H55 Community Centre

At threshing floor / in tenne. The house is the last on the way from the square to the church. It is a way from a village into the landscape. The house is the interface between the city and garden. The transition between the village and the countryside was called threshing floor. Threshing floor was not just working place. It was the informal meeting place of youth and whole village. The bam is the inspiration for the layout and form of the house. Open space threshing floor. Gabled roof. Wooden structures. Open plan.

The jury appreciated the clear disposition and volume solution, which wittily follows the original arrangement of the plot. The inner arrangement with the smooth flow of the spaces of the library, café, and multipurpose hall allows an optimal continuity and visual contact among these spaces as well as with the outside space, which is thus activated. The esthetics, though somehow schematic, feels refined. The landscaping of the surrounding outer space is simple and direct and together with the volume of the building corresponds well with the place as well as accentuates the access to the church and garden. The jury nevertheless sees as a certain insufficiency of the design proposal it is not so clear, though esthetically very strong, structure and recommends to simplify the design in this sense. From the sustainability point of view, the jury appreciates that the multipurpose hall has been conceived as seasonal, which could help to lower significantly the investment costs. The ratio of the glassed-in parts to full parts of the façade has been doubted.

The historical ensemble: The new community center will be built directly next to the St. George's church on a spot that was previously occupied by typical saddleback roofed houses. Taking the ensemble of Old Hloubětín into consideration, the project draws upon the form of these archetypical houses. However, a modern interpretation is applied through the material and construction methods used, which optimally match the requirements of a modern community center. Openness: In order to encourage the greatest amount of contact between the public and events taking place at the center, the functional areas entry, café and the multipurpose hall are all placed directly on the street leading to the church or directly on the park. The extensive use of glass provides the project with a visual openness. Low-threshold accessibility: One can see what's going on within the building just by passing by it. Exhibits are apparent to those outside the building even when the community center is closed. The street, exhibits, events and the park all of them join together in one common space.

The new building of the community centre follows the existent built environment both in urban conception and in volume. It keeps the street line and creates the centre of gravity in the space between the church wall and itself. From this point, the church, garden as well as a community centre are accessed. The jury sees positively the simple volume and the open ground floor that freely follows the terrain. The inner logic of the building is simple, utilitarian even. The connection between the library and café seems insufficient. The use of lamella cladding and its overhang on the south façade is also questionable.

One of Prague´s districts – Hloubětín – offers a site with rural character to build a new community centre. While respecting the regulations a modern building is designed in between a church on one and a family house on the other side. To it´s users it offers a café, library, club-rooms, a multi-purpose hall and a large garden aiming to kick start the social and cultural life in the neighbourhood.

All of the important points of the proposal are at the right places, better than at the rest of the participating designs. This might be the reason why this project has been favored by a part of the Jury during the evaluation. Another reason might be, of course, a very understandable architectural language. In conflict with its outer simplicity is the inner logic. Situating the two levels of the library above the multipurpose hall without any middle support in the lowest level seems very problematic. A part of the Jury also does not understand why the relatively rich inner space changes are not visible on the outer shell. The intelligibility of the architecture seems then as superficial. The discussion was also provoked by the long row of roof windows. If it was meant as an architectural hyperbole, then it was not bold enough. It actually raised doubts about this solution as a potential justification of this weed of folk architecture.

The proposed community center reflects the local historical architecture. It is a compact longitudinal volume, covered by a large pitched roof. The building is horizontally divided according to proposed functions. The community center is at the ground floor, the municipal library occupies the second floor. Both parts have separated entrances. The access ramp into the library forms the street facade. This simple concept eliminates stairs and elevator at all and keeps the building barrierfree.

The jury appreciated the minimalist approach chosen by the authors and the not-so-common barrier-free solution. The use of references to the traditional architecture and a very contemporary formulation of the building placed the design proposal into the group of top five awarded projects. The complete separation of the library and community centre has been seen as a negative as well as almost nonexistent visual contact of the library visitor (and its employees) with the surroundings. The connection of the inner space of the community centre to the square and the façade facing the garden has also been regarded as insufficient. The building very well corresponds in volume and in height of the ridge and cornice to its neighbor and at the same time keeps a reasonable distance from the graveyard wall. The proposal is viewed as sustainable both with low investment and operation costs.

The success of the design of a community centre is in the intimate scale, and in versatile, environment-friendly and accessible form. The design emphasizes the most important valuables of genius loci in the locality: the broken street line and the small scale, which together create unusual gradation of the western part or the street towards the landmark: the church. The embedded culture hall is a visual reminiscence of a stone wall, common and numerous in the area. The interior layout is compressed to a sensible minimum. The café creates a gate to the garden; the green roof of the hall makes an exterior foundation for the library. Bookshelves in the windows are the library’s living display. The construction system focuses on achieving the best environmental savings.

The jury appreciated the clear urban position. The volumes react to the context and stay on a small “village” scale. It plays with the existing wall on one side and creates a place as a meeting point on the church side. However, the passage between the house and the project was not seen positively. Each function has its own entrance and its outdoor space. However, the surfaces are too small and the complete separation of the library and the rest of the community centre have been seen as a negative point. The height of the multifunctional hall in regard to static and roof access for the library is as well not realistic. Also, the project implies a massive reinterpretation of the natural ground.