Transformation Center of Ústí Region

The Trasformation center will be a new complex that promotes interaction, facilitating communication between workers, startups and citizens and affirming the connection between the citycenter and the wider area. A careful understanding of the plot and of the existing buildings’ potential is the starting point for the design process. Through a set of interventions of demolition and construction the proposal redefines the current conditions, setting a new layout that is open to the city and to the surroundings. The existing connection buildings are demolished and replaced by landscaped areas covered by a new walkable canopy. This allows the Transformation center to be connected at the entrance level and at the courtyard level and to be crossed by pedestrians in all directions, opening it to the city and allowing visual and physical interactions between its parts. The proposed strategy respects the original architectural expression. The main additional volumes are realized with timber glulam structures on top of the existing concrete ones, to minimize the soil occupation and to optimize the amount of surface dedicated to green space and to social interaction. The different interventions proposed for each building are independent one each other, so that the realization can be easily divided in stages

The persuasiveness of the design is evident at first glance with its rational approach to the architectural transformation of the existing site. The legibility of the new building modifications, the minimization of the built-up area, the easy phasing, and the adequacy of the investment costs combine to form an effective development strategy. Respect for the qualities of the original architectural aesthetic is given in contrast to the newly designed volumes added to the existing structure. The extensions thus create another layer of the building, and their expression harmoniously complements the image of the resulting mass. The material solution of the existing volumes sensitively interprets the original form of the façade. The new extensions are subtly differentiated in terms of material and substance. The central motif of the design is a simple walkway that connects the individual buildings and frames the outdoor space - the three courtyards that form the heart of the plan. The public spaces are conceived generously but proportionately to their use. The question is whether the inner courtyards between pavilions A, B and D duplicate each other in character and thus offer the same possibilities of use unnecessarily. There is a clear hierarchy in the layout and operation of the buildings, and the emphasis is on the flexibility of space, as demonstrated by the office use scenarios presented. All common meeting spaces flow into outdoor courtyards and naturally link the entire site into a functioning whole. A strong point of the design is the convincing concept of phasing, which allows for gradually redeveloping the buildings without significantly disrupting the site's operation. The jury highly appreciates the reflection of the criticism from the first round and the consistent refinement of the design for the second round, which gives a strong partner for the upcoming project development and its successful implementation.

Conception of the Transformation Center is a unique opportunity that can give the area a new and intense impulse. Moreover, we consider it important that leaving our mark be respectful to the evolution and context of the existing housing estate area in order for the new centre to feel contextual rather than foreign. Our adaptation approach is to identify and harness the potential qualities and character of the existing school. The main qualities being the concrete frame structure of the buildings, pavilion-like character of the entire area, the utilitarian form and function of the buildings and last but not least the greenery that pervades the complex. In our proposal, we have defi ned a focal point for the area, which is to be as permeable as possible and open towards the public space. We have strived to minimise the necessity of corridors and connecting bridges as a result of which the spaces can fl uidly open into one another as well as outwards. The main outside space does not begin nor end with the edge of the building but it rather runs further through the buildings and the area all the way to the proposed public park. Our goal is to bring an open, interactive and civic architecture that could become an example of a contemporary public institution. An important theme of the proposal is expansion of the area “within itself” rather than into the unbuilt areas. We’ve chosen the approach not just from the ecological perspective but also as it can benefi t the functionality of the area as a whole. It is already based on mixing and sharing of the various programs and functions which can thereby enrich one another.

Transformation of the perception of a place and its architecture, transformation to the core. The design purifies the existing pavilion complex down to the supporting structures themselves (reinforced concrete skeleton system), and then complements and combines them into a living and articulated whole. The reinforced concrete skeleton with its elegant modularity becomes a fundamental element of the design. The original character is deliberately and convincingly replaced by a new, confidently contemporary expression. Lining the masses of the buildings with ochozas with shading shutters or solar panels and working with rough materials creates the impression of an industrial transformation, lively, yet designed with ease and clarity of detail. The natural park-like southern part of the site is preserved, while the northern built-up area is condensed as much as possible, benefiting in particular from a layout that minimizes the number of corridors and integrates the entire functioning of the building into its "Center of Gravity". This blends the outdoor public spaces with the indoor and rooftop semi-public spaces, creating a perhaps overly generous amount of gathering space. The dimensions, proportions and implied design of the communal spaces raise concerns about the practicality and economy of their use in normal operation. The intensity of the densification of the site with an emphasis on a relaxation/meeting centre does not appear practical given the anticipated phasing of the development. The whole would be significantly weakened both operationally and aesthetically without this key motif. The jury commends the radical nature of the design, the ease of presentation and the strong new identity of the site, as well as the technical design and the very well prepared concept of flexible offices.

The new Transformation Centre works with the original school on the principle of multi-layered design. The transformation of the school into a cutting-edge research facility and a focal point for the adjacent residential areas of Ústí nad Labem requires a complex solution: 1 we open - 2 we preserve - 3 we add - 4 we supplement - 5 we adapt - 6 we set up - 7 we modify - ... The design process of the Transformation Centre during the design process resulted in a small ten transformation. That is, a transformation that can emerge over time, according to current needs, creating full, self-contained architectural spaces for a quality 21st century work environment and a traditional gathering place for residents of adjacent, mostly residential neighborhoods. Parks, courtyards, houses, facades, entrances, storefronts, halls, atriums, residence roofs, loggias, arcades, ...

The design is appealing at first sight with its openness and colourfulness, the visualisation evokes an impression of generosity and at the same time a sympathetic civility. The architects categorize the design with their own "ten", the third point of which is the extension*connecting structure. This appears to be both operationally and visually crucial to the design, and the text describes the range of added value it should bring. Visually, however, this steel and glass, expensive structure is somewhat chastely obscured by future theoretical climbing greenery. The internal infill is also questionable - the appeal of 'meeting points' (suggested in the floor plans) within straight, many tens of metres long corridors with intricately controlled climates is hard to imagine. Moreover, connecting all the buildings at floor level by a covered corridor does not seem necessary to the jury and especially to the future operator. The risk of reducing the role of this key motif to the function of an expensive, costly to maintain screening of the southern façades, or of parallel corridors and local shelter in the parterre, is disproportionate. The jury also finds the prescribed shift in traffic design to be of little persuasion. Replacing the car park with parking in areas 'visually identical to the grass areas' (the proposed 'gravel lawn'), harmoniously and somewhat 'invisibly' as the situation suggests, is unrealistic given the anticipated traffic needs. The extensions to the buildings (04*additions*replacements) also appear problematic. The creation of floors/towers above part of the floor plan is financially disproportionate to the visual effect achieved. The layout of the buildings and the concept of the offices are clear and uncluttered. However, the decentralisation of the community zones into individual buildings appears problematic from an operational point of view. The project lacks a legible hierarchy, a centre of gravity and perhaps also a clearer continuity with the original buildings and typological clarity.

For the new Tranformation Center of Ustí Region the act of creation also has to be an exemplary process so it can become a defining institution in the future of the region. The initial decision of transforming an abandoned school is a perfect opportunity to showcase the possibilities of adaptive reuse. From there we should define the key tasks of the intervention so we can document, analyse, refine and adapt the process in other transformative developments.

The jury did not find the proposal to be a significant progression and response to the recommendations from the first phase of the competition. The shape of the building gives limited possibilities. The concept of the office space is effectively developed and shows a good grasp of the potential of the space. The interior atmosphere is pleasant and suitable for a working environment. In contrast, the schematic design of the central zone remains at the level of the scheme and is not a convincing reason to implement a complicated organic form. The jury considers the high level of cladding to be unjustified. The interior, according to the jury, does not communicate much with the concept and character of the building. The effort to provide a gathering place is viewed positively.

The reconstruction of the secondary pavilion school into a modern transformation center is symbolic and initiatory. The proposal is designed to use the potential of the place, preserve its identity and serve a large number of residents. This can be the principle of the model transformation of the territory. The existing material pavilions are insulated and connected to the new heart of the ensemble – a hidden glass extension with halls and an atrium, in the center of which stands a beautiful linden tree. The extension, with its lightness and openness, offers views of the pavilions and trees in the vicinity. Part of the land of the former school will be used as a public park for the residents of the area.

The jury does not find any significant progress in the design and response to the recommendations from the first phase of the competition. There are some good ideas, but they are "covered with soil". The building has a gathering entrance space connected to the common area, but it lacks aesthetic quality. Underground parking is not considered by the jury to be rational in this case.