The jury composed by district mayor Jan Čižinský, member of the Prague 7 council Lenka Burgerová together with architects Jörn Aram Bihain from Belgium, Silvia Brandi from Spain and Lukáš Kordík from Slovakia and with Czech architects Kamil Mrva and Lukáš Kohl, with the support of alternate jury members councillor Pavel Zelenka and architect Magdalena Rochová, unanimously gave these prizes:



(CZ) Atelier bod architekti: Vojtěch Sosna, Jakub Straka, Jáchym Svoboda, Jan Svoboda


1st prize: proposal no. 35 – 2nd round no. 06

In this design, the jury particularly appreciated the simplicity and clarity of expression that aptly fits a public building, and the justified use of a basic architectural vocabulary working with contrasts of light and shadow, materiality and lightness. At the same time, it also praises the approach to reconstruction, respecting the extant structural system and the context in which the building is situated. However, the jury does have reservations regarding the conception of the ceremonial hall, which could be more generous in its expression and thus correspond better to the overall architecture of the building. Though it is a technologically standard project, it allows space for further development in terms of energy sustainability. Allowing for future technologies is itself a condition of the realisation of the project, as well as the consideration of better integration of renewable energy sources into the building’s concept. Equally important will be the investigation of the current structure, the possibility of its greater exposure and coexistence with the necessary technical equipment of the building.   06_II_portfolio




(NL) Anne-Sereine Tremblay, Jan Kudlička


2nd prize: proposal no. 19 – 2nd round no. 08

Within this design, the jury specifically praised the boldness of the selected concept, which with respect for the original condition exposed and used the building’s current structure as the chief aesthetic element. Another strong visual motif could be the external shading of the building, yet this was not sufficiently explicitly described or depicted in the design. In a future phase of development of this study, it will be necessary to concentrate on this motif, as well as on an adequate entrance to the building with a vestibule area. Certain doubts, particularly in the presentation of the interiors, were sparked by the question of the aesthetic quality of the structure, which if revealed may not meet the expectations of the authors. Likewise, the subtle formulation of the facades would have to be subjected to deeper investigation. From the technological standpoint, it is worth praising the use in the design of a photovoltaic system and the reusing of rainwater. However, as in the other designs, this aspect would have to be worked out in greater detail.   08_II_portfolio




(CZ)  Dalibor Hlaváček, Ludvík Holub, Zuzana Kučerová, Martin Čeněk; collaboration: Matúš Ficko, Martin Král


3rd prize: 41 – 2nd round 04

A carefully rendered design, which provides a relatively economical solution in terms of construction and technology; it is highly feasible and makes appropriate application of a photovoltaic system. As for the interior organisation, the jury particularly approves of the plan for a second staircase, which would allow for a more formal or public use of this vertical communication and the adjoining spaces. It would be worthwhile to work more carefully on the declared connection and accessibility of the ground floor into the inner courtyard, which is however, bearing in mind the chosen architectonic means, not particularly strong– entrance from the street is blocked by the transverse ramp, and into the courtyard the permeability is reduced by the arrangement of the floor plan. The aesthetically rational façade should be worked out so as to resemble less of a standard office building and more of a public institution.   04_II_portfolio









44 – 2nd round 01

(CZ) EHL & KOUMAR ARCHITEKTI: Lukáš Ehl, Tomáš Koumar; collaboration: Jan Lankaš, Jaroslav Malina, Ondřej Hlaváček

The jury would like to stress the precise formulation and exact impression of the building, which the authors achieved through the exposing and emphasising of the original structural frame. Nonetheless, the full conception of the eastern façade and the use of façade grids lead to uniformity, which the jury does not find the best approach for a town hall. In the organisation of the interior, too much space has been sacrificed for waiting zones, and it is doubtful that they would be functional. The central units of separated hangings do not appear the best approach, nor does the general “heaviness” of the interior as opposed to the design from the first round. On the other hand, the storage areas in the interior are designed very well. Also viewed positively is the plan to use rainwater, though the overall technological conception would be well served by a reconsideration, particularly in terms of the use of heat pumps.   01_II_portfolio




49 – 2nd round 02

(CZ) Martin Hejl, Lenka Hejlová, Pavel Uličný, Dalibor Staněk, Pavel Trejbal; collaboration: Petr Štěpán, Alexey Klyuykov, Mariya Usikova, Robert Sopko

In this design, the jury particularly approved of the conceptual approach and the strong vision of connecting the ground floor with the public space and interior courtyard into a single whole, and the generosity and creativity of the formal solution in the form of an intelligent interior landscape. The façade has something of a mysterious appearance, thanks to its combination of transparent and light-permeable sections. However, the authors did not demonstrate its technical feasibility, and so it remains only on the level of a conception. With respect to the previous round, the design has not moved on particularly on the level of the interior – here the jury cannot find any other aspect than the aesthetic. Also insufficiently presented were the budget and technical parameters of the building. The graphic design and presentation of the concept is, as in the first round, on a very high level. However, in the final result the strong concept and the clear capability of the authors to design a large-scale reconstruction project remain only very sketchy.   02_II_portfolio




36 – 2nd round 03

(CZ) Tomáš Hradečný, Přemysl Jurák, Kamil Měrka, Tomáš Kozel, Petra Holubová; collaboration: Lukáš Hradečný

The jury finds interesting the attempt to use the traditional motif of the Prague mosaic, thanks to which to a certain extent the sharp division between exterior and interior public spaces is re-evaluated. The interior courtyard can be used for parking as well as for social events, which is supported through the retracting doors. At the same time, the design has included the visual connection of the street to the courtyard, which is a clear added value. Even in the first round, the project was intriguing because of its atrium, yet in the second round this has not been given sufficient treatment and thus represents one of the demanding structural changes which, in the end, is not shown to be advantageous. Equally unconvincing is the technological plan of the building– the rather illogical positioning of the toilet facilities, while the routing of the ventilation technology and machine rooms are not given enough space. Used for the façade is a glass-brick material that is relatively expensive in terms of maintenance. In the final analysis, the jury did not find any advantage in transforming a potentially interesting current exterior into the common appearance of an office building.   03_II_portfolio




24 – 2nd round 05

(NL) IND [Inter.National.Design]: Giovanni Bellotti, Pablo Roquero, Felix Madrazo, Arman Akdogan

The jury appreciated the highly careful preparation of the new design between the two rounds. The set-back from the adjoining building allowed for the proposal of windows around the entire perimeter, even though e.g. the function of the walkway, which was also added, is not entirely clear. More disputable and unjustifiable is the removal of the central columns. A positive feature was the well-conceived and adaptable organisation of functions, easy navigation inside the building, and the floor layout, though this was achieved precisely through these structural changes and could also be problematic in terms of the introduction of natural light. The approach chosen for the formulation of the façade was evaluated by the jury in both rounds as very interesting, notably in terms of the selected prefabricated elements and opening windows in each office, as well as recalling the need for maintenance. The abstraction of the monolithic form of the building was praised highly by the jury, yet in the end a less iconic approach was preferred for the reconstruction of the new town hall.   05_II_portfolio




10 – 2nd round 07

(ES) Acha Zaballa Arquitectos: Cristina Acha, Miguel Zaballa

The overall view from U Průhonu street is suitably adapted to the surrounding industrial area of the city. The non-traditional façade plan appears refreshing – also with respect to the declared composition of changing vegetation. In this design, the jury praised the overall level of completion, including the details and plans of terraces, which serve primarily the employees of the town hall. The largest terrace is (most likely realistically) reserved only for technical facilities. In operational terms, the design met the criteria, with the exception of its insufficient privacy for clients and employees of the social welfare office. From the technical and structural standpoint, one great benefit of the project is the retention of the staircase space and the desire to limit demolition work in the current building. The proposed underground space below the current parking area was noted by the jury as problematic for the investor. Also, it agreed that the depiction of the interior, including its colour scheme, was too abstract and insufficiently clear.   07_II_portfolio






1 KOLO 1-70 01


The jury approves of the clear conceptual approach to the aesthetics of the façade, as well as the well-considered technological scheme of the building’s operations. What seems problematic are the change in the building’s volume and the suppression of the street façade.  01_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 02

02 (NL) architects for urbanity: Irgen Salianji, Karolina Szóstkiewicz, Marina Kounavi

A visually attractive and well-presented design. The lengthwise dimension of the façade, though, gives preference to communication at the expense of comfort in the offices, which this way are deprived of sufficient natural light. 02_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 03

03 (ES) José María Sánchez García Architects: José María Sánchez García, Mariló Sánchez García, Javier Fernández Contreras, Ignacio Hornillos Cárdenas, Angela Posse Praderas, Iñigo Palazón del Pino, Angela Miranda García, Cósimo Francesconi, Martino Stelzer, Enrique G-Margallo Solo de Zaldívar, Francisco Sánchez García

The jury would like to praise the courageous and original approach to the design of the new façade, and this applies both in aesthetic and functional terms. Typologically and visually, though, the design appears more suitable to a different function than that of town hall, where it is less necessary to pay attention to many practical and pragmatic aspects.     03_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 04

04 (CZ) archicraft: Miroslav Krátký, Jan Ciesla, Petra Kopecká Rybářová, Dženita Sagdati, Adam Szentesi, Marie Heralecká; collaboration: Tomáš Kostkan, Jan Drahoš, Ana Maselli

A positive aspect, the jury found, was the effort to create visual contact between the first two floors and the street. More problematic, though, was the interior arrangement of the building – the relocation of the staircase is not sufficiently justified, and the atrium, considering the perimeter of the building, would have only a very limited effect on improving the otherwise deep floor spaces.     04_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 05

05 (ES) Ignacio Fernández Torres, Marie Vlčková

Creation of a new construction above the current building would disturb the volume of the original mass of the building. In this design, which would complicate and prolong construction, the jury found no advantage.   05_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 06

06 (CZ) Hynek Fetterle, Vojtěch Lstibůrek; collaboration: Jiří Petlach, Květa Fuková

Within the competition of other designs, the jury found this project not particularly imaginative. In addition, it recommends the authors to simplify the presentation to make the quality of the designs better communicable.     06_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 07

07 (CZ) Studio A.J.T Praha: Jakub Trávníček, Jaroslav Trávníček

The jury agreed that the selected façade is not particularly suited for the given environment, particularly in its material solution. In addition, the depiction of the interior was not entirely legible for the jury.    07_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 08

08 (CZ) RadaArchitekti: Ravel Rada, Mirko Lev; collaboration: Martina Řehořová, Monika Přikrylová, Marek Šulák

The striking “digital” vertical corner, along with the ribbon windows, did not appear to the jury as a contemporary or suitably dignified appearance for the new town hall. Though the jury was glad to note the clear floor-plan organisation, it had doubts about ensuring vertical communication in the lower floors by the staircase alone.  08_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 09

09 (NL) NOAHH Network Oriented Architecture: Patrick Fransen, Laura Nazzari, Amaia Oiarbide, Reijer Pielkenrood, Shie Suzuki, Barbara Weber

The jury praised the concept of the interior organisation, which the architect achieved through clever architectonic interventions, as well as the convincing and understandable presentation of the design. What sparked doubts were the choices of materials for the interior as well as the façade.   09_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 10

10 (ES) Acha Zaballa Arquitectos: Cristina Acha, Miguel Zaballa

This design was sent into Round II – see this round for evaluation.   10_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 11

11 (CZ) Tomáš Smrž

The design unnecessarily increases the volume of the building through adding a massive steel structure on the north façade. The jury finds the design hard to interpret, and also believes that it does not meet the aesthetic demands for a new and contemporary town hall.    11_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 12

12 (ES) Ibon Vicinay Fernández, Elena Miret Establés

The design offers a clear organisation of the interior spaces, and the jury would like to praise its conceptual reflections on the building within the wider context of the city block. A negative factor, though, was the lack of a more precise sense of the eventual formulation of the façade and the interior.    12_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 13

13 (JP) Kohki Hirunama Architect & Associates

In this design, the jury appreciates the complex strategy and strong concept. Its feasibility for realization, though, remains uncertain. The project significantly increases the volume of the building, which would cause complications for the investor in future steps.   13_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 14

14 (UK) Akira Yamanaka Architect

The jury did not find the combination of two formal approaches to be the most advantageous for a public building. In addition, the formulation of the light curtain wall leads to the loss of usable space in the interior.     14_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 15

15 (SI) multiPlan arhitekti: Aleš Žnidaršič, Katja Žlajpah, Urška Bertok, Kaja Todorovič, Andrej Blatnik, Primož Oblak, Peter Žargi, Christian Volpi, Janko Mele

The jury strongly praises the purity and strength of the idea, as well as the clever concept and its method of presentation. However, changing the shape of the building not only through reduction of mass but also through height increase would make construction more complicated and longer for the investor.   15_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 16

16 (IE) De Blacam and Meagher / Bruce Shaw Partnership / Fourem / Arup Ireland: Shane de Blacam, Des O’Broin, Paul Hegarty, Edith Blennerhassett

The design reveals the relatively sensitive approach of the authors to the solution for the building. The jury, however, found the design hard to understand, and also found the added roof elements questionable.      16_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 18

18 (DE) Baruccopfeifer Architektur: Lisa Barucco, Guenter Pfeifer; collaboration: Ruzica Mikolic, Balck+Partner, Besag

The jury was pleased by the clarity of the approach, in which the aesthetic of the building was derived from the technological solution for its functions, and which also appears realistic. In the final result, though, the visual form of the town hall appears “impenetrable”. Also, the sketches of the interior did not allow the jury a chance to uncover the possible quality of the project.      18_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 19

19 (NL) Anne-Sereine Tremblay, Jan Kudlička

This design was sent into Round II – see this round for evaluation.     19_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 20

20 (CZ) LILA-architektonický atelier: Jan Lauda; collaboration: Lucie Galiová, Eva Černá

The jury did not find the formalistic division of the building into several parts through differing façade treatments a suitable approach to this reconstruction. Also problematic was the use of a single staircase for communication in the lower floors.    20_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 21

21 (CZ) SCHINDLER SEKO ARCHITEKTI: Jan Schindler, Ludvík Seko; collaboration: Ondřej Dušek, Sven Nevlida

Characteristic for this design is a sharp contrast between the conservative façade design, recalling a residential building, and the plan’s interior, which though playful has too much of a corporate feeling. The added value of the proposed central space with inserted escalators is, in the jury’s view, not balanced by the technical, financial and spatial demands of this solution.    21_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 22

22 (FR) Peripherique / Marin + Trottin Architectes / Etamine: David Trottin, Charlotte Lefebvre, Virgile Portron, Thomas Maignan

In this design, the jury praised the openness of the entrance corner and the efforts to create a broader conceptual approach in the organisation of interior space. The overall appearance of the building, though, was defined somewhat schematically, as was the appearance of the interior. In addition, the solution for the staircase area appears somewhat doubtful.       22_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 23

23 (HU) GUBAHÁMORI: Péter Hámori, Sándor Guba; collaboration: Géza Baráth

The jury found positive qualities in the originality of the design as well as the desire for sustainability in the proposed reconstruction. In its outcome, though, the project did not appear to be adequate for the representative value of a town hall building.    23_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 24

24 (NL) IND [Inter.National.Design]: Giovanni Bellotti, Pablo Roquero, Felix Madrazo, Arman Akdogan

This design was sent into Round II – see this round for evaluation.      24_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 25

25 (CZ) Elan Neuman Fessler

Based on the presented plans and the visual presentation of the design, the jury was unable to evaluate its possible quality.   25_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 26

26 (AT) Wolfgang Tschapeller: Wolfgang Tschapeller, Gonzalo Vaillo Martinez, Bojana Vucic; collaboration: Transsolar Energietechnik

The open, liberated floor plan in the ground level and the resulting connection between the street and the inner courtyard was, for the jury, a strong feature and added value of the design. The proposed staircase on the south façade, however, increases the volume of the building and would thus prolong the entire process of construction, which the investor cannot allow.      26_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 27

27 (CZ) RILA: Ladislav Richtr, Lenka Šachová

For this design, the jury approves of the thorough reflection on the idea, and the sensitive approach to the aesthetics of the interior. Though the café inserted in the entry level is well-positioned with respect to the street, the overall organisation did not convince the jury of its quality, and the same applies to the approach to the formation of the façade.      27_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 28

28 (PL) Biuro 87a: Małgorzata Adamowicz-Nowacka, Marek Nowacki

As one of very few designs, the authors chose a minimal intervention in the façade, which the jury found a fully valid approach. The somewhat naïve interior organisation of the functions of a town hall, though, did not match well against the competition from other projects.      28_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 29

29 (RO) casanova: Cosmin Chirvasie

Based on the presented plans and the chaotic visual presentation of the design, the jury was unable to evaluate its possible quality.        29_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 30

30 (ES / SK) Mangado & Asociados / Siebert+Talaš: Francisco Mangado Beloqui; collaboration: Jose Luis León, Javier Perez, Fernando Royo, Juan Santorio, Richard Kráľović

The entire design is organised cleanly and transparently in its internal functioning, which the authors achieved through the many and attractive vertical connections. However, in this respect, the jury found it questionable whether, with such interventions, the usable space will in fact be sufficient. A negative feature of the design is its enclosed street level.        30_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 31

31 (PT) José Luís Lázaro Fidalgo

Though the internal organisation of operations is logical, the jury does not find the interior either welcoming or practical. The overall formulation of the façade appears disproportional for the new town hall, and within the overall neighbourhood entirely out of context.       31_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 32

32 (CZ) NIMBUS Architects: Jitka Dvorská, Andrea Houštecká, Martina Matiášková, Šárka Košťálková; collaboration: Tereza Cihlářová, Ondřej Strejček, Štěpán Ting, Jaroslav Kupr

The jury found the chosen architectonic expression of the new town hall ill-suited to its typology – the formulation corresponds more to a residential block. It did, however, appreciate the openness of the street parterre, both in the positioning of the café and the planning of the building’s entrance.     32_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 33

33 (CZ) Karel Filsak, Zuzana Hartlová, Eva Šarochová, Martina Dejdarová

Even despite the efforts of the authors to achieve purity in their approach to the exterior and interior of the building, the final results appear heavy-handed and awkward. The opening of the interior space through all of the floors appears problematic, as is also shown in the complicated plan for interior operations.      33_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 34

34 (CZ) desk architekti: Jakub Děnge, Martin Kačírek; collaboration: Miroslav Urban

The somewhat illogical combination of vertical and horizontal articulation of the façade, in the jury’s mind, contradicts the original formal vocabulary and structuring of the building. In turn, the formulation of the interior and its desire for freshness and lightness does not correspond to the overly heavy façade.      34_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 35

35 (CZ) Atelier bod architekti: Vojtěch Sosna, Jakub Straka, Jáchym Svoboda, Jan Svoboda

This design was sent into Round II – see this round for evaluation.    35_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 36

36 (CZ) Tomáš Hradečný, Přemysl Jurák, Kamil Měrka, Tomáš Kozel, Petra Holubová; collaboration: Lukáš Hradečný

This design was sent into Round II – see this round for evaluation.   36_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 37

37 (SA) Mimaria I Architectural Consultants: Azzah Aldeghather, Vasileios K. Alexandrou

The jury found this design compelling in its efforts towards a visual confrontation of the current appearance and character, yet in the final results it was only aesthetic, with little impact on better organization of functions. Moreover, the chosen expressive form was, in the jury’s view, more appropriate for an independent institution than a public office.       37_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 38

38 (VN / CZ) Vo Trong Nghia / Milan Kramoliš: Vo Trong Nghia, Takashi Niwa, Marek Obtulovic, Koji Yamamoto, Nguyen Xuan Hoang, Alzbeta Krbylova, Lorene Merle, Ludovic Do Cao

In this design, the jury appreciated its generosity and idealism, similarly to the theme of domesticity, which it sees as the key moment of the entire concept. This typologically original project, though, appeared doubtful in the effectiveness of functionality in a typical floor. Similarly, it also spurred questions about a possible lack of natural light and reduced comfort for town hall employees.     38_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 39

39 (CZ) Ting: Štěpán Toman, Veronika Vítková; collaboration: Tereza Vlasáková, Jitka Dvorská, Jan Kupr

The jury liked the logical organisation of the floor plans and the effort to make the waiting zones more pleasant through the introduction of natural light. The functionality of the proposed atrium, which runs through all of the floors except the two highest ones, is however controversial at best. In addition, the exterior form of the building resembles more a residential building than a public one.    39_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 40

40 (CZ) CHYBIK+KRISTOF ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTS: Ondřej Chybík, Michal Krištof; spolupráce: Adrián Bonet Cózar

A certain naivety in the concept and presentation of the design definitely appealed to the jury. Nonetheless, the chosen floor-plan organisation is somewhat impractical for the operations of a public office, whether in its open plan, its single staircase for the lower floors, or the round offices. The jury also had reservations on the formulation of the façade.       40_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 41

41 (CZ) Dalibor Hlaváček, Ludvík Holub, Zuzana Kučerová, Martin Čeněk; collaboration: Matúš Ficko, Martin Král

This design was sent into Round II – see this round for evaluation.      41_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 42

42 (PL) Riegler Riewe Architekci: Florian Riegler, Roger Riewe; collaboration: Mikołaj Szubert-Tecl, Paulina Kostyra-Dzierżęga, Dorota Żurek, Paweł Skóra, Tomasz Padło

The jury found the presentation of the design too schematic for judging and understanding its qualities. The expressive form of the building likewise fails to express or represent the identity that Prague 7 would like to have the new headquarters of its offices display.    42_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 43

43 (CZ) UNIT architekti: Michal Kohout, Jan Karásek, Zuzana Lyčková, Petr Šťovíček

Particularly appreciated by the jury was the pragmatic sense in the organisation of internal operations for the town hall. It did not, however, agree with the overall appearance selected for a public and civic building, which instead recalled the plan for an ordinary office block.    43_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 44

44 (CZ) EHL & KOUMAR ARCHITEKTI: Lukáš Ehl, Tomáš Koumar; collaboration: Jan Lankaš, Jaroslav Malina, Ondřej Hlaváček

This design was sent into Round II – see this round for evaluation.      44_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 45

45 (CH) Frank+Partner Architekten: Markus Frank, Aran Castello, Ivo Chytil, Marek Chytil

An elegant and solid design, in which the jury appreciated as well the refined framing principle for the façade solution and the professional and clean form of its presentation. The materials and visual character of the interior, though, invoke an expensive private-sector building, and do not match the vision of Prague 7.   45_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 46

46 (CZ) ADR: Aleš Lapka, Pavel Čermák, Šárka Chroustová

The jury did not identify with the exterior form of the building, which did not sufficiently represent the vision of Prague 7 for the new seat of its offices. The internal organisation of operations fell behind the plans proposed in other designs.       46_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 47

47 (CZ) H3T architekti: Jiří Ksandr, Vít Šimek, Tomáš Madro, Darina Bartková, Martina Kubešová

In this design, the jury appreciated the responsible approach to the technological solution of operations, as well as the involvement of a photovoltaic system in the concept. For the final results, though, the overall architectonic concept could not compete against the other designs.   47_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 48

48 (CZ) ROBUST architects: Ondřej Busta, Robert Damec, Helena Busta, Tomáš Fejkl; collaboration: Pavel Rous

The proposed exterior of the building, particularly in connection with the use of a combination of solar collectors and panels and the proposed photovoltaic power station on the rooftop terrace, was found by the jury to be the most problematic part of the design. In addition, it did not agree with the accentuation of the corner using a temporary construction/banner.      48_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 49

49 (CZ) Martin Hejl, Lenka Hejlová, Pavel Uličný, Dalibor Staněk, Pavel Trejbal; collaboration: Petr Štěpán, Alexey Klyuykov, Mariya Usikova, Robert Sopko

This design was sent into Round II – see this round for evaluation.       49_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 51

51 (CZ) Chapman Taylor: Jon Hale

The jury would like to praise this design’s care and logic in the interior organisation of operations. However, it did not agree with the ensuing appearance of the building’s exterior, and did not find it sufficiently lasting and representational for a contemporary public civic building.     51_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 53

53 (PL) Bartosz Warzecha Studio: Bartosz Warzecha, Justyna Warzecha, Dorota Kluska

The jury appreciated the radical character of the concept and the overall appearance of the building. What was, though, problematic in the design was notably the change and increase in the volume, which would have caused unwanted complications to the investor in the later steps of receiving construction permission.      53_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 54

54 (CZ) Studio Olgoj Chorchoj: Jan Němeček, Michal Froněk

For this design, the jury was pleased by the rational approach to the organisation of interior operations. Problematic, though, was the relocation of the staircase to the west façade, and the circular atrium that did not run through the building’s full height. Specifically, these architectural decisions seemed unnecessarily costly in comparison with any advantages they might provide.       54_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 55

55 (SK) Studený architekti: Ján Studený, Benjamín Bradňanský, Vito Halada, Marián Počúch; collaboration: Martin Uhrík

The jury did not find the architectonic expression of the building suitable for the representative seat of the new Prague 7 Town Hall. At the same time, the schematic depiction of the design did not allow the jury to evaluate the design’s possible qualities.      55_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 56

56 (CZ) Kamila Amblerová, Martin Šenberger, Jiří Cajthaml

The jury liked in this design the ecological concept of the building’s concept. However, the final visual form of the building did not meet the ideas of the jury and Prague 7 for the formulation of the identity of this district.    56_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 57

57 (CZ) Petr Hájek – Architekti: Petr Hájek, Tereza Keilová, Martin Stoss

The jury appreciated the rationality in the organisation of interior spaces, and the symbolic value that the authors added to their design. Nonetheless, it would have preferred in the design a more thoroughly worked-out approach that would have more clearly expressed the identity of the future headquarters of the offices of the District of Prague 7.     57_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 58

58 (CZ) RKAW: Radek Kolařík, Lada Kolaříková; collaboration: Alexandros Kaminaras, Markéta Vopelková

The jury would like to praise the strong approach to the organisation of the interior space. Yet the quality of the presentation of the submitted design did not allow for the jury to evaluate its possible advantages.  58_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 59

59 (CZ) DDAANN: František Houdek, Daniel Baudis, Daniel Rohan, Lucia Horkavá, Tereza Čermáková, Christian Frankhauser, Martin Strnad

What the jury found positive in the design was the modesty in the architectonic means employed. At the same time, though, this approach did not address the challenges presented by the current building structure, these being specifically the depth of the floor-plan organisation and the overall visual character, which should be that of a public civic building.      59_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 60

60 (CZ) Eva Velková, Jan Šorm, Pavel Zamazal; collaboration: Michaela Kloudová

One of several designs in which the authors combined transparency and enclosed facades. In this case, the jury found the shifting of the staircase in the interior plan an illogical step. The overall internal organisation of space did not match the quality of the other designs submitted.    60_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 61

61 (CZ) Tomáš Kodet; collaboration: Petra Pavelková, Martina Kodetová

The jury was impressed by the desire to form an original and strongly defined spatial concept. The overall form and the chosen architectonic means, however, did not match the vision of Prague 7 of its future headquarters and their representative function.   61_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 62

62 (CZ) FAM Architekti

In this design, the jury viewed favourably the rational and logical approach to addressing the interior spatial organisation, as well as the overall presentation, which communicated the basic ideas well. Less positive, though, was the inflexible use of the interior courtyard, which would have served for parking for all of its area. Moreover, the general impression of the building did not match the sought-after identity of a contemporary civic building.     62_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 63

63 (CZ) The Builders: Markéta Bromová, Lukáš Brom, Štěpán Tláskal, Alžběta Bláhová

The greatest drawback of the submitted design, in the jury’s view, was its architectural form, which would have corresponded much better to a residential or commercial project, or a combination of the two.      63_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 64

64 (CZ) Rudolf Müller, Petr Kadaňka, Martin Křivánek, Dagmar Sitařová

The jury found this design compelling in the geometric work on the north façade. However, the overall building presents a somewhat generic appearance, and fell behind the quality of other designs.      64_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 65

65 (CZ) Aleš Tomášek

In this design, the jury liked the attempt to work with vegetation as part of the energy concept. The change in the volume and shape of the current building, however, is so radical that it would mean a significant burden for the investor in the course of preparing and constructing the new town hall.      65_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 66

66 (CZ) Pavel Žemlička; collaboration: Jaroslav Minařík, Jiří Kočí

The jury was pleased by the approach that the authors took to the challenge of the current aesthetics of the building. Nonetheless, the newly selected aesthetic plan did not match the ideas of Prague 7 on the new seat for their offices. The striking placement of vertical communications on the exteerior envelope was, in the jury’s view, somewhat gratuitous and did not add to the quality of the building’s functions.    66_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 67

67 (CZ) SPOJPROJEKT PRAHA: Aleš Mikule, Viachaslau Filipenka; collaboration: Ladislav Matkovský, Michal Štípek, Pavel Kokeš

The logical floor-plan organisation and post-industrial character were positive factors of the design for the jury. Also, the jury liked the south façade, yet the overall formulation of the design seemed too schematic to allow for full evaluation of its possible quality.   67_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 68

68 (SK) SLLA Architects: Michal Sulo, Raúl Alonso Estébanez, Miriam Lišková

The jury appreciated the rudimentary and direct approach to the building’s concept, in which the authors reacted to the post-industrial character of the area where the building stands. The overall depiction of the interior and its functions, though, appeared too schematic.    68_ortfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 69

69 (CZ) Filip Havliš, David Zámečník; collaboration: Ondřej Novosad, Martin Utíkal

In their desire to open the interior using an atrium, the authors somewhat contradict themselves in a design that does not bring natural light into it. Though the jury was pleased by the desire for direct connection of the new town hall to the street frontage, it could not entirely identify with the building’s overall architectonic expression.    69_portfolio



1 KOLO 1-70 70

70 (CZ) CMC Architects / Atelier SAD: Martina Chisholm, Tomáš Kalhous, Adam Jirkal, Vít Máslo, David Chisholm, Jaroslav Koza, Adam Jirkal, Martin Kalhous, Radka Argayová; collaboration: Daniel Šimpach

The element of the central staircase is, for the jury, the strong point of the design, effectively connecting the various functions of the town hall. However, the jury was not convinced by the architectonic means that the authors chose for their design, and were more fitting for a building of commercial character than for the seat of a district town hall.   70_portfolio







Proposals that were excluded from evaluation for not meeting the formal requirements:


1 KOLO 1-70 52

52 (CZ) Tomáš Vích, Peter Balhar