Vertical Studio Concept

Yearbook
2017 / 2018
Prague 2018
21 × 14.8 cm
140 pp
Illustrated
Paperback
www.archip.eu
Yearbook
2017 / 2018
Part 1
Timeline
Part 2
AD general concept description
Chapter 1:
Studio leaders’ general introduction
Chapter 2:
Studio projects winter term
Chapter 3:
Studio projects summer term
Chapter 4:
GA+D Studio
Chapter 5:
Master diplomas
Chapter 6:
Golden Roubík Award
Part 3
Essays
03
15
17
18
24
51
89
95
99
107
This second Yearbook
offers an overview of the
2017/18 academic year at
ARCHIP. With a focus on
the Architectural Design
studio works, the book also
features texts, drawings,
models, installations,
photographs and other
materials which document
the international and the
innovative nature of this
School of Architecture. It is
another year in the ongoing
story of the education
of future architects – in
design, urban studies,
technical sciences,
humanities and arts.

Editors: Klára Doleželová, Elan Fessler, Regina Loukotová
Copy Editor: Elan Fessler
Photography: Dominik Kučera, Rostislav Zapletal, ARCHIP archive
Graphic design: Eliška Kudrnovská, Designiq
Printer: AMOS Typografické studio, spol. s r. o.
Print run: 100
© ARCHIP 2018
ISBN 978-80-906990-0-7

Vertical Studio Concept
Regina Loukotová, ARCHIP Rector
The importance of the Design Studio within
architectural education is constantly empha-
sized. Recently, this became the main topic of
the European Association for Architectural
Education Annual Conference, held in The
Faculty of Architecture, University of Porto,
under the title: Design Studio as laboratory
for interactions between architectural educa-
tion and society.
There are two major models for the Design
Studio organization – a horizontal or vertical
system – where the horizontal one includes
the students from one year, while the vertical
system gathers together students from all
years.
At ARCHIP, we follow the principle of the
“vertical studio” model in the organisation
of the Architectural Design studio. Within
the Vertical studio, all years cooperate on
and develop projects for a single site and
program, yet their scale, scope and aims are
different. By this, we believe we can simulate
the competiveness of real life architectural
competitions.
There are in fact multiple independent
vertical studios at ARCHIP running in paral-
lel: four independent studios for the under-
graduate and graduate students. There are up
to 20 students per studio with each having
a similar number of first, second and third
year students.
While the project’s site and program are
the same for all studios, the specific design
approaches and methodologies within each
studio vary. Each is under the direction of
a different pair of studio leaders. After each
semester, students switch studios, to gain
exposure to the full range of practices and

Part 1
Timeline
design thinking unique to each studio. For
their final semesters, third year students are
allowed to select the studio of their choice.
Students become proficient in all phases
of the design process – from analysing the
brief, through searching for and developing
a concept and its architectural form, to the
final presentation of the design. Each phase
of this process (the concept, the project,
and the final submission) is marked with
a studio-wide presentation before a group of
invited reviewers.
In order to design and present projects in
the visual form, an architect needs to culti-
vate artistic sensibilities, master traditional
and digital media and the basics of the arts
and crafts. Every term is dedicated to explor-
ing graphic and presentation techniques (dig-
ital or hand drawing, handmade professional
models, technical construction drawings,
3D modelling, final slide shows). And every
semester project is compiled into a portfolio.
To sum up with the words of Eugene Asse
(Dean of MARCH in Moscow):
Working in the studio is always improvi-
sation. The main tool of the studio is the
conversation. Studio work is most similar to
a psychotherapeutic session, where students
and teachers are then alternately the doctor,
the patient. We talk, eliciting secrets from
each other and seeking frankness.

Part 1 — Timeline ARCHIP 2017/18 54 Part 1 — Timeline ARCHIP 2017/18
July 2018
1. 21/07–05/08/2018:
5 parallel workshops took place during this
year’s Summer School, under C4NC (Center
for Next Crafts) – ARCHIP’s interdisciplinary
research branch – focused on the intersection
of emerging technologies, design, science and
practical craftsmanship. The unique, 2 week
workshops covered 5 separate “futuristic”
programs: Outer Limits: Exploring the Limits
of Architecture, Alien City, Feral City: Future
Scenarios Design in Urban Context, Immer-
sive Spaces: Design Process in Virtual Reality,
“Smart” Contracts with Humans & Things:
Design for Blockchain & IoT, and From Lollipops
to Wearables: Open Hardware Design with Soft
and Flexible Circuits.
June 2018
2. 26/06/2018:
The Final Ceremony for ARCHIP’s graduating
class of 2018 was held in the large auditorium
hall in DOX. Family and friends gathered to cel-
ebrate the occasion of 25 graduates – ARCHIP’s
thus far largest class – which also included
our first Master’s graduates and a diverse rep-
resentation from Mexico, Guatemala, Morocco,
Norway, Russia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbeki-
stan, France, Iran, the Czech Republic, Korea,
Croatia, the United States, Libya and Singapore!
The student speech – playful yet serious – was
delivered by Isaac M. Sabido about the ARCHIP
family and lasting friendships. Thank you for
your hard work during these years. Congratula-
tions to all!
3. 24/06/2018:
ARCHIP co-sponsored and participated in the
second annual Holešovický Slunovrat –
a neighborhood-wide celebration of the Sum-
mer. Some of our students’ models were also
on display to the public in an event in Tusarova
park.
1
2
6
8
4
3
4. 23–24/06/2018:
Design Disco participated in Maker Faire!, the
largest worldwide exhibition of innovation, cre-
ativity and invention. Taking place in Prague, for
the first time, in the Industrial Palace in Prague
7, ideas, knowledge and novel productions were
shared within an informal meeting space. With
the support of ARCHIP, the passionate student
volunteers of Design Disco spent the weekend
at the Faire!, showcasing their interactive exer-
cise “Puzzle Furniture”.
5. 18–21/06/2018:
At the Final State Exams, which took place
over four days, students presented and defend-
ed their projects in response to questions within
the disciplines of architecture, construction and
history. The external juries were chaired by Jan
Hájek, Petr Šmídek, Jan Holna and Petr Lešek
on each respective day. Well done!
6. 7/06/2018:
DOX Centre for Contemporary Art opened
a brand new exhibition and project #DataMaze
to show how the Internet has become omni-
present in our lives over the past 30 years. The
exhibition evolved in time (as it is a constant
work-in-progress), with the aim to see this data
revolution from a critical perspective, through
art and design as well as workshops and educa-
tional activities.
7. 5/06/2018:
What is this generation like?
ARCHIP faculty and management participated
in a research seminar which presented infor-
mation and analyses of the rapidly changing
circumstances surrounding pedagogy in an
increasingly digitised and networked age. The
overview provided insights and ideas for how
to improve both teaching and learning in the
school.
May 2018
8. 31/05/2018:
The GoRo IV. award was announced at this
year’s exhibition opening party in the spac-
es around the DOX+ auditorium. The Diploma
projects remained on display for two weeks.
This semester’s GoRo Jury was Ivan Boroš and
Juraj Calaj from Edit! and Sean Clifton from
Jestico+Whiles. The award for Best Student
Project went to Kryštof Redčenkov for his Film
Institute-Prague, while the Best Studio award
went to Nasadil-Duba for 150 m of Culture.
A Special Mention Award was also granted to
all the first year students for their collaborative
row house project, “U Městských domů”. The
beautiful display of work filled the vast space
with a great excitement!

Part 1 — Timeline ARCHIP 2017/18 7
9. 21/05/2018:
ARCHIP had the honour of hosting Casimir
Zdanius, the Head of Industrial Design at Grim-
shaw Architects for a lecture about their
current work. Founded by Sir Nicolas Grimshaw
in 1980, the practice operates worldwide with
offices in New York, London, Melbourne, Sydney,
Doha and Dubai, employing over 500 staff. Mr.
Zdanius underscored the importance placed
in their office of engineering all aspects of the
project, and on cooperation with manufacturers,
while thinking about longevity, efficiency of
construction and maintenance throughout the
design process.
10. 16/05/2018:
Barbara Stec, teacher at Andrzej Frycz Modrze-
wski Kracow University, visited ARCHIP as part
of the cooperation between our Universities
through the Erasmus program. During her one
week visit, she taught two lectures for the
Building Environment course and one lecture
for Construction II. She also gave a beautiful
and poetic presentation of her research on the
complexities and nuances of light in archi-
tecture, with attention to its influence on the
atmosphere and the experience of space.
11. 10/05/2018:
ARCHIP lecturers Markéta Mráčková and Barb-
ora Šimonová and their cultural cooperative
cosa.cz, prepared a series of events at
VIPER gallery, on the theme “Form Follows
Money”: Outsiders, Cooperative Movement and
False or Post-Truth.
6 Part 1 — Timeline ARCHIP 2017/18
10
12
11
13
April 2018
12. 20/04/2018:
Letters to the Mayor is an initiative that
displays letters written by architects to their
city mayors. Started in 2014 by Storefront for
Art and Architecture in New York, it has been
presented in more than 15 cities worldwide.
The project serves as an act of evaluation of the
city’s past, present and future. Rector, Regina
Loukotová, was invited to participate with other
internationally recognised architects.
13. 06/04/2018:
Máme otevřeno (We are Open) is an annual
event in Prague 7: 1 evening. 1 neighbourhood.
40 places. ARCHIP’s studio spaces were opened
to the public featuring a special installation
event. Curators Atoosa Ghanaei, Sinan Birsel
and Megi Davitidze together with Design Dis-
co, prepared Outside In: Prague Happiness,
Part II. Using familiar elements encountered
daily within the city, such as traffic signs and
benches – combined with new messages – the
aim was to make new meanings and messages
in public space.
14. 05/04/2018:
As part of the Ecology course taught by Henry
Hanson, students participated in a workshop
along both sides of the Czech-Austrian
border. They conducted intensive, on-site re-
search to explore and document physical, social
and environmental characteristics of selected
small towns, their landscapes, histories and
current forms.
15. 05/04/2018:
ARCHIP Students and Faculty joined those
of the Faculty of Architecture at ČVUT, upon
Libenský bridge, to express their opinions
against its planned demolition. (Most recent
news about the bridge indicates that it will be
renovated and preserved).
16. 10/04/2018:
Students and Faculty from ROC Nova College
Technology (NL) visited us in our studios and
shared some of their work with us. We appreci-
ated our exchange of knowledge, experiences
and project ideas. Nice meeting all of you!
March 2018
17. 29/03/2018:
A discussion between writers and architects,
expressed through stories and illustrations,
took place at DOX as part of the world premiere
of the I WELCOME project.
14
17
9

23
18. 15/03/2018:
As part of their Urban Design – Critical Cities
course, second year Bachelor’s students pre-
pared the exhibition “PSYCHOMAPS”: psycho-
geographical readings of cities, drawn from the
writings of Guy Debord and WJ Mitchell. The
beautiful drawings were exhibited in the main
entry foyer of DOX+.
19. 15/03/2018:
Fourth year Master’s students participated in
a student workshop competition: “Crown for
Poruba”, organised by the Technical Univer-
sity of Ostrava. The workshop goals were to
propose a new possibility for the public space
within and between an ensemble of residential
and retail objects of the 1960’s city fabric.
20. 15/03/2018:
Visiting Teachers Toni Kotnik and Pia Fricker
(Aalto University Helsinki) presented an
overview of their school, its pedagogy and
teaching methods. We discussed and compared
our two academic programmes, and the simi-
larities and differences between the Finnish and
the Czech contexts.
21. 14/03/2018:
Mikesch Muecke and Diane Al Shihabi (Iowa
State University) are currently working with
their students in Prague on the 3D scanning of
Villa Petschek in Bubeneč. Their special pres-
entation outlined the tension between conven-
tional preservation techniques and cutting-edge
technologies – revisiting historical preservation
through emerging tools of virtual reality.
22. 10/03/2018:
The annual students’ architectural-urban com-
petition SUPERSTUDIO was founded by AD
assistant David Neuhäusl in 2010. This year’s
theme was affordable housing in the city centre,
with as many as 98 teams participating!
February 2018
23. 26/02/2018:
ARCHIP students partook in the “A Vision for
Prague” event organised by DOX, under the
topics “What do we miss in Prague?” and “What
Prague needs?”. The event and initiative, asked
21
26
22
for students’ visions of and for the city. Selected
student proposals were presented by our stu-
dents within a public panel discussion, along
with an exhibition of selected projects from last
semester.
24. 26/02/2018:
This AD Summer semester marked a number
of “firsts”: a new approach of teamwork for our
1st year students, our first full semester within
the new school premises, and the first Diploma
projects from our Master’s students.
January 2018
25. 31/01/2018:
The GoRo Award III. ceremony doubled as
the official Opening Party of ARCHIP’s new
location at DOX+. The finalists for Best Project
were Dandika Thanos: Collective Fragmentation
(Dlesk-Horová studio), and Ewa Wroblewska
and Megi Davitidze: Bohemian (Schindler-Fes-
sler studio). The winning award went to Vla-
dyslav Alyeksyenko and Kryštof Redčenkov:
BiodiverCity (Wertig – Neuhäusl studio). The
award for Best Studio went to Schindler-Fessler
studio.
26. 25–29/01/2018:
Over four days of final AD presentations, the
four Architectural Design studios exhibited their
individual and group projects before an external
jury of critics. The works were installed as an
exhibition gallery, along the walls of the shared
studio spaces, showing models, drawings, port-
folios, posters and video presentations. While
the scale of the task of urbanism was quite
a challenge, as a whole could be seen, an im-
pressive amount of creative work!
27. 09/01/2018:
The GA+D Future Cities Design Studio, led
by Peter Stec, started its Spring semester
project with the participation of eleven visiting
international students as well as regular AR-
CHIP students. The studio took the theme of
a Haunted Pavilion as its topic, building upon
last semester’s site just under the rampart of
Vyšehrad in the garden of CIEE.
25
19
18
27

28. 01/01/2018:
ARCHIP was registered into the Registru
tvůrčích/uměleckých výstupů (RUV MŠMT),
a public index of information, used for a broader
research into the results and methods of artis-
tic fields taught at Czech universities.
December 2017
29. 28/12/2017:
After a year of renovating the DOX+ expansion,
ARCHIP began the big move into its new prem-
ises. The school is proud to be located within
this important institution, and the connections
between our creative programs is set for many
mutual benefits. Among the new elements in
our campus are a large auditorium hall, a new
cafe and courtyard, and a renovated 6 story
administrative building – of which ARCHIP occu-
pies 3 floors with studio spaces, lecture rooms,
a student lounge and a workshop and art studio.
30. 21/12/2017:
To some degree all parties which involve dance
are moving parties, but this one was special!
The Annual Christmas Feast, a student-or-
ganised dinner, was a celebration of five years
at our address on Františka Křížka. As per tra-
dition, students brought foods from their own
countries, in a sharing of traditions and palettes.
The occassion also doubled as an opportunity to
exchange gifts in an anonymous grab-bag game
of White Elephant, and to say goodbye to our
studio space as we moved into our new home.
November 2017
31. 27/11/2017:
CCZA (Česká cena za Architekturu), the Czech
Prize for Architecture, is a recently established
national award for Architecture in the Czech
Republic – now in its second year. The awards
ceremony took place again this year at Jatka78
(a performing arts theatre in Prague 7). Five of
our teachers won awards this year: Pavel Nas-
adil, Elan Neuman Fessler, Adam Gebrian, Igor
Kovačevič, and Jaroslav Šafer.
32. 16/11/2017:
On a trip to CIEE Berlin, Global Architecture
and Design (GA+D) students presented their
projects for “Haunted Pavillion” to their col-
leagues from Barcelona and Berlin.
30
31
33
35
34
32
33. 23/11/2017:
The Villa Petschek is a house with a fascinat-
ing story, currently undergoing extended recon-
struction over the coming years. ARCHIP will
be taking part in this project. It is owned by the
National Literary Fund and is being reconstruct-
ed as their new headquarters. A few students
visit the construction site each Monday, to learn
about restoration, the role of the architect dur-
ing construction, and to document the process
of the building’s renovation.
34. 3/11/2017:
The design-build weekend at mmcité was
organised by the instructor of the Product De-
sign course, Jerry Koza. During the trip to the
mmcité product design company in Bílovice,
students toured the factory to see the produc-
tion processes of this world-renowned furniture
maker. The design-build workshop began when
students received their project brief: “An object
that will accommodate 3 people sitting on it.”
Students designed and built many beautiful
(and useful) ideas!
October 2017
35. 31/10/2017:
Halloween cannot be any more fun than it al-
ready is but ARCHIP added new creative twists
to the celebration. Lots of students around,
pivo pong tournaments, good music, photo-
shoots and a best costume contest. Among the
amazing costumes, the first prize was given
to the demon of the underworld, Iman Aljoaki,
the second prize to the futuristic couple, Isaac
M. Sabido and Kaltrine Kabashi and the third
prize to the elf, Martyna.
36. 13/10/2017:
Design Disco Bergen sprouted roots in Nor-
way, in collaboration with KODE Art Museum,
with its first workshop series, led by Tina Athari,
about space in architecture, furniture and form.
The sessions focused on how public spaces are
experienced, through site analysis, critical dis-
cussion and physical installations. The partic-
ipants debated architectural concepts such as
informal program, materials, and sensory stim-
ulation. The workshops visited three distinctly
different public spaces:
Lille Lungegårdsvann – a high-traffic area
enclosed by water and trees, Den Blå Steinen
(aka The Blue Stone)— Bergen’s most famous
meeting point, and Marken – a historic area
lined with medieval streets.
29
36
10 Part 1 — Timeline ARCHIP 2017/18 Part 1 — Timeline ARCHIP 2017/18 11

37. 20/10/2017
This year’s trip to the Venice Art Biennale was
fully organised by the Student Senate. The way
artists achieved and expressed their aims made
an impression on the students. As second year
student Megi Davitidze said “we saw how di-
verse art can be and how many ways there are
to achieve the goal.”
38. 12–15/10/2017:
Organised by professor Henry Hanson, AR-
CHIP’s Landscape Design course set off for
a weekend visit to the city of Berlin. A four
hour train trip north of Prague set the tone for
the excursion, with the region’s unique natu-
ral topography and beautiful river landscape
along the way. The visit was a joint trip with
colleagues from the Landscape and Architec-
ture Studio at ČVUT. Students were to observe,
document and discuss places of significance
which they discovered within the landscape of
the city.
39. 06–09/10/2017:
ARCHIP student volunteers participated in
lectures, tours, and discussions with over 150
professional architects, as part of the Interna-
tional AIA conference in Prague. Hosted in
the Valdštejn Palace of the Czech Senate, the
four-day event brought this diverse group of
architects together to hear from experts from
the Czech Republic speak about the history, ur-
banism, future developments, and recent works
of the city of Prague.
September 2017
40. 25/09/2017:
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! ARCHIP warm-
ly welcomed 20 new students to this Winter
2017–18 term. 41
39
40
45
44
42
41. 12/09/2017:
Four ARCHIP students attended a design
workshop in Gyor, Hungary with studio lead-
er Jaroslav Wertig (A69) as part of the Creative
Week. The five-day workshop was speculative,
and TRANSITION was the theme they had to
work with. The task was to make temporary
pavillions, in groups of 2–3, using only a roll of
rope and minimal additional materials, and to
install them in an environment and in a way of
their choosing, which reflected their interpreta-
tion of the theme.
42. 05/09/2017:
The Shanghai Institute of Visual Art (SIVA)
invited ARCHIP to present at a conference in
Shanghai on the topic of “Conflict and Fusion”
at the 12th annual International Advisory Group.
Vice-Rector, Klára Doleželová and AD studio
instructor Elan Neuman Fessler shared a two-
part presentation about the school’s history,
structure, accomplishments and aims, and also
a case-study review of the INVALIDOVNA Sum-
mer Workshop – 2016, which had the participa-
tion of students from SIVA.
43. 01/09/2017:
Regina Loukotová, Rector of the school, began
her 6 month Fulbright Scholarship at Carneg-
ie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.
June-August 2017
44. 24/07–04/08/2017:
This year’s two-week summer workshop –
Prague Discoveries – was co-organised with
COSA.CZ. The workshop introduced „storytell-
ing“as an approach within the field of architec-
ture. Three main aims were: To work “in situ”
on the basis of interdisciplinary approaches
to art and architecture; to make extensive on-
site excursions to better understand the city’s
heritage; and to work with other international
students and instructors to gain valuable local
perspective.
45. 23/06–10/09/2017:
Cultural Hijack is an exhibition of intervention-
ist art and “artivism”, which was installed within
ARCHIP’s gallery space at Františka Krížka.
Cultural Hijack explores the work of artists
who intervene to reclaim the right to the city as
a site for free expression and critical engage-
ment; understanding social space in political
terms. It brought together leading artists from
around the world with a new generation of
Czech artists to present new perspectives on
how our cities shape our thoughts and actions,
and the steps we might take to shape our own
environments.
38
37

Part 2 — AD general concept description ARCHIP 2017/18 17
AD general concept
description
Architectural Design (AD) is the most impor-
tant course (with 10/12 credits) which practi-
cally and systematically draws on knowledge
from other courses. AD is a vertical studio,
where students of all years work on the same
theme within their particular studio. Only
the requirements for delivery, like the level of
detail and complexity, vary between different
years. Students share not only their design
experience together, but other programs of
the studio (such as lectures, field trips, pres-
entations, external critics).
The first and last terms of the Bachelor
studies follow a slightly different approach.
The 1st term is an introduction to Archi-
tectural Design. Two or three smaller tasks
come before the main project. The final, 6th
term on the other hand is dedicated to the
Bachelor diploma project.
Architectural Studio Design Briefs cover
different scales and types of problems and
their themes and topics change from one
semester to the next: from small buildings –
(dwelling), big buildings – (public use), recon-
structions – (interior), to landscapes – (public
space).

Chapter 3
Part 2 — Studio leaders’ general introduction ARCHIP 2017/18 19
Chapter 1
Chapter 1:
Studio leaders’
general introduction
Dlesk-Horová studio
“We believe that the role of architecture lies
in the responsible cultivation of the human
environment. Although every detail matters,
there is a hierarchy of importance, a rela-
tionship between detail and the whole, that
an architect should be aware of in his work.
The less important must be able to obey the
more important. This applies to architecture
in general; to its aesthetic as well as prag-
matic aspects; and to all its scales: human
settlements should honour nature, city dis-
tricts should honour the city, a house should
honour a street or a square, a window should
honour a house, a door-handle should hon-
our a door… However, this chain of values is
interlinked and might work also inversely as
a kind of butterfly effect.
Our aim is to guide students to be able to
recognise and to be aware of this hierarchy.
We would like to motivate them towards
a confident and rational approach; to help
them to resist the temptations of unfounded
ostentation; to believe in the human mind
and hand; and to celebrate everyday life also
in its most ordinary expressions.”
René Dlesk has been the Chair of the Archi-
tecture and Urban Design Studio since 2017.
René is a Prague based architect, currently
running the RDTH office of architecture with
Tamara Horová. In 2010 René co-founded
P-U-R-A, an international research and de-
sign architectural initiative that has operated
in the network of offices between Prague,
Milan, and London. He graduated FA STU in
Bratislava in 2006, he received his Ph.D. for
his thesis on invasive interventions in urban
spaces at the Institute of Urbanism in 2017.
www.rdth.cz
www.facebook.com/RDTHarchitekti
www.instagram.com/rdtharchitekti
rene.dlesk@archip.eu
Tamara Horová has been studio assistant at
ARCHIP since 2017.
Tamara graduated from FA CTU in Prague
at 2015. She gained work experience in Swit-
zerland and Catalunya before she co-founded
RDTH office with René Dlesk in 2017.
tamara.horova@archip.eu
Nasadil-Duba studio
“We teach architectural design which is
contextual, not radical. One of the studio
objectives is a responsibility to context in its
broadest sense. We see context as a frame-
work and ultimate source of limits and inspi-
rations. When we build in a physical environ-
ment, no matter if urban or natural, there’s
always context to work with. We believe that
good architecture must contribute to context
rather than harm it and that contextual limits
are positive contributors to the design pro-
cess. We favour evolution to revolution, both
in architecture and studio work. Hence the
only way to evolve is through an inventive
design process with a strong emphasis on site
sensitive concepts.”
Pavel Nasadil has been the Chair of the
Architecture and Urban Design Studio since
2015.
He is a practising architect and founding
partner of the Prague-based studio FAM Ar-
chitects whose projects are very successful in
open competitions and are widely published.
FAM Architects started out in 2005, as a ven-
ture between the UK firm Feilden + Mawson,
Pavel Nasadil and Jan Horky. FAM Architects
specialise in private residential projects, pub-
lic buildings and transportation hubs with
complex topology and master planning in the
Czech Republic, UK and abroad. They often
collaborate on public projects as part of large
international design teams.
www.famarchitekti.eu
pavel.nasadil@archip.eu
Martin Duba has been studio assistant at
ARCHIP since 2016. He is a Prague-based
practising architect.
martinduba.cz
martin.duba@archip.eu
Chapter 1
18 Part 2 — Studio leaders’ general introduction ARCHIP 2017/18

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 emphasise
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-
ering meaning, form and structure, 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 as-
signments and desk discussions through
which the concept 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 multi-
ple perspectives, through layers and scales;
this cultivates multi-dimensional reasoning
applied to a specific situation and site. The
aim here is to embody and to 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
2011.
He is an architect and founding member of
a Prague-based architecture practice, SCHIN-
DLER SEKO architects, together with Ludvík
Seko, since 2005.
Their first significant breakthrough came
in the form of an international competition
for the River Gardens development in Prague
8 – Karlín in 2005, on the embankment Ro-
hanské nábřeží. They have since built and
continue to build many buildings in Prague.
www.schindlerseko.cz
jan.schindler@archip.eu
Elan Fessler has been studio assistant at
ARCHIP since 2012.
He is an architect and has worked in Pitts-
burgh and New York before moving to Prague
in 2007. He is currently building up his stu-
dio, Emergenative Architecture.
www.emergenative.com
elan.fessler@archip.eu
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 of your individual inclinations.
It is impossible to transfer any informa-
tion, 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
2011.
He is a practicing 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.
www.a69.cz
jaroslav.wertig@archip.eu
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.neuhauslhunal.cz
www.superstudiocontest.cz
david.neuhausl@archip.eu
Part 2 — Studio leaders’ general introduction ARCHIP 2017/18 21
Chapter 1 Chapter 1
20 Part 2 — Studio leaders’ general introduction ARCHIP 2017/18

GA+D Studio
“Utilizing an approach that is interdependent
and interdisciplinary, students are encour-
aged to inquire, debate, collaborate, conduct
experiments, and rethink the potential 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 in order to comprehend globality
today is a close study of specific places, cities
and cultures. 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
Peter Stec has been Chair of the ARCHIP
FCD Future Cities Design Studio since 2017.
He is a practising architect with feet firmly
planted in academic research: he recently
completed a Fulbright Advanced Research
fellowship at Rice University and led studios
at Cornell University, the State University of
New York at Buffalo and the Academy of Fine
Arts and Design in Slovakia.
www.peterstec.com
peter.stec@archip.eu
Future Cities Seminar
Martin Hejl is a Future Cities Studio lectur-
er, teaching the Future Cities seminar since
2014. In 2015, he began teaching research
and theory of architecture at ARCHIP MA+U.
He is an architect. His Prague based practice
is greatly involved with academic research.
He worked on the Czech and Slovak pavilion
at La Biennale di Venezia in collaboration
with the Faculty of Arts and Architecture of
Technical University in Liberec, the Fine Arts
Academy in Bratislava and the Czech Techni-
cal University in Prague.
www.kolmo.eu
www.loomonthemoon.com
martin.hejl@archip.eu
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. The focus of his doctoral research is
computational design and emergent archi-
tecture. He holds a position of assistant pro-
fessor at the Academy of Arts, Architecture
and Design in Prague in the studio Architec-
ture III.
www.issuu.com/shota_tsikolia
shota.tsikolia@archip.eu
Part 2 — Studio leaders’ general introduction ARCHIP 2017/18 2322 Part 2 — Studio leaders’ general introduction ARCHIP 2017/18
Chapter 1 Chapter 1

Chapter 2
Part 2 — Studio projects winter term ARCHIP 2017/18 2524 Part 2 — Studio projects winter term ARCHIP 2017/18
Chapter 2:
Studio projects
winter term
Winter term 2017/18: studios’ selections of students’ works.
AD1 introductory projects (same for all first year students):
Before taking part in the main semester design project, AD1 students worked
on a pair of introductory tasks. While these tasks demonstrate technical and
conceptual skills, they also serve to familiarize and to orient each student with-
in 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,
using only pencil on paper. Students
also outline their activities if they were
to stay for 10 hours within this selected
space. This task lasts only 1 week. It is
not about design, but about observing
urban life and exploring the city – a new
challenge for most beginning students.
Task 2
My Space (2 Weeks)
Students abstract 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 projects
also reflect the individuality, the
character, interests or origins of the
authors. The task is presented only
with a 1 : 10 model, after 2 weeks of
design work.
Chapter 2

Chapter 2Chapter 2
AD1+3+5+7+9 Semestral Project General Brief:
Urbanism in Prague 7
Site for all studios:
The lower portion of Holešovice, Prague 7
The themes of the AD studio briefs for
this semester varied between studios,
yet all projects engaged the question
of the future of Prague 7 – specifically
the lower portion of Holešovice within
the bend of the Vltava river. The area of
the entire neighbourhood was divided
amongst the four AD studios, each
with its own site, scale, theme and
approach.
“Correlating Patterns”, in Dlesk-Horová
studio, focused on the triangular,
brownfield site on the southern
embankment. “Terrain Vague”, in
Nasadil-Duba studio, focused on vacant
spaces in the city. “Pu77le City”, in
Schindler-Fessler studio, focused on
the area surrounding Holešovice train
station. “H – – – – – – – – E”, in Wertig-
Neuhäusl studio, focused on a re-
thinking of the entire peninsula.
A new approach for the 80 %
presentations was tested this
semester. Studio leaders switched
positions, crossing into each other’s
studios, to look into each project with
a familiar yet different perspective.
Students presented their (almost-
finished) work before this internal
jury – as a practice round before their
final presentations – when external
critics were invited to the school to
review the students’ completed work.

Chapter 2 Dlesk-Horová Studio
Dlesk-Horová Studio
Correlating Patterns
For this semester we’ve chosen a triangular site in
Prague 7 defined by Komunardů and Tusarova streets
and the riverbank. It is a site which contains the strong
presence of its industrial past. It is a site full of physical
contradictions and apparent discontinuities: a site with
a lot of potential. The site has been affected by the
spontaneity of utilitarian solutions which are seemingly
applied without any conscious framework for a complex
urban development.
During this semester, we will use this site to study
how urbanity is composed of more than just patterns
of physical matter. Equally important are rich patterns
of social interactions, human culture and the natural
environment: these are all interlinked, affecting each
other. The presence of these intangible matters exceeds
physical boundaries and can be felt beyond the limits of
the given site or neighbourhood.
By unveiling those patterns and understanding their
correlations, we will try to suggest grounding principles
for further interventions on this site to become catalysts
of new urban qualities.
The key virtues of studio candidates are open-
mindedness and patience, enthusiasm and a proactive
approach to learn and to explore.
Part 2 — Studio projects winter term ARCHIP 2017/18 29

Fadri Horber (AD3):
MODULARITY
The main points of the new design are to challenge
the existing site while still respecting it. In the
proposal, most of the existing buildings have been
removed and the road grid has been reconfigured.
With the highest buildings placed on the edges of
the site, they gradually lower towards the riverbank.
A contemporary and energy efficient design is
proposed which respects the modular rectangular
buildings and their inner courtyards. Only one building
contradicts this new layout: the existing historical
Silo. It is preserved in place and the riverbank is
reconfigured according to its new function. The site
is further connected to Karlin with a pedestrian-only
bridge and a new boardwalk connecting to the Market.
Dandika Thanos (AD7):
COLLECTIVE FRAGMENTATION
ISOLATED
The existing buildings feel isolated and the street grid
focuses too much on car access.
RECONNECT
By connecting focal points and tram stops, the new
street grid can give way for pedestrian access to the
site.
RENEW
New blocks with access to public courtyards and views
to the river revitalise the site.
Chapter 2 Dlesk-Horová StudioChapter 2 Dlesk-Horová Studio

David Lameš (AD7): COURTYARDS
The semester’s theme of urbanism hit a deep note
with me. I always considered urbanism to be a form
of monumental, all-encompassing architecture,
one that is in a league of its own. After all, people
don’t ask what house you live in but where you live.
Context is of the utmost importance in urbanism as it
shapes our understanding of spaces and of ourselves,
otherwise the terms Londoner, Parisian, or “Pražan”
would not have any meaning or purpose. When
confronted with a part of the city that was surrounded
by other urban areas, the issue of interpreting context
was paramount. I tried going through preliminary
experimental phases to see if this district could or
should have an alien character to its surroundings,
but in the end, I came to the conclusion that at this
scale, incorporation and incubation through continuity
should be the goal of the development. As a result,
I tried to maintain as many “relics” of old Maniny as
possible, to use them as puzzle pieces for developing
something new, while still in the familiar context of the
surrounding cityscape.
Louise Nebelsztein (AD9):
URBAN ODDITY (Jablonec nad Nisou)
WHY JAB’?
Two years ago I got a road bike, having decided to
reach the South of France from Prague. I tested the
bike before going on that long trip and visited a friend
in Jablonec nad Nisou, hurt my knee, and never made
it to France. I fell for that intriguing North Bohemian
city. A heart stopper.
THE CITY
The city of Jablonec nad Nisou is situated in the North
of Bohemia in the Jizera Mountains. It is known for
the production of costume jewellery, based on a glass
production tradition since the second half of the 17th
century. It used to be part of the Sudetenland, an area
in Czech Republic populated by Germans until 1945.
The city has now 45‚000 inhabitants.
AN URBAN ODDITY
To put it in simple words, based on immediate feelings
when you enter the city, something feels wrong with
Jablonec nad Nisou. Amazing architecture left to
decay. Empty plots. Empty shops. A juxtaposition of
different typologies of public and private spaces. No
access to the river. Sometimes good, often terrible,
house refurbishments. This, in a region that has one of
the best schools of architecture in the Czech Republic,
in Liberec. Jablonec has beauty but people perceive it
as “grey and ugly”. This brings many questions to mind.
And it is the trigger of the present study.
INTRODUCTION TO THE METHODOLOGY
Understanding a city in its whole complexity is not
a matter of a few months. Therefore I am taking this
limitation into consideration. I base this project on
a sensitive approach rather than an empirical analysis.

Nasadil-Duba Studio
Terrain Vague
Vacant places in the urban periphery, incomplete
blocks, brownfield gap spaces, inner courtyards –
programmatically and physically undefined spaces –
that’s terrain vague. Spaces with hidden potentials
and rich surrounding contexts, waiting for smart
interventions that would repair lost and undiscovered
relationships, enhance and add value to the city. We
would like to encourage a design process based on
a complex understanding of the city through rigorous
analysis. The semester will be structured into three
parts: analysis, master planning and finally the
presentation of both the proposals and the knowledge
gained through research. The aim is not to develop solely
through building design, but to define characteristics and
atmosphere, and to discover the potential and unlock the
possibilities of the sites through urban design.
For this task we chose areas and spaces in Holešovice
bounded by railways and main roads passing through
the Prague 7 district. The task was to analyse particular
problems of these spaces and reframe them in a way
that would be beneficial for the city, particularly with
regards to the typology of cohousing, coworking and
structured public space.
Chapter 2 Nasadil-Duba Studio

Sinan Birsel (AD3): HALF-A-BLOCK
The concept of this project is to create a space where
new communities can emerge and gather: an Agora. To
accomplish this, two new building masses are created
in order to enclose and define the “empty” space in the
centre. The new massing is built in the optimal way
to ensure light, to protect from wind, to allow access
to transportation, to have vision over the agora and to
create attractiveness.
Bachir Benkirane (AD5):
DWELLING INITIATIVE
What if we let the people chose the way they want
to live? Instead of building out all of the residential
developments…
…why not build the infrastructure and let the people
fill it? It has been done before – why is this system not
utilised more often?
Chapter 2 Nasadil-Duba StudioChapter 2 Nasadil-Duba Studio

Schindler-Fessler Studio
Pu77le City
The site is framed by existing, hard linear barriers of
infrastructure: Plynarenská (450 m), Partyzánů (500 m),
Argentinská (550 m) and the Vltava river (600 m).
Despite its clear boundaries and prominent train station
at its centre, it is a “broken heart” of the city – without
a coherent form or image. Nevertheless, it is an area rich
in nuance.
The two key lines of infrastructure within the site are
the raised railway platform (above a lowered ground)
and the underground subway (just beneath an artificially
raised ground). Further complicating the site is the non-
linear warped topography and the odd and disjunctive
array of somewhat abandoned buildings and spaces in
between. All elements of the existing fabric (including
roads and objects) can be demolished or preserved
according to the needs of each project.
Varikatt Sherin Sunny(AD7):
HOLESOVICE
REVITALISATION -TERRAIN VAGUE
The primary idea is to create connectivity within the
site for the pedestrians. Urban interventions are made
at the street level. To achieve this in the five blocks
within the site, open spaces, both green belts and
paved courtyards, are explored. A sense of relation
is created among the properties by segmenting and
zoning the site into a pedestrian-friendly environment.
New pedestrian connectivities created throughout the
site, allows it to become more active. The five blocks
within the site are zoned to accommodate commercial/
shopping, work/business centres, co-working and co-
housing spaces, hospitality and to reconnect with the
existing, neighbouring academic institutions.
38 Part 2 — Studio projects winter term ARCHIP 2017/18
Chapter 2 Schindler-Fessler Studio

We will work through historical layers of the past,
fragments of past footprints, and subjective wanderings
through the site, in order to define the possible new
edges, boundaries and forms of new blocks and
buildings. The common central figure of the “agora” will
serve as a unifying concept to support the negotiated
communication between groups.
Like a puzzle, the fragmented site will be re-assembled,
and will be joined together according to its own set of
internal rules. Each team will work on one piece of the
site, and we will produce 1 final, studio model (with its
separate pieces fitting together).
Chris Stian Høydahl (AD1):
HIDDEN TREASURES
The concept originated from the thought of reviving
two already existing places: the ground plaza and the
underground passage. The public space behind the
building (at the existing ground plaza) is the natural
way to access the performance area of the building
situated on the surface. From the underground gallery,
(in the existing underground passage) there is the
possibility to enter all the way to the second floor
through a staircase located in the south hallway. The
empty underground and the empty ground surface
are opened and interconnected through a new public
building.

Chapter 3
Megi Davitidze, Ewa Wróblewska
(AD3): BOHEMIAN
The site has very delicate qualities. An abandoned
concrete factory and an abandoned house carry
years of history. These buildings create an industrial-
domestic atmosphere, suitable for an artistic
community. Despite being difficult to access – blocked
by the train platforms, the high-speed road and the
river, the area is nevertheless occupied by cyclists,
families and people who just want to escape reality.
The 15 m high columns, next to the concrete factory,
created a grid. We perceived the site as one building,
where streets indicate corridors. The site was then
divided into three main parts (starting from the east):
educational/ creative, semi-public/ commercial and
urban park/ recreational.
The motion of buildings follows the program.
Densities change smoothly and horizontally
throughout the site. Starting from an “arts and crafts
factory” situated within the existing concrete factory
building and finishing at a spacious urban park with
pavilions. In the middle is a “village”, smoothly unifying
the factory and the park. The aim of the village is
to get lost, to explore, to stop, to meet people and
to enjoy a human-scaled space. There are ateliers,
galleries, shops, bistros, cafes, and apartments. The
riverside merges into the grid. The extensions into the
river provide people an exceptional moment.
Elizaveta Karpacheva, Kasimir
Suter Winter, Oleksandra Yeloyeva
(AD5): RE-URBAN
Looking at our site, we felt that there was a real
need to bring back some of the historic qualities and
preserve existing cultural spaces. The site had been
cut off by the development of infrastructure, so we
wanted to remove existing boundaries and increase
connection with the surrounding urban fabric. By
emphasising walkability and the human scale, and
through the placement of public programs and public
spaces, we propose for this portion of Holešovice to
become a new city centre.
It was important for us to also consider temporary
and long-term use of the urban space, as there would
be a lot of through-traffic from the transport hubs, as
well as more permanent use by the locals. In mixing
a myriad of programs and functions, we wanted to
create a safe city, with life on multiple ground levels
throughout the day. All these activities are focused
towards the agora, acting as the public square: the
place of culture, life and activity.

Iman Aljoaki (AD9): PUZZLE CITY
The project aims to connect the fractured site through
a series of voids, with paths connecting all the voids
towards the central hub, and having variously scaled
built structures formed around them.
Overlaying the urban blocks from different time
periods shows the transition of various parts of Prague
7. The most striking change is the area of the former
villages, with only traces left of its urban patterns that
can be re-found in the built voids making up streets
and in the shape of the land parcels.
Praha-Holešovice can be the “Welcome to Prague”
stop you can’t wait to get out and go experience…
A piece of the city that reflects its history of drastically
changing urban fabric, from a village to an industrial
neighbourhood, to the transportation hub it is today. It
is the final pressure point of the collective experience
that is the train ride along the river.
Wertig-Neuhäusl Studio
AD2+4+6+8+10 studio project l brief:
H – – – – – – – – E
“…I would say the biggest problem today for architects
is the city, and for that reason it is important in
architectural education to start with the problem
of the city.“
— Luigi Snozzi
“…Architecture is not so much the knowledge
of form but a form of knowledge.“
— Bernard Tschumi
We will focus our thoughts on the city – trying to
understand a piece of urban structure in its complexity
is the purpose of this semester. A city is formed and
affected by an enormous number of elements, actions
and processes. To support individual and progressive
reflection on this subject, each student will define his/
her own brief. Each can focus on any aspect of the city –
the only restrictions are the given area, the urban scale
and meaningfulness.
Chapter 2 Wertig-Neuhäusl Studio

The semester will start with an exploration of the
area both virtually and physically in situ, analyses,
readings, writings and discussions. To promote the
possible range of unique approaches, each student can
create their own methodology to advance their specific
research.
The key issue is the Brief – of equal importance
as the actual answer to it, which is limited only by
its reasonability in relation to the selected topic.
The proposal can cross the area borders, if justified.
Nevertheless, it is crucial to think conceptually
concerning the whole district, keeping in mind potential
details. First year students will proceed as a team with
the task to define, design and construct a physical
intervention in the area.
It implies for this rather experimental brief, which
inherently contains examining the architect´s role at
the scale of the city, that the journey could be more
important than the destination. The whole process
shall be captured in a book, the main outcome of this
semester, which also serves as a research basis for the
subsequent semester.
Marie Meland (AD5): CYCLE
The project is to inspire more people to use the bike
as a means of transportation. In the long run, it has
a lot of benefits for the city and occupants. It will help
people to have a more active daily life, and following
that, a better health. Also it will reduce heavy car
traffic, an important part of a more sustainable city in
the future, with less air pollution.
Chapter 2 Wertig-Neuhäusl StudioChapter 2 Wertig-Neuhäusl Studio

Tugce Ari (AD5): THE WAY
TO THE RIVER
Holešovice is an isolated site located between this
huge neglected area and the Vltava river. There are
a few connections with nearby sites yet no connection
with the central zone – Bubny.
The main goal of the project is to take people to
the river by attracting them and to solve the problems
along the way towards the reaching of the water.
Vlad Alyksyenko,
Kryštof Redčenkov (AD5):
BIODIVERCITY
The proposal supports the ideology whereby people
trade nature fairly for humanity.

Chapter 3
Chapter 3:
Studio projects
summer term
Summer term 2017/18: studios’ selections of students’ works.
AD2 semester’s general project brief:
U Městských domů
A new approach was tested this
semester for our First year students,
all of whom shared the same brief
and site. They worked together as
a single team. Each proposed a house
for a client of their choosing, and as
a whole formed a linear city block of
row houses – U Městských domů (At
the city houses), a site located just
around the corner from the school.
This existing site is composed of
a row of garages and storage units,
built in the 1980’s in a substandard
construction. These small structures
Hedy Lemus Bird (AD5):
THE URBAN BRIDGES
Connection and accessibility are key points in order
to urbanise and make an area grow. But, how to make
an area grow, without losing its community, identity
and style? Is it a good idea to just redirect traffic into
Holešovice so it becomes a new city centre? Perhaps
no. Therefore, maybe the connection is not targeted to
big masses, but instead to the existing community in
Holešovice and Prague.
Solution? Urban Bridges. The Urban Bridges
serve several purposes. Besides, of course, providing
a connection between point A and point B and easing
access from and to Holešovice, they are also designed
to create an experience for the user, an experience
never seen in Prague before.
The proposal is made from 3 sets of bridge ideas,
each of them designed specifically to follow a function
that will enhance the experience and that will add
value to the district.
Chapter 2 Wertig-Neuhäusl Studio
50 Part 2 — Studio projects winter term ARCHIP 2017/18 Part 2 — Studio projects summer term ARCHIP 2017/18 51

Chapter 3Chapter 3
were to be replaced, while their
rhythmic grid and proportions along
the street edge were to be retained.
Each student’s house stands upon
a 10 m × 6.6 m area. Each individual
site was composed of three original
units, 1 of which was to be reserved as
‘unbuilt space’ (a garden), while on the
other two units, a 6.6 m × 6.6 m house
could be built to a maximum height of
13 m.
After each student selected their
own client(s), ranging between
2–6 people, the character of the house
and its garden was to be developed
accordingly. To define the client, each
student invented the stories, needs and
desires of specific families, particular
artists, or small communities.
52 Part 2 — Studio projects summer ARCHIP 2017/18 Part 2 — Studio projects summer term ARCHIP 2017/18 53

Andreas Bergem (AD2)
(Schindler-Fessler studio):
DOX-, ARCHIP STUDENT DORMS
My client came to me with two demands; they
wanted their first dormitory, and they wanted it to
be on an efficient and small scale. Since my client –
ARCHIP – was located nearby, it was only natural
to utilise the development of U Městských domů.
ARCHIP is situated at DOX+, the annex of the Centre
of Contemporary Art. The new dormitory, called DOX-,
has a similar feature to its neighbour. The facade
towards the street displays an exhibition, in this
instance, the exhibit is the ARCHIP students living
within. The main objective was to stimulate living
conditions within this small and dense yet intimate
environment. Attempting to optimise such a small
space led to the exploration of efficiency. I was inspired
by the Greek houses in which one must pass through
a room in order to reach another, and thereby abolish
the hallway by transforming it into a meeting place.
Vid Fugina (AD2)
(Wertig-Neuhäusl studio):
FAMILY HOUSE
The clients are a family of four: two parents (husband
and wife) and two children. One boy, aged 18 and one
girl aged 16. Husband is 49 years old and wife is 45
years old. Both parents are regularly employed with
college/university education.
The concept is an open floor plan, with vertical steel
columns which create vertical shadows throughout
the interior.
Chapter 3Chapter 3

Chris Stian Høydahl (AD2)
(Wertig-Neuhäusl studio):
STAIRCASE HOUSE
Clients: Isumi and Akyjama Seihachi, a couple, both do
art, focus on painting and sculpting. They both enjoy
modern Japanese house architecture and want to
sit down in a place they can call home, where living,
working, and exhibiting spaces are blurred.
AD4+6+8+10 semestral project general brief:
The four different design briefs,
from each of the AD studios, shared
common overlapping themes: Culture,
Infrastructure, Landscape, Housing,
and Prague 7.
“Reclaiming the Bridge”, in Dlesk-
Horová studio, focused on re-thinking
the possible uses of Libenský bridge.
Due to its poor condition, it was
temporarily closed, bringing with it
an opportunity to become “more than
a bridge for traffic”, but also a place
Chapter 3Chapter 3

for new life in the city. “150 meters
of Culture”, in Nasadil-Duba studio,
asked students to propose a cultural
institution, on a narrow and unused
piece of land. “Scales of Living”, in
Schindler-Fessler studio, asked for new
residential typologies to be introduced
into a typical yet unique city block
near the school. “H – – – – – – – – E”,
in Wertig-Neuhäusl studio, continued
from the previous semester, and asked
students to develop their projects from
their masterplan to a building.
Dlesk-Horová Studio
Reclaiming the Bridge
The recent collapse of the Trojský bridge (a suspended,
pedestrian bridge) triggered an accelerated discussion
about the safety of other bridge structures in the capital.
As a result, the Libeňský bridge, an important piece of
city infrastructure connecting Holešovice (Prague 7) with
Palmovka (Prague 8), was subsequently closed – with
exception to pedestrians. Discussions over its demolition
began and the future of a valuable piece of the Cubist
era’s infrastructural heritage was in danger.
For a short period of time, this vehicular route
turned into a pedestrian and cyclist bridge, with all
other forms of traffic, cars and trams, not allowed.
This temporary situation not only demonstrated that
the busy city was able to find short-term bypasses for
traffic when necessary, but more importantly, it offered
an opportunity to rethink the role of the bridge that no
longer served its intended use.
This circumstance allowed us to speculate on
different or additional uses for the bridge, instead of
solely traffic: a use that can promote city life; a use that
Chapter 3

upgrades the bridge from its sheer functional linkage
between two sides of the river into a real connector, or
even an accelerator, of city life and exchange between
two stagnating riversides. Traffic would return to the site
after the Libeňský bridge is reconstructed, and after new
urban tissues, representing new civic functions that have
the capacity to activate city life, are introduced.
Historical references of no longer used and nearly
forgotten urban typologies of “living bridges” can teach
us valuable lessons in re-evaluating well-established
stereotypes of what function a bridge can bear (for
example the still existing Ponte Vecchio of Florence,
Poultney bridge in Bath, and Rialto bridge in Venice as
well as the already demolished Old London Bridge or the
bridges of Île de la Cité in Paris e.g. old Pont au Change).
The aim of this semester’s AD task was to rethink the
role of Libenský bridge in Prague under the following
premises:
– we will honour the historical values of the bridge
– we will honour present socio-cultural values (including
the values of views from the bridge to its surrounding
scenery)
– we will take the technical properties of the bridge and
the surrounding site into consideration (e.g. load bearing
capacity, flooding levels.)
Megi Davitidze (AD4):
OF PEOPLE AND SPACE
Libeňský bridge, together with Dělnická street,
appears to be a long empty avenue, with no life or
spirit. Abandoned buildings, without people or any
kind of activity characterises this street, with just
a few cafes – waiting for customers. The project aim
is to develop life on the Holešovice side and to add
life on the Libeň side. A new structure is added to the
existing bridge, from both sides, in order to transform
the street into a stage for public life, and to create new
places for people to interact.
The human-scale concept provides walking, sitting
and standing as well as living spaces. Units, located
on a 6 m grid, serve as multifunctional buildings. The
ground floor is a public space, and the upper floors
are apartments. The units are suitable for different
categories of people – singles, students, or small
families and can be arranged according to each one’s
needs. There are two types of building units – 6 × 10 m
and 6 × 8 m. This difference allows to have small
gardens facing the river.
Moreover, gaps between the units create corridors
which serve as “urban living rooms”, and offer another
platform for life.
Part 2 — Studio projects summer term ARCHIP 2017/18 61
60 Part 2 — Studio projects summer ARCHIP 2017/18

Deborah Lee (AD4):
RECLAIMING THE BRIDGE
I propose a design idea that does not destroy
the bridge’s function but rather praises its value
by bringing a re-recognition and appreciation to
the bridge. The proposed pedestrian bridge and
the new urban tissue embraces the Libeňský
bridge and the much appreciated natural set-
ting already existing on the site.
The journey around the pedestrian bridge
would become a tribute to the bridge by en-
circling it. It would provide not only a beautiful
view out to the river but also new and differing
perspectives back towards the bridge, in addi-
tion to providing multiple access points through
its connections with other parts of the sur-
roundings. This design would not build onto the
bridge (adding to its load), but rather around it,
as if the new bridge is the tree that spreads its
arms for the others to take refuge under.
I propose an urban tissue with multi-func-
tional building units that would continue along
the new canal way that is to be realised in the
city’s future plan. This addition would also
complement the current developments around
the area, so that they would not seem as ob-
structive. Additionally, the circular path around
the Libeňský bridge continues the natural path-
way that many people already use and enjoy for
their runs and provides a nice area of park that
people could easily access around the bridge.
Robert Yussef (AD4):
MULTIFUNCTIONAL
MOBILE MODULES
The project proposes a temporary structure to become
a system of multifunctional mobile modules. The
standardised modules are aimed to host a variety of
anthropogenic activities, adopt themselves to different
landscapes (including water bodies) and rationally
distribute human capital within the city area and
beyond. The customized units can provide a high
standard of living to a customer according to their
specific requirements.
Benefiting from its fabric’s flexibility, “mmm”
can become an alternative for both urban and rural
developments, influencing city growth tendencies.
Being able to migrate according to the climate
and economic changes, or escape disasters, this
architecture is capable of establishing a closer
connection between humans and the environment,
most importantly, serving its function without leaving
a permanent footprint on the landscape.

Dandika Thanos (AD8):
LIBENSKY CROSS
The project aims to invite humans through design
based on circulation patterns and public functions.
It intervenes into the existing bridge but does not
overshadow it, creating a play between the old and
new through symmetry.
David Lameš (AD8): PERIPTEROS
“Peripteros” revitalizes the Rohan Island by instilling
and giving the surrounding community an avenue to
develop civically and culturally. By using the bridge
itself as a focal point, the area can become a centre of
activity as well as a new identity in the greater context
of Prague. The cultural and commercial functions
housed here improve walkability and reprioritise
the pedestrian, in a typology that is now considered
solely the domain of cars. Auxiliary commercial
and residential developments and complementary
recreational green facilities in the Rohan ecological
protected area improve the project’s long-term
sustainability. The structure itself respects the
Purist Cubist architecture of Janák’s bridge without
historicising pastiche. The structure’s monolithic
monumentality lends to its history of stoic eloquence
and reaffirms the stability of this long-suffering link
over the Vltava.

Sherin Sunny (AD8):
THE BRIDGE AND THE EDGE
The bridge is not just a bridge for transportation,
it is also expected to become a link between the
socio-cultural fabric of Libeň and Holešovice which is
undergoing fast urban transformations.
The proposal fills in the undefined urban voids
between Maniny and Palmovka. This shall provide
continuity in terms of urban form and shall activate
urban life on the bridge and its surroundings. The
river is diverted into the Rohanský island to create
a riverside trail on both sides of the peninsula.
The proposal aims to provide continuous pedestrian
movement, including walking and jogging, as well as
activities and facilities to bring more people to the
bridge. The riverside is enhanced with a trail on the
Libeň side with a direct linkage from the bridge. The
buildings along this linkage are on stilts to be safe
from flooding issues. On one side it has a riverfront
beach and on the other side, a park adjacent to the
trail.
The proposal includes buildings over the river
next to the bridge which are aimed at tourists (short
term accommodation) including hotels/hostels and
dormitories. At the bridge level, the building will have
cafes and restaurants with breath-taking views of
the river. The pedestrian walk is extended around the
building at this level. It is also possible to access the
deck at the lower level close to the water.
Nasadil-Duba Studio
150 m of CULTURE
A slim green belt in front of the Park Hotel and the
Police Headquarters, near the Výstaviště Fair Grounds.
A prominent and limited site. 150 m refers to the length
of the parcel, predetermining a large longitudinal
building. The site is prominent due to its location and
exposure alongside frequented car, tram and pedestrian
routes and the adjacent National Gallery. Limitations of
the site are embedded in the parcel’s proportions and in
the fact there are large existing buildings nearby.
Students will be designing a cultural institution of
national significance. The project deals with a cultural
typology and its adjustment to difficult site conditions
within a complex urban setting, and negotiates with
scale and architectural language appropriate for
a cultural institution of the 21st century. Challenging
conditions will result in unique approaches and strong
concepts being able to withstand the building’s strong
neighbours, particularly the National Gallery (Veletržní
Palác).
Typologies to be selected:
— Czech Architecture Centre
— Film Archive
— Annex to Veletržní Palace National Gallery
— Centre for Czech Photography
— Centre for Czech Design (new home for Designblok)

Fadri Horber (AD4):
PRAGUE EXHIBITION CENTRE
A number of young designers and artists have moved
to Prague 7 in the past few years. Why not provide
a new design space for them? The project is a new
home for DesignBlok as well as other design based
events and organisations. As the district it is located in,
this design is aiming for the future generation to create
and be inspired.
The project takes advantage of the site constraints
to allow natural light to move throughout the interior.
The building is divided into blocks, varying from 9 to
12 m wide. One of the walls will be a curtain wall to
allow maximum natural lighting, a glass elevator on
the north side of the building aids this concept. The
exhibition space on the last floor has two long 150
m solid walls, glazed walls on the north and south
facade. The walls at the building’s ends have been
designed to diffuse natural daylight, and the roof has
a double glazing system to dissolve direct sun rays.
Bachir Benkirane (AD6 bachelor
diploma project): D-LAB
Who goes to architecture and design cultural centres?
People inside of the field of architecture and design
should be more exposed. People outside of the field
should be more design-conscious. What if there was
a place where the two, even three, meet? What if when
you go to an exhibit, you can meet the designer or
architect behind it?
Located in a prime and upcoming location in
Holešovice, d-Lab serves quite an unfamiliar gap in
Prague. Think of it as a place people could go window
shopping for architects and designers. It is a place
beneficial for both the designer and the general public;
a space to make, to work, and to exhibit. It is a space
that promotes design and shows its worth to the
public.

Isaac Marquéz Sabido (AD6 bache-
lor diploma project): DESIGN L
The overall aim of the proposed Design Palác is to
provide an innovative building focused on the exposure
of Czech and international design mainly within the
fashion sector.
The architectural concept has been conceived as
a duality between a vertical and horizontal element
defined by their height and materiality. The vertical
element is a Tower that will host Vogue offices, design
studios to be rented, and a cafe with a concept store
on the last floor. The gallery and auditorium areas
are the horizontal element, defined by a low concrete
structure that correlates in a gentle way with its
surroundings.
The structure of the tower is minimalistic, taking
account that only three walls function as load bearing
structures supporting the floor slabs. The three
concrete walls define the floor spaces and section
off the stairs and toilets to the perimeter of the
building, creating a building of seclusion and openness
all in one. At the same time, this allows the floors
to be subdivided with glazing partitions, making a
segmentation of spaces.
Alina Fornaleva (AD6 bachelor di-
ploma project): 150 M OF CULTURE
My design is dedicated to the New Centre of
Architecture. The design of the building combines
exhibition and educational spaces. The purpose
of this project is to make the architecture more
understandable, explain what goals and objectives
this science sets itself, what tools it uses, and how it
affects everyday life.
The building is divided into three parts, with each
part responsible for its functional load. In the lower
level, are the lobby, cafe, reception and information
areas. In the middle part, are all the premises that are
responsible for the cultural part of the programme.
There are exhibition rooms that connect with the upper
level. In the upper level, there is a school for children,
a lecture room and educational workshops with a roof
terrace.
The project also includes independent units – each
of which can be rented for a small office or an art
or architectural workshop. The building’s tectonics
are determined by many factors. It was important
to maintain the conditions of illumination, and to
respond to the surrounding buildings and complex
infrastructure of the area.

Hedy Lemus Bird (AD6 bachelor
diploma project): ARCHITECTURAL
RESEARCH CENTRE
The Architectural Research Centre is created for
the exploration of design. Each space is made so
that the user can spend their time either studying,
reading, making research, developing a new product
or material. The building is packed with libraries,
workshops, classrooms, working spaces, exhibition
spaces, lounge areas, and many other corners that
help a person develop their ideas.
The project starts with the division of the site into
9 main elements (library, workshop, office, classroom,
research, open space, exhibition, coffee shop, and
auditorium). Of these elements, the two most
relevant (library & workshop) get extruded in opposite
directions. The remaining elements merge together
to create multi-use spaces that flow throughout the
entire building.
Schindler-Fessler Studio
Spaces of Living
From the room to the city and back.
The site: A piece of a city. The task: Housing.
The project: A collection of rooms and a small
landscape.
The program: 80 % total area for housing,
20 % for supporting functions.
Each AD year will focus on a different scale and different
area of the same larger site:
AD2 – from a room to a house: a small tower
(10 m × 6.5 m)
AD4 – from a room to a building: an infill building
(30 m × 50 m)
AD6 – from a room to a block: a corner building and
courtyard (80 m × 50 m)
The character, scale and type of units (both rooms and
residents) will be decided by each student.
Chapter 3 Schindler-Fessler StudioChapter 3 Nasadil-Duba Studio

Questions:
—What is in a room?
—To what does this room connect?
—What society is formed by the arrangement and
collection of its rooms?
—How can we think of housing in the city?
—How can all parts (rooms and residents) co-operate
and what larger whole do they form?
—Housing for the richest? Housing for the poorest?
Something in between?
—What to do with the existing elements of the site: keep,
demolish, adapt?
—What will be the program/use: how many, for whom,
how much?
Chapter 3 Schindler-Fessler StudioChapter 3 Schindler-Fessler Studio

Elena Štefková (AD4):
HOUSING FOR SENIORS’
AND ARTISTS’ INTERACTION
The building will have a mixture of functions and
will provide social housing for seniors as well as
apartments for artists. At the same time, the old
industrial building will provide public spaces including
a café. The building/buildings would provide seniors
with ample daylight as well as connections to urban
life, greenery and a range of activities for helping them
to stay active as long as possible.
The idea is to help seniors to overcome their
loneliness, separation from others and revive their
vitality and mobility via layers of activities. For this
reason, the housing will group seniors in small
communities which will share common spaces such
as kitchens, living room corners and spaces for playing
cards at each floor. These common spaces will be
shared also with artists, who will have the possibility
to join seniors in their daily activities.
The opportunity to meet with residents of other
floors will be in the common garden area, where
together residents can grow vegetables as well
as flowers. These interactions will be provided not
only at the internal level, but also the external level.
Communities of seniors and artists will be connected
with the public via the cafe, the piazza in front of the
cafe, workshops, and a rooftop gallery as well as
a small cinema.
Kasimir Sutter Winter (AD6 bache-
lor diploma project): MAKER VILLAGE
Maker Village is an attempt to design for the 21st
century, a time when humanity is being forced to find
a new way of inhabiting our home, planet Earth. Along
with new scientific developments, there have also been
huge breakthroughs in the development of computer
architecture, social architecture, and legal/financial
architecture. Together, these emerging developments
provide a new foundation of peer-to-peer systems,
which will create an outbreak in grassroots social
ventures.
Agency will be returned to Homo sapiens. Remixing,
adapting and exploring will be celebrated, and our
divergent interests will lead to adaptive, evolving
communities with strong convergent identities. This,
thereby, will create living communities that are in tune
with the places we live, and the work we do.
How will architecture shift its productive capacity
from form vs. function, to performance engaged in
productivity and adaptability? How will we build in a
post-capitalist society? Maker Village is a step in the
direction towards an open-source environment.

Ines Balic (AD6 bachelor diploma
project): AB OVO
This architectural proposal for creating a mixed-used
(commercial, office and residential) structure has
emerged from a close and detailed analysis of the
existing site in Holešovice (Prague 7). The aim of the
project is to create a high quality building/block while
solving urban problems of the site.
The old structure of 6 attached buildings (1960’s
housing) is demolished, and the new apartment units
are raised above ground level. The raised ground level
is connected (over the street) to the monumental
neighbouring structure on the western side. This
gesture minimises the disruptive massing of the
existing office building, while forming new pedestrian-
friendly public spaces. The existing street (that is
currently used as a parking area) is changed into a car-
free zone and will serve as the main entrance point
into the new structure.
The shape of the tower building is influenced by
multiple forces: wind, light and urban orientation (with
180 degree views, from each apartment, towards
the Holešovice market and overlooking the river).
This “Egg” is formed with ellipses oriented N/S so
that the spatial arrangement of every apartment has
a balanced quality on each side (orientated E/W).
On the “longest” span of the curve is the living area
combined with kitchen and dining, while the South side
is reserved for the balconies.
Jeong Yujin (AD6 bachelor diploma
project): BOXED
From the very beginning the concept was to carve out
parts of the existing building and place a new structure
inside (like a parasite).
One of the main goals of my project was to bring
more life into the block. The existing structure is
minimally insulated, and has an old facade that is not
so mesmerising to the eyes… However, it was not my
intention to completely demolish and rebuild. I chose
to partially and selectively remove and adapt the
existing building while introduce a new structure with
new co-habitants.
The new structure consists of prefabricated
concrete units that will be transported and assembled
on site. As most of the new units are partially and
unequally spread outwards off the existing structure,
unit pairs share horizontal steel beams back to back
in order to hold the cantilevered parts. With the new
intervention comes a new facade for the existing
building, better insulation, more public space and
larger individual balconies.

Chapter 3
Olga Horobynska (AD6 bachelor
diploma project): INVERSION
The main concept is focused on inverting the building
from the street towards the courtyard with vertical
living and horizontal working spaces. The main radical
solution was to demolish the existing and try to
achieve a better environment instead.
At the urban scale, I wanted to create a space
which could fill the courtyard area with a range of new
working units as well as to keep the garden element
which is implemented on the roof top. Additionally,
from this roof top connection, a new circulation flow
will allow access for the public through the layered
block.
The new building units are planned for both
students and families, each on its own edge of the
block. In order to connect these two parts together,
and bring importance to the building corner, I
combined shared spaces (library, laundry, lounges etc.)
which could be used by both types of inhabitants as
well as the public.
The strategy of units was generated from a
principle of negative and positive space – where
families are more about positive – because they
stay and dwell in one place. And students are about
negative space – which is movement, interaction,
visual communication.
Wertig-Neuhäusl Studio
H – – – – – – – – E
From a masterplan to a building:
rethink your urban design;
set up a design brief;
design a building.
Chapter 3 Wertig-Neuhäusl StudioChapter 3 Schindler-Fessler Studio

Ewa Wroblewska (AD4): rePLAY
The concept is focused on the fusion of the “village”
and the “concrete pre-cast columns” (used as cranes
in the past) on the east side of the factory. To this
end, the building’s envelope is refurbished and various
objects are placed inside. The distinction between
outside and inside is vanishing.
Gaia Delepine(AD4): CASA 22
What is an empty space? A missing corner? A non-
functional riverside?
But most importantly… What will happen in the empty
space?
“The courtyard is a place to dream, from within and
from above.”
My plot is the corner of a city block: it gives way to
two roads which grant it its cuspidate shape, as does
the current “empty space”, the courtyard, which is
redefined to allow my building to be in contact with
the inner block in a new way. The building is divided
into 5 floors. The ground floor and the first floor
are dedicated to commercial uses, followed by two
floors of standard apartments, a floor composed
of 2 apartments and a bookstore cafe linked to the
garden, and on the last floor a terraced roof.

Chapter 3Chapter 3
Kryštof Redčenkov
(AD6 bachelor diploma project):
FILM INSTITUTE PRAGUE
The new building of the Film Institute Prague is a
collection of institutions currently scattered over the
city. The aim of the building is to have all of them
under one roof and connected with the public and the
surroundings. Additionally, there are apartments for
people from the industry, either visiting or filming in
Prague.
The building is divided into four strips, defined as
urbanism and as program. All strips are possible to
cross through at ground level. Each strip also has its
specific conceptual approach to its wall definition,
articulating specific views and transparencies.
The first strip contains all cinema rooms and a
museum with a shop, cafe-bar and main reception/
entry lobby. The entrance is oriented to Ortenovo
square, with a cantilever to invite people inside. The
second strip is an interior open street, which is ready
and flexible for holding any interventions or actions.
It is also a bridge between the first and third strips,
between visitors and working people. During events,
it is a generous space for all people to come and
talk about the new movie. This street links to the
renovated brewery and its square. The third strip is for
“production”, where offices, apartments, archives, and
a school are located. The fourth strip is an open park
with trees to continue the connection to the brewery
square and the main street.
Marie Meland (AD6 bachelor diplo-
ma project): LIBRARY
The project is located on Ortenovo square in
Holešovice, Prague 7. The site is currently functioning
as a public space but does not serve that purpose
well. It is surrounded by traffic on all sides, and is
mostly used for passing through. The main program
of the building is a library with additional supporting
functions. It is a gathering place for people and
knowledge and an improvement to the existing public
space.
The project includes passages to allow circulation
though on ground level and to provide hidden, outdoor
areas. The building is therefore fragmented on the
ground level. Each part has a different function:
the main entrance, cafe, and book shop, offices and
learning centre, conference and auditorium spaces,
and an activity centre for youth. All of these functions
connect on the 2nd floor of the building, where the
main library space is located.
The height of the ceiling varies, as the roof has been
made accessible by ramps. This provides a dynamic
building form and interior space, ranging from cosy,
smaller scaled spaces to more grand atmospheres at
important parts of the building. The accessible roof
connects with the library space with ramps going
down to the inner courtyard. Altogether, this creates a
holistic structure that connects on many levels.

Oleksanda Yeloyeva (AD6 bachelor
diploma project): KNOWLEDGE HUB
The main aim of the project is to provide young people
between 10 and 23 years old with opportunities and
a safe place for their self-development. Public space is
an important part of the program, which will be used
to develop neighbourhood community, and to support
valuable inter-generational and social dialogue. The
core of the project is education and its influence on
community.
The complex is divided into 4 interconnected parts,
each with a different program, but following the same
idea. The “Research” program is a library – a place
where people can get inspired and research for their
projects, The “Discussion hub“is a space in which they
can learn from others, present their projects, solve
common problems and be a place for the community
to meet and for young people to enjoy themselves.
It includes a theatre, a forum, lecture rooms, study
rooms, a dispensary, day-care, an IT room and a youth
centre. The “Production hub” is filled with laboratories,
workshops and studios for different fields. Here
students and adults can realise their projects and
move them forward. Last but not least is the “Sport
Centre”, which offers different directions for students
to develop, not only mentally, but also physically. All
the buildings are connected by bridges overhead.
Mathilde Lhote
TOWARDS A COURTYARD
1. FACT
In courtyards, land is divided by landowners who often
build on this land without consideration for the whole
of the courtyard. The potential of space efficiency,
quality and access flow is often lost.
2. PROPOSITION
A common courtyard for everyone. Built structures in
the courtyard, like sheds and garages, are replaced
with small row houses with both private gardens and a
common garden for the whole of the perimeter block.
3. POTENTIAL
Life inside courtyards becomes an open and diverse
place of social interaction between residents, with
greenery and inter-connected paths; the value of a
community can be re-imagined in the city.
The project proposes a masterplan for the
adaptation of a typical block in the heart of the
neighbourhood. The selected site is a city block of
21 000 m2, framing a courtyard of approximately
7000 m2 of usable space. The block is composed of
garage buildings, of a maximum two storeys, and two
residential multi-storey buildings. Half of the block
is today a brownfield, left untouched and used as a
parking lot.
The proposal is a mixed-use building placed to
the northern side of the courtyard, towards Tusarova
street. A separated building, facing Tusarova street,
is composed of rentable office units and a cafe on
the ground floor facing the courtyard garden. It also
has residential flats in four small towers with light
penetrating from all sides, with its service access
exposed. A row house of two to three storeys is
situated inside the garden of the courtyard, intended
for couples and small families.

Elizaveta Karpacheva
EDUCATIONAL HUB FOR
THE 22ND CENTURY
With the development of technology, questions about
the role of education, communication, libraries, and
cultural centres continually renew. What will the
typology look like, which can fit all the requirements
of this new age? And how will architecture influence
human interactions, education and culture? At the
same time, how should we preserve the value of the
past and the importance of history?
The main goal of the project is to create a hybrid
of a library, cultural hub and educational centre for
the 22nd century. The building itself represents an
historical timeline that combines different fields of
study in an open-ended continuum.
Chapter 4:
GA+D studio
Haunted Pavilion project brief
Will spaces behave on a scale from
symbiosis to malice? Isn’t the future
of architecture about designing the
interactions and behaviours of spaces,
in addition to their form?
Part 2 — GA+D Studio ARCHIP 2017/18 89
Chapter 4Chapter 3 Wertig-Neuhäusl Studio

The studio explores the architecture of performance,
rather than form, on a domestic scale: it imagines the
near future of architectural elements interconnected
over the web, responding to users and to each other in
an ongoing spatial whispering.
Almost “inside out,” it proceeds from small detail to
large synthesis, from a 1 : 1 scale to the overall plan,
from an interactive, precisely prototyped element to
a scaled model demonstrating the detail in the spatial
“ecosystem” of the house.
But its final aim is not only the synthetic model: it is
the design of behaviour for its spaces. These may adapt
to moods, guests, devices, but they may even acquire
characters that the students will learn to program
themselves.
Students will be encouraged to imagine cinematic,
excessive spatial behaviours, as envisioned by Murnau,
Tati, Tarkovski, Kentridge… The houses can turn gloomy
or mischievous, extrapolate a visitor’s mood, perhaps
actively seducing him with their spatial personality?
Based on the anticipated trickle-down effect of
speculative design, it is to be expected that elements or
vectors present in studio works can be later developed
for real-world opportunities.
The timeline starts with a research in architectural
performance, including inspiration in dramatic arts
and theatre. The seminar aims to develop interactive
architectural elements at a scale of 1 : 1, with a final
synthesis presenting a project endowed with responsive
behaviour.
The projects will be tentatively situated just under
the rampart of Vyšehrad in the garden of CIEE. We will
explore design opportunities in replacing the existing
pavilion. The new pavilion is expected to fulfil all
previous programmatic requirements, such as to provide
a stimulating learning environment, a shaded place for
discussions etc. But it should add new potential through
its spatial configuration and augmented features.
Individual ideas may be collectively developed during the
studio, and may result perhaps in a built structure based
on selected and recombined approaches from the most
successful projects.
Chapter 4
90 Part 2 — GA+D Studio ARCHIP 2017/18 Part 2 — GA+D Studio ARCHIP 2017/18 91
Chapter 4

Margarita Pershina,
Victoria Pershina (AD5):
HAUNTED PAVILION
The situation:
Cemetery and Kindergarten? Death and Life.
A metamorphic process of transformation:
body + spirit – form without a boundary – there is no
outside and inside – a body without the body.
The Möbius Strip by August Ferdinand inspired us to
consider how structure with only one boundary can
change one’s spatial perceptions and give suggestions
for movement. The UK Pavilion by Heatherwick Studio
inspired us to consider how design components can
vary spatial perception of structure. The Prada
Transformer by OMA inspired us to think about how
simple geometrical shapes can acquire different
characters and accommodate different activities.
The Hybrid Tower by CITA inspired us to think about
how skin and structure could act as an integrated
structural system.
The pavilion provides various activities for kids,
students and teachers. It is an interactive textile
cocoon membrane wrapped around structural steel
ribs; a continuous single-curved surface on a curved
structure.
Genevieve Tok, Olha Horobynska
(AD5): RENOVATIO_ A CONVERSA-
TION WITH ARCHITECTURE
Renovatio aims to explore movement as a form of
communication and an ongoing discourse between
inhabitant and space. Through the implementation
of kinetic architecture and artificial intelligence, the
nature of the pavilion is dynamic and ever changing
as it learns and adapts to different people within it.
It is a platform for interaction and expression and
encourages both younger and older students to
experience and contemplate the future of the spaces
we could come to inhabit.
Structural Layers:
TEXTILE
Perforation with a pattern generated from a delaunay
mesh according to the intensity of daylight radiation.
GREENERY
Plants grow hydroponically along the inside of the
textile surface on a permeable substrate.
LEDs
Provide supplementary lighting for the plants and
function as an interactive display at night.
STRUCTURAL RIBS
Individually movable aluminium profiles that support
the weight of the whole structure.
HYDROPONICS LOOP
Pump is activated when the structure moves,
circulating water and nutrients to the plants.
SEATING/PLAYSCAPE
Wooden sections that evolve from seating to gathering
to a climbing playscape.
CONCRETE FOOTINGS
Anchor each rib to a rotor in the ground.
Chapter 4
92 Part 2 — GA+D Studio ARCHIP 2017/18 Part 2 — GA+D Studio ARCHIP 2017/18 93
Chapter 4

Chapter 3
Part 2 — Master diplomas ARCHIP 2017/18 95
Genevieve Tok
NEW PHILHARMONIC FOR PRAGUE
The aim of the project is to explore sound (though
time) as an ephemeral fourth dimension existing
within a three dimensional built space. Dealing
with the idea of music as an experience of energy
through time, the building aims to reflect this fourth
dimension of architecture and performance through
exploring the physical manifestation of the folding of
space-time. Using a stereographic projection of the
four-dimensional sphere back into three dimensions
(the Hopf Fibration) to derive the form and structure of
the building, it creates layers of functions nested one
within one another as these layers and the surrounding
urbanism are stitched together with the Lorenz
attractor, otherwise known as the “Butterfly Effect”,
forming the primary circulation of the space, taking
concert-goers and visitors through the landscape,
social spaces and the various performances the
Philharmonic has to offer.
Chapter 5:
Master diplomas
Chapter 5
Yasaman Ghanaeimiyandoab
(AD10): A SERIES OF SILENT
OBJECTS
The brief specifies designing 6 temples, each
representing a different faith, in six different location
by the meander of the river in the Holešovice district.
A temple of humanity (Atheism), an Islamic Mosque,
a Christian chapel, a Buddhist Temple, a Hindu
Temple and a Jewish Temple (Synagogue). The goal
is to examine the potential of architecture to invite
tolerance and coexistence for the people of Holešovice.
As this project is focused on exterior spaces that
express philosophical and artistic purposes, they do
not have any sort of requirements for human comfort
such as electricity, insulation, ventilation or water.
Chapter 4
94 Part 2 — GA+D Studio ARCHIP 2017/18

Petr Frank (AD10): ŘÍČANY
The work will be devoted to transforming a site
adjacent to Říčany Railway station, which currently
has the largest reserves of land in town. The site area
is situated on an axis between two historical parts of
Říčany – the town square and the railway station. The
aim of the project is to provide new types of housing in
the public realm and to revitalise the main axis from
the station to the centre of town. The proposal is to
integrate a new urban structure with public spaces
and to transform existing station buildings.
Louise Nebelsztein (AD10): A VI-
SION FOR JABLONEC NAD NISOU
A vision for Jablonec nad Nisou is a proposal to
work with the river to regenerate the city. The centre
suffers from a problem of density. The centre needs
to find ways to become attractive again. The river
has the amazing potential to tackle this density issue
by creating a more pleasant infrastructure for non-
motorised users of the city. This includes pedestrians,
cyclists, elderly people, and people with reduced
mobility.
The city owns a lot of plots around the river and has
the power to change the local life by investing energy
and creativity into creating accesses to the water
areas. I suggested 6 places along the river which have
different problematics and which require different
design solutions. They are points on a potentially wider
riverfront system. I hope to open minds onto unthought
possibilities as well as already brought up solutions by
local organisations such as PLACE.
Part 2 — Master diplomas ARCHIP 2017/18 97
Chapter 5Chapter 5
96 Part 2 — Master diplomas ARCHIP 2017/18

Chapter 6:
Golden Roubík Award
The Award Golden Roubík (GoRo),
is a tribute to the co-founder of ARCHIP,
architect Martin Roubík (1949–2008).
The academic prize was founded in
2016–2017 and is awarded biannually,
in 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 AD studios.
2. Each studio nominates a max of 8 projects
(up to 4 nomination by tutors, 2 by critics,
and 2 by students). With a possible total
of 32, it is often less, as some nominations
overlap. 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 for
further evaluation. The jury appoints the
Best Studio GoRo winner (based on the
number of finalist projects per studio. If
2 or 3 studios are equally represented as
finalists, the decision is made by voting or
agreement).
5. The jury appoints the Best Student Project
GoRo winner.
6. The list of finalists and winners are
announced at the evening of the exhibition’s
opening.
Chapter 6
Part 2 — Golden Roubík Award ARCHIP 2017/18 99

GoRo winter 2017–18
On January 24, 2018 at 10.30 members of the jury of the 3rd edition of the
GoRo Award evaluated ARCHIP’s semester Studio projects.
Jury
Lenka Burgerová / FA CTU, Prague 7 Municipality
Michal Palaščák / Dílna architects, Brno
Ondřej Hofmeister / Projektil architects, ARCHIP, Prague
Jury report of the best project selection:
Three finalists were selected for the final vote.
Vladyslav Alyeksyenko,
Kryštof Redčenkov:
BIODIVERCITY
(Wertig - Neuhäusl studio)
The jury wants to highlight a strong and
visionary utopian concept of a self-sufficient
city quarter based on equality between hu-
mans and nature. The authors envision a new
Island State Holešovice that will follow spe-
cific rules in order to achieve simple goals:
Zero energy consumption, no fossil fuels,
organic waste reuse, no private cars owner-
ship, local crops, strict protection of nature.
Equality between humans and nature is pre-
sented in 50/50 spatial division of the island
(green to paved/built surfaces). Simple urban
regulations define functional division of the
island. Prototype building is hosting human
living, crops growing and energy production
under one roof. The project is a perfect exam-
ple of a complex and holistic approach to the
contemporary city. It is seeking answers to
the most urgent questions of today. But what
we deem utopian today may become realistic
(or rather the only possiblity) in the near
future. The authors prove that the architects
of today should play still greater and more
important roles in contemporary society. The
Jury also appreciates the simple and clear
graphic presentation and visualisations full
of atmosphere.
Jury report of the best studio selection:
Brief Statement
Again, it was apparent that urbanism is not
a simple discipline. The standard of submis-
sions was very average; the finalists of the
individual award were markedly above the
rest of the field.
Wertig – Neuhäusl studio
Strong concepts and interesting designs. The
studio with a “sexy” reputation has done it
again. Designs – interventions – despite being
strong conceptually, they came across a little
shallow; they were missing a more thorough
exploration of the subjects. Presentation in
the form of a projection and booklets was not
ideal, but the conceptual approach was high-
ly rated and won the students the award.
Nasadil – Duba studio
A difficult location with a fragmented block
structure. As per usual, good graphics and
presentation. As the designs did not incor-
porate the surrounding reality and relation-
ships, the visually compelling designs came
across too vague, even dysfunctional.
Dlesk-Horová studio
The filling in of a pre-defined block struc-
ture does not lend itself well to too many
interpretations or interesting concepts. As
a result, the majority of projects were trivial,
even mundane. Holešovice offers many more
interesting sites and places that could be
planned.
Schindler – Fessler studio
A mosaic of individual projects gives a com-
prehensive overview how the “broken heart”
of Holešovice around the train station could
be healed. Even though individual projects
on their own were hardly convincing, the
good choice of brief and location quite right-
ly won the studio the award.
Chapter 6Chapter 6
100 Part 2 — Golden Roubík Award ARCHIP 2017/18 Part 2 — Golden Roubík Award ARCHIP 2017/18 101

Results
The Winner of the Best Studio:
Janek Schindler and Elan Fessler Studio
The winner of the Best Student Project:
BIODIVERCITY
by Vladyslav Alyeksyenko and Kryštof Redčenkov
(AD5, Wertig- Neuhäusl studio)
Dandika Thanos:
COLLECTIVE FRAGMENTATION
(Dlesk-Horová studio)
The jury appreciated a mature conceptual
approach based on a deep analysis of the
site. The most valuable part is the creative
approach to the typical „Holešovice me-
ga-block“, that is re-thought to fulfil contem-
porary demands on living. The author brings
new qualities into the area by defining a new
informal geometrical street structure. He
succeeds at connecting his new quarter with
both the old part of the city structure and the
riverside. Hierarchical permeability of the
city structure is achieved by clever fragmen-
tation of the newly defined city blocks.
Critique: The jury wants to express fears
that extensive fragmentation can bring
a danger of decay. It found individual weak
points of the design and poor 3D develop-
ment of the city blocks.
Ewa Wroblewska, Megi Davitidze:
BOHEMIAN (Schindler-Fessler studio)
A sensitive and gentle project of a „Place of
urban escape“ based on sensitive observa-
tions on site. The authors are rather success-
ful in their search for transparency, intimacy,
memory. They found a suitable programme
for the place full of atmosphere and strong
identity. The landscape/house is set on a uni-
fying orthogonal grid that helps to keep the
otherwise „disordered set of volumes“under
control.
Volumes are forming different outside
spaces with changing density and pro-
gramme. The authors prepare different
scenarios of observation, exploration. At-
mosphere is formed by a choice of specific
materials, surfaces and forms. A beautiful
graphic presentation appropriately reflects
the project atmosphere.
Critique: The jury would appreciate any
sketches of the project development pro-
viding more information about the formal
strategy for the spatial structure. The jury
feels a danger of poor orientation within the
unstructured maze like space, which can
compromise the visitors feeling of safety.
Chapter 6Chapter 6

GoRo summer 2017–18
On May 30, 2018 at 10.00 members of the jury of the 4th edition of the GoRo
Award evaluated ARCHIP´s semester Studio projects.
Jury
Ivan Boroš / edit!, Prague
Jurar Calaj / edit!, Prague
Sean Clifton / Jestico+Whiles / ARCHIP, Prague
Finalists
Genevieve Tok
Kryštof Redčenkov
Gaia Delepine
Yujin Jeong
Fadri Horber
Pilipda Samattanawin
Alina Fornaleva
Deborah Lee
Three finalists were selected for the final vote.
Deborah Lee
We selected this project due to its overall conceptual idea, and what the jury
felt to be an excellent and comprehensive response to the project brief.
Alina Fornaleva
This project responds beautifully to the local context and urbanism, and pro-
vides an interesting architectural solution to a complex site and programme.
Kryštof Redčenkov
The jury felt the architecural response was highly driven by the function and
typology, and reacts in a sophisticated way to the urban context by intercon-
necting the local streetscape and interior spaces of the building.
Jury report:
Dear ARCHIP,
Firstly, we wish to thank all of the students,
tutors and ARCHIP staff for an incredible op-
portunity to see such a beautiful exhibition
of contemporary architecture. We have really
enjoyed the opportunity to see so many in-
credible interventions. It has been a wonder-
ful day, and we wish to congratulate everyone
for their hard work, dedication…and we are
sure many sleepless nights!
So, straight to the judging:
Chapter 6Chapter 6

Results
The Winner of the Best Studio:
Pavel Nasadil and Martin Duba studio
This was incredibly challenging to judge, however after many long discus-
sions the jury felt this topic provided an exceptional opportunity for experi-
mentation and research in a highly challenging urban environment.
The winner of the Best Student Project:
FILM INSTITUTE PRAGUE
by Kryštof Redčenkov
(AD6, Wertig- Neuhäusl studio)
We particularly enjoyed the arrangement of spaces creating a special and
unique micro-urbanism. All members of the jury felt many moments of de-
light in this project, and are thrilled to award Kryštof Redčenkov with the
GoRo Award for Summer 2017/2018.
Special Mention
All members of the jury are thrilled to add a Special Mention to this year’s
Awards, given to all first year students and tutors of the U Městských domů
project. We particular enjoyed the overall mix of architectural solutions, and
the special opportunity for all studios to work together to create one complex
and delightful architectural response.
With best wishes and Congratulations again.
— Ivan Boroš, Juraj Calaj, Sean J Clifton
Part 3
Essays
Chapter 6
106 Part 2 — Golden Roubík Award ARCHIP 2017/18

Part 3 — Essays ARCHIP 2017/18 109108 Part 3 — Essays ARCHIP 2017/18
PU77LE CITY: an exercise in forming the missing piece — Elan Neuman FesslerPU77LE CITY: an exercise in forming the missing piece — Elan Neuman Fessler
PU77LE CITY:
an exercise in forming
the missing piece
Elan Neuman Fessler
In Plato’s Republic, the ideal city, its consti-
tutive parts and their relations are defined in
great detail – apart from one implicit whole:
public space. “Public Space” has no form.
In the Greek space, the democratic space,
the archipelago of city-states, islands of
society are unified by the sea. The sea is the
public ground; indeterminate yet universal,
seeping throughout the land. An informal
democratic concept, this public ground is
a political space.
Political space – that of negotiation and
navigation – is an unpredictable terrain of
spontaneity, encounters and unforeseen
storms. Its undecidable ends, an enduring
question.
On the other hand, when the economic
space of a single order governs the city, the
variability of the unknown and the localised
waves and surges of the democratic sea be-
comes flattened – the horizon settled – the
unforeseeable becoming all too clear. In
other words, the economic urbanisation of
the city is the establishment of an order of
control over the possibly divergent flows.
We aimed to challenge this contemporary
trend – to manage people and space – upon
two fronts: within the city itself and within
our own studio’s journey.
The concept of compromise, the search
for a collective ground, the space wherein
all may encounter freely and enact amongst
their own relations – in a form both unpre-
dictable and ungoverned – is the making of
a place for all; as the basis of our civility, our
city.
The principle of democratic space (and
its governance) was applied to the studio’s
practical methodology. The boundaries
between sites were negotiated, the delimi-
tations of the space of the common ground
was approximate. The temporal process of
its definition arrived from a simultaneous
pursuit of each site’s interests – yet with an
awareness that its “public” spatial content
must ultimately become contiguous with the
unknown core upon which all are based.
“Public space” in this sense was never
to be imagined as an “object”, as a thing
with a name, but as an inevitability which is
shared and also particular to specificities of
its local place.
To blur the preconception of public
space (where we like to buy coffee and sit on
furniture), the terms “hub”, “core”, “agora”
were used. The hidden term was the “chora”,
the ancient greek word for place – the inter-
stitial yet unbounded zone which is always
both open and internal.
Each student (and site) was thus made
to bend towards a “non-form” which did not
exist. And therefore, must have internalised
this essence within its own formative struc-
ture.
Each site (and project) contains its own
formal concept of the territories of the void,
of the possible shared space, interwoven
through itself and in an open joint on all its
sides.
Like the sea, the space for all is every-
where, all figures found within it only in-
stances and islands, each unique yet subordi-
nate to their larger body.
While the metaphysical quest for that
which can not be named, as the grounds
for a city, yielded figures and forces which
ultimately formed that which it was to be
(the agora at its heart), the daily practice of
this search for a common space between was
a complex and dynamic battle.
Like a ship on the sea, like a society in
formation, the people involved debated, con-
flicted, overlapped and pushed, turned back
against and receded or lurched forward.
This experiment of “sharing the city’s
depth” (its fluid ground and its intangible
limits) had its own foreseen shortcomings.
Each project perhaps “deformed” its ideal self
in pursuit of the unknown, yet each also en-
riched itself with this same constantly absent
figure at its heart.
The city we propose is one of contiguity
despite rupture, unity despite opposition,
one of a democratic plurality, in other words,
of accidents and certainty in approximate
convergence on an open ground.
If we were to do it again, it would only
appear entirely different.
Site
There is no centre – there are memories,
traces and contradictions. The site is a city of
fragments. What is this city – now – and what
could it possibly be?
The aim is to produce an image out of the
puzzle: to have the pieces fit, and through
them, to generate a complex, larger whole,
via a unified fabric of oppositional yet
complementary figures. The purpose is to
propose a new character, organisation, form
and meaning of the site, through the building
of an urban void which will unify the whole
place.
Theory
The historical and the possible are embedded
within the present – as potential – which is
the latent real form of the city. But this is not
a material which can be imposed, as it is in-
digenous, it can only emerge or be displaced
from its source. The tendency of urbanisa-
tion in the city, to “maximise potential”, is to
eradicate space within the city for emptiness.
The boundaries
between sites
were negotiated,
the delimitations
of the space of the
common ground
was approximate.

PU77LE CITY: an exercise in forming the missing piece — Elan Neuman Fessler
The empty space is where possibility can
happen.
There is a fundamental difference between
urbanisation and the city. The city does not
need to be maximised. Urbanisation is the
economically driven and managed quanti-
fication of the life of the city. But the city is
in fact intangible, because it is both present
and non-present: it has potential and it has
history.
The semester began with a reading of the
first chapter of the book The Possibility of an
Absolute Architecture by Pier Vittorio Aureli:
Towards the Archipelago: defining the politi-
cal and the formal in architecture.
The scope of the semester was the crea-
tion of public spaces, activities, and objects,
as well as giving architectural form to the
contact between layers, elements and figures
of the city – past present and future – in
a speculative approach to glean from the
existing site the possibilities of a more robust
city environment.
In another twist of contemporary space
and time and – as if equally human – build-
ings now have their own twitter feeds. In the
meeting of top-down logic with expected
bottom up identities, is the city to become
a society of “one-of-a-kind” (yet generic)
individualities? Make place for whom? Or
make what from place? If the city is an open
field… what then is the valuable, meaningful
substance of its form and its society, here, in
this place and time?
Readings
The first step, on day one, is to visit the site,
and to “read” it. Through a process of ex-
periential, historical, psycho-geographical,
situational wanderings through the site, each
student will make readings and a critique of
the site for their project. Explore the whole
site, and find a specific area to focus the
project.
Mappings
Combine the material of your site readings
with the planned zoning map and the his-
torical maps of the site, to rezone the site
at a human scale, considering new arrange-
ments of action and form. Study the terrain
of the local site area, investigate its layers,
and define potential volumes, in combination
with activities on the ground levels.
Limits and Projections
Absolute boundaries – within the wall of
roads defining the site – were not given.
These internal limits gradually acquired
definitive form over the course of the semes-
ter. The “hub” remained the symbolic cen-
tral point, and was complemented with the
concept of an “agora”. This undefined spatial
character was a type of phantom, implied
within the site.
It gained increasing specificity as a com-
pression of the “space between” projects took
place over time. While each separate project
was developed independently, each also was
PU77LE CITY: an exercise in forming the missing piece — Elan Neuman Fessler
to establish a quality of this agora. Collective-
ly, the projects were to generate a new spatial
fabric of the city – as a particular synthesis
of their separate yet complementary parts –
through negotiation, compromise and shared
limits.
New Program
The studio approached the site by scale and
by type, according to each AD year.
AD1 – a civic house (in the decentralised
field)
AD3 – a city block (a square inside a house)
AD5 – a group of city blocks (a field of local-
ities)
AD9 – a broader analysis of the territory and
theme
Approach
The city was considered on multiple overlaid
layers:
1) as is,
2) absolutely blank – only infrastructure and
void,
3) as it once has been,
4) with a free play of new programs in space.
The site must follow the infrastructural lim-
its established by the larger scale fabric, but
within the site area, both the existing and the
new zoning plans can be tailored and revised
in response to the nuances and potentials
discovered and proposed.

A Place WorthCaring About — Andreas Bergem (AD1)A Place Worth Caring About — Andreas Bergem (AD1)
A Place Worth
Caring About
Andreas Bergem (AD1)
What we strive for in life is greater complexity.
It has been the direction of the universe, the
earth and humans since the very beginning.
It’s what makes a man interesting, life joyful
and that makes a place worth caring about.
With the perspective of urban areas in
mind, it’s about looking around and seeing
variation in as many forms as possible. This
might sound obscure, so let’s take a closer
look at what makes a place worth caring
about.
In my experience, we always make the
same mistake every time we make a new
apartment complex- we only focus on a cer-
tain group of dwellers. Whether it’s the core
family or for old couples we have a tendency
of forcing them to stick to themselves.
I used to live just across from a big apart-
ment complex dominated by old people and
I can’t deny that I got the impression of death
whenever the ambulance would come on its
daily visit. The lovely green area they had
would always be empty since even the visits
of family would be a rather formal procedure.
Even when they are not forced together,
homogenous groups still have a tendency
of finding each other. But then that is only
natural when uniformly built units lead to
similarity both in size and price, so you can
be sure that it will happen. And you can be
sure that it will take generations before it is
equalised.
This uniformity of local communities is
a real thing – of course it’s dull to see the
same people in different shapes. There is no
complexity in that picture and it certainly
doesn’t reflect the vast differences of society.
But what of our possibilities to move around
freely?
I’m referring to the walkability of our
cities, thereby the quality of a stroll in the
neighbourhood and being able to walk from
A to B and feeling somehow fulfilled there-
after. To achieve this, there must be a con-
nection in all the elements connected to the
curb. They should be at the same elevation
in order to provide the opportunity of inter-
action, given that there actually is something
other than a concrete wall accessible. The
need of complexity re-enters yet again: if the
buildings and the curb are at the same level it
gives a sound foundation for shops and such
to appeal to the customers just trough this
small connection.
The pedestrian should only be connected
to one side of the road though, but in every
direction. It should be possible to cross the
street freely without having to wait for rush
hour to calm down in a five-line road. The
length of the blocks is especially essential
when it comes to walkability, our straight
roads gives us one axis to move on, but that
is in no way freedom. The shorter the blocks
are, the greater does the feeling of opportu-
nity feel. Just knowing you could take a right
or a left instead of continuing straight ahead
provides a much greater perception of the
senses.
So, what is a place worth caring about?
I believe it’s a place that challenges you with
the opportunity to unfold yourself in your
surroundings, in a setting that actually is
more attractive than to keep on walking.
Because the journey itself is better than the
destination.
With the
perspective of
urban areas in
mind, it’s about
looking around and
seeing variation in
as many forms as
possible.
The pedestrian
should only be
connected to one
side of the road
though, but in
every direction.

Essay on Beauty — Yasaman Ghanaeimiyandoab (AD10)
My Ego in Architecture
Tug ˘ çe Arı (AD4)
Beyond the “happened” and the “resultant”,
there is another definition of architecture for
me: desired. It is not reachable in anytime, it
looked close but at the end of that unending
road, actually is always far away. Beyond all
the acceptances and acclaims; as an expres-
sion of my selfishness and the ego inside me:
my architecture.
Today, everyone talks about architecture.
They produce notions and descriptions, they
are all agreed and share the same thought
with each other in this system that they al-
ready set up. They reveal general acceptances
and acclaims; then, they take all the rights to
speak at this system and start to judge: look,
this is nice and this is not; architecture is
this, here the rights! They are all agreed on
all hands, unaware that they are deceived, or
they are already aware but self satisfied. They
continue living until some anarchist comes
up to demolish all the things they set.
If the matter is anarchism, the descrip-
tions start to represent inadequacy. For ex-
ample if the issue is architecture, the thwart-
ed thing is the architecture in itself, isn’t it?
Maybe, bringing anarchism into the architec-
ture by making architecture is the treachery
in itself, in some dictionaries. But let’s leave
the talk about the descriptions, acceptances
and rules there. In these uncertainties, how
do people make “de facto definitions” for
architecture, art or life?
The only notion, which I’ll use hereupon,
will be “things” at that point.
How can a person find the desirable thing
inside, while there are lots of things around?
How can one know if it’s found? Even if one
knows, how can one express or make it visi-
ble? Even if one does, how close is this image
to the ideal or real? And also, how can it be
included within which description?
For me, everything is subjective inexplica-
bly, specific and one; far away at that much
from general judgments, acceptances. The
thing which we try to make as architects,
even how connected to the objective reali-
ties, the thing I find out, which comes from
my inside as a designer, shouldn’t be judged
neither by being presented to subjective
evaluations nor within general acceptations.
Because they will be just some things (but
not the real things) which are dependent on
some people’s descriptions. Any criticism
made with these definitions, restricts the per-
son; puts obstacles in front of the thinking;
and creates of things other things which are
separate from those existing.
I’m in a search for an architecture which
is out of these descriptions, legislation and
acceptances; I believe, there are different
architectures which come from the inside
and are quite subjective. I feel the need to
express my experiences by gathering them
together within “myself”; they call my meth-
od as architecture. But maybe essentially,
the difference between a painter, writer,
musician, director comes from some one
else’s dictionary; the same “things”, different
descriptions…
Essay on Beauty
Yasaman Ghanaeimiyandoab (AD10)
How do you find balance, when you are born
into extremes: extremes of ideas; extremes of
characters; and extremes of actions? When
the simplest things in life can cause scandals
and force corrections, there is no time to
reflect on those things that create inner con-
flicts. Reflection is the simplest and most ef-
fective way of personal improvements, yet in
order to reflect, we need fundamental tools
to do so. Luckily, generations of great think-
ers have left us their wisdom to contemplate
and find balance. If these tools are available
to us, then we are able to choose what kind of
philosophy we resonate with the most. Living
in ignorance is not an individual problem but
a problem of a society.
Our iPhones and Netflix subscriptions are
externalities of how we choose to distract
ourselves from what is occurring within us.
The current pop culture does not have the
depth and wisdom that it once had a cen-
tury ago, when architects and artists were
not only hired to build and exhibit for high
society. I have to note, this is not a nostalgic
statement, but the truth of how the pace of
our lives has turned our values upside-down.
A healthy society needs to be reminded of
good values and good manners. In a secular
society, arts and culture are advocates of
those qualities. Yet art, still, is a confusing
and in many ways sort of an intellectual
property. Most of us don’t really understand
what art is for.
The importance of beauty is critical for an
urban development. Prague is a city rich with
masterpieces, yet what is being accumulat-
ed as contemporary, rarely reflects beauty.
Beauty allows the sublime to emerge. All
healthy, prosperous societies place beauty at
the highest level of importance. When we are
exposed to beautiful objects, their qualities
inspire us to be the best version of ourselves.
In a way, objects and images have an ability
to affect our behaviour.
Throughout history, religions have used
the power of beauty consistently. Charles
Bridge has been erected not only to link Old
Town to Mala Strana. The entrance points,
the figurative sculptures, the materials used,
all have been combined to evoke sublime
beauty.
To have faith or not is not always a choice,
but choosing what and who to have faith in
can be one. Believing in God by no means is
to be superstitious or primitive, it has to do
with accepting our shortcoming, something
that is rarely accepted in a society run by
Capitalism. Failure is defined incorrectly in
our age and people who fail to align them-
selves with the Capitalistic standards become
To have faith or
not is not always
a choice, but
choosing what and
who to have faith
in can be one.
My Ego in Architecture Tug ˘ çe Arı (AD4)

The Neighbour’s Kid — Gaia Delepine (AD4)Essay on Beauty — Yasaman Ghanaeimiyandoab (AD10)
outcasts. Religion and faith however, em-
brace people from all walks of life. Religious
organisations do not exempt and discrim-
inate, hence they allow members to share
tasks without vanity.
Holešovice, has only relatively recently
been incorporated into the City of Prague.
The streets of Holešovice, rarely speak of any
sort of beauty or divinity, but rather of a past
filled with industrial exploitations. Ironically,
their corpses are more beautiful than what
they might have been a century ago. Their
death can teach us the briefness of life and
how none of us has much time to live on this
planet.
Now, Holešovice can turn the page and
create a future with a clean slate. A space
that follows divine proportions, and invites
people to bow down to it as an emblem of the
mighty.
Social structures would function much
more efficiently, if all of us felt a sense of
belonging. A library and its books, a public
space and the hot dog stand in the middle of
it are important parts of an urban structure,
but a spiritual space where you are immedi-
ately welcomed inside to join and chant once
a week, encourages unity. Art and culture are
both good and well, but highly personal tools
of enlightenment. Spiritual gatherings how-
ever, need a community to form and sustain.
The Neighbour’s Kid
Gaia Delepine (AD4)
Honey, the neighbour’s kid took berries from our
bush in the yard this morning.
How do you know?
I saw him.
Did you tell him something?
Like what? He should know it is not his.
It’s ours.
Maybe he doesn’t.
How?
You didn’t tell him.
But the contract says it’s our plot…
On the other side of the city block’s body
evolves an ecosystem that seems to have
developed its own set of natural laws. The
courtyard. Sometimes inhabited by residents,
sometimes by dumpsters. What are we truly
looking at when facing the shared space of
multiple apartment buildings, an oasis or
a wasteland?
Unlike the streets, where pedestrians are
exposed to sensory overload, those spaces “in
between” are shelters from the outside world.
The Eixample’s utopian vision for city blocks
in Barcelona, the Hofjes’ strict spiritual or-
ganisation in Amsterdam, the Mezzogiorno’s
intimate open-air backrooms offer the pos-
sibility of public relations through the active
sharing of space.
Prague’s immense multi-storied residences
enclose in their formation visibly underused
and awkward exterior shared spaces.
What is their purpose? Are they solely
a consequence of the blocks’ design? Are
they exclusively the result of the need to
bring light into the unlucky apartments
that could not face the street? Or are they
a missed opportunity for the transformation
of design constraints into community en-
hancing instruments? And if so, why?
With the occurrence of industrialisation
and urbanisation, the city’s rapid increase
in population could not be supported by the
traditional density of housing. Soon came
a new type of housing accommodating the
newcomers, the apartment block, and with it
the forced cohabitation of people in reduced
areas. One expression characterises this type
of housing: lack of privacy.
Humans that once looked for community
are now looking for seclusion. Isolationism.
Had the courtyards been designed to hold
a public space, it would be a different story,
instead they allowed separation. A no man’s
land tenants would not approach.
So how public are those spaces in the
present day?
The Praguois courtyards evolved from
living spaces to almost unseen, although
agonising, tissues. The constrictor muscles
The streets of
Holešovice, rarely
speak of any
sort of beauty or
divinity, but rather
of a past filled
with industrial
exploitations.
Humans that
once looked for
community are
now looking
for seclusion.
Isolationism.

Perception of the City — Marie Meland (AD5)The Neighbour’s Kid — Gaia Delepine (AD4)
of the block’s body had swallowed the gan-
grenous pleural cavities. The alleys pumping
the human flow into the interior courtyards
are now despised by the residents. Fear acti-
vated the mechanism that closed them and
obstructed the bygone valves.
If the residential blocks of Prague once
hosted, in their intimacy, a public life, they
gradually closed themselves into more pri-
vate spaces and eventually became segregat-
ed uncared for gardens. Gates started appear-
ing, cutting through the already limited land,
to form some kind of privatised estate. And
what for? It seems to be more comfortable
and secure for the dumpsters placed there.
Each neighbour will put their trash in their
own garden.
The laws of the courtyard became simple:
do not trespass your limit, which is given
by the gate, which was obviously installed
so that you would be freer to use your own
courtyard. This law however does not apply
to the children of the block, who do not find
interest in these kinds of limitations. Their
social instinct is much stronger than that of
adults, who favour spatial segregation.
This phenomenon is exposed in Mari-
ka Pecháčková’s short movie Vnitroblock
(FAMU, 2013, 00:33:41) from an internal
point of view: she interviews the residents
of her block to understand their view on
the alarming situation of the decay of their
shared space. Some landlords clearly state
they would prefer to prohibit access to the
courtyard rather than putting down the fenc-
es occupying it.
What we are witnessing is excessive priva-
tisation of the common good. Another work
bringing attention to the question is the an-
imated short movie Neighbours by Norman
McLaren (ONFC‚1952, 00:08:06) featuring
two neighbours fighting over the possession
of a plant located in between their houses.
Their argument escalates to the point where
it affects the plant so negatively it dies. The
extreme desire of possession destroyed the
object of lust.
I believe the true question is not where
courtyards lie between semi-public or
semi-private spaces, but rather why they
shifted into such exclusive spaces that none
of the 200 families facing their courtyards
feel allowed to use them.
Honey, the neighbour’s kid didn’t show up in the
yard this morning.
He certainly did.
But I didn’t see him.
Have you looked far enough?
How far? He plays under the pine tree in front
of our window. That’s not far.
Well he can’t any more.
Why?
They put up fences.
But there’s only one pine tree…
Perception of the City
Marie Meland (AD5)
When one thinks of a city, it’s often con-
nected with its materiality. The buildings,
squares, parks, metro systems, roads and so
on. It’s how all these things work together
that creates the complex system of a city, but
this system would be nothing without the
people. It’s the people that connect the city,
move through it, stay in it and use it. How
the occupants experience and use what the
city offers is subjective, and everyone has
a slightly different perception of a city. This is
affected by how and where they move during
the day, their routines, lifestyles, personal
views, their subjective image of the city and
previous experiences of it.
There are some main elements that gen-
erally contribute to a better perception of the
city. The first one would be walking distance
to important parts of each individual’s needs.
This includes relatively short distances to
public transportation, green areas, restau-
rants, bars and other amenities. A good
public transportation system that works
efficiently is key, and should make travelling
easy between different areas. This can also
relieve the streets from traffic, air and noise
pollution, and give more space to for exam-
ple bicycle paths and green alleys. This can
do a lot to an area. It makes it more inviting
to pedestrians and cyclists, which in some
cities are under prioritised in favour of other
transportation types. In Copenhagen they
did this, and the bicycle is now the most used
form of transportation within the city. To live
in a place with reduced air pollution and with
more environmentally friendly solutions is
definitely something that’s special and appre-
ciated by most people.
Public open spaces, like parks or squares
are also elements that are very important.
They are places where people meet, take
a break from daily travels, sit down, observe,
and take in the city without moving or go-
ing somewhere. If there is a lack of these
elements, an area will be affected by the
business and stress of people always moving.
This creates a negative atmosphere for the
occupants, and can make people feel uncom-
fortable or rushed. Green spaces have been
proved to reduce stress and make people
feel less depressed, and have the ability to
increase the level of physical activity. The city
can create better conditions to improve the
health of its inhabitants, and improved health
is something that contributes to happiness.
How safe one feels can also determine wheth-
er the perception of a certain area is good
or bad. For example, in Holešovice there are
How the occupants
experience and
use what the city
offers is subjective,
and everyone has
a slightly different
perception of a city.

Courtyards and Communities — Mathilde Lhote (AD6)Perception of the City — Marie Meland (AD5)
many neglected areas after the floods that are
left open or used for parking. When no amen-
ities are being inserted, the occupants don’t
go there. This creates a higher concentration
of troubled people, which creates a feeling
of unsafeness for the occupants that pass by.
And this again contributes to more negative
feelings about the city in general, especially
for those people who inhabit that particular
area.
To create a perfect city would be almost
impossible, because everyone thinks their
own way about it and experiences it differ-
ently. Sometimes it can be hard to pinpoint
all the things that are not working well, or
that we don’t like in the city. A lot of it hap-
pens when we are not aware, not thinking of
it. Subconsciously we process all the percep-
tions and make some conclusion to whether
we like something or not. What if people
started to think about it more – what the
city life is really like – and observe their sur-
roundings and pay attention to the details. In
the city every day might seem similar, but yet
there are always different happenings around
us. It’s important to be aware, and not simply
accept, in order to strive for the improvement
of our cities and to provide better lives and
experiences for those who pass through it.
Courtyards
and Communities
Mathilde Lhote (AD6)
The perimeter block is by definition a row
of residential buildings encircling a court-
yard, following a city structure’s grid. The
definition of a courtyard itself, on the other
hand, might be one of a much more open or
indescribable character. Maybe in the most
general terms, they both are similar because
they are either enclosing or being enclosed
from the external world, the city, and be-
comes a “miniature world” created inside the
parameters of its own confines. Here, inside
the courtyard, there is a definite disconnec-
tion from the bustle of traffic and people
moving to and through places. This does
not mean that the nature of these miniature
worlds found within city blocks are the same
or even similar, quite the opposite; court-
yards are complex places in the urban con-
text, varying from open and public to closed
and semi-public, let alone adding the issues
of private or shared ownership. A courtyard
may aim to be of an open and inviting char-
acter, maybe with cultural happenings in
the yard, a passageway going through, a cafe
or a communal garden, in one part of a city.
While in another part of the city, it might be
blocks of total private use, maybe no green-
ery and be highly non collective/cooperative
in its usage. Differences in parts of the city is
one issue, which also varies in different parts
of the world or even within parts of a single
block in itself.
Globally, in terms of the sense of com-
munity in courtyards, it differs radically
where and when we focus. Through history,
courtyards have been part of trial and error,
they have been part of politics, power and
profit, as well as cultural traditions. We know
traditional courtyards from family mansions
like the Mexican hacienda, which is amongst
other places also to be found in Morocco or
in India, to the Siheyuan, traditional court-
yard house complexes in the Hutong villages
of North Chinese cities. These were family
residencies even forming small communities
of their own, hiring cooks, servants et cetera.
While in cities, the tendency of dividing land
by ownership always has been part of its ur-
banism, the formation of courtyards that had
the perimeter block surrounding them can be
traced back to city planning during the indus-
To create a perfect
city would be
almost impossible,
because everyone
thinks their own
way about it and
experiences it
differently.
Through history,
courtyards have
been part of trial
and error, they
have been part of
politics, power and
profit, as well as
cultural traditions.

Courtyards and Communities — Mathilde Lhote (AD6)Courtyards and Communities — Mathilde Lhote (AD6)
trialisation period. The booming increase in
people moving to cities for work meant that
vast amounts of residential buildings were
needed to be built fast and this was when the
perimeter block was introduced and where
the courtyard’s land was divided between dif-
ferent landowners just the way land had been
previous to this. It is safe to believe that life
within the courtyard was not of a great living
standard in these times. During Communism
an extreme sharing of land and buildings was
introduced in Communist countries, meaning
families had to move in to enormous social
housing complexes where toilets, kitchens
and washing rooms were shared. Having this
history, the idea of sharing land or property
in these countries is for many today like go-
ing backwards, if not only re-examined by
younger generations. To compare, countries
which did not go through Communism, like
for instance Scandinavian countries, the
sense of owning a block together with other
people is very normal. Especially if we talk
about a perimeter block built in the post war
era, it is almost always communally owned,
at least shared ownership of the common
grounds. This means that you can find many
courtyards in Scandinavian cities that are
used as gardens where people meet, children
play or parties are held. Everyone owns a part
of the building and in turn everyone helps
out with the maintenance of the building and
the courtyard.
If trying to break down and characterise
a perimeter block courtyard we could call the
perimeter block itself “the dominant” in re-
lation to the courtyard. Inside the courtyard,
there is a secondary dominant, a “subdomi-
nant” character relating to the courtyard and
it is found in the rear part of the perimeter
block. When entering a courtyard, it is this
subdominant that determines its limits; this
is “the courtyard”. But a third character can
as well be included, “the subordinate”. The
subordinate part of the courtyard can be
found within each plot of land that has a dif-
ferent ownership.
There is both a beauty and a horror in the
division of land in the subordinate courtyards
owned by private owners. It is both exciting
in its deformed un-connectedness that often
happens when owners build autonomously
their plot of land full of buildings that does
not connect with the other plots of land. And
at the same time this is exactly why it is hor-
rific too. In times when cities continue to be
extended peripherally, we are left with a lot
of unused or poorly used space in the middle.
In the book Tokyo Metabolizing from the
12th Architecture Biennale, the authors de-
scribes two typical morphologies found in
modern cities. The first two photos show Par-
is and Tokyo from a bird’s view perspective.
Paris, with its no rigid formations of streets,
avenues and squares, and perimeter blocks
with many small courtyards inside, is called
the city of Monarchism, while Tokyo, with
its square formation of the city grid and no
perimeter blocks, is called the city of Capital-
ism. They then find a third, morphing version
of these two called the Metabolising city, and
it presents a city where grid structure has not
been planned but formed after necessity and
use, the city has grown organically as well
as having been planned and is defined by its
indefinability of morphology and grid. This
third way comes about when value is given to
various negative spaces in the city, when they
become equated with positive space which
makes it possible to create a completely new
space in the city. They give the example of
the Moriyama House by Sanaa of this third
way, where the concept of the lot, in itself,
has been dismantled. Between the network
of voids and actual space, the negative and
positive spaces is in the Moriyama House
treated equally, but in terms of private and
public uses it has its limitations. They contin-
ue with calling the basis of collective living as
increasingly important in contemporary soci-
eties: “Life can’t be contained within a single
lot. People’s sense of living expands beyond
it, effectively erasing all borders”.
A courtyard in Prague recently opened for
the public, the Kasarna in Karlín. This court-
yard had been closed for the public until
2017, when it finally became fully accessible.
The interesting part of this courtyard is that
nothing has, except minor alterations, been
changed. The building is still untouched
in a deteriorated state and the courtyard is
mainly asphalt and still it has become a new
kind of “park” for the district. A cafe and
outside cinema in the summer, an ice skating
rink during winter; it is now a used, yet emp-
ty plot of land in the centre of the city that
gives value to the locals of Prague.
The project by Mateo Argerich, an ar-
chitecture student from the Dessau Inter-
national Architecture School in 2016, on
the Kasarna site, focused on the issue of
“Communing”. He explained communing as
“a new and third kind of way”. It is non-polit-
ical and non-economical, it is not Capitalism
nor is it Communism. Communing is a way
to relate to the pre-existent system and a way
to grow within it. Anything can become
a common, because it emerges from neces-
sities found between communities, when
people are generating a good in common.
Communing is also defined by being an open
network, they are most successful when they
are growing from the people themselves
and hierarchy is replaced by direct exchange
between the different actors, not when it is
imposed. His solution for the Kasarna was
a scaffolding covering the whole of the interi-
or facade to use as pathways and entrances to
the building directly through the facade. Not
hindering the circulation or interrupting any
windows with the scaffolding, the aim was
to make a maximum of interaction between
users of the building.
Communing is an issue to consider for
the future of city courtyards. That we see an
increase of a grassroots movement towards
the “third kind of way”, a metabolising city
of finding space where there are holes that
can be filled, is interesting for the future of
courtyards in general. If we can reinterpret
these unused spaces and find ways of me-
tabolising parts of cities, activate them from
within, city life can get an even more vigor-
ous exploration. This method might not work
always, and it is not for all city contexts, but
exploring different views of cities is of value
in itself – since being human is the explora-
tion of life itself, be it in the external world of
streets or in the internal worlds of enclosing
buildings forming courtyards.
Life can’t be
contained within
a single lot.
People’s sense
of living expands
beyond it,
effectively erasing
all borders.

Faculty 2016/2017
Surname First name Course 1 Course 2 Course 3
Bažant Jan History of Architecture 1, 3
Benešovská Hana History of Architecture 2, 4 History of Art 1
Monument Preservation
1, 2
Benson Cory Building Environment Building Tchnology
Blažek Filip Graphic Design
Project Presentation
and Graphics
Brož Luděk Sociology
Clifton Sean Construction 2
Corradini Michele Graphic Software
Dáňová Helena History of Art 1, 2
Dlesk René Architectural Design
Dodds Joseph Psychology
Duba Martin Architectural Design
Fessler Elan Architectural Design
Fialová Petra Construction 1
Gebrian Adam Introduction to Studies Professional Ethics
Hanson Henry Landscape Design Ecology
Hejl Martin GA+D Seminar
Research in Art and
Architecture
Hetletvedt Amy Professional Ethics
Hnídková Vendula Modern Architecture
Hofmeister Ondřej Sustainable Architecture
Contemporary
Construction
Holna Jan Architectural detail 1, 2
Horová Tamara Architectural Design
Chládková Barbora Sculpture and Modelling
Imramovská Martina Landscape design
Janečková Michaela Contemporary Architecture
Contemporary
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
Koza Jerry Product Design
Management 2016/2017
Surname First name Course 1 Course 2 Course 3
Kuldová Zuzana Urban Planning 1–3
Lahoda Tomáš Painting and Art Concept
Lakomá Hana Geometry Mathematics
Lhotáková Andrea Photography
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
Návrat Petr Urban Planning 1–3
Neuhäusl David Architectural Design
Němec Ivan Structural Engineering
Okamura Osamu Project Presentation
Rachidi Karim Preparing for Practice
Satorie Pavel Development
Schindler Jan Architectural Design
Sperat Zbyněk Urban Planning 1–3
Stec Peter GA+D Studio
Sýkora Luděk Urban Planning 1–3
Šormová Kristýna Drawing
Topolčanská Maria Critical Writing 1, 2
Pre-diploma Research
Seminar
Tsikolia Shota GA+D Workshop
Vacek Lukáš Fundaments of Urbanism Master Planning
Wertig Jaroslav Architectural Design
Zein Lynda Urban Design
Loukotová Regina rector
Šimice Jiří executive director
Doleželová Klára vice-rector
Pjechová Marianna study department coordinator
Topolčanská Maria master program coordinator
Motloch Adam PR manager
Čadek Matěj international office coordinator
Scholzová Zuzana librarian
Hauser Zbyněk IT specialist
Křeček Jakub workshop assistant
Nadia assistance dog

ARCHIP Yearbook 2017/2018
Published by: ARCHIP
Poupětova 3, 170 00 Praha 7
info@archip.eu
www.archip.eu
Editors: Klára Doleželová, Elan Fessler, Regina Loukotová
Copy Editor: Elan Fessler
Photography: Dominik Kučera, Andrea Thiel Lhotáková, ARCHIP archive
Graphic design: Eliška Kudrnovská, Designiq
Printer: AMOS Typografické studio, spol. s r. o.
Print run: 100
© ARCHIP 2018
ISBN 978-80-906990-0-7

Vertical Studio Concept

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Vertical Studio Concept

More from Irfan Ullah

Recently uploaded

Vertical Studio Concept