XV. Bohuslav Fuchs Award - jury's responses

So I would start with the question of whether you could assess the individual aspects of the submitted works, from working with analyses and concepts, through urbanism, the composition of the design mass, the technical and structural parts, to the final graphic presentation of the proposal? How would you evaluate it overall?
Markéta Žáčková: The question is very broadly phrased because each individual assignment had its specifics, and it is difficult to generalize completely. I would illustrate it with examples from the two studios, which we evaluated as the best, or I don't want to waste superlatives here, but we reached a common conclusion that the work in the studio of Jan Hora-Barbora Hora-Jan Weisser was very consistent, and that it was preceded by research, that they worked well with the context of the area and the assignment, which may seem ordinary or almost simple or actually banal at first glance, but it was not at all. The students managed to utilize the little space within the existing structure of a small town, as the assignment was housing in a small town, specifically in Mikulov, to creatively and innovatively use the addressed area, while each did so differently. So I would appreciate that they definitely followed the historical context, they were able to hit it, but as I said, each took their specific path. This means that a system of three masses appeared that created public space, but at the same time also semi-public or rather semi-private space, which we greatly appreciated. As for the composition, I would say that the solutions were appropriate across the board.
Václav Štojdl: I think that assessing current projects at the faculty of architecture cannot be completely done by dividing them into individual aspects of the work. The process is complex and in some of those projects, one or another aspect may be more or less important than in another project. What is common to all the awarded projects or those that caught our attention is the fact that they were very well developed from all these perspectives and that of course the thorough analytical part is simply a fundamental and basic prerequisite for a good result. We felt that in this part, projects across studios varied greatly. Perhaps precisely in the emphasis on this analytical part, the degree of elaboration may be the most fundamental difference between the outputs from individual studios. There are representatives of very well-developed and meticulously completed work as well as, unfortunately, representatives of a less thorough and very superficial approach, maybe even slapdash, at first glance.

You mentioned that the topic of Housing in a Small Town appealed to you. Is there a theme that is generally missing in the school, or one that you would assign to your potential students?
Pavel Martinka: I think there is probably no unequivocally bad topic. Each assignment can be approached interestingly and originally. It can't be entirely said that there is a theme that is explicitly missing here. From my perspective, it might be beneficial if students could situate the topic in a specific place and primarily for specific clients with whom they could consult their proposals, and not just with supervisors. It could bring students closer to practice, where it takes place in a specific location, at a specific time, and, above all, with specific people. It would thus involve the role of the investor in the proposal, which plays a completely fundamental role in the entire proposal process.

When we move on to the exhibited works, how do you evaluate the overall quality at the school? Were you positively or rather negatively surprised?
Václav Štojdl: Both ways. I was surprised by how many new studios there are with quality outputs, but also those opposite, which I think did not meet my expectations after ten years since I left school.
Pavel Martinka: Some things have not changed much since we left school. What was not of very high quality then is still repeated. But on the other hand, it must be said that quite a few new and interesting studios have emerged.

If you were to summarize, in what do you think students have weaknesses and in what do they excel?
Václav Štojdl: I think the visual aspect of individual works is very strong today. Students have learned to master presentation tools perfectly and utilize all available options, which often leads to focusing on the visual side more than on the content itself. Of course, this cannot be said generally. A well-executed graphic presentation is certainly an integral part of a good project.
Markéta Žáčková: Which, however, was not necessarily the rule. In the mentioned studios, meaning in the studios of Michal Palaščák and Jan Hora-Barbora Hora-Jan Weisser, everything was done completely professionally. But then, museum assignments were presented average or even antiquated. In not completely good sense.
Pavel Martinka: I think that one of the great advantages students have is a certain degree of "carefreeness" in designing and the opportunity to experiment with processes for which there is not always space in practice.
Václav Štojdl: I would like to thank the student part of the jury for often prompting us to discuss the projects among themselves. In daily work, one is often forced to make quick and clear conclusions. Many times they pointed out projects that we may not have spotted at first glance, and at other times, collective criticism meant re-evaluating our initial conclusion.

We have the awards and results behind us, but do you take away a project that stuck in your memory?
Pavel Martinka: There were certainly more, but probably two to three stood out the most. It is one of the two winners of the main prize - a project called "Life in a Small Town" from the studio of Jan Hora. That was a house that could be started to build immediately.
Markéta Žáčková: It was a finished house with a mature solution.
Václav Štojdl: Love at first sight.
Pavel Martinka: I also liked one project very much, which, however, could not compete because it was the project of one of the jurors. It was the project of a footbridge over a stream and adjustments to the bank of a pond in Jaroslavice. It was such a delicate, poetic, simple, and well-thought-out work.
Markéta Žáčková: But it also had a nice theoretical background. She worked there with the concept of the object and anti-object of Kengo Kuma. It was nice that it was anchored theoretically as well. It was evident that there was deep thinking and that it had a strong concept and a subtle result. It was extremely well-elaborated. But unfortunately, for formal reasons, we could not evaluate the project.
Pavel Martinka: And not least, I was struck by one of the projects "Housing by the Water," where an open reinforced concrete frame was created into which modular housing in tents, etc., was inserted...
Markéta Žáčková: At first glance, it could have seemed that the project was some reinterpretation of concepts from the 60s, but on the other hand, it very well responds to the current situation of liquid modernity, nomadism, constant wandering, and temporariness. At the same time, it was presented with immense lightness because it had such a prospectus, which, with its graphic design or generally its visuality, referred to those obscure brochures from travel agencies, so it was very thoughtfully crafted but also presented in a very witty and humorous way, which was good. Generally, even the assignment, which could have had a completely conservative result, was actually thought of by the student from the opposite side.
Again, it’s the context of that studio. It’s the second mentioned studio alongside housing in a small town, where the assignment was "house by the river," where the row of houses was addressed, and each student approached it in a specific way. The question of collective or, let's say, shared housing was also heavily addressed. Although many of those projects were serious and earnest, there was also the opposite approach, which we actually appreciated.
Pavel Martinka: I would say that we architects are sometimes "deadly serious," and we take our work as a very serious field where humor has no place. Therefore, it seemed nice to me that the studio assignment can also be processed with a bit of levity. Not in the sense of making a "joke" of the assignment, but with a certain lightness and humor. And it was the only work that I noticed would work with the given assignment in such a way and whose result was not trivial (even though it deserved even more elaboration).
Markéta Žáčková: It was refreshing!
Václav Štojdl: Moreover, it is proof that even a classic assignment such as a residential building can be approached in various, very personal and conceptual ways. It doesn’t have to be solely about the assignment itself, but about the way of its interpretation, explication, and guidance. Each solver had the opportunity to approach the assignment very freely.
Markéta Žáčková: I believe they certainly can. Globally speaking. Of course, there were also assignments for revitalizing residential areas that were well formulated, but probably due to some guidance that may not have been entirely appropriate, we were somewhat disappointed with the outputs. There could have been many ideas there that did not materialize. So, that was a bit surprising, but otherwise, I think overall yes.
Pavel Martinka: I think working with context and the degree of its involvement in the design process depends greatly on the supervisor. If they emphasize it, it usually appears in the works.
Markéta Žáčková: We quite liked this with guest professors Franz Sumnitsch and Janica Šipulová, where they actually addressed the Per-Hansson-Siedlung housing estate in Vienna. A tremendous amount of work was done precisely on analyses, on a complete verification of the context of the housing estate. But also from a historical and sociological perspective. And there was consideration given to the age structure of the residents. The analytical work was incredibly thorough. In this case, deep thinking in context certainly occurred.

Finally, I would like to ask what are the current topics that you think should be discussed and addressed in architectural circles? Did you find such topics among the exhibited works today?
Markéta Žáčková: It just occurred to me that perhaps there was a slight lack of addressing some public space here. Although that sounds trivial, or in other words, it is a topic that has been discussed for 20 years, I think it did not resonate strongly here. But I mean, for instance, even representative spaces like squares in the center of cities, but I also think of "blind spots." This was what was missing. Or topics of various urban jungles or ambivalent nooks. So I think this deserves attention.

That’s all from me, thank you very much for your time!