Prague cannot determine who pays what, says architect Redčenkov
Completing large projects is a problem for us. A change in political leadership often means taking projects off the table. How do you look at it after thirty years of practice?
Discontinuity is a Czech phenomenon. Nothing can be done in four years of the election period, maybe in eight. When you go to Litomyšl, where the mayor is already in his third term and has a strategy, you can see it in that city right away. The Czechs do not even agree on major strategic tasks. We have no desire to fulfill long-term visions, and I feel that this is a typical Czech characteristic. We have just received a building permit for a residential complex between the Luka and Lužiny metro stations. We have been working on it for fifteen years. There wasn’t even a necessary zoning change, just a series of appeals from neighbors and the town hall. It is true that we designed it for quite a long time, because it is directly above the subway tube, which we had to structurally bridge. There were several resales there, as some investors lost the will to complete the project over time.
At what stage is the preparation of the Prague Smíchov Transport Terminal, which is supposed to replace the existing Smíchov railway station?
Everything there, on the other hand, runs unusually fast. We are working on the documentation for the building permit and are waiting for the zoning decision. The whole process runs smoothly for how complex it is. The city, transport company, České dráhy or the Railway Administration figure there. And each of these institutions has a different and often conflicting interest. Then, of course, you enter the development company Sekyra Group with its follow-up campus for Erste by the Baumschlager Eberle studio. And we are such a moderator of the whole process.
How has the terminal solution evolved since the design you won the competition with?
The optimal operating unit was still being sought. It is a very complex typology. There is a mix of bus and train stations, at the same time there is a connection to Nádražní street for trams and the metro. Some changes also came with the gradual expansion of the addressed area. At the beginning, we dealt with a smaller part, and gradually the exhibition building was added, then a wing with retail spaces, parking, the entire Nádražní Street and adjacent public spaces. We also made regulations for the award of a tender for the new headquarters of the Railway Administration.
Time and price estimates change over time. What are they like now?
Completion is still planned for 2026.
And as for the price?
Estimates are still around four billion. The problem is more about who will pay what. In my opinion, this is a unique case in Prague, where a clear system of financing such a diverse structure with complicated property relations should be established. We have been pushing for this for a long time, to create a body that will cover such large projects in terms of financing and clearly determine who will pay for what. So that we can then deal with one institution and not moderate the interests of five different parties. We are actually doing this now, because we are the only ones able to cover the project as a whole.
And shouldn’t the Institute of Planning and Development of Prague (IPR) provide coordination? I think that might be its function. Just as it was possible to single out the Prague Development Company (PSD), which will deal with project preparation, there should be a department at the IPR which will deal with the coordination of the interests of individual stakeholders in projects. I know of only one person at the municipality trying to fulfill this role, but it is a task for a whole team of people.
Would you like something similar for the future transformation of Florence that you won the competition for?
Yes, we keep bumping into that too. If a private developer is in charge of such a large area, he usually has a whole department of people dedicated to it. For example, at Smíchova City, Sekyra Group has ten managers and each one is in charge of coordinating a different part.
Do you think that the establishment of PDS was the right step?
A big question mark hangs over how the construction will be financed. He has nothing to pay for at the moment. Not every investor builds with their own money, most of them are loans, so even Prague will definitely take a loan for that. Of course, they have to build it as economically as possible so that they can then rent it out cheaper. And in my opinion, the financing of rental housing is interesting for banks. And I think that Prague is a good client. But it’s definitely a model that any city can handle. There must be professional managers who manage capital construction. In Cheb, where I come from, we already made a mark in the 1990s in small Bavarian towns with development companies that operated under the leadership of the municipalities. These were basically the city developers who controlled the development. They were responsible for the fact that when the shopping center was built, the parking garage was also built. And continuity was maintained, no matter who was in charge of the city. So we saw the PDS model in Germany already thirty years ago. That is why I perceive this emancipation of Prague positively. The mistake was definitely that the city got rid of large development areas, and so often I have to wait to see how things will turn out there.
Prague is now trying to take the reins again by demanding infrastructure contributions from developers. That should help a lot, shouldn’t it?
This is a big step that makes everything more transparent. I attribute the merits to the deputy for territorial development Petr Hlaváček and some rational thinking about the development of the city. Of course, a metropolitan plan is also important, which should fundamentally reduce speculation about territories. This is a huge step, which was already started by former mayor Tomáš Hudeček by founding the IPR.
Access to all digital content
Subscribe to E15 Premium