Revitalization of the courtyard Lečkova-Křejspského - Prague 11 Metropolitan District

  • Investor (key institution): Prague 11 Metropolitan District
  • Contact person: Mgr. Dalibor Mlejnský, mayor of Prague 11 Metropolitan district,
  • Year of implementation: 12
  • Implementation venue

  • Country: Czech Republic
  • Region: Prague 11
  • Town: Prague
  • Size of area: 14 m2
  • Impact: municipal

    Total costs: 120 EUR

    Source per every institution

    • regional: Prague 11 Metropolitan District EUR
    1. Improved provision of local cultural and social events.
    2. Improved condition & quality of the public space between the blocks of flats.
    3. Improved involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter.
    1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas?
    2. The revitalization of this public space between block of flats is a part of the study called “Regeneration of the South City and South City study - a place to live”. The study was developed by Municipality of Prague 11. The aim of this study was to survey the current situation and take into account the wishes of local people and to design modifications and additional equipment for the individual courtyards. When designing this space the following aspects were taken into consideration: specification of the settings, consultation with the responsible represents from Municipality of Prague 11 and specification of the area options. The following interested groups participated on the implementation of the project: - local residents who took part in public meetings, - local authorities from the municipality of Prague 11, - architects and urban planners.

    3. Was the building or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage?
    4. The whole area s surrounded by the block of flats which were built in the late 70´s and early 80´s. No valuable socialist heritage was identified within this particular area.

    5. What criteria were applied to make this judgment?
    6. Not applicable.

    7. Was the building or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making process about its rehabilitation or conversion?
    8. The public space between block of flats was originally a children´s playground and it was frequently used by the local residents, especially by young families. It was also popular with younger generation and the elderly people as space for relaxation and rest. Local communities were involved in several public meetings with local authorities, represents of Municipality of Prague 11, architects and designer. Their suggestions for the final appearance of the revitalized area were incorporated into the final study. This particular project represents an example of integration of local people into the process of revitalization of public spaces. A Deputy Mayor of Prague 11 Metropolitan district initiated several meetings with the local residents. The view and comments of the local residents were of crucial importance, because they significantly contributed to the final design of the courtyard.

    9. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged?
    10. The regeneration of the area was initiated by Municipality of Prague 11 mainly to improve the quality of life of the local residents. The area is surrounded from all sides by residential prefabricated houses and on the south side is defined by the road route. The overall impression of the courtyard was very disappointing. This was caused mainly due to the fact that the whole surface of the area was covered with an asphalt, which does not meet the modern demands for public facilities and public spaces. Lately, the brand new modern sports centre for young people situated next to the courtyard has been opened. In contrast with this, the courtyard still remained rather neglected and its equipment was insufficient so the need for the modernization and revitalization became more stronger. The decisive criterion for reconstruction of this courtyard was a requirement to create a peaceful place to rest for the elderly people. For this purpose a number of new and modern benches and seats in the area has been built and new trees, shrubs and perennial beds has been planted.

    11. Were there attempts to reduced disparities between districts within cities/towns achieved reduced? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged?
    12. The attractiveness of the public space between block of houses has been significantly increased, the place will now serve as a resting point primarily for mainly older generation. After its modernization it is hoped that it will be used by all age groups and will serve as a place for socializing, exchanging the views and opinions and receiving the information.

    13. Other important facts and comments, e.g. critical review.
    14. (300 - 600 characters)


    There are more than 6 000 people living in Dědina block of flats. The whole revitalization 3 -phases -process took 4 years and the total cost of the project was 11 200 000 EUR. It is one of the first completely reconstructed block of flats as far as the public spaces in Prague are concerned.

    Web site: