The case of the reconstruction of the Tugendhat villa

Jan Kratochvíl: Mr. Architect, I will probably not be the only one who has lost orientation in the case of the reconstruction of the Tugendhat villa. I would like to go back to the beginning of the case, when an architectural competition took place under non-standard procedures.
Jan Sapák: First, it should be mentioned that it was not an architectural competition, but a public commercial competition. In this case, only past experiences are evaluated, and based on that, future potential is inferred. The only truly future aspect considered is the price. Thus, in this type of commercial competition, there is no design, no method of proceeding. Opinions on how someone would proceed could only be inferred from the reputation of their previous design and other work in the field of modern architectural restorations. We have expressed ourselves perhaps a hundred times about how we would proceed, in various forums both at home and abroad, during talks with prominent personalities, at lectures, in articles, in books, and so on. It has undergone the strictest peer review.

Do you think it is appropriate to announce architectural competitions for the reconstruction of heritage sites? Is there even room for architectural competition here?
It is certainly appropriate. After all, it concerns a public matter, a publicly valuable asset funded with public money. It must be credibly verified who is best prepared to fulfill the task. There may be many candidates, but few are qualified.
There is no more sophisticated system of evaluation than that used in architectural competitions. Let us not be deceived by the name architectural. It does not necessarily have to be a design for a new building. It is also about the method of jury work, which uses proven methods to objectify significant aspects of a subjective nature (in terms of the variety of solutions) as much as possible. Humanity knows no better method of public competition. The method of approach to evaluation could also be assessed; it is also a professional element - a proposal of a prospective, not retrospective nature. This is work for an architect. Moreover, there are a few (though few, yet nonetheless) minor new proposals that must not conflict with originality.
At that time, the rules of the competition and the applicable law did not exclude the simultaneous proposal of a method and the evaluation of references. The jury could and should have been international. Thankfully, there were respected experts even in the evaluation committee, such as Šrámková, Kotalík, Kroupa, Jiran. We have nothing to be ashamed of; from a professional standpoint (the sum of criteria excluding price), we ended up in first place.

I recall that Professor Švácha criticized the city's approach to the reconstruction and subsequently refused to participate in the selection of the reconstruction author. How did you perceive this "turmoil" before the competition?
At that time, we only had fragmented information that we received with delays. However, we did not closely follow it. We were otherwise occupied. It was also absolutely unclear how things would develop. Whether there would be any competition at all and whether it would be regular, etc. What was striking, however, was the astronomical price that the reconstruction was supposed to cost, which was massively publicized long before it was clear about the tender for the project. Initially, it was 122 million, later much more. That this practically made any effective competition about the economy of the actual implementation impossible is evident. We belong to those who are convinced that the restoration of such a unique structure deserves great and sufficient financial support, but that does not mean it should be without any control or limit. An excess of money can even paradoxically harm the work, perhaps through unnecessary work performance. I am surprised that no one has questioned this yet.
Regarding the actions of Professors Švácha and Zatloukal, it later became known that they resigned from the committee partly because there was no receptiveness to a proper architectural competition, and also because the whole preparation seemed dark and…

How did the competition proceed? Did the individual proposals differ significantly?
The evaluation criteria in the tender were established as follows: 50% experience with similar tasks, 40% team composition, 10% price. The nature and logic of the situation imply that experience with similar tasks means experience with the reconstruction of modern architecture. It has its technological, morphological, organizational, structural-physical, and other specificities that distinguish it significantly from the reconstruction and restoration of other older architectural monuments.
The individual proposals differed primarily in references and experience with modern architectural reconstructions. We provided 13 references, out of which 9-10 were fully realized projects in the area of modern architecture. Of the other competitors, only architect Všetečka had 1 similar type reference, and one unfinished project from atelier Tišnovka, which was incorrectly excluded at the beginning.
It seems quite indicative to me that these original experiences, entirely specific technological experiences gained on construction sites, along with considerable general knowledge, are the decisive factors in assessing the readiness of a competitor to tackle such a demanding yet very specialized task. Moreover, there was, I dare say, a deep knowledge of Mies’s work and the work itself - the Tugendhat villa. We have been concerned with it for over 25 years (now already 30) and have verified its importance at countless professional events both at home and abroad.

But if experience and team composition accounted for 90% of the evaluation criteria and your team had significantly more references than the competitors, then you must have had a dramatically higher price for the project compared to the winner. Is it possible to state by how much your price offer differed from the winner of the competition?
We did not have a dramatically higher price. Our offered price excluding VAT was even lower (7,701,330 CZK), but we did indicate a higher VAT rate than most others. This rate, which we believed, according to the already approved accession agreement with the EU, obligated the Czech Republic to introduce it at the time the contracts would be concluded. The offered price (i.e., the price excluding VAT) of those who totaled the points in first place was 8,075,000 CZK. So, 7,701,330 CZK from us versus 8,075,000 CZK from them. Later, it was confirmed that this change in VAT cost the city almost half a million more. To prevent this, the committee should have evaluated according to economic suitability as mandated by law, thus without various VAT rates. It should have evaluated based solely on the offered prices, which are prices excluding VAT. They should have corrected or unified any potential differences in VAT rates because those are not part of the offered price. This did not happen, as one person intervened in the evaluation of the committee, and everyone voted according to the dictated scheme. Here is a table of the offered prices.

Did you attempt to contest the evaluation of the competition? It was evidently flawed.
We did not try. It would have been a problem from a procedural perspective, not a substantive one. In the evaluation of the competition, those participants in the consortium who were really just there for show (RAW) were intentionally pushed to the forefront; they were supposed to perform only a tiny fraction of the work and had no decision-making authority. However, more serious matters occurred in the competition that were not just formalities, and we knew that at the latest during the court proceedings, they would lead to a clear result. We could not burden the evaluating bodies with an overwhelming jumble of submissions. Moreover, there was nothing against which to protest. We won professionally. Although I believe that Všetečka should have been behind us.

Subsequent court cases regarding the professional incompetence of the winner distracted attention in another direction. The city’s erroneous step, in my opinion, lies in poor evaluation of the competition bids.
I do not think that it is so. This was not about formalities, as had been the exclusion of "Tišnovka".
Essential documents were missing (and not because they were merely overlooked - they simply weren’t there), for which any further participant would have been excluded, and it was not just one thing; it was a system.
When it comes to assessing basic competence, references were evaluated, and a significant part of them (at the Association for the Tugendhat Villa) came from architects at RAW. Most people from the evaluation committee were convinced that this was a proposal from these architects, and therefore they placed it immediately after us. This is not just my impression; it follows from the protocols and the recordings from the criminal file, as well as from what some jury members later revealed gradually.
However, I would consider it chutzpah that among the references of the false winner were also works in which I had a decisive role (the publication "Brno's Jewish Architects"). Even though this work was just a small part of the references, it should never have appeared there because it was clear that it would be used against us in the decision-making process. It is indeed a small detail, but it is characteristic from the perspective of good conduct and misleading the committee into a certain error. Otherwise, in my opinion, Petr Všetečka should have been second in professional criteria, not the Association for the Tugendhat Villa. That would truly reflect the actual content of references for this case.
When it comes to the substantive evaluation of professional preparedness, we won. That was in those 90% of the evaluation criteria. There was therefore nothing to protest against. It was turned around by that manipulation with VAT. Filing a complaint about that would not have had strategic significance when clearer illegalities were documented.

Even during my studies, I did not understand why the city, as the owner, did not put the villa into perfect condition immediately after the revolution, did not furnish it, etc. Where do you think the mistake occurred? Did politicians realize the significance of this building?
Such an impression was natural. Major things could certainly have happened shortly after the revolution. To speak frankly, the first freely elected mayor, Václav Mencl, took it on, but he was removed before he could finish (September 30, 1992). His efforts were suffocated by a well-known "coup" with a secret contract at a notary’s office that brought Jiří Horák to the city's leadership and plunged the city into chaos and disgrace for a long time.
After that, any interest in the Tugendhat villa from the city leadership completely ceased and was only and solely the subject of interest for a few private individuals, among whom we belonged. In the meantime, two foundations were established. The interest of the city awakened only based on a "gleyt" (in 2001). People entrusted with decision-making were unable to recognize its value from the object itself, its strength, beauty, size, and harmony. They lacked the necessary vision, instincts, and talent.
Only the "paper" - the entry in the list - opened many eyes. Suddenly it became a matter of conjuncture. Everyone longed to be part of it, albeit without genuine dedication or willingness to truly help. Without real commitment. That is the fundamental problem.

Personally, the city’s care for Tugendhat has always seemed and still seems very amateurish. Do you think it would have been better if the villa had been returned - whether immediately after the revolution or during the competition period - to the descendants of the original owners?
It is clear that property should be returned to its original owners for the sake of ownership and justice as such. Yes, it would have been best if they took it over shortly after the revolution. However, unfortunately, the heirs of Greta Tugendhat did not do so. Why they made such a decision must be asked of them. The matter was reopened only after considerable delays. This made it a significant plot twist. I cannot say with certainty whether the takeover by the heirs would have been better for the villa or not. There was undoubtedly hope. If the Tugendhats had applied in time, they would have had a good chance of reclaiming the property that their parents lost due to Nazi persecution. However, I don’t know if they would have had enough strength and funds to manage the house appropriately. They might have transferred it to a respected international institution or specialized museum. That would then have brought a new, unprecedented quality to Brno. But these are, of course, just speculations and "what-ifs".

After the local elections in 2006, it seemed that the previous opposition, which was taking power, would want to resolve the case of the villa's reconstruction. However, so far they have not succeeded. In your opinion, what is the problem?
Honestly, I do not know a reliable answer. The current city leadership - the coalition that was previously in opposition - took power only after a ruling clearly indicating the illegal presence of the false "winner" in the competition. That person should have been excluded. When this did not happen right away, it was later on. From the beginning, they could not be acting in good faith, assuming everything could continue without change. From the very start, this leadership had sufficient information and documentation to resolve the issue in a legal and professionally correct manner. Moreover, it was obliged to do so. Payments were made under an obviously invalid contract during this new leadership. It was allowed for an unfinished stage of the project to be completed. This also complicated the situation. We know, after all, that utilizing a project that was created unlawfully is an impassable path. Even the most skillful lawyer cannot reverse this irrevocable fact. It can only be regrettably stated that the city leadership perceives law as a certain kind of sleight of hand. They have the impression that some crafty lawyers will miraculously change the situation, like deus ex machina. On the contrary, similar attempts, such as initiating a tender for contractors, complicate the situation further and throw the city and the monument into a seemingly hopeless situation. Unpleasant surprises await them at the appropriate time.
Unfortunately, the city leadership cannot demonstrate any good faith. Unlike the previous leadership, this leadership appears to lack the principle of good faith. However, we must also keep in mind that there is a bureaucratic apparatus that continues to exist in the city hall and influences the city leadership.

Why do you think the city continues to work on the project? I assume that by this approach the mayor or city council has already misappropriated tens of millions of crowns. Is it possible to recover this money from the politicians?
I dare not pass judgment on the actions of the city's organs and their potential material or criminal responsibility. Relevant authorities are acting in this matter, and they will surely continue to do so. What is certain is that the situation for the individuals in the Brno city council is neither simple nor enviable. However, it seems that with every step they complicate it rather than simplify it.
There can be both material and criminal responsibility arising from the very act of voting in a collective self-government body, as shown by the case from Český Krumlov, where the council voted to provide material support to a former mayor. Later, the Constitutional Court indirectly determined that there is the possibility of punishment for unlawful voting, even by an autonomous collective body.
It should undoubtedly be the case that money and property of the city should only be handled within the limits of the law. That is determined by both nature and the municipal law.

How do you think the case of the Tugendhat villa reconstruction will end?
I am not completely sure of it. In any case, those who are dealing with the case are counting on everything being lost. But that is not the case. Proven unlawfulness cannot be peeled away from the work.
We firmly believe that sooner or later the courts will prove that the cancellation of the competition was unlawful, that the tender for the construction contractor was also unlawful because it was based on an unlawfully created project. None of those who acted in the meantime were in good faith.
Then that will truly be a big problem. There will also be a problem when the EU control bodies learn that these grants were linked to illegal procedures.

If we look at the reconstructions of the Müller villa, Tugendhat villa, Jurkovič villa, and Stiassny villa, is it possible to find the best method for selecting a designer?
I do not dare to evaluate the Stiassny villa. I don’t know anything about it. As for the Jurkovič villa, a competent designer, Petr Všetečka, was chosen, and I would not doubt in the slightest that he was the right person to do it. We did not participate in the selection procedure for the Jurkovič villa because it is neither the type of architecture that interests us, nor did we think that our experience was greater than other architects, such as Petr Všetečka or Radim Musil. Based on the mental nature of personality, I might even consider Z. Vydrová. Perhaps someone from Prague or Eastern Bohemia. I do not know who participated.

Thank you for the interview.

---

Ing. arch. Jan Sapák
- is an active architect and theorist of architecture.
- trained as a carpenter and stonemason.
- studied at the Brno University of Technology and the Academy in Prague; studied philosophy externally
- since 1976, interested in the protection and reconstruction of modern architecture
- a member of the working group of the Czech Chamber of Architects for competitions
- publishes in professional media in the Czech Republic and abroad