Pavel Nasadil
I was at the Faculty of Architecture in Liberec for the first time. The gymnasium – a studio where everyone works together – training architecture – left a great impression on me... The relaxed atmosphere of friendship and collective effort, but also competitiveness, is evident here. The level of the exhibited works was very balanced, did not fluctuate, and was good, but not stellar. The experimentation that I (naively) perhaps expected in the spirit of Liberec's SIAL did not take place.

The projects demonstrated how important the choice (and name!) of the topic and the concept of its approach is. What should I imagine under the general title “Revitalization of the Old Town Square”? What is the actual task? I miss at least a brief theoretical reflection, a written statement, for all projects without exception. Important components often seem to be missing in the drawings – context analyses, analyses of the situation (there are never enough of these), north arrows, clearly declared project names and location of the construction. It often seems as if the work is conducted only with objects and not with the context of public space. Shouldn't our profession responsibly seek solutions to pressing problems of the city and landscape and raise uncomfortable questions? It seemed to me that some types of tasks might be on the verge of (temporary) exhaustion due to repetition – lookouts, cable cars, family houses. New topics might help to better define oneself against significant models. Socially interesting issues such as a music pavilion in Haiti produced great results among first graders, as did the redesign of the area in Uherské Hradiště into a memorial for the victims of totalitarian repression. Surprisingly fresh proposals were found in competitions that generated outputs often qualitatively comparable to their real results – malt houses, the Plzeň waterfront, and Černé louky.

I would like the nominated students to present their projects personally to the jury. It would be enriching for both the jury and the student. Not in the sense of a desperate defense, but constructive debate.
I wish the teachers and students mainly joy in learning and studying, and I thank you for the invitation to your school.

---

Petr Janda
The work in the individual studios clearly illustrates the level of pedagogical guidance and concentration on the gradual development of the assigned topics. It is easy to see where it is about linear fulfillment of the assignment without questioning, and where focused searching and confrontation with teachers has led to an interesting project. The results of the evaluation speak for themselves.

The choice of ambiguous and primarily non-utilitarian topics seems to be a winning model in this light. That this is an academic, often even utopian approach, in my opinion, does not matter; after all, we are at school. Conversely, there should logically be a phase of reflections preceding the assignment of projects like lookouts, addressing what a lookout actually is, why, where, and whether it makes sense to design it. An architect is neither a constructor nor a designer; their social responsibility and insight into the addressed issues should be significantly broader. The goal of the game is not to raise machines that uncritically fulfill the assignments given by investors. If we succeed in igniting self-confidence in students regarding their own inventiveness and cultivating patience and courage for original solutions, we can look forward to overcoming the current cliché of “rational” architecture in the future. In Liberec, there seemed to be a chance that the next generation (currently still with remnants of innocence) would not allow our “effective” education to pigeonhole them into the usual molds. I look forward to it... :-)

A small critique at the end. A large part of the works (even those graphically well presented) lacks accompanying text. The textual definition of a solution is irreplaceable in the creative process. Statements like: “no one reads it anyway” have become a pathetic excuse shared across architectural circles. I slightly doubt that students are verbally equipped enough to manage an oral presentation without prior written formulation. Every author should interpret the project themselves; the jury should not futilely search for missing textual information in drawers under the displayed models. This critique, however, generally targets educators (not only at the Liberec school) who do not require texts from their students.

---

Zdeněk Lukeš
The level of student works was good. I appreciate that high-quality models are still being made in Liberec and that the students are concerned not only with the building itself but also with its context. From the overview of the designs we evaluated, it is clear that the most stimulating ideas were found in the studio of Doc. Zdeněk Fránek. Perhaps it is also due to a very interesting and strong assignment – namely, the transformation of an old prison and barracks into a museum of totalitarianism. It was evident in some studies that this topic struck the students. Maybe this is also an encouragement for the heads of other studios: not to be afraid to choose unconventional assignments.
I wish all the best for the subsequent years in Ještěd in the cage.

---

Tomáš Pilař
I was looking forward to Ještěd in the cage because I had only heard the best references about the Liberec school.
Most projects had quality presentations, each had at least one model, but texts or reports explaining the concepts often lacked. Although the overall level of works compared to those from Prague or Brno was good, there weren't many truly top-tier projects.
I was surprised by the minor differences among the individual studios.
There were several recurring assignments (e.g., a shelter for a hermit) whose potential had waned, and unfortunately, this was evident in the projects.
We quickly agreed that we would eliminate the established division into categories – there were only a few design and urban planning projects.
Works from Zdeněk Fránek's and Radek Suchánek's studios clearly stood out, especially the projects with a strong assignment to convert the prison complex into a museum of totalitarian crimes.
The differences and “homey atmosphere” of the Liberec school became evident to me again during the announcement of the results, as most educators and almost all students were present, enthusiastically congratulating the winners.

---

Markéta Cajthamlová
I am writing last and so my colleagues have already said everything.
After the first impression from a quick overview of the works, I wondered what we would reward here? Fortunately, semester projects are not a competition where it mainly matters to impress at first glance, and as we explored the projects, interesting assignments and inspiring solutions emerged. Especially in the studio of Zdeněk Fránek and Radek Suchánek. Why this studio stands out so significantly from the others became clear after the award ceremony during a conversation with Radek. Not only the dedication of the students but also the personal passion of the educator inspires great achievements. And I think that is the main mission of an educator – to engage and enthuse.
I wish everyone the best in their creative efforts.