Špitálský vrch and Zlatý vrch Barracks in Cheb – competition results
Two-round project urban planning and architectural competition for the proposal.
The subject of the competition in the 1st round was the development vision for Špitálský Hill in Cheb as an area located in a unique urban and natural context. The subject of the competition in the 2nd round was the architectural and urban design of the Zlatý Vrch barracks based on the concept defined in the 1st round of the competition.
Organizer: City of Cheb
Processor of the competition conditions: Ing. Pavel Šturc, City of Cheb - head of the investment department
Competition Secretary: Bc. Jan Irber, City of Cheb - Investment Department
Reviewer of competition proposals: Ing. Jana Najmanová, City of Cheb - Investment Department
Competition date: April 8, 2013 - October 31, 2013
Jury: Pavel Vanoušek, Tomáš Linda, Jano Stempel, Jan Sedlák, Michal Fišer; alternates: Václav Zůna, Vlasta Poláčková, Štepán Špoula
Number of submitted proposals: 13
Total awards and prizes: 1.16 million CZK
In the 1st round, 3 prizes were awarded:
Prize (50,000 CZK): DOMYJINAK s.r.o., authors: Ing.arch. Jan Černoch, Ing.arch. Petr Šikola, Ing. Jan Pustějovský, Ing.arch. Tereza Lemperová, Ing.arch. Iveta Mandíková, Bc. Štěpán Lajda, collaborators: Jakub Kopecký, Jan Gašpárek, Petr Vacek, Michael Šilár
Prize (40,000 CZK): AVE architekt a.s., authors: Ing.arch. Václav Ulč, Ing.arch. Petr Vácal, Ing.arch. Šárka Lorencová
Prize (30,000 CZK): AHK Architekti s.r.o., authors: Ing.arch. Zdeněk Hölzel, Ing.arch. Jan Křivský, collaborators: Ing.arch. Petr Fogl, Ing.arch. Šárka Vomelová, Ing. Vilém Hrubý, Ing. Vojtěch Brož, Ing. arch. Tomáš Richtr
In the 2nd round, the following awards and prizes were granted:
1st prize: not awarded
2nd prize (300,000 CZK): A69 Architekti - s.r.o., authors: Ing.arch. Boris Redčenkov, Ing.arch. Prokop Tomášek, Ing.arch. Jaroslav Wertig, Ing.arch. Erik Hocke, Ing. Jitka Macáková, co-author: Ing. Václav Malina
Jury evaluation: Among all the proposals advancing to the second round, this one achieved the most noticeable improvement in the degree of development and clarification of the basic urban and architectural concept. The author reassessed and clarified the role of the barracks in the context of the city. The residential area gained a distinct hierarchy with a clear focal point. The proposal with a balanced proportion of built-up and green areas revokes the idea of a garden city in the context of contemporary social needs. The chosen routing of the street network allows the integration of main pedestrian routes from the open countryside into the very core of the garden district in the area of the former shooting range.
The authors focus their main attention on two iconic locations – the objects: “the gate to Cheb” at the 앞 of the Zlatý Vrch barracks and the natural amphitheater at the site of the former military shooting range. Too much emphasis in the presentation raises doubts about the self-sufficient functioning and consistency of the overall concept in case these icons are not realized, especially since there is a lack of a closer presentation of an ordinary street. The presentation cannot be denied its marketing quality; however, it borders on being overly appealing. Similarly, the same can be said for the architecture of both locations - objects. The barracks, or their remnants, become part of an engaging scenic postcard of the entire city when approaching from Františkovy Lázně, while the detail of the preserved barrack gate appears more ironic than dignified. The original delineation of the area is newly interpreted as semi-enclosed oval islands bearing the historical reference of the barracks. With elevated platforms, the authors try to incorporate the original barrack buildings into an otherwise unrelated urban structure. The purpose of both platforms is debatable and insufficiently proven, altering the immediate surroundings of both preserved objects with valuable trees. The decision to fundamentally reduce the barrack area is, however, pragmatic and increases the likelihood of public investment realization.
The building for social services on the terrain edge of the former shooting range cleverly responds to the topographical qualities of the site and helps support the identity of the new neighborhood. In contrast, the extension of the oval floor plan of the kindergarten, shop, and locker room across the street competes with the natural morphology of the topographic cut and ultimately weakens the landscape feel.
The foreland of the American bridge is addressed with confidence. The foundation is a functional operational framework, with bulk garages placed precisely, and Koželužská and Havlíčkova streets serve as a vital urban-making seam connected with a new pedestrian bridge over the Ohře to the historical center.
The street in the Lipách is too densely built up; the exclusive character of the villa colony would certainly be enhanced by occasional gaps, at least at both ends. A successful gesture is, however, the preservation of the upper front as undeveloped in favor of a recreational meadow, thus emphasizing the status of the community's generous common ground.
The incorporation of the area into broader transportation contexts (connection to R6, an alternative opinion on the ring road of the city via the western tangent with a bridge over the Skalka dam) is convincing.
The textual part is presented clearly, lacking neither strategic proposals nor economic considerations.
The proposal received the highest award in the competition due to a balanced degree of pragmatism, a creative approach with empathy towards the environment, which allowed the authors to tailor a garden city concept to the addressed area.
3rd prize (200,000 CZK): Ing.arch Jan Trávníček, Ing.arch. Josef Kubát, Bc. Romana Bedrunková, Bc. Matúš Kaboš
Jury evaluation: The proposal stands on different principles and utilizes different concepts than the other proposals that advanced to the second round. The essential common denominator here is humility and sensitivity to the place, along with a disposition towards traditional urban forms without excessive sentimentality. The presentation method is convincing and factual, while also conveying a warm relationship to the location.
The approach to the barracks area is respectful, treating it as a distinct area amidst the city; however, this core idea unfortunately is not developed into a convincing expression, as the fencing, a basic characteristic of the barrack phenomenon, is inconsistently missing entirely on the southern side. The adjustments and usage of the open space of the former “training ground” are also unconvincing, as it lacks significance in this form and rather disrupts the integrity of the overall area. A weakness in the otherwise successful development concept of the eastern slope of Špitálský Hill is the underutilization of the former shooting range, whose space is inappropriately separated from the street by the buildings of shops and the kindergarten. This detail brings a certain monotony to the street instead of a clever integration of a significant landscape element into the public spaces of the district. The character of the public space and the connection to the landscape of the new villa district are otherwise exemplary documented, and the typologization is credible, subordinated to the basic concept of the main circular street. The addition of structure between the barracks and the river is unfortunately still rather formal and thus occasionally unrealistic. However, the principle of infilling is correct. The chosen approach to the proposal is convincingly described in the written report, and the jury particularly appreciates the carefully justified construction phasing in relation to strategic and economic aspects, as well as the professionalism of the overall processing.
Award (100,000 CZK): Ing.arch. Jan Červený, Ing.arch. Václav Kruliš, Ing.arch. Jaroslav Aust
Jury evaluation: At first glance, the urban form of the foreland of the American bridge is convincing; unfortunately, it does not reflect the reality of ownership relations or the genuinely verified demand for a specific townhouse typology suited more to a metropolitan type of settlement. The foreland thus remains rather in an idealistic realm.
The barracks area concept is built on a strongly acknowledged layering of historical stages. However, this layering is rather random, resulting in spatial chaos exacerbated by the helpless solution of the ground floor suffering from the dictates of a logically flawed communication network. An excessive amount of paved surfaces in both vehicular and pedestrian communications, alongside sharply profiled terrain modifications. The operational framework for road traffic is complicated with unnecessary overlaps of unrelated functions (access to the hospice and family houses). The architectural form of the school annexes is formalistic, and it is unclear whether it is a schema or a conscious design. The new forms weaken the strength of the original area. For example, the annex to the hospice is disproportionately large and undermines the solitary building system of the original area. Inspiration from a historical postcard remains unfulfilled.
The former shooting range creates a natural gap between the individual districts, its more natural character is supported by the connection to alternative pedestrian routes linking the city with the surrounding countryside.
The feasibility of connecting to a possible future bridge at the dam location is not proven more than in the 1st round. The structure of the street network in the 2nd and 3rd development phases is logical and clear. Upon closer reassessment, the jury also concluded that the proposed extent of construction disproportionately affects the upper southern slope of the Špitálský Hill meadow.
In light of this proposal's advancement to the second round based on a quality urban and landscape concept, the jury decided to award a prize, not a main prize, primarily due to the unconvincing resolution of the barracks area itself and their unsuccessful integration into the broader context of the area.
Award (100,000 CZK): SIAL architects and engineers s.r.o., authors: Ing.arch. Jiří Buček, Ing.arch. Pavel Šťastný, Ing.arch. Helena Hlávková, collaborators: Bc. Radka Ježková, Pavla Švecová, Ing.arch. Jiří Plašil, Ing. Jiří Souček
Jury evaluation: The proposal did not undergo progressive development in the second round, containing the same shortcomings, and some are exacerbated. The expected elaboration did not occur; the proposal mainly remains in the state of the 1st round schema.
The proposed construction often ignores the topography of the area, for example, at the former shooting range, where the author unjustifiably contaminated the value of a key place with an inappropriate typology, presumably unrealistic as well.
The gross ignorance of the area was confirmed by the solution of the foreland of the American bridge, specifically the detail of the completion of the Svoboda cultural house.
The detailed situation in M 1:500 did not undergo any refining in expression or operational organization of the ground floor, and the specific adjustments in the arrangement of the terraced apartment buildings do not justify their existence in the area; the result remains just as unconvincing as in the 1st round. The resolution of the barracks area with a new function does not justify the preservation of this historical legacy. The insertion of a base with shops into the southeastern foreland of the largest object is a possible concept, but further work does not fulfill the chosen potential. The retained objects of the former barracks are treated separately without mutual spatial relationships; the base does not have an integrative role but is merely superfluous. The utilization of the flat roof is vaguely and helplessly conceived; the declared variability of functions does not correspond with the visualization presenting a park established there. Access to the school from the city is complicated by numerous barriers (stairs, bends on the route) and ignores the axial composition of the area. No indication of supply methods is suggested; the usage of the roof of the base is controversial in terms of ownership - a public space on the roof of a private object. The base with shops then appears definitively self-serving in relation to the surrounding structure, the street defined by a solid street front of retail ground floor quickly transitions into solitary villa development and is then visually terminated by the fence of the neighboring block. The northwestern foreland of the school is without opinion; the two school playgrounds do not address the space but only partially fill it. The layout of the school facility contains several serious errors (elevator), the layout of the kindergarten in the former officers' club building feels forced and complicated. The author's decision to replace the third original barrack building with a new construction appears inconsistent in the context of the characterization of the other buildings. The barracks with new content do not have an initiating character for the development of the new neighborhood but serve more so a servicing role. Their conversion can, therefore, be anticipated in later stages. A significant factual flaw in the proposal is the inconsistency of the individual representations; situations, sections M 1:500, floor plans M 1:200 do not correlate with each other.
The transport issues of the proposal are described very thoroughly; the author convincingly places the new area in the context of the city's existing transportation structure and soberly refutes the need for a ring road with the bridging of Skalka. The opinion on the concept of technical infrastructure is not presented.
In light of the advancement of this proposal to the second round based on a quality urban and landscape concept, the jury decided to award a prize, not a main prize, primarily due to the unsupported and unreliable resolution of the barracks area itself and their integration into the broader context of the area.
More information >
The subject of the competition in the 1st round was the development vision for Špitálský Hill in Cheb as an area located in a unique urban and natural context. The subject of the competition in the 2nd round was the architectural and urban design of the Zlatý Vrch barracks based on the concept defined in the 1st round of the competition.
Organizer: City of Cheb
Processor of the competition conditions: Ing. Pavel Šturc, City of Cheb - head of the investment department
Competition Secretary: Bc. Jan Irber, City of Cheb - Investment Department
Reviewer of competition proposals: Ing. Jana Najmanová, City of Cheb - Investment Department
Competition date: April 8, 2013 - October 31, 2013
Jury: Pavel Vanoušek, Tomáš Linda, Jano Stempel, Jan Sedlák, Michal Fišer; alternates: Václav Zůna, Vlasta Poláčková, Štepán Špoula
Number of submitted proposals: 13
Total awards and prizes: 1.16 million CZK
In the 1st round, 3 prizes were awarded:
Prize (50,000 CZK): DOMYJINAK s.r.o., authors: Ing.arch. Jan Černoch, Ing.arch. Petr Šikola, Ing. Jan Pustějovský, Ing.arch. Tereza Lemperová, Ing.arch. Iveta Mandíková, Bc. Štěpán Lajda, collaborators: Jakub Kopecký, Jan Gašpárek, Petr Vacek, Michael Šilár
Prize (40,000 CZK): AVE architekt a.s., authors: Ing.arch. Václav Ulč, Ing.arch. Petr Vácal, Ing.arch. Šárka Lorencová
Prize (30,000 CZK): AHK Architekti s.r.o., authors: Ing.arch. Zdeněk Hölzel, Ing.arch. Jan Křivský, collaborators: Ing.arch. Petr Fogl, Ing.arch. Šárka Vomelová, Ing. Vilém Hrubý, Ing. Vojtěch Brož, Ing. arch. Tomáš Richtr
In the 2nd round, the following awards and prizes were granted:
1st prize: not awarded
2nd prize (300,000 CZK): A69 Architekti - s.r.o., authors: Ing.arch. Boris Redčenkov, Ing.arch. Prokop Tomášek, Ing.arch. Jaroslav Wertig, Ing.arch. Erik Hocke, Ing. Jitka Macáková, co-author: Ing. Václav Malina
Jury evaluation: Among all the proposals advancing to the second round, this one achieved the most noticeable improvement in the degree of development and clarification of the basic urban and architectural concept. The author reassessed and clarified the role of the barracks in the context of the city. The residential area gained a distinct hierarchy with a clear focal point. The proposal with a balanced proportion of built-up and green areas revokes the idea of a garden city in the context of contemporary social needs. The chosen routing of the street network allows the integration of main pedestrian routes from the open countryside into the very core of the garden district in the area of the former shooting range.
The authors focus their main attention on two iconic locations – the objects: “the gate to Cheb” at the 앞 of the Zlatý Vrch barracks and the natural amphitheater at the site of the former military shooting range. Too much emphasis in the presentation raises doubts about the self-sufficient functioning and consistency of the overall concept in case these icons are not realized, especially since there is a lack of a closer presentation of an ordinary street. The presentation cannot be denied its marketing quality; however, it borders on being overly appealing. Similarly, the same can be said for the architecture of both locations - objects. The barracks, or their remnants, become part of an engaging scenic postcard of the entire city when approaching from Františkovy Lázně, while the detail of the preserved barrack gate appears more ironic than dignified. The original delineation of the area is newly interpreted as semi-enclosed oval islands bearing the historical reference of the barracks. With elevated platforms, the authors try to incorporate the original barrack buildings into an otherwise unrelated urban structure. The purpose of both platforms is debatable and insufficiently proven, altering the immediate surroundings of both preserved objects with valuable trees. The decision to fundamentally reduce the barrack area is, however, pragmatic and increases the likelihood of public investment realization.
The building for social services on the terrain edge of the former shooting range cleverly responds to the topographical qualities of the site and helps support the identity of the new neighborhood. In contrast, the extension of the oval floor plan of the kindergarten, shop, and locker room across the street competes with the natural morphology of the topographic cut and ultimately weakens the landscape feel.
The foreland of the American bridge is addressed with confidence. The foundation is a functional operational framework, with bulk garages placed precisely, and Koželužská and Havlíčkova streets serve as a vital urban-making seam connected with a new pedestrian bridge over the Ohře to the historical center.
The street in the Lipách is too densely built up; the exclusive character of the villa colony would certainly be enhanced by occasional gaps, at least at both ends. A successful gesture is, however, the preservation of the upper front as undeveloped in favor of a recreational meadow, thus emphasizing the status of the community's generous common ground.
The incorporation of the area into broader transportation contexts (connection to R6, an alternative opinion on the ring road of the city via the western tangent with a bridge over the Skalka dam) is convincing.
The textual part is presented clearly, lacking neither strategic proposals nor economic considerations.
The proposal received the highest award in the competition due to a balanced degree of pragmatism, a creative approach with empathy towards the environment, which allowed the authors to tailor a garden city concept to the addressed area.
3rd prize (200,000 CZK): Ing.arch Jan Trávníček, Ing.arch. Josef Kubát, Bc. Romana Bedrunková, Bc. Matúš Kaboš
Jury evaluation: The proposal stands on different principles and utilizes different concepts than the other proposals that advanced to the second round. The essential common denominator here is humility and sensitivity to the place, along with a disposition towards traditional urban forms without excessive sentimentality. The presentation method is convincing and factual, while also conveying a warm relationship to the location.
The approach to the barracks area is respectful, treating it as a distinct area amidst the city; however, this core idea unfortunately is not developed into a convincing expression, as the fencing, a basic characteristic of the barrack phenomenon, is inconsistently missing entirely on the southern side. The adjustments and usage of the open space of the former “training ground” are also unconvincing, as it lacks significance in this form and rather disrupts the integrity of the overall area. A weakness in the otherwise successful development concept of the eastern slope of Špitálský Hill is the underutilization of the former shooting range, whose space is inappropriately separated from the street by the buildings of shops and the kindergarten. This detail brings a certain monotony to the street instead of a clever integration of a significant landscape element into the public spaces of the district. The character of the public space and the connection to the landscape of the new villa district are otherwise exemplary documented, and the typologization is credible, subordinated to the basic concept of the main circular street. The addition of structure between the barracks and the river is unfortunately still rather formal and thus occasionally unrealistic. However, the principle of infilling is correct. The chosen approach to the proposal is convincingly described in the written report, and the jury particularly appreciates the carefully justified construction phasing in relation to strategic and economic aspects, as well as the professionalism of the overall processing.
Award (100,000 CZK): Ing.arch. Jan Červený, Ing.arch. Václav Kruliš, Ing.arch. Jaroslav Aust
Jury evaluation: At first glance, the urban form of the foreland of the American bridge is convincing; unfortunately, it does not reflect the reality of ownership relations or the genuinely verified demand for a specific townhouse typology suited more to a metropolitan type of settlement. The foreland thus remains rather in an idealistic realm.
The barracks area concept is built on a strongly acknowledged layering of historical stages. However, this layering is rather random, resulting in spatial chaos exacerbated by the helpless solution of the ground floor suffering from the dictates of a logically flawed communication network. An excessive amount of paved surfaces in both vehicular and pedestrian communications, alongside sharply profiled terrain modifications. The operational framework for road traffic is complicated with unnecessary overlaps of unrelated functions (access to the hospice and family houses). The architectural form of the school annexes is formalistic, and it is unclear whether it is a schema or a conscious design. The new forms weaken the strength of the original area. For example, the annex to the hospice is disproportionately large and undermines the solitary building system of the original area. Inspiration from a historical postcard remains unfulfilled.
The former shooting range creates a natural gap between the individual districts, its more natural character is supported by the connection to alternative pedestrian routes linking the city with the surrounding countryside.
The feasibility of connecting to a possible future bridge at the dam location is not proven more than in the 1st round. The structure of the street network in the 2nd and 3rd development phases is logical and clear. Upon closer reassessment, the jury also concluded that the proposed extent of construction disproportionately affects the upper southern slope of the Špitálský Hill meadow.
In light of this proposal's advancement to the second round based on a quality urban and landscape concept, the jury decided to award a prize, not a main prize, primarily due to the unconvincing resolution of the barracks area itself and their unsuccessful integration into the broader context of the area.
Award (100,000 CZK): SIAL architects and engineers s.r.o., authors: Ing.arch. Jiří Buček, Ing.arch. Pavel Šťastný, Ing.arch. Helena Hlávková, collaborators: Bc. Radka Ježková, Pavla Švecová, Ing.arch. Jiří Plašil, Ing. Jiří Souček
Jury evaluation: The proposal did not undergo progressive development in the second round, containing the same shortcomings, and some are exacerbated. The expected elaboration did not occur; the proposal mainly remains in the state of the 1st round schema.
The proposed construction often ignores the topography of the area, for example, at the former shooting range, where the author unjustifiably contaminated the value of a key place with an inappropriate typology, presumably unrealistic as well.
The gross ignorance of the area was confirmed by the solution of the foreland of the American bridge, specifically the detail of the completion of the Svoboda cultural house.
The detailed situation in M 1:500 did not undergo any refining in expression or operational organization of the ground floor, and the specific adjustments in the arrangement of the terraced apartment buildings do not justify their existence in the area; the result remains just as unconvincing as in the 1st round. The resolution of the barracks area with a new function does not justify the preservation of this historical legacy. The insertion of a base with shops into the southeastern foreland of the largest object is a possible concept, but further work does not fulfill the chosen potential. The retained objects of the former barracks are treated separately without mutual spatial relationships; the base does not have an integrative role but is merely superfluous. The utilization of the flat roof is vaguely and helplessly conceived; the declared variability of functions does not correspond with the visualization presenting a park established there. Access to the school from the city is complicated by numerous barriers (stairs, bends on the route) and ignores the axial composition of the area. No indication of supply methods is suggested; the usage of the roof of the base is controversial in terms of ownership - a public space on the roof of a private object. The base with shops then appears definitively self-serving in relation to the surrounding structure, the street defined by a solid street front of retail ground floor quickly transitions into solitary villa development and is then visually terminated by the fence of the neighboring block. The northwestern foreland of the school is without opinion; the two school playgrounds do not address the space but only partially fill it. The layout of the school facility contains several serious errors (elevator), the layout of the kindergarten in the former officers' club building feels forced and complicated. The author's decision to replace the third original barrack building with a new construction appears inconsistent in the context of the characterization of the other buildings. The barracks with new content do not have an initiating character for the development of the new neighborhood but serve more so a servicing role. Their conversion can, therefore, be anticipated in later stages. A significant factual flaw in the proposal is the inconsistency of the individual representations; situations, sections M 1:500, floor plans M 1:200 do not correlate with each other.
The transport issues of the proposal are described very thoroughly; the author convincingly places the new area in the context of the city's existing transportation structure and soberly refutes the need for a ring road with the bridging of Skalka. The opinion on the concept of technical infrastructure is not presented.
In light of the advancement of this proposal to the second round based on a quality urban and landscape concept, the jury decided to award a prize, not a main prize, primarily due to the unsupported and unreliable resolution of the barracks area itself and their integration into the broader context of the area.
More information >
The English translation is powered by AI tool. Switch to Czech to view the original text source.
0 comments
add comment
Related articles
0
08.06.2020 | Cheb is looking for a developer interested in the Zlatý vrch barracks
0
01.03.2018 | The demolition of Zlatý vrch will be completed, and planning for its development is already underway
1
09.11.2014 | The town will prepare a large residential zone in the former barracks near the center
0
18.11.2013 | A69 - architects won the competition for the appearance of the barracks on Zlatý vrch
0
11.04.2013 | Špitálský vrh and Zlatý vrh Barracks in Cheb - competition announcement
0
15.10.2012 | The future shape of Golden Hill in Cheb will be determined by an architectural study
