, which is represented by their morphology. To decode the identity of a complex, it is necessary to access all the strata representing different stages in its evolution. This influences the possible scope of future transformations. While a successful redevelopment of barracks complexes can restore not only the facilities but also the genius loci and reintroduce it to the life of a community, examples show that a failed adaptation, even though it rehabilitates the structures, can eradicate their historic and sentimental values. Therefore, the revitalization efforts must not only be economically oriented, but directed towards cultural sustainability. The basic conservation problem is to replace the original function of a historic site with a new functional program that allows us to maintain its educational values and transform it into a site of memory (milieu de memoire), which will carry its values into the future, without petrifying the structure. The success of such revitalization can be measured by the level of social recognition. The study identified those features of barracks complexes that trigger such recognition and validated them with two case studies. This recognition relied primarily on the preservation of central training grounds and original outer appearance and dimensions, with potential infills differentiated by material and tectonics. The conservative reuse should therefore rely on the premise that those features should be strictly preserved and the new function should be unobtrusive so that these features do not disappear.

This research also shows that the 19th-century barracks complexes are less prone to invasive revitalizations than the compounds from the 1930s. This may stem from the fact that most of the older complexes have been officially recognized as cultural heritage. Another explanation might be the association between the younger barracks and the Nazi Germany army forces. However, based on the conducted survey, I determined that among a group of young respondents (83.3% were under 30 years old), the nationality of a military building does not affect people’s perception of it as a work of architecture. This stresses the great role of the local authorities in safeguarding the preservation and enhancement of barracks complexes. When designing the adaptation to new uses, we must not only pay special attention to the existing traces of a historic narrative, but also predict the evolution of the urban space as a result of current urban regeneration. Even in the case of the most restrained adaptations that preserve the dimensions of buildings and the spatial relations between them, without a spatial identification system, they seem unintelligible to uneducated viewers. In the survey, the respondents expressed a desire for a system of visual identification that would complement the revitalization efforts. Such a system would help them to recognize and understand historic interdependencies between the town and the barracks and to appreciate the original view of the complex. In this manner, without causing stagnation in its evolution, we can enhance the scholastic value of the complex while ensuring that it is used by society.

Regeneration projects carried out by private investors open the barracks complexes to the general public. In the Recovered Territories, this process overlapped with the growing acceptance and curiosity related to the dissonant heritage from the pre-war period. Today, these buildings are part of the local material tradition. Their preservation is all the more important in an era of globalization and cultural homogenization, whereby placing a man in a historical and cultural context gives him a sense of belonging.