Position of KZsP on the intention of the new construction of a high-rise building at the corner of Jugoslávských partyzánů and Šolínova streets in Prague 6

The Club for Old Prague had the opportunity to familiarize itself with the intentions of the rectorship of the Czech Technical University in Prague regarding the modification and completion of the CTU buildings along the strip by Jugoslavian Partisans Street between Šolínová and Velflíkova Streets. The intent concerns a radical reconstruction of the menza building no. 1580 (an increase of 2 floors, annex, and overall architectural redesign) and the construction of a high-rise building (up to 57 m) at the corner with Šolínová Street.
At the same time, we became acquainted with the content of the expert opinion from the Prague office of the National Heritage Institute (ref. NPÚ-311/14219/2008) dated March 11, 2009, the opinion of its Heritage Council from February 12, 2009, the binding opinion of the OKP MHMP (ref. MHMP-769741/2008) dated June 10, 2009, and the records from the Council of Experts of the same body no. 94 from March 5, 2009, and no. 96 from June 4, 2009.

Urban and Historical Context:

The center of Dejvice was newly built according to the generous urban composition designed by architect Antonín Engel from 1921-1924. Its central space is Vítězné náměstí in the layout of a horseshoe. From here, streets regularly radiate outwards in eight directions, with the main traffic arteries heading towards the four cardinal points. The radial network intersects with a sophisticated system of circular boulevards and streets. This project was completed in its layout and main design scheme and has been respected ever since, making it one of the grandest urban achievements of the interwar period.
Engel's classical concept, which does not require the element of a height dominant to achieve its effect and gradation, but relies on a thoughtful composition of volumes and spaces at a moderate height, saw even the largest construction of the Stalinist era, the International Hotel, capitulate in the 1950s, which was relocated to Podbaby following the intervention of the very creator of the urban concept. Although the original layout scheme was later disrupted by the completion of the CTU complex in Technical Street in the 1960s, its height dominant was deliberately located further away from the square, under the slope of Hanspaulka.
The main features of Engel's urban solution—the layout scheme and the height level of the buildings—are highly valued and are therefore humbly respected to this day. The proposed building of the Institute of Cybernetics and Informatics of CTU, disregarding the fantastical ideas for a skyscraper in the middle of the square from the 1990s, is the first real threat to these valued attributes. Allowing its realization in the proposed form would not only be a gross urban error but would also prevent the dignified completion of the original concept.
It is unfortunate that the very university, which trains the new generation of urban planners and architects, commits this schoolboy error and ignorance with its proposal.
Meanwhile, the new construction of the National Technical Library, incidentally a laureate of the Club for Old Prague Award for new buildings in historical environments, has demonstrated that contemporary architecture can successfully enter the context of Dejvice without superficial gestures.

Objections:

The Club for Old Prague fundamentally disagrees with the proposed concept of the new building. It fully identifies with the negative opinion of the Prague office of the National Heritage Institute, its Heritage Council, and the conclusions of the Council of Experts of the MHMP no. 94. The reasons for disagreement can be summarized into three main points:

1. The proposal conflicts with the protective zone conditions of the PPR (NVP ref. Kul/5-932/81 from May 19, 1981), within which the intended building would be located. There is a whole range of vantage points, especially from northern and northwestern places or elevated terrains of Prague 6, from where the building would intrude, with undesirable effect, into the observer's field of view along with the silhouette of Prague Castle.

2. It is desirable to align the proposed building with the urban concept of the existing and future development of Vítězné náměstí, which is paramount and determinative in this case. Without clarifying the mutual relationships of the first and second layers of the mass structure of the square's buildings and their surroundings, there is a danger that the proposed high building, although not justified in doing so, may itself become the arbiter of other development opportunities for the locality, to which everything else would have to yield.

3. The building negatively affects the heritage zone of Dejvice, Bubeneč, and upper Holešovice. Although the construction site is no longer part of the heritage zone, the high-rise building would significantly attack and optically disrupt the entire urban concept of Dejvice and Bubeneč according to Antonín Engel's plan, which is the essence of heritage protection and does not fundamentally account for a height dominant. From this perspective, the building would seriously undermine the foundational values of the original concept.

We consider the conclusion of the Binding Opinion of the OKP MHMP from June 10, 2009, which allows the construction under certain conditions, to be literally unjustified. The executive organ of heritage care has not been able to sufficiently address and refute any of the presented objections with convincing arguments of its own. Its conclusion is based only on these ambiguous sources:

a) The opinion of its Council of Experts no. 96 from June 4, 2009, in which modified solution variants were presented. However, even this advisory body, according to the text of the record published on the website, did not reach a clear consensus. Out of twelve present individuals, only six consider the proposal acceptable, one person was against it, and five abstained from voting.

b) The argumentation of the investor, who disputed the opinion of the NPÚ. However, in its defense, it provides an array of entirely irrelevant arguments: for example, "the proposed building will form one of the peaks of the newly created triangle of multi-story buildings (Crowne Plaza Hotel, FA CTU)", which indicates a misunderstanding of the essence of the objections.

c) Two reports presented by the investor (Prof. Ing. arch. Vladimír Šlapeta, Ing. arch. Pavel Halík, CSc.), which address the urban contexts of the proposed high-rise building imprecisely or tentatively. "I am convinced that such a concept of subtle accents of important urban organisms belongs to the good tradition of Czech urban creativity and we find its analogies in the work of both progressive (Josef Gočár) and conservative wings (Antonín Engel)…" (Šlapeta)
"The unbuilt segment (the square) in front of the CTU complex was lost in the 1990s. It became the property of development firms that want to develop commercial administrative buildings at these sites. Here, it will be necessary to ensure that buildings do not exceed the levels proposed by Engel. However, the buildings that have previously dominated - the seminary, the Faculty of Civil Engineering - will lose sight of it, revealing the need for another dominant, announcing the presence of a grouping of universities." (Halík) Even if we ignore the contentious nature of the reports commissioned and compensated by the investor, their argumentation is unconvincing, and the authors clearly evade the essence of the issue.

Conclusion:

From the perspective of heritage and urbanism, there is no circumstance according to the Club for Old Prague that indicates that the proposed high-rise building would be beneficial for the locality; the arguments suggest the opposite. The realization of the project, which is a manifestation of unjustified self-centeredness, would damage the valuable urban scheme. Particularly unacceptable is the poorly concealed effort of the investor to dominate the territory of Dejvice and Bubeneč with a visually dominant building, as evidenced by the substantial logo of CTU in a prominent highest position. Despite sympathies for higher education in general and support for expressions of its viability and sovereignty, we consider this plan excessive.

Recommendations:

We recommend to the Department of Construction of Prague 6, within the framework of urban proceedings, to require the investor to reduce the mass of the high-rise building so that its main cornice corresponds with the main cornice of the buildings on the opposite side of Jugoslavian Partisans Street and that the tower accent above the main cornice does not exceed three set-back floors. We consider it necessary to confront variants with a higher building level with the plans for the further completion of the square.


PhDr. Richard Biegel, Ph.D., v. r. PhDr. Kateřina Bečková, v. r.
executive of the Club for Old Prague chairwoman of the Club for Old Prague