Šépkova Yearbook of Czech Architecture Baptized

This year's issue of the Czech Architecture Yearbook 2006 - 2007 was launched at a festive evening on Tuesday at the new headquarters of ČSOB in Prague-Radlice. The venue is traditionally chosen in one of the published buildings, this time in the new building by Pleskot's AP Atelier. After a brief welcome from the press spokesperson of the hosting financial institution, the editor Jan Šépka from the HŠH studio presented his annual mapping of the Czech scene (the speech is provided below in full text), followed by Petr Hutla - a member of the ČSOB board and then also the author of the Radlice headquarters, Josef Pleskot. The actual christening took place with the assistance of two scantily dressed young women in a nearby swimming pool, refreshing the atmosphere of the large house together with rich greenery. The official part of the program concluded with a tour of the building itself.
The publication, which has been released for the eighth year by the non-profit organization Prostor, presents 35 most significant buildings from the given period on 244 pages. In addition, it includes an introductory text by Jan Šépka titled Where has architecture gone?, an interview between the editor and Ivo Koukol on the topic of investor, brief and the necessity of negotiation, annual score statistics from the construction, real estate, and mortgage sectors, as well as an overview of awards, competitions, and events in the field. A certain bonus this year is an inserted DVD with a documentary film by Marie Šandová titled Transformation of the Valley, dedicated to the construction of the Radlice headquarters.
The next yearbook will be edited by Svatopluk Sládeček, the head of the NEW WORK studio.

Unfavorable news about the state of Czech architecture

ksa. - Family house in Černošice

Lately, I have been thinking a lot about why it is completely natural for us to visit a doctor, while we may not meet an architect at all during our lifetime. If any of us is ill, we don't think about who to consult, while the construction of a building does not prompt many of us to make an immediate trip to an architect. Yet both professions represent, as I perceive it, important fields that we should not do without. Very few of us think this way, yet the path to both professions should be completely natural. The question is why this is not the case. One possible explanation is the notion that architecture is some kind of superstructure for which money is simply paid. Most of us therefore expect from the architect only some kind of embellishment that we do not necessarily need because we can rely on a standardly constructed building. Perhaps most of us do not even realize that an architect can help with a number of necessary and functional elements, as they have the education for it.
My reflections were deepened by the negative discovery of the state of Czech architecture, which I had the opportunity to examine more thoroughly, particularly because I was compiling last year's yearbook of Czech architecture. The initial concern was deepened by the realization that architecture in our society is absolutely marginal. This conviction was also reinforced by the numbers obtained from the statistical office, providing disheartening data, such as the fact that over 18 thousand buildings were approved last year, with architects participating in only a tenth of this production. The results, therefore, in my opinion, are directly proportional to such a picture. In order for architecture to return to the spectrum of our perception, we cannot rely solely on capable architects; instead, there must be a will and a desire to start discussing and engaging with this topic. Architecture should be our common interest, as we shape our environment through it.

Projektil - Center for Environmental Education Sluňákov

Of course, I do not want and cannot condemn Czech architecture as a whole. Even in this environment, there are many quality examples that attempt in various ways to explore and step toward something new. Four unique implementations emerge, such as a large undivided space for 2500 people at the ČSOB headquarters in Prague, an attempt at a somewhat different shopping center in the case of Shopping Center Šestka in Prague, the financing of an environmentally friendly building from public funds at the Center for Environmental Education Sluňákov in Horka near Olomouc, or an unconventional family house cantilevered over a steep slope in Černošice. None of the mentioned buildings can deny their effort for innovation in this environment. Besides the mentioned buildings, I would also like to praise one of our specific productions, which are refurbishments, extensions, or reconstructions. In these cases, certain difficult conditions actually help us create extraordinary buildings. Another important impulse for the creation of new quality houses is the enlightened investor, who has significantly changed and matured, especially after the year 2000. This is associated with a greater interest in the construction of family homes, which are beginning to improve in quality. The investor is no longer just wealthy individuals, but often young people who are relatively open to new ideas, enjoy traveling, and are not fixated on the catalog production of developers.

DNA architects - Shopping Center Šestka

However, after my year's survey of Czech buildings, I must unfortunately state that I did not find completely new stimuli that would succeed in crossing any previously uncrossed architectural boundary. In general, I must state that it is typical for our architects to draw inspiration from foreign models, which unfortunately they do not further develop. Of course, we can observe an increase in quality buildings, but with this, there is also a much larger number of houses that only pretend to be quality architecture. Our architecture has always borrowed and continues to borrow tried-and-tested foreign concepts. Therefore, it is evident that any efforts by Czech architects have not yet reached a regional character. We must seek the cause of this state on multiple levels. Architecture is hardly discussed. In commonly available media, you can encounter it only rarely, most often as a problematic case. As a result, the vast majority of potential builders have no idea what to expect from architecture, let alone which architectural offices they can choose from. Here lies a significant debt we owe to architecture, and that is awareness-raising. At the very core of the field, I see further problems, such as the non-evolving education system and the negligible number of public competitions. Last year, only 7 public architectural competitions were announced. The system for improving education at our schools and a greater emphasis on announcing public competitions, respectively on their preparation, are aspects we must address immediately. Cultivating the client, along with the media coverage and promotion of architecture, are long-term problems that require time.
And so, I would like to appeal to all of us to take an interest in our architecture, as without our support, it will not take care of itself. Only then will we begin to perceive a visit to an architect at a comparable level as a visit to a doctor's office.