school of architecture · 4 part 1 — timeline archip 2016/17 june 2017 1. 20/06/2017: the final...

School of Architecture as a ProjectRegina Loukotová, ARCHIP rector

“Approaches to architectural education are extensively discussed today, especially with respect to the rapid changes in the architectural profession itself. Based on my experience with leadership of the first private School of Architecture in the Czech educational environment – The Architectural Institute in Prague – I strongly believe in the positive impact of an intense knowledge exchange as an approach to reformulate educational models as we know them from our recent post 1989 democratic history of architectural education, which had been only provided by largely unreformed public uni-versities. I search for the possibility to con-front our newly adopted educational model with others, learning from the examples of schools which operate in a diverse cultural and socio-economic context and which are leading multidisciplinary institutions of edu-cation in architecture on a global scale.

In the case of ARCHIP, our long-term pro-fessional interest is centred on new phenom-ena in the Central-Eastern European academ-ic context: the strategies behind founding a multidisciplinary school of architecture as an institutional project that impacts a wider architectural scene.

Our project of a School of Architecture is based on designing strategies for a series of complex relationships: between academia and practice; between public and private actors in the built environment and in urban development; between architecture and oth-er adjacent disciplines; and from technical sciences to humanities.”

— Regina Loukotová: Fulbright research project, School of Architecture as a Project, 2017

Part 1 —timeline

4 Part 1 — Timeline ARCHIP 2016/17

June 2017

1. 20/06/2017:The Final Ceremony for the graduating class of 2017 happened this year at Villa Pellé. This class of 11 graduates represents Lebanon, the Netherlands, Egypt, the Czech Republic, Israel, Indonesia, Russia, and Germany. At a particular-ly hot garden party, friends, family and staff of ARCHIP met to celebrate the graduation cere-mony in the beautiful estate. Thank you for your hard work during these years. Congratulations!

2. 13–14/06/2017:The Final State Exams took place over two days. The external juries were chaired by Sean Clifton and Jan Hajek on each respective day. Among the jury also sat each student’s studio leader. A short time was allowed for the pres-entation of each Bachelor project, before the jury and in witness of friends and colleagues. The students’ projects were then defended in response to questions within the disciplines of architecture, construction and history. Well done!

May 2017

3. 31/05/2017:This year’s exhibition opening party + GoRo I. award took place under the support of the Town Hall of Prague 7 at an event hosted in their very large corridor. The beautiful display of work ex-hibited the intensity and volume of the students’ semestral production. It filled the otherwise empty space with a great excitement! The first official GoRo Award for the best project went to Maria Luu Orozco for TWINS and the award for best studio went to Palaščák-Šimonová Studio.

4. 29/05/2017:The UNESCO World Heritage Workshop and conference, “Living (in the) City?” was hosted by ARCHIP and New Architectures of Heritage. Students participated from schools across Europe. The workshop aimed to explore the po-tential for inspiring contemporary interventions in historic contexts and to advance informed discussions on the new architectures of herit-age, with a focus on the Prague UNESCO World Heritage site.

5. 26–30/05/2017:The AD final presentations took place over 4 days of studio reviews. The studio space was reorganised, most notably with a unifying line – a chain link fence – of hanging drawings which joined the individual studio exhibitions together. Among those of the guest juries for the final presentations were: Christian Labud, Eva Wolff, Petr Janda, Tomáš Chmel, Lenka Burgerová, Markéta Mráčková, and Igor Kovačevic.

April 2017

6. 20/04/2017:ARCHIP registered for (RIV) “Information Register of R&D results”, the national system of research publications. The RIV is one of parts of the R&D Information System operated by the Government Office of the Czech Republic. It is part of the public administration for the collec-tion, processing, publication and utilization of information about research and development, which has been supported by public budgets.

7. 06/04/2017:Máme otevřeno is an annual event: 1 evening; 1 neighbourhood; 40 places. For their part, Design Disco and ARCHIP prepared “Prague Happiness”, an interactive workshop to deter-mine how happy people are in Prague? They evaluated the amount of satisfaction people had in Housing, Food, Public Spaces, and Transit in Prague. They represented this information in an interactive model as a part of their collaborative art installation.

8. 05/04/2017:ARCHIP announced an Open Call for new head of studio. The search was to fill one position for the Head of Architecture and Urban Design Stu-dio, to begin in the winter semester 2017. From a group of 15 applicants, René Dlesk (pura) with assistent Tamara Horová were selected to join the team of 5 ARCHIP studios, replacing Michal Palaščák. Meanwhile, Petr Stec was invited as the Head of GA+D studio. Visiting Studio will be opened in september 2018.

1

2

3

4

5

8

7

Part 1 — Timeline ARCHIP 2016/17 5

Part 1 — Timeline ARCHIP 2016/17 76 Part 1 — Timeline ARCHIP 2016/17

9

12

10

13

1618

17

February 2017

13. 26/02/2017:5 ARCHIP students participated in the Sokolov Workshop: The Horror Houses by Alfa. The site was the neglected residential area around the local cinema. The workshop was a collaboration between the city of Sokolov, ARCHIP, and the Faculty of Environment CZU in Prague. The two-day trip in Sokolov was intended to propose solutions for reviving the neighborhood and rethinking public space and housing typologies.

14. 01/02/2017:Two new courses have been added to the Master’s programme. The first is a course on Urban Planning, with a new key lecturer, Petr Návrat and lecturers Luděk Sýkora, Pavel Koch, Zuzana Kuldová.

15. 01/02/2017:The second is a course on Architecture and City, with a new key lecturer, Radek Kolařík.

16. 01/02/2017:The New Future-Oriented GA+D Studio has been officially set up to begin next academic year, in the winter semester 2017. This GA+D curriculum in Prague consists of three main components: the Future Cities Design Studio; a Seminar; and a science, engineering, and tech-nology Workshop. Peter Stec will be the Head of the Studio, with the Seminar and Workshop led by Martin Hejl and Shota Tsikolja.

January 2017

17. 31/01/2017:ARCHIP came out with a new MA+U logo for the Master’s program in Architecture and Urbanism: a new face for the new and quickly growing MA+U!

18. 27/01/2017:Design Disco was very excited to host a Work-shop program, in three sessions over three months, for students from the Lauder School. The Workshop centred around the concept of ‘Home’ as students were challenged to think about multiple interpretations of what Home can be. The students worked together to build a full-scale cardboard shelter. The finished product was unveiled before a crowd of 200 at Lauder School’s annual show.

9. 04/04/2017:Thank you to students from ROC Nova College Technology (NL) who joined us in our studios and shared some of their work with us. We appreciated the exchange of knowledge, expe-riences and project ideas in architecture and urbanism between our professors and students. Nice meeting all of you!

March 2017

10. 15/03/2017:MA+U and You! is ARCHIP’s new Facebook project. It is a platform to introduce the people of the school, beginning with our new Archi-tectural Design studio assistants. With a brief introduction, each of them spoke about them-selves, their thoughts on architecture, on teach-ing and on being a part of the life of Archip. A mirror of the new students’ blog, it is a nice and friendly way of sharing and strengthening the social connections within the school.

11. 15/03/2017:Work is underway on ARCHIP’s new corporate design and website. The most notable new element is the Blog section. Student Life, AR-CHIP Life, and a portfolio of students’ works are featured. Additionally, the Blog posts mini-in-terviews with our students, where they speak about themselves and where they’re from, as well as their thoughts on Prague, architecture and life in general. More to come!

12. 09–12/03/2017:On the first day of their GA+D trip to Copen-hagen, students from the CIEE programs of Barcelona, Berlin and Prague arrived to CITA (Centre for Information Technology and Archi-tecture). Students met with the studio leaders of CITA, and presented their projects for group discussions. And exciting discussions they were! After the more serious event, the next plan – while in Copenhagen – was to discover the city by bike!


November 2016

24. 11–13/11/2016:ARCHIP was involved in the Data-driven Changemakers Datathon. Studio assistants, Bára Šimonová and David Neuhäusl, acted as mentors to the students in the event. It is a weekend event for analysis, ideas and propos-als. This year’s theme was “Active public space”. The participants analysed a vast amount of Prague city data to conceptualize practical solutions for Urban Movement, Diversity, and Bottom-up impact.

25. 04/11/2016:A Special lecture, Public Interest Design: Building Community through Engaged Part-nerships, was given by Nadia M. Anderson, (University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA) at ARCHIP. Addressing design practice which continues to respond mainly to the needs and desires of those with money and power, Public Interest Design provides an alternative scenario, valuing local knowledge of place, history and process over product.

26. 01/11/2016:The city launches the Art District 7 (creative and artistic district) project, of which ARCHIP will play a part! It consists of a concentration of interconnected cultural and artistic entities, ser-vices, firms, schools and artisans from a range of creative fields. This creative district will have a driving influence on both regional and local growth, and generate advantages and opportu-nities for Prague 7, as well as ensuring that our neighbourhood is an exciting place to be.

October 2016

27. 26–28/10/2016:GA+D students visit Barcelona for the CIEE Barcelona Summit! They made a special visit to IaaC Valldaura campus with a visit to IaaC’s Green Fab Lab, on the hills overlooking Bar-celona. Besides enjoying the natural scenery, students were able to realize the potential of 3D printing with natural materials. And still have time to enjoy Gaudi and the city!

19

20

22

27

24

25

19. 25/01/2017:The GoRo Award (named in honor of Martin Roubík and short for Golden Roubík) will be awarded each semester to both the best stu-dent project and the best semester studio. The GoRo Award was introduced, in its Pilot version, at this semester’s final exhibition for the Fortu-na Cinema Area in Leipzig project. After review by an external jury, the pilot award for the best project went to Kryštof Redčenkov for Seller-hausen Platz, and to Nasadil-Duba studio for best studio.

20. 18/01/2017:The GA+D studio begins the Spring semester with the project: Hyperloop Portal, as our new visiting students are arriving (by conventional transport). This semester project theme con-nects technology, speed and efficiency in travel between cities. The research and work should be focused mainly on speculating, developing and designing the Hyperloop station in the stu-dents’ chosen city. One of this year’s Bachelor projects will be developed in this studio, with a focus on the areas around Masarykovo nadraží in Prague.

21. 16/01/2017:A group of students from the University of Leicester (UK) visited ARCHIP. Thank you for your visit!

22. 10/01/2017:The GA+D winter semester presented their final projects for the Terminal 2 of Václav Havel Airport proposal to the representatives of Czech Aeroholding both at ARCHIP and also at Prague Airport.

December 2016

23. 02–04/12/2016:A joint workshop of IAAC, CIEE Berlin and ARCHIP students was held at ARCHIP on the topic of speculative architecture.


28. 28/10/2016:We arranged a Leipzig trip to visit our area. Along the way, we stopped at Spinerrei, in the artistic district, to see its repurposed industrial architecture, and continued with a walk through the center of the city, with a visit to the Muse-um of Fine Arts. Fortunately, after some time searching around the site, the guards allowed us to enter for a closer look. On our way back to Prague, we swung by Zaha Hadid’s BWM Cen-tral Building.

29. 13/10/2016:A Special lecture, UNESCO World Heritage: Post-History in the Making, given by James White (New Architectures of Heritage, Lon-don) at ARCHIP. He argues that cities enter a ‘post-historical’ phase the moment they acquire World Heritage status. The questions then are: what do we make of this new phase, where will it lead us? And: what is the future for cut-ting-edge contemporary architecture in urban UNESCO sites?

30. 12–13/10/2016:ARCHIP faculty and staff participated in the Affordable Housing Seminar at ČVUT. Pavel Koch presented a lecture on housing econo-mies, and Maria Topolčanská presented a public housing project she co-designed in Barcelona.

31. 13/10/2016Collaborative work between ARCHIP and BAS was exhibited in Prague and published in a newsletter, to mark the results of the “Ex-change of Experiences in Sustainable Urban Development”, financed by Norwegian grants under the bilateral cooperation project. The exhibition marked the first chapter in an on-going relationship between our schools. For many months, the students’ open and curious inquiries into the city were displayed from wall to wall in the school’s lecture room.

September 2016

32. 29/09/2016:During his visit to ARCHIP, a special lecture: Some Spaces, Probes and Other Dualities, was given by Thomas Wiesner (professor at Bergen School of Architecture). He spoke about his projects, perception and memory and inven-tion, among other themes. Thank you for the inspirations!

33. 26/09/2016:Design Disco, a design education organiza-tion founded by ARCHIP students, organizes workshop programs for high school students, typically, in their schools. But this time, through their partnership with CAS Trips, a workshop brought over 50 students into ARCHIP’s main studio space. Students built and tested lamp shades made with everyday objects: pencils, hangers, etc. The task was simple: analyze, design, and build a lamp shade using only the selected object.

34. 19–30/09/2016:Students from Bergen School of Architecture (BAS) visit ARCHIP for a two week work-shop (1st week under supervision of ARCHIP professor Pavel Nasadil, 2nd week under BAS professor Thomas Wiesner) as part of an on-going exchange and partnership between our two schools. This was the second visit made this year by BAS faculty, and the first which included BAS students. Working in cooperation with ARCHIP faculty, small teams of students selected sites, and presented their research, drawings and models, with a focus on the theme of institutions in the city and their rela-tion to the river.

35. 26/09/2016:GA+D starts with the project: Terminal 2 of Vá-clav Havel Airport in Prague. ARCHIP students have joined up with their visiting colleagues, and the semester project begins. The project is to provide nature-based research that will serve as a new design tooling. Students are asked to use their nature based tooling to propose new tectonics that predefine new arrangements and behaviours for the airport’s Terminal 2.

28

29

31

32

35

34

33

30


12 Part 1 — Timeline ARCHIP 2016/17

August 2016

41. 28/08/2016:ARCHIP hosted a Welcome session with GA+D for our new visiting students, with studio leader Martin Gsandtner. Two days of orien-tation were spent in the CIEE centre and in ARCHIP. GA+D studio begins earlier than the regular semester, but our students who partic-ipated in this studio were around to meet and introduce their new colleagues to the school. Getting settled in included a trip to Karlštejn, the gothic castle located just outside of Prague, and later on, a trip to Vienna.

42. 15/08/2016:ARCHIP submitted an OP EIC Application for Innovation. The objective of the Opera-tional Programme Enterprise and Innovations for Competitiveness (OP EIC) is to achieve a competitive and sustainable economy based on knowledge and innovation. It is part of the EU funds for regional development. These grants offer investment in research, development and innovations for practice and support the promotion of research and development for innovation.

43. 05/08/2016:The final presentation of the Summer Workshop for Invalidovna took place as part of a public event at the viaduct in Karlín. Students present-ed their large format drawings and their models before a public. The intensive workshop was a ten day journey in memory and scale through cities and rooms. 19 students participated from 3 Universities in Shanghai: China Academy of Art, Jiguang College, and Shanghai Institute of Visual Arts (SIVA); as well as 3 others from the Czech Republic, Afghanistan, and Libya.

44. 01/08/2016:ARCHIP announced the First Open Call for assistants to teach studio-based architectural design, to begin in the winter semester 2017, after Paul S. Delave, assistant to Jaroslav Wer-tig for the past 4 years, left the school. Over 20 applicants showed interest. The Open Call was later expanded to include positions for assis-tants in two other studios.

July 2016

45. 25/07/2016:ARCHIP launched the Summer Workshop in collaboration with Miralles Tagliabue EMBT + Jakub Cigler architekti on the topic of the Invalidovna rescue project. Victoria Garriga led the workshop with Elan Fessler and Jakub Cigler. The design methodology has its basis in Enric Miralles’ philosophy. The objective was to demonstrate the intangible values of the place, and the wide range of its potential, as a means of advocating it remain a public asset of the city.

36. 26/09/2016:The New Academic Year begins! School started on Monday at 10.00 AM! Were you there? Every year, we look forward to seeing all of our students at ARCHIP, those returning and those arriving for the first time! This year’s incoming class has 23 first year students, 1 transfer student and 7 visiting students, from 23 countries. Our community continues to grow!

37. 15/09/2016:After a two-round selection process, ARCHIP is happy to welcome New Assistants of 3 studios into the school, beginning in the winter semester 2016. Our new colleagues are David Neuhäusl, studio assistant to Jaroslav Wertig, Martin Duba, studio assistant to Pavel Nasadil, and Bára Šimonová, studio assistant to Michal Palaščák. They join Elan Fessler, studio assis-tant to Jan Schindler, to make this year’s new AD studio teams.

38. 13/09/2016:We were pleased to have a visit of Mexican architecture students. They came to ARCHIP to see our studios’ facilities and students’ past works. Nice meeting all of you!

39. 01–03/09/2016:ARCHIP’s rector, Regina Lokoutova attended the European Association of Architectural Ed-ucation (EAAE) Annual Conference in Delft, at the Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, in Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. The conference addressed the issue what architecture research currently means, as well as what policies and organisa-tions can be appropriate for institutions, using ‘For Example Delft’ as a case study.

40. 31/08–02/09/2016:Faculty of ARCHIP visits BAS, as part of an academic exchange to support communication between our schools. ARCHIP toured the city, the school, and the fjords. They met with fac-ulty and administration of BAS to learn from their techniques and philosophies and exam-ples. Among some of the places visited were TubaKuba and the Bergen Public Library, two design-build projects realized by the students of BAS. It was an exciting and informative trip!

36

37

40

41

45

43


Part 2 —AD projects

Chapter 1

Chapter 1:

Core Studios

Architectural Design (AD) has a vertical studio structure, where students of all years work on the same theme and share not only their design experiences, but also other pro-grams of the studio (such as lectures, field trips, presentations, external critics). The design brief is the same for all four studios, allowing their results to be compared. Only the requirements for delivery, like the level of detail and complexity, vary between different years. Students are also asked to invent their own titles to their projects.

The exception applies only to the 1st term, which is an introduction to Architectural Design. Two or three smaller tasks come before the main project: Piece of Prague, My Space, and Team Building. The final, 6th term is dedicated to the Bachelor project.

Briefs cover different scales and types of problems and are constantly changing: small buildings – dwelling, big buildings – public use, reconstructions – interior, landscap-ing – public space. Every semester, students change studios and over the first two years they get to work with all the studio leaders/assistants. For one term, students also work in teams.

AD is the most important course (with 10/12 credits) which practically and systemati-cally draws on knowledge from other courses.

Students become proficient in all phases of the design process – from analysing the brief, through searching for a concept and form, to the final presentation of the design. Each phase of the term (concept, project, final sub-mission) culminates with a studio presenta-tion with invited reviewers and is graded.

In order to be able to design projects and present them in the visual form, an architect needs to cultivate his or her artistic sensibili-ties, master traditional and digital media and the basics of the arts and cra#s. Every term is dedicated to exploring graphic and pres-entation techniques (digital or hand drawing, handmade professional models, technical construction drawings, graphic techniques, 3D modelling, final sideshow, portfolio).

Part 2 — Core Studios ARCHIP 2016/17 17

Palaščák-Šimonová studio

“Our studio aims to cultivate the students’ critical and conceptual thinking and their capacity to design non-conformist innovative solutions which have the power to foster social change and quality of life, public space and urban environments. We nurture fresh ideas and approaches which grow from site-specific conditions and from the indi-vidual “basic research” of each student. We encourage students to be open-minded, and to find their own fields of interests and ways of working.”

Michal Plaščák has been the Chair of the Architecture and Urban Design Studio since 2013. He is an architect and founding mem-ber of AGP architects in Brno. He made his name in the field with his characteristic col-lective and family housing projects.

[email protected]

Barbora Šimonová has been studio assistant at ARCHIP since 2016. She is an architect and new media artist based in Prague. Together with Markéta Mráčková she founded the COSA studio and publishing platform.

[email protected]

Chapter 2:

Studio Tutors

Pavel Nasadil has been the Chair of the Architecture and Urban Design Studio since 2015. He is a practising architect and found-ing partner of the Prague-based studio FAM Architects whose projects are very successful in open competitions and are widely pub-lished. FAM Architects started out in 2005, as a venture between the UK firm Feilden + Mawson, Pavel Nasadil and Jan Horky. FAM Architects specialise in private residential projects, public buildings and transportation hubs with complex topology and master planning in the Czech Republic, UK and abroad. They o#en collaborate on public projects as part of large international design teams.

[email protected]

Martin Duba has been studio assistant at ARCHIP since 2016. He is a Prague-based practising architect.

[email protected]

Nasadil-Duba studio

“We teach architectural design which is contextual, not radical. One of the studio objectives is responsibility to context in its broadest sense. We see it as a framework and an ultimate source of limits and inspirations. When we build in a physical environment, no ma%er if urban or natural, there’s always context to work with. We believe that good architecture must contribute to context rath-er than harm it and that contextual limits are positive contributors to design process. We favour evolution to revolution, both in architecture and in studio work. Hence, the only way to evolve is through an inventive design process with strong emphasis on site sensitive concepts.”

Part 2 — Studio Tutors ARCHIP 2016/17 1918 Part 2 — Studio Tutors ARCHIP 2016/17

Chapter 2Chapter 2

Schindler-Fessler studio

“Here, students work on conceptually-driven architecture projects. As they go along, they learn the theory and practice of architectural design in optimal balance. We emphasize working with models and free-hand drawing. In the development stage of the project, our focus is on abstraction and dialectical rea-soning; we encourage the process of discov-ery through the practice of architecture.

The studio follows a cumulative method of development – ‘from the inside-out’, which consists of a series of bi-weekly assignments and desk discussions through which the con-cept is developed and refined in a series of steps, each adding more scale and complexity to the project.

This extended, dialectical structure of the studio is a process of working through the project from multiple perspectives, through layers and scales; this cultivates multi-di-mensional reasoning applied to a specific situation and site. The aim here is to embody and represent an elemental meaning with clarity and purpose as a form of Architecture … to situate ideas into the world.“

Jan Schindler has been the Chair of the Architecture and Urban Design Studio since 2011. He is an architect and founding mem-ber of a Prague-based architecture practice.A#er 15 years of working together with part-ner Ludvík Seko, they founded SCHINDLER SEKO architects in 2012.

Their first significant breakthrough came in the form of an international competi-tion for the River Gardens development in Prague 8 – Karlín, on the embankment Ro-hanské nábřeží. Since then, a large volume of office and residential buildings has been built and is widely published.

[email protected]

Elan Fessler has been studio assistant at ARCHIP since 2012. He is an architect based between Prague, Pi%sburgh and New York, where he collaborates with Front Studio Architects.

[email protected]

Wertig-Neuhäusl studio

“A studio is not a factory for the production of architects. An architect is not a sum of technical, artistic and humanistic skills. To become an architect essentially means to have a passion for architecture as a whole, regardless your individual inclinations. It is impossible to transfer any information, experience and knowledge. A studio must guide and support students through the ever-changing process of design. Conceptual and critical thinking is crucial. Formal skills without hard work and love for the discipline are useless.”

Jaroslav Wertig has been the Chair of the Architecture and Urban Design Studio since 2011. He is a practising architect. Together with Boris Redčenkov and Prokop Tomášek, he founded the Prague-based A69 architects twenty years ago. Their design work covers a broad range of projects from interior design to private residences, family and collective housing, public buildings, healthcare fa-cilities, offices, etc. Their work is regularly published.

[email protected]

David Neuhäusl has been studio assistant at ARCHIP since 2016. He is an architect with a Prague-based practice. He conceived and organises Superstudio, a student idea contest. He writes about architecture and related topics for BiggBoss label.

www.Neuhäuslhunal.czwww.superstudiocontest.czdavid.Neuhä[email protected]

Part 2 — Studio Tutors ARCHIP 2016/17 2120 Part 2 — Studio Tutors ARCHIP 2016/17

Chapter 2Chapter 2

Chapter 3:

Studio projects winter termWinter term 2016/17: studio selection of students’ works.AD1 introductive projects (same for all first year students)

Before taking part in the main semester design project, AD1 students work on a series of introductory tasks. While these tasks demonstrate technical and con-ceptual skills, they also serve to familiarize and to orient each student within the surrounding city and the school.

Task 1

Piece of Prague (1 Week)

Students are invited to pick an urban space of a certain size (10 × 10 × 100 meters) and document it at 1:100 scale, only using pencil on paper. Students also outline their activity if they had to stay for 10 hours only in the selected space. This task lasts only 1 week. It is not about design, but about observing urban life and exploring the city – a brand new one to most beginning students.

Task 2

My Space (2 Weeks)

Students take a part of their real studio space, from floor to ceiling, including columns and a wall. They remodel the space and design it for themselves, as a temporary project, suitable for spending their time, working, relaxing, etc. The project should also reflect individuality, the character, interests or origin of the authors. The task is presented only with a 1:10 model, after 2 weeks of design work.

Chapter 3 Chapter 3

Part 2 — Studio projects winter term ARCHIP 2016/17 2322 Part 2 — Studio projects winter term ARCHIP 2016/17

AD1+3+5+7+9 Semestral Project General Brief:

Redevelopment of Vacant Urban Structures.

Site for all studios: Fortuna Cinema Area, Leipzig, Germany

As part of a bi-semestral collaborative project between Dessau school of Architecture and ARCHIP, this semester’s site is located outside of Prague.

The two schools’ studio briefs share a theme and locality frame, based on case studies in two post-socialist cities in Central Europe – Leipzig (Fortuna Cinema Area) and Prague (Kasárna Area Karlín).

The project focuses on new forms of occupancy and transformation of unused historical buildings and left-over plots to facilitate civic organizations, collective enterprises and cooperatives with new spaces for education, culture, work, housing, etc.

Chapter 3 Chapter 3


Nasadil-Duba Studio

AD1 studio brief Working With Limits – Circular StructuresTwo abandoned mysterious circular structures are your site.

The project aim is to make you aware that limits are positive contributors to the architect’s work and working within historical context is an essential part of many projects in practice. You will invent a new programme for the space, based on the general understanding of the site and its objectives. You may wish to propose new structures, additions or infills, re-invent the space horizontally or vertically, respecting the heritage value and beauty of the structure. Adding positives to its value, rather than harm it.

AD3+5+7+9 studio brief Transformation and Social Responsibility

The site is a former industrial site and includes the decayed, listed building of the Fortuna Cinema of Youth, which is hoped to be regenerated for community cultural use. The site is one that is to become the social cultural centre of East Leipzig and your project should explore this potential in line with the Studio’s Objectives.

The project aim is to make you aware that working within an existing sensitive historic environment is an essential part of many projects in practice. You will demonstrate the process through design, considering all existing buildings on the site (specially the Cinema). You may wish to propose a new urban system and circulation, new structures, extensions, demolitions or infills. Urban, programmatic and architectural re-invention will be your line of work, enhancing the heritage value, integrity and beauty of the existing architecture. Think outside of the “box“ through simple connections and relationships to the wide context outside of the boundary wall, considering entrances, spatial sequence, movement and human perception. Most work will be done with physical models, site plans and hand drawings. Visuals will only be project outcomes, not tools.

Chapter 3 Nasadil-Duba Studio Chapter 3 Nasadil-Duba Studio


FORTUNA CINEMA AREA, LEIPZIG, GERMANY

LOUISE NEBELSZTEIN / AD7

WINTER 2016/17STUDIO NASADIL - DUBA

EASTWARD

Louise Nebelsztein (AD7): EASTWARDThis project aims at perceiving the needs for this location, programing functions that answer to the context, tackling latent difficulties and give a chance to foster local culture, community and economy. The proposal involves careful architectural interventions, and leaves space for the program to make itself more definite in time. In example, the Southern tank changes radically in function, with an art performance space. It answers today’s needs and offers the possibility for future reprogramming.

Although in decay, we can observe…

Petra Ilijevic (AD9): CONTRAST.BALANCECreating two distinct atmospheres, one rigid and urban with a spatial grid as a tool to achieve certain effects and another area with more natural character where the grid is completely disappearing after slowly spreading and occupying the existing buildings. Two different organisms are clashing somewhere on the halfway along the line.

The idea is to create two different structures which are supporting each other. Having a strong urban structure with green infills on one side and park with hard industrial elements on the other side. Trying to find and bring some order into its chaotic structure.

The spatial grid as an element which connects and integrate the spaces, making it denser or less dense on certain points.

FORTUNA CINEMA AREA, LEIPZIG, GERMANY

PETRA ILIJEVIC / AD 9

WINTER 2016/17STUDIO NASADIL - DUBA

CONTRAST/BALANCE/



Robert Rami Yussef (AD1): LEIPZIG ART ARENA“The design almost repeats the combination of materials used to build a gas holder around hundred years ago. The brick wall is 100% preserved and the new structure is made of steel panels welded together.

Project also includes an interior space, created by excavating old soil near the circle. It has a terrace roof connected to a walk path placed on top of the thick brick circular wall. The space is insulated and organized as a professional art shop.

The space inside the circle has columns installed according to the hexagonal grid. Customers can stretch any preferable surface between those columns and just draw on it. The same way it goes for exhibitions, when panels can be installed in any shape.”

Jasper Cooper (AD5): REFORMCreating a new urban artefact wherein the existing appearance will dominate. The architecture is already present. What is missing are the people. Perhaps its function was to blame. How to revitalize the site? The answer lies in its vibrant community, which pulls people from all parts of Leipzig to the Bulowviertel. Its vicinity to a large amount of communal gardens proves to be of importance at the same time. How to bring nature to the city?

I believe it is essential to bring these qualities together as a more permanent event. A variety of typologies will be housed within these iconic shells, fragmented between the strict housing grid. Empty spaces become vibrant streets or alleyways. An intriguing reformation of the ground surface acts as the main connection between all structures.



Palaščák-Šimonová Studio

AD1+3+5+7+9 studio briefUrban/Local Start-point Leipzig/Prague

Students will be encouraged to open up a new point of view of the contemporary situation and come up with ideas that would have an impact on the existing area and surroundings. The area’s transformation could be done using many different strategies, but a primary goal is to design public facilities and common public space to encourage people to come back to the area.

Chapter 3 Palaščák-Šimonová Studio

Part 2 — Studio projects winter term ARCHIP 2016/17 33

Ewa Wróblewska (AD1): THE LIVING SCULPTURETo invite people to come back to the area, the idea is to give them open, flexible space that will integrate all of them. The concept is focused on inviting regional producers/traders, farmers, musicians, fresh design brands and all kinds of artist to share their passion with others and create one big ‘market’.

The Living Sculpture is a vertical pathway, on which musician can perform or people can try to local food specialties. Children can play at the same time their grandparents can enjoy the view. During the journey people will find new ways of using the structure.

Daniel Lipskij (AD3): 6X6 MULTIFUNCTIONAL COMPLEX NEUSTADT-NEUSHONEFELD LEIPZIGConcept of development: The main idea of this structure is to provide people around this place, a spot, which they can rent for a very cheap price, so natives can arrange their own business, organize offices or even make it a place to live in. This concept also assumes not destroy any building situated nearby.

Chapter 3 Palaščák-Šimonová Studio Chapter 3 Palaščák-Šimonová Studio


Kryštof Redčenkov (AD3): SELLERHAUSEN PLATZMy general idea is to fulfil this gap by creating new “hybrid” plaza situated inside one of many half abandoned block. Our site is old complex with two empty circular gas tanks made by a brick wall. Three more buildings with well-preserved brick facades. Next idea is to keep the spirit of the place and only add new features without damaging the old structures. Circular forms draw attention and will be the main attraction of this new plaza.

Yasaman Ghanaeimiyandoab (AD9): IG FORTUNA + SERIES OF FORTUNATE OBJECTSMy goal was not to impose a program that creates fast forward solution, but to keep what is already there and use it to form a local square for the neighbourhood. Knowing that the residents care very much about keeping the theatre, I aimed to take a step further and make the space around the theatre as lively and as open as possible, letting the space to be defined on its original terms and leaving it up to people to decide how they use the space, a space that can work as the heart of the area and invite various cultural events. All of this might seem like vague statements, but I stand my ground to propose a democratic space that loosely fills the void and it enables an open mind to various interpretations and does not persist on forcing any change to happen but rather letting changes to happen on their own time.

I chose “abstraction “over “clarity “on this matter, this project is currently hypothetical and therefore there are no investors and authoritative evaluation of its profit, therefore I played with the idea that, I’d stand aside as an architect and let the void form its own identity for its users. I’ve proposed objects to fill in the blanks here and there as tools for people to interact with and also with each other to create a stronger sense of community and finally to revitalize old traditions and develop new ones.

Chapter 3 Palaščák-Šimonová Studio Chapter 3 Palaščák-Šimonová Studio


Schindler-Fessler Studio

AD1+3+5+7+9 studio brief The Fortuna Theatre, Liepzig, Germany

Culture is a social production. The 1928 structure which housed the Fortuna Cinema was conceived, not by accident, as a representation of both the Classical Temple and the Industrial Hall. Emblematic of its symbolic function within society, it is a house for both meaning and making.

In the 21st century, the traditional relation between audience and actor is blurred. A telephone is a camera; citizens are directors. And yet, theatre has a history and the elements which define the theatre are limited by necessity. However, these elements are ripe for redefinition. What is a stage? Where can a curtain be drawn? When is the act truly over? How can the space of performing arts exceed its conventional limits?

The renovated Fortuna Theatre will question the framework for participation and performance. The project will define elements, boundaries, stages and their interaction. As well as propose a larger social environment within which the magical moment of ‘Action’ may take on new meaning…

The project will be to propose a flexible theatre complex (from classical to experimental theatre productions or ballet) and to focus on new forms of occupancy and transformation of the unused historical building and its surrounding left-over plots.

Chapter 3 Schindler-Fessler Studio

Part 2 — Studio projects winter term ARCHIP 2016/17 39

Isaac Marquéz Sabido (AD3): NEUES FORTUNA The main concept of this Project is the projection of the light rising from the ground to the top of the old facade of the Kino Fortuna as a metaphor of a new beginning that won’t forget the old one creating a triangular strong shape with a sloped floor that would allow the visitors to enjoy the building climbing and exploring it through this unpredictable and the same time practical circulation areas.

Also the projection of the light gets related to the previous painting analysis. Through the windows the artificial and natural light give to the Neues Fortuna a spirit, degrading the colours and creating an interesting and unpredictable light show.

Blqees Bnana (AD3): INTERLOCKOverall, the building is designed based on two aspects: first, the transparency between public and the visitor, second, the dynamic atmosphere that the structure itself creates. As the building has a unique history and value, the project is designed as a new structure built inside the old structure, with extending volumes projecting into the space beyond, creating contrast and dialogue between old and new, inside and outside.

Moreover, by creating this dynamic art performance theatre, the project seeks to bring life back to the abandoned site by providing a public seating, park, cafés and an exciting experience. With every show, the visitors will be able to have a unique view to the show and to the city itself which can be easily viewed from the large glass windows, and the project outdoor area is a big important part of the project, the project proposed to extend the site area to link the surrounding with an open public park that what attract more visitors to the theatre and the area of the site itself, especially with the lack of open spaces in the area.


Chapter 3 Schindler-Fessler Studio Chapter 3 Schindler-Fessler Studio

Wertig-Neuhäusl Studio

AD1+3+5+7 studio briefUn/block!

Your project will be located not far away from the centre of Leipzig (Germany), where the dense city structure starts slowly dissolving and meets looser urban elements that are rather indefinite. It contains a relatively broad range of buildings and characters from industrial brownfields, through residential buildings to the historical object of Fortuna Cinema, just to name a few.

Site and structure

You should focus on the assigned site in a wide perspective and (re)define its future character. Propose its spatial and functional relationship with the surrounding structure. Analysing and seeking a deep understanding of the site´s overall context is essential for establishing solid foundations for your project. Both creating and demolishing is possible.

Notice the connection-implying consequential north-south division of the site and take into consideration the notion of urban block structure: is there a block or two missing or is it a welcomed pause in the rhythm of the city? Should the grid be completed and if so, then how much – totally or partially? Should the site be adapted as a functionally supporting element for its neighbouring areas or could it take advantage of them? Or rather what would be the appropriate ratio? And how is your proposal going to affect the neighbourhood – will an independent unit be created or will a responsive dialogue take place?

For whatever approach you will decide, the crucial task for the whole semester is to master the art of expression and representation of your ideas with physical models, drawings, texts or diagrams.


Chapter 3 Wertig-Neuhäusl Studio Chapter 3 Wertig-Neuhäusl Studio

Elena Štefková (AD1): JOHANN SEBASTIAN BACH Megi Davitidze (AD1): GALLERY/EXHIBITION SPACE AND CAFÉ



Margarita Pershina (AD3): CIRCUS INSTITUTIONSupport the concept for the site by proposing a new building or a refurbishment/extension of an existing object on the site. Focus on it thoroughly and choose the building plot carefully. The designed object should be functionally more sophisticated, yet typologically still simple (i.e. residential building).

Marie Meland (AD3): UN BLOCKThis project is a modification and renovation of a city block in the Leipzig inner east district. The goal is to bring new life, circulation and activity to the area. To make it a new and attractive place of the district. The first step is to integrate this site more with its surroundings and bringing a circulation through the block. There is distributed green islands around the site, placed according to the current trees and circulation. The existing buildings will be made functional concentrated towards cultural aspects, performance, exhibition and the creation of new art. The old historical cinema will be made functional again, and there will be studio spaces and ateliers for rent in the south building. The old gas

reservoirs will be open and accessible to the public. In case of any events, performances or exhibitions temporarily structures can be assembled inside of the cylindrical structures. The south cylinder will function as an external performance space. The north cylinder is concentrated towards external exhibition but can also be used as an additional space or serving for events happening in the cinema or the external stage.



Officesand

House for Janitor

Dormitory and

Library

Lecture facilitiesand

Cinema

Open-AirExhibition space

and Workshop

Workshop and

Studios

Exhibition space and

Mensa

Lars Schmidt (AD5 ): AKADEMIE AM GASWERKThe Academy “Am Gaswerk” will revive the area of Volkmarsdorf without changing what already exists. The aim of this project is to prove that the area - which suffers from poverty and currently gains rapidly in population - does not need additional buildings to tackle that very problem, but can be revived by simply changing the functions of the buildings on the site

Chapter 4

Chapter 4:

Studio projects summer termSummer term 2016/17: studio selection of students’ worksAD2+4+6+8+10 semestral project general brief:

School of Architecture within Prague 7 district. Site and programme is up to each studio. As a cultural institution within the Art District of Prague 7, the school is searching for a new home.

Part 2 — Studio projects summer term ARCHIP 2016/17 49

Chapter 3 Wertig-Neuhäusl Studio

48 Part 2 — Studio projects winter term ARCHIP 2016/17

Nasadil-Duba Studio

AD2+4+6+8+10 studio project l brief: New Archip School

The brief is to design the new Archip School how you would like to see it. The existing premises are stretched to their limits and Archip will inevitably move in the future. The school intends to enhance its identity in the area as that of a good neighbour, an intellectual and architectural design centre where young minds interact with their locality through engaging in projects that are improving the face of Prague 7.

The site for Nasadil / Duba studio is located on the corner of Frantiska Krizka / Skalecka streets and forms a missing corner of a town block. The site is within a minute walking distance of the current Archip premises and will be closely studied prior to any design proposals being made. The proximity to Letna Gardens, Expo pavilion and various education facilities, as well as important historical monuments will play a role forming the concept proposals for the new building. The topography is complicated as well as immediate adjacencies of the site with issues of access, town scape and scale. We will concentrate on the proposals being sensitive to their context, as well as a contemporary addition to the Prague 7 entourage of good quality modern buildings.


Chapter 4 Nasadil-Duba Studio

Gaia Delapine (AD2): T(H)REEThe proposal achieves a harmonious interaction with the current landscape by being shaped through the topography and the position of trees. The division into three units ensures a respect of the porous structure of the surrounding vegetation and complies with the heterogeneous nature of the program, and at the same time possesses the unity of a small village, to which it resembles.


52 Part 2 — Studio projects summer term ARCHIP 2016/17

Ewa Wróblewska (AD2): SYMBIOSISWhile working with the well-situated site in Holesovice district, that have remained an intensive, unique garden, concept is focused on filling the subtle scenery in the most non-invasive way and giving the feeling of a whole, oneness, where separation do not exist. Library building, being sensitive to the context, works in a symbiosis not only with surroundings but also with the people. The first moment of stepping into the site is identified with deep feeling of intimacy and mystery, which is growing. The small library within a setting of quiet contemplation provide us to read as well as study with clear thoughts and joy.



Maria Orozco (AD2): TWINSCorrelation between the space and the garden according to the analysis of the area and the surrounding buildings, I find 5 things that for me is very essential for our library, and I develop my project in the following things: 1. The privacy (Of the terrain). 2. The view (To the city). 3. The green areas inside. (letna). 4. The light (Natural lighting). 5. The simplicity. (Space). According with this characteristics I decided to construct 2 twins buildings, similar in the facade, but different in their functions. The objective of these two buildings is that each be the complement of the other, along with the garden. That in the end the three elements (2 buildings and garden) work as one.



Abigail Mansion (AD4): NEW ARCHIPThe overall design of the school had to respond sensitively to the context. I wanted to bridge the gap between the urban block structure and Letna Park by creating an appropriately scaled building with a sense of PERMEABILITY and an element of PUBLIC INTERACTION.



Louise NebeIsztein (AD8): NEW ARCHIPThe following project is trying to answer to a difficult site in a peculiar position among a block of houses in Letna. Not only the site but the program, required to find an equilibrium based on certain qualities for a school of architecture. The site is located at the end of the Letna plateau and overlooks Vltava. It is right behind a clinic and requires a special attention to surrounding buildings. The terrain makes the urban cohesion very challenging.


56 Part 2 — Studio projects summer term ARCHIP 2016/17 Part 2 — Studio projects summer term ARCHIP 2016/17 57


Palaščák-Šimonová studio

AD2+4+6+8 studio project brief: New School – New Archip

ARCHIP spends 35% of its annual budget on rent. Currently, the whole school occupies 1,000 m2 and studios are too small, crowded and noisy. There is not enough space for future develop ment. ARCHIP needs its new and own building.

The goal is to design the school for the 150 students divided into 6 studios. We are looking for feasible solutions with an interesting spatial concept. The new building should support positive social change, should bring culture and education to the area and present ARCHIP as an open institution.

The design, spatial layout, structure and materials will represent Archip as a young and progressive international school of architecture in Prague. It is going to be the centre and a favourite gathering place for students.

Design a feasible, cheap and contemporary building.

Chapter 4 Palaščák-Šimonová studio


The task is to design the new ARCHIP placed at Z-shaped plot no. 348/1 opposite Nadraží Holešovice (metro station) between streets Plynární and Železničářů. The site is not suitable for extensive development, but very suitable for a small public building such as a school.

The building site was chosen in cooperation with Lenka Burgerová (Council member of the District of Prague 7 for development and architecture). The site has the potential for future development and the new school building.



Megi Davitidze (AD2): NEW SCHOOL – NEW ARCHIPEverything is put in one spatial context, creating connection through the whole building and sort of a „dialogue“ between students. Floating floors that form atriums create the feeling of unity. Concrete, the principal material, makes the building simple and pure. Some openings and the roof windows provide the light as well as some interesting shadows to the building. Leaving the whole ground floor as an extension of the street/exhibition space connects new archip to the people outside the school.

North elevation1:400



Hedy Lemus Bird (AD4): THE WAREHOUSEThe Warehouse is meant to be a space for creativity and exploration. By having a open, flexible, rustic, and unfinished space, architecture students are able to get inspire, collaborate with each other, and add on into their own school design. The building is complemented by another small building next to it where calm, tranquillity, and concentration is emphasized for better study, research, and professionalism. Both buildings are connected by a common courtyard that facilitates circulation, access, and gives back to nature, as well as lowering the weight of the project itself, and collaborating with the metro ventilation shaft and other elements already on site.



Daniela Alvarez (AD4): NEW SCHOOL – NEW ARCHIP



Victoria Pershina (AD4): NEW ARCHIPThe educational idea is a clear division of activities. The divisions have an intersection point as a shared space between two blocks. The program is formed according to the diagram.

The program is based on the daily routine of ARCHIP students. The vertical structure is an educational part, where each floor is designed to support the main type of activity that ARCHIP students will take part in during the day. The educational part of the building is directly focused on the surrounding views that are an inspiring aspect of the architect’s work. The horizontal structure is a public space for social and creative exchange.

The circulation part is located on the road side that represents noisy part of the building. Another part is for the main type of activity which is open and flexible.



Schindler-Fessler studio

AD2+4+6+8 studio project brief: Spacecraft/Landing

This Spring 2016/17 semester will be a project for the new School for Archip. The Studio program grows in scale and complexity as additional layers of influence are accumulated over time. We will begin through analysing our own working spaces (our space)… We will follow a rigorous weekly process.

…from elemental compositions of units, groups and fields followed by precedents and types (a study of existing objects, events and forms) through a critical analysis of the school-as-it-is, a new programmatic composition and proposed architectural agenda will be produced as a model arrangement for our new school.


Chapter 4 Schindler-Fessler studio

Margarita Pershina (AD4): NEW ARCHIP BUILDINGThe new ARCHIP building is supposed to support positive social changes, bring culture and education to the area and present ARCHIP as an open institution. Current problem is existing building is hidden from public view. People from outside do not know what activity the institute represents.

This is the basic concept of the building: open and accessible to the public and the building itself is open to the city. Based on a concept the program was created to define public and private part. The program creates a specific circulation through the building which allows the public to go in to explore all activities of the building.

The principle of this circulation is the combination of two characters: public and private circulation. Private circulation as existing part of the building is for students and faculty. Public circulation is an implemented part which is faced to the main axis within the block as a continuation of the public street. A public core is a central space for informal social exchange.



Vladyslav Alyeksyenko (AD4): IRONYIrony appears when you look at the existing building on site in holesovicka trznice… Building is a part of the situational grid. Destroying it would mean that it will requalify and disrupt the surrounding view. Removing of all walls and slabs in the building and using it as the sculptural element and introduction the new archip building for architectural students as invisible element which is partly underground and creating green roof as the public space with overview on Vltava river bring the irony to be visible. The nude architecture can work as a poetic sculpture better than being architecture itself with the skin.



Ignes Balic (AD4): GROUND ZEROMain concept started to develop on first task – ‘my desk’ with introducing atrium, play with open-closed space and different levels. It develops further after analysis of universities by announcing main ‘exhibition core’ – Delft University, multifunctional space (partition walls?)- University of Nicosia and ‘circulation core’ as in Austin E. Knowlton School of Architecture. Archip analysis emphasized areas on which ones we should put more attention to, as: how to arrange entrances? Where to put circulation? What with exhibition space?



Iman Aljoaki (AD8): ARCHIP ABSTRACTED




AD2+4+6+8 studio project brief: ARCH(SH)IP

Architectural Institute in Prague has been constantly growing since its establishment in 2011. The long-term vision is to increase capacity up to 150 students and to relocate from rented space to its own premises. The new ARCHIP building shall satisfy specific needs of this college and offer opportunities for further expansion or adjustments. Above all it should provide adequate facilities for architectonic education on the highest level and you will design it.

You have a unique opportunity to work for a very specific community, of which you are literally a part, and explore the process of designing itself. Since ARCHIP is an architectural college, its very own building could bear even more significance as a statement. Use your very own experience and consider your proposal as a research of ARCHIP’s possible future. There are reality-based spatial requirements, which should be satisfied, but you can formulate your ideas about higher education in general as well.



An empty cargo ship Europe II will serve as a substructure for the new construction. This standard type of a pushed barge will be anchored between Negrelli’s viaduct and a ferry stop next to the market halls. In case of floods, it would be pushed by a tugboat to a closed port of Holešovice. Due to apparent limitations of the vessel, you should not propose more floor area than the original cargo area multiplied by three, unless you can justify it structurally. More detailed elaboration will be required from students of higher years.



Juan Valente Castillo (AD2): WOODEN WHALEThe concept for this project is the Moby dick whale because it’s an animal creature that li ves on the water with huge proportions as the ship that would support the new facilities of the Architectural Institute in Prague. The usage of a curvy roof and wood materiality are inspi red also in the Japanese architecture that is well known by its sober wooden usage that correlate with the natural environment.



Bachir Benkirane (AD4): ARC(SH)IPWhat is ARCHIP? A new school with an extremely diverse group of students, extremely well rounded professional staff, and a very intriguing location. Yet, it is not taken to its full advantage. Since it is still a new school why not take a new approach? When exactly the last time was that architectural education took a different direction?

At the bachelor level there seems to be no professional to ac ademic link, is it fair to assume that all should accomplish the link at a Masters level? Why can’t the students start with both at the same time? At a personal level, I would say that the most educative experiences would be one to one scale proj ects and professional experience, both have help me mature in an academic level.



Elizaveta Karpacheva (AD4): ARCH(SH)IPHow an architecture education should look like? What should be taught in architecture school? These questions still do not have an answer. The reason is because architecture is too broad and it is different for every person. Architecture requires a wide knowledge in so many topics sometimes not related from a first sight.



Oleksandra Yeloeva (AD4): ARCHIPTo figure out which space is suitable for architecture student one has to answer the question “what is the most important in architecture education?” It is evident that one of the most important things is organization of the process, people, and communication. From here we are receiving the question can the human organization be influenced by the space?



GA+D Studio

“Utilizing an approach that is both interde-pendent and interdisciplinary, students are encouraged to inquire, debate, collaborate, conduct experiments, and rethink the poten-tial of today’s architects and designers. The aim is to develop a language of technological design that can create immediacy between individual responsibility and the current global environmental crisis. Environmental problems are a crisis of human alienation from the natural world, and the Future Cities Studio explores ways in which humanity and nature can come back together. What is required to comprehend globality today is a close study of specific places, cities and cul-tures. In order to create an educational expe-rience that breeds cosmopolitanism, Global Architecture and Design in Prague works with elements of history and tradition just as it takes full advantage of new technologies and the opportunities of global exchange.”

Future Cities Design Studio

Martin Gsandtner is an architect and visit-ing professor at CVUT / Molab in Prague, at ARCHIP / CIEE in Prague, at the Academy of Arts, Architecture and Design in Prague, and at the Academy of Fine Arts and Design in Bratislava. He focuses on the research of interactive design processes in the field of genetic and morphomimetic design compu-tation, algorithmic based reflections, per-formative soundscape nexuses and computer aided manufacturing. He graduated from the Academy of Fine Arts and Design in Bra-tislava and from die Angewandte in Vienna, where he continues in the Doctoral Program. He is the founder of the Experimental Ar-chitecture Biennial and of Re.Code.Nature in Prague.

Chapter 5

GA+D Studio

Chapter 5

76 Part 2 — GA+D Studio ARCHIP 2016/17

Future Cities Seminar

Martin Hejl is a Future Cities Studio lecturer, teaching the Future Cities Seminar since 2014. In 2015, he started teaching Research and Theory of Architecture at ARCHIP MA+U. He is an architect with a Prague --based practice which is greatly involved with academic research. He is known for his Czech and Slovak pavilion at La Biennale di Venezia, and his collaboration with the Faculty of Arts and Architecture of the Technical University in Liberec, the Fine Arts Academy in Brati-slava and the Czech Technical University in Prague.

[email protected]

Future Cities Workshop

Shota Tsikoliya is a Future Cities studio lecturer, teaching the Future Cities (Science, Engineering, and Technology) Workshop since 2014. He is an architect and a PhD student at the Academy of Arts Architecture and Design in Prague with the focus of his doctoral research on computational design and emergent architecture. He holds a posi-tion of assistant professor at the Academy of Arts Architecture and Design in Prague in the studio Architecture III.

www.issuu.com/[email protected]

Part 2 — GA+D Studio ARCHIP 2016/17 77

Chapter 5

GA+D STUDIO

Studio brief: Václav Havel Airport Prague Terminal 2

Students are asked to redesign a chosen part of the Terminal 2 of Václav Havel Airport in Prague. The project is supposed to provide nature-based research that will serve as a new design tooling. Using a microscope, students will look into the plenty of room at the bottom. From there students learn the basic behaviour of the chosen species and create new mechanisms using visual coding. This mechanism will be used to generate new spatial and tectonic associations for the new chosen part of Terminal 2 at Václav Havel Airport in Prague.

Parallel intention is to redesign the functioning layout of the chosen part of the Terminal 2. Students are asked to use their nature based tooling to propose new tectonics that predefine new arrangements of T2 and behaviour “circulation, boarding, seating, service, etc.…”. Biggest intention is to make smart moveable structures that are reacting to Terminal 2 users.

Chapter 5


Karolina Dohnalikova (AD3) and Paris Allen (AD3)

Chapter 5

80 Part 2 — GA+D Studio ARCHIP 2016/17

Jan Kováříček (AD5) and Kasimir Suter Winter (AD3)


Chapter 5

Ryan Strone (AD3) and Sydnee Sachtleben (AD3)

Chapter 5

Elizaveta Karpacheva (AD3) and Olexandra Yeloyeva (AD3)

Chapter 5

82 Part 2 — GA+D Studio ARCHIP 2016/17 Part 2 — GA+D Studio ARCHIP 2016/17 83

Chapter 5

Elios Slovis (AD4) Genevieve Tok (AD4)

Chapter 5


Graham Brosius (AD4)

Chapter 5

Kimberly Newton (AD4)

Chapter 5


Chapter 6:

Bachelor Diploma ProjectsSchindler-Fessler Studio

AD6 studio project brief: Spacecraft/Landing

The task is to configure a new space for ARCHIP. A new environment, a new landscape and a new interior. We begin in search of questions…

There will be two main parts;– Take-off (analytical and conceptual research) and landing (environmental and material situations). The future site is yet unknown.– Encounters – will have these concepts bring new life to an existing site in Prague 7, and subsequently develop with site-specific detail.

Each task has its own objectives and is part of the process of making the project.

– 1 Envisioning an ideal space to work– 2 Finding inspirations and examples– 3 Understanding flows and usage of spaces– 4 Adapting concepts to new conditions– 5 Giving expression to the qualities and experiences– 6 Formal composition of conceptual elements– 7 Architectural representation


Part 2 — Bachelor Diploma Projects ARCHIP 2016/17 89

Jasper Cooper (AD6): ARCHIP No. 39

90 Part 2 — Bachelor Diploma Projects ARCHIP 2016/17


Karina Gataullina (AD6): INTRIGUING TITLE



Lea Kolotinski (AD6): The Three quarters school complex





Palaščák-Šimonová Studio

AD6 studio project brief: New School – New Archip

The goal is to design the school for 150 students divided into 6 studios. We are looking for feasible solutions with interesting spatial concept. The new buidling should support positive social change, should bring culture and education to the area and present Archip as open institution.

Design, spatial layout, structure and materials will represent Archip as young and progressive international school of architecture in Prague. It is going to be the center and a favourite gathering place for students.

Design feasible, cheap and contemporary building.The task is to design new Archip placed at Z-shaped

plot no. 348/1 opposite Nadraží Holešovice (metro station) between streets Plynární and Železničářů. High school, primary school, kindergarten and hotel are situated close to the area.

Tram and bus stops are in front of Nádraží Holešovice – Prague Metro station on Line C, serving Holešovice mainline railway station.

Line C partly crosses the plot and the station is 7 metres below ground level. The site is not suitable for extensive development, but very suitable for small public building such as school.



Miroslav Vochta (AD6): NEW ARCHIP




AD6 studio project brief: ARC(S)HIP

Architectural Institute in Prague has been constantly growing since its establishment in 2011. The long-term vision is to increase capacity up to 150 students and to relocate from rented space to its own premises. New ARCHIP building shall satisfy specific needs of this college and offer opportunities for further expansion or adjustments. Above all it should provide adequate facilities for architectonic education on the highest level and you will design it.

You have an unique opportunity to work for a very specific community, of which you are literally a part of, and explore the process of designing itself. Since ARCHIP is architectural college, its very own building could bear even more significance as a statement. Use your very own experience and consider your proposal as a research of possible ARCHIP’s future. There are reality-based spatial requirements, which should be satisfied, but you can formulate your ideas about higher education in general as well.



An empty cargo ship Europe IIb will serve as a substructure for the new construction. This standard type of on self-propelled river barge will be anchored between Negrelli’s viaduct and a ferry stop next to market halls. In case of flood it would be pushed by a tugboat to close port of Holešovice. Due to apparent limitations of the vessel, you should not propose grosser floor area than the original cargo area multiplied by three. More detailed elaboration will be required from students of higher years.



Caroline El Ayoubi (AD6): DECKED



Ghada El Gammal (AD6): ARCSHIP



David Lameš (AD6): FLOATAs of now, ARCHIP has established itself as a full-fledged institute of higher education in architecture. But its humble beginnings show through to the public. Nearing capacity, the school does not have adequate infrastructure necessary for a modern university and supplementary amenities, though unnecessary, are sighed over, as students must outsource their model assignments, printing and experimenting. ARCHIP requires a new home. However, should a school founded as a revolt to centuries old academia mirror their rivals and adopt the same skin, bones and intestines? Or should it be adventurous in itself; boldly rejecting the typical?



Lars Schmidt (AD6): PROJECT “S”



Dandika Thanos (AD6): FLOAT



Alena Zmeškalová (AD6): ARCHSHIP



GA+D Studio

AD6 studio project brief: Hyperloop Portal

The need for speed has been always present. There are many cities with intricate and complex traffic systems. All were made for the dream idea of effective and fast connection from point A to B. Today we have the Hyperloop proposal. The idea of the Hyperloop is the same as usual transport systems. The only difference is; Hyperloop is more sustainable, efficient in transportation and much faster than today’s transport systems.

People want to move faster and smarter. People want to move greener and more efficient. People want to explore more cult cities, beautiful places around the world, etc. People doesn’t want to spend more time in a plane, train, bus or on the road than the actual trip or visit. Transportation shouldn’t be the main concern of humankind. People are ready for a new transportation system that is already tested, present and working. The only thing that the Hyperloop system is missing is a better working knot, point or station.


Chapter 6 GA+D Studio

The Bachelor work should be mainly focused on developing and designing the Hyperloop station in the student’s chosen city. Also the context and urban proposal of the chosen city should be part of the project research.

Hyperloop Portal for Prague focuses on redefinition of the transportation typology for intercity commuting. With hi–tech means of transport such as Hyperloop, autonomous pods, sharing services like Uber, autonomous drones and cargo robots, the need for traditional stationary terminals is outdated. Instead, this project works with logic of the portal – a dynamic exchange system/gate.



Jan Kováříček (AD6): HOMEOMORPHIC SUPERFLUX





GoRo is a copy of a piece of steel that architect Martin Roubík archived from a material test on a construction site.

Chapter 7

Golden Roubík AwardThe Award Golden Roubík (GoRo), is a tribute to the co-founder of ARCHIP, architect Martin Roubík (1949–2008).

The academic prize was founded in the 2016–2017 year, and is to be awarded biannually – in the winter and summer semesters – to winners in two categories: ‘Best Student Project’ and ‘Best Studio’.

Rules:

1. Student projects are nominated from the 4 core studios.

2. Each studio nominates a maximum of 8 projects (4 nominations by tutors, 2 by critics, and 2 by students). At most there will be 32, while as some nominations may overlap, it could be less. Nominated projects are marked directly on exhibition posters.

3. Jurors have the right to add nominations individually.

4. The jury evaluates the nominated projects and pre-selects at most 10 finalists. The jury appoints the winner of GoRo for Best studio

(based on the number of finalist projects per studio, and if 2 or 3 studios have equal representation of finalists, the decision is made by voting or agreement).

5. The jury appoints the winner of GoRo for Best project.

6. The list of finalists and the winners are announced at the evening opening of the exhibition.

7. The rules are evolving and annually updated and a matter of debate involving all academic community.

Part 2 — Golden Roubík Award ARCHIP 2016/17 109

Chapter 7

GoRo winter 2016–17On January 25, 2017 the first Jury of the GoRo Award evaluated ARCHIP’s semester studio projects.

Jury

Guests:

Lynda Zein, architect and urbanist / CCEA MOBAJan Hájek, architect / Jan Hájek architects

ARCHIP:

Regina Loukotová, architect / ARCHIP RectorKazimir Suter Winter, student / ARCHIP

Chapter 7

110 Part 2 — Golden Roubík Award ARCHIP 2016/17

Jury CommentsQ: How do you evaluate specific attributes of each studio?

Studio Nasadil-Duba

“What I like about the work of this studio is its understanding of the project’s surround-ings: simply, a work with urban context. It surprised me to what degree the projects re-act upon these relations. In student projects this is not usual. A very nice analytical part of the projects, which relates to the before mentioned. O#en students do analysis for analysis, but here it leads to reflection and to concrete solutions. Very good overall quality level. For me the best studio.”

— Jan Hájek

“The studio tries to enhance the sensitivity of the student to the site context, its demog-raphy and history. The approach questions, therefore, the role of the architect in society. This evolves into site-specific projects which focus on the scale and programme of the proposal itself.”

— Lynda Zein

Studio Wertig-Neuhäusl

“Similarly to the Studio of Pavel Nasadil the overall quality level is high in most of the projects. In difference with the Studio of Michal Palaščák nobody stands out clearly. I am brief in description, but works of this studio I like very much indeed.”

— Jan Hájek

“The students seem to have received the nec-essary space and support to push their own individual architectural interests, creativity and approaches. The outputs of the students therefore vary quite a lot from one another – not only in their architectural languages but also in the programmes of the project.”

— Lynda Zein


Chapter 7

Studio Palaščák-Šimonová

“There are individual projects in this studio that stand out clearly from the average. Is it because nobody is ‘imposing’ form here? Because solutions are not given in advance and students are given more space? In some cases, this leads to nice results, others would perhaps need more tutorship. I liked that the best student works arrived to really ‘architec-tural’ results with their ideas. It is a pity there were not more of such projects.”

— Jan Hájek

“The students’ proposals seem to have tried to address both an architecture quality and the urban context. The proposals therefore intend to respond to the site in a sensitive way, mostly through an adequate pro-gramme, but also, their architectural outputs are developed in order to offer dynamic and quality spaces.”

— Lynda Zein

Studio Schindler-Fessler

“I was disappointed regarding both the quality and the presentation of the results. I think there was not enough a%ention paid to the un-derstanding of the place and to architectural ‘resonance’ in general. It seems there are some only first hand ideas without having been worked through, incomplete. Striking illegi-bility of the projects – probably lack of basic knowledge in graphic representation. That may be the cause of the inability to express the design in a graphic way or model. This is crucial – maybe if the works and exhibition were more legible, it would help both the au-thors (who I guess got lost themselves in their works) and those who see or evaluate it.

— Jan Hájek

“The studio seems to be an experimental space for researching into a particular theme, i. e. the theatre. The students therefore can focus on reading, developing and creating something new and engaging.”

— Lynda Zein

Chapter 7

112 Part 2 — Golden Roubík Award ARCHIP 2016/17 Part 2 — Golden Roubík Award ARCHIP 2016/17 113

Chapter 7

ResultsThe winners were announced and prizes were delivered at the exhibition open-ing party at ARCHIP on Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 18.00.

Best Project Finalists

Louise Nebelsztein AD7 (Nasadil-Duba)

Jasper Cooper AD5 (Nasadil-Duba)

Robert Yussef AD1 (Nasadil-Duba)

Lars Schimdt AD5 (Wertig-Neuhäusl)

Margarita Pershina AD3 (Wertig-Neuhäusl)

Marie Meland AD3 (Wertig-Neuhäusl)

Kryštof Redčenkov AD3 (Palaščák-Šimonová)

Yasaman Ghanaeimiyandoab AD9 (Palaščák-Šimonová)

Blqees Bnana AD3 (Schindler-Fessler)

Isaac Marquez AD3 (Schindler-Fessler)

Chapter 7


The Winner of the Best Studio

Studio Pavel Nasadil – assistant Martin Duba

The Winner of the Best Student Project

Kryštof Redčenkov: Sellerhausen Platz

(AD3, studio Palaščák-Šimonová)


Chapter 7

GoRo summer 2016–17On May 29, 2017 at 10.30 the Jury of the GoRo Summer Award evaluated ARCHIP’s semester studio projects.

Jury

Guest:

David Kraus / architect Architektura s. r. o. / Head of Studio Kraus – Čančík at FA ČVUT Prague

ARCHIP:

Adam Gebrian, architecture critic and publicistMichaela Janečková, architecture theorist

Chapter 7


Jury Report

Motto:

Clouseau: Listen to me, Hercule, and you will learn

something. Now then, the facts in this case are: the body of the chauffeur was found in

the bedroom of the second maid. Fact! Cause of death: Four bullets in the chest. Fact! The

bullets were fired at close range from a.25 caliber Bere"a automatic. Fact! Maria Gam-

brelli was discovered with the murder weapon in her hand. Fact! The murder weapon was

registered in the name of the deceased, Miguel Ostos, and was kept, mind you, in the glove

compartment of the Ballon Rolls-Royce. Fact! Now then, members of the household staff

have testified that Miguel Ostos beat Maria Gambrelli frequently. And now, finally comes the sworn statement of Monsieur and Mad-

ame Ballon, as well as all the members of the staff, each of them with perfect alibis. Now then, Hercule, What is the inescapable con-

clusion?

Hercule LaJoy:Maria Gambrelli killed the chauffeur.

Clouseau: What? You idiot! It’s impossible.

Hercule LaJoy: How do you know that?

Clouseau: Instinct!

(from Pink Panther)


Chapter 7

“In 4 hours that we spent evaluating this semester works we could not study all projects in detail, so we had to follow our intuition. This inev-itably leads to the fact we would be clearly unfair equally to students and their studio tutors. Here a few basic perceptions.”

Studio Schindler-Fessler:Very interesting and demanding experi-ment to allow students to work on a general theme without having knowledge of the place. Unfortunately, this principle when projected into the redesign of this existing building specifically – one that jurors truly love as a piece of architecture with magical a%ributes – we cannot help feeling most of the building was lost along the way. In case the initial exercises would be projected into a less specific space or building, we think it would be much be%er. Also, students seem to have had problems in confronting their preconceived concepts and ideas with such a specific house. Though this may look like a banal house that would withstand alterations of its universal structure, we do not share this position at all.

Studio Wertig-NeuhäuslThe ship. On Vltava River. Of course, a splen-did theme. Clearly determining limitations. A narrow and long space. Absolute roman-ticism. It seems that any proposal of design can spoil this. Unfortunately, we have seen houses, houses on water that could literal-ly stand anywhere else. We have not seen answers to many technical aspects (sewage, electricity, winter, mosquitos, wet, smell, noise, wind) nor to opportunities (motion, free foundations) that building upon water may bring.

Studio: Palaščák-ŠimonováA careful choice of the building plot for the building of a School of Architecture. A clear and civil brief of the project, as formulated in the beginning. A building site where con-struction is adequate and it does not preclude further development within the incomplete block. This studio deserves the Award as a team for the careful choice of the place and for formulating a commonplace architectural task. More for the formulated brief than for the results. It may seem unfair that we have only chosen two finalist projects for the indi-vidual award. But as is o#en said at American schools: Life is not fair, you be%er get used to it.

Chapter 7


Studio Nasadil-DubaA lot of decent work done, small differences. Fair and trustworthy work. Unfortunately, there is a BUT. Thanks to the short distance of the plot from the school, we had an oppor-tunity to walk down to see the place. All three members of the jury univocally agreed this plot is not a building site. It is not a corner of the incomplete block. We may be wrong and clearly, we have other opinions than the stu-dio tutors, but we are sure that here nobody should build. Maybe that is why our sym-pathy goes to the first-year students, whose brief was a much lighter version of a full programme and we found it more adequate. In case it would be necessary to build on this plot, a minimal intervention, and most prob-ably only a temporary one, would be appro-priate to preserve this beautiful place.

The winner of the individual award is, probably surprisingly, a project from this stu-dio. Two simple prisms of a small size with a cantilevered roof that gives the possibility to occupy the interstitial space between the two volumes or to access their roof terraces. As noted by David Kraus: a relieving absence of over-design. We congratulate the winner.

General comment to all studios:

We missed a verbal and visual interpretation of the brief from the side of the students. What do they think of such a task, do they agree with it? Do they have problems with it? What is weird about it? How do they un-derstand the task? What values do they find crucial, most important? This is what would have been interesting for us, as a supplement to the presented results.

Thanks for inviting us to be jurors, good luck to students and tutors in their future work.


Chapter 7

Finalists

All 5 first year students from studio Nasadil-Duba as a team.

Joel John Thomas, Nawal Haha, Maria Orozco, Gaia Delépine, Ewa Wróblewska

(In spite of differences for showing very good results for being at the beginning of their studies.)

Iman Aljoaki (Studio Schindler-Fessler)

Jasper Cooper (Studio Schindler-Fessler)

Hedy Lemus Bird (Studio Palaščák-Šimonová)

Daniela Alvarez Ceciliano (Studio Palaščák-Šimonová)

Daniel Lipskij (Studio Wertig-Neuhäusl)

Dandika Thanos (Studio Wertig-Neuhäusl)

Ghada El Gammal (Studio Wertig-Neuhäusl)

Jan Kovaříček (special nomination from GAD programme Studio Gsandtner)

Abigail Mansion (Studio Nasadil-Duba)

Chapter 7


ResultsThe winners were announced, and prizes were delivered on Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 17.00 during the opening party of the public exhibition of ARCHIP’s semester works at the Prague 7 City Hall.

The winner of the Best Student Project:

Maria Orozco (Studio Nasadil-Duba)

The Winner of the Best Studio:

Studio Michal Palaščák – assistant Bára Šimonová


Chapter 7

Part 3 —essays

Part 3 — Essays ARCHIP 2016/17 125124 Part 3 — Essays ARCHIP 2016/17

A Different Method — Elan Neuman Fessler A Different Method — Elan Neuman Fessler

/build it up

A Different MethodElan Neuman Fessler

Typically, an architect is given a site; a pro-gram; a budget. We begin with a different method: no site given; no program details; no limits. Only this: “your school of archi-tecture” and the abstract figure of “space-craft”. What does this mean? Implied with-in the title is the risk of ‘crash-landing’. Of course, this is to be avoided.

As such, to be safe, each student, each spacecraft, must aim to “ground itself” internally – before landing…

The students knew that eventually they will have a site, in the meantime, what to do and how to proceed? The project tasked the students with devel-oping – from the inside-out – the possibility of a site-specific project…

scene:A theatrical encounter, contradicting space and time. “Where is place?” “If without a ground, it relies upon itself.”

of spacecraft/landingSpacecra# develops ideas, relationships and forms.

Landing confronts these abstractions with material realities.

(/) – The actual, real, existing site was introduced to the students mid-way through.

This collision is a type of a moment of crisis, but it is also a pre-figured one.

metaphor and structureSPACECRAFT/LANDING, a diagram itself, comments upon the philosophical condition it represents (it is Both while it is One). The key is in the “/ “, which itself prepares space-cra# for landing. The binary structure sets up the dual framework of the design studio pro-ject (on either side of the “/ “). The narrative structure methodically spaces each question through a self-reflective, dialectical passage of revisions and remaking in time and theme.

The project is a particular, mirrored con-dition. Transparent and opaque at the same time, a folded moment of dialectical overlay. Undermined by its own passage in time, the project, as a spacecra#, simply must. Without a ground, there is no alternative but space to perpetuity. The ground becomes a figure of desire. “Landing”, a crisis of relief. Ground

spacecraft (week 1)

A Different Method — Elan Neuman Fessler

relieves the weight of time with a new para-digm of place- in week 6.

Meanwhile, the “spacecra#” is its own driving force. It motivates space. It proceeds according to an internal rule. It is the source of the project; the drive which enables quest. The project is a pu%ing forward towards a presumed destination. The built-in teleology, in its inevitable becoming some form of an end, in this case is the motivator. There is a search and an ideal. There is a vision and its quest. But there will be no utopia…

into the siteThe given site is an uncanny arrangement. As a type of a neutral condition, devoid of its own place, it becomes the notion of an auton-omous point embodied within an alien figure on an alien ground. In its near absence, the figure of the site is a strange utopian paradox.

Building 39 is a free-standing reinforced concrete grid, raised above the ground, and situated at the corner of an open field – in other words, it is structurally autonomous at 3 scales. The full site is an ensemble of 3 parts, placed within a larger, walled en-semble, at the edge of the city and the river. Despite its dense surroundings, the site feels abandoned and void.

The openness of the Tržnice grounds and the existing object combined, allow for a free plan and free section arrangement to be possible, and for the overlapping of programs within and around the new school site to be developed. The object, by its own consti-tution (and additionally its surroundings) can be re-configured from within with great flexibility and variability. Hence, there is the built-in potential of the site for dialogue between two scales: interior and context; through the interface of program, material and form. Exploring these ideas was encour-aged throughout the semester.

a process of abstraction— How to adapt and reuse: the existing school program?— How to adapt and reuse: this abandoned building?— How to adapt and reuse: a weekly recy-cling of work?

The project is a putting forward towards a presumed destination.

landing (week 6)

A Different Method — Elan Neuman Fessler


A Different Method — Elan Neuman Fessler A Different Method — Elan Neuman Fessler

25,0m

25,0m?

how is it placed ?

2,5m

2,5m?

how is it formed ?

21

3

??

28,0m

28,0m

8,0m

5,2m

4,0m

5,2m

2,5m

28,0m

60,0m

25,5m

To prepare the project in advance for the site, a degree of abstraction was employed in the preparatory weeks. The first six weeks of abstract spatial modelling was a process of reification of original intentions, under in-creasingly complex contents and constraints. This process encouraged experimentation with spatial concepts in the form of typol-ogies and for the pursuit of one’s desired arrangement of form and meaning within the given program and scale, and this on the basis of precedents. The aim was to develop criteria for the project to form certain inter-nal conditions which would constitute the character of the architectural idea.

in tasksA series of tasks build upon one another with additional layers and influences.

As the students are already si%ing in the existing school, at their own existing desks, we decided to begin the project at their desks.

1. Week 1 / ‘My desk’A warm-up relating intimacy, expression, space, form, program, context.

Site: a 2.5m×2.5m area within a 25m×25m field – for their ideal studio desk space – for themselves, or for 2.

Model: The desk at two scales: the desk and the studio.

2. Week 2 / PrecedentsAbstract 3 architectural school precedents and re-compose them into 1.

Site: a 12.5m×12.5m frame, used to ab-stract moments, types and elements from precedents and to reposition them within a 25m×50m field.

Model: The organisational, tectonic and social implications of each precedent at two scales: the element and the ensemble.

3. Week 4 / ProgramAnalyse and re-organise ARCHIP by program + volume, and reposition the configuration within new limits.

Site: a 25m×50m area, where one half is solid one half is void, and a broken corner of the frame is “a public space”.

Model: The volumetric, figural and com-municative forms of each program within two frames: the adjacent and the whole.week 1

week 2

week 4

28,0m

28,0m?

100,0m

100,0m?

how is it formed ?

how is it placed ?

sequencematerial

4. Week 6 / EnvironmentAdapt the conceptual organisation in re-sponse to the existing site and context.

Site: the actual place, a 28m×28m object, on a quarter circle cut off at the corner.

Model: The social and environmental im-pact of each program in two respects: internal and external communication.

6. Week 10 / AssemblyPut together a 1:50 detail that reconnects with the initial project concepts.

Site: a 12.5m×12.5m frame, used to ab-stract a critical and defining moment from the project.

Model: The organisational, tectonic and social impact of this assembly in two re-spects: as precedent and as project.

5. Week 8 / MaterialityRelate interior and exterior environ-ments in material concepts.

Site: an open pale%e for communicat-ing meaning in the form.

Model: The perceptual, physical and symbolic implications of each material in respect to the paradigm: old and new.

7. Week 12 / ExhibitionRepresent the process of conceptual develop-ment and the final results of the process.

Site: their actual desk, a 1.5m×0.75m field.Model: insert, draw or collage a visual

representation of their project within the historical image of the site.

from within, an objectiveWe hoped to cultivate, through this design process, the students’ preferences, purposes, and programs. We were interested in the pos-sibility of the students to generate their own diagrams, and to use them as an inner driv-ing force to motivate their projects, through these cycles of reworking. We wished to pro-mote a practice of modelling concepts and of seeking concepts between models. We had hoped to encourage a search for the probabil-ity of architecture, rather than its certainty.

week 6

week 8

week 10

week 12


Architectural Education: A Perspective — David Lameš Architectural Education: A Perspective — David Lameš

Architectural Education: A PerspectiveDavid Lameš

Note: a selected student essay from critical writing series of Wertig-Neuhäusl studio, summer term 2016—2017

Since the founding of Architecture as a sub-ject to be formally taught in an educational and theoretical se%ing, rather than its roots in apprenticeship at Stone-masons and car-penters, the methods of instruction, syllabus content and structure, as well as ideology have changed and continue to change over the hundreds of years it has been studied. Due to the nature of the ebb and flow of the focus and structure of these methodologies, the question arises: Is the current form of Architectural education valid for an age that

man has characterized as the most rapidly changing and innovating? Are the methods we use to transmit information and experi-ence to fresh aspirants up to date in the era of the internet and digital computing? In short, has architectural education been able to adapt to the needs and norms of our cur-rent society, and is it ready for the society of tomorrow?

The popular idea of Architecture as the sum of the university training of a person has its roots in the 19th century. As with much other forms of art and art theory, the epicenter of what was considered the cul-tural world was France, specifically Paris. Therefore, the study of Architecture in the West (and increasingly in the East as well) followed the structure set in this city, most notably by L’Academie des Beaux Arts. The Beaux Art method was strict, funded by the government and wealthy donors from the crème of society, it, as an institution, had certain criteria to uphold. The institution therefore divided itself into the traditional and rather obtuse study (and reproduction) of classical motifs of Art and Architecture, (Roman based of course) with the Prix de Rome (a full expenses paid scholarship to study in Rome) as a proverbial carrot on a stick to incentivize conformity to conven-tional taste. Ateliers followed, where stu-dents would shadow famous or influential architects to learn the cra#, while also creat-

Are the methods we use to transmit information and experience to fresh aspirants up to date in the era of the internet and digital computing?

ing a strict hierarchy of learned vs learning. Then followed the Salon, where a jury (like-wise composed of the well-connected and traditional upper echelons of society) would select works of note to display to the public, which shaped both public opinion and the students’ potential artistic horizons. Finally, Café life was where students would discuss among themselves their ideas and designs in an informal se%ing (i.e. in a coffee house) to inspire each other.

The strictness of these regulations and conservatism lead to the rejection of the young generation vis a vis the old, especially notable in the development of Art Nouveau, and specifically Secession in Vienna. Repro-duction of classical motifs progressively was suppressed by the influence of emerging technologies and Modernism, as spearhead-ed by the Bauhaus school and VKhUTEMAS in the Soviet Union. Individual expression was encouraged (though to be reconciled with mass industry and the international aesthetic). However, the core principles of 19th century education remained. Hierarchy between students and educators (and indeed between students themselves to encourage competition) breed a culture of opaqueness. This opaqueness stifles talent as consulta-tions become not the aid that pushes concep-tual innovations further, but instead a one way street of critique which shuts down the progression of ideas and subverts the devel-opment of the expressive ego. Judgement by a jury, of not peers but superiors, reinforces this notion that the value and “correctness” of a student’s vision and work is decidedly neither public opinion nor innovation, but rather what an oligarchy ascribes it to be. In my view, this opaqueness likewise exists outside of Architecture in other academic institutions. My previous experiences with tertiary education have shown to me the contentment of an educator’s position in not encouraging the ambitions of the student or

the nurturing of their talents, but rather in the suppression of their value as exactly that which may one day threaten their own posi-tions (viz. the dinosaurs at the Law Faculty UK from before there was a Velvet anything). The entrenchment of a hierarchy, even if not developed by the faculty itself but by the

institution (and even if the faculty a%empt to reject it) indeed does strengthen the insti-tution, through placing it amongst the many other prestigious institutions from centuries past in magnificent crumbling edifices. In so doing, they also stifle and subvert the true value of their existence: the education they are supposed to impart on their alumni.

These 19th century approaches to edu-cation would however, not be as damaging to the educational potential of the students had it not been for the modern elimination of the Café society. With the invention of the computer, society has crossed a boundary in

The 20th century was able to approach the need for Architecture to adapt to the new era through the restructuring of its methodology to reflect its century.


Architectural Education: A Perspective — David Lameš Architectural Education: A Perspective — Pilipda Samattanawin

its existence, where human production has skyrocketed, while happiness, salary, and lei-sure time has remained stagnant. This trans-lates to a modern culture that prioritizes the sanctity of the “weekend” – a time reserved exclusively to relaxing and unwinding – as opposed to the “workweek” wherein all pro-ductivity occurs. The polarization of produc-tivity, and the societal norms which push people to always produce at maximal capac-ity, lead to future burnouts and suicides, but also mean that crossovers where relatively li%le (or rather theoretical) work is done in a leisure se%ing is considered sacrilegious to most, who value free time even if their work is what they love to do. This loss of an open forum of discussion, which cannot be force-fully imposed (otherwise it is work) isolates individuals, their concepts, and the dissem-ination and development of those concepts into material truths. Likewise, when you isolate individuals and their discussions, you discourage group cohesion and amicability, influencing the overall atmosphere of the school (competition due to misandry).

We are therefore at a crossroads in the case of Architectural education. We no longer value the rules and regulations of the past as sacrosanct, but we are also unable to liberate ourselves from them in constructive man-ners. We maintain the negative, though easily enforceable formal a%itudes that defined the previous era, and do li%le to encourage the more difficult aims to establish informal ties that made Architecture a truly innovative field. Architecture is as much an Art as it is a cra# and science. The 20th century was able to approach the need for Architecture to adapt to the new era through the restructur-ing of its methodology to reflect its century. Now, we must go further than our prede-cessors to constitute the basis on which the style and approach of the 21st century will be formulated. This means the disposal of the hierarchies and locked offices that caged

talent and edified the wrong demographic. It means: constructing the open forums that encourage material dissemination of infor-mation. And it means approaching Architec-ture as an art form and theory through the lens of contemporary technology. Ultimately, Architecture does not exist as a pile of stones to be admired or reviled, but it exists as the sum of ideas that are traded between the informed. As long as these ideas can be effi-ciently expressed and received, the physical nature of their place of exchange or their re-alization is not important. However, impede and kill this communication, and you kill the art as well as the profession.

“There is no correct method in teaching Architecture. It is a life-long process. The first step to pursue Architecture as a profession is to enroll in a school, but what can we get from current Architectural education? There are plenty of well-known architects who are self-taught. So is Architecture school really necessary? Architecture school focuses on developing the ability to think critically. It should not be a place to tell you what to think but, rather, what you think, why you think and how you think that way.”

— quoted from Pilipda Samattanawin: Critique of Architectural Education, Studio Wertig-Neuhäusl, summer 2016–2017


What is good architecture? — Lars Schmidt What is good architecture? — Lars Schmidt

What is good architecture?Lars Schmidt

Note: a selected student essay from critical writing series of Wertig-Neuhäusl studio, summer term 2016—2017

As students of architecture, we have all been in the situation of being in the first year and of growing our mental horizons to become a graduate pupil. We were thrown into an emo-tional pool where the understanding of the theorem ‘architecture’ was still far away. The lack of knowledge on architecture – when not given by parents or friends – made us deteriorate in our studies. A#erwards, we understood that it was simply not knowing the basics of architectural understanding that made us create projects that now we are not proud of anymore. My own first semes-ter project is the best example which shows this misunderstanding. Students were set to design a space for themselves, where eventu-ally they could survive a month. Rather than concentrating on the spacing, the volume and the impact of light on the area I decided to skip the concept design and jump straight to creating a 4 × 4x4m night club that features an elevating couch – something which back then I thought would be a winning project.

The question is, how can greenhorns un-derstand what architecture is before ge%ing educated about it? My proposal derived from a quotation of a book that I’ve recently start-ed to read. In the literature ‘The Architecture of Happiness’, Alain de Bo%om says: “What people perceive as beautiful is made up by the environment they live in”. The answer to the question lies in a facility that would

undoubtedly represent the fundamentals of architecture and good design. It is for great importance that this idea is not only osmo-sed into the brains of the students, but also for the public, since a School of Architecture is not a private space but will be visited by visitors frequently. One must unite the perception of architecture for both of these groups, in order to be convincing. Once cre-ated, the spaces will shape and characterise the individual, and will rapidly increase one’s progression in the field.

So what exactly is Architecture and how do we design objects in a way to be aestheti-cally and physically stimulating? When jump-ing into this dilemma one can spend years identifying. One can base one’s informative range on every detail found and end up with something that is opinionated. However, one

What people perceive as beautiful is made up by the environment they live in.

should not despair. Though architecture can be very opinion based, and it might not be as clear on how ‘success’ can be defined as in the business, we can clearly follow guide-lines set by our predecessors that, before our times, have set ideals and take those as our inspirations for future developments. It is however important that the uniqueness of our individual thoughts are not le# behind, but worked with. As the above mentioned book quite well introduced me to the princi-ples of beauty in architecture, it also derived an interesting thesis on the importance that history brings to the context of post-modern architecture. The freedom that architects of our generations have should not be taken for granted but taken as an opportunity to create structures that have never been seen before.

One concept that I’ve been overwhelmed with while studying architecture in Prague was the Civil engineering faculty at the Czech Technical University (CVUT). The space that was designed inside an older building from the 1970s and finished its construction in 2008. The older, rather uninspiring build-ings were transformed into a space that un-doubtable speaks architecture. The architect played with space – the space within space – lighting, both natural and artificial and the circulation within those zones without for-ge%ing about the key principles of simplic-ity, flexibility and user-friendliness. When entered, one can clearly observe the harmo-nizing study atmosphere created around the students and professors. The different eleva-tions give the rather small spaced area a max-imum surface area and create private spaces for further involvement. But as every human created object, the design also has its flaws. The amount of reflecting surfaces degenerate the acoustic behaviour, making it hard to understand each other with a larger distance of 5 meters away. Personally, I’ve observed that the contrast between old and new is very abrupt, which decreases the value of the

surrounding spaces, but was probably part of the design intentions.

It would be interesting to further ana-lyse the faculty and to finish and analyse the mentioned book to fix my thoughts on certain aspects. This information will then be used to form the basic structure of my concern, which eventually merges itself together with a thought-through design. The focus points of my design will lie on the foundations of successful projects. Space, volumes, movement, functionality and diver-sity are the starting points. The question that each student in the Wertig-Neuhäusl studio should ask themselves at the end of the semester is: Do they feel comfortable in the spaces created and are the spaces adequate for studies? A successful project will find itself within a solid “Yes”.

The freedom that architects of our generations have should not be taken for granted but taken as an opportunity to create structures that have never been seen before.


School of Architecture as a Research Institution — Maria Topolčanská School of Architecture as a Research Institution — Maria Topolčanská

School of Architecture as a Research InstitutionMaria Topolčanská

The culture of the academic environment in architectural education in the Czech Repub-lic is, in its third decade a#er 1989, in a state of constant redefinition. Only rarely do local schools of architecture appear in the debate and the lists of prestigious university educa-tion in the European scale.

ARCHIP entered, in the latest academic year, into a direct confrontation with the quality of education it offers, as it underwent the full transformation from its status of a higher education institution – with an ac-credited undergraduate Bachelor programme in Architecture – to become a School of Architecture with a full professional degree in Architecture and Urbanism (awarding the Diploma Ing.arch. in the Czech system of qualifications in non-artistic education in architecture) accredited by the state Ministry of Education.

What is different in the way ARCHIP is in-stitutionalized now, in comparison with oth-er Czech schools of architecture, which have been established by the state, is the fact that nothing is given as an automatically awarded benefit. Here, the exclusion from the direct public budget for providing education as a private institution is not the main and only difference. Here, there are more structural differences on how ARCHIP may operate in the academic field, compared to the existing public schools.

The most significant challenge is the one that not many acknowledge without having

deeper insight into how public institutions in education work.

Research! This is the central a%ribute and by far the biggest challenge for the first inde-pendently founded school of architecture in this country: it is not automatically – unlike any public school of architecture – a research institution.

What may seem, at first sight, to be a great disadvantage is, in the end, a challenge to rethink how the entire transformation of academia happened in the past decades in the Czech Republic. Every faculty or school is regularly renewing its state accreditation

Only rarely do local schools of architecture appear in the debate and the lists of prestigious university education in the European scale.

for offering education in bachelor or master programmes, but the status of research insti-tution is guaranteed by law for public educa-tional institutions.

ARCHIP is now undergoing the process of being listed as not only an educational institution but as a research centre as well, with the hope to become a complementary partner to the public sector in both the hu-manities and technical sciences.

The trans-disciplinary faculty of ARCHIP relies on outstanding local and visiting experts from the fields that are usually ‘at home’ at various faculties and public in-stitutions (faculties of humanities, technical sciences, agencies for public policies, munici-pal offices for Urban development etc.).

ARCHIP hosted the first matchmaking research seminar (MARS) in April 2017. The intense debate is evolving from this initial meeting among faculty members who consti-tute an informal board of advisors on future research projects. These future research projects will be formulated in three lines that follow the disciplinary structure of ARCHIP’s lecturers: theory of architecture and heritage

studies, urban studies and city development, infrastructure and landscape. Upcoming calls for the funding of international networks in research and/or national alliances will be monitored in order to motivate firstly the creation of research-oriented teams applying for national or EU grant schemes in 2018.

The upcoming matchmaking seminar in autumn 2017 will become a chance to present and to map individual research in-terests and to confront the ARCHIP faculty members with work of research teams from other institutions in the Czech Republic and abroad, institutions which are interested in collaboration that would go beyond teaching courses, and at the same time upgrade AR-CHIP’s potential for being a unique trans-dis-ciplinary intellectual environment for the production of knowledge: a research center in architecture and an urban culture comple-mentary to those centers (universities, NGOs, architecture and urban design collectives, etc.) that already operate on the Czech and European scene.

from Petra Ilijevic: Research Notebook, pre-diploma seminar, 2017

Faculty 2016/2017

Surname First name Course 1 Course 2 Course 3

Bažant Jan History of Architecture 1-3

Benson Cory Building Environment Building Technology

Benešovská Hana History of Architecture 4 History of Art 1 Monument Preservation 1, 2

Blažek Filip Graphic Design Project Presentation and Graphics

Brož Luděk Sociology

Chládková Barbora Sculpture and Modeling

Clifton Sean Construction 2

Corradini Michele Graphic Software

Dáňová Helena History of Art 1, 2

Duba Martin Architectural Design

Dodds Joseph Psychology

Fessler Elan Architectural Design

Fialová Petra Construction 1

Gebrian Adam Introduction to Studies Professional Ethics

Gsandtner Martin GA+D Studio

Hanson Henry Landscape Design Ecology

Hejl Martin GA+D Seminar Research in Art and Architecture

Hnídková Vendula Modern Architecture

Imramovská Martina Landscape Design

Hofmeister Ondřej Sustainable Architecture Contemporary Construction

Janečková Michaela Contemporary ArchitectureContemporary Architecture and Architectural Theories

Jirsa Jakub Philosophy

Kingham Alena History of Art 2

Koch Paul Urban Planning 1-3

Kolařík Radek Urban Planning 1-3 Architecture and City 2

Kovačevic Igor Urban Design

Kuldová Zuzana Urban Planning 1-3

Lahoda Tomáš Painting and Art Concept

Lakomá Hana Geometry Mathematics

Lhotáková Andrea Photography

Management 2016/2017

Surname First name Course 1 Course 2 Course 3

Maddox Julie Building and Construction Methods

Contemporary Building Materials

Machalická Klára Non-bearing Structures Load-bearing Structures

Mertlíková Lucie Construction 1 Professional English

Nasadil Pavel Architectural Design

Neuhäusl David Architectural Design

Návrat Petr Urban Planning 1-3

Němec Ivan Structural Engineering

Okamura Osamu Project Presentation

Palaščák Michal Architectural Design

Poliaček Dušan Product Design

Rachidi Karim Preparing for Practice

Satorie Pavel Development

Schindler Jan Architectural Design

Shota Tsikolia GA+D Workshop

Sperat Zbyněk Urban Planning 1-3

Sýkora Luděk Urban Planning 1-3

Šimonová Bára Architectural Design

Šafer Jaroslav Professional Ethics

Šormová Kristýna Drawing

Topolčanská Maria Critical Writing 1, 2 Pre-diploma Research Seminar

Vacek Lukáš Fundaments of Urbanism Master Planning

Wertig Jaroslav Architectural Design

Loukotová Regina rector

Šimice Jiří executive director

Doleželová Klára vice-rector

Pjechová Marianna study department coordinator

Pexídrová Olga study department coordinator

Topolčanská Maria master program coordinator

Motloch Adam PR manager

Mushin Samuel PR manager

Scholzová Zuzana librarian

Hauser Zbyněk IT specialist

Křeček Jakub workshop assistant

Hagarová Anna faculty assistant

Marcalíková Lucie faculty assistant

Bruno assistance dog

ARCHIP Yearbook 2016/2017Published by: ARCHIPFrantiška Křížka 1, 170 00 Praha [email protected]

Editors: Klára Doleželová, Elan Fessler, Regina Loukotová, Maria TopolčanskáCopy Editor: Elan FesslerPhotography: Dominik Kučera, Rostislav Zapletal, ARCHIP archiveGraphic design: Eliška Kudrnovská, DesigniqPrinter: AMOS Typografické studio, spol. s r. o.Print run: 100© ARCHIP 2017

ISBN 978-80-270-2330-1

school of architecture · 4 part 1 — timeline archip 2016/17 june 2017 1. 20/06/2017: the final...

Documents