GEBHARDTOVÁ, E. Komplikovaný vztah [online]. Brno: Vysoké učení technické v Brně. Fakulta architektury. 2025.
Eva is a committed student who worked well on this project – she approached the project with a curious mind and considered a range of approaches. Eva started the project with a comprehensive site analysis that was practical in nature and which analysed the site from a range of perspectives. The concept development and design phases got off to a slow start, halted by several design issues, however Eva recalculated her options and successfully moved ahead. Her concept and design are both contextual and provide a sense of renewal to the existing building that this studio is centered on. She intelligently worked with the existing building, consulting with engineers and looking at a range of precedents to aid her design. Graphically, Eva pushed her abilities in graphics and visualization to successfully communicate her design. Overall, Eva produced a very good proposal that I believe would provide a functional and fitting solution for the site, drawing upon well-considered decisions.
| Kritérium | Známka | Body | Slovní hodnocení |
|---|---|---|---|
| Přístup studenta ke zpracování | B | Eva is an excellent student who worked well on her final thesis project - she was actively engaged and the final submission is consistent with the work produced during the term. |
The student manifested a very good level of site and building analysis, resulting in a transformation of a non-functional building. The project presents a thoughtful adaptive-reuse strategy that successfully transforms a disused block into an inviting, mixed-use object. A well-balanced massing concept and largely logical internal circulation attest to solid spatial analysis, while clear diagrams and visuals convey the design intent. Nonetheless, the proposal would gain clarity from drawings that document existing conditions and demolition, a more coherent façade language, and a richer landscape scheme to activate the square. The varied material palette and complex detailing could also inflate construction costs and technical risk.
| Kritérium | Známka | Body | Slovní hodnocení |
|---|---|---|---|
| Urbanistické řešení | B | Locating various building programs in relation to the building’s orientation is well considered. Relocating the city library to the new Podhoran building in the centre appears viable; a central position should attract far more visitors than the current peripheral site. The student has successfully broken the former monolithic block into several smaller masses that resonate with the scale of the main square, preventing the building from feeling monumental or overbearing. The square's paving pattern usefully hints at different activity zones, but these areas are not clearly annotated on the site plan. An enlarged diagram or detail of the pattern would strengthen the presentation. A fuller landscape strategy, such as outdoor seating, greenery, shading, etc., would reinforce the link between inside and outside. At present, only ramps and stairs lead to the entrances; the square itself is not directly activated by the proposal. | |
| Provozní řešení | B | The student has identified the site’s problems and proposed an operation model that responds to current needs, likely increasing occupancy and benefiting the city’s economy and social life. Internal connections are largely logical (e.g., hotel-restaurant), creating clear circulation between these two. Connections on the 2nd and 3rd floors, however, particularly the sequence hotel- activity rooms- library, may raise concerns about safety, noise, and privacy. | |
| Technicko konstrukční řešení | B | The existing building was analysed thoroughly, and reasonable assumptions were made about hidden structures such as the foundations. As the next step, the student combined preserved building parts with new construction. This approach to transforming a building includes a variety of newly added materials, specifically for the facade, which might sometimes be in conflict with each other. As a result, the building requires many different construction techniques and details, which could prove costly. Although the floor plans clearly depict the proposed transformation, they do not include drawings of the existing conditions and the demolition phase, plans that are fundamental to any reconstruction project. Without them, it is difficult to follow the full process of transformation that the student envisioned. The 3rd-floor plan also contains an error in room numbering within the legend. | |
| Architektonické řešení | C | The proposal assigns an appropriate mix of uses (hotel, restaurant, library, etc.) and distributes them across several levels, producing a balanced mixed-use programme. While the student documented the existing structure, the design does not establish a clear conceptual dialogue between the original building and the new proposal, which introduces a new set of materials and architectural vocabulary. This leaves the building’s tectonics and maybe even the signature elements neither reinterpreted nor amplified. Consequently, the critical dialogue between past and present, which is usually at the core of transformation projects, remains underdeveloped. Externally, the student aimed to express this diversity through differentiated façades. In practice, however, identical façades are applied to unrelated functions (e.g., a hotel and a library), while other parts receive different treatments. The resulting proposal makes it difficult to read the programme from the outside. If the façade is intended to reflect internal use, each part could respond more sensitively; alternatively, a consistent envelope with subtle adjustments for light, acoustics, or other requirements could be adopted. | |
| Formální úroveň | B | The project meets formal criteria for adaptive reuse, acknowledging the building’s past use, structure, etc., while addressing its future needs. The design process is conveyed clearly through diagrams, annotated drawings, and visualisations. However, the documentation lacks comparative plans that explicitly indicate demolished versus retained structures as already mentioned before. The diagram on page 7 (“Initial point, masses”) touches on this but omits many details. |
eVSKP id 167770