Reconstruction of the cultural house in Č. Budějovice - results of the dialogue

The subject of the competition was the solution for the reconstruction and revitalization of the Cultural House Slavie in České Budějovice – to find an answer to the question of how to approach the operation and architectural solution of a historical, monument-protected building that originally served as a community house.
The jury selected six participants from the thirty-three registered teams, who gradually developed their proposals "in dialogue" with the jury and the client: PLURAL (Bratislava), Ondřej Císler (Prague), 4DS (České Budějovice), Chaix & Morel et associés, CA Pichler, Jan Proksa (Paris, Vienna), KAVA (Prague), PROJEKTIL ARCHITEKTI (Prague).

Course of the competition
2019 - tour of KD Slavie with the selected six
February 13-14, 2020 - discussions on the developed proposals
May 21-22, 2020 - discussions on the developed proposals
2020 - submission of the final version of the competition proposal

Jury
Marek Přikryl - chairman of the jury, Juraj Thoma - vice-chairman of the jury, Stanislav Fiala, Barbora Hora, Jáchym Svoboda, Petr Štěpánek, Daniel Turek, Jan Klein - alternate, Šimon Heller - alternate, Ivan Nadberežný - alternate, Jan Piskač - alternate

---

1st Place
Author: Chaix & Morel et associés / CA Pichler / Jan Proksa
Walter Grasmug, Larissa Elschen, Christian Pichler, Mirjana Bucevac, Jan Proksa, Jiří Koten /// (Landscape architecture) Štěpánka Šmídová, Outside Landschaftsarchitektur, Thomas Leidinger - (Statics) STATIKA Jihočeská construction office, Luděk Němec - (Technical building services) ŠTROB & SPOL, Jan Richter - (Fire safety) Jan Drahoš - (Transport) Viktor Nohál - (Stage technology) Kunkel Consulting, Christoph Franzen - (Acoustics) Müller-BBM GmbH, Michael Prüfer Jury's evaluation: The proposal best meets the construction program, placing it in an optimal form for completion: it does not waste space and operations logically and reasonably connect, ensuring long-term good functioning. The commission agreed that the proposal also represents highly valuable architecture, the qualities of which must be maintained in all subsequent phases – during discussions, during project design, and especially during actual implementation. At the same time, it is a proposal that is publicly fully defensible and meets the high demands of the city of České Budějovice by creating a building that thrives on diverse cultural activities and is not merely an isolated structure dedicated to one genre. The authors intervene in the existing mass of the historical house with relatively daring entries – while respecting original elements – thus creating open and airy spaces appropriate to individual operations and functions. The proposal adequately meets the client's requirements in terms of connecting the building with its surroundings. Thanks to the "garden floor," a new community and democratic dimension of public life arises for the building and the environment in which it is located. The house allows for full integration of outdoor and indoor programming, and can be easily navigated without disruptive barriers. It also features the most convincingly solved ground floor, which harmoniously corresponds with the surroundings and ensures the overall liveliness of the affected space. The proposal creates a new center from the existing house – attracting people, among other things, by situating the small hall at ground floor level. Although heritage preservation did not identify with this proposal, the commission considers the given solution to be undoubtedly the best. The asymmetry of the facade is not regarded as a key aspect of the overall concept, as its design is not strictly tied to the function of the internal operation. The large hall, while somewhat deprived of current atmosphere in its purity, is fully justified by the high quality of the acoustics of the new space. From the perspective of heritage preservation, the mass of the extension is appropriate. The advantages of the proposal include retaining the main and spiral staircases, as well as the suitable positioning of new staircases. However, the confrontational solution of the extension's facades with asymmetrical glass surfaces of non-traditional size is perceived by heritage preservation as a weakness of the proposal.

---

2nd Place
Author: PROJEKTIL ARCHITEKTI / Adam Halíř, Ondřej Havlín, Ondřej Hart, Ondřej Hofmeister, Petr Lešek, Rudolf Süsser /// (Information systems and graphic interventions) Jaromír Hárovník, Ondřej Šorm - (Operations) Olga Škochová Bláhová - (Technology) Ondřej Hlaváček, Vratislav Čapek (Acoustics and AV) Karel Motl, Tomáš Pánek - (Fire safety solutions) Jaroslav Miklosz - (Transport) Miroslav Vondřich - (Landscape solutions) Aleš Steiner, Pavlína Malíková - (Statics) Milan Polák - (Gastronomy) Jan Přindiš - (Visualization) Martin Janoušek, Jan Havlíček - (Model) Miroslav Černý, Tereza Boháčová Nosková - (Budget) Vlastimil Střelba - (Engineering) Michal Frček, Miroslav Švec - (Administration) Veronika Raušová Jury's evaluation: The proposal approaches the extension simply and minimally from the outside, working economically with the original mass structure. However, to cope with the required program, it radically intervenes in the interior of the building. The commission appreciated the specific and convincingly conceived character of the main hall, but did not agree with the proportions of the extension and stated that the significant changes inside the building are not sufficiently expressed. The inconspicuousness of the outer interventions also raised the question of whether the chosen approach is the most suitable for communicating the significant investment into a cultural building in the city towards the public. The building is well designed in terms of operations: it is clearly divided into individual parts that can be smoothly connected during larger events. However, the capacity of the facilities and storage areas is debatable. Daily operations of the building are based on the functioning of a cultural and creative center with a declared – almost unlimited – variability. However, the commission understands Slavie more as an independent cultural institution in a metropolitan area. In this context, the question arises as to whether this extreme form of openness will impact other spontaneous cultural activities in the city. Nevertheless, the commission highlighted the work with the broader context of the building, particularly with the embankment of the Malše River. The entrance to the building by raised stairs and the use of a considerable portion of the basement as a technological space were deemed an unsuitable solution. The quantity of living stairs around the building in relation to their actual use was also marked as problematic. Heritage preservation sees the qualities of the proposal primarily in the minimalist approach of the transparent extension, the renewal of the front entrance staircase, and the appropriate connection of the first floor with the exterior through the terrace and cascading platforms. However, the significant interventions in the layout of the historical object and the high proportion of removal of original structures on all floors are regarded as inappropriate.

---

3rd Place
Author: PLURAL / Martin Jančok, Michal Janák, Zuzana Kovaľová, Maroš Kostelanský /// (Cooperation) Marek Adamov, Ján Ptačin, Magda Kvasnicová - (Statics) Katarína Kyselová - (Acoustics) Peter Zaťko - (Fire safety) Eva Futóová - (Air exchange) Gabriela Hefnerová - (Heating) Stanislav Mečiar - (Gastronomy) Miroslav Ledvenyi - (Transport) Karel Zvoník Jury's evaluation: The concept of the proposal, which works with the most economical interventions possible, is based on the main mass motive of the plinth. However, this places it in contrast with the democratic and open nature of the cultural house. Despite "the historicizing narrative in contemporary interpretation," this element comes off as a nostalgic ornament standing in opposition to the lively ground floor, which separates the building from its surroundings and creates a sort of mental and physical barrier around it – its "elevation on a pedestal" complicates free movement through the interior. The proposal is well resolved from an operational perspective and appropriately fulfills the program of both halls and related functions. However, the large window of the hall is somewhat disturbing and is not very practical for internal operation, as most programs would require regulating daylight through blackout. The indicated solution again contradicts the "transparency of the hall" as declared by the authoring team. The new facade in classicizing forms, according to the commission’s expression, does not appear convincing or authentic. The proposal also intensively focuses on solving the surroundings of the house, treating its historical layout with respect and also respecting its existing materiality. However, by placing it on the plinth, the building becomes visually smaller and there are also a number of nooks that lack social control. From the perspective of heritage preservation, it is a proportionate extension respecting the symmetry of the historical object. The basic mass scheme, the maximum preservation of historical structures, and the renewal of the front entrance staircase are also viewed favorably. However, the weak points of the proposal are the scope of the extension on the first floor along the northern side wing, the change in proportions of the building resulting from the solution of terraces and the accompanying staircases, and the treatment of the eastern facade with large glazed surfaces.

---

4th Place
Author: Aoc architekti / Ondřej Císler, Josef Choc, Filip Rašek, Barbora Lopraisová, Vojtěch Beran, Jonáš Mikšovský, Natálie Kristýnková, Martin Petřík, Jonáš Kolařík /// (Graphics) Klára Kvízová - (Acoustics) Petr Novák - (Physical model) Miroslav Černý, Tereza Boháčová Nosková - (Vegetation) Mikoláš Vavřín - (Concept of operation) Jiří Sulženko - (Photo) Jiří Hroník - (Fire solutions) Martin Bernas - (Transport) Ondřej Mareš Jury's evaluation: The proposal, whose bold solution is, according to the commission's expression, underpinned by excellent arguments and detailed analyses, raises provocative questions regarding the appearance of the building, which brilliantly communicates its specific program. However, the authors found themselves in a sort of "improvement trap," attempting to make it "even nobler and more beautiful" based on the interpretation of its original purpose. Although they approach the building with respect and sensitivity, the unity with the new extension through the facade erases the dialogue between the contemporary and the original, rendering the new layers difficult to recognize and even unreadable. The solution of the immediate surroundings of the object, with a multitude of different height levels, also seems somewhat problematic to the commission. The commission agreed that the proposal complements the character of monumental representative buildings in the city ring, such as the neo-Renaissance seat of the regional court on the opposite bank of the Malše River, but this approach to the object, which is to host contemporary forms of culture, is not optimal. In its opinion, the proposal "predetermines the use of the building exclusively for classical music." And although this aspect is incorporated into the project with high quality, one cannot overlook the fact that the demand for the creation and operation of a multifunctional cultural venue remains unfulfilled. Nevertheless, the commission appreciated the generosity and convincing presentation of this self-confident proposal for new dominant architecture within the city structure. From the perspective of heritage preservation, this proposal respects the symmetry of the historical object and the basic mass scheme and preserves the maximum of historical structures, particularly the main staircase hall. However, the weak points of the proposal include the increase in the roof over the main hall, excessive visual exposure of the roof planes from the direction of the bridge over the Malše River, and the degree of stylization of the extension above the main hall.

---

5th Place
Author: KAVA / Adam Bažant, Viktorie Dostálová, Jakub Koňata, Jonáš Krýzl, Jan Novotný, Tomáš Novotný, Robert Seidl /// (Cooperation) Deltaplan / Petr Blažka - 8smička / Marcela Straková - Thalia systems / Martin Kněžek - PROpbs / Jan Tománek, Iva Kárníková - Aveton / Tomáš Hrádek - modelW / Oto Melter Jury's evaluation: The commission evaluated the proposal as a clearly formulated opinion on the extension of the historical building. However, the use of facing brick is, even with the best execution, unsuitable for the building in terms of its broader context. Opposite the South Bohemian Museum, a building "somewhat too focused on itself" would arise. The proposed reconstruction with extension was deemed operationally unconflicted and functional. However, the architectural rendering, scale, proportions, and relationship to the surrounding buildings, according to the commission's expression, do not appear convincing. The multifunctional hall may be dimensioned perhaps too generously, and although it is undoubtedly functional from an operational perspective, the commission would expect greater authenticity and originality in the design of a space of such importance. However, it appreciates the work with the immediate as well as the broader surroundings of the building, where the authors create a very high-quality barrier-free public space. From the perspective of heritage preservation, the main positive of the proposal is the preservation of the small hall and most of the historical structures. The renewal of the front entrance staircase was also welcomed. Among the weak points of the proposal are the oversized extension and elevation above the main hall, the inappropriate position of the staircase running along the staircase hall to the roof structure, the confrontational approach to the facade solutions, the non-respect for the scale of the existing building and surrounding development, and the radical interventions in the roof planes.

---

6th Place
Author: 4DS / Luboš Zemen, Eva Zemenová, Vojtěch Navrátil / (Concept of operation) Jiří Švehla, Lukáš Zahradník - (Physical model) Architektonické Modely ETC, Pavel Jedlička - (Statics of historical structures) Heritas, Martin Kačer - (Static and structural solutions) RECOC, Karel Košek - (Energy concept of the building) UCEEB, Tomáš Matuška - (Transport section) DOPI, Zbyněk Píša - (Acoustic solutions) Akustika Praha, Milan Pospíšil - (Visualization) Cityscapes, Jan Srnka - (Aerial photography) Libor Sváček - (Fire safety solutions) Topoconsult, Pavel Svoboda - (Graphic design) Marek Vácha Jury's evaluation: The commission appreciates the proposal's effort to create a truly representative "ballhouse" using the latest technological solutions. The authors operate on the premise of excavating under the existing building, i.e., they work with the situation after demolishing the hall, which can indeed be problematic not only from a heritage perspective. The proposal is overall subordinate to the technological solution – the architectural conception of the building is essentially a reaction to the technology. The motive of the two-story arcade is seen by the commission as an alien element that does not correspond with the scale of the local context and that raises questions not only about excessive massing but also about functionality, which is subject to this aesthetic element. Significant interventions in the load-bearing structures of the historical building, such as changes in the main staircase or the removal of the spiral staircase in the lower floors or the new placement of the basement below the foundational level of the existing object, also appear somewhat contentious. Similarly, in the case of newly inserted staircases into the extension and their projection into the facades, which do not respect the scale of the historical building. The change in the proportions of the existing object caused by the insertion of side terraces and connecting staircases is also disputable. Other issues include risks to the statics of the historical structure, the extensive scale of earthworks, and high costs for rescue archaeological research.