Federal House Velešín - competition results
Open single-phase architectural-urban planning project competition
The subject of the competition was the design of a new building for the Community House at the street front on the upper edge of J. V. Kamarýt Square, in an attractive position opposite the town hall. The Community House is intended to become a place where intense urban community, sports, and social life will take place, thus primarily serving the local residents. Its location will provide the inhabitants of Velešín with space for a wide range of activities close to their homes, enhancing the local identity of the entire city. The purpose of the competition was to obtain a high-quality architectural and urban design for the new building and its adjoining areas, which will serve as a basis for the development of subsequent project documentation.
Organizer: U Zlaté Podkovy s.r.o.
Competition date: 26.11.2020 - 14.2.2021
Date of results publication: 25.3.2021
Number of submitted designs: 19
Total prizes and awards: 650,000 CZK
Ordinary jury members - dependent
Ing. Petr Vágner – mayor, Ing. arch. Petr Hornát – city architect,
Ordinary jury members - independent
Ing. arch. Jan Mach, Ing. arch. Pavel Buryška, MgA. Markéta Zdebská,
1st place - 260,000 CZK
Author: Karel Filsak architects / Ing.arch. Karel Filsak, Ing.arch. Přemysl Jurák
Jury assessment: The jury positively evaluates the architectural solution and moderation of the design in relation to the site. The proposal appears balanced and consistent across all dimensions of consideration (location - square - building - courtyard - interior). The mass is appropriately integrated into the existing buildings and utilizes the current zoning system, thus creating a naturalness and responding to the context of the place. There is a strong sense of striving for spatial and operational optimization. The reduction of space in certain areas generates a schematic solution, which the jury recommends further analyze and adjust in the subsequent phase of refining the study to achieve higher user comfort. The character of the entrance spaces appears adequate from the design presentation, but there is a lack of an entryway when entering the restaurant. The degree of glazing in the hall is proportionate to the operation; windows facing north will not cause unwanted glare while providing pleasant illumination during community events. The narrow long proportion of the hall along with the absence of facilities for performers may pose operational complications. Despite the author's clear conceptual reasoning regarding the appearance of the hall facing the courtyard (a solitary barn evoking original agricultural buildings), the jury recommends utilizing the narrow converging space between the southern outer wall and the dividing wall of the neighboring building to extend the ancillary storage for the hall. To achieve a more ideal proportion of the hall, it would be advisable to consider its expansion northward at the expense of the paved part of the courtyard. The underground space designated in the design for the heat exchanger (room 0.13) is recommended by the jury to be used for placing the actors' facilities with direct access to the stage, or possibly extending the hall towards the courtyard to achieve these facilities. The jury positively assesses the clever solution for the passage between the square and the courtyard through the stepping back of the northern façade of the community house with a display window into the restaurant, which aids in safe passage during the evening hours. The garden maintains the scale of a small-town courtyard and nicely offers the use of an outdoor tiered stair as an audience area for events. However, barrier-free solutions will need to be integrated into the tiered levels for movement between the cinema and the square. The city management is concerned about the placement of rehearsal rooms with windows facing the square (noise - perhaps consider placing rehearsal rooms in the basement). The kitchen already seems undersized at first glance. For the above reasons, building an underground level below the main building towards the square is worth considering. The jury positively assesses the discreet intermediate space between the square and the restaurant in the form of a recessed arcade providing covered outdoor seating with a view of the square. The authors choose a pleasant ratio between the paved and unpaved surfaces of the courtyard allowing diverse use of this space. The tree-lined avenue supports a new link between the housing estate and the square.
2nd place - 200,000 CZK
Author: LINK studio s.r.o. / Ing.arch. Luděk Černý, Ing.arch. Jan Malinovský, Ing.arch. Lucie Černá, Ing.arch. Michala Selingerová, Ing.arch. Romana Chvalová
Jury assessment: A fundamental contribution of the design is the solution of the ground floor. The café set back from the street front, as well as the shaping of the passage, is perceived by the jury as a benefit for life in the square. The jury also appreciated the sophistication of the presented connection between the hall and the courtyard. The visual contact of the main hall on the upper floor with the square is very impressive, especially with a view directed at the church tower. However, the façade facing the square is not perceived by the jury as adequate relative to the scale of the community. Opening the hall(s) in both directions means the absence of a conceptual anchoring of the stage and the placement of the backstage, leading to related conceptual and functional ambiguities in separating the small hall, which can, however, be worked out further. The jury assessed the operational complexity of the disconnection of the hall from the restaurant, which is, however, compensated by the continuity to the courtyard. The bar indicated in the hallway on the 2nd floor cannot be considered sufficient, but the design has the capacity to enlarge it. Among the design deficiencies are the missing entryway and foyer in the case of an entrance from the square, the absence of a cloakroom for ball attendees, and missing rehearsal rooms, although the design has the capacity to supplement these. The supply of the restaurant appears problematic, and the technical facilities seem to be overdimensioned. The jury positively evaluates the good proportions of the hall but recommends further development of a suitable acoustic solution within the proposed aesthetic of the hall. Despite the "imperfections," the jury is convinced of the undeniable qualities of the compact design and the possibility of refining it into a form that will fully meet the needs of the city.
3rd place - 150,000 CZK
Author: Ing.arch. Ondřej Dvořák Ph.D., Ing.arch. Jiří Matys, Ing.arch. Vanda Martínková, Ing.arch. Matyáš Gál, Tomáš Strnad
Jury assessment: The design has a pleasant form from the perspective of a small town square and nicely connects to the surrounding buildings. Nevertheless, its form is bold contemporary architecture, and the building clearly conveys at first glance that it is a house for culture and the public. The authors of the design were among the few to come up with an innovative approach to the passage through the building to the courtyard, which they placed so that it opens directly opposite the church towards the square. The ground floor of the building is well conceived; the restaurant with a foyer oriented towards the square, passages, and courtyard creates a lively connection among all these spaces. The qualities of the main hall are considered debatable by the jury. The location of the stage between the entrances to the hall seems inappropriate, as does the overall shape and low height of the hall. The degree of closure of the hall, which does not utilize the option of opening toward the courtyard and the square, was a discussed issue in the jury.
Prize - 40,000 CZK
Author: GRIDO, ARCHITEKTURA A DESIGN, S.R.O. / Ing.arch. Peter Sticzay-Gromski, Bc. Jan Horký
Jury assessment: The proposal is one of the representatives of designs that place the main hall towards the square and open it to the town with a glazed wall. This trend is sympathetic and understandable to the jury but causes significant operational complications: the stage oriented with its back to the street without sufficient backstage for performers, complications with shading and acoustics of the hall, suppression of the commercial potential of the restaurant. The jury decided to award proposal No. 18 even with some deficiencies because it brings a confident contemporary form of the house facing the square. The fully glazed façade is hidden in the second plane behind a lattice with shutters. The house, viewed from the street, has a beautiful rhythm and connects originate, albeit contrastingly, with the scale of the surrounding buildings. Proposal No. 18 represents a well-executed idea of an open contemporary cultural institution in the environment of a smaller Czech town.
Organizer: U Zlaté Podkovy s.r.o.
Competition date: 26.11.2020 - 14.2.2021
Date of results publication: 25.3.2021
Number of submitted designs: 19
Total prizes and awards: 650,000 CZK
Ordinary jury members - dependent
Ing. Petr Vágner – mayor, Ing. arch. Petr Hornát – city architect,
Ordinary jury members - independent
Ing. arch. Jan Mach, Ing. arch. Pavel Buryška, MgA. Markéta Zdebská,
1st place - 260,000 CZK
Author: Karel Filsak architects / Ing.arch. Karel Filsak, Ing.arch. Přemysl Jurák
Jury assessment: The jury positively evaluates the architectural solution and moderation of the design in relation to the site. The proposal appears balanced and consistent across all dimensions of consideration (location - square - building - courtyard - interior). The mass is appropriately integrated into the existing buildings and utilizes the current zoning system, thus creating a naturalness and responding to the context of the place. There is a strong sense of striving for spatial and operational optimization. The reduction of space in certain areas generates a schematic solution, which the jury recommends further analyze and adjust in the subsequent phase of refining the study to achieve higher user comfort. The character of the entrance spaces appears adequate from the design presentation, but there is a lack of an entryway when entering the restaurant. The degree of glazing in the hall is proportionate to the operation; windows facing north will not cause unwanted glare while providing pleasant illumination during community events. The narrow long proportion of the hall along with the absence of facilities for performers may pose operational complications. Despite the author's clear conceptual reasoning regarding the appearance of the hall facing the courtyard (a solitary barn evoking original agricultural buildings), the jury recommends utilizing the narrow converging space between the southern outer wall and the dividing wall of the neighboring building to extend the ancillary storage for the hall. To achieve a more ideal proportion of the hall, it would be advisable to consider its expansion northward at the expense of the paved part of the courtyard. The underground space designated in the design for the heat exchanger (room 0.13) is recommended by the jury to be used for placing the actors' facilities with direct access to the stage, or possibly extending the hall towards the courtyard to achieve these facilities. The jury positively assesses the clever solution for the passage between the square and the courtyard through the stepping back of the northern façade of the community house with a display window into the restaurant, which aids in safe passage during the evening hours. The garden maintains the scale of a small-town courtyard and nicely offers the use of an outdoor tiered stair as an audience area for events. However, barrier-free solutions will need to be integrated into the tiered levels for movement between the cinema and the square. The city management is concerned about the placement of rehearsal rooms with windows facing the square (noise - perhaps consider placing rehearsal rooms in the basement). The kitchen already seems undersized at first glance. For the above reasons, building an underground level below the main building towards the square is worth considering. The jury positively assesses the discreet intermediate space between the square and the restaurant in the form of a recessed arcade providing covered outdoor seating with a view of the square. The authors choose a pleasant ratio between the paved and unpaved surfaces of the courtyard allowing diverse use of this space. The tree-lined avenue supports a new link between the housing estate and the square.
2nd place - 200,000 CZK
Author: LINK studio s.r.o. / Ing.arch. Luděk Černý, Ing.arch. Jan Malinovský, Ing.arch. Lucie Černá, Ing.arch. Michala Selingerová, Ing.arch. Romana Chvalová
Jury assessment: A fundamental contribution of the design is the solution of the ground floor. The café set back from the street front, as well as the shaping of the passage, is perceived by the jury as a benefit for life in the square. The jury also appreciated the sophistication of the presented connection between the hall and the courtyard. The visual contact of the main hall on the upper floor with the square is very impressive, especially with a view directed at the church tower. However, the façade facing the square is not perceived by the jury as adequate relative to the scale of the community. Opening the hall(s) in both directions means the absence of a conceptual anchoring of the stage and the placement of the backstage, leading to related conceptual and functional ambiguities in separating the small hall, which can, however, be worked out further. The jury assessed the operational complexity of the disconnection of the hall from the restaurant, which is, however, compensated by the continuity to the courtyard. The bar indicated in the hallway on the 2nd floor cannot be considered sufficient, but the design has the capacity to enlarge it. Among the design deficiencies are the missing entryway and foyer in the case of an entrance from the square, the absence of a cloakroom for ball attendees, and missing rehearsal rooms, although the design has the capacity to supplement these. The supply of the restaurant appears problematic, and the technical facilities seem to be overdimensioned. The jury positively evaluates the good proportions of the hall but recommends further development of a suitable acoustic solution within the proposed aesthetic of the hall. Despite the "imperfections," the jury is convinced of the undeniable qualities of the compact design and the possibility of refining it into a form that will fully meet the needs of the city.
3rd place - 150,000 CZK
Author: Ing.arch. Ondřej Dvořák Ph.D., Ing.arch. Jiří Matys, Ing.arch. Vanda Martínková, Ing.arch. Matyáš Gál, Tomáš Strnad
Jury assessment: The design has a pleasant form from the perspective of a small town square and nicely connects to the surrounding buildings. Nevertheless, its form is bold contemporary architecture, and the building clearly conveys at first glance that it is a house for culture and the public. The authors of the design were among the few to come up with an innovative approach to the passage through the building to the courtyard, which they placed so that it opens directly opposite the church towards the square. The ground floor of the building is well conceived; the restaurant with a foyer oriented towards the square, passages, and courtyard creates a lively connection among all these spaces. The qualities of the main hall are considered debatable by the jury. The location of the stage between the entrances to the hall seems inappropriate, as does the overall shape and low height of the hall. The degree of closure of the hall, which does not utilize the option of opening toward the courtyard and the square, was a discussed issue in the jury.
Prize - 40,000 CZK
Author: GRIDO, ARCHITEKTURA A DESIGN, S.R.O. / Ing.arch. Peter Sticzay-Gromski, Bc. Jan Horký
Jury assessment: The proposal is one of the representatives of designs that place the main hall towards the square and open it to the town with a glazed wall. This trend is sympathetic and understandable to the jury but causes significant operational complications: the stage oriented with its back to the street without sufficient backstage for performers, complications with shading and acoustics of the hall, suppression of the commercial potential of the restaurant. The jury decided to award proposal No. 18 even with some deficiencies because it brings a confident contemporary form of the house facing the square. The fully glazed façade is hidden in the second plane behind a lattice with shutters. The house, viewed from the street, has a beautiful rhythm and connects originate, albeit contrastingly, with the scale of the surrounding buildings. Proposal No. 18 represents a well-executed idea of an open contemporary cultural institution in the environment of a smaller Czech town.
The English translation is powered by AI tool. Switch to Czech to view the original text source.
0 comments
add comment
