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, the comprehensive and innovative manner in which the project was conceived, as well as its exceptionally quality and cultivated architectural character. For the reasons above, the jury members concluded this design will be awarded with the highest extraordinary prize.
However, the proposed supporting facilities for the centres’ key operations, particularly those for laboratories and the animal keeping and breeding section, were evaluated as problematic. Another deficiency of this design lies in the low flexibility of the interior layout of the buildings which may not meet potential future requirements of the users and increasing the height of Biocentre by one above-ground storey.
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, Fernando Royo Naranjo, Nicola Cani, Juan Santorio
Owing to the character of the urban concept which the jurors saw as bearing exceptional potential, this design was selected for Round II. The jury was particularly impressed by the architects’ work with public 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 attention to detail in presenting the key operations in the research centres, aroused some concern. The greatest deficiency of the design lay in the minimal progress it made between Round I and Round II which did not reflect the jury’s recommendations.
Design No. 3
AiD team, Brno
authors: Jiří Babánek, Pavel Bainar, Marek Focher, Pavlína Klubalová, Marian Kolařík, Radek Konečný, Pavel Ondráček, Jitka Nováková
collaboration: Jaromír Černý, Pavel Marek
Authors of this design showed they were intimately acquainted with the demands posed by the construction program which they managed to fulfil to the maximum extent possible. Simultaneously, the jury appreciated the amount of work done for Round II. The qualitative difference between the designs for Rounds I and II was the most significant of any project.
However, the consistent adherence to the construction program was achieved at the expense of layout qualities. Furthermore, the jurors found that the petrification of the existing laboratory operation led to an architecturally conventional and non-innovative design.
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 solution that makes use of traditional composition principles in an innovative manner. Dividing both the research centres into several volumes interconnected by spatial atriums, while maintaining the compactness of the project, contributed to an adequate morphological harmony with the surrounding environment. The atriums that intersect each building take on the functionality of “the street” and provide interesting views both within the interior as well as in the broader context of the entire campus. A key quality of the design is its overall degree of sophistication and meeting the required construction program which testifies to the 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 per the investor’s liking and comprises many qualities that make up for the problematic height of the buildings. The jury members recommend the investor to reduce the required program. In addition to many other positive impacts on the final project, this will also bring a corresponding modification of the buildings’ height. Other recommendations target the universal characteristic of the layout that must be taken into account when completing the project. The issue of the proportion between the atriums and the useful floor area of both the buildings must also be addressed.
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 of the surrounding buildings. Nevertheless, the jurors agreed that the design submitted for Round II was characterised by a significant drop in the architectural quality.
In addition to illogical layout details and the articulation of the façade that does not reflect the interior organization, the jury remained unconvinced by the indifferent architectural form of both the buildings. The energy concept was also evaluated as problematic
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 flexible transformation of interior space. The greatest positive feature of the interior of both the research centres is represented by the communication corridor and the adjoining atriums. The jury members agreed that this principle brings about the desired potential for encounters. The sensitive form of the exterior that corresponds to the surrounding buildings is emphasised by well selected materials. The design also shows respect to the height level; this, however, was for Biocentre achieved at the expense of sinking it in the ground. The jurors evaluated this as a clear deficiency and a subject of further re-working.
Other recommendations concerned the insufficient distance between Biocentre from the border of the neighbouring plot of land that must be re-thought. The jury further points out that attention must be paid to the final character of the central communication areas and connections between these areas and sanitary facilities. The jury recommends a reduction of the planned program to the contracting authority and, in this case, this design has a great potential for further development. The question of whether an identical form for both of the newly completed research centres is suitable remains open.