To the place where people will go

From the left Christian González Díaz, Virginia Hinarejos González, Sergio Joya Rodríguez

Surprisingly, you – as foreigners – won this year's student competition organized by the Architecture Students' Society at the Faculty of Architecture of CTU in Prague.
Your design is particularly striking due to the fact that it involves the conversion of a brownfield in the city center for the benefit of creating a new public space. This value of a modern, democratic city – public space – is, by the way, becoming a topic of intense discussion among Czech architects… Your team comes up with this theme even as the focal point of opinion on the development of the area. Allow me a pragmatic question at the outset: Have you considered further steps – in case your project actually gets realized?
Christian Gonzales: At this moment, there is a huge parking lot on the site. We are proposing, among other things, to include some residential buildings – because we know that the center of Prague is emptying out and residents are being pushed out by the tourism industry. But mainly, we suggest that various activities can be conducted in this open urban space, such as sports. Therefore, we propose to fragment the resulting large area to achieve a smaller scale. When you ask about specific activities, one could play tennis or skate, etc. The bus station is removed and placed underground. Linear buildings are intended to define boundaries and actually create a certain bay between the buildings.
Virginia Hinarejos: Regarding future steps, we would mainly respond to the local climate, which does not offer sunny and warm days as often as we have in Spain. And we would focus on the potential for activities under roofing or shading, such as cinemas and so on.

Let’s go back to the very beginning of your thinking about the concept, including consideration of the Florence area. To what extent did you dedicate yourselves to the context with geographical or morphological connections? Currently, there are intense debates in this area of the Prague center related to the developer's intention to sell Masaryk Station and build a new quarter on its foundations…
Ch. Gonzales: Together with colleagues from the studio and the leaders Vladimír Krátký and Luis Marques, we visited the site at the beginning of the semester: at the very site, we were thoroughly informed about the history of the place and especially about the connections to the historical core as well as Žižkov, Karlín, that is, to the neighborhoods from the 19th century. Our decision-making about the design was, however, directed more towards the new than the past…
V. Hinarejos: We simply wanted to create something new, which does not necessarily have to react to current movements in the area or to the ongoing discussion about the development allegedly being planned. Something that could simultaneously eventually become an ideological bridge between the neighboring parts of the city, especially Žižkov and Karlín.
Ch. Gonzales: But it is true that at our faculty in Madrid, we would probably have to pay significantly more attention to the mentioned context and the history of the place. Certainly in the case of an urban project. But here we are on Erasmus… If I am self-critical, perhaps we did not exhaust all the possibilities – in terms of depth of analysis…
V. Hinarejos: I don't think the reason is "just" Erasmus. Sometimes one can enter the discussion with a non-contextual proposal…

Your work sticks in memory particularly due to the design of extensive, linear buildings. Even the choice of contrast against the existing scale of buildings around…
Ch. Gonzales: We are aware of the fact that it is a certain gesture. And that we chose a truly enormous scale. However, we do not consider the high-rise buildings – the characteristics of the place – to be too high… The resulting open area is indeed similar in size to the Old Town Square, but don’t forget that in a similar scale in Florence today there is an absurd bus parking lot.
V. Hinarejos: Perhaps you are pointing to the very length of the linear buildings. However, a pedestrian would not necessarily have to pass them as an endless whole: our design offers various passages that shorten the way from one point to another.

The jury awarded you the Dušan. Nevertheless, what grade did your project receive in the studio?
V. Hinarejos: A B.

Did the heads of the studio communicate to you why they didn’t grade you an A?
V. Hinarejos: We didn’t devote enough time to consultations with the project leaders – and perhaps it is also due to the mentioned underestimation of the relationship to context… I understand that architects Krátký and Marques might have found it difficult to correct the entire process of developing the design.
Ch. Gonzales: But we are glad that they labelled our project overall as good – even ambitious. And shape-wise simple. But they also made it clear that they are happier when students consult them on the development of work more frequently than we did.
V. Hinarejos: If I am self-critical, it is also possible that our three-member team did not work as intensively as it could have. And not sufficiently deeply...

Speaking of reflection, let’s try to move to Spain: how would the evaluation of your project look like at your schools?
Ch. Gonzales: At our Polytechnic in Madrid, we would probably discuss more about the proposed construction system. Including the details. Here we are forced to think as intensely about the construction detail as about the proposal of the whole or the form of the building, or architecture. I see differences in this regard compared to the situation here. Because when I start designing a house, its final concept or the very essence of the building can ultimately change the construction detail… Which is also a matter of scale. First, we deal with urbanism, then with the character of the object, and we eventually reach the detail.
V. Hinarejos: The schools in Madrid and Valencia are similar in their focus: that is, in thinking about the essence of architecture. Probably – if I compare them with the Prague Faculty of Architecture – their study plans are directed more towards technical aspects, with several subjects similar to those found in the Faculty of Civil Engineering. But I am now talking about the study plan of Erasmus in English; I do not rule out that the regular study, that is, in Czech, at the Prague faculty is still more technical.
Ch. Gonzales: Even so, I get the impression here that Czech architects do not engage with construction as intensively…

May I ask what symptoms lead you to this conclusion?
Ch. Gonzales: Probably the most from the results of thesis project presentations – for example. In Spain, we would definitely see more construction details at the exhibition. Because the detail carries information about the nature of the construction. In Prague, I haven't seen them at the exhibition very often – although I admit that it is a different perspective.

Perhaps your faculties' focus plays a certain role here as well.
V. Hinarejos: Perhaps yes, for example, I am currently enrolled in a construction studio. Our method is based on the principle of finding the main idea, which is then developed towards the construction… What architecture should or should not communicate or what it communicates, is expressed precisely – in my opinion – in the architectural detail. Take a simple staircase as an example. When you search for its shape and when it goes through the design process, you cannot avoid thinking about the material from which it will be made, and also asking how you will connect the staircase with the floor material, etc.? Your solution must also offer a certain communication to all who approach it.

With visible enthusiasm, you remind of the constructive essence of the craft… However, on Erasmus, you chose urbanism. What led you to this decision?
V. Hinarejos: Probably the fact that we liked the program here – with a number of studios. And given our focus in Spain, this topic is a completely new experience for us.

For Florence, you discovered a new function for the existing space. How do you generally view the functioning of public space in the Czech Republic?
Ch. Gonzales: I think it is not used very intensely – or that its functioning mainly depends on the weather. In contrast, in Spain, due to the sunny climate, it is used continuously. But there is also something more. Czechs mostly stay indoors, and when they go out, they concentrate mainly on parks or sports activities, etc.

And how do architects contribute to its functioning?
V. Hinarejos: In my opinion, it seems that there are not enough opportunities for activities outside the home. There is not enough greenery, but at the same time, I miss the intention of architects to design hard surfaces – such as squares, sidewalks, etc. By the way, we also strive for this with our design.
Ch. Gonzales: Just like in Italy, for example. Italian architects often deal with various surfaces – they have plenty of gardens and parks, but they also know how to work with urban surfaces.
V. Hinarejos: They have an easier position than in Spain, where it is often very dry: the entire southern part of the country is quite parched.
Ch. Gonzales: But we have different historical places, for example, the Plaza Mayor in Madrid. It is surrounded by residential buildings and is usually full of people. There is nothing there; only a statue of a horse stands in the middle. People play bolls, chat with each other, and you see dancers and mimes... It is simply lively. At the corners of the square, there are restaurants, and in summer, the area is so crowded that walking through is quite difficult. One night I walked through and saw someone playing flamenco guitar. That was beautiful… He was simply there. And that’s what it’s about. Creating a place in the city where people will go. That is, where they will be happy to go.

Thank you for the interview.
Jiří Horský

"Czech flag"