Awards

1st prize - Ing. arch. Zbyněk Ryška, Ing. arch. Aleš Břečka  - Brno, Kolín / Czech Republic - proposal no.  13 The jury appreciated the clear disposition and volume solution, which wittily follows the original arrangement of the plot. The inner arrangement with smooth flow of the spaces of library, café and multipurpose hall allows an optimal continuity and visual contact among these spaces as well as with the outside space, which is thus activated. The aesthetics, though somehow schematic, feels refined. The landscaping of the surrounding outer space is simple and direct and together with the volume of the building corresponds well with the place as well as accentuates the access to the church and garden.  The jury nevertheless sees as a certain insufficiency of the design proposal its not so clear, though aesthetically very strong, structure and recommends to simplify the design in this sense. From the sustainability point of view, the jury appreciates that the multipurpose hall has been conceived as seasonal, which could help to lower significantly the investment costs. The ratio of the glassed-in parts to full parts of the façade has been doubted.

1st prize – Ing. arch. Zbyněk Ryška, Ing. arch. Aleš Břečka – Brno, Kolín / Czech Republic – proposal no. 13
The jury appreciated the clear disposition and volume solution, which wittily follows the original arrangement of the plot. The inner arrangement with smooth flow of the spaces of library, café and multipurpose hall allows an optimal continuity and visual contact among these spaces as well as with the outside space, which is thus activated. The aesthetics, though somehow schematic, feels refined. The landscaping of the surrounding outer space is simple and direct and together with the volume of the building corresponds well with the place as well as accentuates the access to the church and garden.
The jury nevertheless sees as a certain insufficiency of the design proposal its not so clear, though aesthetically very strong, structure and recommends to simplify the design in this sense. From the sustainability point of view, the jury appreciates that the multipurpose hall has been conceived as seasonal, which could help to lower significantly the investment costs. The ratio of the glassed-in parts to full parts of the façade has been doubted.

 

 

 

2nd prize - x architekten - Arch. Dipl.-Ing. Bettina Brunner, Arch. Dipl.-Ing. Rainer Kašik, Ing. arch. Táňa Sojáková, Dipl.-Ing. Korbinian Lechner - Vienna / Austria – proposal no.  23 The new building of the community centre follows the existent built environment both in urban conception and in volume. It keeps the street line and creates the centre of gravity in the space between the church wall and itself. From this point the church, garden as well as community centre is accessed. The jury sees positively the simple volume and the open ground floor that freely follows the terrain. The inner logic of the building is simple, utilitarian even. The connection between the library and café seems insufficient. The use of lamella cladding and its overhang on the south façade is also questionable.

2nd prize – x architekten – Arch. Dipl.-Ing. Bettina Brunner, Arch. Dipl.-Ing. Rainer Kašik, Ing. arch. Táňa Sojáková, Dipl.-Ing. Korbinian Lechner – Vienna / Austria – proposal no. 23
The new building of the community centre follows the existent built environment both in urban conception and in volume. It keeps the street line and creates the centre of gravity in the space between the church wall and itself. From this point the church, garden as well as community centre is accessed.
The jury sees positively the simple volume and the open ground floor that freely follows the terrain. The inner logic of the building is simple, utilitarian even. The connection between the library and café seems insufficient. The use of lamella cladding and its overhang on the south façade is also questionable.

 

 

 

3rd prize - Petr Synovec, Martin Josek, Jakub Sládeček, Eduard Sojka - Prague / Czech Republic - proposal no.  54 All of the important points of the proposal are at the right places, better than at the rest of the participating designs. This might be the reason why this project has been favoured by a part of the Jury during the evaluation. Another reason might be, of course, a very understandable architectural language. In conflict with its outer simplicity is the inner logic. Situating the two levels of library above the multipurpose hall without any middle support in the lowest level seems as very problematic. A part of the Jury also does not understand why the relatively rich inner space changes are not visible on the outer shell. The intelligibility of the architecture seems then as superficial.  The discussion was also provoked by the long row of roof windows. If it was meant as an architectural hyperbole, then it was not bold enough. It actually raised doubts about this solution as a potential justification of this weed of folk architecture.

3rd prize – Petr Synovec, Martin Josek, Jakub Sládeček, Eduard Sojka – Prague / Czech Republic – proposal no. 54
All of the important points of the proposal are at the right places, better than at the rest of the participating designs. This might be the reason why this project has been favoured by a part of the Jury during the evaluation. Another reason might be, of course, a very understandable architectural language. In conflict with its outer simplicity is the inner logic. Situating the two levels of library above the multipurpose hall without any middle support in the lowest level seems as very problematic. A part of the Jury also does not understand why the relatively rich inner space changes are not visible on the outer shell. The intelligibility of the architecture seems then as superficial. The discussion was also provoked by the long row of roof windows. If it was meant as an architectural hyperbole, then it was not bold enough. It actually raised doubts about this solution as a potential justification of this weed of folk architecture.

 

 

 

Honourable mention - CUBOID ARCHITEKTI – Ing. arch. Aleš Papp, Ing. arch. Milan Vít, Ing. arch. Magdaléna Pappová, Ing. arch. Ondřej Zavřel, Ing. arch. Jiří Kolomazník - Prague / Czech Republic - proposal no.  14 The jury appreciated the minimalist approach chosen by the authors and the not so common barrier-free solution. The use of references to the traditional architecture and a very contemporary formulation of the building placed the design proposal into the group of top five awarded projects. The complete separation of the library and community centre has been seen as a negative as well as almost nonexistent visual contact of the library visitor (and its employees) with the surroundings. The connection of the inner space of the community centre to the square and the façade facing the garden has also been regarded as insufficient. The building very well corresponds in volume and in height of the ridge and cornice to its neighbor and at the same time keeps reasonable distance from the graveyard wall. The proposal is viewed as sustainable both with low investment and operation costs.

Honourable mention – CUBOID ARCHITEKTI – Ing. arch. Aleš Papp, Ing. arch. Milan Vít, Ing. arch. Magdaléna Pappová, Ing. arch. Ondřej Zavřel, Ing. arch. Jiří Kolomazník – Prague / Czech Republic – proposal no. 14
The jury appreciated the minimalist approach chosen by the authors and the not so common barrier-free solution. The use of references to the traditional architecture and a very contemporary formulation of the building placed the design proposal into the group of top five awarded projects.
The complete separation of the library and community centre has been seen as a negative as well as almost nonexistent visual contact of the library visitor (and its employees) with the surroundings. The connection of the inner space of the community centre to the square and the façade facing the garden has also been regarded as insufficient.
The building very well corresponds in volume and in height of the ridge and cornice to its neighbor and at the same time keeps reasonable distance from the graveyard wall. The proposal is viewed as sustainable both with low investment and operation costs.

 

 

 

Honourable mention - Ing. arch. Ondřej Dvořák, Ph.D., Ing. arch. Jiří Matys - Prague / Czech Republic - proposal no.  28 The jury appreciated the clear urban position. The volumes react to the context and stay in a small “village” scale. It plays with the existing wall on one side and creates a place as meeting point on the church side. However the passage between the house and the project was not seen positively. Each function has its own entrance and its outdoor space. However the surfaces are too small and the complete separation of the library and the rest of the community centre have been seen as a negative point. The height of the multifunctional hall in regard of static and roof access for the library is as well not realistic. Also, the project implies a massive reinterpretation of the natural ground.

Honourable mention – Ing. arch. Ondřej Dvořák, Ph.D., Ing. arch. Jiří Matys – Prague / Czech Republic – proposal no. 28
The jury appreciated the clear urban position. The volumes react to the context and stay in a small “village” scale. It plays with the existing wall on one side and creates a place as meeting point on the church side. However the passage between the house and the project was not seen positively. Each function has its own entrance and its outdoor space. However the surfaces are too small and the complete separation of the library and the rest of the community centre have been seen as a negative point. The height of the multifunctional hall in regard of static and roof access for the library is as well not realistic. Also, the project implies a massive reinterpretation of the natural ground.

 

Following are the comments from the expert part of the jury to the particular competition proposals

 

Proposal no. 1 – Viar Estudio - Iñigo de Viar Fraile – Getxo / Spain  The Jury appreciates the urban solution with the free parterre and with the emphasis on the space at the entrance to the church complex. Somehow awkward is the solution of the height connection to the neighbouring building. Negatively viewed was also the use of a strong aggressive construction element of a “gibbet”. Also the facade design does not correspond to the simple and generous interior logic.

Proposal no. 1 – Viar Estudio – Iñigo de Viar Fraile – Getxo / Spain
The Jury appreciates the urban solution with the free parterre and with the emphasis on the space at the entrance to the church complex. Somehow awkward is the solution of the height connection to the neighbouring building. Negatively viewed was also the use of a strong aggressive construction element of a “gibbet”. Also the facade design does not correspond to the simple and generous interior logic.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 2 - Innes Associates - William Kain, Simon Innes – London / UK  The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

Proposal no. 2 – Innes Associates – William Kain, Simon Innes – London / UK
The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 3 - Vicente Molina Dominguez - Álvaro González Martínez, Cesar Molina Domiguez, Vicente Molina Moreno, Álvaro Suárez Vidal, Antonio Felipe Rello – Madrid / Spain One of the fewer proposals more adventurous in design. It must be appreciated that its expressiveness is projected also to the floor plans and landscaping. The connection with the garden is sufficient. The jurors nevertheless could not understand the overall statement of the proposal.

Proposal no. 3 – Vicente Molina Dominguez – Álvaro González Martínez, Cesar Molina Domiguez, Vicente Molina Moreno, Álvaro Suárez Vidal, Antonio Felipe Rello – Madrid / Spain
One of the fewer proposals more adventurous in design. It must be appreciated that its expressiveness is projected also to the floor plans and landscaping. The connection with the garden is sufficient. The jurors nevertheless could not understand the overall statement of the proposal.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 4 - Ing. arch. Ivo Pavlík, Ing. arch. Luice Chytilová, Bc. Jan Vybíral, Bc. Alena Hrabětová, MgA. Jiří Polák  - Prague / Czech Republic Sombre form spiced up with the joke of transition of the form of the roof, promising shape of the spatial footprint. The division of the inner space seems nevertheless as schematic and the access and connection between the garden and the street is not intense enough.

Proposal no. 4 – Ing. arch. Ivo Pavlík, Ing. arch. Luice Chytilová, Bc. Jan Vybíral, Bc. Alena Hrabětová, MgA. Jiří Polák – Prague / Czech Republic
Sombre form spiced up with the joke of transition of the form of the roof, promising shape of the spatial footprint. The division of the inner space seems nevertheless as schematic and the access and connection between the garden and the street is not intense enough.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 5 - City Upgrade - James Tait – Glasgow / UK The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

Proposal no. 5 – City Upgrade – James Tait – Glasgow / UK
The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 6 - Delmulle Delmulle - Frank Delmulle, Jiří Klokočka, Peter Leysen - Petegem a/d Schelde / Belgium  The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

Proposal no. 6 – Delmulle Delmulle – Frank Delmulle, Jiří Klokočka, Peter Leysen – Petegem a/d Schelde / Belgium
The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 7 - Ing. arch. Petr Sobotka, Ing. arch. Jakub Volka - Prague / Czech Republic The proposal appears as schematic, in the locality even outlandish. To the overall schematic approach corresponds also the not so convincing materiality of the facades.

Proposal no. 7 – Ing. arch. Petr Sobotka, Ing. arch. Jakub Volka – Prague / Czech Republic
The proposal appears as schematic, in the locality even outlandish. To the overall schematic approach corresponds also the not so convincing materiality of the facades.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 8 - Ing. arch. Petr Sobotka, Ing. arch. Jakub Volka - Prague / Czech Republic Understandable distribution of the functions, although without spatial gradation. The usual mix of traditional and contemporary forms without not in a persuasive scale. The glassed-in western facade – to the garden – would very likely threaten by overheating and the indicated shading grids feel a little unconvincing.

Proposal no. 8 – Ing. arch. Petr Sobotka, Ing. arch. Jakub Volka – Prague / Czech Republic
Understandable distribution of the functions, although without spatial gradation. The usual mix of traditional and contemporary forms without not in a persuasive scale. The glassed-in western facade – to the garden – would very likely threaten by overheating and the indicated shading grids feel a little unconvincing.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 9 - Bc. Jan Kudlička, Alvaro García Mendive – Paris / France  The urban position is clear and reacts to the context. However the gap between the residential house and the project has been seen as a negative point. The necessity of the extension of the garden on the roof garden is as well questioned. The functional organization is clear. But the circulation is too compact and hidden.

Proposal no. 9 – Bc. Jan Kudlička, Alvaro García Mendive – Paris / France
The urban position is clear and reacts to the context. However the gap between the residential house and the project has been seen as a negative point. The necessity of the extension of the garden on the roof garden is as well questioned. The functional organization is clear. But the circulation is too compact and hidden.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 10 - Ing. arch. Karel Prášil - Libčice nad Vltavou / Czech Republic The separation of the programs in 2 different volumes has not been seen positively. The architectonic formulation of the multifunctional hall was as well questioned.

Proposal no. 10 – Ing. arch. Karel Prášil – Libčice nad Vltavou / Czech Republic
The separation of the programs in 2 different volumes has not been seen positively. The architectonic formulation of the multifunctional hall was as well questioned.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 11 - Rusina Frei - Martin Rusina, Martin Frei, Markéta Poláčková, Jakub Finger, Mirka Svorová, Jan Žalský - Prague / Czech Republic The completely closed situation to the street and the handling of the church wall has seen as a negative point. The architectonical formulation of the roof overhang was as well questioned… The separation of the library and the café was not favored.

Proposal no. 11 – Rusina Frei – Martin Rusina, Martin Frei, Markéta Poláčková, Jakub Finger, Mirka Svorová, Jan Žalský – Prague / Czech Republic
The completely closed situation to the street and the handling of the church wall has seen as a negative point. The architectonical formulation of the roof overhang was as well questioned… The separation of the library and the café was not favored.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 12 - IPEA STUDIO, a2š architekti, A81 - Ing. arch. Jozef Hyravý, Ing. arch. Peter Šercel, Ing. arch. Andrej Švec, Ing. arch. Tomáš Čechvala – Ružombeork / Slovakia  Placing the library to the ground floor as well as its disconnection from the centre of the building was not seen positively by the Jury. On the other hand the modern approach to the landscape element – natural amphitheatre – was appreciated. Overall the proposal was perceived as too pompous for a low cost community centre.

Proposal no. 12 – IPEA STUDIO, a2š architekti, A81 – Ing. arch. Jozef Hyravý, Ing. arch. Peter Šercel, Ing. arch. Andrej Švec, Ing. arch. Tomáš Čechvala – Ružombeork / Slovakia
Placing the library to the ground floor as well as its disconnection from the centre of the building was not seen positively by the Jury. On the other hand the modern approach to the landscape element – natural amphitheatre – was appreciated. Overall the proposal was perceived as too pompous for a low cost community centre.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 15 - Ing. arch. Milan Markovič, Ing. Zdenko Bobáň - Orechová Potôň / Slovakia The combination of traditional form and fresh twist, in reality hides rather big volume that would require quite demanding precautions. The need to build the underground floor and placing the library under the terrain raises doubts about this proposal, especially in comparison with the others. According to the proposal, the space by its parameters does not offer any exceptional experience.

Proposal no. 15 – Ing. arch. Milan Markovič, Ing. Zdenko Bobáň – Orechová Potôň / Slovakia
The combination of traditional form and fresh twist, in reality hides rather big volume that would require quite demanding precautions. The need to build the underground floor and placing the library under the terrain raises doubts about this proposal, especially in comparison with the others. According to the proposal, the space by its parameters does not offer any exceptional experience.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 16 - FAM ARCHITEKTI - Ing. arch. MgA. Jan Horký, Ing. arch. MgA. Pavel Nasadil, Ing. arch. Pavel Nosál, Bc. Jan Bárta, Ing. Jan Žemlička, Ing. Pavel Štěpán, Ing. Barbora Návesníková - Prague / Czech Republic Graphically very advanced proposal does not lack various sympathetic moments: inner disposition, distribution of individual functions and their mutual connections, as well as adequate solution of the urban relations. The negatives could be seen on the other hand in a relatively big volume, formal conception of the facades and schematic material solution.

Proposal no. 16 – FAM ARCHITEKTI – Ing. arch. MgA. Jan Horký, Ing. arch. MgA. Pavel Nasadil, Ing. arch. Pavel Nosál, Bc. Jan Bárta, Ing. Jan Žemlička, Ing. Pavel Štěpán, Ing. Barbora Návesníková – Prague / Czech Republic
Graphically very advanced proposal does not lack various sympathetic moments: inner disposition, distribution of individual functions and their mutual connections, as well as adequate solution of the urban relations. The negatives could be seen on the other hand in a relatively big volume, formal conception of the facades and schematic material solution.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 17 – bFarchitecture - Betsalel Hillel Fogel, Mohamed Bouzrara, Olfa Kammoun – Antwerpen / Belgium  The proposal appears more as a sculptural gesture than a real building. Proclaimed advantages: garden open to the public space and strong iconic shape, could be easily interpreted as insufficiencies (loss of intimacy and disruption of the local ambience). Spatial-functional solution, size of the underground floor, materiality are equally complicated and inadequate, in accordance to the overall expression.

Proposal no. 17 – bFarchitecture – Betsalel Hillel Fogel, Mohamed Bouzrara, Olfa Kammoun – Antwerpen / Belgium
The proposal appears more as a sculptural gesture than a real building. Proclaimed advantages: garden open to the public space and strong iconic shape, could be easily interpreted as insufficiencies (loss of intimacy and disruption of the local ambience). Spatial-functional solution, size of the underground floor, materiality are equally complicated and inadequate, in accordance to the overall expression.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 18 - Marta Garcia Orte, Roser Estelrich Masgrau, Álex Fernández Azorfa - Esplugues del Llobregat / Spain   The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

Proposal no. 18 – Marta Garcia Orte, Roser Estelrich Masgrau, Álex Fernández Azorfa – Esplugues del Llobregat / Spain
The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 19 - André Almeida, Frederico Gomes, Gonçalo Moreira, Neuza Valadas, Sérgio Bernardo – Lisboa / Portugal  The building is getting too close to the church complex. The Jury appreciated the unusual approach to the volumetric solution, but criticized the terraces and the disconnection of the library from the lively centre of the building.

Proposal no. 19 – André Almeida, Frederico Gomes, Gonçalo Moreira, Neuza Valadas, Sérgio Bernardo – Lisboa / Portugal
The building is getting too close to the church complex. The Jury appreciated the unusual approach to the volumetric solution, but criticized the terraces and the disconnection of the library from the lively centre of the building.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 20 - Marco Gigliotti, Vincenzo Tattolo, Livia Ferro, Ovidiu Munteanu, Paola Rodorigo, Giulia Perugi – Rome / Italy  The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

Proposal no. 20 – Marco Gigliotti, Vincenzo Tattolo, Livia Ferro, Ovidiu Munteanu, Paola Rodorigo, Giulia Perugi – Rome / Italy
The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 21 - Studio pha - Ing. arch. Martin Vybíral, M.A. arch. Jan Šesták - Prague / Czech Republic  Very cultivated elaboration, clear floor plans, good connection between the garden and the street, the volume very pleasantly shrinks in the direction to the church. However, it does not seem to click and its outer appearance does not correspond with its inner logic. Where one would expect a hall are offices, where there is the hall one would expect the services. Moreover, part of the hall is under ground, which raises apprehension about increase of the costs.

Proposal no. 21 – Studio pha – Ing. arch. Martin Vybíral, M.A. arch. Jan Šesták – Prague / Czech Republic
Very cultivated elaboration, clear floor plans, good connection between the garden and the street, the volume very pleasantly shrinks in the direction to the church. However, it does not seem to click and its outer appearance does not correspond with its inner logic. Where one would expect a hall are offices, where there is the hall one would expect the services. Moreover, part of the hall is under ground, which raises apprehension about increase of the costs.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 22 – AND - Ing. arch. Vratislav Danda, Ing. arch. Pavel Ullman, Ing. arch. Radovan Kupka - Prague / Czech Republic  The building very humbly, maybe even inexpressively completes the existing square. Its closure towards its surroundings and somehow naive landscaping was seen negatively.

Proposal no. 22 – AND – Ing. arch. Vratislav Danda, Ing. arch. Pavel Ullman, Ing. arch. Radovan Kupka – Prague / Czech Republic
The building very humbly, maybe even inexpressively completes the existing square. Its closure towards its surroundings and somehow naive landscaping was seen negatively.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 24 - Ing. arch. Martin Neruda, Ing. arch. Jana Šťastná, Ing. arch. Zuzana Boháčová, Ing. Jiří Václavů - Prague / Czech Republic The Jury appreciated the approach to the accessibility for the disabled and handicapped users and the graphics of the schemes. The length of the building was a negative point of the building, as well as its proximity to the church garden and closure towards the public space. Placing of the bookshelves on the ramp was also viewed as problematic.

Proposal no. 24 – Ing. arch. Martin Neruda, Ing. arch. Jana Šťastná, Ing. arch. Zuzana Boháčová, Ing. Jiří Václavů – Prague / Czech Republic
The Jury appreciated the approach to the accessibility for the disabled and handicapped users and the graphics of the schemes. The length of the building was a negative point of the building, as well as its proximity to the church garden and closure towards the public space. Placing of the bookshelves on the ramp was also viewed as problematic.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 25 - Ing. Jan Štorm, Ing. arch. Helena Šímová - Prague / Czech Republic The volume is too closed on the street side. It doesn’t invite the inhabitants to visit the center. The connection to the existing house is questionable.

Proposal no. 25 – Ing. Jan Štorm, Ing. arch. Helena Šímová – Prague / Czech Republic
The volume is too closed on the street side. It doesn’t invite the inhabitants to visit the center. The connection to the existing house is questionable.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 26 - Ing. arch. Pavlína Macháčková, Ing. arch. Václav Kapr - Prague / Czech Republic Austere solution with unusual and for the place very atypical material and colour treatment of the facades. The building resembles more an apartment complex.

Proposal no. 26 – Ing. arch. Pavlína Macháčková, Ing. arch. Václav Kapr – Prague / Czech Republic
Austere solution with unusual and for the place very atypical material and colour treatment of the facades. The building resembles more an apartment complex.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 27 - Ing. arch. Radoslav Novotný, Michal Žák - Brno / Czech Republic Good floor plans, big built-up area and completely incomprehensible form shaping, even though with clear and maybe even sensible distribution of volumes. It must be said that it is one of the few proposals with more city-like than country-like expression, but this was not seen by the Jury as a sufficient benefit.

Proposal no. 27 – Ing. arch. Radoslav Novotný, Michal Žák – Brno / Czech Republic
Good floor plans, big built-up area and completely incomprehensible form shaping, even though with clear and maybe even sensible distribution of volumes. It must be said that it is one of the few proposals with more city-like than country-like expression, but this was not seen by the Jury as a sufficient benefit.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 29 - Ing. arch. Martin Matiska, Ing. Štěpán Špoula, Ing. arch. Petr Janhuba, Ing. Marie Gelová - Prague / Czech Republic According to the text report the authors understand well the urban context, however the space between the building and the graveyard wall seems confined. The minimalistic connection of the front space of the CC with the garden through the building is insufficient. The proposal also does not take into account the difference of heights of the terrain. The cantilevered volume on the west facade does not fit into otherwise cultivated architectural solution with the references to the traditional architecture.

Proposal no. 29 – Ing. arch. Martin Matiska, Ing. Štěpán Špoula, Ing. arch. Petr Janhuba, Ing. Marie Gelová – Prague / Czech Republic
According to the text report the authors understand well the urban context, however the space between the building and the graveyard wall seems confined. The minimalistic connection of the front space of the CC with the garden through the building is insufficient. The proposal also does not take into account the difference of heights of the terrain. The cantilevered volume on the west facade does not fit into otherwise cultivated architectural solution with the references to the traditional architecture.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 30 - Fandament Architects - Ing. arch. Pavel Lazarov, Bc. Zuzana Kopáčiková, Ing. arch. Zdeňka Strašilová - Prague / Czech Republic The functional organization is clear, three-dimensional space concept is interesting. The entrance situation and the position of the café as a link between park and street have been seen positively. However the passage to the garden and the handling to the church were seen as a negative point. Too narrow. The library has no connection to an outdoor space.

Proposal no. 30 – Fandament Architects – Ing. arch. Pavel Lazarov, Bc. Zuzana Kopáčiková, Ing. arch. Zdeňka Strašilová – Prague / Czech Republic
The functional organization is clear, three-dimensional space concept is interesting. The entrance situation and the position of the café as a link between park and street have been seen positively. However the passage to the garden and the handling to the church were seen as a negative point. Too narrow. The library has no connection to an outdoor space.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 31 - Ing. arch. Martin Jančok, Msc. arch. Michal Janák, Ivana Čobejová, Michal Kontšek, Luba Blašková, Kristína Berecová – Prešov / Slovakia One of the lyrical solutions without defined aesthetics. Clear floor plans with a witty connection of the functions of the entrance and multipurpose hall. Inspiration from the countryside seemed appropriate – a barn. The result is a reasonable built-on area and enclosed space. The lack of credibility of the materials and almost impossible solution of fire safety have raised doubts. In these aspects the proposal seems naive

Proposal no. 31 – Ing. arch. Martin Jančok, Msc. arch. Michal Janák, Ivana Čobejová, Michal Kontšek, Luba Blašková, Kristína Berecová – Prešov / Slovakia
One of the lyrical solutions without defined aesthetics. Clear floor plans with a witty connection of the functions of the entrance and multipurpose hall. Inspiration from the countryside seemed appropriate – a barn. The result is a reasonable built-on area and enclosed space. The lack of credibility of the materials and almost impossible solution of fire safety have raised doubts. In these aspects the proposal seems naive.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 32 - Mgr. art. Tomáš Amtmann ArtD., Mgr. art. Martin Maňo - Bratislava / Slovakia Rather high volume, good distribution of functions. Clear and understandable shape, not city-like, neither country-like, in its simplicity both traditional and contemporary. The glassed-in western facade threatens by overheating and the direct exterior connection of the street and the garden could have been solved with more regards to the visitors and passerby.

Proposal no. 32 – Mgr. art. Tomáš Amtmann ArtD., Mgr. art. Martin Maňo – Bratislava / Slovakia
Rather high volume, good distribution of functions. Clear and understandable shape, not city-like, neither country-like, in its simplicity both traditional and contemporary. The glassed-in western facade threatens by overheating and the direct exterior connection of the street and the garden could have been solved with more regards to the visitors and passerby.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 33 - A3a - Ing. arch. Peter Kručay, Ing. arch. Peter Lényi, Ing. arch. Ondrej Marko, Ing. arch. Marek Harčarík, Bc. Andrea Leitmanová, Bc. Hanka Križanová - Bratislava / Slovakia The proposal evokes by its volume the former rectory building. The inner disposition, even though not lacking a certain charm, shows at the same time the insufficiency in a certain “isolation” of the hall from the café and the rest of the functions. Overall the proposal seems schematic, raw, even unfinished.

Proposal no. 33 – A3a – Ing. arch. Peter Kručay, Ing. arch. Peter Lényi, Ing. arch. Ondrej Marko, Ing. arch. Marek Harčarík, Bc. Andrea Leitmanová, Bc. Hanka Križanová – Bratislava / Slovakia
The proposal evokes by its volume the former rectory building. The inner disposition, even though not lacking a certain charm, shows at the same time the insufficiency in a certain “isolation” of the hall from the café and the rest of the functions. Overall the proposal seems schematic, raw, even unfinished.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 34 - doc. Ing. arch. Zdeněk Rothbauer, Ing. arch. Vojtěch Sosna - Prague / Czech Republic  The operation-disposition scheme is well thought through. Its minimalistic aesthetics is however too schematic, not convincing enough and in the locality appears almost aggressive.

Proposal no. 34 – doc. Ing. arch. Zdeněk Rothbauer, Ing. arch. Vojtěch Sosna – Prague / Czech Republic
The operation-disposition scheme is well thought through. Its minimalistic aesthetics is however too schematic, not convincing enough and in the locality appears almost aggressive.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 35 - ECHOROST ARCHITEKTI - Ing. arch. MArch Jiří Pavlíček, Ing. arch. Jaroslav Hulín, Bc. Šimon Jiráček, Ing. arch. Radek Horyna - Prague / Czech Republic The proposal does not lack generosity and courage. At the same time it appears as too demanding both for investment and maintenance. The visual connection of the hall and the public space on the expense of such a connection between café and library is problematic.

Proposal no. 35 – ECHOROST ARCHITEKTI – Ing. arch. MArch Jiří Pavlíček, Ing. arch. Jaroslav Hulín, Bc. Šimon Jiráček, Ing. arch. Radek Horyna – Prague / Czech Republic
The proposal does not lack generosity and courage. At the same time it appears as too demanding both for investment and maintenance. The visual connection of the hall and the public space on the expense of such a connection between café and library is problematic.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 36 - Ing. arch. Karel Doubner, Ing. arch. Jana Chrenčíková, Ing. arch. Tomáš Pavlík - Prague / Czech Republic The Jury saw a certain insufficiency of the design proposal. There is no direct access to the garden and the building position to the church entrance is seen as a negative point.

Proposal no. 36 – Ing. arch. Karel Doubner, Ing. arch. Jana Chrenčíková, Ing. arch. Tomáš Pavlík – Prague / Czech Republic
The Jury saw a certain insufficiency of the design proposal. There is no direct access to the garden and the building position to the church entrance is seen as a negative point.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 37 - Ing. arch. Jiří Bužek, Ing. arch. Marta Bímová, Ing. arch. Iveta Doležalová, Ing arch. Josef Žufánek, Ing. arch. Jiří Vokřál, Radim Kyncl - Brno / Czech Republic The proposal’s facades indicate more an inhabited interior, as if hiding its rich inner functions. The landscaping solution seemed schematic to the Jury, not inviting the visitors of the centre to use it to its full potential.

Proposal no. 37 – Ing. arch. Jiří Bužek, Ing. arch. Marta Bímová, Ing. arch. Iveta Doležalová, Ing arch. Josef Žufánek, Ing. arch. Jiří Vokřál, Radim Kyncl – Brno / Czech Republic
The proposal’s facades indicate more an inhabited interior, as if hiding its rich inner functions. The landscaping solution seemed schematic to the Jury, not inviting the visitors of the centre to use it to its full potential.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 38 - Ing. arch. Jiří Trojan, Ing. arch. Tomáš Henel, Ing. arch. Ondřej Fiala, Ing. Klára Stachová, Ing. Andrea Honejsková - Prague / Czech Republic The spatial organization of the programs is seen positively. The functions are visually connected and they build a nice indoor space. However the gap to the residential house is questionable and the passage between the church wall and the project is too narrow. The library misses an outside connection. The architectonical formulation of the volume doesn’t reflect a community centre, but is closer to a residential estate.

Proposal no. 38 – Ing. arch. Jiří Trojan, Ing. arch. Tomáš Henel, Ing. arch. Ondřej Fiala, Ing. Klára Stachová, Ing. Andrea Honejsková – Prague / Czech Republic
The spatial organization of the programs is seen positively. The functions are visually connected and they build a nice indoor space. However the gap to the residential house is questionable and the passage between the church wall and the project is too narrow. The library misses an outside connection. The architectonical formulation of the volume doesn’t reflect a community centre, but is closer to a residential estate.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 39 - Worksonland Arkitektur og Landskap - Agustin Sebastian, Elisabeth Sjødahl – Eiksmarka / Norway The proposal with its aggressive form does not correspond with the character of the locality and also exceeds the defined building area in the direction of the garden.

Proposal no. 39 – Worksonland Arkitektur og Landskap – Agustin Sebastian, Elisabeth Sjødahl – Eiksmarka / Norway
The proposal with its aggressive form does not correspond with the character of the locality and also exceeds the defined building area in the direction of the garden.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 40 - WHAT_architecture - Anthony Hoete, Magda Szerla – London / UK  The gradually higher roof of the building in the direction to the church complex as well as the proximity to the garden wall. The overall long volume of the proposed building seems problematic as well. The treatment of the outer space – landscaping – was seen as a value of the proposal.

Proposal no. 40 – WHAT_architecture – Anthony Hoete, Magda Szerla – London / UK
The gradually higher roof of the building in the direction to the church complex as well as the proximity to the garden wall. The overall long volume of the proposed building seems problematic as well. The treatment of the outer space – landscaping – was seen as a value of the proposal.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 41 - Ing. arch. Jiří Hůrka - Prague / Czech Republic The proposal does not correspond to its surroundings, introduces a new scale of architecture, that overwrites the historical traces in the locality.

Proposal no. 41 – Ing. arch. Jiří Hůrka – Prague / Czech Republic
The proposal does not correspond to its surroundings, introduces a new scale of architecture, that overwrites the historical traces in the locality.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 42 – Origon - Ing. Rudolf Kristian, Ing. arch. David Belko, Ing. arch. Jan Izák, Ing. Martin Kristian - Prague / Czech Republic By the characteristic break of the eastern facade the proposal reflects well the urban context. The Jury also sees positively the work with various height levels. The interior operation solution is however unclear, even chaotic. The proposed building feels closed and introverted, which was from the perspective of community centre perceived negatively.

Proposal no. 42 – Origon – Ing. Rudolf Kristian, Ing. arch. David Belko, Ing. arch. Jan Izák, Ing. Martin Kristian – Prague / Czech Republic
By the characteristic break of the eastern facade the proposal reflects well the urban context. The Jury also sees positively the work with various height levels. The interior operation solution is however unclear, even chaotic. The proposed building feels closed and introverted, which was from the perspective of community centre perceived negatively.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 43 - UNDER-CONSTRUCTION ARCHITECTS - Ing. arch. Vladimír Vašut, MgA. Viktor Vlach, Ing. arch. Erika Vašutová, Ing. arch. Ludmila Malá, Rocio Perez Cuadra - Prague / Czech Republic  The proposal interested the Jury by its degree of openness and closeness of the individual functions, their sensitive distribution on the site and their interconnections. It successfully activates the entrance to the garden, access to the church and the whole street front. Aesthetically however it does not correspond adequately to the locality, disposition is impressive, at the same time overcomplicated and actually not effective.

Proposal no. 43 – UNDER-CONSTRUCTION ARCHITECTS – Ing. arch. Vladimír Vašut, MgA. Viktor Vlach, Ing. arch. Erika Vašutová, Ing. arch. Ludmila Malá, Rocio Perez Cuadra – Prague / Czech Republic
The proposal interested the Jury by its degree of openness and closeness of the individual functions, their sensitive distribution on the site and their interconnections. It successfully activates the entrance to the garden, access to the church and the whole street front. Aesthetically however it does not correspond adequately to the locality, disposition is impressive, at the same time overcomplicated and actually not effective.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 44 - Ing. arch. Pavel Hodan, Ing. arch. Lucie Svobodová, Ing. František Kalecký - Prague / Czech Republic The architectural formulation of the center is too expressive. The gap between the existing house and the building was seen as a negative point, as well as the missing connections between the programs.

Proposal no. 44 – Ing. arch. Pavel Hodan, Ing. arch. Lucie Svobodová, Ing. František Kalecký – Prague / Czech Republic
The architectural formulation of the center is too expressive. The gap between the existing house and the building was seen as a negative point, as well as the missing connections between the programs.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 45 - Ing. arch. Petr Sova, Ing. arch. Eliška Slámová, MgA. Šimon Brabec, Lukáš Procházka - Prague / Czech Republic In its volume the project is pleasantly simple with cultivated graphic and aesthetic language and interesting motive of passageway – foyer. The concentration of all the functions to one level however brings inadequate complications on this sloping site in the relations to the outer spaces, mainly on the street front. Questionable is also the disruption of the street line leading to the church and overall deactivation of the space around the entrance to this important local dominant.

Proposal no. 45 – Ing. arch. Petr Sova, Ing. arch. Eliška Slámová, MgA. Šimon Brabec, Lukáš Procházka – Prague / Czech Republic
In its volume the project is pleasantly simple with cultivated graphic and aesthetic language and interesting motive of passageway – foyer. The concentration of all the functions to one level however brings inadequate complications on this sloping site in the relations to the outer spaces, mainly on the street front. Questionable is also the disruption of the street line leading to the church and overall deactivation of the space around the entrance to this important local dominant.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 46 - a23 architekti - Ing. arch. Michaela Dejdarová, Ing. arch. Karel Filsak - Prague / Czech Republic The proposed volume is much higher than the neighbouring building and its overall expression was viewed by the Jury as oversized. The shape of the proposed volume also does not correspond with the place. The building viewed from the public space appears almost unapproachable; the immediate surroundings of the building is not treated, which should be an integral part of the community centre.

Proposal no. 46 – a23 architekti – Ing. arch. Michaela Dejdarová, Ing. arch. Karel Filsak – Prague / Czech Republic
The proposed volume is much higher than the neighbouring building and its overall expression was viewed by the Jury as oversized. The shape of the proposed volume also does not correspond with the place. The building viewed from the public space appears almost unapproachable; the immediate surroundings of the building is not treated, which should be an integral part of the community centre.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 47 - Ing. arch. Michal Kuzemenský, MgA. Ida Chuchlíková, Ing. arch. David Pavlišta, MgA. Ondřej Synek, Ing. arch. Jan Vlach, Ing. arch. Jiří Žid, Ing. arch. Tomáš Novotný - Prague / Czech Republic The proposal is working with the countryside ambiance is aesthetically cultivated. Its disadvantage is the relatively big volume of the building, schematic garden facade, as well as certain closeness to the public space.

Proposal no. 47 – Ing. arch. Michal Kuzemenský, MgA. Ida Chuchlíková, Ing. arch. David Pavlišta, MgA. Ondřej Synek, Ing. arch. Jan Vlach, Ing. arch. Jiří Žid, Ing. arch. Tomáš Novotný – Prague / Czech Republic
The proposal is working with the countryside ambiance is aesthetically cultivated. Its disadvantage is the relatively big volume of the building, schematic garden facade, as well as certain closeness to the public space.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 48 - Ing. arch. Jan Mužík, Ing. arch. Marek Dohelský, Ing. arch. Magdalena Nováková, Ing. arch. Filip Fišer - Prague / Czech Republic The proposal attempts to evoke its smaller scale with the use of solid and glassed-in surfaces, however mainly on the western facade this tactic does not feel convincing. The operation solution suffers as a result of separation of each function of the CC. Sympathetic is the connection of the garden and a square by a “funnel”.

Proposal no. 48 – Ing. arch. Jan Mužík, Ing. arch. Marek Dohelský, Ing. arch. Magdalena Nováková, Ing. arch. Filip Fišer – Prague / Czech Republic
The proposal attempts to evoke its smaller scale with the use of solid and glassed-in surfaces, however mainly on the western facade this tactic does not feel convincing. The operation solution suffers as a result of separation of each function of the CC. Sympathetic is the connection of the garden and a square by a “funnel”.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 49 - Ing. arch. Petr Bouřil, Ing. arch. Martin Burian, Ing. arch. Tomáš Vlasák, Ing. arch. Andrej Dvořák, Jana Kavalcová - Prague / Czech Republic The jury saw a certain insufficiency of the design proposal. The connection to the existing building is questionable. The separation of the library from the rest of the program was seen as a negative point.

Proposal no. 49 – Ing. arch. Petr Bouřil, Ing. arch. Martin Burian, Ing. arch. Tomáš Vlasák, Ing. arch. Andrej Dvořák, Jana Kavalcová – Prague / Czech Republic
The jury saw a certain insufficiency of the design proposal. The connection to the existing building is questionable. The separation of the library from the rest of the program was seen as a negative point.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 50 - Ing. arch. Petr Němejc, Ing. arch. Marie Bajcurová, Michal Karlík, Ing. arch. Zuzana Krajčiová - Prague / Czech Republic Formally terse proposal with clear connection of the square and garden. Questionable is placing the hall into a separate object in the garden, where the architectural solution is not convincingly documented. As a negative is viewed the applied shape, together with the overall height of the buildings (due to the loose operation solution).

Proposal no. 50 – Ing. arch. Petr Němejc, Ing. arch. Marie Bajcurová, Michal Karlík, Ing. arch. Zuzana Krajčiová – Prague / Czech Republic
Formally terse proposal with clear connection of the square and garden. Questionable is placing the hall into a separate object in the garden, where the architectural solution is not convincingly documented. As a negative is viewed the applied shape, together with the overall height of the buildings (due to the loose operation solution).

 

 

 

Proposal no. 51 - Architects of Invention - Ing. Pavel Trejbal – London / UK  The Jury appreciates the open parterre and the work with the terrain. The volume solution of the building is unclear, unconvincing. Chosen materials and structure does not correspond to the local climate conditions or the investment costs. From the operation point of view, the placing of the library into three levels is questionable.

Proposal no. 51 – Architects of Invention – Ing. Pavel Trejbal – London / UK
The Jury appreciates the open parterre and the work with the terrain. The volume solution of the building is unclear, unconvincing. Chosen materials and structure does not correspond to the local climate conditions or the investment costs. From the operation point of view, the placing of the library into three levels is questionable.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 52 - PSK TUZAR - Ing. Jindřich Tuzar, Ing. Jakub Chochola, Ing. Lukáš Lacina, Bc. Václav Boček - Prague / Czech Republic The proposal treats even too humbly and inconspicuously – in the volume and facades – the inspirational and rich topic of the competition. The Jury saw the use of the roof windows and the proposed landscaping solution as unsuitable.

Proposal no. 52 – PSK TUZAR – Ing. Jindřich Tuzar, Ing. Jakub Chochola, Ing. Lukáš Lacina, Bc. Václav Boček – Prague / Czech Republic
The proposal treats even too humbly and inconspicuously – in the volume and facades – the inspirational and rich topic of the competition. The Jury saw the use of the roof windows and the proposed landscaping solution as unsuitable.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 53 - Marcos Ruiz de Clavijo Cirajas – Barcelona / Spain  The basic premise of the proposal as a building behind the wall does not correspond to the nature of the community centre. The proposal creates the main meeting point away from the square and garden. Unconvincing is also the solution of connection to the neighbouring building.

Proposal no. 53 – Marcos Ruiz de Clavijo Cirajas – Barcelona / Spain
The basic premise of the proposal as a building behind the wall does not correspond to the nature of the community centre. The proposal creates the main meeting point away from the square and garden. Unconvincing is also the solution of connection to the neighbouring building.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 55 - Ing. arch. Alexandra Timpau, MgA. Linda Procházková, Ing. arch. Milana Šnajdrová - Prague / Czech Republic The proposal was valued for its inner disposition, but not appreciated for being oversized – mainly by its length. The wooden structure and the semi-transparent facade and roof were perceived as unconvincing.

Proposal no. 55 – Ing. arch. Alexandra Timpau, MgA. Lina Procházková, Ing. arch. Milana Šnajdrová – Prague / Czech Republic
The proposal was valued for its inner disposition, but not appreciated for being oversized – mainly by its length. The wooden structure and the semi-transparent facade and roof were perceived as unconvincing.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 56- Ing. arch. Kamil Zezula, Ing. arch. Adam Zezula, Ing. arch. František Dlabáč - Frýdek-Místek / Czech Republic The Jury views positively the work with the height levels and simplicity of the inner logic. The question is the dimensions of each function with respect to the required capacities. Placing of the building freely between the neighbouring building and the graveyard wall is unconvincing. The volume solution is seen as a negative, mainly in the part of the roof.

Proposal no. 56- Ing. arch. Kamil Zezula, Ing. arch. Adam Zezula, Ing. arch. František Dlabáč – Frýdek-Místek / Czech Republic
The Jury views positively the work with the height levels and simplicity of the inner logic. The question is the dimensions of each function with respect to the required capacities. Placing of the building freely between the neighbouring building and the graveyard wall is unconvincing. The volume solution is seen as a negative, mainly in the part of the roof.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 57 - Ing. arch. Viliam Holeva, Mgr. Art. Peter Beňo, Ing. arch. Pavol Mészáros – Košice / Slovakia The reduction of the height in the direction to the church is called for. The division into three parts is in regards to the length of the building appropriate, but the fact that one part is exceedingly different from the two others by the design of the facades and materials feels bothersome – it creates weirdly undefined proportional relations. It needs to be appreciated that this division is not only formal, but follows the inner logic. The strict closing of the garden seems unfavourable.

Proposal no. 57 – Ing. arch. Viliam Holeva, Mgr. Art. Peter Beňo, Ing. arch. Pavol Mészáros – Košice / Slovakia
The reduction of the height in the direction to the church is called for. The division into three parts is in regards to the length of the building appropriate, but the fact that one part is exceedingly different from the two others by the design of the facades and materials feels bothersome – it creates weirdly undefined proportional relations. It needs to be appreciated that this division is not only formal, but follows the inner logic. The strict closing of the garden seems unfavourable.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 58 – manua - Ing. arch. Tomáš Lindovský, Ing. arch. Kamil Štajgl, Ing. arch. Radovan Vacík, Jakub Kolek, Marek Řezáč, Pavel Mahdal - Prague / Czech Republic Pleasant length of the building which allows having a certain space from the neighbouring house and thus openness and accessibility of the garden from the public spaces. The floor plan logic is clear, as well as pleasant composition of the facades. The location of the library above the multipurpose hall feels untrustworthy.

Proposal no. 58 – manua – Ing. arch. Tomáš Lindovský, Ing. arch. Kamil Štajgl, Ing. arch. Radovan Vacík, Jakub Kolek, Marek Řezáč, Pavel Mahdal – Prague / Czech Republic
Pleasant length of the building which allows having a certain space from the neighbouring house and thus openness and accessibility of the garden from the public spaces. The floor plan logic is clear, as well as pleasant composition of the facades. The location of the library above the multipurpose hall feels untrustworthy.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 59 - Jan Šorm, Markéta Bromová, Adam Trefil, Jan Stáhala - Prague / Czech Republic The inspiration in the traditional architecture is evident in the proposal, sloping of the roof is however unconvincing. The facades appear schematic. Placing of the building is not clearly justified. Positive element is the possibility to open the parterre to both sides.

Proposal no. 59 – Jan Šorm, Markéta Bromová, Adam Trefil, Jan Stáhala – Prague / Czech Republic
The inspiration in the traditional architecture is evident in the proposal, sloping of the roof is however unconvincing. The facades appear schematic. Placing of the building is not clearly justified. Positive element is the possibility to open the parterre to both sides.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 60 - Ing. arch. MgA. Marek Přikryl, Ing. arch. Martin Prokš, Ing. Tomáš Kalhous, Ing. Anna Oprchalová - Prague / Czech Republic The building resembles in both its volume and expression to the building of the large estate across the street. The aesthetic is reserved, even schematic. The dispositions are simple and clear and their solution does not lack some wit. Negatively can be seen the small contact of the inner space with the street (especially in the case of the café) and not taking advantage of the public space at the entrance to the church at the highest level of the street.

Proposal no. 60 – Ing. arch. MgA. Marek Přikryl, Ing. arch. Martin Prokš, Ing. Tomáš Kalhous, Ing. Anna Oprchalová – Prague / Czech Republic
The building resembles in both its volume and expression to the building of the large estate across the street. The aesthetic is reserved, even schematic. The dispositions are simple and clear and their solution does not lack some wit. Negatively can be seen the small contact of the inner space with the street (especially in the case of the café) and not taking advantage of the public space at the entrance to the church at the highest level of the street.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 61 - My76 - Ing. arch. Jan Bürgermeister, Ing. arch. Martin Kalhous, Ing. arch. Peter Panulín, Ing. Rostislav Živný - Prague / Czech Republic The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

Proposal no. 61 – My76 – Ing. arch. Jan Bürgermeister, Ing. arch. Martin Kalhous, Ing. arch. Peter Panulín, Ing. Rostislav Živný – Prague / Czech Republic
The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 62 - MgA. Petr Kocourek, Ing. arch. Jiří Bárta, Ing. arch. Vladimír Woth - Prague / Czech Republic The architectural formulation of the community center is questioned. The lack of connections between the library and the café is seen as a negative point.

Proposal no. 62 – MgA. Petr Kocourek, Ing. arch. Jiří Bárta, Ing. arch. Vladimír Woth – Prague / Czech Republic
The architectural formulation of the community center is questioned. The lack of connections between the library and the café is seen as a negative point.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 63 - Valerio Zaccagnino, Ing. arch. Zuzana Hartlová, Ing. arch. Aleš Hamhalter - Prague / Czech Republic The conception of the multifunctional hall as an outdoor space when not used is seen positively. It’s a clear seasonal volume which allows flexibility. However the architectonical position is questioned.  The library organization and its surface area are seen as a negative point. There is no clear connection between the programs.

Proposal no. 63 – Valerio Zaccagnino, Ing. arch. Zuzana Hartlová, Ing. arch. Aleš Hamhalter – Prague / Czech Republic
The conception of the multifunctional hall as an outdoor space when not used is seen positively. It’s a clear seasonal volume which allows flexibility. However the architectonical position is questioned. The library organization and its surface area are seen as a negative point. There is no clear connection between the programs.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 64 - Ing. arch. Josef Krejčí, akad. Arch. Michal Šrámek, Bc. Jindřich Blaha, Jan Lankaš, Martina Forejtová, Pavla Malíková, Aleš Steiner - Prague / Czech Republic Very attractive solution for a part of the Jury. Solid house, anchored by its proportions somewhere between the countryside and small town. The floor plans, as well as indicated interior design seem thought through, only the library above the main hall raises doubts – however in regards to the overall take on the robust building, these doubts are smaller than at some other proposals with similar inner disposition. The connection to the garden is generous. The overall height of the building probably discouraged some Jurors from better evaluation.

Proposal no. 64 – Ing. arch. Josef Krejčí, akad. Arch. Michal Šrámek, Bc. Jindřich Blaha, Jan Lankaš, Martina Forejtová, Pavla Malíková, Aleš Steiner – Prague / Czech Republic
Very attractive solution for a part of the Jury. Solid house, anchored by its proportions somewhere between the countryside and small town. The floor plans, as well as indicated interior design seem thought through, only the library above the main hall raises doubts – however in regards to the overall take on the robust building, these doubts are smaller than at some other proposals with similar inner disposition. The connection to the garden is generous. The overall height of the building probably discouraged some Jurors from better evaluation.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 65 - ATELIER 38 - Ing. arch. Tomáš Bindr, Ing. arch. Petr Doležal, Ing. arch. Pavlína Harazimová, Ing. arch. Jan Zelinka – Opava / Czech Republic The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

Proposal no. 65 – ATELIER 38 – Ing. arch. Tomáš Bindr, Ing. arch. Petr Doležal, Ing. arch. Pavlína Harazimová, Ing. arch. Jan Zelinka – Opava / Czech Republic
The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 66 - Hiroyuki Niino - Hayashi Tokorozawa / Japan  The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

Proposal no. 66 – Hiroyuki Niino – Hayashi Tokorozawa / Japan
The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

 

 

 

Proposal no. 67 - Fernando Melendez Andrade, Luis Climent Soto, Luis R.-Avial Llardent, Javier Melendez Soroa, Luis Climent Rosillo – Madrid / Spain  The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.

Proposal no. 67 – Fernando Melendez Andrade, Luis Climent Soto, Luis R.-Avial Llardent, Javier Melendez Soroa, Luis Climent Rosillo – Madrid / Spain
The proposal was eliminated from the proper assessment and was not evaluated by the Jury.