Periurban Park Confluence

Our plan revives what was abandoned in the past – diverse alluvium, an extensive cultural landscape, and even basketry – and combines it with up-to-date architecture, urbanism, and flood management which might help to ease future major floods heading to Prague. The resulting landscape will be ecologically more valuable than the present one. It will welcome numerous visitors as well as the locals – and not only humans but also fish, amphibians, birds, insects, otters, and others.

The jury agreed unanimously on this proposal being the best one in the competition, labeling it inspiring, visionary, but also pragmatic. The design offers very clear strategy on many levels of planning. The master planning is detailed, responsible and well elaborated, including additional regional aspects. It is a “conductor’s full score” of how to make change happen gradually. In addition, the jury appreciates careful work on the details that add on the actual strategy is present, e .g. the proposed visitor center. The authors have documented their sensitivity in how to handle negotiations and arguments, which will be crucial in the next steps.

Confluence Of Landscapes The confluence is not only the meeting point of the rivers. It is a place that connects the different parts of Prague and its surroundings through landscape, bindings, history and future. It is a place for the present and future values of nature. It is a place for the flow of water that protects, absorbs and develops the landscape. A place for a sustainable future that connects people, animals and uses of our environment. We need to turn our gaze to its future as a Confluence of Landscapes.

The design displays a good understanding of the area, with a strong presence of expert ecologists. The spatial concept of the design is quite strong, and the soft landscaping approach with fewer mineral components is a definite positive. However, the actual design aspect is not considered of the highest standard. The jury's critique centers on the apparent disconnection between the approaches of the ecologists and landscape architects, which may have affected the overall outcome of the design.

Our vision for the Peri-urban park Soutok is bold and broad in scope. It is based on respecting and developing the current values of the area that we want to build on. We are coming to develop the place gradually, connecting, making it more accessible and moving it forward. The vision will be fulfilled primarily through finding common paths with local residents and stakeholders. Through extensive discussions and conversations with key players in the area, local organisations and individuals, we will try to gradually build collaborations and partnerships based on mutual trust. Our approach is to work towards big goals and visions, keeping in mind the long-term nature of the whole process. We build our strategy on the development of individual themes through the gradual implementation of proposed micro-strategies. Over time, the strategy will be implemented through smaller and larger projects, in which the principles of the vision will be applied individually.

Strategy is the strength of this proposal, focusing on long-term development, creating alliances and not forgetting the economy. However, it is not solved properly – the ecological part is missing and there is not much effort in a quite schematic design. The proposal does not really strengthen the identity of the individual areas.

The ‘Landscape with Purpose, a landscape open to its surroundings’ proposal aims to return the landscape to its important purpose of slowing and retaining water while providing a new attractive destination for visitors. Today, the Confluence area is often faced with erratic flooding, causing damage to property and landscape and lost investment. The Open Landscape proposal aims to turn these negative events into something positive and predictable. Given that flooding will be ever present in the area, the proposal seeks to integrate these phenomena into its design to create a dynamic landscape with a valuable ecology that also protects areas for local agri-culture and recreation.

The jury has observed deficits at the strategic level, a view also shared by the experts. Proposed changes were primarily theoretical in nature, with less action taken on a practical level. The strength of the work lay in the landscape architecture details, but overall, the design was not sufficient in fully resolving the task.