SMÍCHOV SCHOOL

OPEN TWO-PHASE PROJECT ARCHITECTURAL ANONYMOUS AND INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION FOR A DESIGN OF A PRIMARY SCHOOL
66 teams from all over the world participated in this competition, which translates into work of more than 250 architects, urbanists, engineers and other professionals who spent in total around 58 800 hours on the designs for the new school.

Contracting authority
District Prague 5


Competition secretary
Karin Grohmannová

Prizes and rewards
1st prize – 900 000 CZK
2nd prize – 600 000 CZK
3rd prize – 400 000 CZK
sketching fee for non-appraised finalists – 3 x 200 000 CZK

Comeptition jury
David Tichý (UNIT architekti) – Chair
Pavel Richter (Mayor of Prague 5) – Vice-Chair
Anne Uhlmann (BUR Architekten)
Gianni Cito (Moke Architekten)
Boris Redčenkov (A69)
Kamila Amblerová (KA-architekti)
Ondřej Píhrt (S-O-A)
Zuzana Hamanová (Prague 5)
Vít Šolle (Prague 5)
Tomáš Homola (Prague 5)
Martin Damašek (Prague 5)

Announcement of the competition: 14. 12. 2017
Submission of the proposals in I. phase: 4. 5. 2018
Submission of the proposals in II. phase: 17. 8. 2018
Jury meeting I. phase: 11.–12. 5. 2018
Jury meeting II. phase: 24. 8. 2018
Result announcement: 28. 8. 2018

COMPETITION RESULTS

1st prize

Office Ou & Inostudio: Nicolas Koff, Zbigniew Gierczak, Uroš Novaković, Sebastian Bartnicki, Sophia Szagala / cooperation: Oliver Green / Toronto, Gliwice – Canada, Poland

Authors on the proposal

Living in a city is about living in a community, and to do so we must learn to take care of each other and our common environment. An urban school should foster social and environmental stewardship amongst the students and be a community hub that interacts with its unique urban context. The design is conceived as a simple built framework that provides students with a diversity of opportunities to engage with the world around them.

Statement of the jury

The authors have met to the highest degree the requirements of the competition and fulfilled the jury’s expectations. The jury appreciates in particular the optimally designed orientation of the building, the clean and simple organization of the layout and construction, the connection with the surrounding public space, as well as with the school grounds. This proposal is the best scheme of circulation and orientation for pupils, teachers and the public in the building. It cleverly combines clusters, corridors and open spaces. Authors’ thinking about the interior space and the construction system allows for flexibility for future modifications and possible changes that are inherent in school operation. The jury further appreciates the authors’ response to the comments given in the first phase of the competition, whose successful incorporation led to a significant shift and fulfilment of the potential that the jury saw in this proposal in the first phase.
The proposed balconies, which should serve as a supplement to the classes, are debatable, especially in relation to traditional teaching. It is unlikely that they will be used during teaching or leisure time, and can also limit classroom daylight illumination, when having incorrectly selected materials and dimensions. The jury expects to see these balconies adequately modified with the development of the project. Changes will be probably due also in the wooden structure, which will have to be more massive or re-evaluated.
From the point of view of fulfilling all the evaluation criteria set out in the competition conditions, the proposal seems to be the most optimal. From the point of view of the energy concept and investment and operating costs, the proposal, just like the other proposals, presented only an idea of the functioning and a simple scheme that will need to be further elaborated. The jury assumes that when finalizing in cooperation with the announcer and according to their remarks, the proposal has a very good possibility of adaptability without disturbing the successful concept.

2nd prize

Škarda architekti / Václav Škarda / cooperation: Miloš Hlaváček, Lukáš Houser, Viktor Kirschner, Ondřej Šorm, Ondřej Hlaváček / Praha, Czech Republic

Authors on the proposal

Introducing the modern civic palace of education and games, firmly rooted in the urban grid of new Smíchov. With its arrangement and synergies with the Elementary School of Arts, it will become the centre of a new community. The design works with a balanced proportion of contrasts. The compact block of the school is interrupted by a large entry space, which refers the building to the surrounding landmarks. The strict and dignified building conceals a lively inner world of diversity and playfulness. The lower open mass, also meant for the public, is complemented by the upper enclosed ring of classrooms.

Statement of the jury

The design has met the requirements of the competition and fulfilled the jury’s expectations to a very high degree. The design offers a very strong connection with the public space of the city. Urban approach is very complex and beneficial to its surroundings and is trying to offer new opportunities to use the school building. The jury appreciates the generosity of classroom sizes and the attempts to rationalize the interior space. The jury in the first phase appreciated the conservative approach as one of the solutions for school operation in combination with a more courageous volumetric concept. This form of “open city fortress” can be a response to the question of the nature of modern school institutions and can play the role of a local community symbol. However, the proposal did not develop much between the 1st and 2nd phases, and did not convincingly fulfil this potential of conservative yet generous primary school.
In the opinion of the jury, the most impediment to the design is the not intuitive circulation and orientation in the building for teachers, the public and pupils, which is most evident in the location of vertical communications. Similarly, the layout of the internal courtyard with an outdoor staircase system, the use of which, with regard to the security of entry to the building and the constant supervision of the pupils, is also not quite clear. Consistent adherence to the tectonic nature of the facade is in contradiction with the volumetric solution that aims for lightness of the building’s expression. The jury considers the position of the athletic oval on the roof of a school, which allows more free use of the school grounds, on the one hand the benefit of the proposal, but on the other hand the jury was not convinced of its functionality – especially with regard to the lack of shadow, sport and maintenance facilities and the impossibility of placing a considerable number of the necessary technologies, or at least their outlets on the roof of a school building.
From the point of view of fulfilling all the evaluation criteria set out in the competition conditions, the proposal seems to be the second most optimal. From the point of view of the energy concept and investment and operating costs, the proposal, just like the other proposals, presented only an idea of the functioning and a simple scheme that will need to be further elaborated. The jury assumes that when completing the announcer’s suggestions, the proposal has a good chance to achieve user-friendliness without seriously disrupting the concept.

3rd prize

IND. [Inter.National.Design] / Teresa Papachristou, Felix Madrazo, Pablo Roquero, Arman Akdogan / cooperation: Alfonso Redondo Gomez, Marek Nosek, Kateřina Sojková, Martin Volf, Amaia Puras, Bezya Nur Öztürk, Alvaro Borrajo, Vittorio Perotti, Morgan Graboski / Rotterdam, Netherlands

Authors on the proposal

The project relies on 2 design directives. The building envelope maximizes its available footprint keeping its alignment with the pedestrian street and the park to the north. Nevertheless the envelope presents a more open school character through openings to north and south directions. The openings are dedicated to the main common activities: library and the sport hall to the north and brake out spaces and terrace areas to the south. The ground floor is highly permeable integrating the school to the surroundings.

Statement of the jury

The design has met the requirements of the assignment and the jury to a high degree. The authors of the proposal presented a radical solution with a strong view of how the building should react in volume and expression to its surroundings. The proposal offers a very rational approach to hierarchizing spaces with regard to the “public / non-public” and with regard to contact with the surrounding city. According to the jury, the proposal itself is quite strict (to sterile), which does not entirely correspond to the idea of a targeted character of primary school, but rather corresponds to the concept of secondary school or college. The jury appreciates the more courageous concept of the shape of a building, the shape of which creates a system of spaces and places while maintaining a rational internal arrangement and program. However, this concept carries with it a low degree of flexibility. Compared to other prize-winning designs, the authors presented a more schematic solution of the facades, which after the completion of the project could significantly change the overall figure of the school. The shading of the building, and especially the ratio of the glazed and non-glazed areas of the facade, is considered to be unclear by the jury.
From the point of view of fulfilling all the evaluation criteria set out in the competition conditions, the proposal appears to be optimal. From the point of view of the energy concept and investment and operating costs, the proposal, just like the other proposals, presented only an idea of the functioning and a simple scheme that will need to be further elaborated. The jury assumes that the proposal may have a good chance of achieving a user-friendly form, without significantly disrupting the concept, until after a major elaboration according to the announcer’s comments.

Finalists

Martin Neruda / cooperation: Jana Šťastná / Prague, Czechia

Authors on the proposal

Future city district counts with block building cut through a pedestrian boulevard, which opens into parks in the heart of the area. Here is situated the plot for school which calls for a public investment adequate to its significance. The compact house with covered ground floor brings new quality into the public space. The ground floor serving the public as well as to the education as well links the school with the city socially. The interior is connected with the surrounding area through the roof terrace and outdoor galleries. By designing the campus we are creating a welcoming whole that will contribute to the development of the community life of the new district with the assumption of economic operation.

Statement of the jury

The jury appreciated the clear and understandable system of school functioning. Possibility of future modifications is a positive feature of this proposal, as the chosen simple typology can be further developed. In the opinion of the jury, the design has achieved a functional interconnection of public spaces and school, but the individual floors and school levels communicate in a relatively weak way.
The authors work with a relatively strict separation of “worlds” of the first and second levels (two entrances, two stairs, delegated floors), which are in the end connected by atriums accompanied by a number of questions, especially by acoustic and operational complications. The proposed form of a building with longitudinal terraces around its entire perimeter, which should serve as a supplement to the classes, is questionable in particular in relation to the operation of the school. It is unlikely that they will be used for teaching or leisure, and can also limit classroom daylight illumination, when having incorrectly selected materials and dimensions.
From the point of view of fulfilling all the evaluation criteria set out in the competition conditions, this proposal does not achieve the quality of the prize-winning proposals. From the point of view of the energy concept and investment and operating costs, the proposal, just like the rest of the others, presented only an idea of functioning and a simple scheme that would have to be further elaborated.

ESC Architects│Tiago Sá & Alberto Cumerlato / Porto, Portugal

Authors on the proposal

School by Play, Orbis Pictus, Labyrinth of the World and Paradise of the Heart; some of the most well-known works by Jan Ámos Komenský, which set the base for the modern pedagogy. Inspired by his innovative way of thinking, we believe only contemporary architecture can serve contemporary education. Beyond a school, the new Smíchov will represent Prague’s new educational beacon.

Statement of the jury

The jury considered promising the chosen original form of the building. Although the school, by placing a generously-sized main entrance for pupils, “turns its back” to the public area of the pedestrian zone, it has offered at least a secondary entrance for the after-school care and for the public to the social and sports part of the school directly from the pedestrian zone. The volumetric solution also brought patio terraces where pupils could safely spend their free time.
The form of the proposal represented a strong potential for the jury in the first phase. In the second phase, however, the authors did not submit a proposal that would adequately reflect the jury’s comments and recommendations and the form of the building did not bring the expected benefit to the school’s internal solution. The communication cores along with the limit-sized corridors are not entirely convincing for the jury and do not contribute to a simple orientation and circulation of pupils, teachers and the public in the building.
From the point of view of the energy concept, investment and operating costs and demands for the necessary technical equipment, the proposal is underestimated in the opinion of the jury (lack of areas for kitchen facility, technologies and storage). Also unconvincing is the location and size of the building’s communication and technology cores. In terms of meeting all the evaluation criteria set out in the competition conditions, it does not achieve the quality of the prize-winning proposals.

TRI.ŠTRNÁSŤ architekti / Lukáš Ildža, Ondrej Palenčar, Matúš Ivanič; spolupráce Tomáš Babka, Hana Skljarzska, Martin Burgr, Rastislav Ildža / Prešov, Stará červená voda – Slovakia, Czechia

Authors on the proposal

Labyrinth of the World and Paradise of the Mind

New school in the heart of the modern district Smichov City occupies a privileged position on the main pedestrian boulevard with access from the park axis. The building complements the urban structure with the typical shape of a compact block with an interior courtyard. Nevertheless, it does not close itself, but it communicates with the surrounding by the system of exterior educational terraces not only visually but also functionally. Traditional volume is transcripted into contemporary functional conception, which reflects the modern needs of education through its diversity, stimulation and adaptability.

Statement of the jury

The design brings a generous entry hall – an internal “public” space. School building urbanistically fits into its surroundings, and its overall expression generates a sense of belonging to the community. In the opinion of the jury, another positive aspect is the creation of an adequate, visible main entrance and a common terrace where pupils can safely spend their free time. Division of the first and second levels is clear and legible.
However, the organization of the spatial program does not create sufficiently strong links between the priority functions and the desirable interconnection of the school’s internal and external operations. Orientation and circulation in the building can be difficult (even confusing) for teachers, the public and pupils – especially when the pupil’s main movement between lessons, leisure and sports is guided through three different interior stairways and corridors, or through outdoor terraces and spiral staircases. This complicated solution demonstrates, according to the jury, a lack of understanding of the operation of the school.
From the point of view of fulfilling all the evaluation criteria set out in the competition conditions, this proposal does not achieve the quality of the prize-winning proposals. From the point of view of the energy concept and investment and operating costs, as well as others, he presented only an idea of functioning and a simple scheme that would have to be further elaborated

Proposal no. 1
MON NOM STUDIO / Adriano Ferrer Escayola / Prague, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 2
Proposal advanced to II. round.
Martin Neruda / cooperation: Jana Šťastná / Prague, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 3
OUTLINE ARCHITECTURE OFFICE / Sorin Diaconescu, Cristina Barna-Diaconescu / Bucharest, Romania

Proposal no. 4
SADAR + VUGA d. o. o. / Jurij Sadar, Boštjan Vuga, Maja Omerzel, Nina Vidič Ivančič, Aleš Pajk / cooperation: Energy concept: dr. Miha Praznik / Ljubljana, Slovenia

Proposal no. 5
AKF Architektur Kollektive Favorit / Arch. Mag. Carl Schäffer / cooperation: Philipp Rudigier, Ronny Wiesner, Johannes Schwaninger / Vienna, Austria

Proposal no. 6
Gebhard Luca Davide, Rezvanipour Pantea / cooperation: De Carli Maela, Sapigni Valeria / Milan, Italy

Proposal no. 7
archislužba.cz / Lukáš Pecka, Ivana Smětáková / cooperation: Iveta Křížová, Adéla Hajšmanová / Brno, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 8
BRAHIMAJ ARCHITECT / Ermal Brahimaj / cooperation: Paolo Luciano, Luca Dolmetta, Silvia Rizzo, Giulio Massetani / Savigliano, Italy

Proposal no. 9
Tiago Filipe Sales Passos / cooperation Miguel Silva / Matosinhos, Portugal

Proposal no. 10
Proposal advanced to II. round.
ESC Architects / Tiaho Sú, Alberto Lumerlato, Filippo Lorenzi / Porto, Portugal

Proposal no. 11
Architektonické studio Gama s.r.o. / Zbyšek Stýblo / Prague, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 12
OMS ACHITECTURE STUDIO / Yinda Yu, Mao Chen, Xiao Liu / Hangzhou, China
Proposal no. 13
Bread studio Ltd / Mui kui chuen paul, Agnes hung oi kee, Benny lee chiu ming / Hong Kong

Proposal no. 14
Proposal won the 1st prize
Nicolas Koff, Zbigniew Gierczak, Uroš Novaković, Sebastian Bartnicki, Sophia Szagala / cooperation: Oliver Green / Toronto, Gliwice – Canada, Poland

Proposal no. 15
arch_feel / Veronika Rechová, Karel Rech / Prague, Czech Republic
Proposal no. 16
Ateliér Velehradský, s.r.o. / Tomáš Velehradský / Brno, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 17
KKS / Antti Keskinen, Marcus Kujala, Samuli Summanen / Helsinki, Finland

Proposal no. 18
Matus Pajor / Helsinki, Finland

Proposal no. 19
WrongOffice / Giulia Cosentino, Paolo Tringali / Madrid, Spain

Proposal no. 20
MVRM Architects / Rita Fonseca Martins, Marck Vrieling / cooperation: Artur Patuleia, Vrieling Bouw Engineering B.V. / Amsterdam, Netherlands

Proposal no. 21
Miguel Amado Arquitectos LDA / Rosário Ribeiro, Miguel Amado / cooperation: Ana Joao Santos, Francesca Poggi, Joao Copio, Miguel Ribeiro Amado, Rita Lemos, Sofia Ornelas Neves, Alvaro Manso, Jose Carlos Branco, Rui Vicente, Bruno Pessoa, Joao Rabasqueira / Barreiro, Portugal

Proposal no. 22
SIEBERT + TALAŠ, spol. s.r.o. / Míčka, Aleš Nedvídek, Tereta Drahošová, Matěj Siebert, Roman Talaš / Prague, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 23
Nowak and Nielsen / Aleksander Nowak, Mathias Sønderskov Nielsen / cooperation: Micki Aaen Petersen, Flemming Vedel Eriksen / Poland, Denmark

Proposal no. 24
STROMBRO AB / Daniel Fagerberg, Le Song, Cecilia Valdivia / cooperation: Valeria Corea, Marco Caminiti / Stockholm, Sweden

Proposal no. 25
Bardakhanova Champkins Architects / Irina Bardakhanova, Nicholas Champkins, Sofya Chebotareva / Tallin, Estonia

Proposal no. 26
Eirini Xanthopoulou, Iraklis Romanopoulos/IRIX, Jonian Silaj / JUAJ, Borys Kozlowski / VO-LUME / cooperation: Paulo Faleschini / Rotterdam, Netherlands

Proposal no. 27
Angelo Maria Salamone / cooperation: Segio Randazzini / Scandicci, Italy

Proposal no. 28
Federico Ennas / Janov, Italy

Proposal no. 29
Petr Sova, Jan Šorm / Prague, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 30
Jolma Architects, TUPA architecture & Aarni Architects / Andrea Bonetti, Juuso Iivonen, Kasmir Jolma, Carlos Orbea, Vojtech Rudorfer, Tytti Turpeinen, Katerina Vlkova / Tampere, Finland

Proposal no. 31
PL Studio, ctrl+n / Michat Sokolowski, Agnieszka Lanko, Patryk Zurawski / Warsaw, Poland

Proposal no. 32
MCA atelier / Miroslav Cikán, Pavla Melková / cooperation: Radek Novotný, Vojtěch Ertl, Jakub Hendrych / Prague, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 33
Proposal won the 2nd prize
Škarda architekti / Václav Škarda / cooperation: Miloš Hlaváček, Lukáš Houser, Viktor Kirschner, Ondřej Šorm, Ondřej Hlaváček / Prague, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 34
Filipe André Barbosa Gonçalves, David Monteiro, Joana Coutinho / Matosinhos, Portugal

Proposal no. 35
Miloš G. Parma / cooperation: Zoltán Burkuš, Zdeněk Mencl / Prague, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 36
Catarina Lopes / Lisabon, Portugal

Proposal no. 37
Václav Čermák, Václav Kolínský, Ondřej Šperl / Prague, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 38
NEUHÄUSL HUNAL / David Neuhäusl, Matěj Hunal, Martin Hajný, Ivan Březina; spolupráce: Růžena Šenoldová, Václav Pošmourný / Prague, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 39
Kava, spol. s.r.o. / Robert Seidl, Jan Novotný, Jan Karásek, Jakub Koňata, Jonáš Krýzl / Prague, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 40
Claude Boullevraye de Passillé, Sylvain Boutet / Montreal, Canada

Proposal no. 41
Peter Juhász, Daniel Bryša, Ladislav Müller / Brno, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 42
BHM ARCHITECTS / London, United Kingdom

Proposal no. 43
Anne-Sereine Tremblay, Jan Kudlička / Barcelona, Spain

Proposal no. 44
Oulu studio / Yuansheng Qiu, Mappy / Shanghai, China
 
Proposal no. 45
Richard Kilo, Matej Honč, Pavol Vadkerti, Marek Kľučár / cooperation: Ľuboš Vyrúbal / Bratislava, Stupava – Slovakia

Proposal no. 46
Innes Associates / London, United Kingdom

Proposal no. 47
Alexandru Nacu, Georgi Georgiev, Giacomo Pelizzari, Jusin Park / Londýn, United Kingdom

Proposal no. 48
BAKYTA s.r.o., A B.K.P.Š. spol. s r.o. / Róbert Bakyta, Marek Harčárík, Martin Kusý, Július Vass / Bratislava, Jarok – Slovakia

Proposal no. 49
Kuba & Pilař architekti s.r.o. / Ladislav Kuba, Tomáš Pilař, Helena Hovorková / cooperation: Jan Kopecký / Brno, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 50
STUDIO UPd.o.o. / Toma Plejić, Lea Pelivan / cooperation: Izvor Simonović Majcan, Stanislava Odrljin, Ana Lisonek, Filip Herljević / Zagreb, Croatia

Proposal no. 51
MAURICIO GONZÁLEZ ARQUITECTOS / Mauricio González Bello / Toledo, Spain

Proposal no. 52
LUPA Studio / Tiago Botelho Alberto, Pedro Cunha, Gil Sousa Dias; spolupráce: Lufs Rodrigues, Rodrigo Raposo de Magalhaes, Joao Pedro Santos / Lisabon, Portugal

Proposal no. 53
KOGAA studio s.r.o., Ing. Leo Odstrcilik / Brno, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 54
EHL & KOUMAR ARCHITEKTI / Lukáš Ehl, Tomáš Koumar / cooperation: Jan Lankaš, Jaroslav Malina, Jana Vichorcová / Prague, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 55
Akira Yamanaka Architect / London, United Kingdom

Proposal no. 56
Boyarsky Murphy Architects / cooperation: Nicholas Boyarsky, Massimiliano Ros, Helene Henault, Nicola Murphy / London, United Kingdom

Proposal no. 57
OCA Barcelona /Bernardo Garcia, Hernan Lleida / cooperation: Ji Wonjun / Barcelona, Spain

Proposal no. 58
Proposal won the 3rd prize
IND. [Inter.National.Design] / Teresa Papachristou, Felix Madrazo, Pablo Roquero, Arman Akdogan; spolupráce Alfonso Redondo Gomez, Marek Nosek, Kateřina Sojková, Martin Volf, Amaia Puras, Bezya Nur Öztürk, Alvaro Borrajo, Vittorio Perotti, Morgan Graboski / Rotterdam, Netherlands

Proposal no. 59
Proposal advanced to II. round.
TRI.ŠTRNÁSŤ architekti / Lukáš Ildža, Ondrej Palenčar / cooperation: Tomáš Babka, Hana Skljarzska, Martin Burgr, Rastislav Ildža / Prešov, Stará červená voda – Slovakia, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 60
Marek Přikryl, Martin Prokš / Prague, Czech Republic
Proposal no. 61
AOC architekti / Josef Choc, Vojtěch Beran, Barbora Lopraisová, Filip Rašek, Ondřej Císler, Vojtěch Ružbatský / Praguea, Czech Republic

Proposal no. 62
João Carvalhais Parreira / cooperation: Duarte Ramirez, Fabian Cabrera, Vasco Horta / Sintra, Portugal

Proposal no. 63
Delmulle Delmulle Architecten BVBA / Seger Delmulle, Radka Kuchařová, Diederik Vander Stockt, Denis Dujardin, Jiří Klokočka, Frank Delmulle / cooperation: Denis Dujardin / Brusel, Belgium

Proposal no. 64
Studio Seilern Architects / Christina Seilern / London, United Kingdom

Proposal no. 65
Jay Tsai, Dimitrios Karopoulos, Kris Kiyoon Kil; spolupráce: Anirudh Dhawan, Rangel Karaivanov / Amsterdam, Netherlands

Proposal no. 66
HAAD studio – Jakub Křička, Romana Šteflová, Václav Stříbrský / Prague, Czech Republic

AIM OF THE COMPETITION

The subject of the competition is the design of a primary school with a capacity of 2 x 9 classes and two preparatory classes, caretaker’s flat and dining and sports facilities, including its integration into the newly emerging urban structure in the Prague district of Smíchov (“Smíchov City“) at the point of the intersection of the streets Nádražní and U Železničního mostu.For the future architects of the school, this project is an exciting challenge: for a long time, no new schools have been built in Prague’s central public areas. The district government of Prague 5 hopes that this newly emerging area will offer a “public school for the 21st century”. I.e., a new school open to modern methods of teaching, which can provide innovative suggestions not only for its own pedagogic activity but offer intriguing possibilities for the rest of the period that the children (and not only they) spend inside the building.

COMPETITION AREA

The competition site (part of the development area Smíchov City) is defined from the north and the west by a future pedestrian zone combined with urban parks, compensating for the physical barrier formed by the embankment of the rail viaduct at the southeast edge. To the south, it will be adjoined by an administrative-commercial complex that is now the assignment for another competition.Part of the ideas for the new school include the section of the pedestrian zone adjoining the school and the park abutting the school from the north – affected areas. Bearing in mind that both public spaces are in the phase where their concepts can be altered, it makes sense that they should, if necessary, take into account the relation to the future school.The sole road access to the school will be the maintained road connecting Radlická street and Nádražní street.

The essential limit for the competition site as well as for the actual school design is the route of the future rail tunnel running under the southeast section of the plot. For the competition, this means that no part of the school building may be planned above the tunnel; the area, though, could be used as a sports field.

SMÍCHOV CITY

Smíchov City is a development project by Sekyra Group Real Estate – stretching from the Na Knížecí bus station to the rail station Smíchovské nádraží. In the area of Smíchov City and its adjoining development localities, we can assume in upcoming years dynamic construction growth that will place significant demands on providing technical and particularly civic infrastructure. To meet the capacity for primary schooling, the district of Prague 5 is announcing the competition “School Smíchov”.

VISION OF THE SCHOOL

The new school should provide innovative suggestions not only for its own pedagogic activity but offer intriguing possibilities for the rest of the period that the children (and not only they) spend inside the building – the overall organisation of space, the original planning of specialised classrooms, or the conception of spaces for class breaks, the lunch hour, and areas for post-school activities or clubs. In addition, it should address the contact with the outdoor environment – with public parks and with the school sports grounds.

The building should allow for meetings and social actions of the entire school in a separate auditorium or a central communication space that can be variably usable for these purposes. The building should be conceived so as to contribute to community life in the new district, allow for organisation of afternoon clubs and sports activities, as well as for holding events outside of the school framework. For sports clubs and recreation activity, the outdoor sporting grounds should be kept free for full use in afternoon and evening hours.