Skip to main content
The new gateways are a clear symbolic first step on the road to the necessary transformation of the entire Prague Exhibition Grounds site.

Prague announced an international architectural competition for the treatment of the entranceway to the Exhibitions Grounds. The task was to design two new gateways and to address the adjacent public space. The design team of Petr Sladký, Martina Novotná, Dominika Otevřelová, Jindra Novotná, and Tomáš Křen was the eventual winner. The new gateways are a clear symbolic first step on the road to the necessary transformation of the entire Prague Exhibition Grounds site.

What should happen and why? What will change?

What will change?

  • The aim is to return the dignity to the Exhibition Grounds that, as a complex of city-wide significance, they deserve.
  • The Exhibition Grounds should be opened up to the public and linked to the whole district.
  • The first step in the renovation of the grounds was  the creation of a general concept. Announcement of the architectural competition for the gateways is part of the first stage of the transformation of the area.
About the project

Project base points

schedule

Comencement: 2017 
Completion: 2018

How much will it cost?

n/a

Who will do the work?

Petr Sladký, Martina Novotná, Dominika Otevřelová, Jindra Novotná, Tomáš Křen

The role of IPR prague

Competition organizer and compiler of competition terms  

Form

Project, architectural, open, anonymous single round, international competition 

Contact details

Questions and inquiries: Ing. arch. Jan Kadlas, 236004633, kadlas@ipr.praha.eu, guarantor 

Media contact: Mgr. Marek Vácha, vacha@ipr.praha.eu, 723 444 291, press spokesperson

The Competition

The subject-matter of the competition was to come up with an architectural design for the treatment of the main entranceway to Prague Exhibition Grounds, or the building of two new gateways with amenities, and to cultivate the adjacent public space. The aim of renovating the gateways and adjacent space is to open up the Exhibition Grounds complex to the public and incorporate it within the structure of the surrounding city.

Jury

Members of the jury – independent

Ing. arch. Miroslav Cikán, architect, Chair of the jury

Ing. arch. Markéta Cajthamlová, architect

MgA. David Kubík, architect

Ing. arch. Vítězslav Danda, architect

MgA. Radim Babák, architect, designer

Members of the jury – dependent

Mgr. Adriana Krnáčová, MBA, Mayor of the City of Prague

Ing. Pavel Klaška, Member of the Board of Directors at Rozvojové projekty Praha 

MgA. Marek Kopeć, Head of the Office of Projects and Competitions at IPR 

Ing. arch. Lenka Burgerová PhDr., Councillor at the Municipal District of Prague 7

Substitute members of the jury - independent

Ing. arch. Petr Bouřil, architect

MgA. Filip Kosek, architect

Substitute members of the jury – dependent

Jan Wolf, Councillor of the City of Prague

Mgr. Karel Klíma, Vice-Chair of the Board of Directors at Rozvojové projekty Praha

Ing. arch. Jakub Hendrych, architect at the Office of Public Space at IPR 

Competitive proposals
2nd place, design no. 8
3rd place, design no. 11
2nd place, design no. 8
Author team

Petr Sladký, Martina Novotná, Dominika Otevřelová, Jindra Novotná and Tomáš Křen

The jury valued the comprehensive competition proposal for the area in front of the Exhibition Grounds, taking into account all main spatial and operational aspects, fortifying the site plan with distinctive and unequivocal entrance elements, with the opportunity to integrate information areas and self-service ticket sales systems. The jury also valued the fact that the quality of time spent within the grounds would be improved in general, with groups of trees and areas with integrated water elements at sidewalk level. It does, however, consider it necessary to reduce and re-evaluate the composition of their placement within the whole. The jury was positive in its assessment of the design for sliding fences, reinforcing the uninterrupted view into the Prague Exhibition Grounds site. Fencing, however, requires a thorough checking in terms of its feasibility and economical operation. The ornamental design of the paving stones is unnecessary and inadequate in terms of the grandeur of the entranceway area. The jury judged the gateways to be right in terms of their scale and their location. The design of the inner structure and the compositional design of the placement of the information system is disproportionate. The use of one of the gateways as a viewing tower is inappropriate. The competition proposal as a whole provided a great number of interesting designs which require thorough review and thought-out detailed processing at all follow-up stages of project documentation. The jury’s fundamental remark is its recommendation to reduce the proposed elements in a thought-out manner.
3rd place, design no. 11
Author team

Martin Prokš, Marek Přikryl and Jan Kolář, collaboration: Lucie Dřevíkovská

The jury valued the simple and impressive design of the area in front of the Prague Exhibition Grounds, with its accent on monumentalizing the entrance site plan. The lighting elements used act as a highly-intensive sign of entering the wider context of the city, providing information about the importance of the place. More in-depth expert discussion is required on the rationale of this design, and where appropriate, on a defence of the unequivocal artistic structure with the intentional absence of advertising space within the greater context of the city, at further stages of project documentation. The sustainability of this design demands considerable discipline in the operation of Prague Exhibition Grounds. The downside of the competition proposal is the fencing plan, not well thought-out, which does not bring the existing level of added value. The competition proposal does not treat the permeability of the area in front of Prague Exhibition Grounds towards the grounds themselves. However, the competition proposal and its presentation demonstrate the considerable erudition of the designer and the expectation of a possible high-quality outcome after taking account of the jury’s remarks.

The winning competition proposal

First prize was not awarded. After an in-depth discussion, the jury agreed that not one of the competition proposals was of such a quality to be awarded first prize. The team that came in 2nd place therefore won.