NEXT LEVEL Fakultní nemocnice Hradec Králové

CHC is situated in the newly emerged center of the hospital grounds. The space of the newly proposed square follows The First Republic urbanistic plan which helps the city dominants excel and at the same time develops the axis which is determined by the intern pavilion. The building of New Surgical Center (CHC) is located south of the current pavilion of Academic Bedrna. The building is formed by the needs of internal operations which determinates horizontal divisions of the building into three parts. First two floors act as a machine, in which the public part of outpatient facility and hidden operating utilities of the building are situated. Fast and high-quality care is provided by the compact form and sophisticated connections between departments. Minimizing the distances between departments saves time. Floor plan is perforated by intimate atriums. Cantilevered third floor with all the operating rooms, the ICUs and the retreat units act as a rightful heart of the building. The cantilever beam symbolically cuts the machine of the building from the floors with inpatient units and acts as a symbol of the surgical pavilion. Long-term convalescence, quietness and intimacy are important for the area of inpatient units. It means that upper floors have a different character. Individual tracts are well-directed into open atriums, park and surrounding landscape.

The Jury values the refreshing and inventive design of this proposal and the authors enthusiasm in fulfilling the recommendation from the Phase 1. The design shows great development within the competition phases. The proposed multiple entrance points are seen as a positive for the project. The medicinal services have according to the Jury strenghts in ICUs and Outpatient department with its on level connection to Imaging methods wing. Very big improvement from Phase I. Jury is really impressed with the architectural side of the design. The only one major circulation for everything which is not recommended - hospitals corridors needs to be separated. Circulation in upper floors has to be simplified (Six cores – complicated circulation) The ICU seems too big. The location of Livac (Service floor) has to be located somewhere else. Entrance hall and lobby has to be more appreciable to hospital standard (“less wow”). Façade design should correspond with the layouts (cores).

The aim of the design is to create a pleasant locale and environment for not only patients, but also staff and visitors. The space in front of the entrance has therefore been transformed into a park thereby providing the hospital with a sense of calm and peace as well as a certain spatial structure and hierarchy, that is comprehensibility and orientation. The public spaces of the building look out on the park: restaurants, the education center and the entrance hall. The hall provides the structure with a clear arrangement and clarity. It serves as the center, the backbone between the old and the new parts. It makes up a unified architectural whole. Its compact nature ensures direct links, short connections and simple orientation, an economy of operations. The flow of the patients, personnel and material is divided without sacrificing user-friendliness, operational simplicity and economy. The main entrance is from the park to the west, the transport operations and the supplying to the east. The design does not require any buildings relocation and completely minimalizes the final shifts in operations after the completion of the reconstruction. As the central park develops the basic spatial motif of the original hospital, so the brick facade develops the basic materiality motif of the Hradec Králové public buildings: the architectural tradition created by Kotěra and Gočár.

This proposal is according to Jury very solid and effective. Logistics and workflow of the proposed inner scheme is very clear. The Jury appreciates the attempt to propose flexible solution of the parking. Within the framework of the medicinal services it proposes very neatly organized Outpatient department, Imaging methods and ICUs. Unfortunately there is New quality, greenspace, architecture use language from 1960. The car circulation is somewhat unclear (unfortunately). Moderate scheme, not much new – doesn´t inspire enthusiasm.

From a material point of view, a teaching hospital is a reliable machine, providing highly specialised care, but also a place of residence for many people (random patient visits, the patient's own stay, education or long-term employment). The design seeks a balance between interpreting the hospital as a place of efficient care delivery and a place of cultivated, emotional experience. The building responds to its surroundings and fully connects to the existing Bedrn Pavilion, forming one material unit together with the Internal Medicine and Emergency Pavilions. Yet it is not a barrier - there is a central atrium in the middle of the volume, accessible from all sides by generous entrances. The material division of the building is based on the traffic and thus helps orientation in the space. The building is divided into a base and a superstructure in the form of pavilions set around a central atrium, with a transition floor concentrating the central operating theatres and intensive care on a single floor. The building blurs the boundary between the hospital park and the centre building and, in the future plan, each hospital ward: each patient will be able to enter a small garden directly on their floor. Vegetation is also an integral part of the building, in the interior, in the various atriums, on the vegetated roofs, in the immediate and wider surroundings. The positive effects of vegetation contribute to the successful treatment of patients.

The Jury values the refreshing and inventive design of this proposal and the author’s enthusiasm in fulfilling the recommendation from the Phase 1. The design shows great development within the competition phases. The proposed multiple entrance points are seen as a positive for the project. The medicinal services have according to the Jury strengths in ICUs and Outpatient department with its on level connection to Imaging methods wing. Investment costs and service fees seem slightly underestimated compared to the declared volume.

Overall architectural design of the object is based on user´s operational requirements, options of existing design of the Bedrna´s academics pavilion, connection to the existing objects and current urban planning solution in the area. Technical difficulty of the building has been taken into account in the design. When it was designed operational disposition solution there was put the emphasis on simple orientation of the visitors, minimal crossing operations of individual operations and at the same time on their mutual connection, and even continuity with existing objects. Design was conceived in the way not to be necessary to move most of the operations after finishing reconstruction of Bedrna´s academics pavilion which are necessary for operation of the surgical centre during all time of reconstruction. Removal should be only part of bed departments and uptake units. Its material solution design refers to cleanness and simplicity of the first pavilions in time of the formation of the grounds and it is contrast to surrounding area.

The Jury states that this proposal does not have any essential improvement from Phase I. It kept the problems from the Phase 1 and adds new dysfunctions and problems, that couldn’t be repaired without changing the whole project (Dislocated ICUs and weak connections). Main Connection through the Bedrna pavilion is unfortunate because of phasing. Proposed scheme seems very rigid and lacks flexibility for the future development of the hospital. Main entrances are concentrated in West corner and quality of urban space resembles shopping mall. Proposed additional volume makes no sense. By means of investment costs is the proposal greatly overestimated and the sum of unused interior spaces only rise the service costs.

We have created an extension building as an autonomous building which completes the hospital complex. The new additional building does not try to compete with the pavilion of „Akademik Bedrna“. The additional building is not just a copy - a twin of Bedrna's pavilion Additional offers a new look, a familiar face and a human attitude providing This additional building s naturaly continuation of hospital complex. The new building is divided by 5 modular cubes into naturally large parts. We have chosen a unit scale according to the inpatient department. We have created a variable system which can be further expanded. Four operating units + one facility background unit lead to the optimalization of the building's operation. The system of these units is connected to the backbone corridor connecting the operations and vertical communications of the old and the new buildings in an optimal position. There are imag)ging methods, operating theaters, ICU and outpatient departments developed along this backbone axis. All indoor operation of the base is organized along 3 basic axis - outpatient patient operation axis, the hospitalized patient 's axis, and the life - saving axis. Towards the "courtyard" we create a residential slope that makes the area more attractive and fulfills its new residential activities.

The basic cubic structure of this proposal was strong side of this proposal, but in transition to the second phase, due to the growth of these elements, it seems to be a complication. The Jury appreciates the conservative approach to the existing Bedrna pavilion. Circulation within the proposal seems to be overestimated. The basic element is too big and somehow the concept got complicated since Phase I. Functionally there is not much problem. Circulation may be twice as much as the others. The old building is almost untouched. The decisions, which has been make by this team since Phase I., are hard to understand.