The competition task is exceptionally interesting: the unique Viinikanlahti area has the most beautiful lake views in the centre of Tampere, but also involves environmental challenges. The size of the competition area is roughly 40 hectares (land and water). After the competition, both a master plan and a local detailed plan will be prepared for the area. The environment will be cleaned and the new city district constructed in phases between 2024–2035.
The competition is open for all. A total of 165,000–345,000 euros will be awarded in prizes in the two-phased competition, the winner of which will be selected in April 2020. The competition is organised by the City of Tampere in cooperation with the Finnish Association of Architects (SAFA) and the Association of Finnish Landscape Architects (MARK).
Questions must be submitted by 12 June 2019 at 15:00 (GMT+2).
Answers will be provided by 19 June 2019.
Competition entries will be published for viewing on 9 October 2019.
Browse the 57 first phase competition entries received by 27th September 2019
For those who wish to familiarise themselves with the city, the region and the country, a small selection of background material is provided.
Video Tampere Five-star City Centre 2030Five-star City CentreCity of TampereVisit TampereBusiness TampereExternal link Tampere City RegionExternal link Basic information about FinlandExternal link Council of Tampere RegionExternal link Visit Finland
Anonymous files:
a - Board 1-6.pdf
b - Description form.xlsx
c - Statistics form.xlsx
d - Board 1 - A1 - ideas of the competition entry.jpg
e - Board 2 - A1 - overall plan 1-2000.jpg
f - Board 3 - A1 - aerial perspective view.jpg
g - Board 4 - image - sub-area plan 1-1000.jpg
h - Board 4 - image - site plan.jpg
i - Board 4 - image - cross-sectional view.jpg
j - Board 4 - image - elevation drawing.jpg
k - Board 5 - A1 - ground level view.jpg
l - Board 6 - image - scheme city structure 1-10000.jpg
m - Board 6 - image - scheme traffic and parking 1-5000.jpg
n - Board 6 - image - scheme green areas and public outdoor spaces 1-5000.jpg
o - Board 6 - image - description and key figures.jpg
Identification file:
p – Identification form.xlsx
Question 1: According to the competition programme (p. 18 and p. 58 image on the right), there are two possible alternative tram stop options and one of these must be chosen. However, on the competition programme page 58 (image on the left) the text ”raitiotiepysäkki” (tram way stop in Finnish) is situated 50-60 meters to the southwest from the other alternative tram stop option. The stop is drawn in this very place also in a dwg-file named ”4.3_junction_14”. Is this the third alternative tram stop option as it works well together with the future junction arrangements? If not, is it possible to change the designed junction arrangements in this particular place?
1. Two alternative locations of the tram stop have been specified in Appendix 9 of the competition programme. Both are linked to street junctions and pedestrian crossings across Hatanpään valtatie Road. Each competitor must choose one of these two alternatives based on their overall plan. If the competitor selects the southern alternative, the tram stop must be implemented as shown in the picture of the junction to be improved on page 58. If the competitor selects the northern alternative, the tram stop can be removed from the plan for the junction to be improved.
Question 2: It is stated in the competition programme (p. 19) that the volume for services must be approx. 3,200 – 10,000 gross floor m2. The day care centre and preschool takes 3,200 m2. Should the rowing and canoeing centre (p. 28; a minimum of 2,000 gross floor m2) be calculated as a service? This woud mean that there is no more than 4,800 m2 to be used for other services.
2. The rowing and canoeing centre is excluded from the total volume of local services.
Could you define this more precisely: "Public outdoor spaces must be divided into public squares, semi-public outdoor spaces, and private outdoor spaces" So first there is mentioned public outdoor space and okay then public squares are one kind of public outdoor spaces but how about semi-public and private outdoor spaces, those are not public... (p.35 Green areas and public outdoor spaces)
Classification means the use of outdoor spaces from the point of view of people and users.
a) Public outdoor spaces must be open to everyone in all situations. These spaces include market places, squares, parks, and streets. In Finland, public outdoor spaces are owned by the city.
b) The use of semi-public outdoor spaces can be partially restricted or time-restricted. For example, the yard area of a school can be reserved for school-related activities during school hours and be available to everyone in the evening and at weekends. Semi-public spaces can also include e.g. the shared courtyards or public walking routes that pass through them.
c) Private outdoor spaces include e.g. courtyards, roof terraces, and balconies that are reserved for the owners or residents of the building only.
3. Is there a specific location of the south portion of the site, or is there a site limit boundary where new construction should take place? The brief does not specify.
Technical maintenance cable corridors are shown in Appendix 3. No buildings or other structures that would prevent excavation work or other maintenance of the lines must be located on top of these cable corridors. Area reserved for construction starts on the northern side of the cable corridors.
4. The brief gives an image of summer recreational, touristic needs more than winter; should the proposal address more the season that lasts longer?
Tourism is busiest in the summer. Functions should also be provided for the winter and other seasons, as Tampere is, among others, a significant congress and event city. The Ice Hockey World Championships to be organised in 2022 in the Arena, which will be built close to the competition area, is a good example of this.
5. Can the existing water treatment plant be partially preserved and cleaned for the desired landscaping or recreational or another potential proposal? Are the entries expected to propose alternative methods to treat gray and black water from the new district?
The starting point for the competition is that all current buildings and structures of the wastewater treatment plant be demolished. This is due to the need to restore the contaminated environment and to protect the health of the future residents and other users of the area. The first phase of the competition focuses on the general planning of the urban structure and the landscape. A plan on the treatment of grey water is not required. However, the competitors can present ideas and solutions in principle, area reservations included, that support their competition entry.
6. Since office and shopping clusters are not feasible in the site, is ‘’small business’’ either permanent or season required?
Job, service, and leisure time functions and other functions that are related to the overall idea of the competition entry can be proposed for the area where this does not affect the fulfilment of the other goals of the competition programme. Small-scale commercial services linked to the overall idea of the area are permitted. Large shopping clusters are not needed nor permitted.
9. Can parking for automobiles be in a hybrid with other outdoor functions -- or can it share the same footprint with others? Can it be sunken or covered? If so, how deep is it allowed?
Vehicle parking must be presented as based on a centralised facility-based system that enables a phased implementation of the units as the housing and other construction progresses. Parking can be integrated with other structures or buildings or located underground if the ground level is raised significantly. Underground parking solutions must not be placed below the lowest permitted floor elevation or the lowest permitted building height specified in section 4.9.
11. Is there a restriction of height in meters the ‘’tall building’’ for iconic tower architecture?
In Tampere, tall building means the construction of buildings that have more than twelve floors. No upper limit has been specified. In connection to tall building, special attention must be paid to the quality of construction and the surrounding environment.
14. Is there any restriction on breakwaters sizes, types, and/or materials?
There are no more detailed design instructions for the breakwater than those provided in the competition programme. More detailed instructions can be provided to the competitors in the second competition phase where required.
16. Must ALL public, semi-public and urban environments, be accessible for the disabled?
Yes.
In appendix 13 page 67: In the section provided the lowest permitted floor elevation and the lowest permitted
building height differ how exactly? What is meant by lowest permitted building height, which exact point between lowest permitted floor elevation and foundation is meant?
The given elevations are due to factors related to geotechnology and infrastructure. The lowest permitted building height (+78.62) and floor elevation (+79.27) specified on page 30 of the competition programme must be followed. The lowest permitted floor elevation provided in Appendix 13 on page 67 (+70.27) is incorrect. The correct figure is +79.27, as is stated on page 30 of the competition programme.
Question 1. On page 18 of the competition programme, designated connection points for motor traffic are stipulated within the competition area. We intend to implement a slow speed zone of limited traffic within the competition fill area. Would this be advisable, given that there are no obstructions to waste collection, commercial operations and access to parking facilities?
The competition programme does not principally prevent the solution described.
Question 2. On page 19 of the competition programme, it is stated that underground parking systems must not be located below the lowest possible floor elevation and building height specified in chapter 4.9. Why has this decision been taken? Is it applicable for the entire competition area, and are there any exceptions to where this figure can be exceeded?
The given elevations are due to factors related to geotechnology and infrastructure. The lowest permitted building height (+78.62) and floor elevation (+79.27) specified on page 30 of the competition programme must be followed. The lowest permitted floor elevation provided in Appendix 13 on page 67 (+70.27) is incorrect. The correct figure is +79.27, as is stated on page 30 of the competition programme.
Question 3. On page 19 of the competition programme, the spatial requirements for educational functions are stated as 3200m2. To confirm, does the 3200m2 building combine both the daycare and preschool?
The combined minimum space need of the daycare centre and the school is 3,200 gross floor m2, assuming that the competition area has around 3,000 residents. If the population of the competition entry is higher, the space need will increase correspondingly.
Question 4. On page 22 of the competiton programme, competitors are advised on the possible options of preserving, renovating, supplementing or moving the current rowing centre. What are the considerations for keeping the rowing centre location, and what would be the preference of the owners?
Competitors can freely determine the location of the rowing and canoeing centre, as is stated in the competition programme.
Question 5. On page 24 of the competiton programme, it is stated that a public outdoor space zone extending 30m must be incorporated into the design. Does this refer to the existing shoreline at present?
The indicative minimum width of the shore zone and the public urban space that is open to all is 30 metres, which is calculated from the shoreline presented in the competition entry, i.e. not from the current shoreline.
Question 6. On page 30 of the competition programme, it is mentioned that the permitted scopes of the new shoreline by filling must not be exceeded. Can the boundaries of the fill area be exceeded if it is not filled in (e.g by jetties, buildings on stilts, harbours or walkways)?
No rock or soil fills or buildings must be designated outside the areas presented on the map of Appendix 13 of the competition programme.
Question 7. On page 32 of the competition programme, it is stated that the water of Viinikanlahti Bay is currently not completely clean nor suited to recreational use. Are participants required to think about how to deal with the contaminated soil/sediments? If so, is there any more detailed information on the extent of possible solutions?
This does not need to be considered in the first phase of the competition. Competitors will be given more detailed instructions on the matter in the second phase of the competition.
Question 8. On page 53 of the competition programme, a pedestrian traffic connection is shown spanning Ratina and Viinikanlahti, however it is not shown anywhere else. Would it still be interesting to have a connection like this, or is it no longer required (provided that it does not obstruct boat traffic and other water-related activities)?
The connection is still needed. The location shown on the plan map of Appendix 7 is an approximate. Competitors can present the connections and their locations in the way they see fit, considering the flows and the ship, boat, and other water traffic.
1. Use only the downloaded and edited 'Viinikanlahti competition entry submit file templates.zip'(a set of 16 files compressed into a single ZIP file).
2. Do not change the names of the files inside the ZIP file because they are processed automatically by their names.
3. Compress the documents into a single ZIP file.
4. Rename the ZIP file before submission by using your own pseudonym: pseudonym.zip. DO NOT use your real name or company name.
5. Submit the entry to Dropbox by using the SUBMIT button.
6. You will receive confirmation of a successful upload from Dropbox.
deadline: 27 September 2019 at 15:00 GMT +2
Delivery instructions in case of problems: send files to: tomas.westerholm@tietoa.fi through wetransfer.com (only in emergencies). The same deadline applies.
NOTE TO ALL COMPETITORS:
The anonymity of the competitors must be maintained until after the jury has announced its final statement or decision. If the identity of the authors is revealed, the entry will be rejected from the competition, for which reason the entry must not be published until after the competition has ended on 17 April 2020.
The competition programme of the second phase published and the weup airmap updated on 14 November 2019
Questions must be submitted by 11 December 2019 at 15:00 (GMT+2).
Answers will be provided by 18 December 2019.
A maximum of six pseudonyms that will continue in the competition and the competition programme will be published on 14 November 2019.
The traffic environment evaluation and related development proposals of the competition entry 23 Soba were, unfortunately, missing for technical reasons from the material submitted to the competitors.
Anonymous files:
a - Board 1-8.pdf
b - Description form.xlsx
c - Statistics form.xlsx
d - Board 1 - A1 - ideas of the competition entry.jpg
e - Board 2 - A1 - overall plan 1-2000.jpg
f - Board 3 - A1 - aerial perspective view.jpg
g - Board 4 - image - sub-area plan 1-1000.jpg
h - Board 4 - image - site plan.jpg
i - Board 4 - image - cross-sectional view.jpg
j - Board 4 - image - elevation drawing.jpg
k - Board 5 - image - sub-area plan 1-500.jpg
l - Board 5 - image - site plan.jpg
m - Board 5 - image - cross-sectional view.jpg
n - Board 5 - image - elevation drawing.jpg
o - Board 6 - A1 - ground level view.jpg
p - Board 7 - A1 - views.jpg
q - Board 8 - image - description and key figures.jpg
r - Board 8 - image - scheme city structure 1-10000.jpg
s - Board 8 - image - scheme traffic and parking 1-5000.jpg
t - Board 8 - image - scheme green areas and public outdoor spaces 1-5000.jpg
u - board 8 - image - scheme stormwaters 1-5000
v – Identification form.xlsx (to be filled with non-anonymous participant information)
w - 3D model.obj
NOTE TO ALL COMPETITORS:
The anonymity of the competitors must be maintained until after the jury has announced its final statement or decision. If the identity of the authors is revealed, the entry will be rejected from the competition, for which reason the entry must not be published until after the competition has ended on 17 April 2020.
The winners of the Viinikanlahti Urban Ideas Competition have been announced.
Teemu Paasiaho
Janne Ekman
Lassi Viitanen
Ville Reima
Architect, SAFA
Architect, SAFA
Architect, SAFA
Architect, SAFA
Architecturestudio NOAN
Architecturestudio NOAN
Architecturestudio NOAN
Architecturestudio NOAN
Samuli Saarinen
Caspar Åkerblom
Jaakko Heikkilä
Essi Nisonen
Architecturestudio NOAN
Architecturestudio NOAN
Architecturestudio NOAN
Architecturestudio NOAN
Jonna Heikkinen
Tapio Kangasaho
Architect, SAFA
Architect, SAFA
Heikkinen & Kangasaho Architects Ltd
Heikkinen & Kangasaho Architects Ltd
Annaleena Puska
Katariina Väätänen
Kalle Vaismaa
Landscape Architect
Landscape Architect, high.sch.grad
Traffic expert
Kimmo Ylä-Anttila
Antti Moisala
Architect SAFA
Architect SAFA
MY Architects Ltd
MY Architects Ltd
Anni Kauhanen
Tiia Kuisma
Ella Kylä-Kause
Olli Laine
Sannamari Lankia
Eetu Lehmusvaara
Mika Mathlin
Mirjami Myllymäki
Antero Rummukainen
Samppa Saarivirta
Ella Salminen
architecture student
Architect SAFA
architecture student
architecture student
Architect SAFA
architecture student
Architect SAFA
architecture student
architecture student
architecture student
architecture student
MY Architects Ltd
MY Architects Ltd
MY Architects Ltd
MY Architects Ltd
MY Architects Ltd
MY Architects Ltd
MY Architects Ltd
MY Architects Ltd
MY Architects Ltd
MY Architects Ltd
MY Architects Ltd
Martin Arfalk
Patrick Verhoeven
Maria Gregorio Puig
Cyril Pavlu
Leslie Norris
Francesca Savio
Andrei Deacu
Landscape architect LAR/MSA
Architect SAR/MSA
Architect SAR/MSA
Architect
Landscape architect
Architect
Urban Planner FPR/MSA
Mandaworks AB
Mandaworks AB
Mandaworks AB
Mandaworks AB
Mandaworks AB
Mandaworks AB
Mandaworks AB
Duarte Fontes
Diogo Rocha
Lourenço Rodrigues
Liisa Palen-Alopaeus
Maria Kaustara
Architect, SAFA
Architect, SAFA
Architect, SAFA
Architect, SAFA
MASS lab, lda
MASS lab, lda
MASS lab, lda
Pöyry Finland Oy
Pöyry Finland Oy
Giacomo Cruciani
Marcel Znidaric
Juan Arredondo
Maria Kaustara
Afonso Cabral
Helena Guedes
Architect
Architect
Architect
Architect
Landscape Architect
Landscape Architect
MASS lab, lda
MASS lab, lda
MASS lab, lda
Pöyry Oy
MASS lab, lda
MASS lab, lda
Jussi Murole
Daniel Bruun
Marta de Abreu Hartman
Kwangsun Kang
Blake Neumann
Daniel Burneo
Alisa Kurganova
Arvind Ramachandran
Niko Talvitie
Kristaps Kleinbergs
Heidi Peura
Tuomas Seppänen
Pia Kuusiniemi
Jouni Ikäheimo
architect, SAFA
architect, SAFA
architect, SAFA
architect, SAFA
architect
architect
architect
architect, SAFA
architecture student
architecture student
architecture student
architect, SAFA
landscape architect, MARK
traffic engineer
Arkkitehtuuritoimisto B&M Oy
Arkkitehtuuritoimisto B&M Oy
Arkkitehtuuritoimisto B&M Oy
Arkkitehtuuritoimisto B&M Oy
Arkkitehtuuritoimisto B&M Oy
Arkkitehtuuritoimisto B&M Oy
Arkkitehtuuritoimisto B&M Oy
Arkkitehtuuritoimisto B&M Oy
Arkkitehtuuritoimisto B&M Oy
Arkkitehtuuritoimisto B&M Oy
Arkkitehtuuritoimisto B&M Oy
Arkkitehtuuritoimisto B&M Oy
LOCI Maisema-arkkitehdit OY
WSP Finland Oy