In 2019, we were approached by the city of Dačice with an invitation to participate in the design competition for a square in the city center, with a pre-defined roundabout. This invitation to participate in the competition was appreciated, but it was also accompanied by the impression of a pre-defined brief that we were expected to confirm and legitimize with our participation. After carefully reviewing the brief, we realized that we did not want to become mere bystanders to a controversial intervention into the city's face. Therefore, we rejected the project with the following explanation:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your invitation, which we greatly appreciate. Upon reviewing the provided documentation and the city's urban plan, we have carefully considered the situation. The city's urban plan defines the traffic strategy with the development of the northern bypass, the cultural strategy focusing on the protection of the historical core, and the strategy of protecting the health of citizens by eliminating transit traffic through the city center. The submitted brief is based on a traffic engineering project that establishes a transit route through the city center. However, we found no information on the concept of public spaces or the overall vision for the main square. According to the brief, the architect is tasked with providing a basis for the traffic engineers' already completed traffic project, which is the opposite of how this process should be. A city cannot be subordinated exclusively to a single aspect, even if it is a utilitarian function. Cities are a combination of many material interests, technical functions, and spiritual needs. Their synthesis is the subject of architectural creation. Architecture is about solving context and concept, finding common ground between diverse attributes. The architect critically reconsiders the brief. If the architect is excluded from the process of creating the strategy from the beginning and only invited to refine an already finished solution, then this is not autonomous architecture but the design of foreign ideas. From the city's architectural perspective, creating a transit route through the historical center goes completely against the current trend of restoration, where squares that were destroyed in the past are now being rehabilitated with great effort. The proposed concept is therefore a step backward, a step that destroys what has remained preserved by coincidence. Today, in cities scarred by insensitive interventions, these mistakes are painstakingly corrected, but the presented plan takes the opposite direction. The true wealth of Dačice is the intact state of the city center, which has been carefully managed under the supervision of heritage protection. Cultural authenticity, original architecture, and local traditions are attractive values that make Czech and Moravian cities appealing to people from a world overwhelmed by cold megacities. In times of crisis for humanity, this is what makes our country interesting. The task of elites should be unselfish service in preserving the humanistic dimension, one of which is the humble management of the work of our ancestors and its transmission to future generations in an undistorted form. Unlike many other city centers, Palacký Square in Dačice has escaped damage. During the previous regime, pseudo-technical arguments were used in line with the revolutionary policies of the criminal regime. Together with urban demolitions, they were a direct tool of totalitarian power and a symptom of that era. According to the valid urban plan created in democratic times, the city of Dačice is aware of all of this. The strategy of the urban plan is the protection of these values. This is also supported by our legislation, including the regulation on designing local roads. After studying and carefully considering the provided materials, we have concluded that what is being sought is not the opinion of an architect, but the legitimization of the idea of a transit route. As a resident of the nearby village of Matějovec near Český Rudolec, I take this matter personally—as a citizen. The future of this place is not indifferent to me. If the city administration considers it beneficial, I offer my experience gained over thirty years in the construction industry and as chief architect of the municipalities of Líbeznice and Měšice, where I have contributed to the creation of strategies and the realization of the restoration of their devastated urban structures over the last decade.

With respect,Jan Hájek, architectAugust 16, 2019, Prague

We never received a response to our letter from the Dačice city hall. From our experience, we know that criticizing with words is easy. We wanted to set a positive example through our own creative contribution, and when we discovered that there were many citizens in Dačice who cared about the fate of their city, we teamed up with a petition committee representing this group. Together, we created an opposing study proposing a solution to contemporary traffic problems while preserving the protected heritage values. This opposing study was positively reviewed by the National Heritage Institute, and the traffic solution developed by specialists from Atelier Promika was certified by a Traffic Safety Audit from the Institute of Forensic Traffic Expertise at the Faculty of Transport Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, a leading authority in the field. The opposing study subsequently became the deciding document in the decision-making process regarding the future design of the intersection at Palacký Square. In a referendum held on October 8 and 9, 2021, the citizens overwhelmingly accepted the opposing study. The result of the referendum is valid and binding.