Open letter from architects to the Minister of Culture of the Czech Republic regarding the international architectural competition for the construction of the National Library in Prague

Dear Minister,

we are addressing the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic, which is the founder of the National Library, and its director personally answers for the activities and management of this institution.
The architectural competition is a proven method for the best execution of a specific commission, and its organization should be in the interest of every investor. In the case of financing from public budgets, it usually concerns the quality of civic buildings or public space, which will long-term affect the character of the city and our environment as a whole.
The architectural competition for the new building of the National Library in Prague was certainly the most important international competition in our territory. Its outcome was meant to be a building representing not only a state institution but also Prague and the whole Czech Republic, unique in its significance and anticipated costs within the current post-November architecture funded by the state. The appropriate attention from the media and thus the public was drawn to the competition only after the results were announced, as unfortunately is often the case. Discussions about the quality of the winning project at various levels, however, overshadowed the course of the competition itself, which in this case is crucial.
The National Library prepared the competition without the participation of the Czech Chamber of Architects, the National Heritage Institute, and other institutions with which it would have been natural to at least consult this matter. Key decisions, including the selection of the site, were not preceded by appropriate professional debate; many important questions arose only after the competition. The content and formally poor preparation of the competition conditions, the information about the competition including many obviously false statements, as well as the later presentation of results, publication of documents, and communication with competitors did not come close to matching the significance or budget of the competition.
Even before the official announcement of the competition, the leadership of the National Library published the name of the later winner, who was supposed to be invited to participate. This single name was repeatedly linked to press releases about the competition, while the names of other contacted architects were published only more than 3 months after the announcement of the results, at a time when the National Library was already facing protests over the irregularity of the competition. The preference for one architect by the initiator is unacceptable. With the publication of the composition of the jury, including several individuals very close to the later winner, the impression of a pre-known winner was reinforced. Most of the jurors were nominated by the National Library's leadership, and the criteria for their selection have never been satisfactorily explained. Although the rightful doubts about the impartiality of the jury and thus the advantage of one competitor were officially attempted to be dispelled by the organizer before the closing of the competition, many architects were deterred from participation precisely for these reasons. As later became evident, almost no one from the global elite participated, and from the Czech side, very few significant architects did. Of the 17 architects invited by the competition initiator by letter, only one domestic and one foreign architect participated, who was precisely the later winner.
The evaluation itself also took place in an irregular manner. The jury reviewed and eliminated more than 300 projects in an unusually short time and without adequate justification. The jury repeatedly voted with an incomplete number of its members, and the long-term absent juror, Ms. Hadid, was not represented by one fixed substitute as per the competition rules. The jury decided to ignore its obligation in contradiction to the competition rules and did not exclude projects that did not meet the mandatory conditions of the assignment from further evaluation. The condition of placing part of the funds in above-ground spaces was repeatedly confirmed to the competitors as non-negotiable, and its change during the competition is absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable. The consequences of this condition for the conceptual design of the building, for its scope, size, height, and proportion to the land are fatal. Although the winning work does not meet this mandatory condition, its victory was possible because, in violation of the basic rules of architectural competitions (as well as other forms of commissioning), one of the jury members and also a representative of the initiator, Mr. Vlastimil Ježek, proposed its omission, which the jury accepted without a vote. The irregularity of the competition is completely evident and verifiable by publicly accessible official documents.
The subsequent protests from competitors and professional chambers are understandable and entirely justified. Nevertheless, the leadership of the National Library refuses them, citing false or completely irrelevant arguments in the media and on the official website. The leadership of the National Library referred to the position of the International Union of Architects (UIA) shortly after the announcement of the results and several times thereafter. However, the final position of the UIA has been available for several weeks and clearly declares that the jury violated the mandatory provisions of the construction program that was part of the competition conditions and that the conditions of this provision fundamentally limited the basic concept of many competition proposals. The responsibility for adhering to the competition rules lies with the initiator, who is also the only one who can, and in this case is obligated, for the reasons stated above, to annul the results of the competition (in no case can UIA or another entity do so).
The described course of the international architectural competition for a building with anticipated costs of several billion CZK, sending signals about unprofessionalism, manipulability, and illegality both domestically and abroad, is understood as a very dangerous precedent.
We demand the annulment of the competition results, along with the reimbursement of the entry fee to all registered teams, reimbursement of the costs for the preparation of projects to all competition teams that duly submitted their work, and proper notification to all domestic and foreign participants of the competition. Furthermore, we demand a public acceptance of responsibility from the leadership of the National Library for failures on both the legal and ethical levels.

Any potential announcement of a new competition must be preceded by the establishment of an independent commission that will comprehensively assess the situation of the National Library, including the capacity of the Klementinum building, taking into account the use of its underground parts after the relocation of the State Technical Library to the currently under-construction building in Dejvice. If it turns out that it is indeed necessary to build new capacities outside the Klementinum premises, it is the task of such a commission to ensure the development of an urban solution for the chosen location, as well as a professional preparation of the brief and oversight of the transparent course of the entire competition. Only such a procedure can ensure quality participation and results and steer architectural competitions in the Czech Republic towards a better future.

Martin Roubík - architect
Emil Přikryl - architect, professor, head of the School of Architecture at AVU in Prague
Jan Línek - prominent Czech architect
Ján Stempel - architect, vice-dean for construction at FA CTU in Prague
Jan Jehlík - architect, urban planner, educator at FA CTU in Prague
Osamu Okamura - architect, editor-in-chief of the magazine ERA 21
Adam Gebrian - architect and publicist
Petr Pištěk - architect and publicist
Radek Martišek - architect, author of the analytical study "winning" proposal
Ludvík Grym - architect

Bjarke Ingels - architect, competition participant (BIG), Denmark
Jürgen Mayer H. - architect, competition participant (J.MAYER.H), Germany
Thomas Leeser - architect, competition participant (LEESER), USA
Florian Haydn - architect, competition participant (000y0), Austria
Richard Scheich - architect, competition participant (FELD72), Austria
Jan Bočan - architect, professor at FA CTU in Prague, competition participant (BOČAN & PARTNERS)
Tomáš Hradečný - architect, finalist of the competition (HŠH)
Petr Franta - architect, competition participant (PETR FRANTA)
Luděk Obal - architect, competition participant (4A)
Markéta Smrčková - architect, competition participant (LENNOX)
Viktor Tonner - architect, competition participant (JESTICO&WHILES)
Miloš G. Parma - architect, competition participant (ADO)
Jakub Kynčl - architect, competition participant (KNESL+KYNČL)