Lead Dušan 2009

This year's exhibition of student works concludes with the Liberec Ještěd in a cage and the dean-organized Faculty of Architecture CTU Award as the third competition: the Lead Dušan. This event at the Prague Faculty of Architecture of the mentioned school is organized by the local Student Association for the 16th year.
The announcement of the results and the opening of the exhibition (which will last until April 18) took place late Thursday evening at the Prague Velvety Palace.
According to the organizers, the goal of the competition is "to gain an independent view of the quality of architecture education at FA CTU." A five-member jury, composed of specialists who are not affiliated with the faculty, evaluates all projects submitted in the winter semester of the respective academic year.

This year's jury, consisting of Markéta Cajthamlová, Ondřej Hofmeister (chair), Miroslav Holubec, Jan Línek and Petr Volf nominated 10 projects in the individual category. This year, Lead Dušan was taken home by three projects from the packed, dimly lit, and musically enhanced spaces of the National Gallery: the duo of authors Martin Chlanda and Vojtěch Sigmund for Housing in Prokop Valley (studio of Petr Suskeho), Tomáš Beránek for Museum of Revolution 89 (studio of Jan Bočan), and Ondřej Otýpka for his Tensegrity tower (studio of Miloš Florián).

In the studios category, without specifying an order, the studios of Jan Bočan, Jano Stempela, Miloš Florián, and the studio duo of Jan Šépka & Petr Hájek were awarded.

REFLECTIONS OF THE JURORS

Markéta Cajthamlová
On judging, on the school – Having initial fears about the endless two days, the process of reviewing and selecting the best projects turned out to be quite a pleasant experience. There was plenty to choose from; the level of most studios was at least decent. I was surprised by how many projects involved housing, while only a few featured renovation or interior designs - which seemed a shame. Urbanism is evolving again, and carefully crafted regulatory plans also appeared.
What our mathematics professor once told us still holds true: “goulash on paper - goulash in the head.” Studios with clear assignments, mostly the same, a system of display, uniform presentation, and good models are still few, and the quality of projects in them is visibly better. The studios of Šépka – Hájek, Floriana, Bočana, and Stempela are examples of this. Comparing results on one assignment forces others to seek new solutions. That sometimes seems more beneficial to me than the result itself.
With the establishment of the archicafe, the school finally has at least one decent place in the environment. Much has not changed in this respect since our time, and the endless sitting and waiting in narrow hallways is still just as frustrating.

Ondřej Hofmeister
Returning to the premises of the CTU Faculty of Architecture was a double return. Firstly, it was a return to the school building, and secondly, to the environment of the student world. The building has not changed much since the times I visited it myself. It is still that institution that offers almost nothing extra aside from knowledge. I miss here what I experienced, for example, at a school in Copenhagen, Denmark. That is, openness and a relaxed atmosphere. The feeling that the school belongs to both teachers and students. A pleasant change in the right direction is certainly the new café on the 14th floor. Conversely, a very unpleasant surprise were the turnstiles at the entrance to the building and cameras in the hallways. Elements that apparently are meant to protect, but it is unclear what and whom and from what. They only reinforce the feeling of unfreedom and discomfort and are against the essence of a modern educational institution.
On the other hand, the return to the studios felt liberating, with a sense of freedom and willingness to produce one’s best and learn new things. Being taken out of the everyday architect's practice and returning to a relatively free and unburdened administrative environment was very refreshing. I perceived the relatively high presence of foreign students as decidedly positive. We did not have the chance to experience the comparison with foreigners in the fresh post-revolution period.
Finally, I would like to thank the organizers for fostering a culture of free competition at their school, which cultivates a thoughtful environment and which can be described as a holiday amidst the monotony of other school duties. I believe that the Faculty of Architecture is distinctive in this respect compared to other technical schools.

Miroslav Holubec
The invitation for me to the jury of Lead Dušan came literally at the last minute – the originally invited Polish colleague fell ill the day before the meeting. I reached out to fill this gap and thus did not have to struggle long with thoughts about whether I deserved such an honorable task and whether I was too young for it. Even though ten years full of work have gone by since my diploma, giving one a sense of remembering school as a very distant past, after a few hours spent wandering its floors and shuttling to Zikovka, everything suddenly came back as if it were today.
And I realize that almost nothing has really changed. The school is still full of studios, among which, just like back then, the differences in the quality of what and how they teach, and what work is ultimately visible remains evident at first glance. Although the main building has the most studios, there are still very few interesting ones - I fondly linger in my "home" studio of Mrs. Šrámková, and the new studios of Jan Bočan and Jan Stempela give me a balanced impression. Thanks to its clear and unique focus on "future systems," Mr. Florián's studio also has its place here.
A further dose of excitement traditionally comes in Zikovka. There too, old certainties remain - the Lábus studio (strict classical modernism, although I would say it was possibly stricter in our time :) and Sedlák (quality urbanism) - and besides them, a new star - at first glance, a strikingly expressive studio of Mr. Šépka and Hájek, which has already gained fame beyond the school.
What is it that makes certain studios visibly "the better ones"? Firstly, it seems that the better studios are usually led by externals from practice - the deeper contact with reality brings liveliness to the studio's work. This is connected with the choice of assignments - searching for themes that are pressing and relevant today. The theme of "densification of the city," developed in the ŠH studio, is an example of hitting the mark. Furthermore, it is the "way" of the assignment - open, or rather general assignments do not facilitate work but rather complicate it. Too loose assignments may lead to solutions that may seem appealing at first glance, but are internally "void." Last but not least, there is the education towards a certain "staff culture" that should be inseparably inherent to the work of an architect. Here I must commend the ŠH studio and also the studio of Jan Bočan. The presentation method on uniform panels, with a uniform way of processing and exhibiting models gives the entire studio not only shine but also allows for better overview and comparison of individual designs, which is another dimension of teamwork.
In conclusion, I would like to improve the perhaps somewhat pessimistic impression that I got while writing this text. During my walk through the school, we visited the architecture studio at the faculty of civil engineering for curiosity. This school is currently striving to attain the same qualification recognition for its graduates of this field as for graduates of our faculty (the right to enter the Chamber of Architects without comparative exams). It is true that the newly renovated studios, full of light and space for work, can only be envied from the standpoint of classrooms-studios of our faculty (for now). But in terms of a detailed view of the professional level of projects in the realm of architectural design, our school still maintains an overall and visible advantage. I wish our faculty that this state is further emphasized and firmly established over time.

Jan Línek
Returning to the Dejvice school always evokes a wave of sentiment about how quickly time has passed. Nevertheless, I was glad to accept the students' invitation to stroll among the student projects in the context of Lead Dušan. What was my impression from that walk, apart from sore feet? An awful lot of projects, thus also students, leading to a relatively difficult orientation in the quantity, resulting in immediate visual evaluation that could dismiss projects containing valuable ideas. This meant that among the ten nominated, some quality projects may not have made it through the more detailed study we conducted. So for them, please accept my friends' apologies.
Overall, therefore - a large number of craftily executed projects, which, however, lack that "overbuilding" that makes architecture an art, distinguishing it from regular construction production. Countless family and apartment houses are in clichés that are currently in vogue. I know that the faculty cannot produce only talents, but regarding the number of projects seen, there seemingly have not been many of those "crazy visionary" students, as Filip Šlapal said in one of the previous Dušans. As someone who has used the simplest techniques throughout my practice, and it was only the times that forced me to find a certain level of adaptation, it irritates me that I find these simple tools for expressing ideas almost only in the studio of Alena Šrámková, and otherwise I am faced with variously unattractive visualizations. Something else is the use of computers in the studio of Miloš Florián, where they are not just a technique serving for graphic presentation. However, I somewhat miss a more thorough application to usual typological kinds, so the architecture presented is predominantly of large spatial layouts that allow such experimentation.
I have reflected on why there remains a certain unfreedom in the overall impression of the students. Perhaps because it primarily still lies within us, in the surrounding events and environment. After all, school is the last opportunity for free expression before a collision with reality that is often cruel. That feeling of freedom, during the period when school is a second home for a while, is undoubtedly created by the environment. Perhaps the new one will already be established.

Petr Volf
16 hours with Dušan – It is undoubtedly an important experience. Sixteen hours over two days in the tower of the Faculty of Architecture. A dual environment: beautiful views opening from the upper floors and cramped studios, additionally in a building devoid of any expansion except for its height. The environment shapes, architects learn there, or deform. I was curious about "Roubík’s window," which was talked about – after his arrival at the school - as a significant act: I was surprised by how small it is. I was struck by how everything here seems to be preserved when this was considered a revolutionary gesture. I would connect all spaces so that studios and students could communicate naturally. One of the main tasks that a student of FA should address, in my opinion, is the reconstruction of the school tower. It should inspire, and serve as a business card of the school, of which students and teachers could be proud.
Evaluating hundreds of works in one day is difficult. Each project deserves much longer study. I had the persistent feeling that I would miss something significant. At night I could not sleep. The next day, when the selection was narrowing, other jury members confided similar feelings to me. At FA, rectilinear architecture prevails: perhaps it is linked to that unfortunate building. I was surprised by how little students seem to spread their wings, how humble they are towards their teachers. I missed a higher percentage of outrageously bold projects, perhaps even a little crazy.
I was most impressed by the projects that contained "green elements." Zikmund Chlanda designed family houses on stilts in Prokop Valley, in the treetops, without devastating the precious land. Transport by cable car fully supported the entire concept. It had a spark and lightness that I chronically missed elsewhere. Ondřej Otýpka proposed a skyscraper in which there are trees on every floor, yet it does not feel formal: it seems like it could be so. The shape of the translucent house with an organic shell deviates from the tall buildings emerging at FA. The community center for children by Patrik Uchala (located in Kampa next to the Sovovy mills) creatively draws from the enclosed site. It offers a sense of safety and protection, and additionally, the inner grassy "slopes" allow for various physical activities.
In Jan Šépka’s and Petr Hájek’s studio, one can immediately see concentrated and conceptual work, with precisely formulated assignments at the beginning. Each student approaches the task informed, with an emphasis on the originality (or otherwise) of the project. A certainty of expression appears, which can be considered a studio style, but not in the sense of formal similarity. The level of all evaluated students was very high, above average, mostly promising. It felt as if I had found myself in a professional office.
I had the same feeling from the preparations for Lead Dušan. The team composed of students was coordinated; everything was under control; they treated the works of their colleagues with respect and towards the jury with appropriate urgency.