Vysehrad – Building a step between the present and the past
It seems like through the years, Vysehrad has done nothing but change. Inside their high walls,
built with defensive tasks, you can find a piece of history almost everywhere. Beautiful little
jewels of architecture as well as big jewel boxes like the cathedral makes this pretty well
hidden spot one of the loveliest places to visit in the city. However, looking for an intervention
in this place doesn’t seem like an easy task.
The walls of the bastion separate two completely different worlds. Inside, where the citadel
use to be, there is plenty of gardens, plazas, little spots, historic chapels and viewpoints where
you can get probably the best panoramic views of the city. On the opposite side we have the
surroundings of the walls and the citadel access. Their position, hidden from public
transportation hubs, in addition to the difficult of being sight from near areas, makes this fact
the weak point of the park.
In a project like this we have to be very careful with the decision we take. Assuming that we
should keep the access paths as there are, the next step is to study the improvement of the
access. Connecting them with bus, metro and tram stations. Making them easy to be found
from the surroundings without making them losing the value of be unseen. By the way, we
thought about the design of a public space that could link the street level and the bastion one.
Also improving some inside places likes the open air theatre, in the way of making it more
useful. Indeed, some terraces could be built in order to achieve this aim.
In conclusion, our intervention must be focused on the improvement of the infrastructure of
Vysehrad, and at the same time with rebuilt some degraded places. In an effort of maintain the
essence of the place, our measures must be carefully executed.
Alexia BARRITAULT, Ruben G. CIRERA, Thomas OLIVAIN
1 comment:
Firstly I would like to praise you for the approach to your design – as it was expressed in your remarkable presentation. It is great that you’ve broaden your view of the place to the scale in which you are now.
I like very much the narrative spirit of your design. Nevertheless I would like to summarize some comments and concerns I have.
I would start with a question. In both your sketches and references I see an aim to create a singular and unique access way with start at the embankment (at the top of the staircase) and a climax at the point of entering the room of the open air theatre. Does it mean that this way should be the main entrance for Vyšehrad visitors and that all the other ways at this hillside should be suppressed in their significance? Does it mean that the existing theatre should be the new main entrance to the citadel?
What is your opinion to the other access? What about the existing way which is heading directly to the entrance of Vyšehrad basilica minor (one of the most important churches of the Bohemian kingdom)? Or why the way begins at the top of the staircase and not in front of the cubistic villa or at the crossroad of Libušina and Vratislavova street (the former Vyšehrad square)? I certainly agree with you that the direction you have chosen is probably the most natural. On the other hand is it the only one? You are already considering the possibility of a staircase connection directly through a school building (the former town hall of the independent “town of the Vyšehrad mountain”) so maybe for the character of the existing structure would be more appropriate a net of many access ways than just one way? What is going to be the mutual relation among them?
However my biggest concern is still connected with your vague idea to demolish the existing gymnasium in order to open the view. There is no argument about the visual quality of such act. On the other hand how you can justify it? Just imagine that only the cost of the building site (the official cost – not the market cost – that could be much higher) is about 1,3 mil. Euros (3500 sqm). I know that this is an academic assignment – so anything is possible. But you would have a hard time to convince many people of such act. (what do you propose in return? An open public space? How it is going to be better than the existing one?). In my opinion much better solution would be to propose a substitute of the existing building (from 1930s/1940s) with a similar size and character of the program but a better form. Such act could be much better justified. At the end there are three of you. You could manage such project easily.
Good work so far, go on!
Btw did you found the entrance way to Jelení Příkop? I’am not sure if you found the correct way according to my yesterday instructions. Check this foto:
http://nadprahou.cz/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/jelen1.jpg
Post a Comment