“For the best design of the new elementary school among themselves competed 108 teams from 38 countries around the world. This number is hiding at least 450 Architects, urban planners, engineers and other professionals who took on this task together 145 000 hours of work.”

Voluntary union of municipalities LOŠBATES

Competition secretary
Ing. arch. Karin Grohmannová

Prizes and rewards
Overall in the contest was granted 1 750 000 CZK on the prizes and rewards.

Comeptition jury
Ing. arch. David Hlouch

Ing. Eva Šmoldasová
vice chairwoman

M.A. Dorte Kristensen
Ing. arch. Kateřina Vídenová
Ing. arch. Adam Halíř
Ing. Josef Řehák
Ivana Dubská
Tomáš Rychta

Announcement of the competition: 14. 12. 2017
Submission of the proposals: 26. 3. 2018
Jury meeting: 3.–4. 4. 2018
Result announcement: 26. 4. 2018


1st prize
PELLETIER DE FONTENAY / Hubert Pelletier, Yves de Fontenay, Valerio Sartori / Montréal, Canada

Authors on the proposal
The school aims to create a new heart and symbol for the union of LOŠBATES. It is conceived as an open cloister, an articulated multi-functional ring connecting four separate program clusters into one coherent form surrounding a small forest. This cloister is flexible both visually and functionally. It serves as an entrance, as a corridor, as a covered outdoor area, as a gathering space, as an informal classroom and much more. Unlike the traditional cloister, it’s open ended and permeable. The ring frames a central courtyard, a quadrangle. But unlike the traditional quadrangle usually left open and free, this courtyard is filled with tall trees, a captured fragment of the forest nearby. This central courtyard is intentionally very large. The goal is to blur the boundary between figure and ground. By allowing the landscape to come into the school at such a scale, the school becomes a porous cluster of pavilions rather than a centralized building surrounded by landscape. The spacious nature of the site creates a wonderful opportunity: the school can be fragmented and dispersed throughout the site. By spreading the building and bringing nature inside at a large scale, the silhouette becomes softer and friendlier, less monolithic. This provides a blissful sense of extensiveness and openness, but moreover the horizontal open character allows for every function and classroom to have abundant direct access to natural light and views of the surrounding landscape.

Statement of the jury
The authors have met the requirements of the assignment to the fullest extent and fulfilled the expectations of the announcer. The architectural expression is appropriate to the new institution, which forms a stable background for four municipalities. The jury appreciates the symbolism of the separate objects connected by the cloister corridor around the courtyard, thanks to which the smaller masses of urbanistically divided volume of the whole building works as one whole. Involvement of large volumes of gyms in the area is sensitive. The volume of the underground building (in particular parking and communication) can be optimized, without significant influence on the layout and the school’s operation. The south and west façades of an object, oriented to individual apartment buildings, hold a maximum height of two floors. The planned extension raises above that level; however, it is oriented north to the forest and to the east towards the sports complex, so it will not negatively affect the existing area.
The jury assumes that, when completing the announcers remarks, the proposal has a very good adaptability option without compromising the successful concept.

2nd prize
Monika Habrová, Petra Hrubešová, Michaela Kloudová, Jan Šorm, Eva Rosenová, Eliška Ouředníčková, Marek Kopeć / Prague, Czechia

Authors on the proposal
A new campus is being set up in the middle of the small-sized building area of Louňovice. We do not close it completely, because it should also serve the public. We place the buildings on the edges of the land, and in the middle we create a new public space – a park with a playground whis is also pre-school space and sports grounds. On the east side we place an orchard and educational garden. Awning and overhanging roofs protect against direct sunlight and rain. They allow children to move “dry feet” between the bus stop and the school, and between the school and the sports hall. The roofing defines the entrance area and allows different modes of use of the park. When closing it with translucent panels, the school gets another sheltered outdoor space.
A new approach to child education requires a distinctive architectural form. We propose an atrium ground floor, barrier-free, a school that allows children to learn and spend breaks outdoors and at the same time safe in their walls. But it does not close itself. The campus is situated in a pleasant environment on the edge of the forest, the school is in maximum visual contact with it, it also opens to a new park with a playground and an orchard, which will also be used by the public.

Statement of the jury
The proposal has largely met the competition requirements and expectations of the announcer. The authors have very well worked out the layout of the school’s operation: it is sufficient enough, at the same time economical, logical and functional. The project brings a balanced and moderate architectural expression. The discernable scale of the linear effects of the north and south façades is apparently influenced by the support of the breakdown into the first and the second level.
The design responds well and follows the adjacent forest and attractive natural surroundings. The jury recommends further consideration of the situation of the linear parking spaces at the southern edge of the premises.

3rd prize
Emanuele Baglieri, Maria Flaccavento, Serafino Sgarlata, Vania Santangelo, Giorgio Pluchino / Ragusa, Italy

Authors on the proposal
In the natural environment influenced by forests and lakes, the purpose of the new school is to be in harmony with the environment. Within the entire complex, we have chosen to maintain the low height of buildings to maintain visual permeability and relation with the landscape in all directions.
The pathway acts as the main link between the various entrances to the buildings. The large green area at the upper level is designed as a sports ground, playground and leisure space. The campus is crossed by an main path along which there are ground floor rooms, covered squares, in direct contact with the open space. The school’s design provides strictly reserved facilities for teaching, while the northern part of the complex includes public facilities such as a gym, playground, art school and auditorum. Two totemic elements – gym and auditorium buildings – surrounded by greenery, will turn into lanterns during the night making it a landmark for the entire territory.

Statement of the jury
The proposal has largely met the requirements of the competition and the announcer. The jury appreciates the readable and functional urban layout of the playground and greenery at the forest, the common middle service and community zone and the southern compact single-storey building with courtyards designed for teaching. The intimate atmosphere of the learning spaces is favorable, which at the same time brings enough variability for the use of nowadays teaching trends. The concept of a residential “street” inside the complex provides a new living public space to the village, and at the same time it is a successful urban response to the local context. A clear and welcoming concept of a campus, which, in spite of its fragmentation in local climatic conditions, will bring a number of questions; in particular a generally less favorable ratio of floor areas and building envelope.
The jury recommends further consideration of the more difficult connection of the gym, the hall and the canteen with the classroom complex, and draws attention to the lower adaptability of the concept in the event of a larger intervention in the number and size of the learning spaces.

Honourable mention
OVO Grąbczewscy Architekci /
Barbara Grąbczewska, Oskar Grąbczewski, Marek Grąbczewski, Karolina Grzesista, Sonia Jarczyk, Kamil Kajdas, Marta Kamińska, Małgorzata Karolak, Justyna Motyka, Zuzanna Szmatloch / Katowice, Republic of Poland

Authors on the proposal
To create a school means for us to create a building that itself would be a kind of experiment, an open structure conducive to creative exploration and flexibly adapting to change. Instead of anonymous, typical, monotonous structure, we propose a building that is spatially rich, surprising, which stimulates curiosity, thinking and creativity. The school is like a small village with classes placed like houses in garden – a place for children to learn, to play and to discover.

Statement of the jury
The jury awarded the proposal an honourable mention because it is attractive by its exceptional spatial conception and cluster work with the school’s internal program. Although it acts like a pavilion scheme, it is actually a very compact, thoughtful and scale-appropriate proposal. However, due to the construction and maintenance requirements, the jury could not recommend it for implementation.

Proposal no. 1
Orkun Özüer, Kerem Çinar, G. Rabi a Evkaya, Kota Architects, Güven Özer, Ramazan Zeytün, Habib Kopuz,Evrim Karaman / Istanbul, Turkey
Proposal no. 2
Unpublished on behalf of the contestants request.
Proposal no. 3
M2AU / Norbert Obršál, Václav Mihola, Kateřina Miholová, Jan Kubát, Linda Boušková, David Helešic / Brno, Czechia
Proposal no. 4
Anh Dung Pham, Le Hung Nguyen, Dinh Quang Trinh, Bao Thu Nguyen / Paris, France
Proposal no. 5
MIAssociates / Oladimeji Odusote, Nnamdi Akubuiro, Adeoye Bammeke, Ope Ariyibi, Purity Okonkwo, Emmanuel Oyebanjl / Lagos, Nigeria
Proposal no. 6
JCPCDR Architecture / Jean-christophe Petillault Champetier de Ribes, Julie Soulat, Laurent Menabe, Antonín Hebert / Paris, France
Proposal no. 7
acre – Alliance for Critical Regionalism
Proposal was expelled from the competition. For further details, please see the compettion protocol.
Proposal no. 8
LaiaLab / Gabriel Muñoz Moreno, Rafael Garcia-Monge Pozo / New York, NY, USA
Proposal no. 9
Space4Architecture (S4A) / Michele Busiri Vici, Clementina Ruggieri, Pino Pavese,
Matteo Biasiolo, Junfei Pei, Kenneth Mitchell, Callum O’Connor / New York, NY, USA
Proposal no. 10
Studio MADe
Proposal was expelled from the competition. For further details, please see the compettion protocol.
Proposal no. 11
Ing. Miloš Kott – IPK / Miloš Kott, Tereza Machková / Prague, Czechia
Proposal no. 12
Proposal won the 1st prize
PELLETIER DE FONTENAY / Hubert Pelletier, Yves de Fontenay, Valerio Sartori / Montréal, Canada
Proposal no. 13
Adc Casanueva / Jose Antonio Casanueva Alvarez, Maria Edel Casanueva Ovies / Oviedo, Spain
Proposal no. 14
BLANKPAGE (OFFSHORE) / Beirut, Lebanon
Proposal no. 15
Sabeel Alhandasah / Fuad Altahat, Ashraf Altahat, Saeed Kokash, Muneer Al-Bayati, Nadia Da’as / Amman, Jordan
Proposal no. 16
Cédric Thomas, Tetsuya Kawano, Garance Wen Qian Zhu / Paris, France
Proposal no. 17
Studio Boito Sarno / Matteo Sarno, Andrea Boito / London, United Kingdom
Proposal no. 18
INDO / Marcin Mikos, Jacek Michalik, Weronika Lubaś, Ewelina Turek, Ewelina Kuciel, Ktarzyna Tomżyńska / Kraków, Poland
Proposal no. 19
Tiago Pinto Alves Sá, Barbora Srpková, Jan Kudlička / Matosinhos, Portugal
Proposal no. 20
Guangzhou Pingshi Architectural Design / Jianfeng Wang, Fei Li, Wenqing Yan, Zhengming Li, Ruidong Xing / Guangzhou, China
Proposal no. 21
was expelled from the competition. For further details, please see the compettion protocol.
Proposal no. 22
F A S(t) / Alexander Ryabskiy, Ksenia Kharitonova, Alexandra Pshenitsyna, Gregory Suzdalev, Vsevolod Tsytsylin, Alexander Vider / Moscow, Russia
Proposal no. 23
EARQUITETOS / Estevan Barin, Bruno Cassol, Jenifer Vescia / Santa Maria, Brazil
Proposal no. 24
Enelo CZ / Jan Rolinc, Ivo Stejskal, Luděk Šimoník, Ladislav Odstrčilík / Brno, Czechia
Proposal no. 25
T.A.R.I.-Architects / Marco Tanzilli, Claudia Ricciardi / Roma, Italy
Proposal no. 26
MPN +PARTNERS, Environmental Design Solutions / Hanoi, Vietnam
Proposal no. 27
Al-Fareeq Consultants / Mustafa Mezughi, Nadya Gabril, Amir Abukhreis, Abdal-Motaleb Shakshuki, Fadwa Mezughi, Munder Abukhreis, Mohamed Elghadi / Tripolis, Libya
Proposal no. 28
fi(G) Architecture / Arshad Iqbal, Juliana Giraldo Sanabria, Valentina Fantini / Birmingham, United Kingdom
Proposal no. 29
JDAP Design – Architecture – Planning / Avishkar Bharati, Enid Gomez, Nikhil Sawant, Shivani Narvekar, Shubam Chandiwade, Jude D’Souza / Bombay, India
Proposal no. 30
davin tanasa + associates / Pontianak, Indonesia
Proposal no. 31
atelier –Apsis / Claude Boullevraye de Passillé, Janette Vaquet, Elvire Nordor / Montréal, Canada
Proposal no. 32
PÍSEK SEYČEK ARCHITEKTI / Jan Seyček, Jaroslav Kašpar, Petr Kašpárek / Prague, Czechia
Proposal no. 33
PRÁCTICA / Jaime Daroca Guerrero, José Mayoral Moratilla, José Ramón Sierra Gómez de Léon, Santiago Estepa, Raúl Cristobal Brito, Alonso Rosa, Kelvin Ho / Madrid, Spain
Proposal no. 34
Arsen Kljyan, Gevorg Bezrjyan / Yerevan, Armenia
Proposal no. 35
FRÁNEK ARCHITECTS / Zdeněk Fránek, Martina Hamrová ,Tereza Horňasová, Libor Šenekel, Vojtěch Marek, Norbert Walter / Brno, Czechia
Proposal no. 36
Latitudine53 Team / Alecsandru Vasiliu, Ana-Dora Matei, Elena Trifan, Madalina Musca, Bogdan Profir, Raluca Popovici / Bucharest, Romania
Proposal no. 37
Denys Iudin / Kiev, Ukraine
Proposal no. 38
DK architects / Grigory Daynov, Irina Aleksandrova, Roman Mavrin, Aleksey Lisovoy, Timur Storozhuk / Jaroslavl, Russia
Proposal no. 39
Akira Yamanaka Architect / Akira Yamanaka, Mathias Aouizerat / London, United Kingdom
Proposal no. 40
Architects of Invention, DSA Engineers, Enegenuiti, HED Landscape, TTP Consulting / Nikoloz Japaridze, Elena Cruz Alcami, Simon Gatehouse, Anton Khmelnitskiy, Davit Tsanava, Nicholas Polo, Paul Grimes, Simon Elgar, Daniel Fenton / London, United Kingdom
Proposal no. 41
Dmitry Velichkin, Nikolai Golovanov / Moscow, Russia
Proposal no. 42
Yanko Aleksandrov, Liudmila Aleksandrova, Plamen Peev, Magdalena Mihaylova, Yoanna Emilova, Andrey Ognyanov, Anton Gorolomov, Galin Dimitrov, Alphan Arman / Sofia, Bulgaria
Proposal no. 43
23 Architecture + Guy Stansfeld Architects / 318 Studio / London, United Kingdom
Proposal no. 44
Návrh obdržel 3. cenu
Emanuele Baglieri, Maria Flaccavento, Serafino Sgarlata, Vania Santangelo, Giorgio Pluchino / Ragusa, Italy
Proposal no. 45
VODA architekti / Jiří Macháček, Filip Horatschke / Liberec, Czechia
Proposal no. 46
homostudio / Jiří Gulbis, Mirka Gulbisová, Martin Lapšanský, Iveta Nekulová, Vladimír Cvejn, Květa Slavíčková / Jemníky, Czechia
Proposal no. 47
UBICUO Studio / José María Calvo Martínez-Aldama, Francisco Blázque García / London, United Kingdom
Proposal no. 48
Design Cooperative / Quaid Doongerwala, Shilpa Ranade Aashna Agarwal, Kushal Saraiya, Manisha Hegde, Vanshika SHah, Neeti Thakker, Suresh Sawant / Bombay, India
Proposal no. 49
Valeria La Greca, Maria Rosaria Oliva / Santa Domenica Talao, Italy
Proposal no. 50
SUPERSPACE / Sinan Gunay, Nurhayat OZ / Istanbul, Turkey
Proposal no. 51
Studio MADe
Proposal was expelled from the competition. For further details, please see the compettion protocol.
Proposal no. 52
Roldán Antonio Mendoza Yépez
Proposal was expelled from the competition. For further details, please see the compettion protocol.
Proposal no. 53
Atelier 17 / Sara Brandão, Nuno Castro Caldas / Lisbon, Portugal
Proposal no. 54
KOLABORATORY / Radek Kolařík, Lada Kolaříková, Martin Štrouf, Petr Uhlíř / Prague, Czechia
Proposal no. 55. merged with proposal no.79. For further details, please see the compettion protocol.
Proposal no. 56
Grulich architekti, KT ING / David Grulich, Markéta Grulichová, Aleš Tuček, Petr Moschner, Hana Poláková / Odolena Voda, Czechia
Proposal no. 57
ARIS ARCHITECTS / Alberto Corrado, Francesca Zalla, Giacomo Infelise / Bergamo, Italy
Proposal no. 58
James Mak, Jongwon Na, Lewis Bailie / London, United Kingdom
Proposal no. 59
OPTA + ANIMA / Gaurav Sardana, Anton Bashkaev / New York City, NY, USA
Proposal no. 60
De Architekten Cie. / Pero Puljiz, Alexander Petrounine, Vlatka Markovic / Amsterdam, Netherlands
Proposal no. 61
atelier H3T architekti / Jiří Ksandr, Vít Šimek, Štěpán Řehoř, Darina Bartková, Martina Kubešová, Alexander Kachalov, Nikola Tomková, Karel Harazim, Romana Turečková, Zuzana Bečvářová, Petr Filip / Prague, Czechia
Proposal no. 62
Paul Gutierrez Salgado / Oviedo, Spain
Proposal no. 63
Manuel Leira, Lourdes Carretero, Julio de la Fuente, Giulia Consentino / Madrid, Spain
Proposal no. 64
NIMJA TEAM / Juan Pedro Camps, José Ignacio Correa, Andrés Bruzzesse, Manuel Zapata, Nikola Karabcová, Daniel Luic Camps / Montevideo, Uruguay
Proposal no. 65
SOA architekti / Ondřej Píhrt, Štefan Šulek, Oliver Kažimír, Irena Vojtová, Savka Marenic, Ján Vyšný / Prague, Czechia
Proposal no. 66
Sergey Kuliev / Moscow, Russia
Proposal no. 67
OAOB Arquitectura / Belén Valencia Martínez, Alejandro Cirugeda / Madrid, Spain
Proposal no. 68
SGHA Studio Georges Hung Architects / Georges Hung, Uly Lam, Gianfranco Galagar / Hong Kong, SAR
Proposal no. 69
PRESENT Architecture / Andre Guimond, Evan Erlebacher, Harry Lam / New York City, NY, USA
Proposal no. 70
Ondrej Palenčar, Miloslav Meixner / Brno, Czechia
Proposal no. 71
OCA / Luis Bellera Fernandez de la Cruz, Bernardo Garcia Morales, Hernan Lleida Ruiz / Barcelona, Spain
Proposal no. 72. merged with proposal no.48. For further details, please see the compettion protocol.
Proposal no. 73
Mahmoud Mohamed Mahmoud Riad / Cairo, Egypt
Proposal no. 74
Marani Architects / Vincent Robert Marani, Tomáš Prímus, Lucie Hanzlíková, Tullio Polisi / Prague, Czechia
Proposal no. 75
Yu-nin Tang, Chun-Chung Leung / Hong Kong, SAR
Proposal no. 76
KABINET VOSKHOD / Anastasia Kotenko, Mikhail Emontaev, Mikhail Labazov / Moscow, Russia
Proposal no. 77
Han Yang, Sehyeon Kim / Singapore, Singapore
Proposal no. 78
Totalstudio / Michal Kontšek, Zuzana Kovaľová, Tomáš Tokarčík / Bratislava, Slovakia
Proposal no. 79
Design Factum / Belfiore Bologna, Sinead Elis / Christchurch, New Zeeland
Proposal no. 80
ting / Štěpán Toman, Katarina Valičková, Idil Kücük, Jitka Dvorská, Daniel Kolský / Prague, Czechia
Proposal no. 81
Contestant didn’t submit the “Author”
Proposal was expelled from the competition. For further details, please see the compettion protocol.
Proposal no. 82
UPI-2M / Ivan Periša, Vedrana Moslavac, Paula Žinić, Berislav Medić / Zagreb, Croatia
Proposal no. 83
Studio Design Center / Kartik Chakradhar, Bhavana Isvi, Roshan Sanjeev / Hyderabad, India
Proposal no. 84
Gebhard Luca Davide
Proposal was expelled from the competition. For further details, please see the compettion protocol.
Proposal no. 85
Proposal won the 2nd prize
Michaela Kloudová, Monika Habrová, Petra Hrubešová, Jan Šorm, Eva Rosenová, Eliška Ouředníčková / Prague, Czechia
Proposal no. 86
Hideyuki Kishimoto, Jiin Yi Hwang / Hyōgo, Japan
Proposal no. 87
Michal Kubíček, Petr Muller, Martin Postupa, Jana Zdráhalová, Josef Kocourek, Radmila Fingerová, Jana Fišarová / Prague, Czechia
Proposal no. 88
AGI Architects Sapin / Joaquin Pérez-Goicoechea, Pablo Sanchez de Vega, Lucía Azurmendi, Gustavo Abelenda, Loreto Garcia, Daniel Muñoz / Madrid, Spain
Proposal no. 89
Christoph Ganslmeier, Andrzej Baginski, Christian Höller / Innsbruck, Austria
Proposal no. 90
Marco Ferri, Ruba Margieh, Saidu Umar / Vancouver, Canada
Proposal no. 91
Petr Sova / Prague, Czechia
Proposal no. 92
GORGONA / Vladimir Prodan, Victor Burminschii, Sergiu Ursu, Inna Crivaia, Vera Sirgii / Kishinev, Moldavia
Proposal no. 93
Georgia Zagara, Mladena Ahmetovic Stemberger, Sanjin Stemberger / Larisa, Greece
Proposal no. 94
Greenstyle Architecture / Todor Todorov, Svilen Todorov, Rada Todorova / Dubai, UAE
Proposal no. 95
Zdenka Šedivá / Bratislava, Slovakia
Proposal no. 96
Ronald Gálik, Ivan Gálik, Machal Hajduk, Kateřina Sejbalová / Veľký Grob, Slovakia
Proposal no. 97
Kurokawa Architect / Putnam Valley, NY, USA
Proposal no. 98
at DESTYL / Martin Poledníček, Jakub Sedlák, Anna Synková, Radek Eis, Stanislav Janíček / Prague, Czechia
Proposal no. 99. merged with proposal no.13. For further details, please see the compettion protocol.
Proposal no. 100
Nele Architecture and Planning / Vinay T S, Bhargav V, Manu S Kashyap / Bangalore, India
Proposal no. 101
2×1 Architects / Hakan Evkaya, Kutlu Inanç Bal, Cansu Dinç, Betül Vakvak, Yasemin Kiliç, Serhat Çakir, Mehmet Cemil Aktaş, Pinar K. Aktaş / Ankara, Turkey
Proposal no. 102
Anna Serena Esposito, Mario Imperato, Dinaur Schiano di Cola / Naples, Italy
Proposal no. 103
Studio FKM / Fadil Foondun, Camille Mesnard, Junkwang Kim / Bordeaux, France
Proposal no. 104
Jose Gad Peralta Iglesias, Juan Ignacio Alvarez Monteserín Lahoz, Jorge Lopez Hidalgo / Madrid, Spain
Proposal no. 105
NAZA ARQUITECTURA Y DISEÑO / Nazareth Gutiérrez Franco, Pablo Manteca Martín, Leandro Morillas Romero, Pérez-Barja / Madrid, Spain
Proposal no. 106
Jakub Gondorowicz, Wojciech Hryszkiewicz, Michał Pisarski / Łódź, Poland
Proposal no. 107
Ferran Iglesias Escuder, Chantal Marfà Barril / Barcelona, Spain
Proposal no. 108
New Office Works / Yi Pong Tse, Evelyn Huei Chung Ting / Hong Kong, SAR
Proposal no. 109
ATELIER SAEM / Michal Procházka, Monika Kaifošová, Šárka Bockschneiderová, Jan Cyrus, Vítězslav Jurák, Radek Sláma, Lenka Škapová, Martin Vychodil / Prague, Czechia
Proposal no. 110
toprojekt / Marek Wawrzyniak, Karol Wawrzyniak, K. M. Zielinska-Dabkowska, Pushkraj Tambdey, Marta Gawin, Wojciech Ciepliński, Ryszard Loreńczyk, Marek Lis, Joanna Wawrzyniak, Anna Wawrzyniak, Józek Marzec, Borzena Marzec, Marzie Moazenie / Rybnik, Poland
Proposal no. 111
Outline Architecture Office / Sorin Diaconescu, Cristina Barna- Diaconescu, Traian Cimpeanu / Bucharest, Romania
Proposal no. 112
Vítězslav Nový, Ondřej Vik, Lukáš Darda, Jakub Czapek / Brno, Czechia
Proposal no. 113
Denise Dih, Serdar Öztürk, Ole Klingemann / Innsbruck, Austria
Proposal no. 114
STJS STUDIO / Sebastien Saint-Jean, Michael Chan Wing Luk, Kenneth Wong / Hong Kong, SAR
Proposal no. 115
Návrh obdržel mimořádnou odměnu
OVO Grąbczewscy Architekci / Barbara Grąbczewska, Oskar Grąbczewski, Marek Grąbczewski, Karolina Grzesista, Sonia Jarczyk, Kamil Kajdas, Marta Kamińska, Małgorzata Karolak, Justyna Motyka, Zuzanna Szmatloch / Katowice, Poland
Proposal no. 116
ABTB (Timur Bashkaev’s architectural bureau) / Timur Bashkaev, Ilya Kantor, Vasilii Patov, Maksim Vasilev / Moscow, Russia
Proposal no. 117
Boyarsky Murphy Architects / Nicholas Boyarsky, Nicola Murphy, Massimiliano Ros, Alex Cisneros, Helene Henault / London, United Kingdom
Proposal no. 118
PEEKplan Architects / Paul Esombi Ekema, Bernhard Weyres-Borchert / Hamburg, Germany
If you havent found contestant in this list, the proposal was submitted after the competition deadline and wasn’t included among the competition proposals. For further infomation please see the competition protocol.

The elementary school is the dream and desire of all the municipalities associated in the volunteer union of LOŠBATES. The architectural design competition is the second step to its creation. The first is the cooperation of municipalities LOuňovice, Štíhlice, BAbice, TEhovec, Svojetice that created LOŠBATES. (Even though Babice decided to solve their issue separately and are not part of the union anymore.)

The goal of the competition is to find the best solution for an elementary school with a size of 2 x 9 classes containing, in addition to preparatory classes, the primary and secondary levels, also the caretaker’s flat and space for an elementary art school. In addition to the school itself, we are also requesting the design of flats for personnel, to resolve the school’s transportation connection to the main road, and parking.

The construction of the new school is an investment that does not have a similarity in the rich history of our communities. Though we are small villages, it is our desire to build a 21st century school that will allow modern learning and inspire children to study. We want a safe school and a school that will enable community use and will serve all our people for decades. The proposed solution should respect the chosen 2.5 hectares of building land, the surrounding area and the landscape character of the village of Louňovice. The layout of buildings and other structures must be such as to allow future extension of the school to 3 x 9 classes.