This article provides an in-depth analysis of the revitalisation of the former Rog factory complex, whose main building has been designated as cultural heritage. Among other themes, it explores how globalisation and new technologies might be leveraged to support independent makers, creators, and innovators in urban settings.
INTRODUCTION
Industrial heritage is a crucial part of our shared cultural legacy, playing a key role in defining a city’s character. The rapid growth of modern cities was largely shaped by industrialisation, and with the decline of industry, questions emerge about the future of heritage that has left such a lasting mark on urban landscapes and social fabric.
This report provides a detailed look at the revival of the former Rog factory complex, whose main building has been designated a cultural landmark under local protections for the Poljane and St. Peter districts. As one of Ljubljana’s few remaining examples of early industrial architecture, the factory’s restoration scheme, led by the Municipality of Ljubljana (MOL), seeks to build on its industrial past by establishing a hub for design, architecture, and the visual arts.
In the opening section, we discuss the importance of preserving industrial heritage, give a brief history of the factory, and summarise the revitalisation efforts carried out by the Municipality of Ljubljana (MOL) since 2007.
Following this, we provide an in-depth look at the European Second Chance project, which has made a crucial impact through its methodical approach to culturally revitalising degraded industrial sites. Through Second Chance, we re-evaluated the initial design proposal for Rog, opting to create a decentralised space featuring shared manufacturing workshops and common areas. This setup allows creators, businesses, NGOs, as well as educational and research institutions, to benefit from collective infrastructure and tailored support programmes(1) that foster collaboration and development.
Temporary use has been a significant feature of the former factory’s recent history. Integrating grassroots activities led by community groups and individuals into the city’s renovation plans presents a complex challenge—one particularly urgent at the time of writing. This topic, which deserves broader public discussion, will be touched on here only briefly.
In the exhibition catalogue, our focus will be on the development methodology and the role of new technologies in revitalising former factories. This approach will partly draw on the RogLab Production Space as a pilot for the new Rog Centre. We will examine how globalisation and new technologies might support independent creators, innovators, small enterprises, and NGOs. We will also explore which institutional, organisational, and business models could best support these emerging production methods and relationships. Finally, we’ll outline a possible future for factories at a crossroads, as the second industrial revolution ends, the third takes hold, and the fourth approaches.
THE HISTORY OF THE ROG FACTORY
Primary use
The industrial history of Ljubljana’s St Peter district, home to the former Rog factory, dates back to 1871, when local entrepreneur Ivan Janež built a ground-floor tannery there. In 1879, he added a single-storey factory building on the site. His son, who took over that year, expanded the tannery further, and by the late 19th century, it employed nearly 100 workers.
In 1900, Carl Pollak acquired Janež’s factory, modernising it and expanding production to include leather goods. The new facility was the city’s first ferro-concrete industrial building, constructed using a patent by French engineer François Hennebique and plans from structural engineer Alois Kral in 1922.
The 1930s economic recession brought challenges, placing Pollak’s firm under the management of the City Savings Bank. Following its bankruptcy in 1938, the factory operations were taken over by Indus, a leather goods company. In 1952, the Rog factory began producing bicycles and typewriters, with major renovations to the main and auxiliary buildings completed in 1953 and 1963.
Secondary use
After the factory closed in the early 1990s, parts of the complex began to be used intermittently by various organisations for cultural events, including the Biennale of Industrial Design and the Break Festival. In 2002, the Municipality of Ljubljana (MOL) signed a lease agreement with LB Hypo for the Rog factory site and its buildings. Since its closure, Rog’s future has been widely debated.
In 1995, MOL held the Eurocultures colloquium, focusing on revitalising the former factory site. The event highlighted the importance of a mixed-use approach, combining cultural, craft, and residential spaces. From 2006, the Rog complex has been occupied by a range of temporary users, groups, and individuals, primarily engaged in cultural, artistic, and social initiatives.
Chronology of the revitalisation of the former factory
2002: The Municipality of Ljubljana (MOL) signed a lease with LB Hypo for the Rog area buildings.
2007: MOL collaborated with a team of experts in visual arts, architecture, and design, leading to the first programme plan for the new Rog Centre.
2008: An open competition for the Rog factory’s reconstruction was won by the MX_SI studio. The initial renovation concept for the site included a public-private partnership, with the Rog Centre for Contemporary Arts and an underground parking garage in the public section, and a residential, hotel, and business complex with parking in the private section.
2010: MOL, alongside the Museum and Galleries of Ljubljana, joined the European Second Chance project, aimed at revitalising industrial sites in five European cities.
2011: MOL purchased the Rog factory complex. Plans shifted to focus on restoring the listed factory building as the Rog Centre, with a new Exhibition Hall extension, business premises, underground parking, and a possible hotel or apartment complex along Trubarjeva Street.
2012: A public-private partnership call failed, leading to the launch of the RogLab pilot project.
2013: MOL abandoned the public-private partnership model, scaling back the project to include only the listed factory building, a small parking area, and a public park.
2016: Demolition work began on extensions to the factory’s central building, sparking controversy over the site’s future use.
The industrial heritage: why and how to preserve it?
For residents of Slovenia, the sight of decaying industrial sites in city centres carries a bitter reminder of the controversial privatisation processes that followed the breakup of Yugoslavia. Revitalising these former factories would signal that, as a society, we aim to address this legacy constructively.
The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage (2003) states that adapting industrial sites for new uses is acceptable if it helps preserve their heritage. However, it recommends that new functions be as close as possible to the original purpose of these sites. Reusing former factories thus makes sense when the new use respects the history of the work, people, and expertise they once housed. These buildings serve as symbolic links between old and new production methods. “Industrial heritage can play a key role in the economic regeneration of neglected or declining areas,” states the Charter. “Continuity implied in reuse can provide stability for communities facing the abrupt end of long-standing employment.” Such sites are often large, enclosed spaces that, when neglected, isolate parts of the city from its life. Reuse, then, also has the potential to reconnect city spaces.
The non-material heritage of the former Rog factory has been shaped by its temporary use. Programmes like the Rog Social Centre have brought the hidden impacts of deindustrialisation and globalisation to light, highlighting issues faced by many migrant workers. An inclusive city should not ignore these struggles but rather incorporate them into the Rog factory’s future vision, building a collaborative, international space.
Preserving industrial heritage is not only about understanding the past; it also pushes us forward, shaping the future.
THE ‘SECOND CHANCE’ PROJECT: CHECKING THE STARTING POINTS AND GOALS OF REVITALISATION
Financed by the European Commission, the Second Chance project took on the ambitious goal of breathing new cultural life into neglected industrial spaces across five Central European cities. Between January 2010 and September 2013, I led this initiative, centering on the former Rog factory, with the aim of sparking dialogue among a broad range of stakeholders to reassess earlier findings and see if initial objectives still held weight.
Rog has historically stood at a crossroads of development philosophies – both bottom-up and top-down. The Second Chance project underscored that a project as complex as the Rog revitalisation cannot thrive with grassroots efforts alone. While bottom-up planning is essential, it tends to be shaped by the interests of specific groups and often alienates those with differing views. Purely top-down approaches, meanwhile, lack the hands-on insights necessary to meet future users’ actual needs. The most effective ideas tend to emerge from a sustained, if challenging, dialogue among stakeholders and decision-makers. This process is rarely straightforward, particularly when cultural, economic, social, and technological shifts alter the stakeholder landscape and when political timelines often clash with the longer arcs of development projects.
In the Second Chance initiative, both approaches were integrated, involving over 300 stakeholders from a range of backgrounds: temporary users of Rog, artists, architects, cultural producers from public and nonprofit sectors, city and state officials, entrepreneurs, international cultural professionals, and local residents.
At the project’s inception, urban and architectural plans for Rog were largely established, with the Centre’s general use also defined. Second Chance’s focus, therefore, was to envision a new cultural institution—its programming and organisational models—that could bridge the aspirations of Ljubljana’s city council with the expectations of potential future users.
Our research began with a survey of successful revitalised production spaces across Europe, followed by a detailed SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) to refine the revitalisation plan for the Rog factory site. In December 2010, we presented our initial findings to an expert group, including members who had helped shape the original concept for the Rog Centre in 2007. By February 2011, we shared the analysis with a broader public audience. While core aspects of the project—location, architectural and urban design, and content direction—were reaffirmed, some findings diverged from stakeholders’ experiences, sparking a dynamic exchange on ways to enhance the plan. The active discussion, with nearly 100 participants, revealed the former Rog factory’s unique role in public discourse and suggested that further dialogue among interest groups might highlight society’s readiness to undertake a development that serves the wider community.
Following this, we conducted a transnational public-private partnership (PPP) analysis to assess existing cultural PPP practices. Examples from this review showed that project partners could emerge from both private sectors and civil society. In April 2011, we discussed the draft PPP framework with local community representatives and international project partners. The findings informed the RogLab pilot project, reinforcing a model of public-private-civil partnerships that emphasises shared use and value for public infrastructure.
In September 2011, we held a meeting with people living and working near the former Rog factory. Although some residents felt they should have been consulted earlier, they were enthusiastic about the plans. They suggested new non-commercial facilities (such as a library and youth centre) and commercial amenities (such as a bakery and café) missing in the area, as well as access to parking.
This information was then summarised in a working document titled “The Development Vision,” a preliminary concept to guide further development of the factory and its pilot projects. We tested the plan’s feasibility through focus groups, bringing together a diverse range of stakeholders to help identify the key components for a successful social, cultural, and economic transformation of the site. This analysis provided valuable insights into the needs of potential partners and users, enabling us to avoid imposing pre-set, generic solutions.
Over the more than three years of research and development during the Second Chance project, we, along with other participants, concluded that the original design concept no longer met the needs of today’s potential users. To address society’s current challenges, we aimed to foster collaboration across sectors, bringing together a mix of experts who now often work independently as entrepreneurs, creators, or researchers, and who usually operate within structures that limit interdisciplinary cooperation. Advances in communication and production technologies, which support decentralised working models, were also considered vital.
Our revised vision for Center Rog puts a stronger focus on shared spaces, modern technology, and innovative management approaches. Of the Centre’s 8,000 sqm, the modular design will allow spaces to evolve with users’ changing needs. The public culture programme will span 5,000 sqm, with shared workshops, labs, and social spaces on the ground floor, multi-purpose, educational, and exhibition areas plus a library on the first floor, and design workspaces and studios for visiting creators on the second. Additional areas will serve as storage, communication zones, and commercial facilities designed for both the local community and Centre users.
The Rog Centre will connect directly with the local neighbourhood, linked by a public park, a library, and multi-purpose spaces. These spaces are designed with flexible programming that can be tailored to the immediate needs of the community.
ROGLAB: IMPLEMENTING THE RESULTS OF THE ‘SECOND CHANCE’ DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The RogLab pilot project, created as a 30-sqm production, education, and presentation space within a container-like structure, aimed to test prior research findings and develop the potential approaches for the future Rog Centre on a small scale.
Concerns from the public about the Rog Centre focused on fears it would draw resources away from already limited funds for culture and creativity. To address this, RogLab was designed as an organisational model that could combine and support existing creative initiatives, providing the foundations for the Rog Centre’s future programme and infrastructure.
With the global economic downturn and the de-industrialisation of European cities, re-purposing the former factory in a meaningful way became both a challenge and an opportunity. Re-establishing a bicycle or typewriter factory was unrealistic, so instead, we created a collaborative environment that would support intersectoral partnerships to better address societal issues. RogLab offers a small manufacturing lab equipped with computer-controlled fabrication tools like 3D printers, laser cutters, and CNC mills.
Currently, RogLab has about 16 permanent partners, including local NGOs, businesses, cultural institutions, educational and research organisations, as well as international partners. Users range from students and professionals in design, architecture, visual arts, and engineering to entrepreneurs, innovators, DIY creators, children, and youth.
RogLab runs training sessions every other week, allowing users to gain licenses for independent use of new technology, supported by technicians. The workshop and programmes are designed to empower users, showing that creating functional prototypes can be quick and affordable.
Our partnerships are project-based, with specific cooperation tailored to each partner—whether infrastructure access, technical support, co-production, or joint fundraising. Over RogLab’s four years, we’ve undertaken two notable development projects addressing societal challenges. In 2013, “RogLab – The Factory that is Making Itself” gathered 43 creatives to produce prototypes addressing urban issues, from bike culture to mobile gardens. The project highlighted the value of interdisciplinary collaboration and new technology in tackling societal and design challenges.
In 2014, we launched “Design (Dis)Ability,” engaging designers with the needs of those with physical disabilities. This initiative, in collaboration with MIT’s Open Style Lab, led to a global workshop in Ljubljana where designers, engineers, and technicians developed eight garment prototypes, drawing attention to the gap between the fashion industry and real user needs.
As a piece of public infrastructure, RogLab centres on socially and environmentally conscious projects, critically examining mass production and focusing on users’ actual needs. We aim to empower users by providing access to rapid prototyping, enabling them to turn ideas into working prototypes they can share with collaborators or potential investors. With a focus on future skills, we also prioritise programmes that introduce children to new technologies, preparing them for the cultural and technological landscapes of the future.
THE CONTEXT OF THE THIRD INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND DECENTRALIZED PRODUCTION
The decline of the second industrial revolution, its institutions and economic models begins with the imminent exhaustion of fossil fuels. At the same time, we are witnessing the progress of the third industrial revolution, which will be marked, as forecast already 10 years ago by economist Jeremy Rifkin, by the concurrence of digital communication technologies and renewable energy sources. Due to the decentralisation of energy sources and the decentralisation of industrial production made possible, it is suggested, by digital manufacturing technologies and giving rise to a network of decentralised small manufacturers, we will need new economic and organisational models. (Rifkin 2011).
Running parallel to the deindustrialisation process is the development of digital communications and digital manufacturing technologies, both of which have become increasingly cheaper and more accessible. This led Massachusetts Institute of Technology to create the fabrication laboratory concept, with a view to investigating the way information was expressed as physical representations and whether access to advanced technologies stimulated so-called grass roots creativity and productivity in a community. Today, some 2,000 such workshops are operating around the world. The use of identical technologies, tools and processes enables them to be connected in a global network with- in a dispersed space of (co)creation, research and innovation. So far, these small fabrication workshops have demonstrated their capacity to play an important role in democratising the means of production, encouraging individual creativity and small enterprises that aim at producing small product series.
In Slovenia, manufacturing is largely comprised of small and micro businesses and individuals. Therefore, the utility of the shared workshops model in which users could share infrastructure, knowledge and work space, as well as supply and marketing channels, was demonstrated not only through the investigations of the Second Chance project but, over the past four years, also by the RogLab pilot project and the development of public and university fabrication workshops and coworking spaces. Chris Anderson, author of the book Makers: The New Industrial Revolution, explains that the decentralised mode of production enabled by fast prototyping technologies offers fresh opportunities for small businesses. In his view, small entrepreneurs can today be both small and global, craftsmen and innovators, high-tech and low cost. Anderson goes on to emphasise that the maker movement allows for creating products the world needs but does not know it yet because these products are not part of the old model mass-production economy. (Anderson 2012).
We were also compelled to address this problem at the RogLab when doing the Design (Dis)Ability project, in which we developed eight functional prototype garments and fashion accessories for physically disabled people. At the moment, we don’t have a good marketing model for niche products – this despite the fact that there is a real, widely acknowledged need for one, and the fact that digital marketing platforms for mass-production goods have been evolving for well more than a decade. In 2005, for example, the online platform Etsy was set up to enable makers to sell their products on the Internet, and in 2007 the application Square appeared, which allows makers to engage in direct billing via credit card. There are also online platforms for the free swapping of 3D models, like Makerbot’s Thingiverse, a 3D printer manufacturer. But for now these platforms and applications primarily serve amateur designers and makers with the aim of helping them create simple products and gadgets for sale to the general public. Today’s cultural patterns and predominant business models aren’t compelling enough for professional designers to allow their open files to be used free of charge.
Researcher Brooks Rainwater states in a report by the National League of Cities entitled How Cities Can Grow the Maker Movement that the greatest strength of the maker movement prob- ably lies in bringing manufacturing back to the cities and freeing up the unexploited skills and knowledge of the cities’ residents. The idea of distributed manufacturing made feasible by digital manufacturing technologies anticipates a host of advantages: lower transport costs thanks to shipped digital models; efficient use of resources, a smaller environmental impact, faster adaptation of tools, products tailored to local needs and so on. (HCC 2016). But technological advances usually also engender an element of techno-utopianism, which should be regarded with reservation when designing new production models.
Researcher Anna Waldman-Brown from the University of Berkeley warns against a techno-utopian mentality that can only introduce disruptive market forces like Uber, which throws the roles of manufacturers, creators and consumers into confusion without radically altering these relations. Similarly, it is necessary to consider who controls the machines and how they are made, who actually makes them and for what kind of compensation. She concludes that “the technology can only help if it doesn’t end up repeating established pat- terns that exacerbate those differences in the first place.” (Waldman-Brown 2016).
DECENTRALIZED ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS
My focus shifted to exploring fresh organisational models for cultural institutions under the Open Institutions framework, a regional initiative examining the need for public cultural institutions to collaborate more openly with NGOs (OI, 2016). Some findings from this project informed a study on public-private partnerships within the Second Chance project, revealing that Slovenia already has a vibrant practice of public-civil partnerships, with NGOs as longstanding collaborators of public cultural institutions. If the Rog Centre aims to become a global reference point for creativity and innovation, it must involve a blend of private, civil, and public partners in its management model. Reflecting this, the 2012–2015 Cultural Development Strategy for Ljubljana includes a measure linked to the Rog Centre pilot project’s organisational model, recommending partnerships across public, private, and civil sectors, with a focus on interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaboration (SRM, 2012).
Since the Second Chance project ended in September 2013, rapid changes in technology, society, and culture demand more adaptable management and governance systems. Klaus Schwab, president of the World Economic Forum, argues that we stand on the brink of a fourth industrial revolution that will transform not only how we live but also our institutions (Schwab, 2016). Schwab contends that current systems of public policy, developed to meet the needs of the second industrial revolution, no longer suffice. Politicians once had time to address challenges methodically; today, they lack the real-time data access essential for informed decision-making.
Building a new institution at the former Rog factory could catalyse a new model of organisational and management structure, moving beyond outdated public institution frameworks and the ideologies underlying many grassroots organisational models. Both approaches arose with the second industrial revolution and are increasingly misaligned with modern needs. While recognising that technology alone cannot solve deep socio-economic issues, I see the Rog Centre as an opportunity to create a new institutional model. Exploring how emerging management structures, particularly those rooted in technology, might better meet contemporary needs is key to this vision.
In 2009, blockchain technology introduced a way to create secure, transparent records, decentralising processes and reducing the risk of corruption and censorship. Currently used mainly in cryptocurrency transactions and decentralised finance, blockchain has potential for broader applications, including storing smart contracts to replace certain legal and registry services. In future, it could enable decentralised protocols, facilitating free and organised collaboration among large groups without centralised control. The open-source start-up Backfeed, for example, is developing a social operating system for decentralised organisations, allowing large groups to collaborate and share value in proportion to their contributions. Backfeed’s protocol seeks to address two major flaws in current organisational structures: while hierarchical systems effectively coordinate large organisations, they are often unresponsive, inflexible, and struggle to value individuals’ contributions equitably. Backfeed’s solution decentralises collaboration and incentivises individuals to work towards collective goals. Its protocol, they claim, can support value distribution within both formal and informal organisations, including social groups, NGOs, corporations, and associations (BF, 2016).
Blockchain technology holds the promise of transformative applications, potentially reshaping how we manage organisations and society itself.
CONCLUSION
Over more than a decade, the project to revitalise the former Rog factory has sparked lively and often contentious public debate—some based on hard data, some on opinion alone. Questions of who holds greater “right” to this central site and which interest groups’ claims carry weight have been prominent. Yet, from a broader urban perspective, a more pressing question is whether we, as a society, are able to execute major public investments in a way that includes dialogue and benefits as many as possible—not only current city residents but future ones too. No matter how the project evolves, the methodology used in the Second Chance initiative has set a new precedent in devising cultural investment strategies and created a set of criteria for similar projects to follow. A crucial takeaway from the project is that developing public infrastructure and programmes is a process that requires constant re-evaluation, ensuring that these initiatives meet user needs and are relevant to the time.
As we move beyond the era of the second industrial revolution, rapid technological, societal, and cultural shifts are demanding more responsive management and governance systems. Emerging digital technologies offer solutions, such as decentralised models for management, production, and marketing, but they also signal growing divisions between those with access to and influence over technology and those without. To build creative, forward-looking, and inclusive cities, it will become increasingly essential to bridge these divides by engaging a broad range of sectors and stakeholders. Educational and research institutions, cultural organisations, businesses, NGOs, informal groups, and individuals all bring unique insights, and understanding their real needs is key to helping them realise their aspirations.
REFERENCES
FOOTNOTES
Meta Štular
This article first appeared in: Županek, B. (ed.). New Age is Coming: Industry, Work, Capital. Ljubljana: Museum and Galleries of Ljubljana, pp. 184–204 (2016).