Second call to the Czech Chamber of Architects in connection with Štvanice

Defend the purpose of your existence and address the issues with the architectural competition you are overseeing. An architect, by principle and nature of their work, does not appeal and does not judge. They have pride and honor. And they have a chamber that they pay to address excesses against the profession and architects.

Recap of known errors by the competition organizer and the jury.

1. From the media and the statements of the mayor in the press, it is clear that some participants of the competition have filed appeals. However, this could not have happened because the results have not been published and the competition is anonymous. Some participants probably received information, while others did not.
2. Once again from the media, not in a standard and correct manner, information has emerged that the competition is being addressed by the Office for the Protection of Competition (ÚHOS). Competitors have not received any information from the jury or the competition secretary. To this day.
3. During the competition, according to the media and responses from the mayor, there was a lobbying meeting at the city hall regarding the placement of the concert hall on the island, specifically lobbying for the architects who positioned the concert hall there.
4. The announcement of results is five months behind schedule, even though five months ago some jury members confirmed in the media that the winner of the competition was known. For five months, jury participants representing the profession have been advantaged by this information compared to other architects. Some have been misusing this information – without the results being published, they cannot be defended against (planning work activities, forming teams, etc.).
5. Four months ago, the financial costs for the second round, prizes, and rewards were supposed to be reimbursed (the jury requested from competitors in the second round work that, according to the chosen concept, could cost more than half a million korunas). The economic complications of the competitors are evidently not a problem for the competition organizer and the jury.
6. The competition panels of the still unresolved anonymous architectural competition were used as protective material for windows, floors, and similar during construction activities unrelated to the competition. They were damaged, leading to the denigration of the authors, architects, and the profession.

The Czech Chamber of Architects should act in two stages.

First stage

1. Demand and compel the competition organizer to immediately publish the results and the minutes from the jury proceedings. It should insist that this happens within hours to prevent further errors and manipulations.
2. Demand and compel the competition organizer to immediately fulfill its financial obligations to the competitors within days to minimize further damage.
3. Request that the competition organizer disclose how it will present the competition proposals to the public, given that it allowed their damage and probable loss (see the photo of the competition panels outside by the container).

Second stage

1. Request the competition organizer to publish who appealed, why, and how such an appeal was possible. Who is responsible for the leakage of information in the anonymous competition.
2. Request the city hall to disclose who participated in the lobbying meeting for the placement of the concert hall on Štvanice and whether anyone from the competitors or jury attended.
3. Obtain from the competition organizer comprehensive compensation for all participants in the competition whose proposals were devalued and whose content was undermined.
4. Based on the information obtained and the responses from the competition organizer, consider legal action.

In such a situation, holding a discussion meeting on architectural competitions on October 22, 2013, is inappropriate.