Open Weup Airmap


Welcome to the Viinikanlahti competition website!

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 20242035.

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).

First phase   15 May 2019–27 September 2019 at 15:00 (GMT+2)

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

News 9 October 2019: The new Deputy Mayor Jaakko Stenhäll, M.Sc. (Tech.), will replace the outgoing Deputy Mayor Anna-Kaisa Heinämäki as the chair of the jury.

Background material

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

More about competition

www.tampere.fi/viinikanlahti

competition materials published by 15.5.2019

competition materials published by 19.6.2019

web link
for exploring
49 MB
to be your competition entry
(in a ZIP format)
Click here to view the 16 file templates contained in the ZIP file


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

questions & answers

Questions must be submitted by 12 June 2019 at 15.00 (GMT +2).
Answers will be provided by 19 June 2019.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
11.00
Competitors are requested to submit a ground level view on presentation board 5. Is there a scale given for this view?
The view must be a perspective image seen from eye level. Perspective images have no scale.
20.5.2019
22.00
Which coordinate system is used on maps provided? Not all dwg files seem to be located on the same spot. The base map itself seems confusing maybe due to some conversion failure. Please check these asap.
In the new file collection, material produced by the City is shown in the GK24 coordinate system. A material package exported close to the point of origin is also available to enable easier use in certain 3D and CAD programmes.
24.5.2019
33.00
Will there be a 3D model of the current city provided? That would help.
Yes, 2D and 3D buildings will be provided of a section of the city.
24.5.2019
44.00
Can a non EU resident but practicing architect take part in this competition?
Yes.
31.5.2019
55.00
The date of announcement of the competition is holy day?
The date on which the results of the second phase of the competition will be announced has been changed to 17 April 2020.
4.6.2019
66.00
In the appendix 13 in the section drawing the level of lowest top surface of the base floor is specified as +70.27. Are you sure this is a correct level? The mean water level is +77.38 which means lowest top surface of the base floor would be almost 7 m below water level.
The elevation of the floor surface (+70.27 m) specified in the image is incorrect. The correct elevation is +79.27 m. The figures are correct on page 30 of the competition programme.
6.6.2019
77.00
Is there any suggestion about the size of the infill area? Covering the whole principally recommended outermost permitted shoreline area with land would be a costly and environmentally questionable operation. In view of the organizers, is this a recommended size of the infill? Can it be significantly reduced?
The organiser of the competition has no recommendation. Competitors can reduce the amount of fill areas significantly or not use them at all. The presented fill areas show the outermost permitted shoreline that can be implemented by using rock-fill material. Of the two options provided, the innermost shoreline is technically easier and also more economical to implement. Each competitor can design the contours of the shoreline and the terrain freely. Rock-fill material that can be used to implement the possible fill areas can be acquired from the City of Tampere’s underground construction projects. The benefits include a short transportation distance, reasonable cost, and ecological sustainability.
6.6.2019
88.01

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.

6.6.2019
88.02

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.

6.6.2019
99.00
Point 5.3 DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN THE FIRST PHASE OF THE COMPETITION of the Competition Programme reads that draft plans related to the competition entry are submitted as illustrations and that the files must be 300 dpi. Does it mean that all drawings should be rasterized and PDFs containing vector drawings are not allowed? 
No, it does not. PDF files can also contain vector graphics. If raster images are included in the PDF files, their resolution must be 300 dpi at A1 size.
9.6.2019
1010.00

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.

10.6.2019
1111.00
Should the zones where hazardous substances must be observed (linked to the accident risk in the railway and marshalling yard areas) be taken into account in competition proposals?
No special attention needs to be paid to these in the first phase of the competition and in the city structure. A risk assessment will be prepared of hazardous substances in a more detailed design phase after the competition and in connection to implementation planning.
11.6.2019
1212.00
In the competition source file content: 4.1_viinikanlahti_base_map_14.dwg file, the height mark for the terrain is somehow broken; could you please provide more explicit GIS information relevant to the existing terrain ?
The terrain is marked with raster and triangles (in the local and GK24 coordinate systems). Elevation data can be extracted from the original base map or elevation model.
11.6.2019
1313.00
The areal view on the board 3 must be the one showed in the presentation board 3 pdf or we can also choose one of the other given in the Viinikanlahti aerial photos folder?
Competitors must use the aerial view of presentation board 3. The location and angle of the viewing point are predetermined, as is stated in the competition programme.
11.6.2019
1414.00
Is it possible to change colors or light ambience of the areal view given for the presentation board 3?
Yes, it can be done.
11.6.2019
1515.00
Is it realistic to consider locating canals into the area, some of which would extend in between the city blocks? Similar to Aurinkolahti Helsinki.
The solution is not prevented by the principles of the competition.
11.6.2019
1616.00
Is it realistic to consider locating canals into the area, some of which would extend in between the city blocks? Similar to Aurinkolahti Helsinki.
11.6.2019
1717.00
in the competition brief is written that we cannot build on the lake, but is it possible to build within the new shoreline but creating some canals inside the new shoreline? or is it considered as building on the water?
The solution is not prevented by the principles of the competition.
11.6.2019
1818.00
in the competition brief is written that we cannot build on the lake, but is it possible to build within the new shoreline but creating some canals inside the new shoreline? or is it considered as building on the water?
11.6.2019
1919.00
The elettricity supply station and the new waste water treatment plant pot showed in the appendix 13 at page 66 of the brief as supposed to be relised in the competition area? have we to realised it in our masterplan ? is their location already decided ( as appendix 13 ) or we can change it ?
Competitors must present in the plans the new wastewater pumping station and the electricity supply station of the tramway as indicative building masses in locations specified in the competition programme and its Appendix 13. It is certain that the wastewater treatment plant will be implemented. Its location or the size of the building must not be altered. A reservation is made for the electricity supply station of the tramway; its location is indicative.
11.6.2019
2020.00
About a pedestrian and bicycle connection between the two shorlines. is it intended as a bridge ot just a floating pedestrian connection? Is it possible to create also more then one connection?
Pedestrian and cycling connections across the water are desirable but not compulsory. One or several connections can be proposed. Each competitor can choose the locations and technical solutions, taking account of the restrictions specified in the competition programme. For example, the flowing of the water or the passage of boats must not be prevented.
11.6.2019
2121.00
is it possible to have a 3d model of the city?
Yes, 2D and 3D buildings will be provided of a section of the city.
11.6.2019
2222.00
is it possible to have some sections of the competition area?
None. Competitors can make these themselves if they so choose.
11.6.2019
2323.00
is it possible to swim in the lake water? I ask also about water pollution or just waterplants.
The plan can include sites for swimming, winter swimming, lakeside saunas, and other recreational use of the water areas. The implementation of such solutions requires that the contaminated water area be cleaned. In the present situation, the contamination level of the lake water is highest close to Viinikanoja in the eastern part of the water area.
11.6.2019
2424.00
is it possible to create underground pedestrian links?
This cannot be done. The lowest permitted building height specified in the competition programme is +78.62.
11.6.2019
2525.00
is it possible to think about some commercial passage o underground commercial gallery?
The lowest permitted floor elevation of building premises and basements specified in the competition programme is +79.27 and the lowest permitted building height is +78.62. These must be followed in all circumstances.
11.6.2019
2626.00
What is the maximum extent of the fill area and how much can the shoreline be altered? What about the elevation differences?
The principally and secondarily recommended outermost permitted shoreline that can be implemented by means of fill areas, the lowest permitted building heights, and ground elevation to be preserved at the edges of the competition areas are shown in Appendix 13 of the competition programme. In all other respects, the contours of the shoreline and the terrain can be designed freely.
11.6.2019
2727.01
1. Is it required to propose dwelling unit plans for a diverse group of users at a certain scale? Is that also required for other leisure, recreation, and technical facilities?
No layout drawings need to be presented of residential or other buildings. Competitors can illustrate the ideas of their competition entry by means of schemes or images. Housing construction in the area must enable a diverse population structure.
11.6.2019
2727.02
2. Is there the concept of the ‘’21st Century Tampere Citizen’’ explained somewhere?
No.
11.6.2019
2727.03

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.

11.6.2019
2727.04

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.

11.6.2019
2727.05

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.

11.6.2019
2727.06

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.

11.6.2019
2727.07
7. Can all aspects of the project (housing, parking, transport, etc.) to be phased simultaneously?
It must be possible to implement the area in phases roughly between 2024–2035 and in a manner that supports the overall idea of the competition entry. This is especially important in case of residential construction and in related parking and technical maintenance structures.
11.6.2019
2727.08
8. Can the bike lanes be next to runners lanes?
Slow and other cycling routes that pass through the area must be clearly separated from the walking and possible running routes.
11.6.2019
2727.09

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.

11.6.2019
2727.10
10. In terms of housing, is there an anthropological study where addresses issues of family structure trends and forecast and the like, for Finland? Can the entry introduce different living structures that have happened in other European countries?
The urban structure and housing construction in the competition area must enable a flexible and diverse population structure. Goals related to housing are described in section 4.4 of the competition programme.
11.6.2019
2727.11

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.

11.6.2019
2727.12
12. Is there more bibliography on Finish flora and fauna that is relevant to this site?
In the second phase of the competition, more detailed information and instructions can be provided to the competitors regarding the plant and animal species, their habitats, and ecological corridors as part of the urban nature of Viinikanlahti. Nature surveys will be supplemented as the planning progresses.
11.6.2019
2727.13
13. All shores and harbors are public in nature, so are the rented functions to be proposed. Is there a restriction for those to be flexible, movable, or fixed?
There are no more detailed design instructions for the functions than those provided in the competition programme. Competitors can freely present their ideas and views.
11.6.2019
2727.14

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.

11.6.2019
2727.15
15. Are there any restrictions (in terms of dimensions) in proposing some existing inland water features be turned into short-distanced canals or inland water bodies?
The solution is not prevented by the principles of the competition. Competitors can freely present their views. A large part of the current land area also consists of fill areas and can be modified.
11.6.2019
2727.16

16. Must ALL public, semi-public and urban environments, be accessible for the disabled?

Yes.

11.6.2019
2727.17
17. According to the CAD / PDF files provided, there are some site sides either on the very south-westerly side or on the northern side where no land proposals are allowed. Is that correct?
No buildings and fill areas must be designated outside the area marked with vertical stripes in Appendix 13 on page 66. No construction must be designated on the northern side of Viinikanoja or on top of the technical maintenance cable corridors shown in Appendix 3.
11.6.2019
2727.18
18. Is there any local GIS data available for street network, building, land plots, greenery, etc.?
Plenty of information and geographical data are available in the City of Tampere’s map service. Unfortunately, the map service and related materials are only available in Finnish. The map service can be found at: https://kartat.tampere.fi/oskari/
11.6.2019
2727.19
19. On page 54 of the brief, there is shown an arrow indicating the need for a direct pedestrian/bike connection between the southern and northern extreme sides of the site. Are there any plans for that connection?
No.
11.6.2019
2727.20
20. What the identification file (p – identification file.txt) should contain?
More detailed instructions will be published on the competition website.
11.6.2019
2828.00
can we show other perspective images in the first and last presentation board?
Yes, if the requirements presented in section 5.3 regarding the contents of the presentation boards are met in other respects.
11.6.2019
2929.00
Could you provide CAD drawings of the competition area or a 3d model of the area including the masterplan?. Or are the participants expected to work with the PDF file found on the templates of the presentation boards and estimate the angle for the isometric view?
A corrected version of the base map and a 3D model can be found in the material to be distributed to the competitors.
12.6.2019
3030.00

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.

12.6.2019
3131.00
Can changes be proposed to the tramline alignment?
No.
12.6.2019
3232.00
Can the proposed location of the tram stop differ from the two alternatives provided?
No. The alternative locations are linked to street junctions and are feasible in terms of transportation technology.
12.6.2019
3333.00
Must the phasing of the implementation be presented as a scheme?
Competitors can choose the method used to present the phasing freely. A scheme can be used.
12.6.2019
3434.00
Is the aerial orthophotograph in Appendix 5 of the competition programme available as a high-quality version?
A high-quality version of the orthoaerial image in Appendix 5 will be added to the material to be distributed to the competitors.
12.6.2019
3535.00
Is it possible to get the Appendix 3 of the competition programme in a dwg format?
Appendix 3 will be added to the material to be distributed to the competitors in a dwg format.
12.6.2019
3636.00
Must the soil be replaced throughout the area, i.e. also in areas where no new construction has been designated?
All contaminated soil must be replaced or cleaned also in places where no construction is designated.
12.6.2019
3737.00
The design of the junction of Hatanpään valtatie Road and Hatanpäänkatu Street must be improved in the competition entry. Must the design of the new junction that is enclosed with the competition programme as an Appendix be improved or is the design to be imlemented as it is?
The junction plan provided must be implemented as it is. If the competitor chooses the northern location of the tram stop, the stop can be removed from the plan of this junction area.
12.6.2019
3838.00
Can the proposed location of the tram stop differ from the two alternatives provided?
No. The alternative locations provided are linked to street junctions.
12.6.2019
3939.00
Is any material available of the new construction in Hatanpää?
Simplified versions of the building masses that are included in the local detailed plans for the Hatanpää area, but have not yet been implemented, are included in the 3D city model delivered to the competitors and can also be viewed in the weup service. Their locations have also been marked in Appendix 3 of the competition programme. Public material related to the local detailed plan amendment for the Hatanpää hospital area can be viewed at https://www.ttampere.fi/cgi-bin/kaava/kaavadoc?8578 (in Finnish).
12.6.2019
4040.01

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.

12.6.2019
4040.02

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.

12.6.2019
4040.03

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.

12.6.2019
4040.04

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.

12.6.2019
4040.05

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.

12.6.2019
4040.06

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.

12.6.2019
4040.07

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.

12.6.2019
4040.08

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.

12.6.2019
4141.00
We ask for clarification about the procedure to position the camera using the file named Camera_Cube_14.dwg. Information about the position of the camera and camera target as well lens length, field of view and roll angle are required. Thank you for your help
The FOV value of the camera is 73.283 degrees and the ROLL value 0.8 degrees. We will provide the vector to make it easier to position the camera.
12.6.2019
4242.00
In relation with the term “ballfield” we would like to clarify whether it concerns to a field where you can play a certain sport, whether it is a field for playing multiple sport which is marked with different sidelines and/or delimited with and external element as a fence, or whether it is a free space minimum as big as the given measures and without any extra requirements. Thank you in advanced.
The ballfield means a multifunctional sports field for various sports and independent exercising. Environmental architecture can be determined by the competitor. The surface areas are minimum dimensions.
12.6.2019

First phase, 15 May 2019 – 27 September 2019

Please reserve enough time for submission. The upload can take less than 30 minutes when a high-speed connection is used, but a slower connection may need several hours!

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

SUBMIT

Delivery instructions in case of problems: send files to: tomas.westerholm@tietoa.fi through wetransfer.com (only in emergencies). The same deadline applies.

57 entries received by 27th September 2019


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.

57 entries received by 27th September 2019

Open Weup AirmapOpen 6 competition entries selected for the second phase


Second phase    14 November 2019–14 February 2020 at 15:00 (GMT+2)

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.

competition materials published by 14 November 2019

Click here to view the 23 file templates contained in the ZIP file


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

questions & answers

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.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
1.01
How much service traffic there is to the pumping station?
The amount of maintenance and service traffic is low: normally only a few vehicles a week. Maintenance and service vehicles will principally drive and park inside the building. In possible disturbance situations, there may be a larger number of maintenance, service, and rescue vehicles in the area, which must be taken into account in the planning of the traffic and parking solutions.
11.12.2019
1.02
On page 30 competition program says: ”The connection to Hatanpään valtatie Road needs to be planned by using a different traffic arrangement.”. Could you be more specific in which way the traffic arrangement should be different?
Based on the revised estimate, the principles of the connection solution are in order. The comment concerns another competition entry and need not be taken into account in this entry.
11.12.2019
1.03
Is it possible to place school yard close to the pumping station?
No. The minimum distance of the school buildings and related yard areas from the pumping station is 50 metres.
11.12.2019
1.04
Does the recreational boat harbor need any places for larger vessels (meaning ships that need deeper water)?
The maximum draught of vessels using the recreational boat harbour is one metre, as there are no sail boats with a bulkier keel and a deeper draught on Lake Pyhäjärvi. The draught of ships visiting the cruise ship harbour is deeper. In the competition, 2.3 metres can be used as the draught of ship and boat routes when the water level is at the average level; the range to be used is 1.8 – 3.0 metres. At recreational harbours, the draught can be lower.
11.12.2019
1.05
On page 17 competition program says: ”The locations of the harbours for cruise ships and for other large vessels must be designated to points where the water is naturally deep, and which are close to the cruise and boat route.” Does this harbour mean the cruise ship quay which is mentioned in the competition program of the first phase and is the needed space still the same?
Yes, the quay for cruise ships is the same as is referred to in the first phase competition programme. The final destination of inland waterway vessels and cruise ships is at Laukontori Square in the tranquil waters of Ratina, where the route passes under Ratina Bridge opposite to the competition area.
11.12.2019
1.06
On page 30 competition program says: ”A northern pedestrian and cycling connection is missing”. Could you be more specific. Connection between which areas is missing?
The comment refers to the cycling connection that is missing on the southern side of Viinikanoja and connects the new pedestrian and cycling route that leads to the city centre with the main cycling route of Hatanpää valtatie Road.
11.12.2019
2.00
In the program brief the number of boat spaces required is described. Our question is regarding the recreational harbour. The brief states “a recreational boat harbour serving the citizens (for 300–500 boats). Do you have more information about the boat sizes? What is the ratio between big and small boats?
The size of the leisure boats varies. It is recommended that the berths intended for large leisure boats (4 x 10 metres) be located at the end of the quays on the lake side where the water is deep. It is recommended that the berths intended for small boats (2.5 x 6 metres) be located at the base of the quays close to the shore where the water is shallower. Berths can also be designated in boat hotels that are similar to car parking facilities or robotic parking facilities. Boats are lifted or removed from the boat hotels as part of harbour services only when they are used. Boat hotels and their maintenance services can also be designated as part of the centralised parking facilities in the area.
11.12.2019
3.01
Is it possible to get more specific guidelines where is it allowed to build housing etc at the proximity of Viinikanoja and transfer pipeline at the North-East corner of the competition area?
Housing or other construction must not be located on top of the area that is in the initial data of the competition reserved for a technical maintenance cable corridor, nor in the area between the technical maintenance cable corridor and Viinikanoja. The technical maintenance cable corridor area must enable excavations should the need for repairs or servicing arise. Bicycle and pedestrian routes, as well as other easily removed structures and planting areas, can be located in the technical maintenance cable corridor area. No buildings, trees, or parallel vehicle traffic routes can be located in the technical maintenance cable corridor area. The surface area required by excavations in order to service underground pipelines in possible servicing situations has been taken into account in the area reservation made for the technical maintenance cable corridor.
11.12.2019
3.02
Should the 50 m wide ecological connection at Viinikanoja be measured between building exterior walls or at the edge of green areas?
The width of the ecological corridor is calculated from the edge of the vegetation-covered area, regardless of whether this area or part of it is a public outdoor space or a semi-public or private yard area of a private block. What matters is the undisrupted continuity and sufficient width of the area that is covered by trees or vegetation.
11.12.2019
3.03
Could you be more accurate with this comment: "The solution must adapt to future lifestyle changes. For this reason, the use of various levels of precision in the planning does not seem to be justified."
The block structures proposed in the competition entries must enable diverse and flexible housing construction that can be implemented in phases. The block structures must be modifiable and adapt to future needs and the increased pluralism and other changes in urban living and the urban lifestyle.
11.12.2019
3.04
"The scale of the northernmost landmark block, with its 20-storey buildings, is too large in its location." The hights of the buildings are based on the city high rise strategy (competition 1st phase appendix). Is city's intention to change this strategy?
The city has not changed its high rise strategy. However, the exceptional significance of high construction in the cityscape sets certain requirements for the buildings and their integration with the surrounding environment. The jury has estimated that the scale of construction proposed in the entry is not best suited to the area along Viinikanoja.
11.12.2019
4.01
Is it necessary to consider parking space near to the pumping station for maintenance cars?
No parking space is needed for maintenance and service vehicles at the pumping station for normal weekly maintenance and servicing, and the maintenance and service vehicles will drive inside the building. These maintenance and service vehicles will back out of the building. For this reason, a sufficient, practical, and safe turning area is needed for vehicles leaving the area. The transformer of the power plant that will be constructed as part of the pumping station will be serviced by using its own entrance. Related maintenance and service vehicles are principally passenger cars or vans, and a parking space must be reserved for them in the yard area.  The parking and traffic arrangements in the surroundings of the pumping station must be designed so that they enable maintenance, service, and rescue traffic in all conditions and without posing any risks to pedestrian or cycling traffic.
0.1.1900
4.02
According to the pumping station, in the page 18 it is said: “The minimum distance of housing, school and daycare center construction, is 50 meters, […]”. Is it possible to locate other infrastructural facilities as boats fuel distribution point, harbor waste management services, storage buildings, charging point for electric engines or parking hubs next to the pumping station, inside the 50m security radium?
Structures serving infrastructure and harbours can be located within a 50-metre zone, except for the technical maintenance cable corridor related to the pumping station and areas reserved for maintenance, service, and rescue traffic.
11.12.2019
4.03
More extensive shore fill areas are possible on west part of the plot. Proposed streets connection to the competition area, in pg. 72, Appendix 4.1, seem related with existing size and shape of landmass. Is it possible to design an additional street connection to the competition area from either the Hatanpääkatu Street or the local road (on the west) considering this could have a beneficial influence of motor traffic network within the area?
The location and number of junctions proposed in the entry for Hatanpään valtatie Road must comply with the competition programme. No connections to Hatanpäänkatu Street can be proposed on the eastern side of the junction specified in the competition programme. With good grounds and when the overall solution of the competition entry so requires, one or several street connections can be located on the western side of the Hatanpäänkatu Street junction specified in the competition programme, if the smoothness and safety of traffic can be ensured.
11.12.2019
4.04
In order to ensure less car traffic inside the new urban development, could the number of entrances proposed be modified? For example, create an additional direct access to the school so to avoid the daily car and school bus traffic inside the residential area.
The location and number of junctions proposed in the entry for Hatanpään valtatie Road must comply with the competition programme. No connections to Hatanpäänkatu Street can be proposed on the eastern side of the junction specified in the competition programme. With good grounds and when the overall solution of the competition entry so requires, one or several street connections can be located on the western side of the Hatanpäänkatu Street junction specified in the competition programme, if the smoothness and safety of traffic can be ensured.
11.12.2019
4.05
All the buildings have to be accessible by car? If yes, in order to achieve a carbon free neighborhood in a contemporary way of living, a pedestrian dominant area, wide enough to allow car entrance, could be consider as a temporary vehicle access or should it be designed as a traditional vehicle street?
All buildings must be accessible by maintenance, service, and rescue traffic. Accessibility does not require the use of traditional vehicle streets; it is even recommended that also other solutions are proposed in the entries. Pedestrian and cycling routes can be designated for temporary maintenance and service vehicle traffic through careful planning of the street environment, if traffic safety can be ensured.
11.12.2019
4.06
A pedestrian street, wide enough to have cars, could be consider an access for emergency vehicles?
Pedestrian and cycling routes can be designated as rescue routes or for temporary maintenance and service vehicle traffic through careful planning of the street environment, if traffic safety can be ensured.
11.12.2019
4.07
In the page 14 the green ecological connection is described as “undisrupted and continuous, sufficiently dimensioned and green”
11.12.2019
4.08
Do we have to respect the 30m width, mentioned in the first phase of the competition, along all the shoreline?
There must be a continuous and fully public zone of outdoor spaces along the shoreline that is available to all in all conditions and, at the very minimum, allows passage through the zone. The character of the zone in terms of the cityscape can vary depending on the location. The public nature of the urban space is key. The indicative minimum width is 30 metres. The zone can overlap with the ecological green zone, either fully or in part.
11.12.2019
4.09
Is there any restriction for the green connection character? Is a paved area with trees consider green connection? Is low vegetation area without trees consider green connection?
Most of the green connection must be located in a vegetation area. The character of the area in terms of landscape architecture and the cityscape can vary within the area. The area can include paved or surfaced sections. The key aspects include diversity of the urban greenery, ecological continuity, a sufficient overall width of the corridor (min. 50 metres), and a sufficient number of trees and vegetation layers. The trees, tree groups, or tree alleys must constitute a continuous and undisrupted green connection throughout the area. The width and character of the tree-covered section of the green zone can vary, but a single line of trees is not sufficient. The green zone can also include open or semi-open sections of the landscape space. The green zone can overlap, fully or in part, with the public shoreline zone. It is recommended that the green zone be designated for public urban spaces. The yards of private block areas can supplement the green zone when required by the overall solution, or they can be a part of it. The ecological green zone must connect the parks in Hatanpää to Lake Iidesjärvi through the new Viinikanlahti city district and Viinikanoja.
11.12.2019
4.10
In the proposal “GREENIKKA” (pg. 32) the ecological corridor is considered as “broken in a few places by a canal and the canal basin” while in the proposal “PÄRSKE” The canal around the central island is not consider as a discontinuity in the green corridor. 1. What are the criteria to define a disconnection point in the green corridor? 2. Is there a minimum width to consider a canal or basin a disconnection of the green corridor?
See and compare other answers provided on the topic. The aim is to achieve a sufficiently wide, uniform, and continuous ecological green connection. Within the ecological green connection, the continuity of the area covered by trees and other vegetation is key. Therefore, the discontinuation point created by a canal or other water area must not be very major. Within the ecological green corridor, the distance between individual trees or tree groups must not exceed their height. When the connection is disrupted by a water element, the ecological green connection can be planned around it. No one correct minimum width has been specified, neither is there one correct design solution. The discontinuation points of the green corridor were mentioned as examples to enable the competitors to take them into account in further planning. Not all discontinuation points have been mentioned in the evaluation. All competitors have been instructed to pay attention to the ecological corridor in the second phase.
11.12.2019
4.11
Is there any restriction to propose a small leisure construction in the North side of Viinikanija mouth?
Small-scale leisure time activities can be designated on the northern side of Viinikanoja when the nature values of the area are observed. No construction or fill areas can be designated on the northern side of Viinikanoja.
11.12.2019
4.12
In the pg. 18 it is said “The competitors are not allowed to locate any construction that requires the laying of foundations further out than the new furthest possible shoreline” - Natural shore limits or artificial islands could be proposed further? Floating leisure elements could be proposed?
Outside the outermost permitted shoreline, it is only possible to implement relatively light floating structures.
11.12.2019
4.13
In the proposal “NATURAL ALLIANCE” (pg. 34) it is said “The scale of the canal basins should be examined […]”. -In which terms does it have to be considered (ex. green connection, boats traffic, pedestrian and cycling circulation)?
The examination of the scale of the canal basins includes the size of the water basins in relation to the urban space, the scope of the functions, the relation to the surrounding buildings, structures, and vegetation, and the connection to the windy water area in the west. As regards the routes, the smoothness of pedestrian and cycling connections must be examined more closely.
11.12.2019
4.14
For the entry “NATURAL ALLIANCE” it is said in pg. 35 “When the site is entered from a public space (the tram stop), the visitor will not be able to see the water-the attraction- […]”. One possible solution to get this visual relation tram stop-lake is to reduce the size of the school. This fact would cause that the inner yard inside the school would not accomplish with the square meters requested. Could the yard be divided in two yards, one inner yard and one exterior yard? Is it possible to considered the rooftop as part of the school yard?
School yards can be divided into several parts of a varying size. Parts of the yard area can also be located on roofs or decks.
11.12.2019
4.15
In the entry “NATURAL ALLIANCE” in page 34 states: “Yard areas must be, at least, partly fenced (…)” What’s the meaning of “partly”?
The yards used by the students during breaks will be fenced, but gates are not usually needed or permitted. School yards are public outdoor spaces or in leisure time use outside school hours.
11.12.2019
4.16
Could the exterior areas of the school yard become public during the evening?
Yes. Both the public buildings and their yard areas can be used for various purposes and functions at different times of the day.
11.12.2019
4.17
In pg. 33 “How the entry can answer to the high-reaching goals in the implementation phase, e.g. regarding the reasonable price of construction, is unclear at the moment.” Can you develop more? Why is this specifically stated in “Natural Alliance” proposal?
The reasonable price of the solution was mentioned as an example of the contents of the competition entry, as it addresses several challenging themes. The competitor can determine the direction in which the competition entry is developed in further planning without focusing on this example in particular. In the second phase of the competition, the planning solutions related to the concept of each entry and/or the implementation process of area construction will be specified.
11.12.2019

6 entries received by 14th February 2020


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.

57 entries received by 27th September 2019


Awards    17 April 2020

The winners of the Viinikanlahti Urban Ideas Competition have been announced.


Jury statement in English.pdf
Jury statement in Finnish.pdf
7
Lakes & Roses
Authors

Teemu Paasiaho
Janne Ekman
Lassi Viitanen
Ville Reima

Architect, SAFA
Architect, SAFA
Architect, SAFA
Architect, SAFA

Architecturestudio NOAN
Architecturestudio NOAN
Architecturestudio NOAN
Architecturestudio NOAN

Assistants

Samuli Saarinen
Caspar Åkerblom
Jaakko Heikkilä
Essi Nisonen

Architecturestudio NOAN
Architecturestudio NOAN
Architecturestudio NOAN
Architecturestudio NOAN


Architecturestudio NOAN, Satakunnankatu 14, FI-33100 Tampere
37
Pärske
Authors

Jonna Heikkinen
Tapio Kangasaho

Architect, SAFA
Architect, SAFA

Heikkinen & Kangasaho Architects Ltd
Heikkinen & Kangasaho Architects Ltd

Experts

Annaleena Puska
Katariina Väätänen
Kalle Vaismaa

Landscape Architect
Landscape Architect, high.sch.grad
Traffic expert


Heikkinen & Kangasaho Architects Ltd, Mäkipäänkatu 28-30 D 95, FI-33500 Tampere
44
Greenikka
Authors

Kimmo Ylä-Anttila
Antti Moisala

Architect SAFA
Architect SAFA

MY Architects Ltd
MY Architects Ltd

Assistants

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


MY Architects Ltd, Aleksis Kivenkatu 10 E 60, FI-33500 Tampere
5
Divercity
Author

Timo Veijonsuo

Architect

23
SoBa
Authors

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


Mandaworks AB, Åsögatan 121 (5th floor) 116 24 Stockholm, Sweden
48
NATURAL ALLIANCE
Authors

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

Assistants

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


Pöyry Finland Ltd, P.O. Box 4, Jaakonkatu 3, FI-01621 Vantaa
27
ARCHIPELAGO
Authors

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


B & M Architects Ltd, Perämiehenkatu 12E, FI-00130 Helsinki
41
ALLOY
Authors

Edgars Racins
Janne Leino
Tuomas Helin

Architect
Architect
Architect

TIENOArkkitehdit Oy
TIENOArkkitehdit Oy


TIENO Architects Ltd, Fredrikinkatu 29 A 1, FI-00120 Helsinki
50
Tampe-READY 2034
Authors

Henry Kouva

Architect

Lukkaroinen Architects Ltd


Lukkaroinen Architects, Kauppurienkatu 12, 4th floor, FI-90100 Oulu
Digitality in the Viinikanlahti International Urban Ideas Competition 2019–2020 in Tampere.
Introducing the digital tools developed and taken into use by the City of Tampere in the Viinikanlahti International Urban Ideas Competition 2019–2020.
Lakes & Roses, the winning entry of the Viinikanlahti International Urban Ideas Competition 2019–2020.
Introducing Lakes & Roses, the winning entry of the Viinikanlahti International Urban Ideas Competition 2019–2020, by Architecturestudio NOAN from Tampere, Finland.

Awarded entries