Gallery of Designs Submitted for Round II of the Architectural Design Contest ****************************************************************************************** * ****************************************************************************************** Design No. 1 EHL & KOUMAR ARCHITEKTI, DELTAPLAN, Praha authors: Lukáš Ehl, Tomáš Koumar collaboration: Jan Lakaš, Jaroslav Malina, Ondřej Hlaváček Members of the jury appreciated particularly the non-traditional approach to the concept, and innovative manner in which the project was conceived, as well as its exceptionally qua cultivated architectural character. For the reasons above, the jury members concluded this awarded with the highest extraordinary prize. However, the proposed supporting facilities for the centres’ key operations, particularly laboratories and the animal keeping and breeding section, were evaluated as problematic. A of this design lies in the low flexibility of the interior layout of the buildings which m potential future requirements of the users and increasing the height of Biocentre by one a storey. Download the full document in PDF format HERE [ URL "KAEN-49-version1-ka_navrh1_ii_kolo.pd Design No. 2 SIEBERT + TALAŠ, Bratislava Mangado y asociados, Pamplona, Španělsko authors: Francisco Mangado Beloqui collaboration: Geronimo Bolzan, Juliana Damonte, Richard Kráľovič, Javier Perez Torrejon, Naranjo, Nicola Cani, Juan Santorio Owing to the character of the urban concept which the jurors saw as bearing exceptional po design was selected for Round II.  The jury was particularly impressed by the architects’ spaces and the way those spaces have been integrated into the surrounding context. However, the architectonic form of the individual buildings and, especially, the lack of a detail in presenting the key operations in the research centres, aroused some concern. The deficiency of the design lay in the minimal progress it made between Round I and Round II reflect the jury’s recommendations. Download the full document in PDF format HERE [ URL "KAEN-49-version1-ka_navrh2_ii_kolo.pd Design No. 3 AiD team, Brno authors: Jiří Babánek, Pavel Bainar, Marek Focher, Pavlína Klubalová, Marian Kolařík, Rade Ondráček, Jitka Nováková collaboration: Jaromír Černý, Pavel Marek Authors of this design showed they were intimately acquainted with the demands posed by th program which they managed to fulfil to the maximum extent possible.  Simultaneously, the the amount of work done for Round II. The qualitative difference between the designs for R was the most significant of any project. However, the consistent adherence to the construction program was achieved at the expense qualities. Furthermore, the jurors found that the petrification of the existing laboratory an architecturally conventional and non-innovative design. Download the full document in PDF format HERE [ URL "KAEN-49-version1-ka_navrh3_ii_kolo.pd WINNER: Design No. 4 ZNAMENÍ ČTYŘ – ARCHITEKTI, Praha authors: Juraj Matula, Richard Sidej, Martin Tycar collaboration: Kateřina Šebestová, Tomáš Hanus This is the winning design in which the jury appreciates especially its overall urban solu use of traditional composition principles in an innovative manner.  Dividing both the rese into several volumes interconnected by spatial atriums, while maintaining the compactness contributed to an adequate morphological harmony with the surrounding environment.  The at intersect each building take on the functionality of “the street” and provide interesting the interior as well as in the broader context of the entire campus.  A key quality of the overall degree of sophistication and meeting the required construction program which testi architect’ knowledge of the functional and operational demands of the buildings. This winning project represents the most solid basis for the research centres be built as investor’s liking and comprises many qualities that make up for the problematic height of The jury members recommend the investor to reduce the required program. In addition to man impacts on the final project, this will also bring a corresponding modification of the bui Other recommendations target the universal characteristic of the layout that must be taken when completing the project. The issue of the proportion between the atriums and the usefu both the buildings must also be addressed. Download the full document in PDF format HERE [ URL "KAEN-49-version1-ka_navrh4_ii_kolo.pd Design No. 5 MS plan, Praha authors: Michal Šourek, Pavel Hřebecký, Martin Studnička, Alexandr Verner, Tomáš Filgas Compared to other designs, this design’s authors found a good solution to the height level surrounding buildings.  Nevertheless, the jurors agreed that the design submitted for Roun characterised by a significant drop in the architectural quality. In addition to illogical layout details and the articulation of the façade that does not r interior organization, the jury remained unconvinced by the indifferent architectural form buildings.  The energy concept was also evaluated as problematic . Download the full document in PDF format HERE [ URL "KAEN-49-version1-ka_navrh5_ii_kolo.pd Design No. 6 Atelier M1 architekti, Praha authors: Pavel Joba, Jakub Havlas, Jan Hájek collaboration: Michal Tichý, Jakub Straka, Vojtěch Šaroun The jury particularly appreciated the universal layout of the floor-plan allowing for flex transformation of interior space. The greatest positive feature of the interior of both th centres is represented by the communication corridor and the adjoining atriums. The jury m that this principle brings about the desired potential for encounters.  The sensitive form that corresponds to the surrounding buildings is emphasised by well selected materials. Th shows respect to the height level; this, however, was for Biocentre achieved at the expens in the ground. The jurors evaluated this as a clear deficiency and a subject of further re Other recommendations concerned the insufficient distance between Biocentre from the borde neighbouring plot of land that must be re-thought.  The jury further points out that atten to the final character of the central communication areas and connections between these ar facilities. The jury recommends a reduction of the planned program to the contracting auth this case, this design has a great potential for further development. The question of whet form for both of the newly completed research centres is suitable remains open. Download the full document in PDF format HERE [ URL "KAEN-49-version1-ka_navrh6_ii_kolo.pd