Children's Center Brno - Open Letter
Dear councilwomen and councilmen of the Brno-střed city district, we turn to you as members of the team that won 1st prize in the one-phase invited architectural competition for the "Children's Sports and Cultural Center, Staré Brno" in May last year.
The client and investor, the Statutory City of Brno, Brno-střed district, after the presentation of the winning proposal at the vernissage and in the press, assigned us to elaborate the competition proposal according to the additional requirements of the investor's representatives and operators of the various parts of the center.
This resulted in an increase in the capacity of the proposed building by more than a third (by approximately 4000 m³). We pointed out to the client that this would logically result in an increase in investment costs. The client insisted on the increase in capacity, arguing operational costs, specifically that a higher capacity of the building would lead to attractiveness from the perspective of commercial entities that could rent individual parts (multi-purpose hall, gym, etc.) and thus cover part of the operational costs of the Children's Center.
We submitted the revised study according to the investor's requirements at the beginning of March 2018. The study included a prepared budget for the construction. The client, represented by Ing. arch. Bořecký, was repeatedly informed (both orally and via email communication) of the fact that this is a rough estimate of costs, that at the study phase it is not possible to determine a binding budget for the construction, as some essential facts are not known at that time. This can only be seriously done in the further phases of the project documentation. For example, in response to our email request, the client refused to commission a geotechnical survey, which is essential for the design of the building's foundation, stating that he considered it premature at this phase of the project documentation.
After repeated requests for a meeting regarding the continuation of the project, the client’s representative, Ing. arch. Petr Bořecký, did not respond, and only after six months did he agree to a meeting, where he announced that he had commissioned a counter-budget for the proposal that placed second.
It emerged that with the same volume, the building is approximately 15 million cheaper, and therefore he decided (as a good manager) to continue designing the proposal that placed second in the competition.
We believe that both budgets cannot be responsibly compared. We are convinced that when applying the same criteria, our proposal is not more expensive.
The cost estimate for our proposal was made based on the revised study in which we accepted the investor's requirements and incorporated a larger volume of the multi-purpose hall and gym. The budget for the proposal that placed second was, according to Ing. arch. Bořecký’s words at the mentioned meeting, prepared solely based on the competition proposal, i.e., at a different level of elaboration.
Moreover, the jury pointed out deficiencies in the operational solution of this proposal: “ ...the layout is unnecessarily formally subjected to a right-angled structure complemented by a circular motif to the detriment of the quality of the operational solution.” It can therefore be expected that the layout will need to be revised in further phases of the project.
The jury further criticized the proposal stating: “...the chosen form of the facade cladding, despite its advantages, will result in high operational costs.” Thus, in this regard, there is also an expectation that the proposal will have to be modified.
We are convinced that both proposals and budgets can only be compared after the competition proposal has been elaborated by the team that placed second and only after this elaboration can a responsible cost estimate be made.
Dear members of the council,
on September 24, 2018, the Brno-střed city council voted on a proposal to issue a tender for project documentation according to the proposal that placed second in the competition.
We believe that the council decided based on insufficient or misleading information regarding the comparability of both budgets.
We believe that the decision to continue with the project that placed second in the competition is in direct contradiction to the expert opinion of the jury, which voted unanimously for the winning proposal.
We believe that in the system of representative democracy, it is unacceptable for the result of an architectural competition for a project worth tens of millions of crowns to be manipulated, a year later, by a single jury member based on one vague criterion that completely disregards the quality of the architectural work.
We believe that there is no objective obstacle that would prevent the issuance of a tender for project documentation according to the proposal that placed first. We consider the argument regarding the lower budget to be unreliable. Despite reminders, this budget has still not been provided to us for review.
We believe it is the task of the Brno-střed city council and its supervisory committee to verify the fundamental correctness of the decision of the Brno-střed city council, which we kindly request from you.
On behalf of the winning team of the architectural competition for the "Children's Sports and Cultural Center, Staré Brno"
Ing. arch. Petr Čáslava
Ing. arch. Roman Čerbák
Ing. arch. Tomáš Doležal
Ing. arch. Martin Klenovský
Ing. arch. Ivan Palacký
The client and investor, the Statutory City of Brno, Brno-střed district, after the presentation of the winning proposal at the vernissage and in the press, assigned us to elaborate the competition proposal according to the additional requirements of the investor's representatives and operators of the various parts of the center.
This resulted in an increase in the capacity of the proposed building by more than a third (by approximately 4000 m³). We pointed out to the client that this would logically result in an increase in investment costs. The client insisted on the increase in capacity, arguing operational costs, specifically that a higher capacity of the building would lead to attractiveness from the perspective of commercial entities that could rent individual parts (multi-purpose hall, gym, etc.) and thus cover part of the operational costs of the Children's Center.
We submitted the revised study according to the investor's requirements at the beginning of March 2018. The study included a prepared budget for the construction. The client, represented by Ing. arch. Bořecký, was repeatedly informed (both orally and via email communication) of the fact that this is a rough estimate of costs, that at the study phase it is not possible to determine a binding budget for the construction, as some essential facts are not known at that time. This can only be seriously done in the further phases of the project documentation. For example, in response to our email request, the client refused to commission a geotechnical survey, which is essential for the design of the building's foundation, stating that he considered it premature at this phase of the project documentation.
After repeated requests for a meeting regarding the continuation of the project, the client’s representative, Ing. arch. Petr Bořecký, did not respond, and only after six months did he agree to a meeting, where he announced that he had commissioned a counter-budget for the proposal that placed second.
It emerged that with the same volume, the building is approximately 15 million cheaper, and therefore he decided (as a good manager) to continue designing the proposal that placed second in the competition.
We believe that both budgets cannot be responsibly compared. We are convinced that when applying the same criteria, our proposal is not more expensive.
The cost estimate for our proposal was made based on the revised study in which we accepted the investor's requirements and incorporated a larger volume of the multi-purpose hall and gym. The budget for the proposal that placed second was, according to Ing. arch. Bořecký’s words at the mentioned meeting, prepared solely based on the competition proposal, i.e., at a different level of elaboration.
Moreover, the jury pointed out deficiencies in the operational solution of this proposal: “ ...the layout is unnecessarily formally subjected to a right-angled structure complemented by a circular motif to the detriment of the quality of the operational solution.” It can therefore be expected that the layout will need to be revised in further phases of the project.
The jury further criticized the proposal stating: “...the chosen form of the facade cladding, despite its advantages, will result in high operational costs.” Thus, in this regard, there is also an expectation that the proposal will have to be modified.
We are convinced that both proposals and budgets can only be compared after the competition proposal has been elaborated by the team that placed second and only after this elaboration can a responsible cost estimate be made.
Dear members of the council,
on September 24, 2018, the Brno-střed city council voted on a proposal to issue a tender for project documentation according to the proposal that placed second in the competition.
We believe that the council decided based on insufficient or misleading information regarding the comparability of both budgets.
We believe that the decision to continue with the project that placed second in the competition is in direct contradiction to the expert opinion of the jury, which voted unanimously for the winning proposal.
We believe that in the system of representative democracy, it is unacceptable for the result of an architectural competition for a project worth tens of millions of crowns to be manipulated, a year later, by a single jury member based on one vague criterion that completely disregards the quality of the architectural work.
We believe that there is no objective obstacle that would prevent the issuance of a tender for project documentation according to the proposal that placed first. We consider the argument regarding the lower budget to be unreliable. Despite reminders, this budget has still not been provided to us for review.
We believe it is the task of the Brno-střed city council and its supervisory committee to verify the fundamental correctness of the decision of the Brno-střed city council, which we kindly request from you.
On behalf of the winning team of the architectural competition for the "Children's Sports and Cultural Center, Staré Brno"
Ing. arch. Petr Čáslava
Ing. arch. Roman Čerbák
Ing. arch. Tomáš Doležal
Ing. arch. Martin Klenovský
Ing. arch. Ivan Palacký
The English translation is powered by AI tool. Switch to Czech to view the original text source.
0 comments
add comment
