Emil Adamec - Notes to review yearbook of Czech architecture 2023

REVIEW

RADEK

SUCHÁNEK

Czech architecture

2021-2022, yearbook

Format of architecture yearbook soon ce-

lebrate quarter century

Selection of the best

things that has happened in Czech

archi-

tecture in years

2021

and

2022,

presented

by architect

Ondřej

Chybík

of the now fa-

mous studio

CHYBIK

KRISTOF.

He be-

longs to a younger generation of architects

with study and career experience linked not on-

ly to Czech environment, but truly to Europe-

an and,

in the case of Ondřej Chybík, rather to

the world context.

A graduate of Faculty of

Architecture

at BUT

who also has study ex-

perience

with TU Graz in Austria or ETH in

Zurich,

Switzerland, he approached the se-

lection

of the

buildings from the position

of established parti

cipant in Czech archi-

tectural scene, who sees

the rise of modern

architecture in many ways

as reecting the

social setting

where architec

ture plays an

important and above all visible role

in social

processes.

In an initial interview led by Adam Štěch,

author

reects on the shift

that Czech society,

and

with it architecture, has experienced in

the last

decade.

According to him, it can be

dened, for

example, by a greater number of

high quality

public buildings nanced from

public budgets,

where their creation is cruci-

ally inuenced by a

more cultivated and trans-

parent client

-archi

tect relationship. This kind

of shared care, which

in some places has been

going on for many

years, is an optimistic mes-

sage about current

Czech architecture and cul-

ture shaping our

built environment.

Conti-

nuity, a relationship to place

or a certain kind

of lack

of discipline,

even austerity, characte-

rise, according

a selection of the author,

the

truly good

in current

architecture, based on

context of

place and relation, and what is more,

often rising out of a long-term

or permanent

care.

he above-mentioned testimony that archi-

tecture, gives about our society is undoubtedly

the most positive

and consequ

ential.

What is surprising in this context, however, are

white spots on a map a country that fail to

cap-

ture this kind of evolution of Czech so

ciety,

and not just via architecture. It is pro

bably un-

surprising that we are referring to bor

derland

areas or areas called "former

Sudetenla

nd",

even with exceptions that show that

even in

these areas it is possible to nd quality ar

chi-

tecture

and discover islands of positive

devi-

ance with a wide and diverse range of relations

shaping our built environment.

A key to selection of buildings was set by the

author through a kind of denition, where the

initial decision to completely ignore the family

housing typology

which was widely reec-

ted in previous editions, turns out to be crucial.

This focus on buildings

that have an impact

on the local community and relations

hips ba-

sed on it reects in many ways a view

on the

social role of architecture

which is

undoub-

tedly strongly accented by younger ge

nerati-

ons of creators. The selection shows buildi-

ngs that in many ways essentially shape

our

settlements, but are also in dialogue

with the

landscape.

Choice is not dened by scale or ty-

pology,

but only by quality

and impact

that

obje

cts have on built space, or rather the bre-

adth

of it on society

If in case of completed buildings we can

talk

about the coverage of a large part of the

Czech

Republic with exceptions, as menti-

oned earli

er,

in terms of architectural stu-

dios or ateliers a

map of Czech Republic looks

much more contra

sting. According to this cri-

teria, Prague and Brno

dominate architec-

tural scene, accompanied

by individual

studios from regional or district

cities. Ho-

nour the exceptions presented by foreign

(ed.

note - to all year

books are selected only the

works

of Czech architects

)

and local authors.

From this point of view, which is naturally

affected by author's choice and mentioned

decision not to present construction of family

houses, it is undoubtedly a signal that says a

lot about architectural profession of Czech

Republic

and its focus on natural cultu-

ral and

social centres of gravity. Which is cer-

tainly an expected hypothesis.

It is not aimed in this review to comment

on the author's choice, so I will stick to the

alre

ady noted criteria that author himself

has set

as selection criteria. Let's rst look

at represen

tatives of this community or pub-

lic architecture

in the regions, which

I have

divided into three groups.

The rst group are implementations in re-

gional

settlements

The rst example is

library

and community centre in Vratislavice

from

studio

Atakarchitekti,

representing a rell

historic building with a new building

pre-

sent

day architectural language

working

mainly

with a gure of completion

A signi-

cant mo

ment is also material solution, co-

lour

as well

as work with views and spatial

composition,

which materializes many unu-

sual links

in the nal realization.

Realiza-

tion

of the community center in Úsilné

by re:

chitekti

represents a space for community

activities

connected with the re station and

and sports

complex in form of a horizontal bu-

ilding

with a generous loggia, allowing to

connect

and strengthen outdoor activities.

In many ways, lapidary and generous building

is another piece of mosaic that has been culti-

vating village environment for long time.

realization of sports hall in Nový Hrozenkov

by CONSEQUENCE

FORMA

architects,

which

represents one stage of development

of local

school, a primary goal was to

desi-

gn expansion to serve not only the school,

STAVBA

3/2023

but also wider public to provide a quality envi-

ronment for sports activities in a town

. Re-

sult is a realization that ts into the village envi-

ronment

through urban and scale aspects.

The project for the reconstruction and exten-

sion of eagle house in Vřesovice

the

Public

atelier

FUUZE

represents

the

phase of

the transformation

following conversion of

the former rectory into

a primary school. It

is a bold and sensible intervention in the his-

torical context of a

village where a new entry

space signicantly enhance the

urban spatial

quality of ensemble.

The latest example is a

new building of the community hall of the

parish centre in

Lidečko

by Studio

AEIOU.

It's

a new building working with contrasts in

terms

of matters and material. Cultivity and

harmo

are undoubtedly enhanced by sen-

sitive set

ting

in picturesque landscape of the

village

All

these realisations are in many

ways a simi

lar story, testifying to continu-

ous care for a

built environment with strong

historical roots,

dialogue between a new and

historical langu

age,

and a commitment to

social prosperity

of the local community rein-

forced by objects that

initiate everyday neigh-

bourly sharing. These

are, in a best sense,

examples of architecture

of a high standard

of building culture.

Care for building culture in the author's selec-

tion,

however, is not only focused on settleme-

nts

but also on the realisations on border bet-

ween settlements and landscape or directly on so-

litary objects in the landscape, which is a second

signicant group in the selection of buildings.

First example is a new water tank with a vi-

ew at Markvartice

ZETTE

atelier,

which

is an example that the union of

a purely techni-

cal work with the local landscape

can have its

own distinct poetics

even in a brutalist

or mi-

nimalist form. In a similar vein, albeit with entire-

ly different means of expression, a bridge on

pasture near Neslovice

Atelier of land

sca

archi

tecture

where it is a passage for cows

to land

scape context;

it is a passage for cows

to the watering hole at

a point of crossing with

a dirt road and a cycle

path. Materiality

pro-

ject works with

acacia

wood, which is used

over the site, and landscape

reuses existing lan-

guage to blend into context.

Another solo buil-

ding in the landscape is a new

winery in Pavlov

by Ateliér Štěpán. Terrain topography has prede-

ned the form

of house, which is part of topogra-

phic line

of territory and directs the

internal

rationality towards merging with the sur

roun-

ding landscape in a lapidary object.

Another

case of solo objects in landscape is realization

background of sports complex in Ostravi-

PAPOUŠEK

ŠILHÁN

ARCHITECTS.

If in previous case it was a traditional cultu-

ral wine landscape, the example at Ostravice

repre

sents a landscape concept connected

with a golf complex, where actual facilities

are realized

in contemporary architectural

language,

ving a reference to traditional

architectural gu

res. A certain solitaire wit-

hin this selection

may appear to be the

house

Lesanka in Stoječín

Jan

Fabián,

represen-

ting a shelter

with the primary

of merging

with the surrounding landscape,

or more preci-

sely offering a connection with it.

The mentioned realizations are undoubtedly

important examples of contemporary architec-

ture

in conditions of cultural landscape. Each

of published examples is an artistic, sensitive and

unpretentious realisation that does not put itself

on show, but works with the context and un-

derstands itself as a piece in the mosaic. The

theme of landscape in general is now more in-

tensively communicated in public space

and the

buildings shown here represent not only a pro-

mise but rather an established

trend that can be

be observed in realisations related to landsca-

pe, sustainable agriculture and tourism.

Last group are the implementations in me-

tro

polises.

Community Centre in Prague

XTOPIX

was created by transforming a so-

cialist

housing estate amenity into a contem-

porary

public building.

The realisation in

the form of

an extension and annex also works

with the distinctive element of a new roof ter-

race with a café,

which signicantly expands

the possibilities

of use. The actual language

of the architecture

is based on contemporary

expressive aesthetics,

complemented by a

"mural" referring to the

street art culture

that is alive on housing es

tates. The Prague

Kunsthalle

project by Schin

dler Seko archi-

tects and OH-Studio from

Berlin is a signi-

cant metropolitan realisation,

which mana-

ged to give new life and function

to the ori-

ginal 1930s neoclassical building. The

most

striking intervention on the exterior is

undo-

ubtedly the copper entrance ramp, which in

itself acts as a distinctive artefact.

However,

the essential is hidden inside, in the form of

exhibition spaces creating a unique world for

exhibiting art. A project of similar signicance

was also realized in the Moravian capital, whe-

re the

reconstruction of the Museum of Deco-

rative Arts

was realized by the association

of authors Eva Eisler, David Karásek, Studio

Olgoj Chorchoj, Tomáš Svoboda, Marek

Štěpán and Maxim Velčovský with Studio

edit!

The result is an exceptional realisation

for this key cultural institution in Brno. A dis-

tinctive element manifesting manifested in

the exterior is the Cloud object, enabling staging

events in the palace courtyard. The generosity

of approach is also reected interior, which is

full of impressive new exhibitions and gal-

lery

facilities. Last realization I will touch

upon

in this group of buildings is an intimate

transfor

mation of an industrial space near

the centre

of Brno, which was turned into a

yoga centre

and gallery

by intervention of

RO_aR studio.

Most striking spatial element

is surely new, green

atriums, which give ori-

ginal building a possi

bility to connect with

surroundings even at

oor level and not only

through windows in skylights.

Architects

also worked with distinctive built-ins that al-

low for a sensitive balance between operation

of the gallery and the yoga centre. All selec-

ted works in this last set of buildings represent

interventions in existing buildings, which in

some cases have undergone functional chan-

ges, but together they all initiate social and

cultural life. It is clear that, in view of cur-

rent trends not only in architecture, it will always

be necessary to honestly answer questions

of when it is necessary to demolish an old st-

ructure and when it is more suitable to pro-

ceed to its revival or reconstruction.

The ex-

amples given here illustrate that implemen-

tation in existing structures need not be in any

restrictive for architects, or even restrictive

in architectural term or language.

Comments selection of buildings in this ye-

ar's

edition also includes other signicant buil-

ding achievements, which are characterized by a

good

level of building culture and cultivation

of bu

ilt environment.

The yearbook also includes an interview

with

ČKA Chairman Jan Kašl, conducted by

Eva

Vackova, on topics concerning development

of our cities in the context of expected changes

to building law and legislative amendments

to authorization law, as well as presentation

of architecture in public space and role of

edu

cation of general and professional public

Cur

rent societal challenges related to housing

availability are also a topic of conversation.

Critical

comments are aimed at current situ-

ation of

spatial planning or reection of ur-

ban trends

in the Czech setting.

The Book

concludes with

a selection of events of 2022

and comments

on them by Martin Vemer and

Jan Hejhálek

from INTRO magazine.

A yearbook of Czech architecture, whose

representatives

have been selected and rated

by Ondřej

Chybík, gives an imposing picture

of arch

itectural events on almost 180 pages,

which

gives us the opportunity to look to fu-

ture with

hope.

Trends that can be seen in cur-

rent Czech

architecture are in many ways lin-

ked to care,

modesty, effort and local commu-

nity, for whom

architecture is often more than

just an object,

it is also a symbol of a living

and active local

community

STAVBA

3/2023

Notes to the article

Has contemporary Czech traditionalist architecture been presented in any previous architectural annuals in the past?

More precisely, in Czech 'modernist architecture'. And if this really is the best contemporary Czech architecture, has anyone compared

contemporary traditionalist buildings with the selected production?

https://www.archiweb.cz/ondrej-chybik

https://www.chybik-kristof.com

By what standard can the emergence of contemporary Czech architecture be measured, if it is to be a reflection of the social setting?

According to many existing public surveys, not only in the Czech Republic but also in the world, the vast majority of the population

does not want modernist architecture. The social setting is not in line with what modernist architects design and implement. There are

even already civil resistance movements that explicitly oppose further modernist construction. Or there are also known examples whe-

where modernist buildings are being converted into traditionalist architecture.

The visible role of contemporary modernist architecture can be enforced by a few individuals without taking into account the opinion

of the dissenting majority. Current tendencies show that social processes are tending towards a return to tradition, to beautiful tradi-

tionalist buildings that also incorporate sculpture, painting, ornament or craftsmanship.

What kind of shift is this? Is the shift meant only within Modernism?

Is this a shift that only Czech modernist architecture has experienced in the last decade? Or has there also been a shift within traditio-

nalist architecture? And if not in the Czech Republic, then for example in the world? What legal means does Czech society have at its

disposal to stop and end any further development of modernist architecture? Is there a way to stop this and return to the original, cen-

turies-old values and aesthetics in contemporary architecture?

By what criteria and cognitive features can we determine the quality of modernist buildings in comparison with the original historical or

contemporary traditionalist ones? Who decides what is or is not a quality building, and by what criteria?

When it comes to public buildings, paid for by taxpayers' public budgets, has the opinion of the majority of residents who dislike moder-

nist buildings ever been taken into account? Have conditions ever been created in tenders for public buildings to require traditional buil-

dings? Also, has the majority opinion of the public ever been listened to and allowed to use public funds to build traditionalist new buildin-

gs, as is happening, for example, in Poland, Germany, France, Scandinavia, the U.K., the U.S., etc.? Doesn't Czech society deserve buildin-

gs that are much better accepted by the majority society? Traditional buildings have not bothered anyone to the extent that modernist ones have.

Is the contracting authority (ofcial) sufciently familiar with the possibilities of choosing traditionalist architecture for a public buil-

ding? Does he/she make sufcient use of these possibilities? If not, and despite the majority not accepting modernist buildings, can we

talk about a more sophisticated and transparent relationship between the client and the architect in this situation?

Is it an optimistic message of contemporary Czech modernist architecture and the built environment? Has the opposite majority side,

which does not want such buildings, ever been heard?

How can continuity and the relationship to place be projected through modernist buildings when, in principle, these two contradictory

concepts are mutually exclusive?

The author who made this selection deals exclusively with modernist buildings. Is such a selection of buildings impartial and objective?

On what basis is the quality of selected buildings judged?Are there clearly dened rules for such judgements?

Přesněji, v současné modernistické architektuře.

How long term? Decades? Fifty years? By comparison, in traditionalist architecture, longevity and transmission is calculated in centuries.

How can modernist architecture represent something positive? As mentioned above, there are even protests and riots both to stop fur-

ther modernist construction.

Modernism as a followable way of building? Are there not other and more appropriate variants?

Is the idea that the stolen former Sudetenland, whose history was shaped over centuries, can be 'saved' by modernist architecture?

Is it modernist architecture in the Sudetenland, or are the original historic or aristocratic mansions meant?

Family housing may be the only option in this situation where people can live as they are comfortable. For example, in sensitively re-

stored historic houses, where only there can they influence the architecture as it is natural to them. Doesn't this state of affairs indica-

te a society-wide mood rejecting modernism?

Are they referring only to modernist new buildings?

The social role of architecture was mainly representative, with rich decoration and symbolism, including sculptures and architectural de-

coration. This type of architecture has always moved society towards higher principles, meaning, aesthetic richness and creative diver-

sity. This is why architects and artists regularly traveled to Italy to learn about the ancient tradition and learn how to apply it at home.

How well does modernist architecture fulfill its social role compared to traditional and historical architecture?

Do they shape settlements in a positive or negative sense?

What kind of dialogue can a modernist building have with the landscape. Isn't it an attempt to connect the incompatible? A modernist

object in the landscape will always be an alien and unnatural element, and one that is unsustainable and short-lived.

The human scale of buildings, the use of imperial measures, or classical typology, have always been in harmony with the landscape and

the surrounding built environment.

What quality can modernist buildings have if they lack all the qualities of traditionalist architecture? What impact can these buildings

have on people? Is this not a continuation of the further destruction of architecture?

Why limit yourself to Czech architects only? It is evident from history that our wider homeland in Central Europe has been inextricably

linked to the Vienna School, for example. No one has beneted from political national divisions and no one has.

The architectural profession in the Czech Republic is significantly limited to the modernist one, and is required without exception at

all Czech schools of architecture. However, this situation is unsustainable in the long term. People simply do not want these banal and

unsatisfying buildings.

For what (perhaps aesthetic) reason should a historic building be complemented by a modernist new building?

Who determines what a contemporary architectural language should look like? Based on what principle?

The material, the colours, the views, the space... Where is the order of style, symmetry, traditional form, architectural decor... etc.?

Unexpected connections, a surprising moment of wonder... Or is it rather an incomprehensible and unnatural interference with traditio-

nal orders? Are these modernist attributes what is supposed to enrich man?

How can this type of construction cultivate a community? And how would other types of buildings?

How can this austere building t into the village environment? Why does everything featured here have to have such banal box-like sha-

pes? And again. for example, there is no facade articulation. Not to mention the architectural decor.

How does communication between historical and new architectural language work? Historic and 'new' are in principle mutually exclusiv.

How poetic, in the positive sense of the word, can brutalist and minimalist concrete buildings be?

Merging buildings into surrounding landscapes does not necessarily represent an imposed box-like design. Plus, no sign of artistic handcraft.

Why should traditional architectural gures be represented in a 'contemporary architectural language'? Is there a reason for this?

If this building can win the Czech architecture prize, the question arises if it is worth evaluating further. As emergency shelter, yes.

Contemporary modernist architecture.

Why should these buildings be a promise, or even an on-going trend, and be associated with sustainable landscapes? There is is no more

appropriate, more valuable and time-proven architectural design? Why is it that the ever omnipresent modernist architecture is constantly

being promoted and incoherence?

Socialist housing estates, unless they are completely rebuilt, will always remain just housing estates. Even this community center is

no exception.

Any modernist structural intervention in a historic building will be unnatural. And even explanatory labels won't help.

46
   There is no getting away from the fact that this is an austere modernist realisation, without any traditional arts and crafts detail.
47
 In case of renovations, is there a necessary reason why these renovations of an existing building must always necessarily be modernist?
48
Why aren't some important realisations of contemporary traditionalism also included in the selection? Is it because there are no such 
     buildings in the Czech Republic? The level of building culture could of course be much better and more sophisticated.
49
   What should be the role of education of the general and professional public? Why is accredited teaching of traditionalism strictly rejec-
     ted and not included in architectural education when these tendencies exist in neighbouring countries? Is there any reason for this?  
50
What are urban trends in Czech environment? Why are the principles of New Urbanism hardly applied in the Czech Republic?
51
   What hope can current Czech architecture have when architectural education and practising architects are dominated by only Moder-
     nists? Why is traditionalism always rejected in architecture schools and among architects in the Czech Republic? 
52
  It would be gratifying if the building objects presented in this article were once again transformed into architecture.
MgA. Emil Adamec
29. 10. 2023
l
j
h
c
a b
d
e
f
g
i
k
m
n
Pictures of buildings mentioned in article. Click image to view higher resolution image from original site