- Author gogolák + grasse
- Team Ivan Gogolák, Lukáš Grasse, Michaela Jandeková, Martina Havlová, Radek Prokeš, Miloslav Šindlar, Jan Zapletal, Jakub Kološ, Martin Sucharda, Matúš Berák, Karolína Čechová, Milan Kubeš, Štěpán Matějka, Petr Staněk, Milan Šuška
- Prague
We see fortitude as resilience in the changing landscape and the city's structure and history. Conservation is an opportunity for its development. The variability of Moravia reflects the diversity of the river floodplain, the mosaic of historic traces of unique habitats and recreational landscapes. The Morava and its streams form symbolic axes of the landscape wedge of Litovel Pomoravie. The protection of Olomouc together creates landscape circuits, park axes, and the main public spaces around the Morava and the Mill Stream, which have a variable character according to the landscape circuits.
The first prize-winning design impressed the jury with its broad conceptual grasp of the area and its interconnectedness with the wider surroundings. It convincingly defines the centre, its relationship to the city, and its connection to other urban and natural structures. Its strength is also its argumentative base, which provides a solid basis for future implementation. The detailed phasing of the proposal allows for its gradual implementation and advocates wider intervention beyond the study area. From a functional point of view, the proposal is well thought out, although some elements are controversial. The transport solution is ambitious and works with a horizon of more than 50 years, but this will have to be adapted to the current conditions; the transport proposal does not correspond to the current master plan. With a more conservative approach to transportation, the proposal appears to be the clear favorite. However, slowing down through town and not limiting highway throughput may also be perceived as a disadvantage in terms of functional efficiency. From a compositional point of view, there is an apparent attempt to reinterpret the Baroque structure, particularly in the routing of the roads and the figure of the crossing of the avenues and tree lines below the Castle. This solution may seem incomprehensible and does not fully correspond to contemporary urban planning principles. Still, at the same time, it has the potential to support the logic of the traffic design. The proposal shows some reserves that can be used with different scales and characters of the territory. The transition between the natural and urban environment is handled relatively homogeneously in the proposal, leading to a lack of nuance between the different parts; the urban contact is not considered. The concept of biodiversity is questionable in some places - in specific locations, it appears to be an artificially implanted element without sufficient logic. One of the most significant risks of the proposal is its design in the most critical location - the response to flood risk is not yet sufficiently thought out. Positioning the main elements perpendicular to the flood can be problematic. However, the redesign may also lead to savings and a better logical layout. Another critical point is the conceptual and hydraulic non-functionality of the solution in the area in front of Hradisko - especially concerning the biodiversity island, whose location on the opposite bank would make more sense. The amphitheater's location in the biodiversity development area is also a question. In spite of these reservations, the proposal remains the best developed solution overall. Its high level of detail and elaboration makes it a convincing basis for the area's future development.