KULTURÁK2 Neratovice

The Commission considers the broader relationships presented to explain why the entrance to the office is located from the plaza, "around the corner" from the other entrances to the cultural spaces and the high-rise building. The Commission appreciates the hierarchy and coverage of the entrances (although it is unsure whether it is right to "elevate the office" in this day and age), the well-chosen barrier-free design, and the high quality of the café that connects everything while naturally controlling the likely synergy between the exhibition wing and the other operations. Some of the fibre cement board facades seem too elemental in their white finish. On the whole the design is very legible. The likely synergy between the exhibition wing and the other spaces is great, as is the accessibility of the design. The restaurant seems too cut off from the cultural venues. The possibility of a partial replacement of the restaurant space with the library is offered. The Commission is not sure about the centralization of the social facilities in 1PP and the organization of the spaces around the Community Hall. During the presentations on May 9, 2018, the jazz club was located upstairs, in the final proposal it is located on the ground floor. The Commission found no reason for this change. Perhaps the ground floor should be more for storage or clubhouses, which might be good to enter directly from the street. The project offers separate operations, logical and economical solutions, and adheres to the brief. The Commission appreciates the economic and rational approach.

The Commission appreciates the presentation of an unexpected, visionary solution that includes a redefinition of the use of what is called a square in Neratovice. The proposal presents a clear definition of the square "in the middle" by cumulating entrances and "around the perimeter" by filling in the ramp and reinforcing the park by the railway line. The Commission questions the orientation of the ramp, which starts at the furthest point from the parking lot on the square. The propriety of eliminating the Little Hall in favor of a café in the "right place" is questionable. It lacks a restaurant in the true sense of the word. The entrances to the library, the residential tower and the office are not hierarchical. It is unclear whether the intention is really to humanize the institution, i.e. to reduce the scale adequately. The Commission did not find sufficient support in the submitted materials to resolve this ambiguity. The Commission appreciates the public space that this proposal addresses very well. However, the question remains as to whether the new subdivision of homes is adequate given the existing surrounding development. There is a lack of a good opinion on the interior design in keeping with the existing elements, among others. The submitted proposal does not show sufficient refinement with regard to the detailed design solution presented during the presentations on 9/5/2018. By removing part of the buildings, the operations are optimised and at the same time clearly separated. The resulting street between them offers many possibilities. A reduction in the operating costs of the buildings can be expected, but at the cost of increased operational demands while ensuring the flexibility of the community hall. By reducing the volume, the operating costs are reduced while separating the different operations.

The Commission appreciates the scope of the presentation. The presentation of the passage, even when expanded to include usage scenarios, is not convincing. The layout seems overly complicated, the elimination of entrances unconvincing. The authors assume events that the commission judges unrealistic in the context of Neratovice. The Commission does not understand why some functions are duplicated in the proposal. The commission does not see the solution of an entrance to the apartment tower through the passage as an improvement of the existing situation. The navigation to the passage from the exterior does not work. The idea of renting out the passageway seems unrealistic to the Commission given the realities of Neratovice. The Commission doubts the correctness of the pricing after comparing it with the construction and investment costs of the other proposals.

From the commission's point of view, the horizontal façade of the frontal view towards the square is interesting, as it is not a barrier but a connecting element. However, it is not certain that this does not weaken the Community Centre in the overall design. Moving an important public space in front of the office, the entrance closest to the road, may fragment the space. The Commission is unsure whether it is inappropriate to split the entrances into multiple spaces. The solution is unique by incorporating the space in front of the existing cafeteria and increasing the public area, which returns in its entirety to the City and becomes handicapped accessible. Even though it is next to the railroad tracks, it can be high quality. The monumental entrance is seemingly made even larger by the removal of the plinth, it is possible that it is the removal of the plinth that will bring the whole complex closer to the city. The Commission appreciates the location of the library in a quiet location, but is not fully convinced by the solution of putting the jazz club in the restaurant. The Commission particularly appreciates the opening of the building to the city and the unification/connection of the front of the various establishments. On the other hand, the proposed accessibility is quite complex and problematic. The proposed solution presents a large number of options, which are, however, contradictory in terms of operating times. Excessive interconnection of operations and different entrances do not unify the space, but fragment it. The pass-through gallery conflicts with the operator's requirements. Much of the internal space is sacrificed to ramps, the functionality of which the commission has questioned. The commission pointed out a number of problematic areas in the design details - the cinema shares facilities with the auditorium, the restaurant does not have its own restrooms. Sustainability is tied to the layout deficiencies, which are significant and probably cause the most problems.