The competition for the solution of the English waterfront in Plzeň has two winners

To build or not to build, and how to appropriately address the space in front of the existing Komerční banka on Anglické nábřeží? Experts have been asking this question for some time. Therefore, the city of Plzeň announced an architectural competition for this area in the spring through the Department of Concept and Development of the City of Plzeň. From September 17 to 18, the competition jury convened to evaluate the winners. “A total of 43 teams submitted proposals. During the evaluation, one proposal was disqualified due to significant formal deficiencies. Thus, the jury assessed the work of 42 teams,” says Irena Vostracká, director of the Department of Concept and Development of the City of Plzeň. The public can get acquainted with all evaluated proposals at an exhibition that will take place in the Měšťanská beseda from October 14 to 27, 2009 (opening on October 14 at 4:30 PM).

The jury decided to award two first prizes, to competition proposal number 14, developed by the team of Ing. arch. Alena Jenčková, Ing. arch. Anna Jenčková, Ing. arch. Ondřej Hilský, Ing. arch. Jiří Švehlík, collaboration Adam Wlazel, and proposal number 43 developed by the team of Bc. Jan Gadziala, Doc. Ing. Miroslav Meixner, CSc., Bc. Tomáš Růžička, Bc. Roman Strnad, Bc. Šárka Vomelová, Bc. Jan Vrbka. The second prize was awarded to proposal number 13 from the architectural team of Ing. arch. Bohumil Král, Ing. arch. Tomáš Král, Ing. arch. Irena Šebová and the third prize went to proposal number 31 developed by the team of Ing. arch. Petr Hurník, Ing. arch. Jakub Kopec, Ing. arch. Jiří Vítek, Ing. arch. Jaroslav Sedlák. Additionally, two awards were given to proposal number 3 from the team of Ing. arch. Gabriela Elichová, Ing. arch. Martin Elich and proposal number 19 from the team of Doc. Ing. arch. Roman Koucký, Šárka Malá, Ing. arch. Annamaria Bohuniczky, Ing. akad. Arch. Libor Kábrt, Ing. arch. Edita Lisecová, Ing. arch. Petr Štěpánek, Ing. arch. Matej Zahadňanský.

The submitted proposals can be categorized based on the approach to the extent and method of use of the addressed locality into four groups:
a) proposals that utilize the area as a park space;
b) proposals that utilize the addressed area as a prevailing urban plinth (with minor objects);
c) proposals that build only part of the area in combination with urban plinth;
d) proposals that utilize the addressed area for predominant or complete building.

The competition verified that development in the area is possible. From the submitted proposals, it emerged that the most suitable solution is partial development of the area. It is important that the urbanistic and architectural solution maintains high quality given the location and significance of the place. Furthermore, it is crucial that the program of the building enriches the urban environment in this area and does not excessively increase traffic load.

Is representative of proposals that develop the addressed area with an independent object. It is an elementary shape of a prism with a sufficient extent of free plinth precisely positioned within the broader relations. The operation, including the link to the public space, is appropriate for the location.

Representative of a solitary building designed in a suitable location within the addressed area. The mass well responds to the surroundings and creates a favorable public space. It is in a clearly defined relationship with important city objects. The overall architectural form, especially from the perspective of Americká street, is not convincing.