Operating building of the municipal stadium in Semily - competition results
Single-round public architectural competition
Organizer: The City of Semily
Author of the competition conditions: Ing. arch. Martin Hilpert – architect of the city of Semily
Authorized representative of the organizer: Mgr. Jan Farský – mayor of the city
Competition secretary: Ing. Jana Dvořáková
The subject of the competition was the development of an architectural design for the operational building of the city stadium and its surroundings within the area defined by the competition materials.
Competition dates: August 1 – October 14, 2013
Jury: Jiří Janďourek, Josef Faltejsek, David Kazický, Jan Farský, Stanislav Palas; alternates: Jiří Kovalský, Jiří Žid, Martin Hilpert
Number of submitted proposals: 28
Total prizes and awards: 250 thousand CZK
1st prize (110 thousand CZK): Echorost architects – Ing.arch. March. Jiří Pavlíček, Ing.arch. Jaroslav Hulín
Jury evaluation: Urbanistically clear and readable solution. It can be commented on as a backpack on a fence. Although the design with its significantly long facade creates a feeling of some street in the forecourt behind the main gate of the area, the spatial proportions create a comprehensible and imaginable space. The prominent fencing of the football field is an interesting element that could contribute to a better atmosphere during matches and reflects the architects' comprehensive approach to the assignment. The mass simplicity of the design is commendable. The layout is somewhat underdeveloped, and in certain areas of the building, the rooms are on the edge of usability. The simple elongated layout, with a straightforward arrangement of one function after another, allows for relatively simple adjustments.
Architecturally, the design is clear and convincing, from the overall concept to the details. The possibility of opening up in the transverse direction benefits the design. The atmosphere of the spaces is pleasant and well-imaginable from the submitted perspectives.
It does not seem that the design is financially disproportionate.
2nd prize (60 thousand CZK): Ing. Tomáš Kalhous, Ing.arch. Marek Přikryl, Ing.arch. Martin Prokš
Jury evaluation: The proposal has a sympathetic urban and architectural concept that is well understandable. In relation to the tower, the design is not convincing.
The solutions for the facades are pleasant, but for some reason, the whole feels too massive. The layouts are not addressed commendably sparingly.
It does not seem that the design is significantly financially disproportionate.
3rd prize (30 thousand CZK): Ing.arch. Jiří Švehlík, Ing.arch. Richard Vojtěch, Ing.arch. Pavel Zamazal, Ing.arch. Daniel Žalman
Jury evaluation: Urbanistically well managed. The separation of the house from part of the functional content is interesting.
The architecture is of very high quality, the overall representation and layout solution is clear, unobtrusive, and adequate to the function and surroundings. The question is whether unobtrusiveness is bordering on invisibility. Some facades do not have the impression of being well-crafted, but rather have a certain inelegance. The green roofs appear superfluous.
Realistic solution.
Award (10 thousand CZK): Ing. Marie Hlavatá, Ing.arch. Josef Hlavatý, Ing.arch. Lenka Hlavatá
Jury evaluation: Urbanistically suitably solved, the jury considered the appropriateness of placing the restaurant and the terrace near the gate. Generally, given the current operation, the position of the terrace near the tower seems good. In the evening, the terrace by the gate could be shaded by the new building, and this position is also quite open towards the supermarket parking lot. A definite judgment regarding the position of the terrace and refreshments cannot be expressed, and it is also conceivable at the gate.
The architecture of the building is exemplary clear, and the layout solution is of high quality. However, the jury has a prevailing feeling of insufficient humility regarding its purpose. Furthermore, the reasons for the unusually high floors were examined and unfortunately seem to be merely formal.
The design would be very sensitive to the standard of materials and technologies, and therefore the level of investment would clearly and significantly exceed the required threshold.
More information >
Organizer: The City of Semily
Author of the competition conditions: Ing. arch. Martin Hilpert – architect of the city of Semily
Authorized representative of the organizer: Mgr. Jan Farský – mayor of the city
Competition secretary: Ing. Jana Dvořáková
The subject of the competition was the development of an architectural design for the operational building of the city stadium and its surroundings within the area defined by the competition materials.
Competition dates: August 1 – October 14, 2013
Jury: Jiří Janďourek, Josef Faltejsek, David Kazický, Jan Farský, Stanislav Palas; alternates: Jiří Kovalský, Jiří Žid, Martin Hilpert
Number of submitted proposals: 28
Total prizes and awards: 250 thousand CZK
1st prize (110 thousand CZK): Echorost architects – Ing.arch. March. Jiří Pavlíček, Ing.arch. Jaroslav Hulín
Jury evaluation: Urbanistically clear and readable solution. It can be commented on as a backpack on a fence. Although the design with its significantly long facade creates a feeling of some street in the forecourt behind the main gate of the area, the spatial proportions create a comprehensible and imaginable space. The prominent fencing of the football field is an interesting element that could contribute to a better atmosphere during matches and reflects the architects' comprehensive approach to the assignment. The mass simplicity of the design is commendable. The layout is somewhat underdeveloped, and in certain areas of the building, the rooms are on the edge of usability. The simple elongated layout, with a straightforward arrangement of one function after another, allows for relatively simple adjustments.
Architecturally, the design is clear and convincing, from the overall concept to the details. The possibility of opening up in the transverse direction benefits the design. The atmosphere of the spaces is pleasant and well-imaginable from the submitted perspectives.
It does not seem that the design is financially disproportionate.
2nd prize (60 thousand CZK): Ing. Tomáš Kalhous, Ing.arch. Marek Přikryl, Ing.arch. Martin Prokš
Jury evaluation: The proposal has a sympathetic urban and architectural concept that is well understandable. In relation to the tower, the design is not convincing.
The solutions for the facades are pleasant, but for some reason, the whole feels too massive. The layouts are not addressed commendably sparingly.
It does not seem that the design is significantly financially disproportionate.
3rd prize (30 thousand CZK): Ing.arch. Jiří Švehlík, Ing.arch. Richard Vojtěch, Ing.arch. Pavel Zamazal, Ing.arch. Daniel Žalman
Jury evaluation: Urbanistically well managed. The separation of the house from part of the functional content is interesting.
The architecture is of very high quality, the overall representation and layout solution is clear, unobtrusive, and adequate to the function and surroundings. The question is whether unobtrusiveness is bordering on invisibility. Some facades do not have the impression of being well-crafted, but rather have a certain inelegance. The green roofs appear superfluous.
Realistic solution.
Award (10 thousand CZK): Ing. Marie Hlavatá, Ing.arch. Josef Hlavatý, Ing.arch. Lenka Hlavatá
Jury evaluation: Urbanistically suitably solved, the jury considered the appropriateness of placing the restaurant and the terrace near the gate. Generally, given the current operation, the position of the terrace near the tower seems good. In the evening, the terrace by the gate could be shaded by the new building, and this position is also quite open towards the supermarket parking lot. A definite judgment regarding the position of the terrace and refreshments cannot be expressed, and it is also conceivable at the gate.
The architecture of the building is exemplary clear, and the layout solution is of high quality. However, the jury has a prevailing feeling of insufficient humility regarding its purpose. Furthermore, the reasons for the unusually high floors were examined and unfortunately seem to be merely formal.
The design would be very sensitive to the standard of materials and technologies, and therefore the level of investment would clearly and significantly exceed the required threshold.
More information >
The English translation is powered by AI tool. Switch to Czech to view the original text source.
0 comments
add comment
