Kilpailijoiden kysymykset

Kilpailua ja suunnittelualuetta koskevat kysymykset tulee esittää sähköpostilla osoitteeseen: info@makasiiniranta.fi

Kysymykset käsitellään anonyymisti. Esitetyt kysymykset ja niihin annetut vastaukset julkaistaan englanniksi kilpailun kotisivulla 5 arkipäivän kuluessa kysymyksen saapumisesta.

Kysymyksiä voi esittää 30.9.2021 asti. Kysymyksiä ei käsitellä 14.6.2021 – 13.8.2021 välisenä aikana

Questions about the competition received by 30 September 2021 and their answers

Questions regarding consortia

Q1: Is the competition intended for consortiums led by a developer and/or constructor with the support of team members in the architecture industry? Received May 18th

Q2: We’d like to participate as architect designers who can bring bold ideas and inspiring solutions to this competition.  Why not also invite a design only category that can run parallel to the limited Consortia Implementers Competition?  This will show the desire for Helsinki seeking exceptional designs for this important project as well far above being practical in finding investors. Received May 24th.

Q3: When you say that this competition is intended for ”operators in the construction and real estate industry” do you mean that in the team group you suggest to include more than a design firm also a Real Estate/Urban Developer? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

Q4: The requirement for a development partner is unclear, given the design aspect of the competition. Are development partners required and if so, are they required from the initial competition application stage? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: From the competition programme: “The competition is intended for operators in the construction and real estate industry, or consortia formed by these, which have the technical, economic and other conditions to plan and complete a very demanding and high-quality construction project by a set deadline.”

The purpose of the competition is to find a technically and economically feasible solution for the area as well as an implementer for the solution. This means, that the competitor (consortiums) and its partners must have the economic and financial capacity to be able to carry out a very high-quality project. In other words, what is sought after is to some extent a final composition of an implementing team.

The main reason we ended up involving an implementer to the team is that the city of Helsinki has actually already organized an ideas competition for the same area. That time we ended up with great ideas with no one willing to execute them (financially). So this time we hope that the ideas are both high-quality and economically feasible. However, there will be a separate architecture competition for the new architecture and design museum after the overall solution for the area has been found.

Q: Can one company present a multiply entry (acting as lead design of one team and sub-consultant of another)? Received May 28th

A: It’s not prohibited for a company to take part in multiple consortia. However, we encourage transparency in such cases to avoid confidentiality issues later on.

Q: Regarding preserved buildings, we would like to ask if it is possible to complement consortia for the second competition round with an investor that will offer buying preserved building/buildings? Received June 14th

A: The consortium may be supplemented during the competition procedure

Questions regarding references

Q: How are company references presented? There is no place for them in the reference form. Received May 18th

A: References can be presented in a free form format either separately or within the reference form’s last part Free-form description.  

Q: How is a required “demanding” or “exceptionally demanding” project defined? Is the Ministry of the Environment’s instruction on the difficulty categories of construction design tasks used? Received May 18th

A: The National Building Code of Finland defines the difficulty classes of the building design task, from which we now apply the AA class difficulty level. The competition is about a design task for a very demanding environment or construction site, such as:

  • cultural landscape
  • downtown area
  • in a protected building or environment
  • a site of historical, architectural or landscape significance
  • a very demanding functional and architectural target level

Q1: Long-term experience required, but references are only requested for 5 years. Significant projects can be of such a long duration that particularly experienced people do not have time to get references on three projects within 5 years, even if they have been constantly working on demanding projects. We suggest the requirement to be amended so that personal references can be for a period of 10 years. Received May 18th

Q2: ”The references must not be over five years old.”

Does this requirement apply to references required from the consortium or also to references referring to the experience of the experts to be appointed? Within five years a project manager has not time to lead more than two large projects. Long-term experience required of experts is difficult to demonstrate with reference projects less than five years old alone. Received May 28th

A: Sufficient experience is required of exceptionally demanding projects. Projects do not have to be completed; the evaluation is carried out as an overall evaluation.

Q: ”The consortium must have at least three references to show on the planning and implementation of property development projects with a scale of at least 10,000 floor square metres.” 

Should these references be the references of an expert to be nominated or can they be the references of other members of the group?

In landscape architecture and traffic planning, 10,000 sqm is not a relevant scale unit, can references be selected using other principles with reference to scale and complexity? Received May 28th

A: The evaluation will be carried out as an overall evaluation. Project management and chief designer must have long-term experience in the successful management of demanding construction projects. Landscape architect and Traffic planning officer’s references will be evaluated as a whole.

Q: The competition program mentions English as the language of the competition, and competition proposals must be written in English. What about applications for participation, such as a description of the competitor, various certificates and references, can they be submitted in Finnish? Received May 25th.

A: Certificates can be in Finnish. Any written output specifically for the competition must be in English.

Questions regarding decision on selected participants

Q: When is it known whether the registration has been approved? Received May 18th

A: In the month of July at the latest  

Q: Will all registrants receive information about the selected participants? Received May 18th

A: The names of the consortia will be published (eg the name of the responsible investor and / or construction company). However, this does not mean the name / work title of the competition proposal.

Q: Is the decision appealable? Received May 18th

A: Yes it is.

Q1: How many competitors will be selected to participate in Phase 1 of this competition? Received May 24th.

Q2: Will you be limiting the number of entries for Stage 1 (after the pre-qualifications) of the competition? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

Q3: How many teams get accepted for the 1st phase of the competition? Received May 28th

A: The number of the competitors is not limited.

Q: Please clarify how the selection for the competition is scored? Received May 28th

A: There is no scoring for the selection of contestants. Every consortium, that can meet the minimum eligibility requirements is allowed to take part.

Questions regarding other design resources and design experts

Q: There is a very short time from the announcement of the competition to the registration. However, the selection of experts and contracts with different experts must be made carefully. We suggest that on 21.6. applicants will appoint key personnel and for others it is sufficient free-form description that the experts required by the competition program will be included in the group later. Received May 18th

A: The participant must have access to experts in the fields of structural engineering, foundation engineering, rock construction, infrastructure maintenance, noise abatement planning and the assessment of the lifecycle emissions and climate impact of construction projects.

The planning resources and the involvement, as well as, the commitments of other design resources and design experts can be described in the application in a free-form description.

The organiser of the competition has the right to request any necessary supplemental or additional information from the competitors.

Questions regarding the new Architecture and Design Museum

Q: Will entry to the design museum competition also be open to parties who enter the q&c competition? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: Participation in the Makasiiniranta competition does not preclude nor is it a condition for participation in the Architecture and Design Museum competition

Q1: Are the two competitions interlinked in a way that you need to participate in the master plan part in order to be invited to the museum competition? Or will the museum competition be invitation based only? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

Q2: Will a separate tender be issued for the exhibition design of the New Architecture and Design Museum? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: The two competitions are not interlinked from organization perspective. The city is involved in both competitions but not the organizer of the Architecture and Design Museum competition. The implementation of the new museum will be decided at a later stage. All that is known at this point about the upcoming Architecture and Design Museum competition is that it is planned to be held. More information about the museum here.

Q: Is the location for the architecture and design museum fixed or is it possible to propose alternative locations within the competition area?

 It is said that the net area of the museum is approximately 9000 sqm. It is also said that the maximum permitted elevation of the buildings is limited to +20/+18**

  • how big is the footprint of the museum building?
  • how big land plot should be reserved to the museum?
  • what kind of outdoor reservations are needed for the museum? how large areas?

Received August 17th

A: The location for the museum is fixed. It will be the northernmost building in Makasiiniranta.

The area of the museum is no more than 9000 sqm but the dimension are yet to be determined. These questions will be answered in the 2nd phase of the competition.

Questions regarding the harbour area

Q: What are the logistic needs for the ferry which will be docking in the area in the future? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: Cruise ships need space on shore as well as to deliver goods to the ship and other equipment related to ship maintenance. The pier safety area (approximately 15 meters) also serves as a service space for cruise ship service vehicles.

Q: Can the harbor security area (inaccessible from the public) be challenged? (shape and size) to which extent? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: Not per se but this will be clarified in further planning.

Q: There’s always need for cruise ship service at Pier level. How has this been considered from the pedestrians point of view? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: A safety area has been reserved for ships at the pier, where the ship’s maintenance and other needs can also be taken care of. The Port of Helsinki has announced that passenger traffic and traffic in the security area will not intersect.

Q: Is it allowed to offer additional, deck-like platforms on the sea? Floating or anchored to the sea bottom? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: Due to the remaining operating vessels it is not possible.

Q: Harbour security area is quite large and limits public areas contact to the sea. Is this permanent situation or will this area be reduced later when harbour operations will decrease? Received August 17th

A: The remaining harbour security area is presented in the competition documents.

Q: We have not found information regarding timing for harbour truck traffic ending and Stockholm ferries moving to Katajanokka.  When will this happen and when will the competition area be free for new construction? Received August 17th

A: The goal is to move the harbour operations in phases so that the new construction can begin in 5 years in the northern parts.

Q: Is it possible to propose some floating elements to complement public areas? Received August 17th

A: Due to the remaining operating vessels it is not possible.

Q: To assess the effects of low frequency ship noise, is the noise emission of a typical cruise ship available by frequency band and noise source?

A: Noise emissions vary considerably from vessel to vessel, but estimates can be made using certain averages. A report ‘Julkisivun äänieristys laivamelua vastaan, Mitoitusmenettely, Helsinki 07/2011’ (Facade acoustic insulation against ship noise, Dimensioning procedure) has been added to the document management system for the use of competitors. The report describes the characteristics and sources of noise from some cruise ships and ocean liners based on the measurements. Annex A of the report presents the noise emissions of ocean liners and cruise ships measured in Helsinki and Tallinn in 2002–2011 (Sound power level LWA), and Annex B shows the standard acoustic spectrum for the assessment of acoustic insulation in ships (LAsi). The land use planning in South Harbour bay in recent years has used a design value of average noise emission from cruise ships and ocean liners of approximately LWA 106 db (mean energy value). For more detailed planning and consideration of noise, it is worth asking for help from acoustics experts who are more familiar with vessel-specific differences and variations in total and partial noise emissions.

Questions regarding traffic

Q: The traffic presentation mentioned an underground collection route that was not be taken into account for the competition. However the civil engineering mentioned a service collection reservation. Is it possible to clarify the future Needs in term of service traffic for the competition area? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: Service traffic of the area can be arranged as an underground connection using the entrance to the Tähtitorninvuori parking facility and by building an underground driving connection to the planning area (see the traffic section of the competition program).

Q: What do you mean by ”collector” street? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: This is a term used in the classification of the street network for a street that serves as a street that collects traffic in the area’s street network. It therefore plays a more significant role in the transport system than the local street network.

Q: Is there an idea where the parking lots for the new blocks should optimally be placed? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: Parking is to be placed in the Tähtitorninvuori parking facility (east of Laivasillankatu). The car park may need to be expanded

Q: Is the tram line alignment fixed or is it possible to propose alternative alignment? What is the minimum elevation level of the tram line? Received August 17th

A: The tram line is outside the competition boundaries. The electrical wiring of the tramway is normally 5.5 m high. The minimum value is 4.9 m and the exceptional value that requires a permit is 4.2 m.  

Q: Maintenance tunnel investment cost is estimated to be approximately 40 M€ (Ramboll February 2021). This is quite a lot taking into account amount of new construction sketched. Typically, office and hotel buildings maintenance solutions are much lighter than this proposed solution. Most likely these commercial projects are not able to carry this estimated cost. Will the city and/or museum project be responsible of the underground maintenance tunnel costs? Received August 17th

A: Service traffic of the area can be arranged as an underground connection using the entrance to the Tähtitorninvuori parking facility and/or by building an underground driving connection to the planning area (see the traffic section of the competition program). The city or museum will not take part in financing the service tunnel.

Q: In the guideline plan for the technical space allocations and implementation method (Ramboll February 2021) there are cost estimations for different alternative solutions. On which plans/designs the cost estimates are based? Are these plans available? Received August 17th

A: All the attachements related to the “Guideline Plan for the Technical Space Allocation and Implementation Method at the South Harbour bay” have now been added to the document management system.   

Q: Is there more information available regarding parking

  • how many cars parks are needed/allowed for different functions?
  • are the layouts of the rock caverns nearby available?
  • what is the amount of car parks available in rock cavern parking?
  • what are the commercial terms for buying / renting car parks from rock cavern?

Received August 17th

A: Instructions for calculating the number of parking areas for cars and bicycles in the working regions (in Finnish) has been added to the document management system. One can acquire specific information in English from the Competition Secretary if necessary.

Q: In the competition webinar, there was material presented regarding traffic connections and principles. Are these materials (drawings / maps) available? Received August 17th

A: The webinar material has now been added to the document management system

Q: Is it possible to receive the latest HELMET-model and traffic volumes and distribution for city center area? Received August 17th

A: Current KAVL traffic volumes (Vuoden keskimääräinen arkivuorokausiliikenne / “Annual average daily traffic”) can be found here.

To be able to view the HELMET-malli (Demand models for the Helsinki region commuting area traffic forecasting system), one needs to have the EMME Multimodal Transport Planning Software at use. If the software is at use, the basic model can be viewed through it already. Alternatively, appropriate traffic volume pictures will be downloaded to the document management system, and this will be communicated to the competitors.

Q: Is it possible to get more information about the traffic volumes for current harbor operations? This would help estimate the future volume for traffic on Laivasillankatu and Ehrenströmintie. Received August 17th

A: Unfortunately, the Port of Helsinki doesn’t publish traffic volumes of individual ports.

Questions regarding the competition entries

Q: Are the detailed scope of work for each of the phases available? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: Plan documents required in the first phase can be found in the competition programme and appendices. The scope of the material to be prepared in the second phase of the competition corresponds with the requirements of the first phase. In the second phase, the competitors will also submit their offers for the unit prices of the building rights in accordance with their entry, as well as the total price calculated on the basis of the building rights.

Q1: Does the competition program provide a number in term of square meters for new construction? To what extent the entries can differ from this number? (higher or lower amount of square meters). Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

Q2: What is the maximum GFA area for development of new functions mentioned (services, shops, hotel ect)? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: Target floor area is not defined in the competition program. Various studies on the floor area have been carried out for the area in the ”A space allocation and guideline plan for Makasiiniranta and Olympiaranta” report.

Q: Why is housing not allowed in the area? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: It is possible to plan culture, service, business and other facility construction in the area, to support museum activities (e.g., a hotel is possible). The goal is to achieve functional versatility.The area will be developed as an area of high-quality public outdoor spaces and connections, as well as maritime functions. The area is being developed as part of the pedestrian centre,  and seaside trail around the southern shores of Helsinki. In this context, housing would not be suitable for the area.

Q: Are there any specific requirements for rising the docks to 3,4m? Or only the building ground-floors need to be at that level? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: The city’s goal in the planning and implementation of the area is to prepare for the sea level estimated in accordance with the forecast situation in 2100. Therefore, the ground surface in the area is to be raised to +3.4 m. The floors of planned buildings with a floor level lower than this must be waterproofed. It is therefore not forbidden to build below that level. Of course, the economics of underground construction must be taken into account in the planning.

Q: Can you please clarify the deliverables for Phase 1and 2 – report (number of pages if limited), size and number of boards? Other materials to submit? Received June 7

A: The draft plan will be submitted as a PDF file printable at size A3, and an overall plan for the area will be submitted as a PDF file printable at size A0. The competitors may also present drawings at other paper sizes if this is justified for scale reasons. The number of pages is not limited. Plan documents required in the first phase are detailed in the Competition Programme.

The scope of the material to be prepared in the second phase of the competition corresponds with the requirements of the first phase with more focus on detailing technical and economic feasibility of the project, and the competitors will also submit their offers for the unit prices of the building rights.

Q: Who has decided the maximum building heights +20.0 and 18.0 and on what grounds? Received August 18th

A: The Urban Environment Committee has approved the Planning principles and Competition programme for the area. The maximum building heights are based on the Space allocation and guideline plan for the landscape features of the South Harbour bay attached to the competition programme. Deviation is only possible in very justified cases and if the main views remain despite the deviation.

Questions regarding the prizes

Q: Will prizes be awarded after completion of the Phase 1 or Phase 2? Received June 7th

A: The prizes will be awarded after the end of the whole competition after phase 2.

Questions regarding the winning entry as a starting point for planning

Q: Taking into account the importance of design for public areas in this competition, we would like to ask, how is it ensured that public spaces are designed and implemented in accordance with the winning proposal? Will the city of Helsinki hire the designers/experts of the winning team (e.g. land scape architect) to continue in zoning phase for example in form of developing a design manual for the area? Received May 25th

A: The starting point for the planning and detailed planning of the competition area is considered to be the winning proposal. The winning proposal will serve as a basis for future implementation and the city will contribute to the idea and quality level of the proposal in the planning and implementation of public areas. The planning and implementation of the competition area is coordinated and reconciliated in project meetings organized by the Helsinki City Office.

According to the terms of the implementation agreement draft in the Competition Programme appendices (found in the competition website), the recipient of the development reservation is obliged to follow the Competition Programme and the competition proposal, further planning instructions and at least the quality level and basic solutions presented therein in the further planning and implementation of the project.

The planning of the reservation area is implemented as a partnership planning. The recipient of the reservation undertakes to actively promote the planning and zoning of the reservation area and to produce the material necessary to support the zoning at own expense. The scope of the required material will be agreed in more detail in the negotiation phase and in the post-competition development reservation decision.

Q1: What is the expected contracted scope following the masterplan competition. Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

Q2: What is the construction budget? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: The winning group will continue to plan the area as a partnership planning project in cooperation with the City and will act as the implementer of the plots to be formed on the basis of the competition entry. The winning group will commit itself to the development of the area and the implementation of the solution in the long term on an overall responsibility basis and will be responsible for all costs of planning, implementation and maintenance. The City will be responsible for the preconstruction of the area and the implementation and maintenance of public areas. The city has not set a budget for construction. The scope and thereby the budget will be comprised in accordance with the winning entry and during the development reservation phase. The competition programme defines qualitative objectives for the competition area.

Q: It is said that the starting point for the plans and detailed planning of the competition area will be the winning entry. It is also known that zoning rules determine value of building rights / plots. Should the competitors present preliminary zoning draft in 2nd phase? Received August 17th

A: In the 2nd phase the competitors will be asked to present preliminary areas for the plots.

Q: It is said that the City will be responsible for all implementation costs of public areas and the renewal of waterfront structures. However there seems to be only one price component to be presented (price of the building rights). 

  • How are costs of different functional competition proposals for public areas taken into account?
  • How are costs of different quality levels in competition proposals for public areas / other infrastructure taken into account?

Received August 17th

A: The city is looking for high quality proposals also for the public areas.

Questions regarding the preserved buildings and spaces

Q: Is there more information available regarding preserved buildings?

  • are there digital layouts available of the preserved buildings?
  • are there technical reports available regarding condition of the buildings?
  • when would it be possible to visit the buildings?

Received August 17th

A: All available materials can be found at the document management system. The competition secretary has contacted participants about visiting in the buildings.

Q: The service spaces around the Olympia Terminal extend underneath the street spaces and are outside of the competition boundaries. Are we allowed to propose functions and modifications also to these spaces? Could they be included in the planning area? Received August 17th

A: The service spaces M5-M7 are inside the competition boundaries.

Q: It is said in the planning principles that in order to refine the soil quality data in the area, more detailed geological tests will be carried out in the area

  • Are these tests already completed? Is the data available?
  • Is there data available regarding foundations of preserved buildings? Are there e.g. wooden piles?

Received August 17th

A: The research results can be viewed from the map service kartta.hel.fi from Aineistot > Ympäristö ja luonto > Geotekniset kohteet. For potential geo-designers, they can be downloaded from the City of Helsinki’s Soili service.  

All available material of the preserved buildings can be found at the document management system.

Questions regarding the quality of public outdoor spaces

Q: According to design principles, high-quality public outdoor spaces are expected.

Is there a more detailed description of expected quality level available? Is there a reference project(s)? Received August 17th

A: The City of Helsinki is seeking high-quality and attractive outdoor design from landscape architecture. For example, the extent of natural stone surfaces or similar quality within squares and walking routes, and vegetation supporting the comfort of the waterfront areas, are an important factor.

In first phase of the competition, the evaluation will focus for example on the idea of the plan and its integration with the landscape. Thus, what is sought after, is new ideas. Therefore, reference projects could dictate too much. City of Helsinki is seeking high-quality urban character and an attractive environment for all residents.

Helsinki Design Manual introduces the goals set for the design of public spaces in Helsinki.

Questions regarding climate-smart construction

Q: What is the weight of a low carbon / circular economy within the evaluation criteria? Received September 1st

A: No weighting has been assigned to the evaluation criteria, but the city of Helsinki is looking for the best overall idea. In first phase of the competition, the evaluation will focus on the overall solution and idea of the plan and its integration with the values of the surroundings and the landscape. Throughout the competition, the evaluation pays attention to the implementation of the planning principles.

Q: Competition programme p.39 “Attention must be paid to the recyclability of old structures in the area. Circular economy must be promoted in the demolition of buildings and structures” Received September 1st

A: The City of Helsinki is open to credible and innovative proposals for the further use of demolished building materials in other locations.

Q: Competition programme p.46, section 16: Does ‘Energy efficiency of buildings’ mean building’s E figure? Received September 2nd

A: Yes

Q: How should energy perfomance be reported in phase 1, are E calculation reports required or are the goals and means of achieving them only set out at this phase? Received September 2nd

A: A description of the energy efficiency class sought and the means by which it will be pursued is adequate. In phase 1, above all, the goal and the means to achieve the goal is what is sought after. At this phase, a reasoned view must also be provided as to why the proposed solutions lead to certain energy efficiency.

Q: Competition programme p.46, section 18 ‘Renewable energy production solutions, opportunities for local energy production’, What material does this mean? Received September 2nd

A: Description of the renewable energy systems to be implemented in the project. Computational description of the systems dimensioning and possible visual description of the systems integration into the project

Q: Competition programme p.39 and Planning principles p.14 ” Further planning will investigate the possibilities for utilising local energy production.” How is this entry interpreted in relation to the material submitted in phase 1? Received September 2nd

A: Phase 1 requires, above all, the goal and the means to achieve the goal. In Phase 1 a reasoned view must also be provided as to why the proposed solutions lead to the targeted use of renewable energy, the energy efficiency of the project and a certain climate impact.

Q: Renewable energy production solutions determine the E figures and carbon footprints of buildings. If they are determined in further planning, it will not be possible to determine binding values ​​in phase 1. How is this taken into account? Received September 2nd

A: A description of the topic, objectives, and means of achieving them by the competitor is required. Description of the renewable energy systems to be implemented in the project. Computational description of the systems dimensioning and possible visual description of the systems integration into the project.

Q1 : Section 20 of the materials to be delivered in Phase 1, ‘The carbon balance of the plan regarding new construction according to the calculation model of the Ministry of the Environment’. Does the carbon balance mean the building’s carbon footprint? Received September 2nd

A: Yes

Q2: How does the calculation of this in phase 1 take into account the determination of renewable energy production solutions in further planning? Received September 2nd

A: Phase 1 requires, above all, the goal and the means to achieve the goal. In Phase 1 a reasoned view must also be provided as to why the proposed solutions lead to the targeted use of renewable energy, the energy efficiency of the project and a certain climate impact.

Q: Is the energy performance or carbon footprint of buildings used as a benchmark in Phase 1 or throughout the competition, and if so, what is the benchmark and weight in the scoring? Received September 2nd

A: Phase 1 requires, above all, the goal and the means to achieve the goal. In Phase 1 a reasoned view must also be provided as to why the proposed solutions lead to the targeted use of renewable energy, the energy efficiency of the project and a certain climate impact.

Q: Utilization of geothermal energy in the competition area. Is it possible to get a feasibility study from the city on whether heat wells can be located in the area? Received September 2nd

A: There are no obstacles to the geothermal system being built in the area. There is a tunnel reservation in the underground master plan near the area, but its line is indicative and it is possible to coordinate the functions.

Questions regarding the City of Helsinki

Q: Will a complete list of regulatory bodies with jurisdiction over the area be provided? At what point will the regulatory bodies with jurisdiction  be engaged and through what channels? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: The planning process and participation in Helsinki is explained here. Detailed planning in Helsinki is explained in more detail here.  

Q: What is different about the approach this time following previous competitions for this area. Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: There have been two major competitions in Helsinki in which Makasiiniranta area played a role. Kirjava Satama was a competition for ideas for a wider area, and Guggenheim Helsinki explored the possibility of building a Guggenheim museum in Helsinki. The current competition is targeted at a specific area and for the future implementers. The previous competitions were open international competitions.

Q: How secured it is that the City of Helsinki will make the final decision to sell the plots after the competition to the selected participant? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: The project is based on City Strategy and the city is very committed to the project. The sale of the plots is based on the plot transfer guidelines approved by the city borad, which the city follows, and the competition program approved by the Urban Environment Committee. However, the transfer of the plots requires the preparation of a detailed plan that is in line with the city’s objectives, but to which the city cannot yet legally commit itself for legal reasons. During the development reservervation to be awarded to the winner of the competition, an implementation agreement for the area is to be negotiated and approved, in which the city undertakes to hand over the plots if certain conditions are met.

Q: As elections will be taking place in Helsinki in June, will people like Ms. Sinnemaki still belong to the jury/have a say in the competition? Received during Competition Seminar May 27th

A: Current members of the Jury from the City of Helsinki may change during the competition, as the Jury composition is fixed on the specific position. Debuty Mayor may change following the municipal election, 13 June 2021

Kilpailusihteeri

Valtteri Vuorio

valtteri.vuorio@gsp.fi
+358 40 705 3093

Kilpailun järjestäjä
Helsingin kaupunki

Mia Kajan

mia.kajan@hel.fi
+358 9310 15820