Fórum architektury & stavitelství

Fórum architektury - 5/2001 summary

< back | topical | about | editors | advert

summary

The highlight of the International Construction Trade Fair FOR ARCH 2001 was the announcement of the results of the 9th annual Construction Project of the Year Competition, held under the auspices of ABF, the Union of Construction Entrepreneurs CR, the Ministry of Industry and Trade CR, and Economia.
Forum magazine provides a complete overview of all construction projects participating in the competition, with special attention paid to the prize-winning projects.
9th Annual Construction Project of the Year Competition The results of the 9th annual Construction of the Year Competition were announced in a ceremony. (The five prize-winning projects will adorn festive plaques). All that remains is the evaluation, and as each year this year also was an exceptional one. A total of 41 construction projects applied to the competition, and each entry followed an explicit set of rules. During the first round of judging the jury evaluated the contents of the project application.
If relatively fewer projects actually entered the competition, the typological diversity was nonetheless even greater. This year’s entries included 8 projects devoted to housing, 6 to firm locations, 5 to business-administrative complexes, 2 traffic construction projects, 2 libraries, 1 police headquarters, 1 garage, 2 schools, 1 church, 1 zoo pavilion, 1 radio studio, 1 congress centre, 1 telecommunications building, 1 reconstruction of medieval fortification, 1 police station and 1 large justice hall. For the first time there were no banks, (more precisely, no financial institutions), no automobile showrooms, and no manufacturing buildings. Also, 28 of the entries were for entirely new projects, while 13 represented reconstruction projects. The territorial distribution of the entries was also unusual, as 20, or almost one half of the entries, were from Prague, 8 were from Moravia (3 from the north, 5 from the south, all from Brno), 4 were from northern Bohemia (3 of these from Liberec), 3 were from western Bohemia and only 1 was from central Bohemia. This year, as in other years of the competition, there are still areas that continue to remain outside the competition; for example, southern Moravia has been absent since the major floods that occurred there a few years ago.
One further interesting ‘statistical’ point is that the 41 project entries represented the work of 29 construction firms. How much this fact represents an actual picture of the Czech construction industry today is hard to say. It seems that some firms conduct their own internal rounds of competition and then select what they feel is the best construction project for entry, while other firms perhaps submit themselves to a large degree of self-criticism (although in previous years of the competition the opposite appeared to be true – there was a certain lack of self-criticism); then there are those cases that are simply unable to meet the submission dates, or make the unsuccessful attempt to enter the competition later. Generally it is possible to say that there is an overall lack of small firms, regional firms, and small or smaller construction projects represented in the competition. This is true even though competitions in the past have shown that neither the size of the construction firm nor the size of the construction project is an influential factor. Family homes, whether single or group, are not represented in the competition. Housing, if not senior citizen housing, is primarily luxury type housing (with the exception of Jindřichův Hradec), but luxury housing is very difficult to judge, and usually the jury is presented with a project that has a complete exterior while the interior is changed to meet the demands of those who are buying the apartments. When these modifications are already done, then the jury is no longer able to gain access to them – in this case, what is there to judge, and how? An interesting comparison with administrative buildings that rent out office space also offers itself, as they are usually able to provide a certain standard of construction so it is possible even without tenants to judge the construction and gain a convincing view of the quality of the construction work. Although apartments are usually sold, and there is therefore a somewhat different relationship to the construction, the degree of transformation and customization of space, construction and materials is unusual.
In this year’s competition none of the foreign firms working in the country were in the competition, but for the first time there were construction projects with foreign architects.
Altogether 24 projects progressed into the second round of the competition, and this year, as in previous years, there was an awareness that it would be a good idea to look at all of the projects on location, because each construction project is then situated in its specific environment, and also because the plans and photographs provide only a partial portrait of the work; photography in particular may serve even to conceal or camouflage certain aspects. (Of course, not even an on-site tour will reveal everything, and even if the jury is investigative and determines what it is to see, the tour can still hide things from the jury or even be deceptive; this happens rarely and much to the regret of the jury, but particularly at large construction sites it is possible.) It is however impossible to look at everything, especially given the timeframe that the competition is working with, so it is a bit of a game, despite the prestige that the competition has acquired. A choice is simply necessary. Moreover, regardless of the number of project entries and the number of projects that make it into the second round, the number of nominations and prizes cannot be increased.
Though in previous years it occurred that the on-site tours at times varied, and perhaps either the architect or the investor was absent (and in one case there was a lack of anyone in a position of responsibility to accompany the jury except the building caretaker), this year all participants were presents at each site (though foreign investors remained somewhat in the background), and the jury was therefore able to ask anything and everything, and even to test the well-known saying that behind every good building there stand three individuals who must work in harmony – the investor, the architect, and the supplier. The days when the supplier and the architect were not acquainted, when the architect’s first visit to the site was in the company of the jury, or when the investor avoided the supplier, are in the context of this competition definitively over. For this reason also this year’s competition, though weaker in numbers, was strong on the level of the competitors.
Each year the evaluation criteria come under discussion. They are not dealt with in detail, though the project application presents their extensive nature. What makes a construction project good could be the subject of a long conference. Depending on their focus, some see the speed of construction as a priority, others view expenses as the primary factor, and still others emphasize the form of construction used. The word ‘construction’ covers a range of semantic points, but it also involves something more, from which the construction project derives its appeal, which is the bearer of its spirit and its expression. The Construction Project of the Year Competition is not an architectural competition, but it is of course putting growing emphasis on architecture. The level of construction work is sufficiently high, usually to the point of detail, as is the level of construction material and product design. Few people can afford to build uneconomically today, and environmental aspects are of increasing concern. In these circumstances, it is architecture itself that become the important criteria.
The ninth year of competition is now behind us. Its record is found in this publication. But we may already begin to be curious about what the 10th anniversary of the competition next year will hold in store.
Radomíra Sedláková