"<p>ARCHITECTS WANTED A COMPETITION. THEY ARE OUT OF LUCK.</p>"

It is not the architects who are unlucky, but society. The thing itself - the television studio - is unlucky. Taxpayers and the public interest in good buildings are unlucky. The hope for good architecture is unlucky.

       The headline borrowed from a well-known newspaper should help understand what this is all about. Daily, there are lamentations about the opaqueness of public competitions, fraud in public procurement, clientelism, and so on. Just as often, people complain about the level of contemporary architecture. Instead of reaching for something where it is not so easily done.

       But when a specific event occurs, those who control the public scene seem not to even know the alphabet. Instead of the architectural competition for such a significant public matter funded by such a significant amount of money being the first thing anyone thinks of, journalists succumb to the impression that it is merely an internal affair (privilege) of the architects.

       When new television studio preparation is mentioned, in a normal civilized and developed country, almost everyone immediately thinks of an architectural competition. It is hard to imagine a more fitting topic for such an approach. Honest politicians have long discovered this way to provoke competition and thus create a chance for the best possible outcome to emerge from it. It is necessary to repeat that real competition mobilizes as much energy as possible and provokes and develops art? And to be clear, I am not saying that every individual architectural competition ends in success.

       The architectural competition has been presented in reactions to the competition prompt almost as a grace, a privilege, or an appeasement to architects. It is completely overlooked that it is primarily meant to serve the thing itself. Architectural competitions were discovered by members of the procurations in medieval Florence. When they did not know how to arch a gigantic cathedral, or swallow a huge morsel "that they had bitten off before." The competition truly saved them, provoked the greatest talents to unprecedented dedication, and one of the most stunning works of architecture in history came to light. Probably no one will doubt that it is not only unprecedented beauty but also the peak of technical and organizational creativity. Anyone who may not find the lower part of the building (the nave) beautiful cannot argue with the dome.

       Therefore, architects did not invent the architectural competition, but those who wanted to benefit their community, the general and public interest. Architects merely adapted to this reality, and thus a useful symbiosis was created. Since then, approximately one hundred thousand architectural competitions have been organized worldwide.

       In the arguments as to why there is no architectural competition announced for the new ČT studio in Brno, words were heard about the exclusively technical profile of a television studio. ČT spokesperson Hana Orošová stated that it is an industrial building. The architectural competition was thus to be relegated to the position of decoration, something like beautifying church façades. This is a fatal misunderstanding of the meaning, possibilities, and goals of architectural competitions. Even this week, examples of how many architectural competitions have been held for television studios and similar facilities both in our country and abroad will be presented at a press conference of the Czech Chamber of Architects. Perhaps many will be surprised. In the best-case scenario. However, I fear that this was merely a momentary excuse to avoid the competition and justify its absence somehow. ČT, a few months ago, when the company was first alerted to the misery of competitions, expressed great interest in the topic and, in the words of its elite reporter, asked why there are so few of them. Let us see if ČT maintains this consistency, even regarding its own management. It will be a great test for this influential public media.

       "Architects" do not impose architectural competitions. Those who are responsible among them only point out what is in the public interest. What offers better hope for yield. That's all. The lagging number of architectural competitions behind developed countries to which we would like to compare ourselves is evident and, unfortunately, continues to deepen. I only wonder when someone outside of certain architects will notice it. This state is not caused by where the motivation lies but by a deep helplessness in how to address the opaqueness and clientelism. This does not only concern architectural competitions.