<div>Entrance area of the Botanical Garden of the Capital City of Prague - competition results</div>

The subject of the competition was the development of an architectural-landscape solution for the main entrance of the northern area of the Botanical Garden of the Capital City of Prague. Part of the comprehensive solution for the area included an administrative cultural and social facility, as well as related infrastructure. This facility will be connected to the subtropical greenhouse. With the opening of the Northern entrance, an increase in the number of visitors to the botanical garden is expected, reaching approximately 600,000 people annually. Therefore, it was necessary to design a representative plaza behind the entrance building and a large-capacity parking area.

Organizer: Botanical Garden of the Capital City of Prague

Statutory representative: Bc. Bohumil Černý, authorized to manage the organization 

Authorized representative of the client in technical matters: Ing. Eduard Chvosta, Deputy for Development and Concept 

Secretary of the competition: Ing. Markéta Kohoutová 


Regular members of the jury - dependent
Ing. arch. Pavla Melková
Bc Bohumil Černý, Director of the Botanical Garden of the Capital City of Prague
Ing. Eduard Chvosta, Deputy for Development and Concept, Botanical Garden of the Capital City of Prague
Institute of Planning and Development of the Capital City of Prague

Regular members of the jury - independent
prof. Ing. arch. Ján Stempel
prof. Ing. arch. Petr Hrůša
Ing. arch. Kamil Mrva
Jakub Chvojka

Alternates of the jury - dependent
Ing. Petr Velička

Alternates of the jury - independent:
Ing. Mgr. Eva Jeníková
MgA. Josef Čančík

Invited experts: The jury will decide on the possible invitation of experts after consulting with the competition organizer. 

Date of the competition: 3.7.2017 - 13.11.2017
Date of publication of results: 30.11.2017
Number of submitted proposals: 6
Total prizes and awards: 1,980,000 CZK

---

1st prize - 390,000 CZK
Author: Fránek architects, s. r. o., 
Ing. arch. Zdeněk Fránek
Collaboration: Ing. arch. Martina Hamrová, Ing. arch. Tereza Horňasová, Ing. arch. Jiří Vítek, Ing. arch. Adam Lacina, Bc. Libor Šenekel, Norbert Walter
Jury assessment: The design best met the client's expectations, primarily by integrating the living and non-living components - the proposed buildings, plants, and people. The chosen strong concept dignifiedly represents the institution and its mission and functions (educational, horticultural, exhibition, etc.). Visitors are naturally integrated into the operation of the area, and the restaurant suitably connects to the spacious south-facing greenhouse. Although initial inspirations such as Paul Klee's geometric spatial curve are artistic, here they are transformed into an elegant architectural form that covers the required functions. The design is worked out in detail in both structural and technological aspects (e.g., the exposed retention tank combines aesthetics with functionality). The building is harmoniously incorporated into the surrounding landscape, which it naturally ties to. By combining all required functions into one building, the proposal creates a prerequisite for economic efficiency in both the construction and operation of the building. The dominant placement of the parking house in front of the main entrance to the area weakens what would otherwise be an excellent concept. The symbolism of the main entrance gate and the pedestrian entrance is insufficient and is overshadowed by the dominant parking structure. The design needs to be refined in terms of the connection of the main entrance and the parking structure to the urban structure.

---

2nd prize - 360,000 CZK
Author: D3A, s. r. o., 
Ing. arch. Tomáš Prouza, Ing. arch. Jaroslav Zima 

Collaboration: Milan Bulva, Bc. Tereza Filová, Ing. arch. Jana Moudrá, Ing. arch. Jan Pech, Ing. Jan Přikryl, MgA. Ing. arch. Milan Valeš, Ing. arch. Lenka Zemanová, Ing. arch. MgA. Marek Šilar
Jury assessment: The simple reinforced concrete structure is used in a maximally suitable way and impressed the jury with its clarity of solution. Additionally, it allows for the variability of use in different parts. The permeability of the building is in the north-south direction, with favorable orientation towards the southern view of the city, and with a cultivated forecourt at the northern entrance, reminiscent of a "terminal". This orientation of the building allows for the conceptualization of parking on the eastern side of the area, integrated into the structure of the building, freeing up public space at the entrance. The arrival of cars, as well as the arrival of pedestrians through public space, is a great advantage of the proposal, as is the economically appropriate placement of parking areas along the sloping terrain of the above-ground structure. “Flowing” vegetation connects to the vegetation in the greenhouse. However, the placement of the greenhouse within the structure of the building is considered fundamentally problematic, as it prevents the application of horticultural utilization in terms of light requirements of the plants. Jury's recommendation for refinement: It is essential to rethink the placement and orientation of the greenhouse concerning the need to ensure light requirements for plants even in the lower vegetation layer.

---

Increased award - 330,000 CZK
Author: Norma architekti / Rehwaldt Landscape Architects, Dipl-Ing. Till Rehwaldt, 
Ing. arch. Jana Moravcová
Collaboration: Isabel Schergaut, Eliška Vaňková, Barbora Antošová, Petra Sladká, Dušan Štefanič, Anna Švehlíková, Kristýna Zechmeisterová, Ondřej Teplý, Tomáš Černý
Jury assessment: A strength of the proposal is that it minimizes the building volumes in the urban landscape more than any other proposal and does not burden it as much. The placement of the parking area below the height of the entrance edge allowed for the realization of a massive platform with a view of Prague (albeit partially limited by the greenhouse). The theme of the greenhouse and its connection to the panorama of Prague adequately represents the botanical garden as an institution. However, the proposal does not offer a sufficient architectural solution for visitor orientation and even confuses them by placing the semantics of the entrance to the auditorium near the entrance to the parking garage. The own architecture is replaced with an inappropriate commercial sign. The entrance is located on the side of the platform that is remote from the street, without a significant visual signal. The actual entrance raises doubts. The roof terrace above the parking garage does not have an appropriate scale and detail. Phased construction is not feasible.

---

Award - 300,000 CZK
Author: RKAW, s. r. o., Ing. arch. Martin Štrouf, 
Doc. Ing. arch. Radek Kolařík, Ing. arch. Lada Kolaříková, Ing. Jana Pyšková, Ing. arch. Petr Uhlíř Collaboration: MgA. Jan Drška SDAR, Patrik Večeřa, Aleš Trdý, Ing. arch. Karel Svoboda
Jury assessment: The proposal is engaging in its solution of the parking lot in the terrain modeling. The covering mound of the parking area supports the functions of an interregional biocorridor. The common roof of the proposed structures is suitably integrated into the area and provides a covered public space for visitors. A disadvantage is considered, from the client's perspective, the separation of the greenhouse from the main visitor facilities. The solitary placement of the cultivation pavilions does not guarantee energy and spatial efficiency. The structural solution - load-bearing columns - has a delicate impression, which the jury finds difficult to realize. However, the overall urbanistic and architectural concept is somewhat formal and incoherent.

---

Award - 300,000 CZK
Author: A69 - architekti, s. r. o., Ing. arch. Prokop Tomášek, Ing. arch. Jaroslav Wertig, 
Ing. arch. Boris Redčenkov 

Collaboration: Ing. arch. Šárka Andrlová, Ing. arch. Kateřina Hejná, Ing. arch. Michal Nohejl, Ing. arch. Martin Fornůsek
Jury assessment: The space is created from geometrically closed static circles, which are freely spaced so that the clarity of orientation and especially the clear identification of the entrance are diminished. The literal formal certainty of the circular forms creates interesting sequences of interspaces; however, it definitively fixes the internal possibilities for further architectural creativity. The dominant placement of the garage structure overrides the requirement for entrance into the area. The unrealistic placement of trees on the roofs of the structures raises doubts about the meaningfulness of the entire concept. An enhancement of the greenhouse program is the walkway in the treetops, which leads to the walkable roof of the restaurant. The solution for material storage sensitively responds to the needs of an organization with a permanent development of exhibitions, such as the Botanical Garden. The segmentation of the structure may be a source of economic and operational problems for the client.

---

Award - 300,000 CZK
Author: Architectural office Ing. arch. Radko Květ, 
Ing. arch. Radko Květ 
co-authors: Ing. arch. Ondřej Hamrník, Ing. arch. Pavel Pijáček Collaboration: Ing. arch. Barbora Fišerová, Ing. arch. Jiří Markevič, Ing. arch. Jan Zeman, Ing. arch. Lukáš Gergela, Ing. Zdeněk Sendler, Ing. arch. Dagmar Květová
Jury assessment: The design creatively utilizes the sloping terrain for placing parking spaces in the semi-basement, as well as access to the upper level of the roof, conceived as a residential meadow. This position at the highest point is crowned by a remarkable placement of a café and an observation terrace oriented to the exclusive panorama of the city. Likewise, the lecture and dispersal areas of the educational section oriented towards the well-positioned greenhouse on the southern side exhibit logical reasoning. The jury critically assessed a certain morphological ambiguity, access to the own structure, and the dominance of the employee sector compared to the aspects of presenting the main sector. The placement of most functions underground and the unclear facade of the building, except for the face of the greenhouse, were considered by the jury as a missed opportunity.

More Information >