RESULTS

The jury, composed of the following members: Mayor of the City of Brno Petr Vokřál, deputy mayors Martin Ander and Matěj Hollan, deputy mayor of the Brno-North district Petr Hladík, along with the international jury members Roger Riewe, Silja Tillner, Sándor Finta and Jiří Oplatek as well as Czech urban designer Ivan Plicka and architect Jaroslav Wertig, engineer Jan Pavlíček, and supported by juror alternates Petr Bořecký, Jana Drápalová, Vladimír Šlapeta, Ondřej Chybík and Ivan Lejčar awarded following prizes:

1st PRIZE

1st prize 51 (CZ) – 2nd round 08: UNIT architekti: Filip Tittl, Michal Kohout, David Tichý, Šárka Doležalová, Marie Gelová, Luboš Klabík, Filip Lux, Adéla Medunová, Lukáš Tittl, Jitka Žambochová;

collaboration: Michal Decker

The design is marked by a high standard for public space – with an eye for scale, detail and character of place.

The competition project presents the city with a reasonable, realistic and sustainable scenario for development of the area under consideration, one that is robust yet flexible and indicates a clear method of thinking and deciding about the area’s future. This scenario is grounded on the growth of the surrounding neighbourhoods into the currently empty and unused land, and allows for its gradual development in several directions, insofar as the individual new localities can develop independently of one another. In connection to the adjoining current urban areas, there will over time emerge a variegated character of construction, with a broad palette of diverging typological categories and a good prognosis for the formation of neighbourly social relations. The competition project offers a sensitive and well-informed system for all types of transport in the city, including a planned system for public transport. An advantage of the design is its use of a major tram route connecting the new main rail station and the city centre with the suburban rail stop Brno-Štýřice.

A very positive feature is the connection of the area under discussion not only to the context of the city, but as well to the context of the landscape that surrounds it and extends into it. At the junctures of the proposed localities are parks – areas of green of a reasonable scale and interesting character. Also deserving of praise is the treatment and conservation of water, including the addressing of the problem of floods along the river Svratka. The competition project is marked by a high standard for public space – with an eye for scale, detail, and character of place. It forms a sensible system of articulating space, in which every locality – as an extension of an already extant urban neighbourhood nearby – has its natural centre. The station frontage has a proportional human scale, and is very well connected with the station as well as the entire newly developing area to the south. The design presents a skilful and knowledgeable reflection on the needs of Brno and individual places in the area, with sensitivity towards the realistic emergence of a multi-functional and socially sustainable city.

 

2nd PRIZE

2nd prize 53 (CZ / AT) – 2nd round 07: consequence forma: Janica Šipulová, Martin Sládek, Franz Sumnitsch, Irene Djao-Rakitine, Lea Dostálová, Barbora Srpková, Veronika Kotková, Eliška Lichtnerová;

collaboration: Jiří Vítek

The design is grounded in the extant yet still unrevealed values of the city.

This highly sensitive and complex design reacts to urban-planning challenges and problems on all scales. Its clear strategy is to increase the density of the surroundings, such that the central park can remain relatively empty. Another strong element in the concept is the re-activation of currently standing, and somewhat obscured, historic buildings.

Defined very well in the design are individual localities with various functions – culture, commerce, employment opportunities, housing and recreation. The design turns attention to problematic areas and brownfields, not only within the area under discussion, and offers their social or commercial use.

The pleasant scale of the urban public space in front of the station, with the relatively inexpensive variation of reconstructing the dispatching building and a greater intensity of pedestrian traffic along the current station and post office buildings, has its attractiveness increased by the newly created esplanade. Also relatively well organised is the transport system in the station vicinity, creating a good link to the industrial-heritage landmarks around “Little America” and the exposed viaduct of the newly named “High Line Terrace”. This place could easily become a vibrant part of the city with creative industries, amusement and an offering of leisure activities.

The design presents a realistic and simultaneously contemporary approach to the city, grounded on its extant yet still unrevealed values. It is basically robust, and includes as well the city’s residents in the development process, which is important for social sustainability. It offers a simple sequence of stages and represents a relatively low-cost and rapidly completed variant. However, it does not particularly address property-rights relations, which could bring about certain risks.

 

3rd PRIZE

3rd prize 40 (CZ) –  2nd round 05: Atelier M1 architekti: Pavel Joba, Jakub Havlas, Jan Hájek;

collaboration: Jakub Straka, Vojtěch Šaroun, Martin Utíkal, Michal Tichý, Patrik Kotas

The key element of the design is the expansion of the river Svratka into a wider water surface in the central park.

The project offers a clear vision of a lively and variegated new district south of the historic centre with one key element – the expansion of the river Svratka into a wider water surface in the central park. It works with a continuation of the current urban structure and scale of the historic city centre, but using new construction and varying sizes of blocks, varying degrees of permeability, and varying typologies. Based on the flexible arrangement of structures for living and work, this approach provides an adequate solution to the still-unpredictable situations of the future development of the city, which the jury finds highly positive.

The rail station is shifted southwest, allowing for the construction of below-ground rail lines without interference in the historical layers. The current dispatching building can, in turn, acquire a new function. One disadvantage, though, is the long walking distance to the main entrance in the north part of the new station, and the somewhat over-dimensioned public space proposed in front of it. The roofing above the rail tracks evokes the image of a historic rail station from the 19^th century, yet from today’s standpoint it might seem outside the general scale. The authors propose 12 tracks on the above-ground level, i.e. more than were required, which is excessive and costly. The central bus station, as well as the system for city public transport, is addressed unconvincingly.

Only in the future, once the “South City” is fully functional, will the station be able to play its role as an urban hub. One great advantage of the project, in the eyes of the jury, is the conception for the re-using of the historic buildings of the original rail station and Little America, as well as the opening of the arcades of the viaduct, which would strengthen the extant values in the area.

 NON-AWARDED FINALISTS

in the second round also participated:

27 (NL) – 2nd round 01: Erick van Egeraat Beheer / Design Erick van Egeraat / (designed by) Erick van Egeraat / WSP Engineers London: Erick van Egeraat, Willem van Genugten, Zita Balajti, Harry Kurzhals, Juriaan Calis, Pere Maicas, Egle Kalonaityte, Reiner Simons, Viktor Szemes, Csaba Rajnai, Dave Darnell, Andrew Cameron, Enrico Isnenghi, Dan Watson, Sarah Whydle, Catherine Coutts, Rob Kinch

The jury greatly values the professional and complex preparation of the design, and also the convincing and attractive form of its presentation. The design meets the declared intention to make Brno into “an urban laboratory for Europe defining the international scale” – it is an eclectic collage of the most admirable tendencies in contemporary urban design: working with local identity, community spirit, human scale, urban gardening or energy independence. At the same time, it provides a good balance between the serving and the served, as well as the generating and the consuming.

All of these clearly formulated ideas have the potential to spark enthusiasm, yet at the same time provoke the worry that the design may be too closely marked by contemporary trends: whether this vision can be transferred to future generations, or will simply remain on the level of a utopia articulated by the generation of today.

 

04 (CZ) –  2nd round 02: Šimon Vojtík, Michal Petr, Jana Urbanová;

collaboration: Vojtěch Dvořák

The project offers a clear, yet somewhat schematic and rigid structure. The new station building follows the line of the old station and Bohuslav Fuchs’s post office, yet it lacks a convincing architectonic flair and appears more of a nostalgic reminiscence of the suspended curtain-walls of the 1960s.

The connection between the city centre and the southern sector is not ideal, within the corridor it is necessary to overcome the elevation difference. Shifting part of the tram routes into ul. Úzká divides and significantly complicates orientation and navigability in this transport junction. The plan for a greenbelt between “Little America” and the embankment of the river Svratka, which is an attractive feature, nonetheless deserves a more daring approach. The jury appreciates the thorough planning of the stages for development of the area under consideration, though the feasibility of each stage is conditional on somewhat optimistic predictions for economic development.

 

32 (CZ) – 2nd round 03: Michal Palaščák, Michal Poláš, Martin Bělkovský, Miroslava Šešulková, Kryštof Foltýn, Norbert Obršál, Lukáš Černý, Tomáš Babka, Jan Kristek

The building of the rail station is placed above the volume of the rail line, allowing for easier pedestrian access between the historic centre and the newly emerging southern sector. This permeability is supported as well by the proposed demolition of the current post office building. The frontage area of the station from the south, though, appears indecisive, as with the high-rise apartment blocks on the southern edge of the area under discussion and the schematically conceived block construction.

At the western edge, there is the area of a recreational park that continues along both banks of the river Svratka, and its attractiveness is increased through routing the ring-road through a tunnel. In addition, the park assumes the use of the historic viaduct enriched with a new colonnade, with along with the artificial lake forms a recreational framework. The result is a new characteristic element of city-wide importance, even though its function is formulated somewhat vaguely.

 

46 (ES) –  2nd round 04: BLAU: Ramon Bernabe Simo, Tomáš Labanc, Georgia Adamou, Alfonso Bertrán Gil, Sonia Billiard, Albert Casas, Begum Cehreli, Lazar Djuric, Izabela Franczak, Robin Gringhuis, Ferran Iglesias, Paulina Kasza, Roman Kekel, Lucile Kopczynski, Sophia Kunze, Syrine Siala;

collaboration: Ferran Casanovas, Peter Gero, Playtime, Gillem Catalan

The conception of the design is founded on extending the greenbelt of Koliště below the terrain break of the edge of the current rail station, and its continuation along the volume of the rail lines in the southwards direction. As much as this overall figuration is convincing in the situation plan, the connection of its segments only with the narrow neck of the station’s pedestrian underpass takes away from its strength. The new station is defined in the project as a combination of several terminals for various transport types and their necessary functions. This concept, however, is somewhat awkwardly transformed into a structure of spaces and volumes – the composition of the buildings at the main entrance appears almost too monumental.

A major quality of the design is the carefully planned strategy of development in “urban bands” consisting of blocks derived from the scale of Brno’s traditional urban fabric, which could thanks to basic regulation guidelines react very flexibly in the future to demands still unknown to us today. The practical use of the interior semi-public spaces of the permeable blocks for the general public, however, seemed doubtful to the jury. By contrast, highly valuable were the authors’ reflections on social, economic and environmental sustainability.

 

57 (IT) – 2nd round 06: Plasma studio (Europe): Eva Castro, Holger Kehne, Ulrike Hell, Chuan Wang, Andrea Cadioli, Pietro Scarpa, Yunya Tang, Jingshuang Zhao, Vittoria Bellassai, Valentina Mancini, Giulia Mariotti, Edoardo Nieri

The proposed project presents a compact and visually interesting, if somewhat formalistic, urban solution, which in terms of economic and time conditions nonetheless appears quite difficult to bring about. Its realisation would more or less separate the area under discussion from the context of the city, and form a direct competition to the historic centre.

The urban structure stands well outside of the scale of construction for Brno as a city, as confirmed e.g. by the exiting of the bridge across the tracks into the station frontage. This connecting element between north and south also serves as the dispatching building with an upper entrance to the surface-level station, yet within the overall urban composition it gives the impression of a barrier.

 

ALL THE PROPOSALS FROM THE FIRST ROUND

01 (UK) AR Urbanism: Andrea Andreotti, Riccardo Bobisse, Alessandro Biondi, Maria Kouridou, Daniela Magni, Tim Pharoah, Amanda Reynolds, Naike Zambotti

The jury appreciates the modest and suitable urban scale with which the new district of Brno was designed. Also positively viewed was the landscape around the blocks, which is not overdesigned and seems to offer pleasant usage possibilities, supported by the green corridor between the existing green belt to the north and the river. The traffic solutions, however, were either misunderstood, unaddressed or given an overscaled solution, a prime example of which is the pedestrian bridge from the terraces of Petrov to the station or the trams running on the roof of the new railway station. The highly strict separation of the railway station into two volumes was also regarded as unfortunate.

 

02 (RO) Atelier Andritoiu Firimita: Stefan Firimita, Anamaria Andritoiu, Simona Meilescu, Adrian Sandor

Even though the jury sees a good conceptual approach in the proposal, the supporting references from abroad, however interesting, are not regarded as suitable choices for current situation or for the context of the city. The proposed Amsterdam-styled housing and other development along the extended surface of the Svratka river seem unrealistic and overscaled.

 

03 (CZ) Adam Rujbr Architects: Adam Rujbr, Aleš Chlád, Lukáš Hrudička, Karel Kadeřábek, Martin Holý;

collaboration: Zdeněk Michl, David Krásenský, Jiří Švestka, Lucie Tlustá

The jury appreciates the very well-designed new city structure in the north of the area, and the quite pleasant sports and leisure area in the South. The landscape architecture of the proposal seems to be well worked out and on a human scale. However, the overall urban fabric feels rather schematic with oversized plot divisions. The jury was also not convinced by the quality of the newly proposed railway station and its connection to its surroundings.

 

04 (CZ) –  2nd round: 02 Šimon Vojtík, Michal Petr, Jana Urbanová

the proposal went on to participate in the 2nd round

 

05 (CZ) Helena Zemánková, Václav Zemánek, Oldřich Navrátil, Radovan Zelík;

collaboration: Adéla Chroboczková, Michal Hýl

The project proposes to build up the left bank of the Svratka river with housing blocks and public buildings on a large scale. The urban structure is divided by a central park that is, however, severed in two places by busy roadways. The jury found that given its finality, the proposed structure can react to any changes of needs and conditions in the future only in a mono-directional and inflexible way.

 

06 (CZ) Jiří Fixel, Jindřich Kaněk, Vojtěch Koudelka, Vlastislav Novák, Zbyněk Pech;

collaboration: Dagmar Blahová, Tomáš Hruban, Jiří Ráček, Vít Tachovský, Tomáš Staněk, Jan Šubrt

The design is based on the idea of building up practically all of the area under consideration, which in the northern section is given even greater density with apparently important urban objects. In the view of the jury, however, the large scale of the buildings makes the urban structure excessively rigid and insufficiently flexible in its reaction to changes in needs and conditions in the future. Worthy of special mention is the aim of the authors to resolve the position of the rail station not in the variation below Petrov Hill, but in a position shifted even closer to the city centre.

 

07 (CZ) Jiran a partner architekti: Zdeněk Jiran, Petr Máša, Jan Sapák, Jiří Müller, Jan Homolka, Marco Maio, Petr Preininger;

collaboration: Matěj Vydra, Růžena Šenoldová, Zdeněk Hromádka, Miroslav Hujer

The urban structure of city blocks in proportional dimensions gives sufficient space for time stages and reactions to changed conditions in the course of the area’s development. The greenbelt along the banks of the Svratka provides the new construction and adjoining areas with a highly valuable relaxation space. However, the location of the city arena is, with regard to transport connections, not particularly well-chosen. Also, there is no clear need for retaining all of the tracks in the freight station, since one through track would be sufficient. The design of the entrance to the new rail station building diverges from the given scale. Also, the pedestrian bridge to the terraces on Petrov makes no sense.

 

08 (UK) Maxthreads Architecture & Urban Design: Chimin Yang, Fred Andres, Christabel Lee, Chi-Hsuan Lu, Jia-Wei Liu

The jury greatly respects the courage with which the authors approached the area under discussion. This ambitious project conceives of Brno as a European epicentre of innovation and an entranceway to Asia – with which the jury does not agree. At the same time, we find it to be over-scaled both in economic terms and in its urban-planning details.

 

09 (CZ) Alice Šimečková, Markéta Veselá, Ivan Palacký;

collaboration: Jana Rotreklová, Jaroslav Gereg

A very well-prepared project with many good ideas. The jury particularly appreciates the proposed strategy for development of the area, in which the key element is continual verification of its sustainability. Another positive aspect to the design is the idea of expanding the current greenbelt around the historic centre southwards, though this has not been adequately worked through and paradoxically becomes the design’s weakest feature. Also, the jury does not agree with the bridging treatment of the tracks in the north-south direction, which is not only unnecessary and expensive both to build and maintain, but also leads to excessive size of the new rail station.

 

10 (CZ) Barbora Jenčková, Anna Švehlíková, Kateřina Horáková, Jakub Kutílek;

collaboration: Adam Wlazel

The design develops the structure of construction from the eastern edge of the area, and creates to its west a clearly defined boundary across from a new city park. However, the scale of the blocks does not, in the jury’s view, correspond to the required staging and flexibility. The relatively dense construction on the right bank of the Svratka does not appear convincing, particularly with regard to the insufficient transport integration. Moreover, the jury is also doubtful about the plan to integrate Little America into the terminal building of the new rail station.

 

11 (AT) stadtland / komobile: Emilia Bruck, Alfred Eichberger, Stefan Klingler,Philip Krassnitzer, Stefan Müllehner, Andrea Gruber, Romain Molitor, Christian Obermayer

The starting principle of the design, which is increasing the density of the area under discussion from its edges connected to the stabilised areas of the city in the direction inwards into the open space, is what the jury regards as the main contribution. However, it lacks a more sharply formulated urban vision and thorough working-through.

 

12 (CZ) Institut regionálních informací: Michal Hadlač, Radmila Hadlačová, Milada Kadlecová, Alžběta Knoflíčková, Stanislav Kovář, Lubomír Lazar, Hana Lesáková, Milada Májska

The jury regards the overall conception as incomplete and insufficiently defined. It also finds the proposed water surface problematic, particularly its unclear relationship to the rest of the city. The urban structure lacks contemporary vision and flexibility.

 

13 (CZ) KAMKAB!NET: Radim Horák, Radka Neumanová;

collaboration: Jan Flídr

The authors plan the project as construction of large irregular urban blocks in the north part of the area. The southern section is formed by a recreational park with a large water surface, for which the realisation and maintenance would require excessively high costs. The placement and the architectural form of the new rail station are, for the jury, evaluated as problematic and not compact.

 

14 (CZ) Roman Čerbák, Petr Hýl, Martin Klenovský, Aleš Stuchlík, Jaromír Walter;

collaboration: Martin Křížek, Robert Sedlák

The design fills the area along the left bank of the Svratka with traditional urban blocks of large scale. The street network is oriented along the given transport and natural axis, without any further development. The frontage space of the new rail station appears over-sized, and the function of the proposed ‘catwalk’ is not clearly justified. Though the jury recommends the thoroughness of the treatment, the quality of the overall concept somewhat lags behind in comparison with other designs.

 

15 (SK) TOTALSTUDIO / PLURAL: Aleš Šedivec, Tomáš Tokarčík, Michal Kontšek, Martin Jančok, Michal Janák

This visually attractive design works with basic urban and typological elements abstracted into purely geometrical expression. Nonetheless, the drawbacks of this approach are, in the jury’s view, that it lacks any reflection of staging or even a more specific solution for the new rail station.

16 (USA / ES) The Catholic University of America, School of Architecture and Planning / Escola Técnica Superior D‘Arquitectura de Barcelona, Departamento de Urbanismo: Miriam Gusevich, Jay Kabriel, Thomas Allen, Miquel Vidal I Pla, Nguyen Nguyen, Chukwuemeka Obioha, Madeline Traylor

The project proposes a new neighbourhood on an artificially created island formed by merging the waters of the Svratka and Svitava rivers. To a large extent, the structure of building on the island imitates a naturally formed medieval town, representing an approach that is indeed unique, yet somewhat anachronistic. The contribution of such an extensive intervention into the urban structure is not sufficiently justified. The design remains at the level of a nostalgic utopia.

 

17 (CZ) SUPERLABOR: Jakub Kopec, Michal Mačuda, Jiří Vítek, Klára Zahradníčková, Jan Albert Šturma, Jiří Vítek;

collaboration: Radoslava Krylová, Anežka Pelikánová, Lea Mačudová

The jury appreciates the realistic approach to the area under consideration. At its edges, the authors do not propose excessive interventions, which at present is a frequently applied urban-planning approach within short-range and medium-range horizons of urban development. Particularly worthy of praise is the landscaping aspect of the design. What is, though, problematic is the insufficiently consideration of basic and important elements of the project, i.e. the new rail station and the transportation concept.

 

18 (SK) SIEBERT+TALAŠ: Roman Talaš, Matej Siebert, Richard Kráľovič, Marek Winkler, Samo Srnka

The design assumes construction on both banks of the Svratka. Individual fields of construction are plotted with buildings of the widest range of typologies, scales and orientation. Serving as the communications axis of the new neighbourhood in the north-south dimension is a boulevard of metropolitan scale, which the jury doubts can be connected to the current street network. As a transition to the historic centre, the proposed new rail station is excessively scaled.

 

19 (CZ) Ivan Ruller, Michal Sedláček;

collaboration: Miroslav Korbička, Václav Čermák, Vlastislav Novák, Petr Vrba, Andrew Heom

The jury responds positively primarily to the renovation of the public space in the frontage of the main station, the connection to the historic centre and the new neighbourhood forming a public park and work with water in the area. A major negative in the design, though, is the excessively scaled roofing across the platforms and tracks, which is designed for highly intensive use.

 

20 (CZ) KNESL+KYNČL: Jiří Knesl, Jakub Kynčl;

collaboration: Norbert Holub, Petra Hudečková, Adam Koten, Hana Kynčlová, Tomáš Pavlíček, Kateřina Polesná, Táňa Sojáková, Jan Špirit, Štěpán Vašut, Kamila Vystrčilová, Bohuš Zoubek

This strongly technicist approach did not meet with much understanding among most of the jury members. The proposed urban structure is too rigid, and lacks corresponding transport links. To turn the Brno rail station into a rail terminus seems too impractical. On the other hand, several indicated features, particularly along the newly uncovered canal or in the parks, could prove beneficial for the city.

 

21 (HU) GUBAHÁMORI: Sándor Guba, Péter Hamori, Gábor Soóki-Tóth, Csaba Csiszár, Dávid Földes; spolupráce: Kristóf Tot

The design presents a strong conceptual strategy of how to bring current suburb-dwellers back into the city centre. Nonetheless, creation of the same conditions in the given area as found in suburbia is viewed by the jury members as somewhat controversial and not the best solution, and the same is true for the idea of the rail station as an oversized landscaping project. However, the jury does appreciate the planned urban structure that along the river’s length gradually shifts from high density to urban nature, as well as the high level of graphic preparation.

 

22 (CZ) Ondřej Beneš;

collaboration: Karel Goláň, Daniel Homola, Jan Doušek, Radek Paulus

The design sets out a highly schematic structure of city blocks of excessively large scale. Also found problematic by the jury is the solution for the station building and the station frontage, presented only in the form of vague sketches.

 

23 (CZ) Martin Doležel, Martin Daněk, Eva Hrubanová;

collaboration: Klára Stachová

A complex and thoroughly worked-out design, employing a central park in the area in a diagonal position, the plan divides the locality into independent wholes that could work separately, yet together they do not provide any kind of innovative urban solution. The jury agrees that the connection of the city to the natural corridor of the Svratka and the use of its potential is not sufficiently clearly defined.

 

24 (NL) Dutch Urban Solution, Architecture and Urban Planning: Richard Breit

The design is presented with great visual attractiveness, yet it contains several quite disputable elements. The jury reached the conclusion that the mass of the rail station on a triangular plan, as well as the unjustified elevation of the building above the rail lines, is designed on an excessively monumental scale, and would prove financially excessive. The positioning of the newly planned green areas does not allow for connections between the northern and southern parts of the area under consideration.

 

25 (SK / ES) SLLA Architects / ISUURU ARQUITECTOS: Michal Sulo, Raúl Alonso Estébanez, Carlos Abadias Banzo

The authors display a clearly thought-out approach to the construction of the northern part of the area, through generally irregular blocks or building fields with differentiated objects. The same structure is also stretched across the volume of the rail line up to ulice Nové sady on the western edge of the area. The difficulties in the technical feasibility and the high financial burden of this design, though, did not in the end convince the jury of its justification.

 

26 (SK) Lukáš Sečka, Štefan Tkáč, Viktória Bandurová, Kristína Dančišínová, Ján Adamčík, Filip Akurátny, Michal Avuk, Tomáš Baroš

The design proposes the creation of an island with a highly irregular block construction, a central square and an artificial lake. All of the elements are designed on an excessively monumental scale. The conception of the station building and the transportation solution, including a monorail linking Little America to the Brno trade-fair grounds, are not suitable in the view of the jury.

 

27 (NL) – 2nd round: 01 Erick van Egeraat: Erick van Egeraat, Willem van Genugten, Zita Balajti, Harry Kurzhals, Pere Maicas, Carlos Anton de la Vega, Juriaan Calis, Egle Kalonaityte, Carla Galmes Munar, Xiaochen Che, Viktor Szemes, Dave Darnell, Andrew Cameron, Enrico Isnenghi, Dan Watson, Sarah Whydle, Catherine Coutts, Rob Kinch

the proposal went on to participate in the 2nd round

 

28 (CZ) MS plan: Michal Šourek, Milan Ševčík, Pavel Hřebecký, Tomáš Filgas, Katarini Duničková, Eliška Chlachulová

The jury appreciates the complexity in the treatment of the design, even though the urban structure does not provide any clearly formulated added value for the city. The oversized central boulevard with its sculptural landmark also appears problematic.

 

29 (UK) Studio Egret West: Christophe Egret, David West, Cecilia Lindstrom, Tomas Pohnetal, Sophie Griffith, Freddie Jackson

In this design, the jury particularly appreciates the effort towards creating a variegated and diversified urban structure. However, the urban park along the Svratka is shaped awkwardly, and its outlines are formulated without clarity. The architectonic form of the station building lacks a connection to the character of the other proposed construction.

 

30 (CZ) Aleš Burian, Gustav Křivinka;

spolupráce: Mária Vanková, Václav Slíva, Veronika Punová, Jiří Huške, Michal Juřík, Ota Plášek, Herbert Seelmann, Petr Soldán, Václav Malina

The complex and thoroughly formulated design, with a clear spatial composition, works with the integral connection of the river Svratka, yet the scale of the somewhat rigid block structure and its blanket character do not match current urban design practice, or correspond well with the surrounding built fabric.

 

31 (CZ) Alena Balcárková, Jaromír Stejskal, Roman Zmrzlý

The jury agrees that the vaguely sketched urban structure of oversized block construction appears highly awkward, as well as the design for the boulevard. The architectonic formulation of the station building and its street frontage do not even meet basic quality requirements.

 

32 (CZ) – 2. kolo: 03 Michal Palaščák, Michal Poláš, Martin Bělkovský, Miroslava Šešulková, Lukáš Černý

the proposal went on to participate in the 2nd round

 

33 (UK) Mark Fisher Architects: Mark Fisher, Vinicius Gaio de Siqueira, Dimitra Koroni

The design creates a sizeable triangular park, yet its relation to the city and the river, and its potential within the area under consideration remain unused, and the jury regarded it as insufficiently considered. The urban structure appears convincing, yet the specification of programs and functions deserves a clearer formulation.

 

34 (BE) DOGMA: Pier Vittorio Aureli, Martino Tattara, Luciano Aletta, Ezio Melchiorre, Stephanie Savio

The design is presented with exceptionally successful graphic rendering. It is founded on the very strong formal gesture of a circle, through which it aims to create a “green centre” for the city. However, the jury decided that the qualitative contribution of this concept for the overall city structure is not sufficiently supported. The station building is designed with greater conviction than the intended urban structure.

 

35 (CZ) Milan Beránek, Tomáš Pavlovský, Jan Kubačka, Jan Vodička, Hana Fučíková, Kateřina Lyčková

A thorough and complex design, it nonetheless lacks greater working-out of the urban structure. To the jury ,the work with the specific identity of the proposed localities is problematic, as is the uncertain design of the “square on the river”, the station building and the main station frontage. One major positive aspect of the design is the well-conceived connection of the park to the river corridor.

 

36 (UK) Mark Fisher Architects: Mark Fisher, Vinicius Gaio de Siqueira, Dimitra Koroni

The design creates a sizeable triangular park, yet its relation to the city and the river, and its potential within the area under consideration remain unused, and the jury regarded it as insufficiently considered. The urban structure appears convincing, yet the specification of programs and functions deserves a clearer formulation.

 

37 (HU) József Árva, Bence Álmos Buzás, Zsófia Hompók, Viktor Kékesi

The urban structure has a clumsy appearance. The connection of the oversized areas of the park with the city and the river should be more clearly defined. The overall concept of the arch, tree and block was seen by the jury as schematic and unconvincing.

 

38 (CZ) Jana Kaštánková, Martin Všetečka, Martin Novák

The chaotic presentation of the design cannot present the proposed solution in any appropriate way. The jury found the design to be schematic, with insufficient definition of the urban structure and only sketchily conceived architectonic forms.

 

39 (DE) rha reicher haase associierte / move mobility, smart moving cities: Christa Reicher, Jan Polívka, Holger Hoffschröer, Daniel Tries, Tonny Bosch, Carolina Ramos Fallu

This monothematic urban structure does not make use of the potential of the given area. The jury agreed that the project did not supply adequate definitions of the specific quality of the proposed units, nor their mutual relationships. The entrance space in front of the new station building, as a result of its monumentality, stands outside of the scale of the surrounding construction.

 

40 (CZ) –  2nd round: 05 Atelier M1 architekti: Jakub Havlas, Jan Hájek, Pavel Joba;

collaboration: Jakub Straka, Vojtěch Šaroun, Michal Tichý

the proposal went on to participate in the 2nd round

 

41 (UK) McGarry-Moon Architects / Robert Davies

The design presents a utopian vision of an industrial city with a blanket pattern of single-family houses, which is hardly adequate for the given area. Likewise, the jury also found the excessively scaled public spaces problematic, in the contrast of their extent with the small scale of the residential construction.

 

42 (PL) Przemysław Biskupski, Monika Woźniak, Magdalena Skop, Mateusz Jóźwiak

In the new city area, the design ignores the view of the landmark of the cathedral, and the central space with the circular object appears problematic. In the design, the jury approves of the well-conceived block structure, yet does not find it to make sufficient use of the potential offered in this locality by the river.

 

43 (PL) ARCA: Michał Stangel, Michał Beim, Maciej Rogóż, Łukasz Hypsior, Karolina Czuwara

The jury finds the design problematic particularly in the insufficient contextual links to the surroundings, both because of the rigid block structure and the not entirely suitable organisation of the park areas. Another hindrance is the oversized volume of the new rail station.

 

44 (NL) Arthur Cuber

Situated in the area between the post office and ‘New America’, the rail station is planned as an excessively large mass, while it also fails to form a suitable entrance space either to the rail junction or to the new construction to its south. Likewise, the conception for construction is not sufficiently expressed, and lacks a clear urban structure.

 

45 (CZ) David Bárta, Jan Havlíček, Jiří Klokočka, Hana Ryšavá, Hana Suchánková, Radek Suchánek

The design presents a strikingly schematic, almost abstract block-structure for future construction. The rail station is, in its volume, also greatly over-scaled. Nonetheless, the jury does appreciate the simplicity of expression and easy communicability of the project.

 

46 (ES) –  2nd round: 04 BLAU: Ramon Bernabe Simo, Tomáš Labanc, Georgia Adamou, Syrine Siala, Begum Cehreli, Robin Gringhuis, Lazar Djuric

the proposal went on to participate in the 2nd round

 

47 (CZ) Společnost pro Brno: Daniel Bryša, Martin Andrle, Lucie Radilová, Štěpán Dokoupil, Lukáš Fišer

The design presented a highly courageous and abstract vision. Though the jury would like to praise the effort towards an experimental approach, the design lacks a suitable scale and displays basic deficiencies in terms of the creation of urban space as well as in terms of transportation.

 

48 (ES) nodo17 group: Manuel Pérez Romero, Jaime Tarazona Lizárraga, Teresa del Prado, Laura Huerga, Carlos Corral

The design presents a relatively unusual approach within the competition by putting forth a terraced building pattern in an ornamental structure. Yet, in the jurors’ view, this conception would appear to match more of a late-20^th-century housing estate than a new city centre.

 

49 (BE) Sekeris: Grimwald Sekeris

From the submitted documentation, the aims of the designer are insufficiently comprehensible to the jury. There are also basic defects in the transportation plan.

 

50 (PRC) Urban D.A.T.A.: Wenhui Shan, Joost Willem Van Den Hoek, Chen Hu, Oscar Osuna Garcia, Kristina, Zhen Li, Yang Qian, Daren Shen

The design presents the idea of a central park and new construction localised along both sides of the river. In the locality of ‘Nové Sady’, however, it proposes high-rise landmarks that the jury does not find suitable for this position. Also, the connection of the surrounding built-up area to the park is not sufficiently considered.

 

51 (CZ) – 2nd round: 08 UNIT architekti: Filip Tittl, Michal Kohout, David Tichý, Šárka Doležalová, Marie Gelová, Luboš Klabík, Filip Lux, Adéla Medunová, Lukáš Tittl, Jitka Žambochová

the proposal went on to participate in the 2nd round

 

52 (ES) Elena Royo González, Berta Risueño Muzás, Álvaro Ardura Urquiaga, Francisco Javier Ruiz Sánchez

The design presents a variegated and intriguingly articulated block pattern of construction with occasional vertical accents. The highly oversized building of the rail station, with the bridge leading to Petrov Hill, was however not viewed favourably by the jury, and the same is true of the poorly located bus terminal in Nové Sady and the sinking of the western part of Úzká ulice below ground level.

 

53 (CZ / AT) – 2. kolo: 07 Janica Šipulová, Martin Sládek, Franz Sumnitsch, Veronika Kotková, Tomáš Alter

the proposal went on to participate in the 2nd round

 

54 (CZ) Vojtěch Sosna, Jáchym Svoboda, Zdeněk Rothbauer, Pavel Tikman

The relatively rigid urban structure with a monumental central north-south boulevard offers very little flexibility towards the future. The plan of two rail stations above each other appears to the jury to be highly excessive in scale. Additionally, the plan to use the Řečkovice tunnel is now technically obsolete.

 

55 (CZ) Brnovation: Pavel Buryška, Martin Špičák, Kateřina Frejlachová, Tamara Horová, Marek Kundrata, Martin Sucharda, Milan Brlík;

collaboration: Karel Zvěřina, Pavel Ševčík, Sandra Chlebovská, Pavla Drbalová

The design is clearly and comprehensibly presented, and the jury appreciates its effort toward flexible work with the urban block. The chosen scale of the urban structure, though, is not appropriate, and the jury could not find a more precise sense of the character of the future construction. In addition, the connection of the city to the river deserves more thorough consideration.

 

56 (CZ) ABM architekti: Petr Bouřil, Pavel Suchý, Martin Burian, Filip Fišer, Michaela Turková, Andrej Dvořák

The design failed to demonstrate the advantages of the selected position of the rail station, which makes insufficient use of the potential of connecting the historic city centre with the newly emerging area to the south. The urban structure is, for the jury, too schematic and its blocks are overly sized.

 

57 (IT) – 2. kolo: 06 Plasma studio (Europe): Eva Castro, Holger Kehne, Ulrike Hell, Chuan Wang, Pietro Scarpa, Andrea Cadioli, Aurelie Biraud, Yunya Tang, Jingshuang Zhao, Vittoria Bellassai, Valentina Mancini, Giulia Mariotti, Edoardo Nieri, Elitsa Dimitrova

the proposal went on to participate in the 2nd round

 

58 (RO) – excluded for late submission

RE-ACT NOW ARCHITECTURE: Mario Kuibus, Teodor Manea, Mihai Rebega, Raluca Serban, Vlad Marianciuc, Mihaela Serban, Mihail Stefan, Sabin Purice, Claudiu Pavel

The design was excluded from the competition for late submission, and was not evaluated.