2018/2019 DP Elif Cekceki
Kutná Hora – Sedlec
opponent´s review of diploma project
diploma project: Kutná Hora - Sedlec author: Elif Cekceki
university: Technical University Liberec faculty: Faculty of Arts and Architecture opponent: Ing. arch. Radek Vaňáč, ČKA 04269
As I am living in Kutná Hora, I can see problems of everyday life of this area. I am very pleased to hear and to see that a conceptual work to restore this area is ongoing and someone takes responsibility to show a way (with strong analysis and with an effort to find a solution - this step is reviewed later in the text). All these problems of void area and kind nonsense city brownfields are an appropriate task for an urbanist. You can find easily this kind of questions/problems in nearly any regional city in Bohemia. That is why I found this topic as very actual and very useful in general.
--- THE ISSUE
The area of old factory brownfields, Schwarzenberg’s estates and open undefined sites is literally cut by roads. The plot is situated between city of Kutná Hora and Sedlec village with residuals of former large monastery (church, gardens, estates...) and it is crossed with two main roads. Without a clear idea how to solve this it is useless to move forward.
Elif came up with an idea of Kutná Hora traffic bypass. I agree with this, because most of traffic capacity is held by this roads and roundabout. Moving this load out of future Sedlec centre is a clever step.
In the proposal I found strong parts of work in the recommended solution of street and their system hierarchy, edited traffic scheme and logical, empathetic connections, which are these:
1. panel houses settlement Šípší in the north by using triangles square, flowing along the main street 2. small industrial area in the west side by refurbishing old factories and proposing a green collective garden with equipment
East border is historically fixed up by front facade of church. To preserve this is a good decision.
Here I appreciate the meaning of rebuilding “piazzetta” in front of church. In my opinion, it is thanks to strictly austere work with different high levels in combination with shape of ellipse. First when I saw this ambiguous shape, I was a little bit sceptical. Later when I got to the application and result in detail, I can say that it is powerful and dynamic but still humble to the church. I my heart I believe in the proposal. And thanks to this very good moment I can compare it with other parts of proposal.
There are two parts of street scheme and connection with surrounding areas which I consider weak:
1. solution of the south border, where proposed park and Vrchlice river are too still, too easy. I am missing any kind of bridge or molo over railway and river to get in touch with the south parts of the city. This part is a little bit forgotten.
2. I would like to see the same energic moves as at church piazzetta at crossing of the street Masarykova and Benešova (originally it is triangle, but inlayed ellipse is not worked out well). This crossing is opposite point of the church piazzetta.
3. I want to ask Elif which type of crossing after replacing roundabout is recommended. (I can imagine a shape of ellipse there, but in the proposal there is common intersection of two streets) At the end of this paragraph I declare that it is a step forward to learn from historical public spaces shapes (triangle and ellipse) and using them as it is proposed.
2018/2019 DP Elif Cekceki
PROGRAM, SCALES AND GREEN IN THE CITY
Thanks to a good analysis of the problem, I agree with three functional stripes.
Inhabitants of two large settlement of Šípší and Puškinova have well defined public space with needed functions (hospital, cultural centre, private and collective gardens).
All of the program is it is proved, exclude placing an elderly care hospital near gas station (why?) Scales of the apartment houses and number of their floor are designed surprisingly quite low (mostly 3 storey) to the surrounding existing parts of city (from 2 to 8 storey houses), but I agree as it works well. What I have doubts about is the dimension of the family houses showed at the masterplan.
They are small and dense; I would expect something more permeable. Basic shapes of public function houses could be described better in pedestrian level. To see porosity and fluent stream of walking people.
At some public spaces there is distinguishable grid, whose elements are strict and clear. At some design it seems as very random way of laying trees.
Semi-public spaces (between apartment houses) have different way – they are all like private garden and it is calm, friendly. I would ask for more solutions as they are shown at No. 4 and 9 (grid and lines of green). Despite to my comments to few graphical aspect of work, it is easy to understand the language of proposed volumes thanks to very good axonometry and perspective.
CONCLUSION
Elif Cekceki gives a clear motto to the project from good analysis. And to get the motto is the most important thing in general. I praise good job in research.
Each comparison/schema is done with precision and it is easy to understand main and even a side characteristic of urbanistic problem.
For me, design part of the project has three basic topics (public space and streets, volumes, green area) and with few comments the project is very satisfying, showing rational bearing for actual situation.
The task is fulfilled, her work has a level of master degree. In that meaning, I advise her project to be considered and classified.
I propose a classification B, mark 1-.
---
I wish all the best to Elif in her future architectural work and projects, as I recognized, she has an ability to focus at important things and work for them hard. Also I would like to see a overrun of this project to the reality thru meeting with authorities of Kutná Hora.
at these days in Utrecht, 5/28/2019 Ing. arch. Radek Vaňáč
