An independent jury awarded the best bachelor’s theses of the Faculty of Architecture, Brno University of Technology. Among the awarded projects are proposals that focus on completing the urban environment, new forms of educational spaces, housing, and mixed-use development. The jury particularly appreciated the students’ ability to read the context of a place, work with an appropriate level of detail, and convincingly translate a concept into an architectural design. The winning student projects will be exhibited from 24 June at the TITUL 2026 exhibition in the Gallery of Architecture Brno.

Awarded bachelor’s theses and jury evaluations (In no particular order)

Tímea Bobuľová: “Campus Rediscovered” supervised by Michal Palaščák at the Department of Design

Tímea Bobuľová’s thesis was developed within an assignment whose conditions were largely predetermined by the context. However, the student managed to turn this apparent disadvantage into a strength. The jury appreciated that, within the given rules, she created an environment that functions as a world of its own, while remaining open, rich, and capable of communicating with its surroundings. According to the jury, the design works with lessons drawn from contemporary references in an appropriate and convincing way.

Noemi Cziriová: “New School” supervised by Jan Mléčka at the Department of Spatial Design

Noemi Cziriová addressed the extensive topic of a new school at a very high level and with a great degree of detail. The jury appreciated the well-structured programme and content of the school, the functional massing and layout, as well as the transition of the design into interior detail. An important theme of the project is flexibility, which is particularly relevant in a school environment. Thanks to the use of wood as a structural element, the proposed school feels airy; the jury also highlighted the project’s playful graphic presentation.

Barbora Honsová: “Mixed-use Building” supervised by Jiří Palacký at the Department of Spatial Design

Barbora Honsová’s project impressed the jury with its high level of elaboration. The clarity and appeal of the presentation boards, the clear description of the project, and the comprehensibly formulated concept were all appreciated. According to the jury, the design itself is of high quality, the building is well positioned on the site, and the work with its massing is convincing. The carefully developed layouts also deserve attention, offering original elements and a diverse typology of apartments.

Tomáš Lendvay: “Loštice – Housing in the Centre of a Small Town” supervised by Radek Toman at the Department of Monument Care

Tomáš Lendvay’s project addresses the contemporary and highly relevant topic of completing the urbanised environment of a medium-sized Central European town. The jury appreciated the author’s appropriate, balanced, and sensitive approach, as well as the fact that the project is developed in the necessary detail across all its parts. The proposal is easy to understand and, according to the jury, demonstrates the author’s readiness to engage with tasks that may not be large in scale but have a significant impact on the lives of residents and visitors.

Anežka Švancarová: “Flatiron – Corner House” supervised by Marek Štěpán at the Department of Design

In her project, Anežka Švancarová successfully dealt with a complex assignment on a site in Prostějov. The jury particularly appreciated her sensitive approach to the surrounding context. The design of the apartment building is based on a clear idea that permeates the entire project and respects the surrounding development. The building, with its pitched roof and characteristic windows, fits naturally into the location, while the steel staircase structure becomes both a functional and accent element. The quality of the project is further supported by the decision not to build up the entire plot, but to divide the development into a larger and a smaller volume, creating a more permeable and airy environment.

Awarded studios (In no particular order)

In addition to the bachelor’s theses, the jury also recognised selected studios. It particularly highlighted their ability to formulate relevant topics, guide students towards a deeper consideration of the social context of architecture, and support the search for individual approaches to the assignment.

Studio of Jan Mléčka (Department of Spatial Design)

The studio of Jan Mléčka stood out with the theme of a new school, which, according to the jury, extends beyond the building itself and opens up questions about the future of education and society. The students’ proposals worked with the principles of informal education and Montessori pedagogy, considering the school as a living environment for discovering the world. The jury appreciated the research basis of the proposals, as well as their ability to connect architectural design with modes of learning, collaboration, and community-building.

Studio of Vítězslav Nový (Department of Design)

The studio of Vítězslav Nový drew attention with a current and socially relevant topic that is still searching for convincing architectural responses. The jury appreciated the courage to work with an assignment requiring sensitivity and the ability to move beyond established ideas of architectural design. According to the evaluation, it would be beneficial in the future to pay even greater attention to the relationship between the proposed buildings and the broader context of the place.

Studio of Jiří Palacký (Department of Spatial Design)

The works created in Jiří Palacký’s studio were connected by the ability to read a place attentively. According to the jury, the proposals were not based on striking gestures, but on considering how architecture can strengthen relationships within an area, cultivate public space, and bring value to its surroundings. The clear design process and the comprehensible presentation of the resulting proposals were also appreciated.

Studio of Radek Toman (Department of Monument Care)

The studio of Radek Toman offered an assignment that asked students questions rather than providing ready-made answers. The jury appreciated the opportunity for students to search for their own path, scale, and way of thinking about housing and territorial development. The resulting works demonstrated the diversity of contemporary architectural practice and the variety of approaches to the same theme. According to the jury, the studio thus became a laboratory for exploring the future forms of housing, neighbourhoods, and life in settlements.