Winning project by Office Ou (image © Office Ou)

 

The features of a truly international competition were quite in evidence in Prague’s SMÍCHOV School search for an ideal elementary school design: the event attracted 66 entries from around the world, and the winners were a team from Canada and Poland. The sponsors went so far as to even estimate the number of hours spent by all of the architects who submitted entries for the competition (58,800). One can only imagine what that number might have been for the Helsinki Guggenheim competition, which attracted 1,715 entries.

 

The winning team, led by the Toronto firm from Canada, Office Ou with INOSTUDIO from Poland, won with what one might have characterized as a well-conceived, whimsical composition that fulfilled all the guidelines set down in the competition brief. According to the winner’s narrative, “Living in a city is about living in a community, and to do so we must learn to take care of each other and our common environment. An urban school should foster social and environmental stewardship amongst the students and be a community hub that interacts with its unique urban context. The design is conceived as a simple built framework that provides students with a diversity of opportunities to engage with the world around them.”

 

As is almost always the case in two-stage competitions where several finalists are shortlisted from the crowd, Office Ou did list several changes to their design, most of which were focused reductions to fit the budget:
Main changes since phase 1 submission:
-Relocated main south courtyard to be adjacent to main atrium to emphasize biophilia.
-Reduced size of second core.
-Reduced building area for cost efficiency.
-Simplified shape of main classrooms to reduce costs and help with energy efficiency.
-Made planters and balcony display panels modular to reduce costs and increase flexibility.
-Improved connection of after school rooms to public realm and facilitated pickup.
-Provided multiple accesses to sunlight for the kitchen, as well as views to rear yard and school park tree canopy.
-Standardized mass timber and SIP construction system.
-Increased natural ventilation opportunities in all spaces to reduce energy costs.

Program image ©Office Ou

 

 

Second Place was won by the Czech firm, Škarda architekti, third place went to a Rotterdam firm, IND [Inter.National.Design], fourth place to a Czech, Martin Naruda, and fifth place went to ECS Architects from Portugal. This list clearly indicates that familiarity with the site does not automatically provide a participant with a clear advantage. In this case, the jury provided comprehensive comments about the different entries to substantiate their ranking of the finalists. The jury, which announced the ranking of the finalists on August 28, consisted of :

David Tichý (UNIT architekti) – Chair
Pavel Richter (Mayor of Prague 5) – Vice-Chair
Anne Uhlmann (BUR Architekten), Zürich
Gianni Cito (Moke Architekten), The Netherlands
Boris Redčenkov (A69)
Kamila Amblerová (KA-architekti)
Ondřej Píhrt (S-O-A)
Zuzana Hamanová (Prague 5)
Vít Šolle (Prague 5)
Tomáš Homola (Prague 5)
Martin Damašek (Prague 5)
Unless otherwise noted, the above jurors were based in the Czech Republic.

After perusing the documentation of the competition and the jury comments, one can only conclude that this program and the administration of the competition by the CCEA MOBA (Centre for Central European Architecture) was exemplary. The Czechs have set a fine example here.

 

 

Winning entry
Office Ou, Toronto, Canada
Nicolas Koff, Uros Navakovic, Sebastian Bartnicki, Sophia Szagala, Oliver Green
with INOSTUDIO. Gliwice, Poland
Zbigniew Gierczak

 

 

 

Images © Office Ou

 

Statement of the jury

 

The authors have met to the highest degree the requirements of the competition and fulfilled the jury’s expectations. The jury appreciates in particular the optimally designed orientation of the building, the clean and simple organization of the layout and construction, the connection with the surrounding public space, as well as with the school grounds. This proposal is the best scheme of circulation and orientation for pupils, teachers and the public in the building. It cleverly combines clusters, corridors and open spaces. Authors’ thinking about the interior space and the construction system allows for flexibility for future modifications and possible changes that are inherent in school operation. The jury further appreciates the authors’ response to the comments given in the first phase of the competition, whose successful incorporation led to a significant shift and fulfilment of the potential that the jury saw in this proposal in the first phase.

 

The proposed balconies, which should serve as a supplement to the classes, are debatable, especially in relation to traditional teaching. It is unlikely that they will be used during teaching or leisure time, and can also limit classroom daylight illumination, when having incorrectly selected materials and dimensions. The jury expects to see these balconies adequately modified with the development of the project. Changes will be probably due also in the wooden structure, which will have to be more massive or re-evaluated.

From the point of view of fulfilling all the evaluation criteria set out in the competition conditions, the proposal seems to be the most optimal. From the point of view of the energy concept and investment and operating costs, the proposal, just like the other proposals, presented only an idea of the functioning and a simple scheme that will need to be further elaborated. The jury assumes that when finalizing in cooperation with the announcer and according to their remarks, the proposal has a very good possibility of adaptability without disturbing the successful concept.

 

Diagrams (winning entry)

 

 

 
Images © Office Ou

 

Plans and Sections (winning entry):

 

Images © Office Ou

 

 

Second Prize
Škarda architekti
Prague, Czech Republic
Václav Škarda / cooperation: Miloš Hlaváček, Lukáš Houser, Viktor Kirschner, Ondřej Šorm, Ondřej Hlaváček

  

Images: ©Škarda architekti 

 

Jury Comments
The design has met the requirements of the competition and fulfilled the jury’s expectations to a very high degree. The design offers a very strong connection with the public space of the city. Urban approach is very complex and beneficial to its surroundings and is trying to offer new opportunities to use the school building. The jury appreciates the generosity of classroom sizes and the attempts to rationalize the interior space. The jury in the first phase appreciated the conservative approach as one of the solutions for school operation in combination with a more courageous volumetric concept. This form of “open city fortress” can be a response to the question of the nature of modern school institutions and can play the role of a local community symbol. However, the proposal did not develop much between the 1st and 2nd phases, and did not convincingly fulfil this potential of conservative yet generous primary school.
In the opinion of the jury, the most impediment to the design is the not intuitive circulation and orientation in the building for teachers, the public and pupils, which is most evident in the location of vertical communications. Similarly, the layout of the internal courtyard with an outdoor staircase system, the use of which, with regard to the security of entry to the building and the constant supervision of the pupils, is also not quite clear. Consistent adherence to the tectonic nature of the facade is in contradiction with the volumetric solution that aims for lightness of the building’s expression. The jury considers the position of the athletic oval on the roof of a school, which allows more free use of the school grounds, on the one hand the benefit of the proposal, but on the other hand the jury was not convinced of its functionality – especially with regard to the lack of shadow, sport and maintenance facilities and the impossibility of placing a considerable number of the necessary technologies, or at least their outlets on the roof of a school building.
From the point of view of fulfilling all the evaluation criteria set out in the competition conditions, the proposal seems to be the second most optimal. From the point of view of the energy concept and investment and operating costs, the proposal, just like the other proposals, presented only an idea of the functioning and a simple scheme that will need to be further elaborated. The jury assumes that when completing the announcer’s suggestions, the proposal has a good chance to achieve user-friendliness without seriously disrupting the concept.

 

 

 

Third Prize
IND. [Inter.National.Design] 
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Teresa Papachristou, Felix Madrazo, Pablo Roquero, Arman Akdogan / cooperation: Alfonso Redondo Gomez, Marek Nosek, Kateřina Sojková, Martin Volf, Amaia Puras, Bezya Nur Öztürk, Alvaro Borrajo, Vittorio Perotti, Morgan Graboski

Images: ©IND. [Inter.National.Design] 

 

Jury Comments
The design has met the requirements of the assignment and the jury to a high degree. The authors of the proposal presented a radical solution with a strong view of how the building should react in volume and expression to its surroundings. The proposal offers a very rational approach to hierarchizing spaces with regard to the “public / non-public” and with regard to contact with the surrounding city. According to the jury, the proposal itself is quite strict (to sterile), which does not entirely correspond to the idea of a targeted character of primary school, but rather corresponds to the concept of secondary school or college. The jury appreciates the more courageous concept of the shape of a building, the shape of which creates a system of spaces and places while maintaining a rational internal arrangement and program. However, this concept carries with it a low degree of flexibility. Compared to other prize-winning designs, the authors presented a more schematic solution of the facades, which after the completion of the project could significantly change the overall figure of the school. The shading of the building, and especially the ratio of the glazed and non-glazed areas of the facade, is considered to be unclear by the jury.
From the point of view of fulfilling all the evaluation criteria set out in the competition conditions, the proposal appears to be optimal. From the point of view of the energy concept and investment and operating costs, the proposal, just like the other proposals, presented only an idea of the functioning and a simple scheme that will need to be further elaborated. The jury assumes that the proposal may have a good chance of achieving a user-friendly form, without significantly disrupting the concept, until after a major elaboration according to the announcer’s comments.

 

 

 

Finalist
Martin Naruda
with Jana Šťastná
Prague, Czech Republic

  

 

Jury Comments

The jury appreciated the clear and understandable system of school functioning. Possibility of future modifications is a positive feature of this proposal, as the chosen simple typology can be further developed. In the opinion of the jury, the design has achieved a functional interconnection of public spaces and school, but the individual floors and school levels communicate in a relatively weak way.
The authors work with a relatively strict separation of “worlds” of the first and second levels (two entrances, two stairs, delegated floors), which are in the end connected by atriums accompanied by a number of questions, especially by acoustic and operational complications. The proposed form of a building with longitudinal terraces around its entire perimeter, which should serve as a supplement to the classes, is questionable in particular in relation to the operation of the school. It is unlikely that they will be used for teaching or leisure, and can also limit classroom daylight illumination, when having incorrectly selected materials and dimensions.
From the point of view of fulfilling all the evaluation criteria set out in the competition conditions, this proposal does not achieve the quality of the prize-winning proposals. From the point of view of the energy concept and investment and operating costs, the proposal, just like the rest of the others, presented only an idea of functioning and a simple scheme that would have to be further elaborated.

 

 

Finalist
ESC Architects
Porto, Portugal
Tiago Sá & Alberto Cumerlato

  

Images: ©ESC Architects

 

Jury Comments

The jury considered promising the chosen original form of the building. Although the school, by placing a generously-sized main entrance for pupils, “turns its back” to the public area of the pedestrian zone, it has offered at least a secondary entrance for the after-school care and for the public to the social and sports part of the school directly from the pedestrian zone. The volumetric solution also brought patio terraces where pupils could safely spend their free time.
The form of the proposal represented a strong potential for the jury in the first phase. In the second phase, however, the authors did not submit a proposal that would adequately reflect the jury’s comments and recommendations and the form of the building did not bring the expected benefit to the school’s internal solution. The communication cores along with the limit-sized corridors are not entirely convincing for the jury and do not contribute to a simple orientation and circulation of pupils, teachers and the public in the building.
From the point of view of the energy concept, investment and operating costs and demands for the necessary technical equipment, the proposal is underestimated in the opinion of the jury (lack of areas for kitchen facility, technologies and storage). Also unconvincing is the location and size of the building’s communication and technology cores. In terms of meeting all the evaluation criteria set out in the competition conditions, it does not achieve the quality of the prize-winning proposals.

 

 

Finalist
TRI.ŠTRNÁSŤ architekti
Slovakia/Czech Republic
Lukáš Ildža, Ondrej Palenčar, Matúš Ivanič; spolupráce Tomáš Babka, Hana Skljarzska, Martin Burgr, Rastislav Ildža / Prešov, Stará červená voda

  

Images: ©TRI.ŠTRNÁSŤ architekti

 

Jury Comments
The design brings a generous entry hall – an internal “public” space. School building urbanistically fits into its surroundings, and its overall expression generates a sense of belonging to the community. In the opinion of the jury, another positive aspect is the creation of an adequate, visible main entrance and a common terrace where pupils can safely spend their free time. Division of the first and second levels is clear and legible. However, the organization of the spatial program does not create sufficiently strong links between the priority functions and the desirable interconnection of the school’s internal and external operations. Orientation and circulation in the building can be difficult (even confusing) for teachers, the public and pupils – especially when the pupil’s main movement between lessons, leisure and sports is guided through three different interior stairways and corridors, or through outdoor terraces and spiral staircases. This complicated solution demonstrates, according to the jury, a lack of understanding of the operation of the school.
From the point of view of fulfilling all the evaluation criteria set out in the competition conditions, this proposal does not achieve the quality of the prize-winning proposals. From the point of view of the energy concept and investment and operating costs, as well as others, he presented only an idea of functioning and a simple scheme that would have to be further elaborated.