<address>Sídlo firmy mminterier</address>

The Maňas couple approached us to participate in the reconstruction of their company's manufacturing, administrative, and representative complex in Luhačovice, MM Interier. For a long time, it seemed to us that we could not accept this type of work. Luhačovice is neither too far nor too close to Prague. There was no written program detailing what exactly would happen to the area and how extensive our task would be. In the reconstruction of such buildings or complexes, this situation is quite common, but a significant distance that prevents more frequent visits to the site complicates matters considerably. However, the clients were very persistent and gradually convinced us that we should give it a try together.
We set to work with many unclear parameters. The program for the area was only fixed in the section for the manufacturing workshops and related warehouses. The buildings located on the site were much larger, and their use was continuously unclear. Over time, we learned to account for this characteristic uncertainty and work with it as a positive element. We knew that there would be design furniture produced and exhibited here, which MM Interier creates with young progressive Czech designers, and that we had to create a space that would warmly invite clients and partners of the company, like a gallery, where they would see everything of interest, where they could find areas to experiment with different projects and help things move forward. It is clear that ideas on this topic could then flow better and images of future things would begin to form.
We created a basic plan for the area, where we started to position individual functional zones in good logical relationships with each other, and we defined the main entrances and access points. We connected the individual buildings to form a cohesive whole. We sketched our idea of how the reconstructed facade should look and what would give the buildings their external appearance, which they would present to the outside world.
When this was approved in its basic form, there was room for gradually clearing each building of layers amassed by previous managers, looking for everything that had value for preservation and contemporary use. Everything that could withstand exposure to light after being extracted from layers of plaster and popular facades was allowed to live on. Even things that are fundamentally unattractively stereotyped from times of socialist construction (such as tiled floors from poorly integrated service areas). Everything that didn’t disrupt our mosaic could stay and didn’t have to be replaced by expensive modern masks. The clients gave us ample room for good improvisation with all the ideas that gradually emerged. We pieced them together as a mosaic and carefully monitored to avoid making bad decisions during the process. During this improvisational part of the project, the Maňas couple displayed great playfulness and courage in embracing ideas. Ideas were then realized through quick sketch assignments and discussions with manufacturers, or rather processors, gradually leading to the final result with which we grew increasingly satisfied. Just as a few initial decisions were imprinted directly into reality, greater and greater trust developed in making all subsequent proposals and procedures, and the result delighted us more and more.
We managed to use our favorite process of direct guidance to implementation again, without the very complicated, and in the case of reconstruction, impractically cumbersome paper documentation that is projected many, many months in advance, with difficult contact with the evolving reality. This approach cannot be taken for every project, but this one had precisely the parameters that made it suitable. The investor may feel that the project is dragging on for a long time and has many undefined phases. But if they had the theoretical option to undergo the same process in parallel, according to the traditional approach, with a long preparatory phase for the project, and then discover that there are many solutions that were fixed in the project, only to be surprised by their realization, I believe they would decide next time... better. In any case, this decision about which path to take must be made freely by each investor. It is a matter of taste and life stance.
Our process requires significant participation from the investor, who thus becomes the most direct co-creator of their project. They continually see various tempting decisions that can enrich their construction but may also drive up costs, and right in the first line, they test for themselves how difficult it can be to arrive at an inexpensive solution. But it is precisely through this route that an inexpensive solution can be achieved. Materials and parts of the construction that were already halfway to the dump can be salvaged. This recycling also brings a lot of good feelings, which are then reflected in the overall result. A significant good feeling of this kind is frugality. And thanks to this frugality, decisions about more expensive or directly costly solutions that can elevate the result to a different dimension can be made more easily. We always try to find the right mix between cheap and expensive decisions. That "great participation of the investor" can also be replaced by great trust and delegation of their role to the implementation team - the company. We have such cases well accounted for, but these are mostly second and subsequent projects carried out for one client who has already been through the fires and knows.