RESULTS

02

1st prize

Atelier CMJN

François Lepeytre

Gaël Brulé

cooperation:

Hector Hernandez

The project convinces the Jury in all competition criteria: in its overall urban setting, its architectural quality, its functional and programmatic clarity and smartness as well as in its economic use of surface area and thoughtful architectural setting regarding ecological issues.

The building complex is well connected to the logical access route from the town centre via the linear Višňovka park, which is extended to a town plaza as a grand ending point.

The town plaza is the public, openly accessible core of the new development, which is at once a well-programmed community centre and the front plaza to an innovative school.

The communal areas such as the hall and the canteen as well as the sports facilities are located to the North and South of the new plaza, the school is located to the East, with the library in the centre of the public plaza; there are two separate entrances for both schools: the 1st stage school and the 2nd stage school. The community centre and the school can work in synergy as well as separate.

The school is outstanding in its relationship of indoor and outdoor space: right after both school entrances there is an immediate connection to a courtyard, which can be used as outdoor learning space. The 2nd Stage school is directed to the sports field in the East, while the 1st Stage school has a more intimate but spacious garden to the South, yet all outdoor spaces are connected.

The cluster organization allows for different educational systems and good orientation in the schools.

Overall the scale of the proposal, its sensitivity to the needs of the town, as well as the location of the possible addition of the swimming pool will enrich the social and school life in Chýně.

 

Jury recommendations:

The project could get larger, since at the moment it uses less surface area than most other proposals. This way there can be space for the following enlargement of functions: generally the common space in the clusters, the canteen and kitchen. The cluster of the 1st stage school should be enlarged to include a separate cloakroom and one missing schoolkids toilet block on the second floor.

The town representatives support the idea of opening the clusters of the second floor to the roof terraces, so it can be used as outdoor space for the upper levels.

There should be a protected link/ connection from the school to the canteen as well as from the school to the sports hall (the last one without interfering with the after-school club.)

The jury recommends reworking the facade of the sports hall facing the town plaza: there should be more openings or interaction to the sports hall. Also, the small gymnasium should interact with the garden of the 1st stage school.

The jury encourages a collective continuation of programming of the town plaza, including sports facilities, with the client. The entire area should stimulate the school children to do sports.

The response to the topography needs to be looked at carefully at the next level of planning.

Finally, the parking situation shall be evaluated in synergy with a good traffic solution for the entire town area.

Any reworking or changes should not affect the overall quality of the scheme.

43

2nd prize

ARCHITEKTI mikulaj & mikulajová

Andrea Ambrovičová

Radoslav Kurucz

Jana Matlovičová

Juraj Mikulaj

 

The proposal with clear urban concept that follows the Višňovka park uses well the differences in terrain height for internal organization of the school. The main functions of the school are gathered in pavilions connected to the central foyer with hall and school canteen. The foyer as a communal and social heart of the school is a distinctive quality of the proposal and has a great potential to become the centre of successful community life. Same applies to the library that enriches the entrance area of the school.

The pavilions generate and define semi-public outdoor spaces with a potential to connect the interior school well with the exterior in order to host various outdoor activities. The amphitheatre is one of the best solved elements related to the canteen and hall. The atriums in North-West and South-East remain so far in scheme awaiting further elaboration.

The classroom pavilions are based on a corridor scheme which in case of the second grade offers little opportunities to be used for creating social contacts and spending free time during breaks. In several cases these corridors are not ended with satisfaction. The main staircase of the second grade does not convincingly follow the entrance of the school.

The orientation of the classrooms to the South-East and South-West is slightly unfortunate and will require added shading. The section of the school management and teachers is mixed with the second grade and too isolated. The location of the preparatory class is too deep in the disposition. The jury recommends reconsidering incorporation of the outdoor fire escape staircase into the volume of the building, which will allow better use of the adjacent garden.

The presented architectural solution is less convincing than well-structured hierarchy of functions and connections of the interior and does not correspond to the concept of wooden structure that is declared in the text report.

Parking, however much needed, envelopes the school and isolates it from the surroundings. Effective traffic solution for the morning hours is lacking (e.g. K+R). The narrow park following Višňovka in front of the entrance façade of the school lacks convincing expression in regard to the pathways and importance of the space.

23

3rd prize

Martin Neruda

cooperation :

Jana Šťastná

Zuzana Boháčová

A very strong and simple concept is well and clearly worked out into a quality proposal. The basis of the solution lies within natural prolongation of the promenade into the newly design centre of activities – a square defined by a rational low volume of the building. The proposal works well with the terrain. The new form takes in regards of its surrounding quite defined shape; nevertheless it does not dominate the area and acts there with subtlety. The proposal is conceived equally as a school and a community centre, both functions are merged naturally.

However the quite harsh separation of the area as clearly outdoor or indoor space without any buffer zones makes for a slightly user-unfriendly environment. The schematic solution of the quite large area of the square seems problematic; it would be welcome to have it treated more into detail and create smaller better controllable and usable spaces. The proposed solution, according to the jury, puts too much responsibility for managing the space on the inhabitants of Chýně. The functional link between the south wing hosting the classrooms of the first stage and the public space seems too direct and in conflict – a buffer zone creating a more intimate are for the children to learn and use the outdoor space freely is missing. The jury recommends reconsidering the strictness of the space, but is also of the opinion that these shortages can be solved without disrupting the otherwise clear concept.

A great deficit in the proposal lies in the location of the swimming pool below the sports field. The phasing in this case would be impossible without compromises. The final location of the sports field on the roof of the swimming pool is questionable, feels enclosed and subconsciously excludes the public. This solution brings possible limitations and complications and does not quite correspond to the brief. The traffic solution is lacking as well.

The architecture is sober with contemporary expression, at some points maybe too austere. It respects the place and is well in scale with its volume. The sculptural form however negatively affects the financial costs; the proposal has the most disadvantageous floor area to façade area ratio among the prize-winning projects.

The functional links within the building are well solved, even though apart from the south wing-public space collision there is also the issue with the disposition of the first stage classrooms: their width to depth ratio is unfavourable. The corridor scheme of the first floor is too utilitarian and lacks the qualities that are to be found on the ground floor. From the acoustics and organization point of view the location of the big gymnasium is questionable. Also the big gymnasium is actually rather small in regards to the competition brief. The preparatory classes are not that easy to access, it would be more user-friendly if they were located more towards the edge of the public space.

40

honourable mention

KOGAA

Tomáš Kozelský

Viktor Odstrčilík

Alexandra Georgescu

Victor Quiros

cooperation :

Tomáš Vižálek

Jaroslav Vokál

Miroslava Šešulková

Ondřej Mráz

Leo Odstrčilík

The jury awarded this proposal by an honourable mention for the innovative approach of the authors toward the spatial and functional layout of the school building. The proposal works with the element of the “inner school landscape” as a flowing space for meeting, playing and alternative forms of education. At the same time enough attention was put into the classic classrooms as to a basic typological unit of the school. Their integrated distribution at the Northern façade ensures constant level of lighting during the whole day. The jury appreciates the courage of the authors to investigate an alternative typology by design of the competition proposal even at the expense of greater spatial demands directly generating greater financial costs of such a project.

36

honourable mention

SLLA, s.r.o.

Michal Sulo

Miriam Lišková

cooperation :

Lucia Kostrubová

The jury felt positively addressed by the structurality of the proposal and by the simplicity of the concept working with the scale and searching for a suitable expression for the school in such a township as Chýně. The chosen form of the pavilion school moreover allows for a consistent application of the cluster system for the classrooms, which the jury finds generally more favourable in comparison to the conventional corridor scheme and more suitable for the modern educational methods and development of the sense of community.

01

1

Sérgio Miguel Godinho

The proposal is too dominant and insensitive to the place. The urban and functional solution is chaotic, the entrance to the building unclear. The dominating element of the site is a big parking lot, which unnecessarily separates the school from the Višňovka park. The facades are treated too formally and on the expense of the comfort in the calssrooms.

03

3

Art’Città Lda.

Augusto Vasconcelos

cooperation :

Diogo Vasconcelos

Ema Mendes

Hugo Gomes

Isidro Vale

Pedro Filipe

The scheme presents too large a footprint on the site, with a courtyard with a large glazed roof, which is not programmed to its potential. The school sticks with a corridor circulation, which is not relating to the idea of new educational programme. In its rigid form it is insensitive to the site. It does not engage with the outdoor space, rather it creates left-over spaces all around the building.

04

4

Martin Borák

Martin Švec

The urban scheme of a closed-off square is too introverted, which is proved by placement of the sports hall and swimming pool. Moreover, these further isolate the school from the Višňovka park. The traffic concept is not convincing, especially in relation to the main entrance. The building is by its scale considerably insensitive to its surroundings.

05

5

Liminal Office for Architecture and Landscape

Erica Chladová

Robert van der Pol

Anna Chladová

František Chlad

The design seems very schematic. Positive solution of the proposal is the continuation of the park towards the school. The interesting urban solution is however compromised by location of the parking. Corridors in this proposal are utilitarian without any added value or spatial quality. This concept is not seen as an ideal model of contemporary education.

06

6

Pavlo Omelchenko

Marco Polloni

Viktor Zasypkin

cooperation :

Ekaterina Evseenko

Ilya Gorbenko

Olga Marich

Alexander Radchenko

The proposal regards the new school as a part of village environment. This idea however clashes with the design of the parking spaces in front of the school. Spaces under pitched roofs are not well thought through and orientation of classrooms towards the East requires shading during all morning and actually does not offer enough comfort for children. The outside classroom has glazed roof and therefore does not provide desired shadow.

07

7

Albano Jorge Rodrigues Lopes

cooperation :

Ana Teresa Franco Días Sítima

Tânia Patrícia Rodrigues dos Santos

Joana Lopes

Ricardo Ribeiro

CIVICRETE, Estudos e Projectos de Engenharia, Lda.

Very strong composition of five pavilions takes almost the whole area of the site and counts with roof usage. The resulting spaces between the pavilions are narrow and dark – without a suggestion how to use them. The layout of the classrooms along the corridor is conventional and does not correspond with the modern educational methods. The connecting corridor of the pavilions unfortunately lacks deeper idea and spatial quality. Overall, the proposal is oversized.

08

8

PSLA Architekten ZT KG

Lilli Pschill

Ali Seghatoleslami

cooperation :

Aiste Ambrazeviciute

Christopher Ghouse

Breach of anonymity – the proposal was excluded from evaluation

09

9

MUUR / Cloud Studio s.r.o

Marianna Markusková

Vladimír Netík

Radovan Volmut

cooperation :

Martina Vajsová

Jakub Števanka

Positive aspect is continuation of the park and creation of an entrance plaza. Centre space of the school close with the extensions towards classroom clusters works well. Roofscape and facade treatment are formal and not understandable. The outer exterior space at the east side of the site is left over with no use and the swimming pool is detached without public access.

10

10

CMC architects, a.s.

David R. Chisholm

Vít A. Máslo

cooperation :

Martina Chisholm

Adriano Ferrer Escayola

Daniel Šimpach

Yuliya Poyznich

The proposal is organised along a multifunctional interior street with entrance from the North West; the gym is dominant in this scheme. Splitting of aula and the rest of the school in different buildings allows good orientation. However the organisation is very conventional – a central corridor scheme.

11

11

CNLL, Lda.

Carlos Nuno Lacerda Lopes

In this proposal the entrance is well located in relation to the public space. However, the organisation around a central courtyard results in a massive building footprint which stretches the site to its limits. The classrooms are structured conventionally around the corridor with little spatial value and lacking relationship to the exterior. The jury also questioned the architectural treatment of the facades resulting in a seemingly windowless school building and creating an introverted environment. The outdoor covered areas to the South-East block natural light to the adjacent classrooms.

12

12

Melissa Kinnear

Olivier Jauniaux

cooperation :

Annika Francis

The plan form is not coherent with the architectural expression, the jury is doubtful about incoherent organisation of inside and outside spaces – parallel proposal clashes with shifted furnishing. The entrance is proposed from the corner which does not support its representative role for the building. There are no outside playground nor sport fields presented. Traffic proposal presents dead end parking layout which creates circulation problems.

13

13

ARTERA Projekt s.r.o

Makiko Tsukada architects

Ladislav Opletal

Makiko Tsukada

Yasumasa Kinoshita

Miroslav Strnad

An interesting attempt for an innovative landscaping solution. The effort to follow a strong concept however led to an unconvincing and confusing scheme – complicated concept resulted in a chaotic technical and organizational solution. The jury sees as a positive the access to the outside of children from every classroom and the willingness to incorporate the school into landscape. The abstract concept nevertheless overruled the technical aspects and logical organizational scheme, which the school needs.

14

14

Aguinaga y Associados Arquitectos SLP

Eugenio Aguinaga

cooperation :

José María Jiménez

Manuel Rodríguez

Miguel Angel Barrera

Jerusalén Andueza

Manuel Lopéz Lara

Javier Valladares

Fernando Valladares

The layout of the building which is shaped as a cross could offer diversity of outdoor spaces, but this potential has not been explored. Location of the entrance through a parking area does not create a strong identity for the school, moreover parking and loading areas cut off the school from the Višňovka park in a very insensitive way. The form of the corridor principle scheme is not innovative and does not reflect contemporary education methods. The classroom orientation and its fully glazed facades will cause extensive solar gains.

15

15

Weiss Architecture and Urbanism Limited

Dieter Janssen Architecture

DANK Architectes

Kevin Weiss

Steven Guigoz

A very positive aspect of this project is the covered outdoor space; however there is no demonstration showing how it could be programmed. Proposal is based on a principle of a two sided corridor which is not seen as an added value for a contemporary school. The scheme is strict in expression, the building is monumental in its formality and it is out of scale.

16

16

Andrew Stoane Architect

The jury appreciates the strong concept, graphic, even sculptural, expression of the project and the connection between outdoors and classrooms by small atriums with a tree. Crucial disadvantage is the absence of windows towards surrounding outer space. The windows lead only towards small atrium, so that one classroom directly faces opposite classroom. This solution is unacceptable in terms of direct sunlight and privacy of each classroom. The resulting corridor scheme is too conventional – in contrast with a very unconventional constructivist approach to architecture.

17

17

Lukáš Hlatký

Miroslava Wagenaar

cooperation :

Petr Hyránek

The school proposal is based on corridor system with the central corridor moreover too narrow and utilitarian. The overall building scale is large and the school does not act as part of a community. There is lack of clarity and information of how the different spaces around and between the buildings are treated.

18

18

FORA

João Fagulha

Raquel Oliveira

João Ruivo

cooperation :

Joana Lagos

Tudor Vasiliu

Isabel Silvestre

Ignacio Lopez

Not an easy proposal to read. The advantage here is the public character of the entrance level, interesting design solution with indoor street and access to the roof from the classrooms on the upper floor. The proposal does not work with the sloping terrain and the upper floor level is organizationally unsuitable with the corridor system. It is a solitary volume, architecturally unconvincing and out of scale. The operation of the school itself is subordinate to its overall appearance and form.

19

19

Station-D Architects

L. Hoogewerf

R. Heykant

F. Smit

T.J.C van Beukering

The proposal creates urban settings which is disproportional to suburban surroundings, especially the cantilevered part, and it overwhelms the landscape quality of the site. This gesture disconnects the classrooms from the outdoor landscape. The atrium in the centre of a large school structure does not convince of its function with the glazed facades and roof, while the classrooms are organised conventionally around a corridor.

20

20

Gabor Nemes

Agnes Hajas

The proposal has intriguing visual representation, but it is too schematic. There is a lack of engagement of the building with the surroundings. The overall form seems insensitive to the place in its brutality. The position and the form of the entrance are irrational in regards to the typology and the site and it contributes to further isolation from the surrounding context.

21

21

Ján Kuva

Patrik Kuva

Ľuboš Žabenský

Tatiana Václavíková

Dorota Volfová

The urban solution of the school with a courtyard follows the Višňovka park by a small entrance court, where also the café and library are situated. The treatment of the entrance however does not correspond to the importance and community character of the new school. The plan is based on the corridor system that does not support modern teaching methods and lacks deeper spatial quality. The most important theme of the project, courtyard/garden, is solved only schematically.

22

22

AND, spol. s.r.o., architektonický atelier

Vratislav Danda

Pavel Ullmann

Radovan Kupka

The architectural form of this proposal seems too heavy and covers too much area of the site. Conclusively unsuitable traffic solution isolates the building of its surroundings. The entrance area with the central cloak room is not desired for contemporary school. The outdoor-indoor relation is not sufficient. The intention of breaking the rigid corridor scheme is regarded very positively.

24

24

Elan Neuman Fessler

The concept of the proposal is interesting, the architecture is however unconvincing, the proposal evokes a university campus. The jury appreciates the idea of the new street, but sees a difficulty in splitting the building and the sport ground into two separate parts. This could have s good effect in accessibility to sport grounds for the village, but at the same time it detaches these spaces from the school. The corridor layout is a week solution with no indoor-outdoor connection.

25

25

Gianluca Pelizzi

The proposal is attractively presented, however lacks convincing concept. It does not work with the terrain and presents an unsuitable traffic solution with expensive system of an underground parking. The corridor layout scheme is also a negative of this proposal.

26

26

McGarry-Moon Architects Ltd.

Jessica McGarry

Steven Moon

Adam Currie

Chris Quinn

Letitia Magee

The proposal sets up a symmetric composition, which does not react to the topography and creates a formal front facade without a representative public space in front of it. It faces a parking lot and suburban houses. The jury however appreciates the attempt to question the conventional school layout, as the project diffuses the boundary between the classroom, the communal space and the exterior. The classroom layout and excessive illumination stands in disturbing contrast to its conventional frontal teaching strategy.

27

27

Carlo Berarducci

Paolo Venturella

Milan Hakl

cooperation :

Daniele Biondi

Cosimo Scotucci

Rossella Lanari

The proposal has an interesting entrance area in the middle of cubical volumes and works well with the terrain. However it lacks either idea or appropriate representation of the exterior use, for example covered spaces under the cantilever could be used as outside classrooms. The combination of volumes offer nice terraces in the upper floor connected with classrooms. The architecture is not appropriate by its scale and expression for the township; weakness of the proposal is also the corridor scheme of upper floor and enclosed facades on the ground level.

28

28

Yacoubian architects ltd

Roupen Yacoubian

Lorenzo Garofoli

This design is quite different from most of the others. From the point of view of built-up space it is one of the minimalistic ones. Another positive aspect would be a direct connection between classrooms and outer courtyard, but the proposal does not allow this solution because the floor level is higher than the terrain. The corridors are too narrow, outside sport field and community spaces are missing. Traffic strategy is not developed.

29

29

Alex Cochrane Architects

Konstantinos Evangelou

Amalia Skoufoglou

Alex Cochrane

Lauren Dutton

Ciara McCurtin

Proposal is rational. The entrance from the south can react well on the further development from that side in coming years. Jury miss the direct relation between classroom and outside space. As a negative there is also the underground parking and corridor scheme with not enough social and spatial value.

30

30

Ondřej Tuček

Viktor Tuček

The proposal, compact and cultivated with well organized traffic organization, offers clear separation of functions and areas that is however too hard and strict. It lacks natural distinction between of areas accessible to public and those that are only for school. Enclosed compact volume of the building does not communicate with its surroundings and does not offer a user-friendly environment for hosting various events. The vertical connection of 1st and 2nd stage is questionable and the orientation of the classrooms is not favourable.

31

31

Esther Rovira Raurell

cooperation :

Albert Bonaventura Sans

Jorge Martín

Gemma Rovira

Integration of the Višňovka park into the school landscape which further extends the roof of the building is an interesting landscaping solution. No outdoor sport facility is drawn in the proposal but it is obvious that it could easily fit in the western garden. The jury appreciated the concept of the balconies, but the building seems very much out of scale. The location of the entrance at the far back seems illogical and the phasing of the building is questionable as the swimming pool is an integral part of the overall composition and without it the building would not be complete.

32

32

Jozef Pavelčák

Norbert Sládečka

Juraj Ščerba

The project accesses the site from the North-western Višňovka park. The scheme composed as one large circular building with an interior courtyard weakens itself by its seclusion. The atrium on the ground floor is entirely enclosed, which enforces 1st and 2nd stage into the same space. There is no idea of a contact of the outdoors to the second floor. The form of the main building in addition with the rectangular shapes of the sports-halls are not relating to the site, rather leaving left over space.

33

33

Petr Malý

Vladimír Paloušek

cooperation :

Miroslav Malý

Zdeněk Chmel

Lukáš Doubrava

Romana Wantuloková

One of the more inspired proposals in terms of spatial organization. There is a positive attempt to create a big main street as a core of a new school, but there would be expected a more representative space in the end instead of toilets. Nor the adjoining corridors are well thought – with no windows at the end. Proposed underground parking is not appropriate for this case; above ground traffic solution is missing entirely.

34

34

Atelier Smitka s.r.o

Drozdov & partners

The proposal locates the school behind a large parking lot, which is blocking the school from the Višňovka park. The jury judges the block-building as too voluminous and out of scale to the surrounding of the township. While the free floor scheme in the centre can have potential, it uses a lot of space with little programming, while the classrooms are standardized boxes. The jury also misses an answer to the topography of the site.

 

35

35

ZONA architekti, s.r.o.

Martin Belica

Petra Belicová

Josef Pfeifer

The jury appreciates the classroom cluster form of the first stage, which is however in contrast with the corridor scheme of the second stage. The corridor space is not organized well and could have been used further. Very formal, urbanistically weak solution with not enough accentuated entrance. Its positive is the connection of the classrooms with outside spaces. Overall the proposal is oversized for the locality and creates an unwanted barrier.

37

37

Richard Sukač

Robert Gallo

Ivan Wahla

cooperation :

Václav Kočí

Potentially interesting idea is the double entrance to the school building. However, the scale of its courtyard is problematic – it would be too shaded and loud. The building is based on corridor system which is not seen as appropriate for contemporary school. The outdoor frontal space is treated more like a representative city parterre than a place for meeting and community.

38

38

Arnošt Navrátil

Štěpán Netrefa

cooperation :

Jan Pospíšil (neoVISUAL)

The proposal uses an over-extensive corridor-circulation and lacks clarity in internal organisation. The jury appreciated the attempt for a horizontal structure, which is quite successful in the sports-courtyard. However, the footprint uses nearly the entire site, which leaves only a tight atrium with questionable use and the sports fields as outdoor space. The architecture is diluted by too many different languages.

39

39

Schaufler – Roskovec, s.r.o.

Jakub Roskovec

Radovan Schaufler

Jan Ratiborský

The proposal brings to mind a factory or a logistics centre. Technical concept – natural ventilation and lighting – is well solved. However the environment around the classrooms itself is rather uninspiring. The proposal offers a problematic traffic conception with expensive underground parking. The outdoor-indoor relationship of the classrooms is insufficiently solved.

41

41

Svatopluk Sládeček

Jaroslav Matoušek

Tereza Novotná

The problem of this proposal is too big a volume that lacks deeper relation to its surroundings. Introverted typology evokes claustrophobic feeling, especially at the end of the wings with classrooms. The architectural expression is austere and does not correspond to the function of school – township‘s community centre.

42

42

Atelier SAEM, s.r.o.

Michal Procházka

Monika Kaifošová

Radek Sláma

Štěpánka Vyčítalová

Alexandra Zedníková

The architectural expression is not appropriate; the complex brings to mind rather a residential ensemble than a primary school. The organization of the spaces and use of the buildings are designed in a very complicated way, especially in regards to the smallest or disabled children. Location of the community spaces under the ground is moreover a very expensive solution. An effective and convincing traffic solution is missing entirely.

44

44

Kamil Mrva Architects, s.r.o.

Kamil Mrva

Jakub Popela

Martin Rosa

The proposal works with a form which could offer a quality space thanks to the courtyard, but this particular solution fills this space with the volume, while the classroom on the upper floor do not have direct access to the rooftop. The circle concept is further weakened by the added volumes of the gyms and its organization with the central corridor is almost unacceptable. The proposal does not have a clear relation to the terrain.

45

45

Boyarsky Murphy Architects

Nicholas Boyarsky

cooperation :

Vincent Appel

Andrew Weigand

Tanawat Vichaiwatanapanich

There are promising moments in the proposal. The jury appreciates the architectural expression which is, however, quite inadequate to the character of the township. The choice of the pitched roof without an obvious reason unnecessarily leads to a volume too big and building too tall. The advantage of this proposal is the attempt to solve well the internal organization, which is user-friendly, both for children and visitors. From the urbanistic point of view, the solution is rather unfortunate with an over-defined street.

46

46

Jakub Řídký

Jan Drácký

The proposal has a very strong architectural expression – austere, nostalgic, even outdated – with very strict and tight disposition. The treatment of the entrance however does not correspond at all with this concept, for such a strong building one would expect an entrance with bigger statement. Internal organization based on the corridor scheme is unacceptable, even though appreciated were small moments like seating on the window sills. The interior-exterior relation is missing.

47

47

Petr Sova

A formal, effectively worked out solution without a deeper concept. The proposal does not work enough with the terrain and offers non-innovative organization and layout. The generous paved outdoor space in front of school is not suitable for this site and exists at the expense of better treated outdoor spaces. The vertical blades on the façade are not a good solution; they obstruct the view and do not solve the shading.

48

48

Daniel Kubiš

Katarína Bergerová

Patrícia Botková

Martin Hudec

Marián Stanislav

A very good urban solution is debased by the location of the swimming pool in the phase two. The jury appreciates the quality of the entrance area connected with the inner courtyard and clear organization of the school building. On the other hand the proposal lacks more detailed solution for the whole site and traffic organization. The facades are architecturally unconvincing and the use of gable and hipped roof is not justified enough.

49

49

BITTNER architects s.r.o.

Klára Bittnerová

Oldřich Bittner

Lukáš Pavlů

The jury appreciates the idea of connecting the street system; this solution could work well as a shortcut in the area. On the other hand it brings the aspect of too much space reminding of a campus or shopping mall scheme. The strict separation of the two stages is undesirable for the school organization. The classrooms here are too deep to provide enough daylight. Traffic solution is missing.

50

50

Dům a Město, společnost architektů

Martin Feistner

Radana Feistnerová

Jiří Hůrka

cooperation :

Kryštof Pikard

Even though the proposal fulfils the program, the solution here is a volume too big, out of scale and non-inspiring environment reminding rather of the pre-revolutionary architecture. The concept with two pergolas cutting through the inner courtyard/street is unsuitable for the organization of the primary school, especially the first stage, it brings only complications.

51

51

Vítězslava Rothbauerová

Petr Brzobohatý

The proposal is out of scale, lacks any community aspect and does not offer any advantages. The architecture is incoherent.

52

52

OKULET, spol. s.r.o.

Petr Benedikt

Jakub Sedmík

The proposal contains many unfriendly moments both in the plan and visually. It evokes small-town corporate architecture in its character.

53

53

Šrámková architekti s.r.o.

Lukáš Ehl

Tomáš Koumar

Jan Lankaš

Milan Velitš

cooperation :

Jiří Petlach

Organized, strict proposal with an interesting entrance. The concept has one good façade. The jury appreciates a very clear idea of distribution of spaces along South and North facades and clever landscaping solution, although expensive, of placing the swimming pool and gyms. The building itself has an office or university campus kind of feeling.

54

54

Nikolaos Rigas

cooperation :

Konstantinos Kakogiannis

Aris Koutsouflakis

Lenka Marečková

Jarin Krouz

Jitka Šídlová

The proposal evokes campus kind of feeling. There is a distinctive imbalance between hard surfaces and green spaces. Even though this aspect could be corrected by design in its later stages, the proposal feels massive and out of character of the township. Classrooms are too deep to distribute enough light and the proportion between their depth and width makes a role of the teacher more difficult.

55

55

COLL COLL

Gattermayer

Hanzlík

Pavlů

Vondrová

The proposal creates a nice entrance plaza connected to the Višňovka park. However, it only works with the swimming pool, which will not be built so soon in the near future. The external expression of the building is playful, yet does not represent a coherent logic. The jury appreciates the wish to soften the scale of the building in response to the suburban area, but critiques the positioning and disregard of possible spatial qualities of the outdoor space. The eastern wing lacks spatial generosity, which the entrance would suggest.

56

56

David Mareš

Marie Gelová

Filip Hermann

Petr Gilar

Zuzana Púcha

Tomáš Gelien

cooperation :

Tomáš Zdvihal

The advantage of this proposal is its compactness. The jury appreciates the architectural expression of the main building and playfulness of the preparatory class building. This sophistication is however not consistent in other parts of the school. Before the swimming pool is built, the building would feel imbalanced in volume and the most exposed direction of entrance is dominated by the gymnasium. The common and quite small entrance is a disadvantage for school operation.

57

57

Jan Adámek

Kristýna Pavelková

Zdenka Steinerová

Pavla Sukaná

The proposal uses a good traffic idea with kiss and ride parking. Smaller clusters from classrooms are also appreciated internal scheme. However the proposal is out of scale for the township and by its symmetrical appearance is too formal.

 

58

58

MS Plan s.r.o.

Michal Šourek

Pavel Hřebecký

Tomáš Filgas

Katerini Duničková

Jiří Kugl

The proposal has an appropriate scale based on two courtyards. There is a good sequence of public and private spaces with the canteen being a true link between the school and the community. The classrooms are organised around a corridor which has little added value in terms of internal socialising. The traffic strategy includes an underground parking which is not justifiable.

59

59

Michal Kuzemenský

David Pavlišta

Ondřej Synek

Jan Vlach

Jiří Žid

cooperation :

Tomáš Feistner

Anna Svobodová

Kateřina Gloserová

Klára Pohlová

The jury appreciated a cultivated proposal. Confident, impressive architecture. The urban concept based on one solitary building dominating the space from the middle of the iste however does not create a friendly environment to be used by people through the year. The traffic solution is lacking, eventually solvable in later stages of the design. The volume of the building seems rather hard and does not correspond in scale to the township‘s character. The organization links are well solved, but the corridor scheme with one vertical does not offer spatial variety. Location of the gym in the upper floor above the hall might be questionable.

60

60

Daniela Šestinová

Tomáš Ružiak

Miroslav Šestina

The proposal does not show sufficiently the potential that the outdoor spaces created by the shape of the building could have. However overall the proposal uses a lot of area on the site and does not react to the terrain. The internal scheme is illogical, rigid, and the architectural expression uncultivated, missing even.

61

61

Jiří Zuman

Filip Zuman

Lukáš Taller

The authors have a good idea for the extension of the existing park. The entrance from the South can react well on the next development but its position and identification is not strong enough. The main volume dominates too much its surroundings, the hierarchy of the volumes would deserve more thoughtfulness. The school is based on a corridor system that does not allow enough flexibility in the plan for new models of education.

 

62

62.

Deltaplan spol s.r.o.

Magda Říhová

Jitka Kubínová

cooperation :

Vít Štěpán

Ondřej Hubert

Breach of anonymity – the proposal was excluded from evaluation

63

63.

Claudio Conenna

Kyriakos Romanidis

Zacharias Kechagioglou

Panaghiota Mouratidou

cooperation :

Kyriaki Tsoukala

Themistoklis Chatzigiannopoulos

Alexndros Theologos

Proposal deliver after deadline – the proposal was excluded from evaluation

64

64.

Sandra Gomez Alba

Luis Romero Martinez

Proposal deliver after deadline – the proposal was excluded from evaluation