Ještěd in a Cage 09 - Judges' Feedback

Interview with Jan Magasanik (B.I.G.) on the occasion of the announcement of the Ještěd F Kleci '09 competition
    
How do you perceive the transformation of the school since the time you studied here? What is new here? Is it a big leap for you?
I don't see any drastic leap or anything like that; I haven't been here for about ten years, and I still recognize everything; everything is more or less as it was. I think the development is gradual and going in the right direction. I already mentioned during the award ceremony that I was pleased that the quality of work is still rising from my point of view.
When I remember how we started, our work would today belong among the worst. It seems to me that today we didn't encounter a distinctly bad project; at least I don't recall one. So the overall level is very good.

Did you feel that the level was rather average without significant fluctuations, or were there big peaks and drops?
I can't compare it with other schools. I don’t know if it's average or above average. But I think that within the faculty, the results were consistent. Of course, there were also projects that deviated — sometimes extremely. I was actually pleased that the studios are varied. Even though everyone is sitting in one room, the studios are relatively profiled, and it's clear that students do not copy each other.
On the other hand, it was nice that some topics crossed studio boundaries. For example, Kunsthalle appeared in two studios, which was interesting for their comparison.

If you had to compare the students here with those you accept into BIG, whether for internships or permanently, is there anyone who would reach these qualities?
It’s hard to compare because I don’t know the portfolios of the students here, and in the office, we choose interns based on them. However, I feel that they are absolutely comparable to those coming to BIG. However, often even by the portfolio, it is difficult to estimate from students' works who will prove themselves and fit into the office's atmosphere.
There have already been several Czechs in BIG, as well as several students from Liberec, and they mostly belonged to the more successful and valuable ones.

Do you think the atmosphere of the school has changed in terms of family environment? Has it disappeared, or does it seem the same to you as it was ten years ago when the school was much smaller?
I can't judge that. We spent one day in a studio that was cleaned and transformed from a working environment into an exhibition one. But when I look around the computer classroom, I have déjà vu; nothing has changed. I just miss Marek Volejník today. It seems to me that these white boxes of computers are still here from the time I studied. The atmosphere is felt entirely the same. What has changed significantly is the library, which we visited. I have to praise it; it is truly fantastic. We don't even have books as neatly arranged and recorded in our office, plus I noticed that it is also quite carefully updated.

What thoughts occurred to you during the day regarding the future directions for Liberec? Where do you think the school should move towards, what could help it? What initiatives should students develop?
I haven't thought about it, but it seems to me that Liberec has potential and has always had it. A relatively small school in a calm environment, far from the center of events, outside Prague — there is peace for concentration. Furthermore, the university has always offered students quality facilities. A large spacious studio where everyone can work together and does not have to sit at home at computers. Students are actually getting used to an office environment here. It is the only school in the Czech Republic — although I don’t know how the new ČVUT building in Prague is — that has such a shared space. It’s like a large shared office, yet each studio has its own cubicle. The facilities, of course, also include a plotter, a 3D printer; today we also saw some laser-cut items. That’s great. These are tools that architects regularly use today.

How would you evaluate the graphic presentation? Not of group projects, but rather of individual projects. Do you think the level is sufficient? Because at BIG, you have a very specific graphic style.
I tried to look at the projects not from the perspective of how they are graphically modified, but directly at their content. I believe that generally less graphics is better. So that graphic design doesn’t hide or overshadow architecture. As for the overall level of graphic presentation, which I would also include the quality of line work, the craftsmanship of drawings and visualizations, and the arrangement on panels. We saw some projects that were complex and professionally done, and we appreciated those. I have a feeling that this is how it is at BIG as well. We always strive for as little graphic design in the presentation as possible, and this has become our visual language.

If you had to criticize something, what bothered you the most?
Perhaps only that when I was approached to be on the jury, the deadline wasn't clear. I replied that it would suit me if the deadline could be closer to the end or beginning of the week so that it wouldn’t be in the middle. So I wouldn’t waste an entire week on the way and thus the most quality days for work. I got a response that students are usually not here on Monday and leave home on Friday. So, the only critique: not only should students be here on Monday and Friday, but ideally also on weekends. I think it was so for us. I best remember those years when we spent maximum time together. By students running away to their parents, they are preparing for the most quality moments of studying architecture.

Do you think it is evident from the projects that some students do not devote as much time to them as necessary?
I can’t evaluate that; I don’t know how much time was available for the assignment; I don’t have experience in teaching, and from the presentations, I cannot tell whether the project was created within a week or if there is several months of work that may not be shown. We can’t recognize this when judging; we only see the final presentation and assume that within it, the process is not exhibited, as it is rarely presented. I do not criticize this; perhaps it is better to present just the final version. But I want to say that I do not solve whether someone worked diligently on it and someone else did not. I think that in the winning projects, it is evident that the authors worked diligently on them; the projects are polished, with a minimum of mistakes. They have a story and are nicely fine-tuned.

Were you satisfied with the number of experimental or unconventional projects you saw here?
There were projects that innovatively and in new ways came up with new solutions. We certainly did not select tendentious things, nor those that are at the level of the standard production of today's architectural offices. We tried to choose projects that did not respond to the assignment in a superficial way, but that actually engaged with it and put something unexpected into it. Projects that breathe, are innovative, and most importantly do not provide standard answers that an architect with regular practice experience would present. The school is an ideal environment to go further. Students have the opportunity to work with minimal limitations. They have an unspoiled view of the world. They have the chance to come up with an original solution.
And such projects were here, and there were even more than we awarded. The awarded projects had the additional quality of being polished. Overall, we saw a lot from both categories. Good, conceptual, innovative, and great ideas that could be pushed further, but also very well-crafted projects that no established architect would have to be ashamed of.

Did you find it sufficient how the studios profile themselves among each other? Did you feel they differ? That each is heading in a different direction?
We certainly perceived that. I think it is partly due to the distinctive assignments of individual studios. In some cases, we even liked assignments that we would have wanted to reward, but we couldn’t find a project that fulfilled it.
But I would say that if I came and inquired who is the head of which studio, I wouldn't recognize it. And I think that’s good.
I don’t see any authoritarian studio here where little copies of the head or its draftsmen would be created. I think it is very good that the studios differ mainly in their approach to working on the project. For example, in the winning studio, we appreciated that they worked intensively and systematically together on the project, producing a common output at a professional and serious level.
On the other hand, in some studios, it was evident that the heads were careful to ensure that both the assignments and the resulting projects were diverse and provided more answers, and I personally see that very positively.

If I'm not mistaken, you did not announce the award for the best assignment?
No, we didn't know we could give that award.

In that case: which assignment did you find best formulated? And which had the best results?
Overall, we were disappointed with the Kunsthalle in České Budějovice. It seemed to us to be a great assignment, and we did not find a single house of art that we would consider deserving of an award. We saw no solutions that surprised us in any way. There was a disproportion between a very good assignment and not very good responses. I also found the assignments in Professor Suchomel's studio interesting. Interesting because they are foreign and are specific assignments, locations, or specific competitions. I liked that.

Would you select any student from here for an internship, or to join your team?
If the decision were up to me, then certainly. For example, those winners.

Thank you for the interview.

---

Interview with Lenka Křemenová (A1Architects) on the occasion of the announcement of the Ještěd F Kleci '09 competition

How would you compare our school with UMPRUM, where you studied? We have a different philosophy of study, and it seems to me that we are not fully utilizing our potential. What do you think?
Most schools do not fully utilize their potential, and especially not according to students' expectations. There are always criticisms, and things never seem to improve significantly, whether at UMPRUM or here — I believe it's due to a lack of communication between students and management. At the Liberec School of Architecture, we wanted to highlight during the announcement of the JFK results that its uniqueness lies in a large shared space. It is said that Liberec is one studio, where people meet and advise each other. My own experience from UMPRUM is that I learned the most from my classmates, from their thoughts, from our discussions together. It’s great when there is a fantastic studio head, but if it's someone with an overpowering personality, they can end up interfering too much. Sometimes it’s almost better when there is no head in the studio, and people operate among themselves; ideally, the head moderates the discussion. It varies, and each student utilizes that potential in their way. The quality of the school lies in creating a space where I can work freely as a student, discuss, and explore.
UMPRUM differs from FUATUL in that it is divided into four architecture studios, which have always been quite competitive with each other. Students at UMPRUM befriend as individuals, but at the same time, there is competition among them — which is healthy but sometimes culminates in unnecessary rivalry that doesn’t advance the debate. I believe that healthy competition and the associated discussion is a great thing, and together with the JFK jury, we hoped that the shared studio space would facilitate it. We expected that it would be felt more in the work. Because when such an extensive project is created — and well presented for us — like the team project Aš, I think it’s a pity that other students don’t adopt the presentation methods. Often from the perspective of students and the internal competition among them, it seems that they are “stealing” ideas, but that’s not the point. In architecture, time-wise, the author is not important; what matters is to create quality places and houses, or at least not to destroy already good things.

Are you specifically referring to graphic presentation?
Yes, for example, graphics. On the other hand, in the work of the team Aš led by Martin Hejl, it seemed to us that the students didn't delve deeply into the city. There was a simple, readable communication of criticism of the current development proposal and its alternative. But there was absolutely no depth of processing from which we could understand why exactly there should be an industrial zone here, why they are dealing with it, why it looks like this. In comparison with a similar assignment, we evaluated the project as one that would work flawlessly in reality as a pre-project for the contents of the work of Architect Klokočka’s studio. The quality of the work of the Aš team, under the guidance of Arch. Hejl, lies in its easy comprehensibility and says: “Look, Mr. Mayor, the city has these potentials; let’s work on it like this.” And then, for example, well follow a group of works from Architect Klokočka's studio because when this studio presents to a layman unfamiliar with the subject, who is almost every mayor, that person will look at the urban plans like “a startled mouse.” The work of urban planners is very complex, and its presentation carries many layers of information — the JFK jury spent the most time there trying to figure out what the main idea of the work was and what its qualities are. So finding the right shortcut — that’s a significant topic in architecture, and even more in urbanism; graphic design must not overshadow the content itself.
So just don’t be afraid to squeeze that potential out, that you’re looking into the pot here, enjoy discussing architecture, constructively criticize, and learn from each other.
   
Did you perceive this imbalance also within the topics for individuals? Did the topics appear clearly defined to you?
In team assignments, communication worked — that’s clearly perceptible, and that was how it was assigned. With purely individual projects, this occurs much less. The two projects chosen by the jury as the best are from the studio of architect Zdeněk Fránek, while there were also many projects in his studio that we didn’t even want to discuss because we felt they lacked architectural or presentation value — and all this within one studio. I would expect that students could share more among themselves with similar assignments. It is not the leader's fault; they should leave it to the students, not push them at all costs. Students should utilize the school's potential themselves.

If I could return to the difference between UMPRUM and Liberec. Liberec does not have specially designated master's studios. How is it at UMPRUM?
I believe that at UMPRUM it’s not either; it’s a myth — it operates more in terms of division into studios. But who is the master? I come from the studio of architect Jindřich Smetana, and we mostly forged the idea with students that the strength lies in the people in the studio, who, of course, at UMPRUM, are always chosen by the studio head at entrance exams. And they have to recognize their qualities — that should be the master. Dialogue is crucial — the leader as its moderator and sounding board against which the students develop their arguments. We often functioned in combat against that — to not do the things that architect Smetana wanted or expected from us. Every architect has their handwriting, which is not bad — there are simply principles that are sympathetic to them, which they lean toward, and seek in the projects of their students. And then it’s about how strong the student is and whether they can assert their thing while also taking good advice from the leader.

Don't you think that within our faculty these differences are blurring, and it is becoming average, where everyone does the same thing and there are no distinct differences?
And do you have such a feeling?

It seems to us that there is a lot of blending of the levels of individual projects here. They are neither bad nor good.
I think that happens at every school — probably except the academy, where there is only one studio, and it’s already about a selection from a selection. It’s usually the same ratio — there's always just a small percentage of truly outstanding talents, followed by a group of people who occasionally manage something. Under different leadership, sometimes better, sometimes worse, depending on how it fits them. And that doesn't mean they are bad architects; for example, that is the craftsmanship part of the work.
If it were measured proportionally, I think it would come out the same at ČVUT, the same at UMPRUM, and the same here in Liberec. There are always exceptional things to discover, exceptional feelings, then the average quality, and then disasters. In this regard, I am in favor of demystifying schools like UMPRUM, which I like a lot, but just go there and you will immediately see that proportionally it’s really the same.

Would you pick anyone from Liberec to help you in your office or for an internship?
I did not look at the projects in the jury that way at all. For A1Architects, the personality of the person is important. Of course, it's good when an architect or student has a great portfolio, but alongside that, a personal meeting is crucial. Because we are a team, and you need someone in the team who is not just sitting and drawing something according to assignments from above. We need a person who integrates into the “family.” We are definitely something different than large-format studios. And that especially in scale, so when I exaggerate — we need a friend in our team.
In that regard, there may be a difference at schools regarding their entrance exams. I don't know if it still applies, but at UMPRUM, the entrance exams are directly for the studios, and in the interview, it's not just the head with the assistant but maybe even four students, and all decide. Sometimes the super-high talent wins simply because of how likable and communicative the person is. At first glance, it may seem unfair, but it is very important. Because when team projects are made, the team must function. So we carried this perhaps irrational component with us to A1Architects, and that's why it’s hard for us to select solely based on presentation and ideas on paper.

How did you feel in the jury as the only woman? Wasn't it a difficult position?
No, the jury was great; everyone was really nice; I think we got along well. I was in the jury more as a representative of the public. I dealt with whether the projects — particularly the urban projects — would be understandable, for example, to the mayor. I styled myself into the role of a public representative and asked elementary questions. If there was, for example, a referendum on one of the proposals, whether people would understand everything. That's why I highlighted Mr. Hejl's studio, where the graphic presentation was so clear that there was no need to read anything. That’s how presentations should be made for the public, and then it can create a manual that is detailed. I am not talking here, however, about whether their questions were poorly worded.

And do you perceive a change in the school's atmosphere?
You can't tell when you are here with the jury for a day. One jury member studied here years ago and today didn't even know where the library is. You can't really discern much in that short time; you don’t even remember a lot of things.

Do you think the overall level of the school is changing in some way?
Of course, it probably improves. There are now about ten studios, and there used to be half, so it’s better for the students, with more options to choose from. But this isn’t an interesting answer. It’s hard to respond to such a general question. When you don’t talk to the students, you can’t tell the difference in just one day. I can describe the atmosphere of the commission, but you won’t quickly notice the change in the level of the school.

Were you satisfied with any project in terms of its conceptual and theoretical level?
The winning work was nice. For its straightforwardness and yet applicability. The breadth of perspective on detail, being able to achieve such a solution in a small area. So I believe it deserves recognition.

What about the first year? How did it appeal to you?
I had one gazebo there that the others rejected, so I supported the other jury members. The clotheslines seemed coarse to me, but in the end, one had to acknowledge that it was an idea. I didn’t like the bench either; its legs were also quite clumsy. But in the end, I didn’t protest. The third was a bin. I think these were performances corresponding to the first year.
In previous years, Ještěd was often won by a first-year student, wasn’t it? The question is whether they aren’t spoiled by teachers afterwards. Those who won in the first year might stagnate. Every first poetry collection is published by everyone, but whether they publish a second one is another story. These are the successes of the first year, that naivety or enthusiasm. The question is what the second step will be.

Can you think of any significant negative aspect that you noticed?
You drive everything to extremes. A significant negative aspect. You understand, these are very big questions, which cannot be captured during Ještěd. Too general, too difficult, too quick. That's why take everything I've said with a grain of salt; it can also be unfair. For some of those questions, one should refuse to express an opinion.

Thank you for the interview.

---

Interview with René Dlesk (P-U-R-A) on the occasion of the announcement of the Ještěd F Kleci '09 competition

How do you feel about our school? Have you been here before?
I have not come into direct contact with your school in the past. I regret that a bit because I would like to experience it in everyday operation and see how it really works and lives here. Personally, I did not know this way of working in studios during my studies. At the Faculty of Architecture in Bratislava, where I still work as an external doctoral candidate, the approach is completely different. I would love to come to surprise you someday and see what it looks like in the studios, how work is done in them, to see hallways full of students, or how they cram into that small library, which, as I’ve heard, is great.
The feeling I gained from the school today was influenced by the fact that it was a special day, an exceptional event, so the studio was also cleaned up, and the only thing this morning on the jury day that reminded of the dramatic moments of completing works was the smell of freshly cut plywood for models. It evoked a beautiful nostalgic feeling of that mess from my study days.
I was very impressed that you organize it completely by yourselves, you — students. Students sometimes tend to underestimate themselves in that they don’t believe they should have a full-fledged and strong voice at school. This event is a clear demonstration of that strength. Putting the whole JFK rotation in motion is not a simple task at all. On the contrary, managing to do so requires a high degree of professionalism, organization, and engagement.
Marketing, you called guests, jury members, arranged prizes, secured money, and other related tasks. It seems great to me that you are engaging in this way. It’s evident at first glance that JFK has a strong credit at the school. It would be a great pity if that fell away. It is up to you to devise a system for gradually transferring competencies in the organization of JFK so that this does not happen by any chance. It requires a lot of work and personal commitment, which not everyone is willing to sacrifice, and it certainly comes at the expense of the work that must be devoted to studying and studios. It is a sacrifice on the part of the organizers, and I firmly believe that others realize and appreciate it. You managed to handle it excellently today.

How does it work at the Bratislava university? Do you find our studio system suitable?
At VŠVU in Bratislava, the principle works very similarly to here. But I come from the technical side (FA STU), and there the approach is diametrically different; the vertical studio does not exist at FASTU, and that is a pity. In such a studio, students can learn better from each other, get to know each other better, and learn to work as a team, which is not exactly the natural disposition of an architect. It’s certain that they easily share shortcomings, mistakes, or other flaws. On the other hand, working on a common assignment can motivate. An hourly or half-hour consultation weekly with a leader, as commonly occurs in some studios at FASTU, is miserably low. Architects should be educated by creating architecture under the true guidance of good architects. In your conditions, this potential is here. Whether you can utilize it to the fullest would be another question.

How did you perceive the continuity of individual outputs within the faculty; did they appear balanced, or did you see significant extremes?
I was quite surprised. There were relatively significant differences. Since students from the second to the fourth year work together in one studio, I would expect that what the studio head doesn’t say, a fourth-year student would advise. For the evaluation of your work by someone else, in such situations, it is essential that the project must be as clear as a slap in the face. However, today I noticed in numerous cases that projects did not provide me with clear information. To the extent that not only was it impossible to understand the motivations for solving the assignment but if we compared it to writing, it had terrible "grotesqueries" or was stylistically nonsensically arranged. Introduction, core, conclusion did not exist in this logical order; they needed to be sought and were not always easy to find. A juror, who has to evaluate 120-150 projects throughout the day, first selects based on initial impulses. When it is not readable, all the student’s efforts are almost wasted. Only when it is understandable and can simultaneously engage does one begin to look at it and discover if it’s nonsense or not. I was surprised that in many cases, I was unable to glean basic information from the projects. On the other hand, there were also opposite extremes — projects that could express their message in a straightforward manner. And those were the winning works.

Do you think the formulation of assignments is very important? Can we say that good projects emerged from good assignments and vice versa? Or does it not matter at all?
Certainly, it matters, and in this semester it was shown to influence the quality of the entire studios’ work. Some assignments were poorly defined in terms of what their goal was. It’s never just about designing a building. People live in it, after all.
For instance, multigenerational housing for seniors combined with starter apartments for young people was discussed. It seemed to me that students needed clearer explanations of what the challenge consists of to extract the most from the assignment. In such a case, it could happen that students decide to challenge the assignment with their solution, for example, by choosing its location and dealing with it completely differently than others. If an individual uses the path correctly and happens to have a good rapport with the head, they wouldn’t even have to be thrown out of the studio for that. But they would remain alone, without the advantages that a vertical studio provides. That is one of its few disadvantages — it’s a bit of a vicious circle. With us or against us.
I was a bit surprised by those international locations as well. The Czech Republic has enough of its own problems that need addressing, and students can try out the full range of problem categories here. For example, the question of sustainability was posed in a elitist position by its location, as in the studio of John O'Reilly: "Sure! Sustainability! Great! Let’s go to England and create a proposal in this remote settlement that will represent the ideal solution to this problem." instead of saying that it’s a ubiquitous problem and that it can be approached with the utmost seriousness in every place, even the most ordinary one. I think this way we can each help a little and not wait for others somewhere on the other side of the world who will deal with these problems for us while we just sadly watch how the media and almost everyone with interest today exploits some profit, presenting to us that our planet is going downhill and that the Earth has caught a serious disease called "the human", and other nonsense that hardly contributes to anything. I don’t want to say that O'Reilly's studio work was bad. On the contrary, it was one of the best.

What was the most significant thing you would like to criticize?
With all studios in one shared space, you do not utilize the potential of that enough. I see the potential in that there could be regular, intentional, and planned mutual critiques and confrontations of one’s work among the studios. One studio has this good, the other something else; someone completely overlooked that, another studio works less compared to the other or is completely off. Mutual confrontation of this type would, admittedly, bring some spark and tension — not only among students but also among the heads of the studios themselves. There can’t be anything more unpleasant when a perfect being, which many architects believe deeply they are, is criticized by another such being through pointing out their student’s faults. Just imagine, it could lead to a fight. Surely, they would ultimately realize that they are not there to bolster their egos but rather for the students.
You could even use a self-service bar in that space. You would create better opportunities for quarreling rivals to become friends again or to take a break from architecture. You could easily go crazy from it. School is not just about studying.

Do you think that enough conceptual or experimental projects emerged this semester?
In principle, not really. The cleanest experimental work emerged in Hejl’s studio with a project for Aš. Some of the competition proposals in Mr. Suchomel’s studio also tried to be more experimental. Otherwise, I did not see any significant experiments. However, I do not consider this a flaw. I believe that architecture, urbanism, and city building have always stood and should stand on rational foundations. I fundamentally disagree with slogans like: "originality is exactly what we need." No one throughout practically all of human history has come up with a hundred percent original idea. It has always been some process, pushing, and combining what already existed. Mr. James Burke talks very aptly about this in his first ten-part documentary series titled "Connections," from 1978. Check it out if you manage to find it. Among other interesting things, it’s interesting to see the similarity of issues of that time to our own. If you don’t establish an experiment on solid foundations, it’s difficult for anything of real value to emerge from it.

Do you think the foundation you’re talking about is here?
Except for the projects for Aš, it is not managed in any way. It’s like: "If you want to experiment, we’ll see what comes of it."

Could you compare our approach with that at your school?
For a student, the main visible difference might be how often the heads of studios change. With some teachers at the Bratislava school, it looks like they were born there, grew up there, aged there, and will die there. There is a strongly rooted rigid academic structure that cannot easily be changed. It is built on very strong formal academic rules. They are both a support and a brake on potential development. However, that is a situation similar to many faculties, especially at larger universities. Switching teachers who no longer benefit the school is not easy in such conditions. When it comes to positions critical to the accreditation of the faculty or institute, it is difficult to find people with sufficient academic qualifications to substitute. These people know that their position is nearly unshakable; and so they lose motivation from their solid positions and don’t welcome new challenges. They easily transmit not only outdated knowledge but also apathy towards work onto students through their subordinates. That’s very sad.
In the case of studio heads, experienced and quality architects, their adequate financial compensation may also be a significant issue. It always starts from the school management. The previous one allowed some of its best teachers to leave the Bratislava school. However, you can now feel a fresh wind blowing at Bratislava’s FASTU. The new management strives vigorously to combat the aforementioned problems as much as possible. Everything, however, takes its time. However, there are also more young and very active people who now have the opportunity to utilize their enthusiasm and keep things moving. What we certainly lack outwardly, and what Maria Topolčanská recently emphasized, who visited you as a juror at JFK6, is precisely a similar award to Ještěd F Kleci, which would be organized by the students themselves.
Thanks to the fact that you invite new people to the studios, they bring fresh air and you can feel the competition, and that’s good. It would be interesting to compare how it works at other renowned schools abroad. It is always wise to be inspired by the better.

In a certain part of your activity, you deal with urbanism. How do you evaluate the urban projects here?
We awarded the prize for the studio as a whole precisely to Mr. Klokočka's urban studio. It is elaborately, diligently, and collaboratively developed work, led with a firm hand by someone who sees the problems of the city in their full complexity and leads students to identify them in certain ways. Perhaps that leadership was a bit too strong, as if it outlined things for the students. The issues of urbanism are so complex that such strong leadership by an experienced person is necessary. The shared output from the students for both cities that emerged in this studio presents very valuable material that both cities could utilize in addressing specific problems.

And what about the studio in Mimoň led by Mr. Hendrych?
From my perspective, the students there received significantly more freedom. However, it did not serve them well. Collaborative teamwork, seeking common starting points, and identifying problems were weaker, and this was evident in the results. So it’s no wonder that a student sometimes feels lost and focuses on solving a problem whose importance they misjudge.
However, there was also the studio led by Martin Hejl and Lenka Hejlova with the project for Aš. We as jurors decided to highlight Aš because of the quality and strength of its presentation. They chose the approach of fighting against "evil" with their type of populism. It looked excellent. However, we did not find the results of the studio to be as correct. Those are the experiments. I think it is not appropriate to experiment with a city to such an extent. People live there; an UFO cannot just land there. On the other hand, it is true that it was a reaction to an existing plan that would undoubtedly not be a lower-category UFO for Aš. As a warning that a proposal is being planned for Aš that is not correct, it serves excellently — such an introduction before the actual work. I hope that it doesn’t fade away and that the city learns of that project.

How did you feel in the jury?
Very well. From Elena and Veronika, we received instructions that we should relax, and so we did, starting with Mr. Petr Rezek. It was very pleasant. In a way, we all know each other remotely. Either at least a little personally or we know that we exist. Adam manages, with his multifaceted activities, to ensure that architects have at least some kind of awareness of themselves.
Young architects in association with a deserving expert with a very specific expression made for a lively and functional combination.

Did Mr. Rezek assert himself in the results?
Probably like everyone else. He was not authoritative in any way. He fully accepted our position and was very team-oriented. Personally, I had not had the chance to meet Mr. Rezek before, but as I inquired, I was warned by your colleague that he can be very idiosyncratic. And indeed, he can. He was able to express his judgment in a second, and in the case of urban studios, he immediately admitted that it is not exactly his field and that he doesn't have the nerves for it. So we all probably spoke to him over time that he needed to be patient. He was open to advice and ultimately enthusiastically pushed for an urban project to win, saying that we would surprise everyone with that, that no one would expect it. And of course, we did not let that go. In the end, under pressure from us, he relented, because he saw that we wouldn't be so easily discouraged. He expressed himself with enthusiasm regarding the illogical arrangement of benches in the courtyard behind the faculty, and to perfectly fit into the context of his arguments, he even had a piece about the bench from YouTube played. So he was definitely a great member of this year's JFK jury.

Thank you for the interview.

---

Interview with Vladimír Vašut (under-construction architects) on the occasion of the announcement of the Ještěd F Kleci '09 competition

How does the atmosphere of the school affect you? How did you feel here?
Two weeks ago, I was on the jury of the Cast Lead (Olověný Dušan) and was looking forward to the comparison. Few get to evaluate both schools in one semester. When I came here, the first impression was definitely better — as far as the exhibition space is concerned. I think it’s really fantastic here; specifically, I regret that ČVUT has a new building but does not have the opportunities you have. One big space — I can imagine you sitting here, with every corner being a studio, and it functions together. ČVUT is broken down into small rooms. There are no exhibition conditions; a person stands between two projects that are — I don’t know — 60 centimeters apart. I can't understand that it’s a new building, a new school, which is primarily supposed to allow students to function — that is, of course, about presenting projects and their results. It seems to me that it devalues how hard they work all semester. That saddened me a lot.
But back to your school. The space is very pleasant, I like it. Of course, today is a specific day; it usually operates differently here. However, the first impression was definitely better. When I quickly passed through, I had the experience from ČVUT that the first round needs to be passed quickly; I call that “calibrating.” Throughout the hour, I went through all of Ještěd and it struck me as better than Prague. Maybe it was because there are a hundred or a hundred twenty projects here, while in Prague, there are eight hundred. So it’s an incomparably different scope; you give three hundred projects and have no idea what you saw; it's a massacre. Here, I managed to cover it all; it seemed to me that the topics are interesting, diverse, and the approaches vary, it's fresh. I felt energy and enthusiasm in the projects.
Unfortunately, that went away when we delved deeper into the projects we wanted to evaluate. I began to realize — I don’t know if the initial euphoria fell away or if it was due to the degree of elaboration of the projects — that it is very similar to ČVUT. Of course, at ČVUT, there are some studios that are completely top-notch, that is Kuzemenský, Hájek, Císler, which is also outside the scale. And again, there are some that are entirely off. I think the quality here is better, but on average it’s comparable.

Did you feel that some projects significantly stood out in quality, either positively or negatively?
We liked the urban designs a lot, and I don’t know if it makes sense to talk about failures. The studios that did not engage with urbanism are essentially comparable. Although we evaluated three projects from the first year, I was personally expecting more. I admit that I did not have any first-year student noted in my comments. I know Petr Šmídek, and I know that in past years first-year students often won, that’s why. From my perspective, it perhaps seemed too simple — even trivial. We appreciated the bench, but it’s really an archetype; it was more of a statement, supporting the students.
Furthermore, Aš was presented excellently; it was clear they devoted themselves to the project. Such a model, as they have, I have never seen in my life. It could be exhibited in a museum, done. But they lacked the strength to finish, on the actual design. They had a super analysis that is completely luxurious for presentation and engagement with the city, but — and that is also why they were not awarded — the design itself wasn’t in the project.
From the Buček – Horatschke studio, we were all a bit disappointed. Generally speaking: when we selected nine awarded projects, I was completely horrified. When I came this morning, I said — please do not reward any chapels and interiors of churches and those nice design things, let's find something deeper. And Kunsthalle seemed to me like an ideal possibility. It’s a simple space from which an interesting result can arise. I believe this assignment was an unturned chance. It was beyond its possibilities and my expectations.
Next to it is Mr. Fránek’s studio. There was a winning project that we agreed was excellent; I do not wish to repeat myself by stating its strengths. Overall, it’s a top studio; various approaches are seen — whether I can agree with them or disagree with them. For example, those meditation spaces, some of which I didn’t understand. But I don't want to question the individual approach. I think it’s an above-average studio.
Social housing from Mr. Novák’s studio disappointed me quite a bit. When I entered the cubicle, I recalled that Kuzemenský did social housing at ČVUT. They had a uniform layout, and we found out that it’s not just about those pretty pictures, visualizations, but how the house functions inside. When I came to Liberec; I said: the visuals are not great, but — now I’m clever — I’ll look at the layouts. But then, boom, nothing happened there. In my opinion, there was nothing finished. It was disappointing for me.
In the following cubicle is Mimoň (studio Hendrych and Janďourek). We tried to find something in that project. If I were to take it as urbanism, compared to Aš and Klokočka, it’s weak, and when I take it as urban interventions, it didn’t have sufficient quality. Regarding Kunsthalle, the buildings looked good, but we didn’t pick them. There was always something missing. None of those buildings had the guts, which is perhaps why we had to glide towards selecting urban designs, with the next in line being gestures like walls or minor things like those in Polička. Now, I actually don’t know if the fault was in us for not seeing that quality, or if we just could not agree. But in no project did there arise a situation: yes, this is great, let’s support it. We always moved on. So those projects probably did not have what it takes to win. Or, more likely, they did not elaborate on themes that are current today. For example, urban designs and slight urban interventions are more important for the overall perception of architecture and society.
Ireland, Sustainable living (studio of O'Reilly and Zedníčková) did not appeal to me much. Colleagues liked it, so I supported it in a way. It was well done, quality, but for me, it was too little to say that this is the best from Liberec. I approached it this way — the work we select is actually the best from Liberec, and that will represent the school. And it seemed to me too little for us to select a farm and kohlrabi. I consider Ještěd a message for the public, whether broad or expert. On the one hand, I tried for us to select the most diverse composition of projects, and on the other hand, for them to be messages. A message, of course, can be sustainable development, community life, and vegetable cultivation, but it wasn’t my cup of tea. However, I’m not saying it’s wrong.
I liked the competition in Lahti from Mr. Suchomel, and we had several of them in the narrower final. His assignments are attractive, whether skyscrapers or other competitions. I think that is something that can motivate students. In the case of skyscrapers, I had the urge to choose one because they were well done, but I found that none had something more. In the previously mentioned assignment for Lahti, I was fascinated by the project that unfolded in the forest, where they made a snake in the treetops. Only later did I find out that they had to demolish the existing facility, plant trees, and suddenly the project lost its original flair. Overall, I enjoyed this studio; it was good. I think Mr. Suchomel’s studio is of good quality.

The jury was very diverse today; how did you feel in it?
I think well; we got along pleasantly. I know Honza Magasanik; I know Lenka a bit; René and I got to know each other very quickly; Mr. Rezek is communicative, so it was pleasant. And after the jury room echoed the favorite tune of jury member Rezek “Bench, I wish you would speak,” our rapport reached its peak.
The concept that the whole competition is in one day is definitely very pleasant. At ČVUT, it is more demanding in this regard; for two days, one assesses, then has to write assessments, and a month later it’s the announcement. At Ještěd, it’s great that it’s accumulated, that the jury is under pressure, has to finish it in time, and they always do. Then the announcement occurs, the jurors immediately prepare the final evaluation and speech, and in the evening, there is also a pleasant party that everyone attends because they want to come. It has a human dimension.
One more observation: Honza Magasanik studied here and felt that communication had deteriorated. The collective was more cohesive before, and now there’s something going on here and something going on there. Because your big advantage is that you sit next to each other and can look over each other’s shoulders. It’s great that there are fewer of you because you get the chance to encompass and get to know each other. And it’s easier for organization. You could carry soup pots here, and that’s wonderful.
So let's go dance.

Thank you for the interview.