Open Letter to Minister of Culture Antonín Staněk Regarding the Central European Forum (SEFO) in Olomouc
Dear Minister,
Allow me, as an architect who has long been engaged in research on architectural competitions, to respond to the case of the Central European Forum (SEFO) in Olomouc with this open letter and, above all, to the debate “Central European Forum Olomouc & Legitimacy of Architectural Competitions for Public Buildings in the Historical Space of the City”, which took place on March 18 in the Trade Fair Palace, which I personally attended, as well as to the subsequent media reaction from the Ministry of Culture. I will now attempt to suppress the emotions currently dominant in this entire case and focus on the facts.
The project for the Central European Forum has been in preparation for over 10 years. The Museum of Art in Olomouc has been working with architect Jan Šépka on the architectural design of the new building since the beginning and has a valid contract for design work with the di5 studio – architects engineers. The Ministry of Culture recently pledged financial resources for the entire project, conditional on the announcement of an architectural competition.
Jan Šépka is currently one of the most respected Czech architects and one of the most successful in terms of architectural competitions. In connection with the city of Olomouc, it is essential to mention that in 1995 he won an open architectural competition for the redesign of the public spaces of Horní náměstí (completed in 2001) and subsequently in 1998 in a combined competition for the reconstruction of part of the national cultural monument Přemyslovský hrad for the Archdiocesan Museum (completed in 2006). In both cases, Jan Šépka and his colleagues demonstrated an immense sensitivity to the historical environment of the Olomouc City Heritage Reserve. Both completed buildings catapulted Olomouc onto the map of contemporary Czech architecture and received numerous awards both domestically and abroad (Piranesi award – honorable mention, 2x nomination for the Mies van der Rohe Award). Both competitions were initiated by Pavel Zatloukal. The first time as a city councilor, the second time as director of the Museum of Art Olomouc. In both cases, he was also a member of the jury.
Unquestionably, there are also other competition successes of Jan Šépka from this period – 1st place in the competition for the renovations of Jiřské náměstí at Prague Castle (1997), 3rd place in the international competition for the National Library (2006), the National Technical Library (2000), the university library in Hradec Králové (2002), or in the competition for the Faculty of Architecture at ČVUT (2004).
If for any reason it was not possible to organize an architectural competition for the SEFO project in 2009, Pavel Zatloukal did the best he could in that situation. He approached a top architect who had established himself in the context of Olomouc and the entire Czech Republic in a completely transparent manner.
The media reaction of the Ministry of Culture from March 20 is based on the assertion that “the world – even in architecture – has changed in ten years, and thus the question arises whether to unyieldingly insist on time-conditioned designs or to give room to people following new contemporary designs and styles.” This is a very bold statement in the context of the duration of the construction process in the Czech Republic. The Ministry of Culture has declared financial support for projects other than SEFO, such as the new West Bohemian Gallery in Plzeň (support of 480 million) or the Moravian-Silesian Library in Ostrava (support of 800 million). In both cases, although an architectural competition was held, in Plzeň it happened in the same year that work on SEFO began, and in Ostrava even 5 years earlier, i.e., back in 2004. The original authors are still working on the projects, updating them according to current requirements and legislation. This is a continuous and unquestioned process. Neither has the Minister of Culture conditioned financial support in these two cases on the necessity to start work from scratch.
A similar case is the Janáček Cultural Center in Brno, where an architectural competition took place even 17 years ago. Although a radical update of the original project is currently underway by new architects who did not go through an architectural competition, in this case, the Ministry of Culture is also declaring financial support of 600 million. Similarly significant cultural buildings, of course, cannot do without state support. Therefore, the length of preparation and the current reluctance of the state to finance such buildings is an unflattering badge. However, similar buildings do not arise abroad significantly faster either. The age of the architectural design is not a legitimate reason to terminate work.
In 2018, the public sector commissioned construction contracts for civic buildings (cultural, educational, healthcare, sports, etc.) worth 51 billion. This theoretically means that every day of the year, a construction contract for one of the above-mentioned typologies is contracted for approximately 140 million. For the vast majority of them, no architectural competition was announced. Moreover, as recent examples show, the architectural competition makes sense not only for significant public buildings but also for a municipal fire station, a parking garage, or a railway station.
In the last 25 years, the contributory organizations of the Ministry of Culture have announced only six architectural competitions, four of which concerned the construction of new buildings or the reconstruction of a house. The aforementioned Archdiocesan Museum in Olomouc and the entrance object between the Schwarzenberg and Salm palaces (however, this was a closed competition) have been realized. The Jan Palach Memorial in Všetaty will be completed this year. In light of the recently completed renovations of the National Museum, the Museum of Decorative Arts, or, somewhat earlier, the National Technical Museum, this is a negligible outcome.
There is thus a huge and practically inexhaustible space for architectural competitions. However, financial resources and time need to be invested purposefully. An architectural competition can do more harm than good in this specific case. This is a completely non-standard situation where a specific proposal has been long known to the public, and the investor has a contracted design office.
At the beginning of the debate in the Trade Fair Palace, a video contribution was presented, which among other things introduced “a number of innovative world architectural projects” that were supposed to support the ministry's effort to announce an architectural competition. It is undeniable that the ministry selected valuable buildings, and many of them have become milestones of world architecture. However, at least about four of the nine presented examples, it can be confidently stated, did not emerge based on an architectural competition. The City of Arts and Sciences in Valencia (Santiago Calatrava, Félix Candela), the Guggenheim Museum in New York (Frank Lloyd Wright), the Design Museum in Holon (Ron Arad), and the Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg (Herzog & de Meuron) have in common that their emergence was initiated by an enlightened investor who invited the architect to collaborate based on his credentials and previous references.
This situation is not dissimilar to the current progress of the SEFO project in Olomouc. It is not the most transparent approach, but given the overall number of architectural competitions, it is a path that often leads to the most valuable buildings.
Incidentally, a similar way was taken by the Benedikt Rejt Gallery in Louny, designed by architect Emil Přikryl, which is considered one of the most valuable post-revolutionary buildings in our country, a number of interventions in the Prague Castle complex during Václav Havel's era, or the so-called Litomyšl miracle – a unique combination of valuable historical buildings with quality contemporary architecture in the environment of a Czech small town. By the way, Jan Šépka has a share in this as well.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that architectural competition is the essence of democracy. It is therefore not possible to exclude representatives of the professional organization responsible for competitions from the expert discussion on architectural competitions (they have made their voices heard themselves), as well as the director of the organization that is supposed to announce the competition.
An architectural competition must not become merely a tool of political power.
Dear Minister, based on the arguments described above, allow me to express full support for the current progress of the preparation of the SEFO project in Olomouc.
On behalf of the CBArchitektura platform,
Tomáš Zdvihal, architect
Allow me, as an architect who has long been engaged in research on architectural competitions, to respond to the case of the Central European Forum (SEFO) in Olomouc with this open letter and, above all, to the debate “Central European Forum Olomouc & Legitimacy of Architectural Competitions for Public Buildings in the Historical Space of the City”, which took place on March 18 in the Trade Fair Palace, which I personally attended, as well as to the subsequent media reaction from the Ministry of Culture. I will now attempt to suppress the emotions currently dominant in this entire case and focus on the facts.
The project for the Central European Forum has been in preparation for over 10 years. The Museum of Art in Olomouc has been working with architect Jan Šépka on the architectural design of the new building since the beginning and has a valid contract for design work with the di5 studio – architects engineers. The Ministry of Culture recently pledged financial resources for the entire project, conditional on the announcement of an architectural competition.
Jan Šépka is currently one of the most respected Czech architects and one of the most successful in terms of architectural competitions. In connection with the city of Olomouc, it is essential to mention that in 1995 he won an open architectural competition for the redesign of the public spaces of Horní náměstí (completed in 2001) and subsequently in 1998 in a combined competition for the reconstruction of part of the national cultural monument Přemyslovský hrad for the Archdiocesan Museum (completed in 2006). In both cases, Jan Šépka and his colleagues demonstrated an immense sensitivity to the historical environment of the Olomouc City Heritage Reserve. Both completed buildings catapulted Olomouc onto the map of contemporary Czech architecture and received numerous awards both domestically and abroad (Piranesi award – honorable mention, 2x nomination for the Mies van der Rohe Award). Both competitions were initiated by Pavel Zatloukal. The first time as a city councilor, the second time as director of the Museum of Art Olomouc. In both cases, he was also a member of the jury.
Unquestionably, there are also other competition successes of Jan Šépka from this period – 1st place in the competition for the renovations of Jiřské náměstí at Prague Castle (1997), 3rd place in the international competition for the National Library (2006), the National Technical Library (2000), the university library in Hradec Králové (2002), or in the competition for the Faculty of Architecture at ČVUT (2004).
If for any reason it was not possible to organize an architectural competition for the SEFO project in 2009, Pavel Zatloukal did the best he could in that situation. He approached a top architect who had established himself in the context of Olomouc and the entire Czech Republic in a completely transparent manner.
The media reaction of the Ministry of Culture from March 20 is based on the assertion that “the world – even in architecture – has changed in ten years, and thus the question arises whether to unyieldingly insist on time-conditioned designs or to give room to people following new contemporary designs and styles.” This is a very bold statement in the context of the duration of the construction process in the Czech Republic. The Ministry of Culture has declared financial support for projects other than SEFO, such as the new West Bohemian Gallery in Plzeň (support of 480 million) or the Moravian-Silesian Library in Ostrava (support of 800 million). In both cases, although an architectural competition was held, in Plzeň it happened in the same year that work on SEFO began, and in Ostrava even 5 years earlier, i.e., back in 2004. The original authors are still working on the projects, updating them according to current requirements and legislation. This is a continuous and unquestioned process. Neither has the Minister of Culture conditioned financial support in these two cases on the necessity to start work from scratch.
A similar case is the Janáček Cultural Center in Brno, where an architectural competition took place even 17 years ago. Although a radical update of the original project is currently underway by new architects who did not go through an architectural competition, in this case, the Ministry of Culture is also declaring financial support of 600 million. Similarly significant cultural buildings, of course, cannot do without state support. Therefore, the length of preparation and the current reluctance of the state to finance such buildings is an unflattering badge. However, similar buildings do not arise abroad significantly faster either. The age of the architectural design is not a legitimate reason to terminate work.
In 2018, the public sector commissioned construction contracts for civic buildings (cultural, educational, healthcare, sports, etc.) worth 51 billion. This theoretically means that every day of the year, a construction contract for one of the above-mentioned typologies is contracted for approximately 140 million. For the vast majority of them, no architectural competition was announced. Moreover, as recent examples show, the architectural competition makes sense not only for significant public buildings but also for a municipal fire station, a parking garage, or a railway station.
In the last 25 years, the contributory organizations of the Ministry of Culture have announced only six architectural competitions, four of which concerned the construction of new buildings or the reconstruction of a house. The aforementioned Archdiocesan Museum in Olomouc and the entrance object between the Schwarzenberg and Salm palaces (however, this was a closed competition) have been realized. The Jan Palach Memorial in Všetaty will be completed this year. In light of the recently completed renovations of the National Museum, the Museum of Decorative Arts, or, somewhat earlier, the National Technical Museum, this is a negligible outcome.
There is thus a huge and practically inexhaustible space for architectural competitions. However, financial resources and time need to be invested purposefully. An architectural competition can do more harm than good in this specific case. This is a completely non-standard situation where a specific proposal has been long known to the public, and the investor has a contracted design office.
At the beginning of the debate in the Trade Fair Palace, a video contribution was presented, which among other things introduced “a number of innovative world architectural projects” that were supposed to support the ministry's effort to announce an architectural competition. It is undeniable that the ministry selected valuable buildings, and many of them have become milestones of world architecture. However, at least about four of the nine presented examples, it can be confidently stated, did not emerge based on an architectural competition. The City of Arts and Sciences in Valencia (Santiago Calatrava, Félix Candela), the Guggenheim Museum in New York (Frank Lloyd Wright), the Design Museum in Holon (Ron Arad), and the Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg (Herzog & de Meuron) have in common that their emergence was initiated by an enlightened investor who invited the architect to collaborate based on his credentials and previous references.
This situation is not dissimilar to the current progress of the SEFO project in Olomouc. It is not the most transparent approach, but given the overall number of architectural competitions, it is a path that often leads to the most valuable buildings.
Incidentally, a similar way was taken by the Benedikt Rejt Gallery in Louny, designed by architect Emil Přikryl, which is considered one of the most valuable post-revolutionary buildings in our country, a number of interventions in the Prague Castle complex during Václav Havel's era, or the so-called Litomyšl miracle – a unique combination of valuable historical buildings with quality contemporary architecture in the environment of a Czech small town. By the way, Jan Šépka has a share in this as well.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that architectural competition is the essence of democracy. It is therefore not possible to exclude representatives of the professional organization responsible for competitions from the expert discussion on architectural competitions (they have made their voices heard themselves), as well as the director of the organization that is supposed to announce the competition.
An architectural competition must not become merely a tool of political power.
Dear Minister, based on the arguments described above, allow me to express full support for the current progress of the preparation of the SEFO project in Olomouc.
On behalf of the CBArchitektura platform,
Tomáš Zdvihal, architect
The English translation is powered by AI tool. Switch to Czech to view the original text source.
0 comments
add comment
