New School For Psáry And Dolní Jirčany

  • Winning Design

    RAP partners / Ondřej Píhrt, Mojmír Ranný, Štefan Šulek, Ondřej Laciga, Filip Rašek, Pavel Směták / Prague

  • Contracting Authority

    Psáry and Dolní Jirčany

  • Competition Type

    Open design contest with 2 phases

  • Results

    2014

  • Status

    Built and in operation since 2019

  • Prizes and sketch fee

    200 000 CZK - 75 000 CZK - 75 000 CZK - sketch fee 2 x 30 000 CZK

  • Photos of the school building

    Link to web page of the authors who rebranded as SOA architekti

  • Awards for SOA architekti for this building

    Grand Prix of Architects National architecture award 2020 (eco-friendly building)
    Public Interior 2020
    Building of the year 2020 – Czech Ministry of Regional Development award
    Building of the year of Central Bohemia Region 2020

PSA

The competition was held in the Czech language only.

The mayor of the village, Milan Vácha, described the assignment before the competition announcement: “We are a relatively conservative village, and we want to maintain the village character. We have no ambition to make Psáry and Dolní Jirčany a new city and artificially connect with Prague. We want to preserve the traditional architecture here. The school should be appropriately chosen with regard to the surroundings, respect the village buildings and the municipal landmark - the church of St. Wenceslas and skillfully fit into the panorama of our village. Thanks to the school, a new public space and another center of life in the village can be created. It will probably be the first significant building at the entrance to the village for a long time to come, which could and should be connected to the existing center of Dolní Jirčany. I'll be happy if in 20, 30, 50 years someone thinks it's always been that way. "
Out of 59, the jury selected five proposals, which were given a chance to complete their proposals and win one of the prizes. The jury evaluated the proposals anonymously, which means that they did not know who the authors of the proposals were all the time. 59 teams = 221 architects, urban planners, landscape architects, and engineers, who together dedicated 44,200 hours of work to this competition.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the great interest of the architectural public in this competition and also by an excellent knowledge of the issue of school buildings in many designs. This had a positive effect mainly in the effort to shift the quality of the environment for teaching children. Unfortunately, I was disappointed by the second round, where for most of the selected participants, there was almost no qualitative shift compared to the first round. In this competition, I verified again that it is right to announce competitions for an idea, not for proving the ability to develop a project. Only an architect who can communicate their vision clearly and legibly, and adequately engage the jury can be successful in the competition. ” Oldřich Hájek - chairman of the jury, 2014

“First impression: amazement and humility when I saw how many architects put so much energy into creating so many designs. The first critical moment: when we eliminated a participant only because he brought the competition proposal 20 minutes after the deadline. It seemed unfair to me that we had to do this just because we would be in danger of protests, that we had broken the rules and favored someone. Terrible pity. The second critical moment: when we had to eliminate one of the last six. The third critical moment: When we had to decide who is first, who is second and who is third. We rightly left the night to think. Even so, it was another difficult decision for me to change my mind and vote differently. Feelings from the competition? Work well done, from the announcement, organization, course of the evaluation, to the presentation of results. Great experience. Humility, ability to cooperate, listening, expressing opinions, making decisions. Lots of energy from everyone and the final feeling that the top three are the best. The most valuable experience? Architects are not crazy, and such competitions can work. ” Antonín Rak - dependent juror, 2014

"I feel very good about the competition. I consider it well organized, and you know it in the course and outcome. An even more important reason for feeling good is the desire of both parts of the jury, i.e., dependent and independent, to understand, to listen to each other. If the expert part of the jury does not listen to the practical concerns of the contracting authority, the competition will not fulfill its purpose. The purpose of the competition is to realize the best possible construction, not to select the most compelling images. For me, the design contest was part of thinking about what public procurement means today. It is a degree of modesty and humility that is not in conflict with creativity. Also, based on this experience, many architects cannot find that degree easily. ” Michal Kuzemenský - independent juror, 2014

Mayor Milan Vácha talks about the expectations of the competition.
Jury

Oldřich Hájek

Jury Chair

Architect, ŠAFER HÁJEK ARCHITEKTI

Milan Vácha

Jury Vice-Chair

Mayor of Psáry and Dolní Jirčany

Pavel Joba

Architect, Atelier M1 architekti

Michal Kuzemenský

Architect, re:architekti

Antonín Rak

Representative of Psáry and Dolní Jirčany

Martin Frei

Alternate

Architect, Rusina Frei Architekti

Lucie Kubalošová

Alternate
Previous Next