Alexandr Skalický

Ing. arch. Alexandr Skalický (*1958)

1978-1983 Faculty of Architecture CTU
1983–1985 Stavoprojekt Trutnov
1985–1990 Sportprojekt Náchod
1990 together with Ing. arch. Krtička founded Atelier Tsunami
1990-1998 Atelier Tsunami
since 1990 member of the editorial board of the magazine Architekt
since 1993 member of the Czech Chamber of Architects
since 1999 independent architect, collaborating with the atelier Archteam

Jan Kratochvíl: To begin with, I would like to return to the beginnings of your career. What motivated you to study architecture?
Alexandr Skalický: My orientation towards architecture arose rather incidentally. Since attending primary school, I have had the opportunity to meet many significant authentic artists—at that time completely unofficial. I was able to perceive the atmosphere of their creation and the way it was realized. In connection with visual art, architecture began to seem to me more complex. At the same time, it offered the same possibility of authentic expression. For a long time, I also thought that it was possible to pursue both fields simultaneously; in other words, visual art as a complement to architecture. It is quite evident that the reverse combination, if you want to maintain a certain standard, is practically impossible. Thus, I decided on architecture quite early and I do not regret my decision at all. The more I think about it, the more I believe that having the ability to make decisions with a long-term horizon is an advantage. It allows one to better track certain concepts, a certain "line of progress."

JK: Your perception of the phenomenon of architecture is truly inspiring; do you have your own distinctive definition of architecture?
AS: I do not have a definition of architecture. For me, the words "authentic" and "alternative" have significance in connection with architecture. Having one's own opinion and style, achieved through developing one's way of thinking about building and using houses, is certainly a criterion of quality. I perceive an alternative idea as one that does not straightforwardly aim for the sale of the result in the shortest time with the least possible expenditure of energy. An idea that can offer original possibilities and remains true to itself in the long run. I do not believe that architecture is a matter of random architectural ideas and happy inspirations. Nothing like that exists. When an architect lacks a sense of life, they can at most be a graduate of an architecture faculty and play at being an artist.

JK: Could you elaborate more on the concept of "sense of life"? How does it manifest in the conception of your architecture?
AS: I mean a certain possibility of realism, where you understand the needs of users and at the same time, you can offer them a certain comfortable addition given that, as an architect, you know what you are doing. I would not point out such an abstract concept as a sense of life. Today, I perceive quite strongly among many architects a tendency to attract attention at all costs. In part of this spectrum, it is based on strong inspiration from architectural magazines and appropriating ideas without knowledge of the context. In the other part, at the cost of total artistic strain. Take, for example, the extension in Štiřín. It does not express any sense of the activities that take place there at all. The "cottage" system, that is, what you do not need, you take to the cottage, is the exact method of the creation of the mentioned building. What the author did not need, they took to Štiřín - thus the mentioned building can be perceived realistically. The author certainly envisioned their work differently. What is essential is what the building communicates. A truly sumptuous morsel for snobs. However, I should mention a positive example that corresponds to my vision. Recently, I had the opportunity to see a small house that Kroupa built in Mukařov. The lightness of the construction truly surprised me. Nothing is unnecessarily missing, nothing is extra. Everything is within the means of the builder. Yet nothing is boring. Architecture is largely a matter of experience. I try to perceive the environment, not just in terms of the physical construction site. And if possible, I do not yield too much. A very difficult role.

JK: Can your answer be understood as a definition of neofunctionalism?
AS: Whether this is a definition of neofunctionalism, I do not know; I do not think too much about definitions. It is true, however, that Docent Švácha once referred to my earlier works as works derived from neofunctionalism. Since the first half of the 1990s, I have been interested in the method of architectural design primarily as a method of work that achieves results. Those houses were from the beginning more conceptual architecture than neofunctionalist buildings. I think that the attempt to define something currently is misleading. In hindsight, looking back into the past, some definitions may perhaps make sense. I understand Rudiš's villa in Litomyšl as a neofunctionalist house. Similarly, Buček's residence of the ambassador in Budapest. In both houses, it is mainly about carving beautiful windows into a massive surrounding wall. That is quite foreign to me. I do not mean to say that those houses are bad. My interest in architecture is broader. I am interested in, for example, the systems of houses or the atmosphere. The relationships within the house. The flexibility of solutions. I would like current Czech architecture to overcome the discussion about whether to make houses "from the inside" or "from the outside." To try something and not just rely on certainty. In today's time, when we design houses in a broader team, we are very interested in the method of construction. The ability to work with technology or materials as variably as with the layout solutions is very important to us today.

JK: However, your team has recently been criticized for the method of construction. How do you perceive the relationship between architect and designer? Do you collaborate with civil engineers or do you prepare construction projects completely on your own?
AS: What you mention and what we are criticized for is more related to a misunderstanding of the matter. However, in my opinion, the real problem lies elsewhere. It is related to the location of our activities. When you try to create something of a certain standard on the periphery, you inevitably have to provoke others in your own way. Both in the center and on the periphery. This is partly related to the way projects are designed here. Atelier Tsunami was a design office that was able to handle even complex projects with its own building designers. They formed the majority of the studio. The cost for construction capacities was relatively high. Architecture could have a strong concept, but one could not rely too much on the development of artistic details because the builders of the studio could not handle them. In the early 90s, there were also no architects in Náchod with whom to do demanding things. There was a certain chance to raise them.... Today the situation is a bit different. Archteam consists only of architects. We also do our projects entirely on our own, except for specialized professions. I would also like to return to the architect-designer relationship. No combination of architects and building designers seems ideal. The problem of the relationship between the two fields is probably given by the division of the study of both fields and the resulting rivalry. In Western Europe, the situation is somewhat different. In Sweden, it is different again. Atelier and building designs are, as far as I know, strictly separated. Architects design houses completely separately from building designers. The latter process execution projects independently.

JK: You touched on the topic of the periphery. What do you see as the main differences between the periphery and the center?
AS: The potential and possibilities of the center are, at first glance, different in all respects. In a certain way, it is possible to cope with a different situation. Perhaps by choosing things that are important to you. I see the real problem in the fact that if you live and work in the center, you have the opportunity to somehow fit in, to belong somewhere. It is essential that you are not alone. Moreover, the center can be a source of energy and naturally commands respect from outside. On the periphery, everything is reversed. The periphery takes away energy. If a few people who have greater long-term ambitions come together, it is slowly a miracle.

JK: Now we could move on to everyday practice. What project are you currently working on?
AS: We have a number of things in the phase of development. Perhaps I should now mention a project we are currently building. It contains quite an interesting story related to the permitting of the building. It is a family house in Žďárky near Hronov. Žďárky is not a stylized village with interesting timber houses of a mountainous type. The garden for the house is relatively large, and the surroundings are significantly disorganized. The two neighboring houses are more suburban than rustic. There is also a group of row houses with flat roofs nearby... I would say it is a space for any architect's impact. The investor also has an understanding of the present. Seemingly simple negotiations, although the area falls within the Protected Landscape Area of Broumovsko. But it is on its edge, thus not in the sphere of main interest of the Protected Area Administration. However, during the negotiations, we experienced a real rarity. The participant in the zoning proceedings, the municipality of Žďárky, conditioned its consent to connect to the municipal sewage system and access to the property with the condition of a gable roof above the house. As can be expected in our case, we had a flat roof. The municipality rejected even a less rigid solution, which is a shed roof. Meanwhile, there was no supporting document for the gable roof request at the time of the zoning decision proceedings. Perhaps by chance, or perhaps out of ignorance, the municipality did not adhere to the statutory deadlines during the proceedings. Despite our appeal against the rejected zoning proceedings and the announcement of a new, combined zoning and construction proceeding, we ultimately managed to obtain a building permit. Unfortunately, only at the beginning of November and about three months behind the original assumption. The investor's vision of the completion date for the building in the summer of next year has not changed at all. It was necessary to react. Originally, we anticipated that the building could have a simple structure made of brick blocks; at the stage of building permits, we adjusted the house to a prefabricated system of Prefa Rastra so that we could complete the shell construction still this year. This slightly influenced the appearance of the house. I can perhaps say for all co-authors that we do not think we have made any concessions to the architecture of the house, to the Municipal Office in Žďárky, or to the completion deadline. Because, in addition to being the designers of the house, we are also its contractors, we were able to be flexible.

JK: It is known that you have led for several years a "kindergarten" preparing students for future studies in architecture. Do students or recent architecture graduates work in your office?
AS: In the early nineties, I had an architectural preparatory class for about six years focused on entrance exams at architecture faculties. I must say that it was very successful and provided a foundation for many future students. The success rate was about 90%. All those who had a real interest in architecture got in. Over six years, about fourteen people, who either still study or are already professional architects today. I would say that for such a small town as Náchod, that is quite a lot. I think that they have also maintained mutual cohesion and continue to cooperate. My parting with Atelier Tsunami, which was a certain divide between architecture and building design, was, to my surprise, also a certain divide among the graduates of the "kindergarten." Of course, I still have the opportunity to follow many of my former students, and I am truly pleased with some of them. I put a lot of energy into the kindergarten and I hope it does not get lost. The kindergarten also supported broader interest in architecture among students in Náchod and the surrounding area, and I have not even met many other students today. As for the involvement of students in our studio, it is occasional. No one works with us permanently. Occasionally, yes. It depends on the composition of the projects.

JK: In studying architecture, it is important to develop the aesthetic and theoretical aspects of the personality of the future architect. How did you "raise" your charges in this direction? Did you have anything to lean on?
AS: I taught them to draw for the entrance exams and I talked to them about themes they might encounter in interviews. In fact, just what I remembered from school myself. And when they started going to school... I did not really educate them. If they were interested, I discussed with them about life or about my projects and the situations surrounding them. About what I found essential. Perhaps they took something for themselves and for the architecture they would one day do from those conversations. They still have that opportunity. Moreover, now there is an even greater possibility to talk about what I consider truly contemporary.

JK: What are your theoretical texts based on?
AS: I do not think at all about whether my texts are theory of architecture or not. I write about what seems important to me and what interests me. What is perhaps not completely within the mainstream trend and what unsettles the current scene. Besides, I do not write that often and a lot, as it may seem at first glance. What has real significance for me in those texts today is the fact that I can think through many things for myself. Initially, I did not even expect to write any texts about architecture. The situation forced me. In the 1980s, there was no one in Náchod who could write about architecture and who would write about my projects or the projects of Sportprojekt, where I worked at that time. So I started to write those texts myself. I am still very interested in visual art. If I can, I follow reviews of various artistic projects. Those are my schools. I am interested in how art is written about today.

JK: Do you still engage, at least a little, in visual arts?
AS: Really only a little. I can no longer devote myself to it as systematically as I did in the 1980s. Still, it is for me a way to verify a certain way of thinking about artistic categories. It is an alternative to what I strive for in architecture. The realizations and projects of other architects have never inspired me too much as an architect. My architecture has always been greatly influenced by what is happening in visual art or modern music. I have always tried to avoid copying from other sources. For this, it is perhaps best to be inspired by something that cannot be directly copied into architecture.

JK: What is your greatest current wish?
AS: Perhaps I could wish for some really expensive car, then perhaps a yacht and maybe an airplane. However, these wishes can never end, as the consumer offer will always present new things. I do not have these wishes. I only have small wishes, and I also fear that when I express them, they will never be fulfilled.

JK: Thank you for the interview.