Results of the competition: Cultural Center in Rožnov pod Radhoštěm
The subject of the competition was the development of an urban-architectural design for a multipurpose cultural center with two assembly halls and related outdoor areas in the designated solution area. The design was required to resolve the spatial, operational, functional, and aesthetic arrangement of the building and its relations to the surroundings according to these competition conditions, especially in compliance with the economic possibilities of the organizer.
> Protocol on the course of the urban-architectural competition for the design
1st prize - Archteam design office s.r.o., Brno
author/co-authors: Ing. arch. Milan Rak, Ing. arch. Alena Režná, Ing. arch. Karel Doležel
collaborating persons: Ing. Marek Lukáš (in the 2nd round of the competition), Ing. Martin Nosek (in the 2nd round of the competition), Bc. Tomáš Sysel
U: The author credibly verified the placement of the building above ground level and maintained the basic urban relationships to the elementary school and Bezručova Street. Only at the elementary school will it be necessary to revise several parking spaces so that their access does not conflict with entry to the school. The author preserved the height distance on a civilly conceived plinth, including the ceremonial entrance, thereby confirming a greater degree of sophistication and the ability to perceive and develop urban relationships. The relationships to the surrounding buildings are also natural, allowing for service access and offering additional parameters, such as a park in front of the school with seating, etc.
A: The jury appreciates the original architectural solution, which has been elaborated into appropriate details according to the recommendations from the 1st round while maintaining the conceptual bases. The overall solution in the elaboration of audiovisual parameters has received professional recognition: acoustics corresponding to the usage (theater, concerts with sound equipment, lectures, etc.) are excellently addressed, with excellent overall spatial arrangements, good transportation of scenery to the stage, service communications, and the small hall is fine and without comments.
The jury positively rates the enclosure of the atrium and its shielding from external influences, clear orientation of the layout for visitors, and appropriate material solutions for the facades, which are also reflected in the interior. However, it warns against excessive naturalness to the point of regional tackiness. The issue of the missing backstage and access for actors to the main stage needs to be addressed in the next phase, but with an informed architectural ambition to avoid negating the conceptual transparency and similar parameters of the proposal. The jury finds problematic the concept of interior and exterior details that emphasize diversity, excessive color, and material exuberance of expression. The cultural venue should not contain clichés from sports tribunes.
It is important to note the jury's emphasis on the necessity of addressing the entire proposal, especially extensive wooden cladding, as well as oversized glazing etc., with regard to the fire safety solutions of the building.
E: Relatively low cost and large area of inexpensive facade will positively influence the unit price of the built-up space. With the chosen combination of structural systems and green roof, also considering the facade's price, a higher real price per m3 of built-up space can be expected.
P: The author of the proposal only addressed (as stated in the assignment) the building envelope label, i.e., the quality of the insulation of the building. This parameter alone cannot determine the overall energy demand of the facility. The specific heat requirement for heating is not supported by calculations. However, when recalculating the design by the auditor, it is still realistic to achieve a passive standard.
2nd prize - Ing. arch. Jan Lefner, Ing. arch. Adam Weczerek
U: The urban planning solution is based on a compact volume of cubic forms that group all the required operations, thus allowing for a good development of the immediate surroundings of the building. The author positively avoids a large parking lot (with a system of perpendicular parking spaces around the road); the building is located suitably and logically in the designated area, with the orientation of the main entrance to Bezručova Street, preserving relationships and existing areas. The broken symmetry of the main facade positively and almost ceremoniously affects the urban space, and thus urbanistically approaches the legacy of originally conceived cultural buildings even in smaller towns from the 19th and early 20th centuries.
A: The remarkable urban placement of the building excludes any anachronistic connotations because its expression is minimalist or designer-oriented and positioned into the general parameters of architecture as 21st-century design. The confirmation of the urbanism concept is given by the symmetrical foundation, but with the arrangement of basic internal operations enlivened by the asymmetrical placement of auxiliary and ancillary spaces. The contemporary and almost minimalist expression evokes a dignified character of the architectural and spatial significance of the building. Questions arise regarding excessive cosmopolitanism and the lack of address in the architectural expression.
A question also remains over the possibility of perfect execution, particularly of the facade's outer surfaces made of colored (white) concrete. The economic appropriateness of the entire solution, especially the demanding facade, which was supposed to be the subject of the second round of the competition, is not completely unequivocally substantiated (details of the facade are missing, and so on).
The size of the stage space is adequately resolved, with the stage perimeter in two height levels. The auditorium is well resolved, specifically its mobility. From the acoustic perspective of the main hall, the side walls are treated with diffusion elements, which is very good, but the typically high cost of this solution may be problematic. The adequacy of the chosen solution concerning usage methods thus remains up for discussion. The ceiling is flat, where the combination of absorbing and reflecting surfaces in terms of acoustics is appropriate. In the cinema, the side walls are not very absorbent; overall, the space should be more dampened. The stage is solved with practical modules, which is not suitable at all regarding stability and noise, but the remedy is straightforward.
E: The high price of the facade is due to four types of building envelope penetrating into the interior spaces, each of which has high demands for detailing, cultivated execution, and thus its price, which will influence the unit price of built-up space. This proposal, aside from having the second highest price for built-up space in the second round, is likely to lead to further potential increases in the price of built-up space for the reasons mentioned above.
P: Proposal No. 2 meets the possible future requirement for a passive building. Included in the proposal, besides the assessment of the building's energy demands and the building envelope label, is a protocol on the specific heat demand for heating and a calculation of the average envelope coefficient of the building. This design anticipates the use of electric energy for hot air heating and for heating domestic hot water (flow heaters), which is not entirely appropriate according to an expert. It also considers the construction of a photovoltaic power plant on the building's roof. The energy calculation also includes a geothermal heat pump - heating of associated operations is anticipated.
special award - PMA architects s.r.o., Brno
author/co-authors:
acad. arch. Ing. arch. Jan Velek
Ing. arch. Jaromír Vjaclovský
Ing. arch. Adam Jung
Proposal No. 4 did not meet formal requirements, but due to its apparent quality, it was subsequently assessed outside the competition (according to §10 paragraph 7 of the Competition Rules of ČKA) and thus was not evaluated in terms of criteria for other properly assessed proposals.
In relation to modernist architecture of the 1960s, it appropriately shifts into the 21st century. This approach remarkably addresses human scale and moderation inherent to its purpose. It does not propose an opulent cultural center; rather, it captures durability and other attributes of classical beauty with good measure and composition.
> Protocol on the course of the urban-architectural competition for the design
1st prize - Archteam design office s.r.o., Brno
author/co-authors: Ing. arch. Milan Rak, Ing. arch. Alena Režná, Ing. arch. Karel Doležel
collaborating persons: Ing. Marek Lukáš (in the 2nd round of the competition), Ing. Martin Nosek (in the 2nd round of the competition), Bc. Tomáš Sysel
U: The author credibly verified the placement of the building above ground level and maintained the basic urban relationships to the elementary school and Bezručova Street. Only at the elementary school will it be necessary to revise several parking spaces so that their access does not conflict with entry to the school. The author preserved the height distance on a civilly conceived plinth, including the ceremonial entrance, thereby confirming a greater degree of sophistication and the ability to perceive and develop urban relationships. The relationships to the surrounding buildings are also natural, allowing for service access and offering additional parameters, such as a park in front of the school with seating, etc.
A: The jury appreciates the original architectural solution, which has been elaborated into appropriate details according to the recommendations from the 1st round while maintaining the conceptual bases. The overall solution in the elaboration of audiovisual parameters has received professional recognition: acoustics corresponding to the usage (theater, concerts with sound equipment, lectures, etc.) are excellently addressed, with excellent overall spatial arrangements, good transportation of scenery to the stage, service communications, and the small hall is fine and without comments.
The jury positively rates the enclosure of the atrium and its shielding from external influences, clear orientation of the layout for visitors, and appropriate material solutions for the facades, which are also reflected in the interior. However, it warns against excessive naturalness to the point of regional tackiness. The issue of the missing backstage and access for actors to the main stage needs to be addressed in the next phase, but with an informed architectural ambition to avoid negating the conceptual transparency and similar parameters of the proposal. The jury finds problematic the concept of interior and exterior details that emphasize diversity, excessive color, and material exuberance of expression. The cultural venue should not contain clichés from sports tribunes.
It is important to note the jury's emphasis on the necessity of addressing the entire proposal, especially extensive wooden cladding, as well as oversized glazing etc., with regard to the fire safety solutions of the building.
E: Relatively low cost and large area of inexpensive facade will positively influence the unit price of the built-up space. With the chosen combination of structural systems and green roof, also considering the facade's price, a higher real price per m3 of built-up space can be expected.
P: The author of the proposal only addressed (as stated in the assignment) the building envelope label, i.e., the quality of the insulation of the building. This parameter alone cannot determine the overall energy demand of the facility. The specific heat requirement for heating is not supported by calculations. However, when recalculating the design by the auditor, it is still realistic to achieve a passive standard.
2nd prize - Ing. arch. Jan Lefner, Ing. arch. Adam Weczerek
U: The urban planning solution is based on a compact volume of cubic forms that group all the required operations, thus allowing for a good development of the immediate surroundings of the building. The author positively avoids a large parking lot (with a system of perpendicular parking spaces around the road); the building is located suitably and logically in the designated area, with the orientation of the main entrance to Bezručova Street, preserving relationships and existing areas. The broken symmetry of the main facade positively and almost ceremoniously affects the urban space, and thus urbanistically approaches the legacy of originally conceived cultural buildings even in smaller towns from the 19th and early 20th centuries.
A: The remarkable urban placement of the building excludes any anachronistic connotations because its expression is minimalist or designer-oriented and positioned into the general parameters of architecture as 21st-century design. The confirmation of the urbanism concept is given by the symmetrical foundation, but with the arrangement of basic internal operations enlivened by the asymmetrical placement of auxiliary and ancillary spaces. The contemporary and almost minimalist expression evokes a dignified character of the architectural and spatial significance of the building. Questions arise regarding excessive cosmopolitanism and the lack of address in the architectural expression.
A question also remains over the possibility of perfect execution, particularly of the facade's outer surfaces made of colored (white) concrete. The economic appropriateness of the entire solution, especially the demanding facade, which was supposed to be the subject of the second round of the competition, is not completely unequivocally substantiated (details of the facade are missing, and so on).
The size of the stage space is adequately resolved, with the stage perimeter in two height levels. The auditorium is well resolved, specifically its mobility. From the acoustic perspective of the main hall, the side walls are treated with diffusion elements, which is very good, but the typically high cost of this solution may be problematic. The adequacy of the chosen solution concerning usage methods thus remains up for discussion. The ceiling is flat, where the combination of absorbing and reflecting surfaces in terms of acoustics is appropriate. In the cinema, the side walls are not very absorbent; overall, the space should be more dampened. The stage is solved with practical modules, which is not suitable at all regarding stability and noise, but the remedy is straightforward.
E: The high price of the facade is due to four types of building envelope penetrating into the interior spaces, each of which has high demands for detailing, cultivated execution, and thus its price, which will influence the unit price of built-up space. This proposal, aside from having the second highest price for built-up space in the second round, is likely to lead to further potential increases in the price of built-up space for the reasons mentioned above.
P: Proposal No. 2 meets the possible future requirement for a passive building. Included in the proposal, besides the assessment of the building's energy demands and the building envelope label, is a protocol on the specific heat demand for heating and a calculation of the average envelope coefficient of the building. This design anticipates the use of electric energy for hot air heating and for heating domestic hot water (flow heaters), which is not entirely appropriate according to an expert. It also considers the construction of a photovoltaic power plant on the building's roof. The energy calculation also includes a geothermal heat pump - heating of associated operations is anticipated.
special award - PMA architects s.r.o., Brno
author/co-authors:
acad. arch. Ing. arch. Jan Velek
Ing. arch. Jaromír Vjaclovský
Ing. arch. Adam Jung
Proposal No. 4 did not meet formal requirements, but due to its apparent quality, it was subsequently assessed outside the competition (according to §10 paragraph 7 of the Competition Rules of ČKA) and thus was not evaluated in terms of criteria for other properly assessed proposals.
In relation to modernist architecture of the 1960s, it appropriately shifts into the 21st century. This approach remarkably addresses human scale and moderation inherent to its purpose. It does not propose an opulent cultural center; rather, it captures durability and other attributes of classical beauty with good measure and composition.
The English translation is powered by AI tool. Switch to Czech to view the original text source.
0 comments
add comment
Related articles
0
18.03.2024 | Rožnov p. R. will choose a company to modify the Cultural Center project and build it
0
15.03.2024 | The leadership of Rožnov will present three scenarios for the construction of the Cultural Center at the council meeting
0
20.02.2024 | Due to the cultural center in Rožnov, there will be an extraordinary town council meeting
0
25.04.2023 | Rožnov will assess the revised project documentation for the Cultural Center
1
10.01.2023 | Project documentation for the Cultural Center in Rožnov has shortcomings according to the assessment
0
13.12.2022 | Rožnov agreed with the contractor of the Cultural Center on the termination of the contract
0
08.11.2022 | The leadership of Rožnov p. R. will negotiate a possible extension of the grant for the cultural center
0
20.01.2022 | Representatives of Rožnov will decide on the construction of a cultural center for 325 million CZK
0
05.11.2020 | Rožnovská radnice has once again announced a tender for the cultural center
0
19.06.2020 | Rožnov did not select a construction supplier for the cultural center due to price
0
28.04.2020 | Rožnov p. R. received a subsidy of 50 million CZK for the construction of a cultural center
0
19.03.2020 | Rožnov has approved the announcement of a contract for the construction of a cultural center
0
11.12.2019 | The Rožnov representatives approved the documentation for the Cultural Center
30
30.11.2009 | Výsledky soutěže na kulturní centrum v Rožnově pod Radhoštěm
