Evaluation Minutes

OPEN INTERNATIONAL DESIGN COMPETITION ON THE TAMPERE
ART MUSEUM AREA AND PYYNIKINTORI SQUARE

EVALUATION MINUTES 09 AUGUST 2017
OPEN INTERNATIONAL DESIGN COMPETITION ON THE TAMPERE ART MUSEUM AREA AND PYYNIKINTORI SQUARE
CONTENTS
1. THE OBJECTIVE OF THE DESIGN COMPETITION 2
1.1 Competition arrangements 3

1.1.1 Implementation method and the organiser 3
1.1.2 Jury panel and other organisation 3
1.1.3 Competition rules and selection of the participants 4
1.1.4 Competition schedule 4
1.1.5 Competition entries 4
1.2 Competition background and the design task 6

1.2.1 Competition area 6
1.2.2 Competition objectives, content of the design task, and evaluation criteria 6
2. EVALUATION 8
2.1 General evaluation 8

2.1.1 General information about the competition proposals 8
2.1.2 Originality and concept 9
2.1.3 Overall city structure 9
2.1.4 Internal city structure 9
2.1.5 Museum entity 10
2.1.6 Pyynikintori Square and public outdoor spaces 12
2.1.7 Infill development 13
2.1.8 Dimensioning and functionality 14
2.1.9 Traffic 14
2.1.10 Feasibility and overall cost-efficiency 15
2.2 Proposal-specific evaluation 16

2.2.1 Evaluation categories 16
2.2.2 Prize category 19
2.2.3 Upper category 26
2.2.4 Upper middle category 30
2.2.5 Middle category 36
2.2.6 Lower category 46
2.3 The result of the competition 53

2.3.1 The competition outcome 53
2.3.2 The jury’s recommendations 53
2.3.3 Signing of the evaluation minutes 54
2.3.4 Opening of the sealed envelopes containing the names of the competitors 55
3. IMAGES 59
3.1 The scale models 59
3.2 Prize category and honorary mentions. Presentation boards 64
1 EVALUATION MINUTES OPEN INTERNATIONAL DESIGN COMPETITION ON THE TAMPERE ART MUSEUM AREA AND PYYNIKINTORI SQUARE
1 THE OBJECTIVE OF THE DESIGN COMPETITION
The purpose of the competition was to find an architecturally high-quality solution for the implementation of the
extension of Tampere Art Museum. Another aim was to explore the museum’s spatial starting points and to
make the museum more attractive and better known by means of impressive architecture. The Art Museum will
be the first new public building in decades to be constructed for art in Tampere.
The competition also looked for ideas for the cityscape and the functions, in order to develop and complement
the Pyynikintori Square area as a public urban space. The objective is to improve the square’s general
appearance and reorganise the activities within the area of the square. Parking in the area is to be located in an
underground parking facility beneath the square.
Suitable housing, retail, and office space were also to be located in the competition area. The objective was to
study what would be a suitable volume of new construction to create a high-quality area in terms of cityscape
and city structure. The aim was to make the solution as cost neutral as possible. The plan is to cover some of
the museum’s construction costs through the sale of the building rights that will be planned in the future.
The competition looked for high-quality, impressive architecture that respects the values of the city’s structure
and architecture, as well as an urban space in which the solutions for the traffic and technical factors are
successful.
Image 1. Oblique aerial view of the competition area
1.1 Competition arrangements
1.1.1 Implementation method and the organiser

The competition was an open international design competition organised by the City of Tampere. It was a
requirement that at least one of the creators of a competition proposal has the right to practise as an architect in
their home country.
1.1.2 Jury panel and other organisation
The jury panel included the following members as appointed by the competition organiser:
• Pekka Salmi First Vice Chairperson of the City Council;
Deputy Mayor until 12 June 2017
• Anna-Kaisa Heinämäki Deputy Mayor
• Annikki Järvinen Tampere Art Society, Professor, Emerita
• Ranja Hautamäki Professor, Landscape Architect, D.Sc. (Tech.) MARK
• Taru Hurme Planning Director, Architect SAFA
• Sakari Leinonen Project Manager, Architect SAFA
• Outi Leppänen Project Architect, Architect SAFA
• Taina Myllyharju Museum Director
• Lauri Savisaari Purchasing Manager, Director of Culture and Leisure Services
Appointed by SAFA:
• Henna Helander Architect SAFA
• Ville Hara Architect SAFA
To support the jury’s work, the competition organiser commissioned expert evaluations on the various sub-fields
and perspectives of the evaluation. The following parties were heard as experts:
• Pirkanmaa Provincial Museum:

Tuija-Liisa Soininen
Hannele Kuitunen
• Traffic systems:
Ari Vandell, Planning Manager
Timo Seimelä, Transport Engineer
Juha-Pekka Häyrynen, Planning Manager, Public Transport
• Geotechnical and municipal engineering: Mikko Kielo, Senior Planning Officer
• Local detailed planning:

Elina Karppinen, Head of Local Detailed Planning
• Plot and land use matters:

Heli Toukoniemi, Land Use Manager
Cost analysis was conducted by Sari Loponen, DUCO Rakennuttaja Oy.
Structural and constructability analysis was conducted by Juha Tanttu, Sweco Finland Oy.
The jury met five times: 29 March 2017, 25 April 2017, 10 May 2017, 16 June 2017, and 9 August 2017.
The experts and the competition secretary were not involved in any of the decision making, and they were not
eligible to enter the competition.
The technical implementation and the secretarial tasks were the responsibility of Pekka Koli, Architect SAFA.
1.1.3 Competition rules and selection of the participants
The competition adhered to SAFA’s competition rules and the ACE recommendations for design competitions
(www.safa.fi). The competition programme and its Appendices have been approved by the organiser, the jury
panel, and the Finnish Association of Architects Competition Committee.
1.1.4 Competition schedule
The competition started on 15 December 2016 and closed on 15 March 2017.
In connection with the competition, a tour of the current Tampere Art Museum building was given on 3 January
2017.
The competition participants were entitled to submit questions regarding the competition programme until 18
January 2017. The jury’s answers to the questions submitted by the deadline were published on the competition
website on 30 January 2017.
In May 2017, the competition organiser requested, in accordance with the competition programme, that the
authors of the 10 selected proposals create a scale model of their proposal. The pseudonyms of these
proposals were published on the competition website The scale models were delivered to the competition
organiser by 12 June 2017. The models were purchased at a separate fee of EUR 3,000.
A public event was organised at the Tampere Conservatoire on 14 June 2017 to present the 10 proposals
selected by the jury and to discuss the proposals and their scale models. Feedback from the public was
recorded and passed on to the jury. Before the presentation, there was an open walking tour of the Pyynikintori
Square area.
On 13 June 2017, the ten competition proposals selected by the jury were presented to the Tampere Cityscape
Advisory Committee, with the feedback recorded and passed on to the jury.
1.1.5 Competition entries
By the competition deadline, a total of 147 competition entries were delivered directly or through a delivery
service. The entries were listed and numbered in a random order when opening the packages, and the arrival
and sending dates were also checked.
Two pseudonyms (Kehys and Tähkä) occurred twice, so those listed earlier were marked with number 1 and the
later ones with number 2. A list displaying the pseudonyms of the submitted proposals was published on the
competition website.
Some of the proposals were sent without the full complement of presentation materials, but the jury decided that
they could still be accepted and evaluated.
Two illustrations of all of the competition entries were published on the competition website, where the public
had the opportunity to view them and provide feedback on them. Public feedback was passed on to the jury.
A numbered list of the competition entries::
1 KIVIKAVERIT 2 tuoppi ja pikari 3 stilleben

4 Aatsh 5 SYKLIT 6 SYLI
7 A13581 8 ART VALLEY 9 KEHYS (1)
10 ARCADE 11 metsäpolku 12 PAASIKIVEN KANGASTUS
13 entäs Sitte 14 Amurin kattojen yllä 15 THX113876
16 siivet 17 KIILA 18 Castor and Pollux
19 UNDER ONE ROOF 20 kaiku 21 THE MIND PALACE
22 Maple47081 23 Plus 24 ARTCORE
25 TA-LO 26 TAMTAM 27 TRE2
28 PLASSI 29 Bona fide 30 HEKSA
31 KUBIK 32 QUARTZ 33 TAMPURIINI
34 artem futurum tractabilis 35 NIKKI 36 PYYTIKKI
37 HA 17 38 TAIDETTA KAUPUNKIIN 39 KOPPELO
40 ATRIUM 41 TAD Tampere Art District 42 AMUR
43 CARMEN SAECULARE 44 NIETOS 45 KVARTSI
46 NELIAPILA 47 MUOTTI 48 arki!taidemuseo
49 BUN 50 Korttelimuseo 51 STÖNÖ
52 HEI HAY 53 CALAMARI UNION 54 BOOTLACE
55 JÄKÄLÄ 56 Elä Pyynikki 57 ALGORITMI
58 ROOTS INTO THE FUTURE 59 DRAPERIA 60 Muisto
61 PLEIN AIR 62 PLASSISSA 63 NILA
64 Promenade 65 AVANT-GARDEN 66 Viuhti
67 RUUVALLI 69 Kehys (2) 70 ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL
71 RATIO 72 NUORPUU 73 Engelin siipi
74 dogma 75 IVORY 76 näyttelykuvia
77 murmuration 78 NOIVA 79 Vitriini
80 PALIKAT 81 hiekkapistepilvi 82 Nexus
83 MOREENIA 84 SFUMATO 85 LATERES
86 Cultural infrastructure 87 Uunipyörä 88 Siilo
89 Passe-partout 90 SIMPUKKA 91 CAMPBELL
92 VIIVAT 93 MUUSAMA 94 ROTVALLI
95 LASTU 96 BOXESES 97 Bartholomew
98 ALCHEMILLA 99 Korttelipihat 100 Arti et Urbanis!
101 RECUERDO 102 Framille 103 ARTTELI
104 BINB 105 LOHKOS 106 HELMINAUHA
107 THE HUB 108 12282017 109 KOLMIO
110 Tähkä (1) 111 Cor 112 NOODI
113 LOOTA 114 Hakka 115 TAIRETTA JA MUSTAA MAKKARAA
116 THE TREE TOP GALLERY 117 DIEMONDS AND RUST 118 CUMU
119 YARDBIRDS 120 ARCHIMEDEAN POINT 121 Frame
122 FLOCK 123 HAVINA 124 ILMATAR
125 HARJU 126 TEAM 625429 127 CON`TEXT
128 TUKINUITTO 129 YHDISTEET 130 EMBRACING THE SPACE
131 KALEIDOSKOPE 132 NEXUS 3 133 WOODY
134 BRICKSTAMP 135 LYHTY 136 REVERSE
137 LÄHDE 138 8700 139 FI1612
140 Colibri 141 ZDESIGN 142 AGORA
143 INCANDESCENT 144 JUST DRAW IT 145 SAA17
146 JOUSI 147 TÄHKÄ (2)
Nimimerkit, joiden tekijöiltä pyydettiin kilpailuohjelman mukaisesti pienoismallit olivat:
14 Amurin kattojen yllä

21 THE MIND PALACE
41 TAD Tampere Art District
53 CALAMARI UNION
68 MUSEUM SQUARE
74 dogma
82 Nexus
88 Siilo
113 LOOTA
120 ARCHIMEDEAN POINT
1.2 Competition background and the design task
1.2.1 Competition area
The competition area is located in the vicinity of the city centre area of Tampere, in the city districts of Amuri and
Pyynikinrinne. The actual competition area has been outlined in the Appendices. The total area to be planned is
5.4 ha. The area is located about one kilometre to the west of the city centre (i.e. from Keskustori Central
Square). The competition area is split by Pirkankatu, which is a busy main collector street. On the southern side
of Pirkankatu, you will find Pyynikintori Square, Heinätori Square (“Hay Square”) and Heinäpuisto Park. On the
northern side of Pirkankatu, you will find the art museum area that boasts two parks: Taidemuseonpuisto and
Kelloplaani.
Image 2. Competition area and the normative geographical boundaries of the art museum and Pyynikintori Square
1.2.2 Competition objectives, content of the design task, and evaluation criteria
The purpose of the competition was to draw up a high-quality, innovative plan for the current art museum area,
in such a way that spatial solutions that are sufficient for the development of the museum’s activities are
implemented. The aim of the new building and the area surrounding it is also to make Tampere Art Museum and
the City of Tampere better known and more attractive. In accordance with the room programme, the new
building for the museum will be about 4,887 gross m². The total of the current art museum plot buildings is 2,047
gross m². The overall total area of the museum buildings will be about 6,934 gross m².
The competition also looked for ideas for the cityscape and the functions in order to develop Pyynikintori Square
as a high-quality, vibrant public urban space. Pyynikintori is a significant part of Tampere in terms of cultural
history and cityscape. The charming square milieu must be given more polish and the square must be given a
new role as part of the centre of this growing city. The buildings surrounding Pyynikintori and their retail space,
educational establishments, the sports field nearby and the new art museum will create a functional frame for
the square. The square area can be renewed, taking its historical value into account. The square activities, the
recreational and play areas, public transport, the taxi station, traffic and parking must be grouped in such a way
that the square-like character of Pyynikintori is emphasised.
In addition, suitable housing, retail and office construction must be located on the plot of the museum’s new
building, in the Heinätori and Heinäpuisto areas, and in the current parking area on the eastern side of the
competition area. The objective was to locate about 16,000 gross floor m² of infill development that primarily
consists of housing in the area. The purpose of the competition is to study what would be a suitable amount of
infill development in the area, in order to create a high-quality overall solution (in terms of cityscape and city
structure) and an architecturally successful museum entity.
The evaluation criteria for the competition proposals were as follows in the given order:
• a high-quality overall solution in terms of cityscape and city structure
• an impressive museum entity and museum block area in terms of cityscape and architecture and the natural
connection of the new building to the current museum buildings
• a high-quality spatial and architectural solution for the museum entity, as well as the realisation of the
functional objectives
• the development solutions for the cityscape and the functions for the Pyynikintori Square area; invigorating the
area, observing the historical value of the square area, the spatial structuring of the area
• solutions regarding infill housing development and/or other construction and fitting it to its surroundings
• feasibility of the solution, and a balanced solution for the aesthetic, functional, techno-economic and
sustainable development objectives.
The jury commissioned scope and cost comparisons, as well as the necessary technical surveys regarding the
best proposals to serve as the basis of the final decision making.
The jury regarded the merits of the overall solution as being more important than the correctness of the sub-
solutions or details
Image 3. Pirkankatu Street and Pyynikintori Square
2. EVALUATION
The jury has conducted the evaluation anonymously in accordance with the contract notice on the competition.
The evaluation has been carried out according to the evaluation criteria stated in the competition programme,
taking into account the objectives and planning instructions set in the programme.
2.1 General evaluation
2.1.1 General information about the competition entries
The competition task was clearly challenging. Balancing the numerous possibilities offered by the city structure
on one hand, and the strong identity required by the new museum building on the other hand, and then
combining these to create an integrated whole proved difficult but fruitful.
Tampere is a growing city that is continually renewing itself; a city whose core identity consists of the iconic
scenery of the large, block-like red-brick industrial buildings by the Tammerkoski Rapids. The city structure of
Tampere is based on clear coordinate systems, distinct topography, and the presence of waterways. New
construction was to be in keeping with the local identity.
The evaluation emphasised the overall architectural approach to the art museum as well as expressing the
importance of the exceptional public building as a landmark, taking possession of urban space, making use of
the location in terms of city structure, and the experiential and functional dimensions of the future art museum.
Tampere Art Museum will be built as an art museum for future generations. It must be easily accessible and
have adaptable spatial solutions. The proposed space arrangements for the art museums were an interesting
mix of different types of spaces from open, box-like neutral spaces to quite experiential series of spaces. The
competition participants were also expected to explore the functionality of the exhibition facilities and the related
facilities.
The art museum’s relation to the current main building, the granary designed by Carl Ludvig Engel, was
essential, especially for the public outdoor space now emerging between them. Almost without exception, the
proposals connected these two art museum buildings and their functions through underground facilities, which
was considered a good and functional solution also in terms of the use of the yard. Also, an important route runs
between the art museum buildings to the Amuri Museum of Workers’ Housing, and this route was not to have
any visual or functional obstacles.
The building is to make the art museum more attractive and better known by means of impressive architecture.
In the best proposals in terms of cityscape, the art museum took its place as a notable building at the end of
three streets, empowered by the open public space of Pyynikintori Square. The jury took the view that a public
building at the edge of a classic market square cannot be neutral and inconspicuous.
The proposals create urban space in very different ways. In many of them, the new art museum took up the
entire plot next to the old museum, leaving hardly any public space. Some of the participants set the museum in
a free and pavilion-like style in a park, but this meant it was disconnected from the overall city structure. The jury
appreciated proposals in which the new building was integrated into the city structure and had a dynamic feel
around it through the creation of small-scale squares and parks.
The competition also looked for ideas for the cityscape and the functions, in order to develop and complement
the Pyynikintori Square area as a public urban space. The best proposals had subtle solutions, such as placing
tree alleys and vegetation wisely to create new space and activity zones on the edges of the market square.
Suitable housing, retail, and office space were also to be located in the competition area, as the idea is to cover
some of the museum’s construction costs through the sale of the building rights that will be planned in the
future. In most proposals, infill development only played a minor role. The participants’ mastery of the basics of
dimensioning in housing construction varied, the best ones providing good solutions for each of the three infill
development plots.
Regarding Pyynikintori Square and infill development, the competition provided successful partial solutions, yet
none of the proposals as such offered a complete starting point for further planning.
2.1.2 Originality and concept
The symbolic importance of the Tampere Art Museum is significant, not only for the museum itself, but also for
the city as a whole. Tampere is a growing and dynamic city, the largest inland city in the Nordic countries, so its
art museum is not supposed to play a minor role, neither in terms of the cityscape nor the content. At the same
time, the art museum will be the first new building in decades to be constructed for art in Tampere.
This perspective was wonderfully realised in the best solutions. However, only a few proposals created a lasting
impression with their strong form. The art museum should be a building specifically designed for this location,
and preferably somehow connected to the built history of Tampere, yet without the connection being artificial or
just an afterthought.
Surprisingly many proposals, however, rather aimed at being neutral and modest. Also, the atmosphere of the
interior was sometimes so generic that, based on the perspective drawings, you could not guess it was
specifically an art museum.
2.1.3 Overall city structure
The competition area is interesting in terms of city structure. The diverse, garden-city-like structure of the
Pyynikinrinne area includes small-scale, villa-style construction and, contrastingly, Pyynikintori Square with its
urban Classicist blocks bordered by the streets. The grid plan of the central Amuri area can still be seen in the
street network, even though the closed blocks of low wooden buildings have been replaced by modern slab
blocks since the 1960s.
The competition sought solutions for the extension of Tampere Art Museum as well as ideas to complement
Pyynikintori Square through infill development, with the main emphasis being on the museum’s design. Even
though an ideal starting point for further planning was not found for all of the subareas, the competition provides
a comprehensive picture of the area’s potential. According to the jury, the objectives set for the competition can
be implemented, taking into account the area’s importance in terms of history, architecture, and landscape.
The competition shows that it is possible to develop the surroundings of Pyynikintori Square as a one of the city
centre’s focal areas, in accordance with the development guidelines for the Tampere city centre. Natural starting
points for the area’s distinctive character are its burgeoning cultural activities, vibrant urban culture, green
connections and recreational activities linking it to the Pyynikki area and Lake Näsijärvi, and the well-functioning
traffic and parking arrangements. Being the terminal stop for the tramway during its first phase and a point of
transfer to other modes of transport, the role of Pyynikintori Square as a traffic node will continue to grow.
2.1.4 Internal city structure
The competition area is located in the historically and functionally diverse surroundings of Pyynikintori Square,
where several different coordinate systems meet. The best proposals managed to connect the art museum with
the southern end of the market square by making use of the directions of the area. Turning the coordinate
system also provided a natural starting point for the arrangements for Pyynikintori Square. It is important for the
cityscape to maintain a view of Pyynikintori Square from the museum.
The documents required for the competition did not include an urban context diagram, but the models requested
illustrated the impact of new construction on the city structure quite well. Quite a few participants suggested
locating the museum building on the site of the demolished historical block. The history of the competition area
was also reflected by the large number of atrium solutions with a lush green courtyard. Even though the starting
point is logical and provides much needed historical continuity to the area, it was also considered that the art
museum as a major public building could also have a more independent location as the end of the existing long
vistas. The proposals with a focus on the northern part of the plot remained disconnected from Pyynikintori
Square and left large, vague outdoor spaces in the foreground.
The history of Amuri had led some of the participants to use rather low buildings, which resulted in placing
facilities mostly in the basement or extending the building so far there was not enough open space left to meet
the requirements of public construction. The low buildings often looked quite modest as part of the cityscape. As
a major public building, the art museum can even be tall, but most of the multi-storey proposals had spatial
solutions that were inflexible and inefficient. However, the top proposals showed that even a multi-storey
solution can work.
The best proposals conveyed an understanding of the fact that the art museum will be an integral part of a
series of buildings and square spaces that have high cultural-historical value. By developing the area as a whole
and strengthening the connections you can create synergy between the different functions so that the whole will
be more than the sum of its parts.
The high target for infill development often led to excessively tall buildings that block views and overshadow
yard spaces. The best solutions showed that a large gross floor area can be located in a balanced way in the
competition area, especially if infill development could also be placed on the museum plot.
The status of the old hay-weighing building in terms of cityscape must be preserved. In most of the proposals
this had been well understood. The visibility of the Catholic church must be ensured regardless of new
construction.
2.1.5 Museum entity
The purpose of the competition was to find an architecturally high-quality solution for the implementation of the
extension of Tampere Art Museum, where the aesthetic, functional and techno-economic objectives, as well as
those dealing with sustainable development, have been solved in a balanced way. The competition attracted a
large number of participants even from abroad, which shows that designing an art museum building in a
challenging setting was an interesting task that was bravely attacked. So almost without exception, all of the
proposals give priority to the art museum building, and great effort, both aesthetically and functionally, had been
put into designing this building, leaving the other competition objectives with less attention.
Roughly speaking, art museums can be divided into two main types. In the traditional model, the exhibition visit
takes place from one exhibition space to another, and the exhibition spaces are halls or rooms that are separate
from each other. The artworks hang on uniform wall surfaces; statues can be placed more freely in the middle of
the hall. The lighting makes use of skylight. The other model with fully modifiable museum space is exemplified
by the Centre Pompidou in Paris: there are no load-bearing walls on any of the floors. Exhibitions can be freely
built using lightweight walls. Lighting is based on artificial light. Both of these models were successfully applied
in this competition.
Although the competition documents had emphasised the natural connection of the new building with the
current museum building (the granary) and with the functions, surprisingly many proposals ignored the
importance of the old art museum building. The new building must not overshadow the old museum building or
make it subordinate, and the old museum’s front yard must also be preserved. In addition, several proposals still
divided the art museum functions into different-sized, scattered spaces and building masses, even though the
competition programme specifically emphasised the need to connect the facilities and functions.
The most natural entrance to the museum building is at the ground level. The proposals with an entrance at the
basement level usually have a dip in front of the building that faces an unfavourable direction. The new
exhibition facilities have been located in the proposals in mainly two ways. If the exhibition facilities were located
beneath the foyer floor at basement level, their height could be insufficient and lighting would pose a challenge,
but the connection to the old museum building was direct. If the exhibition facilities were located on the second
floor, it was possible to create spacious facilities and make use of both skylight and the interesting city views.
Yet in these proposals, the new facilities sometimes remained disconnected from those in the old building. The
proposals with ground-level exhibition facilities were interesting. This made it possible to deliver even large
artworks directly from a lorry to the exhibition space, thus saving the cost of a service lift.
It was delightful to see that quite a few proposals had paid careful attention to the logistics of the art museum
building and the functionality of the facilities: with only some exceptions, the loading space / garage / settling
room and a smooth route from the loading space to the exhibition facilities was taken into account. The specific
aim of the competition was to develop the museum’s spatial starting points and to concentrate museum
activities that have been decentralised in various locations. As the room programme was very dense, it is
unfortunate that many proposals invested in impressive foyer facilities, staircases, and large glass surfaces that
decrease the wall space needed for exhibition functions, being either wasted space or even harmful to
presenting artworks due to direct sunlight. Some of the lower category proposals, in particular, came up with a
statuesque building that neither linked in with its surroundings nor contained a sensible amount of space for its
functions. Fortunately, the upper and prize category proposals included several functional and modifiable
facilities for the diverse needs of modern art exhibitions. The solutions for the work facilities for personnel were
also varied. The current trend for open-plan offices may not always be the best option for research and writing
work that requires concentration. Several proposals had also paid proper attention to the wish of the regional art
museum to have exhibition space immediately by the entrance.
Many proposals also took into account the diverse exhibition needs related to the Tampere Art Museum
collection. In addition to using the old granary building, the suggested exhibition spaces included an exhibition
wall or display cases in the corridor connecting the old and new building. Embedded and lit display cases would
be an excellent solution for presenting the medal art collection managed by the Tampere Art Museum.
One of the key objectives of the competition was to make the museum more attractive and better known, not
only with its art collections and exhibition activities, but also by means of impressive architecture. The objective
of impressive architecture was approached in the proposals in a variety of ways: different kinds of massing,
choice of materials, and lighting solutions. Taking this into consideration, there were surprisingly few solutions
that stood out right away. The proposals included fewer landmarks than expected; you would think that a
steadily growing Tampere that is becoming more and more international would attract bolder solutions. On the
other hand, the entries presenting so-called “wow-factor” architecture were usually disconnected from their
surroundings and functionally weak. The essential issue was therefore striking a balance between the different
requirements. The best and winning entries included good suggestions with feasible basic solutions that would
withstand the test of time and accommodate future needs.
A wide range of choices were presented in the competition as regards massing, or the design of construction
volume. In most cases, a statuesque form led to an end result that was disconnected from its surroundings and
functionally weak. Free form was, however, not considered impossible: even though an anonymous, modifiable
space is ideal for exhibition activities, the art museum can also challenge art, creating suspense between the
building and the artwork. The problem with the many of the tall, tower-like proposals was that the facilities were
spread across several separate floors, making them less flexible. The challenge for a sprawling atrium building
that is based on the area’s history is that the current park area disappears. With more compact massing, it was
possible to keep the area park-like as you could build even on current traffic areas. Trendy themes, such as
employing pitched roofs derived from the museum block so that the large building is structured by a folded roof
shape that would give it the appearance of being smaller in scale, were not convincing. The building must
withstand the test of time, and the best entries had massing that was relatively composed.
The proposals included a wide spectrum of façade materials. Many of them linked the new building to the old
granary by using red brick. The solution is obvious, but works. In some cases, the red brick creates a heavy
atmosphere. In many proposals, the heavy material was made lighter looking with different kinds of brick laces
and reliefs. It was also common to use wood in the façades as a reference to the Amuri Museum of Workers’
Housing. Wood worked best when used in linings or boldly as material for the load-bearing structures. The jury
considered various material choices as possible. The building stock in the surroundings is diverse and does not,
therefore’ determine the façade material. The independence of the art museum can also be emphasised by
using a material that differs from the surroundings. The materials should be durable and stable. Architecture
must consider all of the finer details (e.g., the problems of using rooflights in the Finnish climate).
Image 4. Art museum building Image 5. Art museum plot
2.1.6 Pyynikintori Square and public outdoor spaces
The competition area includes several central and historically significant public outdoor spaces. The task was to
develop these areas taking their values and characteristics into account. Another goal was to link the new art
museum and the new structures in a natural and interesting way to create an integrated whole. From the
perspective of public outdoor space, the competition’s special challenges proved to be the treatment of the art
museum area and Pyynikintori Square.
THE ART MUSEUM AREA AND THE NORTHERN PARK AREAS
Handling the immediate surroundings of the art museum proved difficult for many participants. Several of them
chose the scale of the Amuri wooden housing block as their starting point and created a large new block with
the museum on the unbuilt plot. The museum buildings based on the atrium solutions paid proper attention to
the trees growing in the yard of the former wooden housing block. Even though the solution based on a large
block is logical, it did not always create an interesting public space or a pleasant environment. In many entries,
the volume of construction was too great, leading to a cramped result. The jury appreciated entries that had
Amuri’s park-like environment as the starting point and created a spacious feel around the museum. The
solution was based on locating the art museum close to Pirkankatu Street and massing the museum building.
The former block yard next to the art museum was thus successfully turned into a park-like green area that
together with the museum yard is public space for people to share. The area’s spaciousness provided
opportunities for creating a pleasant, green environment, not forgetting the opportunities for infill development.
The key task was to incorporate the northern parts with their different characters more naturally into each other.
In the best entries, the surroundings of the new museum building, the yard of the old art museum, and the small
parks formed a pleasant and attractive whole. Many proposals had completely ignored the Kelloplaani area and
left a vague green area between Pirkankatu Street and the new art museum. It seems that bringing the new
museum closer to Pirkankatu was a successful solution in this respect as well. Structuring the wedge-like area
between Puutarhakatu and Pirkankatu Streets turned out to be a challenge. Many proposals had not solved the
end of Puutarhakatu, leaving the parks as passive remainders of the city structure that were not smoothly
connected to the whole. In the best entries, the new museum was located as a handsome end of Puutarhakatu,
close to Pirkankatu, or the area was activated with a new square that was connected to Pirkankatu. These
solutions created the needed end to Puutarhakatu and linked the art museum area to the Pyynikintori Square
area as a whole. The relation between the old and new museum was not always sufficiently taken into account
in terms of treating public outdoor space. In many entries, the new art museum was not connected to the old
museum milieu in a balanced way. The jury appreciated the solutions in which the new museum and its public
space naturally complemented the old museum surroundings, adding a new and interesting dimension to it.
The challenge of the competition task was the barrier effect created by Pirkankatu Street and the clear division
of the area into two parts: Pyynikintori Square and the Heinätori Square area in the southern part, and the art
museum and its surroundings in the northern part. It turned out that connecting these two areas in terms of city
structure was a difficult task. In the best entries, the new museum successfully linked the northern part to
Pyynikintori Square by being located close to Pirkankatu, adapting to the Pyynikintori Square coordinate
system, and turning towards the square. The solutions that placed the art museum building further away from
Pirkankatu were not as smoothly connected to the square area. Several entries had successful ideas for
improving the pedestrian and bicycle connections between the Pyynikintori Square area and the art museum
surroundings. In particular, developing the eastern edge of Pyynikintori Square as a pedestrian-oriented area
contributed to this goal.
PYYNIKINTORI SQUARE AND HEINÄTORI SQUARE
The competition objective was to develop the Pyynikintori Square area as an entity that comprises the cityscape
and the functions, taking into account the historical values of the area. This proved to be a difficult task. It was
requested that the significant cultural-historical values and characteristics of the square area be taken into
account, including the clear formation of space and the plantings that frame the open space. Yet many entries
presented radical and unjustified reforms to the square area that did not bring any added value in terms of
functions or aesthetics. The heavy construction suggested for the square and the infill development at the
northern edge of the square was not considered possible. Filling the square with structures or renewing it with
modern design found no support either. The best solutions treated the square with a moderate approach,
adding subtle new structures. The spaciousness and empty space of the square was understood both as a
value in terms of the cityscape and as functional potential. The jury would still want to see functional
improvements that are original. One proposal that stood out was one in which the northern and southern parts
of Pirkankatu Street were connected to each other with an architectural shelter structure that also marked the
tram stop as the art museum stop. Another successful and simple but efficient solution that occurred in a few
proposals was based on doubling the rows of trees lining the square, thus creating small recreational parks at
the edges of the square. Maintaining the park-like character of the square was seen as an important goal as
well as compensation for the loss of Heinäpuisto Park to construction. The competition’s planning instructions
suggested expanding the playground functions in the square, but this was ignored by many entries. The other
needs as regards the functions in the square area were well observed, and the bus terminal, for example was
connected naturally to the square area.
In addition to Pyynikintori Square, the competition area also included the small Heinätori Square with its hay-
weighing building, and Heinäpuisto Park, which could be used for infill development. The historical value of
Heinätori Square was well observed, and most proposals left enough space behind the hay-weighing building.
In Heinäpuisto Park, many entries successfully put the emphasis on infill development along Pirkankatu, thus
leaving the southern part of the area more spacious and connecting it to the Pyynikki area in a natural way.
Some proposals placed either very tall or otherwise massive construction in Heinäpuisto Park or the Heinätori
Square area, which was not considered desirable.
Image 6. Pyynikintori Square Image 7. Heinätori Square
2.1.7 Infill development
Suitable housing, retail, and office space were also to be located in the competition area, as the plan is to cover
some of the museum’s construction costs through the sale of the building rights that will be planned in the
future. The conditions for implementing an underground parking facility beneath the square depend on the
parking spaces required by infill development.
The competition programme stated that the targeted gross floor area for infill development is 16,000 gross floor
m2.
The starting points for planning infill development were the options of locating it on Heinätori Square, the art
museum area, or the art museum parking area along Puutarhakatu. Some of the proposals had massive
construction also on Pyynikintori Square, which was considered to be an ill-conceived solution to start with.
Adapting the scale of infill development to the existing built environment within the high target of gross floor area
was challenging, but the best proposals proved it was possible. The goal was best achieved by spreading infill
development across several plots. The scale was best controlled by locating infill development in the museum
plot as well.
Quite a few proposals did not, however, find a natural solution for infill development, so the result was either
dense due to massing that was too heavy, or unsuitable for the location due to construction that was too tall.
The competition found no complete starting point for further planning of infill development, but the competition
entries provide a comprehensive view of the suitable construction volume for the area, and massing as the
basis for work on the local detailed plan.
2.1.8 Dimensioning and functionality
For the art museum’s additional construction, most of the proposals had dimensioning that for the most part
matched the given room programme. The functionality of the entrance foyer seemed to have posed challenges:
how to create a clear, inviting, impressive yet also functional reception area with foyer services and a museum
shop, in such a way that the facilities do not take too much space from other (exhibition) functions.
Most proposals had paid enough attention to the challenges related to the transport and maintenance of
artworks, and in almost all of the proposals, with the exception of just a few, the solutions for the logistic details
required by exhibition functions from the loading platform to the doorways were practical.
For the exhibition facilities the request was, in addition to meeting the requirements of modern museum
technology, also to be as modifiable as possible, both in terms of the interior walls and the height of the space.
The majority of the proposals had taken the modifiability of the facilities well into account, the multi-storey
proposals in particular, in which each individual exhibition space floor could be opened and closed separately
according to the needs of the exhibition programme. Unfortunately, quite a few proposals had forgotten to
include a large and high-ceilinged exhibition space in the room programme, even though there is a clear need
for that space in the future too. Luckily, many of the proposals had also taken into account the customer’s
perspective with a clear and consistent exhibition route, so that visitors do not need to go back along the same
route to the starting point. In most of the proposals, the solutions for dividing the exhibition space can be
specified in more detail in further planning. The solutions for work facilities for personnel can also be specified in
further planning.
As a whole, the room programme of the new art museum building is moderate in the sense that the facilities
geared to visitors, even if spread across several floors, still remain within reasonable limits and can thus be
managed on one museum visit – this is certainly customer friendly.
2.1.9 Traffic
The traffic network solutions were mainly presented according to the initial objectives. Some proposals had
missed the fact that the driving direction at Pyynikintori Square had changed. The traffic directions are
determined by the tramway plans and thus fixed.
The proposals included good ideas for the public transport terminal arrangements at the square, but none of the
proposals works as such as the basis for implementation. The solutions that have drive-through bus stops are
better for safety in the square area than the options in which the buses have to reverse in the square area. The
drive-through platforms cut through the square zone, making it important to develop the edges of the square to
observe the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. Bus traffic was mainly located in the northern part of the square
so as to provide a smooth transfer connection with the tram traffic. The junctions for bus traffic must not be
located too close to Pirkankatu Street; instead, turning from Pirkankatu into Pyynikintori Square and turning in
from the street skirting Pyynikintori Square to the square must be seen as separate events. Some participants
had missed the fact that buses only have doors on one side of the vehicle.
The service traffic for the museum was easiest to arrange via Makasiininkatu Street as recommended in the
competition programme. This led some of the entries to locate the museum building in the northern part of the
plot, diminishing the building’s role in terms of cityscape. Combining service traffic and the future parking facility
is not recommended, as these separate projects will have different schedules, and the museum must be able to
operate even without the underground parking option. In addition, the lorry needed for art transport requires
more height than a car in underground facilities, and providing an underground turning space increases the
costs significantly. If the service traffic goes underground, the ramps must be planned carefully so as not the
dominate the surroundings. It is also possible to locate the ramp or the service space on the basement floor of
the extension so that it does not disturb the cityscape. In many cases, the arrangements suggested for the
museum’s drop-off and pick-up traffic needed further structuring.
The ramp to the parking facility was mostly placed on Sotkankatu Street in accordance with the competition
programme. The solution requires significant work with regard to moving equipment and pipes. Placing the
ramps crosswise on Pyynikintori Square does not work for the cityscape, and it divides the square space. The
entrances to the underground parking facility were often successfully integrated into the square structures.
Directing local traffic to the southern part of the square was not seen as a recommendable solution.
The solutions for pedestrian and bicycle traffic routes were varied. There were significant differences in the
functionality of the arrangements for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, as well as for bicycle traffic in the south-north
and east-west directions. The routes cannot run too close to the museum building; there must be enough free
space in front of the entrance. The requirements of bicycle parking must be observed in further planning.
The barrier effect of Pirkankatu Street was approached in different ways. The tram stops are raised above
ground level and fenced off for safety reasons, so it will not be possible to implement the idea of shared space.
Some of the proposals exaggerated the barrier effect and suggested massive underpasses to go under
Pirkankatu. Multi-level solutions do not suit city centre areas, and long ramps are awkward both in terms of
cityscape and functions.
The traffic solutions are analysed in more detail in the verbal evaluations of the top proposals.
2.1.10 Feasibility and overall cost-efficiency
The key factors that affect the project’s overall cost-efficiency are the usability and lifespan of the building. The
objective of the competition was to find a high-quality overall solution in terms of cityscape and functions that
provides a flexible and up-to-date structure for diverse museum activities. Although implementing the
competition programme within the given framework proved to be challenging, the top overall solutions were
considered to cope with the technical and financial constraints to be faced during further development. The
proposals that were deemed the best were convincing examples of the authors’ technical and problem solving
skills.
Comparative scope and cost analyses have been compiled of the best entries. The comparison was based on
the scope analyses submitted by the participants. The comparison focused on the renovation of the existing
museum building and the new building. The cost analyses were based on the total areas. The jury also had at
their disposal a cost accountant’s estimate of solutions that would increase or reduce costs. The scope and cost
details were compared with the objectives of the competition programme and with each other, and they were
taken into account in the evaluation if considered relevant. The scope of the competition’s room programme was
ca. 4,250 m² (net), of which the current museum buildings cover ca. 1,250 m² (net). The target for the extension
was ca. 3,000 m² (net), which means the projected gross area of 5,000 gross m² for the overall scope was
exceeded by most of the prize category proposals.
The suggested amount of housing and retail construction varied a great deal. Fitting in 16,000 gross floor m² of
infill development as per the objective on the three sites proved to be difficult but possible. Infill development
was easiest and most successfully implemented in proposals that allowed housing construction on the museum
plot too.
The prize category proposals were found to be technically feasible and to have structural solutions that have the
potential for development, yet could be partly challenging to implement. Further planning must pay attention to
choosing structures and materials that have a long lifespan and are easy to service. The space reservations for
utility facilities and air raid shelters had flaws that were not considered to significantly affect the solution as a
whole.
Image 8.
2.2 Proposal-specific evaluation
2.2.1 EVALUATION CATEGORIES
The jury evaluated all proposals in accordance with the evaluation principles outlined in the Competition
Programme and divided them into categories as follows:
Prize category

74 dogma
68 MUSEUM SQUARE
88 Siilo
113 LOOTA
Upper category
21 THE MIND PALACE

53 CALAMARI UNION
82 Nexus
Upper middle category
1 KIVIKAVERIT
5 SYKLIT
8 ART VALLEY
9 KEHYS (1)
19 UNDER ONE ROOF
22 Maple47081
29 Bona fide
30 HEKSA
33 TAMPURIINI
37 HA 17
40 ATRIUM
42 AMUR
49 BUN
50 Korttelimuseo
59 DRAPERIA
64 Promenade
71 RATIO
75 IVORY
78 NOIVA
89 Passe-partout
99 Korttelipihat
101 RECUERDO
107 THE HUB
108 12282017
123 HAVINA
128 TUKINUITTO
130 EMBRACING THE SPACE
134 BRICKSTAMP
146 JOUSI
Middle category
2 tuoppi ja pikari
3 stilleben
4 Aatsh
6 SYLI
10 ARCADE
12 PAASIKIVEN KANGASTUS
13 entäs Sitte
15 THX113876
16 siivet
20 kaiku
23 Plus
24 ARTCORE
25 TA-LO
26 TAMTAM
27 TRE2
28 PLASSI
31 KUBIK
32 QUARTZ
34 artem futurum tractabilis
35 NIKKI
36 PYYTIKKI
38 TAIDETTA KAUPUNKIIN
43 CARMEN SAECULARE
45 KVARTSI
46 NELIAPILA
47 MUOTTI
48 arki!taidemuseo
51 STÖNÖ
54 BOOTLACE
55 JÄKÄLÄ
56 Elä Pyynikki
57 ALGORITMI
58 ROOTS INTO THE FUTURE
60 Muisto
61 PLEIN AIR
62 PLASSISSA
63 NILA
65 AVANT-GARDEN
66 Viuhti
69 Kehys (2)
70 ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL
72 NUORPUU
73 Engelin siipi
76 näyttelykuvia
77 murmuration
79 Vitriini
91 CAMPBELL
92 VIIVAT
93 MUUSAMA
95 LASTU
96 BOXESES
100 Arti et Urbanis!
105 LOHKOS
106 HELMINAUHA
109 KOLMIO
111 Cor
112 NOODI
114 Hakka
118 CUMU
121 Frame
122 FLOCK
126 TEAM 625429
129 YHDISTEET
131 KALEIDOSKOPE
133 WOODY
135 LYHTY
137 LÄHDE
138 8700
140 Colibri
141 ZDESIGN
142 AGORA
147 TÄHKÄ (2)
Lower category
7 A13581
11 metsäpolku
17 KIILA
18 Castor and Pollux
39 KOPPELO
44 NIETOS
52 HEI HAY
67 RUUVALLI
80 PALIKAT
81 hiekkapistepilvi
83 MOREENIA
84 SFUMATO
85 LATERES
86 Cultural infrastructure
87 Uunipyörä
90 SIMPUKKA
94 ROTVALLI
97 Bartholomew
98 ALCHEMILLA
102 Framille
103 ARTTELI
104 BINB
110 Tähkä (1)
115 TAIRETTA JA MUSTAA MAKKARAA
116 THE TREE TOP GALLERY
117 DIEMONDS AND RUST
119 YARDBIRDS
124 ILMATAR
125 HARJU
127 CON`TEXT
132 NEXUS 3
136 REVERSE
139 FI1612
143 INCANDESCENT
144 JUST DRAW IT
145 SAA17
2.2.2 PRIZE CATEGORY
88 Siilo (1st prize)
Siilo creates an iconic form next to the old art museum. Siilo is an industrial body, a big brother to the old art
museum, that clearly articulates that it is the Tampere Art Museum. This landmark building immediately leaves a
lasting impression. The chosen concept, in which the shape of the old granary building is copied and stacked up
in layers, may, at first glance, appear slightly contrived, but the strong formalistic idea begins to feel titillating,
and the more one studies the proposal, the more convincing the idea becomes. The strong shape is also easily
utilised as a logo in graphic communications. The new art museum building is positioned in a tension-creating
and slightly surprising fashion by Pirkankatu Street to form the end of the Puutarhakatu Street view line.
Positioning the new construction on the current traffic area preserves the maximum amount of park area. The
selected coordinates successfully tie in the new extension with the directions of Pyynikintori Square as it stands
at the edge of the Amuri area, making it an end point for the views from the area’s streets that can be seen from
far away. The possibilities offered by the neighbouring Amuri Museum of Workers' Housing have not been
utilised. The proposed compact building preserves the plot as a park-like and lush area, the outdoor space thus
providing a contrast to the paved Pyynikintori Square. The building itself is a free-standing body amidst a green
public space, which can be considered the most natural solution in recognition of the area’s valuable cultural
environment.
The museum building is a seemingly timeless work of architecture with strong connections to the past, present,
and future alike. The building is clearly designed for this particular site and assumes its place in a
straightforward and unpretentious fashion. Brick as the facade material of choice works well as a reference to
Tampere's built history, and naivety is avoided with the exceptional form – the material and the form work
stunningly together.
The structural and spatial solutions of the building work well. Visiting the art museum has been made into an
intense experience with the different floors and spaces possessing their own distinct characters. The usability of
the various exhibition floors, and the possibility of closing them off non-simultaneously, facilitates a versatile
exhibition programme and provides flexibility in terms of scheduling. The basic solution for the exhibition
facilities is good, but they could be more modifiable in order to avoid too cramped exhibition rooms similar to the
those in the old granary buildings. The interiors open invitingly onto their environment via large glass surfaces.
The biggest question that remains is how the powerful form lends itself to a relaxed art museum entrance with a
café and shop on the ground floor. For now, the positioning of the facilities is natural, but as the art museum
becomes more popular, the spaces may prove too small. How, within the confines of the proposed design, could
this aspect of the art museum be developed? Potential future expansion of the art museum expansion should
also be considered at this stage. The above-grade roof of the media room presented in the section is not seen
in any of the other plan drawings. The large and quite high platform is not good for the park-like milieu.
Siilo is a clearly presented proposal, and the abstract scale model images yield an impression of the interior that
is general and allusive in a positive sense. The ground-level space with a slanted ceiling is particularly powerful.
However, the underground passage to the old part that runs by the media room is quite long, but it can be
developed in a more experiential direction with, for example, illuminated display cases built into the wall. This
assertive building can handle a lot in terms of the use of its facilities and lends itself quite well to varied
expressions created with night-time lighting solutions. The use of the mezzanine as a lookout level with a coffee
and bar station would add an urban dimension to the entire area. The utility service facilities included in the
competition proposal’s plan material do not add up to the total area (535 m2) specified in the competition brief’s
room programme, but the facilities can be implemented underground.
The treatment of Pyynikintori Square is very conservative, and it appears that the authors have not wanted to
interfere with the square. The square’s historical character is preserved, and the gentle treatment enables the
square to be developed by means other than those of architecture. All possibilities for future planning are left
open. The bus terminal is presented with a platform solution, which is spatially efficient but requires the vehicles
to reverse. The solution is more suitable for long-distance transport than local transport.
The plan did not include separate traffic network plans or diagrams, rendering it quite general in terms of traffic
arrangements, which means it was difficult to evaluate them. The underground maintenance traffic is directed
via Sotkankatu Street and a ramp down to the parking level. The solution requires considerable relocation of
equipment and cables as well as easement contracts between the properties. Maintenance traffic in the
proposed manner seems functional and safe, but expensive. The challenging solution ties the implementation of
the museum plan to that of the parking facility, which is not feasible. A better route can be found for the
maintenance ramp from Puutarhakatu or Makasiininkatu Street. The ramp will, in any case, increase the
museum extension’s building costs.
When it comes to passenger car traffic, the drop-off sites are situated at the western end of Puutarhakatu
Street, but no specific traffic solutions for Puutarhakatu are presented. The pedestrian and bicycle connections
are presented in very general terms in the plan maps, and it was difficult to evaluate the solutions. The cycling
route passes quite close to the museum entrance and may cause traffic safety issues. Bicycle parking is
presented on Pyynikintori Square.
Infill development has been resolved seemingly effortlessly and very naturally, with no unnecessary gimmickry.
Additional construction also on the museum plot decreases the pressure on the other dedicated infill
development sites. The slab block building proposed for the museum plot successfully continues the rhythm of
the residential buildings next to the plot. The new building is a decidedly new interpretation of the modern multi-
storey buildings of Amuri and, despite the challenging location, an exceptionally successful solution that also
requires the museum’s designer to design the residential building next to it. The building mass on Puutarhakatu
Street is slightly too heavy, but leaves reasonable scope to preserve the Catholic church as a part of the
cityscape. The new building allocated to the Heinäpuisto Park in the Heinätori area fits in naturally with the
architecture on both sides of Pirkankatu Street and joins the large Veljeslinna block across the street to create
an urban street space. The old hay-weighing building is left with enough space around it.
41 TAD Tampere Art District (shared 3rd prize)
TAD is a bold proposal that is ready to assume the role of the centre and heart of an Art District area. The
proposal takes a strong stand on its environment. The additional construction is positioned in a natural and
confident way. Assuming the coordinates of Pyynikintori Square’s western edge successfully links the main
building mass as a part of the classic composition, providing the art museum with added impact. The authors
have thematically analysed the city as a whole and also proposed measures arising from their concept for areas
outside the competition area. This creates an interesting vision for the entire area’s future.
Despite this broad approach, the proposal is carefully studied, and the presentation is praiseworthy. The
facades have only two materials, aluminium and glass. As an exterior material, an aluminium grille is a cold and
quite generic solution. When operating with such a severe material choice, the corner details, for example,
should be delicate and carefully considered; based on the illustrations, this does not seem to be the case here.
The danger is that a careless implementation would render the building too mundane. The building could well be
a library, for instance, while a more distinct and individual identity was sought for the museum. On the other
hand, the anonymous office-building-like appearance seems to be a conscious choice: today’s art museum
does not need to be overly dignified, but rather straightforward and approachable.
The entrance level has been well activated when it comes to both the interior and exterior space. The sections
and interior views are tempting. The exhibition tour flows clearly, and the art museum facilities are modifiable,
even if the design would benefit from an even more clearly spatial approach. The high central lobby takes up a
lot of cubic metres. The interior illustration of the 3rd floor exhibition space is outstanding. There are some
technical shortcomings in the proposal, pertaining to, for example, exit routes, but these are solvable.
In addition to the art museum, the TAD complex includes a residential building/apartment hotel. An apartment
hotel or regular hotel might add an interesting function as an annexe to the museum building. The regulations
concerning housing are so binding, however, that including housing as a part of the museum complex would
likely be very difficult.
The maintenance route to the museum is proposed to enter the plot from Makasiininkatu Street, and the
vehicles reverse into the plot. The solution seems functional and safe. For visitor traffic, drop-off arrangements
are presented on Puutarhakatu and Mariankatu Streets.
The art terminal connecting the museum and Pyynikintori Square is a fun idea. The white “Paper planes”
canopy installation forms a light, floating counterpoint to the clean-lined and assertive museum building and
gives the art museum a visible presence on Pirkankatu Street. The canopy structure also provides a strong
identity for the future tramway stop. The “shared space” area on Pirkankatu Street presented in the perspective
images is unfeasible due to the barrier effect of the tramway line.
The bus terminal is presented as a platform solution, which requires the buses to reverse and is better suited to
long-distance transport than local transport. The terminal is left between two busy pedestrian areas, which may
result in pedestrians cutting across the square, creating traffic safety issues. As the vehicles have to reverse,
the bus traffic should be more clearly separated from the pedestrian area to guarantee public safety. Otherwise,
the arrangements are functional, and they are not over-dimensioned, which allows the character of the square
to be preserved. Vehicle access to the underground parking facility is proposed to be placed at the south-
eastern corner of Pyynikintori Square. The vehicle ramp and the lifting of the terrace area at the edges of
Pyynikintori are unnecessarily drastic measures. The solution brings more vehicle traffic onto narrow streets –
for instance, F. E. Sillanpäänkatu Street – and the entrance is quite difficult to access and to signpost. The
solution has not considered the changes in the traffic directions of the streets on the eastern and western sides
of Pyynikintori caused by the building of the tramway.
The east–west and south–north cycling routes intersect outside the square. Proposing a cycling route along the
southern side of Pirkankatu Street between Pyynikintori Square and Mariankatu Street is likely to be accidental
– the solution is not feasible from the point of view of traffic safety. Otherwise, the solution seems functional.
Bicycle parking is mentioned in the text but could not be found in the plan images.
The proposed infill development is natural.
A glass building mass is always a challenge in exhibition use. Aluminium has a large carbon footprint.
74 dogma (shared 3rd prize)
Dogma is excellently positioned within the city structure, embracing Pyynikintori Square with the direction of its
main facade. With this gesture, the building also creates a museum square in front of itself and forms a
counterpoint to the monumental school building at the southern end of Pyynikintori. The other coordinates of the
building are connected to the surrounds on the Amuri side of the museum. The relatively compact building does
not fill the entire plot, but leaves enough space around itself, as is required for a public landmark building. This
enables the formation of a high-quality green space.
The natural stone plinth and the brick as solid facade materials connect the new building to the old granary
building. The material reference to the built history of Tampere works well. The handmade red brick gives the
architecture a sense of durability. The monumental, even heavy impression has been tempered by the brick
lace and white concrete that were seen in several competition entries. This steady and strong proposal would
have tolerated more clean-lined exterior architecture. The interiors open onto the environment in the right places
and help to activate the promising museum square. Despite the views over the historical urban space, the
general image of the building is regrettably introverted. Especially in the scale model, the building mass seems
somewhat heavy.
The proposal is skilfully executed and particularly beautifully presented. The poetic black-and-white perspective
images are the best in the competition and, with their intense atmosphere, immediately make the proposal stand
out from among the flood of competition entries. The interior architecture of the museum building is serene,
even sacral, raising it above the mundane existence. The series of spaces offer variety and a fine-tuned
expression. The different-sized exhibition spaces are usable in a variety of ways. A concept in which the
exhibition spaces circle around a central staircase as if inside a windmill provides a reference to the old granary
and links the two buildings together. The exhibition spaces are spatially interesting, but not very modifiable,
unless the dividing walls are implemented as non-bearing walls, which would not seem natural for the design.
The connection to the old part is accomplished through the exhibition space. The design implies some Central
European references. The proposal is perhaps even a little too serious for Tampere Art Museum. What kind of a
reference does the chosen architectural style provide for the visitor? How will the atmosphere in the building
change when it is full of people and life?
The solutions for Pyynikintori Square are natural, albeit too conservative, and do not yield any specific added
value to the area. The proposed canopy structures are light and stylish. The idea for the lighting is especially
nice: the grid formation subtly unifies the square area as a single whole. The solution could be difficult from the
point of view of usability. The connection between the square and the museum building remains incomplete,
and the connection between the Amuri Museum of Workers’ Housing and the Tampere Art Museum buildings
has also not been utilised.
The bus traffic solution should have been more compact and safer for pedestrians. The bus terminal is
presented with east–west running platforms, and the functionality/use of the platforms in the middle is
questionable. The proposed solution requires 8 access points to the plot instead of the current two, fragmenting
the tree lines framing the square, endangering the south–north pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and requiring the
removal of the on-street parking at the access points. The presented platform solution, which requires the buses
to reverse, is better suited to long-distance transport than local transport. The plan is based on the current street
traffic directions around the square and not those outlined by the new solutions that are already being
implemented.
The proposed access to the parking facility is directed via Sotkankatu Street – such a solution requires
considerable relocating of equipment and cables. The museum’s maintenance traffic is proposed to access the
plot and continue into the building from Makasiininkatu Street, with reversing on the street/to the street. The
solution seems functional and fairly safe. As regards passenger car traffic, the drop-off arrangements are sited
on Puutarhakatu Street and Mariankatu Street, but no specific turnaround driveway is presented. The east–west
and south–north cycling routes intersect in the museum square, but are quite far away from the entrance. The
solution seems practical. Bicycle parking arrangements are included in the presentation.
The proposed infill development is natural. The new building in front of the Catholic church is positioned in the
corner of the plot, naturally defining its relationship to the neighbouring buildings. The proposal presents two
new buildings on Heinätori Square. The sympathetic two-storey commercial building frames a sheltered square
but, on the other hand, is placed quite close to the valuable old hay-weighing building. The new construction sits
well with both the neoclassical architecture of the Pyynikki area and the urban 1950s space of Pirkankatu
Street.
14 Amurin kattojen yllä (Purchase)
The proposal is a controlled whole, and the assertive new museum building slots into its place in the historical
block structure with an air of effortlessness. The proposal represents the group of competition entries in which
the block structure of the old Amuri wooden housing blocks has been assumed as the basic solution for the art
museum by filling the old museum block with the new museum building. The scale manages to be harmonious
despite the contrasting approach. The internal courtyard solution is a direct reference to the history, without
being naïve. The bevelled shape of the museum building pulls together the site’s two different sets of
coordinates. The interior and exterior spaces are interconnected, but the ground-level wood facade could have
been more clean-lined and glassy. A high-quality public space can be created between the new and old
museum buildings, even if the solution remains unfinished as it is now.
The proposal is carefully examined and the presentation is clear and beautiful. The concept mimicking the
rooflines of the historical wooden housing block may, at first glance, seem formalistic and contrived, but even if
the idea is not necessarily apparent to the visitor, the folded ceiling makes the entrance area appealing and the
interior spaces interesting. The low-rise building is not specifically perceived as an art museum but could just as
well work as a library. Even though the freely composed holes in the façade are a familiar and well-used feature
abroad, in this context, they serve to downscale the otherwise reserved architecture and soften the concrete
exterior. Although the working principles of the integrated LED light wall are not explained in detail, the
illuminated concrete is, based on the perspective images, stunning in the dark.
The museum layout is straightforward and seemingly effortless. The exhibition tour works well. Top lighting has
been utilised, and the space is modifiable. There is a diversity of low and high spaces. The location of the space
dedicated to the Regional Art Museum’s showcase by the main entrance is excellent.
The massive hotel building between Pyynikintori Square and Pirkankatu Street is startling. In the old local
detailed plan, a regional administration building was allocated to the site, but the solution no longer feels so
well-justified. The horizontal mass breaks up the architectural idea and cityscape of the square space, and a
hotel and commercial building on the site in question is not functionally justified. The proposed access to the
parking facility is directed via Sotkankatu Street – the solution requires considerable relocating of equipment
and cables. The bus terminal is very efficient spatially and seems to work well.
Traffic networks are presented as a diagram, but the presentation does not, for example, include pedestrian
connections. The plan is quite general in terms of traffic arrangements, and it was difficult to evaluate the
solutions. The museum maintenance route is proposed to access the plot from Makasiininkatu Street, and the
vehicles reverse on the plot. The solution seems functional and safe. The turnaround driveway for drop-off traffic
is placed in the museum square area, which presents a danger to pedestrians and cyclists. At the western end
of Puutarhakatu Street, the drop-off arrangements for passenger car traffic are presented in the
pedestrian/square area, where it intersects with pedestrian and bicycle traffic and poses a traffic safety problem.
No bicycle parking has been proposed.
The angle in the residential building on the competition area's western corner gives the impression that the
building mass has had to bend in order to avoid running into the pre-existing building. The new construction on
Pirkankatu Street makes the area look relatively congested, although the long building mass along the street
does create a dense and, in an impressive way, city-like street space that marks the end of the inner city’s core
area. The opportunities offered by yard areas are lost with the too many building masses. The hay-weighing
building is left with a good position in the cityscape. The mass positioned in front of the Catholic church is of a
reasonable height, but leaves the church in its shadow.
This was one of the few proposals in which the author had utilised the possibilities of renewable energy
production by using solar panels on the roof.
68 MUSEUM SQUARE (Purchase)
The art museum stands as a shining beacon and landmark in the new centre for the Pyynikki area. Museum
Square is a relaxed and urban art museum that is not afraid to state its presence in the city. The building is
ethereal and straightforward, perhaps even already familiar from other museum buildings around the world with
its references to New Objectivity, but appears very international and would be quite timeless in its stylishness.
The building is confidently positioned in its environment and surrounds itself with varied urban outdoor spaces of
a pleasant scale, provided that the proposed neighbouring building is executed successfully. The solution’s
strong reliance on the neighbouring building proposed for commercial and office use is, however, a risk. Two
separate square areas are created at the sides of the museum building. The connection to the old granary
building, which is left slightly overshadowed, could have been stronger; the new building seems to turn its back
on the old buildings, and the space between the new and old buildings could have been utilised better as a
public, connecting yard area. The relationship with Pyynikintori Square also remains a bit vague. However, the
scale model made of the city structure attests to the building’s ability to form a simple yet dominant presence in
the urban space.
The view of the lobby is unreserved and perhaps even too trendy. The building seems very approachable,
because there is no unnecessary pretence. The café terrace faces Pyynikintori Square, but its volume appears
too small in the proposal. The basic exhibition space solution is good. The exhibition facilities provide a calm
backdrop for the art, and their lighting is also addressed commendably in the proposal. The lack of one higher
space is a concern, as is the question of how large art pieces are to be transported from the loading dock to the
exhibition space. The modifiability of the clean-lined spaces is presented with distinction. The movable dividing
walls make the museum quite versatile with regard to its use. The passage between the old and new buildings
works well, and the idea concerning its use for exhibition purposes is feasible. A lookout area and coffee
station/bar would be a nice touch on the top landing. There are some technical shortcomings in the proposal,
pertaining to, for example, the exit routes and the dimensions of the green roof, but these issues are likely to be
solvable.
The minimalist, translucent architecture requires an extremely accurate and high-quality implementation. The
height of the building is at the very limit of what the environment can tolerate, but it does have its supporting
points of reference within the surrounding building stock. The glass brick is a surprising material, but it could
prove interesting when paired with the red brick. The wood structure brings warmth and posture to the otherwise
intangible, ethereal architecture. A wood structure is a challenge in a high-rise public building, but if it were
successfully implemented, it might be a step forward for the entire industry.
The proposal did not include separate traffic network plans or diagrams, rendering the plan quite general in
terms of traffic arrangements, but the proposed solutions are based on the preliminary traffic network plans
included in the source material. The museum maintenance route is proposed to access the plot from
Makasiininkatu Street, and the vehicles reverse into the plot. The solution seems functional and safe. For visitor
traffic, drop-off arrangements are presented at the western end of Puutarhakatu Street, and the solution seems
functional. The pedestrian and bicycle connections are presented in very general terms in the plan maps. When
it comes to bicycle traffic to and from Puutarhakatu Street, the danger is that the cyclists would cut through the
museum square, endangering pedestrians on the square. Bicycle parking is presented on the northern side of
the museum, where the bicycle racks are a bit far from the cycling routes.
The treatment of Pyynikintori Square in the plan remains a bit too gentle. In all their simplicity, however, the
traffic arrangements are functional. The proposed access to the parking facility is directed via Sotkankatu Street
– the solution requires considerable relocating of equipment and cables. The bus terminal is presented with a
platform solution that is spatially efficient but requires the vehicles to reverse. The solution is more suitable for
long-distance transport than local transport.
The frame depths of the proposed residential buildings are overestimated. The clean-lined building masses are
slightly monotonous and generic.
113 LOOTA (Purchase)
The green-roofed Loota is a provocative and interesting art supermarket. It defends its place as a potential art
museum of future generations. At first glance, the general impression of the proposed building that takes up the
entire plot is a bit too simple. However, the design entails a good deal of humour and in-depth analysis of the
location, which both lightens the mood and delights as one takes a more involved look at Loota.
The entrance is easily found as it is indicated by a free-form, tongue-like canopy on an art square at the end of
the Puutarhakatu Street line. The solid main door is an unusual solution, which emphasises the closed
impression. The bagged brick seems like an ironic joke and a poke at modernism. However, the chosen
material brings a necessary sense of a smaller scale to the box-like building, in addition to adding some
roughness and humanity. The building is closed off to the outside, but the introverted aspect that at first seems
like a mistake proves a considered and effective feature. The bagged white walls are a blank canvas for the art.
Loota is a platform for the activities that has no need for self-assertion. The building submits itself to being
moulded by the art. The question that remains unanswered, however, is whether the Tampere Art Museum is a
little passive in its attitude towards its environment, or whether it will indeed attract enough attention to serve as
a low-threshold, relaxed art institution. Here, the key role is played by the creative use of the building’s walls and
roof as part of the art. For example, the solid, closed walls could serve as a street art gallery. The large
exhibition advertisements presented in the proposal illustrations suggest that the author would allow a quite
casual use of the building. The large roof surface could be utilised in a better way than what is presented.
The “closed block” with a central garden formed by the quadrangular building is a justified solution in regard to
the overall cityscape and the location. The Loota configuration implies echoes of the old block structure of
Amuri, and the large, clean-lined shape of the building is characteristic of Tampere. The outdoor spaces are
presented in quite general terms, but implementing the series of squares according to the proposal is feasible.
The layout plans are presented in an undetailed way. The solution is somehow reminiscent of the Didrichsen Art
Museum in Helsinki. The hall-like exhibition space is easily modifiable. Opportunities for top lighting have not
been utilised in a way that would allow the wall to the atrium to be closable. As it is, the lighting of the exhibition
space is challenging, especially as the evening sun shines directly into the building. The building relies on the
service lift only, which is a questionable solution in terms of accessibility to all. The hand-drawn aerial image is a
nice touch. The perspective images portray a beautiful atmosphere and help us to understand the otherwise
quite complex approach.
The museum facilities are mainly located on the ground level, which brings significant advantages in, for
instance, transporting large pieces of art. The space is technically and functionally easy in regard to setting up
exhibitions. The fact that the building does not quite fit into its plot could easily have been solved by, for
example, adjusting the size of the atrium. The utilisation of space is very economical, and the proposal has one
of the most efficient layout solutions in the competition.
terms of traffic arrangements, but the proposed solutions are based on the preliminary traffic network plans
included in the source material. The maintenance route to the museum is proposed to enter the plot from
Makasiininkatu Street, and the vehicles reverse into the plot. The solution seems functional and safe. For visitor
traffic, drop-off arrangements are presented at the western end of Puutarhakatu Street, and the solution seems
functional. The pedestrian and bicycle connections are presented in very general terms in the plan maps, and
the solutions were difficult to evaluate. Bicycle parking is presented both on the square and in the museum area.
The solutions for Pyynikintori Square are standard. The bus terminal is presented with a platform solution that is
spatially efficient but requires the vehicles to reverse. The solution is more suitable for long-distance transport
than local transport. The changes in the traffic directions of the streets caused by the building of the tramway
have not been taken into account in the solution, as a left-turning lane for buses/vehicles coming from the east
cannot be implemented and, without such a lane, a left turn cannot be allowed. The taxi traffic unnecessarily
blocks the connection to the bus terminal. The proposed access to the parking facility is directed via Sotkankatu
Street – the solution requires considerable relocating of equipment and cables.
The matter of infill development has not been solved in a credible manner in the plan, and the proposal is
almost solely based on an exceptionally deep-framed, 25-storey tower building. A building of such height is
completely impossible in this area. In a plan that relies so heavily on a single building, the building’s layout
should have been presented on at least a diagrammatic level, as it is very challenging to create even passable
apartment layouts in such a deep frame. The facade becomes lighter towards the upper floors of the tower,
which manages to make the disproportionate building interesting. With this mammoth, the Puutarhakatu Street
view line would definitely get an end point that could not be missed, but is a residential building the right solution
for such a backdrop?
2.2.3 UPPER CATEGORY
21 THE MIND PALACE (Honorary mention)
A lyrical proposal in which elements perceived as separate from each other are placed freely within the park, as
is the current museum building. The design creates a strong tension between the building masses, akin to a
stone garden. The composition of several pieces, however, manages to overshadow both the old granary
building and the Amuri Museum of Workers’ Housing. The main mass sits very close to Pirkankatu Street and
closes off the end of Puutarhakatu Street, which has served as an open view axis in the urban space. However,
the art museum is a building of such significance that the solution is justified.
The new museum building is related to the old granary building without resorting to mere imitation. The reserved
character of the facade lends the simple building mass a strong presence. The particularly beautiful black and
white presentation technique is a testament to the author's ability to turn the demanding solution into a well-
implemented end result. The weakness of the proposal is its hermetic nature – what kind of added value does
the building bring to its environment, and how does it activate the street space?
The versatile exhibition spaces are amongst the best in the competition and enable a variety of exhibitions and
ways to hang works of art. The inherent danger in the spatially rich composition is a potentially confusing and
maze-like exhibition tour. The requirement of a high exhibition space has been addressed. The spatiality entails
references to several well-known art museums.
The perspective images are rough and undetailed, but are able to relate the mood the author has sought to
create. A visit to the building would definitely be a powerful and interesting experience. Even though no two
spaces in the proposal are the same, the design seems to tie in the whole with the controlled palette of
materials. Despite the very unusual rooms, the whole forms a functional series of spaces.
terms of traffic arrangements. The art museum’s maintenance traffic is directed via the parking facility ramp,
thus sparing the ground level area from the road connections required by maintenance traffic. The solution
seems functional and safe. The solution is challenging, however, as it ties the implementation to the uncertain
underground parking facility project for the square. Implementing the solution would be very expensive, as the
tunnel intersects twice with the tramway tracks and the subterranean structures on the northern side of
Pirkankatu Street. With regard to passenger car traffic, the proposal places the museum’s drop-off traffic on
Puutarhakatu Street, proposing a turnaround drop-off area on the street that intersects dangerously with a main
cycling route. Otherwise, the solution seems functional. The east-west and south-north cycling routes intersect
outside the area. The proposed cycling route arrangements are feasible, but intersecting with the drop-off area
causes traffic safety issues. No bicycle parking has been proposed.
The solutions proposed for Pyynikintori Square are natural, with the exception of the canopy that severs the
square space. Access to the parking facility is proposed to be directed via Sotkankatu Street – such a solution
requires considerable relocation of equipment and cables. The playground, which requires a high fence around
it, has been solved in a particularly commendable way. Moving the historical, semi-circular hedge northwards
creates enough space for the playground, while also ensuring the integrity of the horseshoe-like shape of the
square. The bus terminal is presented as a spatially efficient platform solution which requires the buses to
reverse and is better suited to long-distance transport than local transport.
The infill development is presented in quite approximate terms but seems natural.
A building mass that is divided into several separate parts is not the most efficient of solutions.
82 Nexus (Honorary mention)

Nexus is a sculptural non-building in the park. The surprising external shape of the building resembles a
seashell, and from the bird’s eye view, seems detached and even heavy. The organic basic solution is
reminiscent of the nearby Metso library building. The eye-level perspective images show the advantages of a
low-lying building. The access to the roof makes for a relaxed whole. The design constitutes a joining link where
streams of people meet. The museum’s main entrance is placed in a central location, at the Pirkankatu end of
the building, to attract people to access the very approachable wood-and-glass art museum. However, the
museum building is let down by its non-urban aspect. The organic expression of the building and the nature of
the park are more indicative of a national park visitor centre than a cultural building for a growing large city.
The art museum’s spaces open onto their environment in the direction of both the old museum buildings and
Pyynikintori Square, thus activating the yard space. The interiors yield interesting vistas outside, and the upper
floor has access to a roof-top terrace that would work quite well, especially in the summer. The functions have
been placed naturally. The sculptural main staircase leads to an exhibition space that seems somewhat dull and
is not presented in the perspective images. The exhibition space seems quite well divisible and modifiable, but
the sufficiency of the room height is questionable.
The museum’s maintenance traffic is proposed to access the plot and enter the building from Makasiininkatu
Street, with the vehicles reversing on the street/to the street. The solution seems functional and fairly safe. As
regards passenger car traffic, no specific drop-off arrangements are presented, but this would presumably be
accommodated by Puutarhakatu Street, although no designated drop-off area has been indicated.
The solution for the pedestrian and bicycle route and the crossing of Pirkankatu Street remain somewhat
unclear in the plan map, but the issue is well-presented in the traffic network diagram – in general, the
proposal’s presentation of the traffic networks for various modes of traffic is good. The east-west and south-
north cycling routes intersect outside the museum square. Ample bicycle parking is presented on workable
sites.
The immediate surrounds of the art museum are fragmented and do not form a clearly-defined public space.
The history has been replaced by a conceptual approach. The arrangements proposed for Pyynikintori Square
are too busy, and the proposal could have drawn more influences from the classical history. The square plan
tries to incorporate too many motifs, which are interesting as such but too copious in this context.
Access to the parking facility is proposed to occur from Pyynikintori Street on the western side of the square.
The connections and access to the parking facility are presented and placed well. The solution facilitates the
development of pedestrian and bicycle connections in the north–south direction with no interruptions by motor
vehicle traffic from the square area. The solution has not taken into account the changes in the traffic directions
of the streets caused by the building of the tramway, resulting in motorists coming from the east having to either
drive around the square or use F. E. Sillanpäänkatu Street to access the underground parking, since left-turning
lanes from the east cannot be accommodated on Pirkankatu Street. Placing the access at the south-eastern
edge of the square area might solve this problem. The new routing of F. E. Sillanpäänkatu Street would
apparently eliminate the parking spaces in front of the school. The proposed geometry for the street seems
unworkable.
For the bus terminal, the plan proposes platforms that run in a south-north direction, and access to them is
achieved via Pyynikintori Street on the western side of the square. The changes in the traffic directions of the
streets have not been taken into account in the solution, as a left-turning lane for buses/vehicles coming from
the east cannot be implemented and, without such a lane, a left turn cannot be allowed. As far as utilising the
space, the proposal is efficient, but the space reservation for the street running along the western side of the
square should be increased to accommodate two-way traffic. If buses only leave and arrive at the terminal to
and from the west, the solution would probably work.
The infill development seems sporadic in the site plan, but the clean lines of the architecture presented in the
perspective image calm down the whole.
53 CALAMARI UNION
The placement of the museum extension is natural: it aligns itself with the historical block structure on the
eastern side and protrudes slightly from the line of the blocks along Puutarhakatu Street. The high and compact
building mass preserves the park-like nature of the site, and the diagonal line of the wall leads the eye towards
the Amuri Museum of Worker’s Housing, somewhat surprisingly, between the old granary building and former
janitor’s house.
The sculptural extension is very high and threatens to overshadow the granary building. As the exterior material,
zinc gives the building a grand, solid look, but also delivers a body that is disconnected from its environment.
In a high building mass, the spaces are divided into several separate floors, which is a problem in terms of utility
when it comes to office facilities, for example. The office facilities are rather basic in other respects as well – the
entire staff cannot work in the same room. The flow of the exhibition tour is clear, and the double-height spaces
connect the separate floors in a well-functioning fashion. The maintenance traffic is not workable, as it intersects
with visitor traffic. The statuesque space on the highest floor is impressive. The high space enables the
exhibition of quite large works of art. The atmosphere in the perspective image of the lobby is cold and clinical.
The emergency exit is not workable, but this is easily fixable.
The maintenance traffic to the museum is proposed to be directed via Makasiininkatu Street to a ramp on the
museum plot leading under the building. The adequacy of the length of the ramp for dealing with the height
difference is questionable. With regard to passenger car traffic, the drop-off arrangements are proposed to flow
via Puutarhakatu Street, and the drop-off area is presented to the west of a main cycling route, thus creating an
unnecessary traffic-safety issue between drop-off traffic and pedestrians as well as cyclists. The continuity of
the east-west main cycling route around the square to the south of the building is rather poorly addressed, and
the danger is that cyclists would continue straight through the square, passing in front of the entrance and
endangering pedestrians in the yard area. The same problem also applies to the continuity of the pedestrian
and bicycle route travelling from the south to the north, as the danger is that people using the route will also use
the front of the building as a thoroughfare. The distinction between the public area and the museum plot should
be emphasised. No bicycle parking is presented.
The proposed access to the parking facility is directed via Sotkankatu Street – such a solution requires
considerable relocating of equipment and cables. On Pyynikintori Square, the bus traffic does not need to
reverse, which is well-justified from the point of view of traffic flow. The arrangements for the bus terminal seem
functional. The canopy forms a pair with the museum.
The proposed infill development is plausible. The high-rise building by Pyynikintori Square accentuates the
square’s status in the urban structure and creates a counterpart for the massive museum building, but it is an
over-dimensioned solution in a classical urban environment. The old hay-weighing building is almost crushed
under the large tower. Despite the high-rise development, the competitors have also had to propose residential
construction on the museum plot. The slab block is situated somewhat awkwardly at a 90-degree angle in
relation to the old blocks of flats and therefore seems detached from the surrounding city structure.
The placement of the art museum is natural, but the building spreads so widely that it covers the entire museum
park, even though nearly all of the facilities are placed underground. The solution leaves no room for future
expansions.
The sculptural visor clearly, albeit rather obviously, denotes the location of the entrance. The triangular shape is
reminiscent of 1960s religious buildings. The shape works best when viewed from the ground level; in the scale
model, the mass mostly comes across as a low warehouse. The material choices are cold and foreign to the
surroundings, and the perspective images fail to demonstrate whether they would work by means of providing
contrast.
Nearly all facilities, including foyer services, are located in the basement. The connection to the old granary
building is functional. The functions surrounding the centrally placed exhibition space are awkwardly positioned
in places – for example, the museum shop is, for all practical purposes, mere corridor space. Top lighting and
modifiability have been accommodated extremely well, although the dividing walls that drop down from the
ceiling break up the space quite intensely, rendering a slightly heavy mood. However, the proposed spatial idea
is original and insightful. The Regional Art Museum’s exhibition space is functional. The auditorium steps
provide a relaxed sitting area and facilitate varied events, but the large foyer has a lot of unused space. The
mood in both the exterior and interior illustrations is slightly rubbery – the building could perhaps do with some
warmth and materiality, and the proposed rough concrete floor already adds a nice touch to the spaces.
The maintenance access to the museum is proposed to enter the plot from Makasiininkatu Street, and the
vehicles reverse into the plot. The solution seems functional and safe. For passenger car traffic, drop-off
arrangements are presented on Puutarhakatu and Mariankatu Streets. The solution seems practical. The east–
west and south–north cycling routes intersect on the clearing close to the museum entrance, creating potentially
dangerous situations for pedestrians walking close to the entrance and in the yard area. The danger is that the
cyclists travelling between the south and north will use the eastern side of the building as a shortcut. The
distinction between the public area and the museum plot should be emphasised. Bicycle parking is not
presented.
The solutions proposed for Pyynikintori Square are standard, but well-functioning. The plan has made the most
of the changes in the coordinates. The graphic presentations of the materials and landscape architecture are
promising. The proposed access to the parking facility is directed via Sotkankatu Street – such a solution
requires considerable relocating of equipment and cables. The bus terminal is presented as a platform solution,
which requires the buses to reverse and is better suited to long-distance transport than local transport.
The infill development is schematic. The comb-like building along Pirkankatu Street leaves only small yard
spaces between the teeth of the comb.
2.2.4 UPPER MIDDLE CATEGORY
English translations of the evaluations have been made by proposal, only for the proposals submitted in English.
8 ART VALLEY
The art museum and the residential building on the museum plot have been integrated into a single well-knit
whole, achieving a balanced end result and decreasing the pressure on the other residential development plots.
The development sits naturally in its environment, with due consideration to the historical context.
The proposal is skilfully and professionally executed, and the solutions are carefully examined. The new
extension does not exude an atmosphere of a public construction or of an art museum; the building could also
easily be a high-quality office building. Here, however, this is not disturbing, but rather makes the art museum
come across as a relaxed and approachable building in all its ordinariness.
The flow of the exhibition visit is divided over quite a few floors, making for a long tour. The top floor mainly
serves as a place for admiring the views. Some of the blocks laid on top of each other could well have been
closed, which would make the hanging of the art easier.
The semi-circular shape of the southern end of Pyynikintori Square could have been preserved. The new strong
diagonal line in the south does not lead anywhere, but just points towards a single residential building.
The infill development has been studied down to the level of floor plans. The side passage solution provides
privacy for the museum area, but, on the other hand, the massive art wall is quite severe during the daylight
hours, when no content is projected onto it. The solution could have tolerated a less uncompromising approach.
The close connection of the residential development and the museum would bring added challenges from the
point of view of implementation. Furthermore, the functions and facilities included in the museum’s room
programme spill out onto the residential building’s side.
19 UNDER ONE ROOF
The art museum’s building mass is wide but sits naturally in its environment and, with the aid of the diagonal
line, also directs attention to the Amuri Museum of Worker's Housing, integrating it as a part of the whole.
As a gesture, the shape made up of variations of the existing museum building's outline is a bit formalistic, yet
the rough industrial look is pleasing. The large glass surfaces create a connection between the two parts. The
open square that remains between the museum buildings appears to deliver good tension and a pleasing scale.
The diagonal orientation has also been utilised in the outdoor spaces. The facade facing Pyynikintori Square is
completely closed due to the concept chosen, which is a design error.
There is a separate entrance to the multipurpose facilities, which makes the separate use of the facilities more
convenient. Finding the auditorium entrance is made easier by the way the building opens up considerably
towards the west. The solution is peculiar, however, as the west side of the building faces the neighbouring
residential building’s backyard. The large glass surfaces in the exhibition facilities are challenging. The
modifiability of the large, hall-like space is well presented. The ground-level maintenance facilities are divided
into two parts, with only an outdoor connection between them.
The proposed infill development on the northern edge of Pyynikintori Square is a surprising, but plausible
solution. The treatment of the square itself in the proposal is quite cursory.
22 Maple47081
A well-examined and clearly presented proposal, in which the new art museum extension is coupled with the old
museum building by means of the material choices and the shape of the roofline. The author has had the
courage to trust a single idea, which holds the whole together. The single-material approach works well, and the
brick exterior brings a sense of scale to the large building. The loggia circling the ground floor and the vast
covered outdoor spaces are not always a practical solution in our climate, as they can easily make the interior
quite shady. The roof-top terrace might also be of little use, and it would be more natural to place the outdoor
spaces at ground level.
The art museum sits relatively easily in its environment, though the eastern side of the building is not aligned
with the building on Saarikuja Street. Raising the new extension on a pedestal is a mistake that isolates the
building from the surrounding urban space. On the ground level, there is only a narrow channel between the
new and old parts, which, for all practical purposes, severs the unimpeded connection to the Amuri Museum of
Worker's Housing. The ramp on the northern side is a hulking presence in the urban space.
The ground level mainly includes entrance functions, and the exhibition facilities are located underground. This
makes for a practical connection to the collection exhibition, but the new building is stuck with the role of an
entrance pavilion. The mood in the illustrations is promising: the building appears dignified but relaxed at the
same time.
The arrangements for Pyynikintori Square seem over-dimensioned. A simpler structure would preserve the
square’s historical character better.
The massing of the residential construction is clumsy. The diagonal lines are apparently intended to be a
consideration of the existing building stock.
In the residential building on Heinätori Square, the downwards widening building mass is likely the product of a
large targeted gross floor area. It is difficult to place functional flats in such a wide mass.
37 HA17
The compact art museum sits confidently in its environment and opens out onto the surrounding urban space
through glass walls, thereby activating the space. The kiosk building along Pirkankatu Street could well have
been taken down.
The proposal is carefully studied and clearly presented. Both the scale model images and the axonometric
images are very illustrative. Despite the clean lines, the proportions of the building seem clumsy and massive.
The high roof lantern resembles a theatre stage tower. Expanding the former janitor’s house is a surprising
solution.
The layout plans are cursory in a pleasant sense and have an effortless air. For the ground-floor plan, it would
have been advisable to present the surrounding ground-level arrangements. The exhibition tour is clear and the
spaces are quite modifiable. The glass walls in the exhibition facilities are a challenge. The interior illustrations
have a promising atmosphere. The emergency exit route does not work, but this is easily fixable. The lift
popping out of the second-floor maintenance unit seems to be a mistake.
The solutions for Pyynikintori Square seem disproportioned, with the ramps leading underground. It would have
been advisable to arrange the bus traffic more efficiently so as to leave more square space for other uses and to
better preserve the square's classical character.
The infill along Pirkankatu Street seems heavy.
From the point of view of lighting conditions and heating economy, a building with walls made entirely from glass
is not the best possible solution. Bicycle parking has been accommodated well.
64 Promenade
The simplicity of the concept makes the whole pleasantly calm. The new art museum extension, which is
divided into two separate building masses, and the old part are connected with ease via the museum square.
The varied openings in the walls add interest to the simple building. In the perspective illustration, the museum
appears interesting, which is not the case in the technical plans. It is as if they represented a completely
different proposal.
The infill development is placed naturally, and infill has even been fitted onto the museum plot.
The idea of an architectural promenade is a promising starting point and is reflected well in the facades as well.
The division of the new museum extension’s room programme into two separate building masses, both of which
have a very small basal area, leads to weaknesses from the point of view of function. For instance, the museum
shop should preferably be located on the ground level, where it is more easily accessible. The floor plans are
partially reduced to mere space diagrams, as the functions allocated to the spaces are only expressed with text,
such as “library” by way of an explanation for an open space. An art museum needs two separate exit routes,
which does not relieve the already cramped layout. The mood in the interior illustration is restful.
The concept is divided into several parts, which is not a very economical solution when it comes to costs and
heating economy.
The solutions proposed for Pyynikintori Square are standard, but well-functioning.
The frame depth of the residential infills is far too great.
101 RECUERDO
The art museum is situated on the correct spot, but it is too wide and resembles a supermarket building. The
small slant does not work as an impact feature, and it would have been preferable to design the building as a
boldly brutal hall with no attempt to specifically refine the shape.
The grid motif on the facade is too sparse to add texture and looks clumsy. The architecture would have been
well served by developing it more towards the direction of a rough art warehouse and by packing the spaces
more efficiently in order to give the building mass more posture.
The exhibition space is clean-lined and modifiable, emphasising the art as the main feature. Its location on the
ground level makes it easier to exhibit large pieces. The interior illustration does not yield a tempting image. Top
lighting has been taken into account. The massive double staircase only leads to a small media room.
The arrangements for Pyynikintori Square are sketchy.

The infill development solutions are bizarre. The suburban character of the point blocks along Pirkankatu Street
is only slightly redeemed by the interconnected ground floor. The greenhouse is a peculiar idea on this scale.
The tower buildings on Puutarhakatu Street have no scale.
107 THE HUB
The relaxed and sweeping character of the proposal is appealing, but it is also the proposal’s failing, reducing
the design to a too schematic representation. The layout could have been developed further and made more
clearly defined, which would have created a more credible impression. For example, the office facilities are not
workable as presented, and some of the spaces are only accessible through a long corridor. The exterior
material is a natural choice, and a certain playfulness reduces the heaviness of the brick.
The art museum seems to be still finding its place on the plot and is not supported by the existing city structure.
The building is relatively compact and clean-lined. The connection to the Amuri Museum of Workers’ Housing is
also clear.
Access from both the south and the east has led to a disproportionately large foyer. The exhibition spaces
receive ample top lighting, and the space can be divided in several ways. The illustration of the exhibition space
is promising. The basement is hallway-like.
Underscoring the diagonal line of Pyynikintori Square serves well to tie in the various functions, but the historical
motifs have been erased. The bus stops should be turned 90 degrees to face Pirkankatu Street.
The proposed infill development is cursory and too high.
108 .12282017
The pellucid art museum offers a framework for a straight-forward, but convenient artistic experience. The L-
shaped new building defines a functional open square in front of the building, through which the art museum is
accessed. The entrance is therefore not positioned by the open area created at the end of Puutarhakatu Street,
but at the crook of the building. The building remains slightly distant when viewed from Pyynikintori Square – it
could be perceived as a somewhat reserved, mute box. A completely enclosed ground floor at the junction of
two square areas may even be considered a design error. The exterior materials of ethereal, dimmed glass and
the glued laminated timber that delivers rhythm to the glass surfaces in both the pilasters and closed parts give
the building a pleasant but, when used on the proposed scale, somewhat dull aspect. On the other hand, the
timber structure brings some necessary warmth to the otherwise austere architecture.
The tube-like ground-level connection to the old museum building is unnecessary. However, it can easily be
removed, as a functional underground connection has also been proposed. The foyer facilities have glass walls
and open up to the surroundings.
The layout is very clear and makes the challenging design task seem quite easily solvable, which has not been
the case for the majority of the competitors. The exhibition facilities are brilliantly modifiable. Top lighting has
been well considered, even overly so, as it takes up half of the exhibition hall’s cubic volume. The office facilities
could easily be arranged in a more casual manner.
The organic design for Pyynikintori Square does not sufficiently accommodate the historical environment.
The infill development is very schematic.
128 TUKINUITTO
The graphic presentation of the proposal is exceptionally difficult to interpret, which makes the evaluation
difficult but, surprisingly, also rouses curiosity and a desire to understand what on earth is going on in the
images. The take is very conceptual in comparison to the Finnish, rational design approach. The premise of the
design is far-fetched, and it seems that the author has tried to make excuses for the rambling, complicated
architecture.
The proposal lacks any materiality and focuses on the form. The art museum embraces the south, which is a
good direction, but does not sufficiently take the old buildings into account, simply leaving them aside.
The layout arrangements are practical. It would have been advisable to group the scale patterns so that they
would not take up all of the room in the floor plans, making them difficult to read. The perspective illustrations
are presented as line drawings, which does not assist the viewer in evaluating the mood. The museum tour is
arranged as a blind alley, which means that visitors leaving the exhibition have to traverse the same rooms that
they toured on their way in.
The arrangements for Pyynikintori Square have been resolved within the confines of the overall concept, and
they are over-designed. However, bringing daylight into the parking level is a nice gesture, which shows that the
authors have applied themselves to the task with far more empathy than the majority of the competitors.
The infill development is restless and scattered. A little less effort would suffice, and new construction should be
examined as a part of the whole for the entire city and not approached on the terms of design alone.
130 EMBRACING THE SPACE
The art museum’s atrium solution is positioned naturally and ties in the old buildings on the eastern side of the
museum square as part of the composition. In principle, it is possible to preserve some of the valuable trees.
The exterior view is quite serene, even solemn, and the beautiful building would also work well as a cemetery
chapel. The roofline lends a much-needed relaxed air to the reserved look. The wooden lamellae placed at
varying angles add interest but are structurally challenging, and they are carried partially into the ground floor,
making the building appear as if it had sunken into the ground.
The layout has been designed with skill and clarity, which attests to the author’s expertise. The flow of the
museum tour is exceptionally clear, without appearing schematic. The top lighting solution is interesting. The
exposed roof rafters add interest to an otherwise calm space.
Framing Pyynikintori Square with a canopy is a somewhat heavy measure. In Finland, there is little need for
protection from the sun, but the solution does acknowledge the classically simple geometry. The bus stops
should be turned 180 degrees.
At first glance, the infill development seems to have been resolved without much thought by multiplying the
same point block design. Upon closer examination, the solutions are revealed to be insightful. The point blocks
are efficient, and connecting them by the corners along Pirkankatu Street is enough to give the solution a look
suited for the city centre, avoiding the suburban character typically associated with point blocks. The ideas
concerning the ground floor are very interesting. The variation of building mass height could be bolder.
Infill development with point blocks is easily implemented in phases and also appeals to the developers.
134 BRICKSTAMP
The art museum pushes uncomfortably close to the nearby buildings and blocks the connection to the Amuri
Museum of Workers’ Housing. However, the massing does accommodate the old buildings and integrates them
as part of the composition. With better placement, the fine art museum design would have worked better. In the
future, the authors should put more effort into analysing the city structure and outdoor space arrangements, as
they clearly do possess the architectural skill.
The clean-lined building mass is calm, though it would benefit from a more compact approach. The empty
atrium in the middle of the building is shady and would not be a pleasant space in our climate, and no functions
are allocated to the space – however, the solution does add more exterior surface. The brick is a natural choice,
though it does emphasise the heavy mood. The composition of the facades is skilful.
The entrance to the museum is accessed through a pit, but the exhibition facilities have been lifted to the upper
floors, which is a cumbersome solution. The ticket sales area is cramped, and the actual museum foyer is
located next to it. The museum shop is strangely hidden in a separate space behind the ticket sales counter. A
monumental staircase rises up to a glass wall, leading nowhere. The staircase leading to the exhibition facilities
suddenly takes a 180-degree turn. The flow of the exhibition tour itself, however, is clear. The shape of the
spaces is pre-defined, and they are not modifiable. The connection to the old granary building is apologetic. The
perspective illustrations are the best yield of the proposal and manage to convince the viewer of the beauty of
the otherwise seemingly heavy building.
The bus stop canopy on Pyynikintori Square is heavy. A solution where the vehicles are set up in queues is not
efficient. Otherwise, this subarea has been left unexamined.
The frame depths of the infill development are unrealistically narrow. The building along Pirkankatu Street
awkwardly covers the old hay-weighing building.
146 JOUSI
The art museum wraps itself around a multiform courtyard and is too rambling.
The courtyard opens out towards the old granary building, activating the urban space between the two buildings,
but an important corner by the end of Puutarhakatu Street is left with no function. The graphic presentation is
reminiscent of naïve art and is among the best in the competition, but the style does not make reading the plans
easier. The clearly defined massing calms down the diverse architecture.
The exhibition facilities are divided across two separate floors as well as to the basement. Toning down the
design of the courtyard would serve the exhibition activities better. The glass clerestory windows to the south
and west do not work. The maintenance arrangements are under-dimensioned.
The reasoning behind the changes to Pyynikintori Square’s road connections are understandable from the point
of view of calming down the front of the public buildings. However, the solution is daring. The new trees do not
support the historical urban space, and the canopy is too heavy.
The infill development is presented in cursory terms. Focusing the infill on the Heinätori area alone leads to too
high masses. The infill development should have been spread out over a larger area.
2.2.5 MIDDLE CATEGORY
4 Aatsh
The proposal takes a bold approach by interweaving the area’s elements and intensely creating urban space
around itself. The unprejudiced solutions are surprising, but interesting. The Amuri Museum of Workers'
Housing has been incorporated well. The art museum seems larger than its size, and a monumental square
forms in front of the building, as the entrance is placed on the northern end of the plot. In our climate, the
practicality of an outdoor auditorium that descends towards the north raises doubt.
The exterior architecture of the art museum is light and pavilion-like, but the impression that comes to mind is
more of a huge day care centre than that of an art museum. Even though the area has a long tradition of wood
construction, the architecture seems foreign in places. The gestures are a bit too bombastic. The outdoor
spaces could have been utilised to integrate the old museum building as a part of the whole.
The foyer spaces are in close contact with their environment, making the museum easily approachable. The
museum tour flows well, though the long ramps would work better in a larger museum building.
The proposal applies commendable attention and care to the planning of Pyynikintori Square, but the entire
square has been redesigned without utilising the area’s history. It is a bold idea to raise the square onto a deck
above the bus terminal, and implementing the facilities below a deck as pleasant spaces would be challenging.
Access to the parking facility has been placed on the eastern side of Pyynikintori.
The infill development bears down on the old hay-weighing building, but leaves the Heinäpuisto area
undeveloped. The playground along Puutarhakatu Street has not been taken into account. The width of the
building mass would cause problems in the lower levels.
15 THX113876
The new art museum remains detached from the old buildings due to the long distance caused by the maximum
gradient of a seemingly unnecessary monumental ramp. The ramp regrettably blocks the connection to the
Amuri Museum of Workers’ Housing. The whole is scattered and confusing.
The outdoor spaces are not clearly defined but have been reduced to shapeless lawn areas. In the perspective
images, the needle-like building remains anonymous and detached from its site.
A large proportion of the facilities are placed underground. Yet, the connections to the old museum building are
long. The formalistic pitched-roof motif in the section of the foyer makes a large part of the floor above the foyer
unusable.
The treatment of the square with a sloping deck is a drastic move, and the presented material is unable to
convince the jury of the benefits of such a solution.
The zigzagging building mass on the Heinätori area is formalistic. From the plan material, it is difficult to make
out what is a part of the building and what is just a canopy. At the very least, it is not possible to place
residential flats at such tight angles to each other, as flats need to receive natural light and open up towards
their environment.
27 TRE2
The deviating coordinates of the art museum building raise questions. Despite the lowness of the building mass,
it appears quite large and heavy. The old granary and the Amuri Museum of Workers’ Housing are left
unheeded.
The shape of the building is reminiscent of more mundane buildings. The facades are presented in a quite
cursory way.
The flow of the museum tour is clear, but nondescript. The whole remains plain.
The pavilion on Pyynikintori Square cuts the square space in an unfortunate fashion. Otherwise, the solutions
are standard.
The frame depth of the residential buildings is unrealistic, and the new building on Puutarhakatu Street pushes
too close to the existing buildings. The residential building on Makasiininkatu Street is over-dimensioned and
does not fit into its environment.
32 QUARTZ
The art museum falls easily into the non-defined coordinates of the old block structure but remains detached
from the old granary building, although the site plan seems to create a composition of three cubes.
The new museum building seems larger than its actual size. The art museum gives off the impression that it
could be located anywhere – a relationship with the site is missing. The treatment of the square spaces is quite
approximate.
The interior is spacious and the top floor easily modifiable. The framed views of the surroundings through the
cuts in the facade could be interesting.
The plan for Pyynikintori Square is confusing and does not reassert the square’s classical character.
The residential building’s frame depths are unfeasible for housing, and the height of the tower building exceeds
what the surrounding area can tolerate.
54 BOOTLACE
The serpentine shape of the art museum is threatening and alien to its environment. The perspective
illustrations do not reassure that the peculiar shape would sit well in its surroundings.
The design is based on a formalistic idea that does not connect with its site and does not work as a means of
providing contrast, either. The connection to the Amuri Museum of Workers’ Housing is blocked, and the yard
arrangements do not seem well thought out.
When the design is dictated by the form, the interior spaces should be placed hierarchically so that the visitors
climb up the spiral to the highest point, the serpent's head, which would host the most interesting area in the
museum – for instance, a nice view over Pyynikintori Square. In this case, the highest point houses mundane
personnel work spaces. Arched walls are difficult to make use of when hanging art. The mood in the interior
illustration is busy and does not convince the viewer of the merits of the idea.
The pavilions on Pyynikintori Square seem detached from their environment. However, the historical horseshoe-
like shape of the square has been emphasised successfully. The buses do not need to reverse, which is well-
conceived from the point of view of traffic flow. The bus stops are placed freely in the middle of the traffic area,
however, and passengers have to cross the driving lane to reach them. The lack of platforms does not improve
the user experience.
The proposal includes very little infill development, and it is allocated cautiously.
58 ROOTS INTO THE FUTURE
The proposal is carefully studied and clearly presented. The exterior architecture of the art museum is slightly
restless. The busy profile of the pitched roof steals some of the effect of the statuesque wood facade; the design
should have picked just one of the motifs, as the massing of the building is also rich.
The multiform art museum stretches its limbs into several directions and even latches onto the old granary
building, while maintaining the connection to the Amuri Museum of Workers' Housing. Amurinpuisto Park, which
remains behind the building, is left in the shadows and unutilised. The glass surfaces of the ground floor open
up the museum's activities to the surrounding area, even the workshop facilities, which is a fun idea.
The exhibition facilities are functional but divided into several smallish parts, which diminishes the modifiability.
The shapes of the ceiling on the top floor add interest to the space, but the proposed ceiling solution drains
some of the impact of the statuesque space and makes the mood somewhat restless and mundane.
The ramps leading to the underground parking facility below Pyynikintori Square cut the square in a regrettable
manner. The ideas of the pavilions are eloquent, but the structures would work better on the edges of the
square.
The U-shaped blocks of the residential buildings seem cramped, and even though the yards face south, they
are shadowed. The day care centre's playground has not been taken into account.
61 PLEIN AIR
The art museum has not quite found its place on the plot. The plan includes no examination of the pedestrian
and bicycle connections and outdoor spaces. Instead of an abstract lawn area, a square would have been a
better fit in front of the art museum. The proposed traffic arrangements, such as directing traffic from
Puutarhakatu Street onto Pirkankatu Street, are erroneous. The Amuri Museum of Workers’ Housing can only
be accessed via an arcade, which is not feasible. The arcade is perceived as a part of the art museum, whereas
pedestrian and bicycle routes must be located in uncovered outdoor spaces. If design motifs as radical as this
are to be proposed, the designer should consider what is actually visible at the end of the tunnel: the end of a
precast concrete building is not exactly an uplifting backdrop for the arcade.
The art museum’s exterior architecture appears outlandish and foreign to its site – the arches and dome seem
to allude to oriental architecture. On the other hand, this clumsiness is also fascinating in its own way. The
building opens up to its environment through glass walls.
Even though dimensions are, for some reason, presented for all the drawings, the structural thicknesses are
seriously off. In addition, the building services routings that take up a lot of space in an art museum have been
left unaddressed. The interior views are the best feature of the proposal. They portray a good atmosphere,
better than the confusing layout plans. The second floor would work better if it formed a circular tour. It seems
as if the design has not quite been able to make the most of the concept.
The arrangements proposed for Pyynikintori Square are not reasonable; for example, a park has been placed
on the noisiest spot by Pirkankatu Street. The ramps to the underground parking facility are under-dimensioned
and take up unnecessary space on the square.
Infill development is presented in quite cursory terms.
62 PLASSISSA
The art museum has been squeezed into a small bottom surface area and withdraws to the very northern edge
of the plot, but, thanks to its height, the building does not remain unnoticed. Due to the positioning, the ground
floor does not really activate the surrounding urban space.
The design of the museum square is clumsy, and the protruding part of the building is distracting. The church
references of the facade are far-fetched, even though the overlapping tile could, as such, be a workable material
choice.
Any concept in which the facilities are spread out over various levels in a tower makes for a cumbersome
museum tour for the visitor, though the stairways do open up interesting views over the high exhibition spaces.
On the top level, the possibilities for top lighting have been utilised. The exhibition facilities have turned out quite
disjointed, and they cannot be modified. The emergency exit also requires a separate compartmented route,
which would eat up the already scant useful area on the floors even further. In the foyer view, the strong sense
of the material begins to feel overpowering, as the exterior face is also loaded with themes. The architecture
would benefit from some toning down in order to better highlight the art.
The solutions for Pyynikintori Square are quite standard. The bus traffic would not work in the proposed manner.
The frame depths of the seemingly cramped residential construction are not realistic. The proposed closed
block is shady, and the yards of the residential buildings do not work.
65 AVANT-GARDEN
The art museum buildings form a wall that leaves the Amuri Museum of Workers’ Housing behind it and
completely shuts it out from the open public space. The image of the exterior spaces is stony and depressing.
The existing valuable trees have been ignored.
The entrance to the basement level is not tempting. Placing the foyer facilities underground does not activate
the environment. The above-grade building masses clad with concrete lamellae make the art museum seem
more like old industrial architecture. The mood in the exterior perspective image is somewhat bleak. With the
style chosen here, the designer should, for future reference, pay more attention to the presentation graphics.
The starker the architectural approach, the more delicate the drawings that it should be presented with, provided
that the desired effect is to convince the viewer of the beauty of the ugly.
The interior view of the entrance foyer is busy, with the beams and columns sticking out here and there. The
advantage of a thick building mass is the easy modifiability within the deep frame.
The strong diagonal makes the conservatory as a part of the Pyynikintori Square composition, but a more
delicate design utilising the square’s history would have been preferable. The bus traffic does not work, and the
vehicles need to reverse into the street. The ramp to the underground parking facility is under-dimensioned and
in the wrong spot.
In the site plan, the folded masses of the residential buildings appear dubious; in the perspective images, the
disorganisation is not as disturbing. Some of the proposed development is surprisingly low from the perspective
of the targeted gross floor area.
84 SFUMATO
The shape of the art museum is clean and calm. On the other hand, the design of the exterior spaces is a bit too
expressive. The exterior illustration does not do justice to the museum design.
The clearly articulated entrance is easy to find. The square between the two museum buildings has been left
aside and not addressed.
The placement of the extension on the plot is reasonably functional. The building spreads slightly too far
eastwards, bearing down on the old granary building.
The interior spaces are quite mundane, and the staircase, for instance, has not been developed to its full
potential. The museum tour arranged around an atrium is clear. The facilities for changing exhibitions are
divided over two floors: below ground and on the second floor. The spaces are awkwardly shaped in places,
and there is a lot of wasted space. For example, the multipurpose room does not work as an oblong strip. The
mood in the interior perspective illustration is clinical, and the busy timber laths come across as a pasted-on
motif.
The plan for Pyynikintori Square is quite standard. The bus traffic could have been resolved more efficiently.
The new motor vehicle connection through the square is a planning error.
The infill development is underwhelming: the dimensionless building masses are too high, and the U-shaped
block is cramped.
86 Cultural infrastructure
The compact shape of the art museum distinctly resembles an old industrial or office building, which is
presumably what the designer has intended. Apparently, the idea has been to design a rough art warehouse. It
is not justifiable to have an art museum mimic the shape of an old warehouse. However, the connection to the
Amuri Museum of Workers’ Housing works well.
The nearly rectangular shape of the art museum is distracting and makes the museum appear detached from its
surroundings, even though the placement of the building is natural.
The best aspect of the proposal is the illustration view of the exhibition hall. The museum tour is clear, and the
spaces are modifiable. The connection to the old granary building is through a narrow corridor. The material
choices are rough, with the cobblestone and wood surfaces being reminiscent of exterior spaces. The
maintenance arrangements are under-dimensioned: it is not enough that a vehicle can fit into the loading space,
but there has to be enough room behind the truck to unload the works of art and transport them to the lift.
The arrangements on Pyynikintori Square are confusing, and the bus traffic should have been located by
Pirkankatu Street. The historical character has not been utilised.
92 VIIVAT
The art museum is naturally situated, and the diagonal shape of the building mass directs traffic towards the
Amuri Museum of Workers' Housing as well.
The ground-level arrangements are presented quite summarily.
The floor plans are schematic, and the placement of the functions is half-hearted: the multipurpose room, for
example, is located at the far end of the exhibition hall and far away from the foyer. The exhibition facilities are
spread over several levels. Exhibition facilities should also have been located in the old granary building. The
basement’s exhibition space behind two separate doors remains a mystery – how are people to find their way to
it through all the maintenance facilities? The mood in the interior perspective image is akin to a mundane office
building lobby. No art is presented in the exhibition space illustration. The proposal gives the impression that the
building is not meant for exhibiting art, but rather that the art museum itself is a sculpture.
The arrangements for Pyynikintori Square are exaggerated. The buses are placed on the correct spot, but the
traffic would work better with them facing Pirkankatu Street. The addition of secondary ramps to the
underground parking facility on the square is unnecessary.
The infill development is presented in quite general terms, but, based on the perspective image, it appears
significantly too high.
109 KOLMIO
The distinctly geometric, triangular layout of the art museum is not supported by its surroundings: in the selected
direction, the shape does not address any specific need to add connections through the plot. By turning the
building 90 degrees, the connection to the Amuri Museum of Workers' Housing could easily have been
emphasised. The placement is relatively functional, but the passageways are under-dimensioned.
The art museum’s appearance is fragmented, and the building seems significantly larger than its actual size.
More than half of the exterior motifs could have been left out to allow the shape to appear more effortless. The
red brick underscores the heavy mood.
The floor plan is confusing, and the exhibition facilities are divided between several different floors and are
poorly modifiable. There could be more uninterrupted wall surfaces. The mood in the almost immaterial white
interiors is as if inside a suprematist architecton, when the main role should have been reserved for the art.
The plan for Pyynikintori Square is confusing and difficult to interpret. The passenger car connections cannot be
removed completely. The forest-like park is located at the wrong end of the square. The bus terminal is not
workable, and the traffic to it severs the square badly.
The infill development is vague, and the sketch-like presentation does not display what is happening with the
ground level of the building on Pirkankatu Street, for example, as the building spreads out and eats up all the
yard space.
122 FLOCK
The idea of a wood-built art museum is interesting, but the ordinary painted wood panelling does not highlight
the building’s role as a public building, but rather alludes to the historical residential housing blocks. The
building gives off an impression of heaviness as a result of the thick eaves, for instance. With a little tweaking of
the dimensions, material and detailing of the buildings, the proposal could easily have been improved.
The whole appears cramped, and the above-grade building masses butt against each other in a chaotic
manner.
The art museum facilities are located below ground. The office spaces have no windows, and they offer no other
redeeming spatial features to compensate for this shortcoming. The old granary building has been treated with a
heavy hand, with no regard to its protected status. The exhibition spaces have an air of mere space
reservations, but, in all their vagueness, they are easily modifiable. The lighting ideas for the spaces are
functional and well-studied. The atmosphere in the interior space is dull, which is only emphasised by the
mundane perforated plasterboard ceiling.
The ideas for Pyynikintori Square are detached and do not make use of the elements provided by its history.
The ramp to the parking facility is placed in the wrong location on Heinätori Square. The bus traffic should be
moved from the western side of the square to the northern part, and having the buses reverse onto the
pedestrian and bicycle route is a planning error. The hollow next to the bus terminal is a strange idea and
makes the engineering of the deck covering the parking facility more difficult, as the deck has to be pushed
deeper into the ground.
The historical hay-weighing building has been removed, which is a planning error. Infill development could
easily have been allocated to the Puutarhakatu plot as well. In the infill on Pirkankatu Street, the buildings on
the southern end of the complex are too close to the building mass by the street.
126 TEAM625429
The art museum concept is an often-seen, bog-standard museum concept. The museum building has not found
the right direction on its plot and pushes out too far towards Sotkankatu Street. The coordinates of the internal
courtyard are only slightly out of line with the outer shell of the building, which looks awkward. The yard
arrangements have been addressed only from the point of view of the presentation graphics, with no reference
to the necessary connections and passages. The maintenance connection with a vehicle lift is not feasible. The
ceramic façade is interesting, albeit foreign to the site.
The merit of the proposal is in its casual touch. The wooden roof structure is interesting. The designer has a
good aesthetic eye, and, at first glance, the layout appears well thought out with the spaces packed into clear
zones. However, the spaces have a lot of weaknesses. The split-level exhibition spaces are not accessible to all
and are therefore not feasible as presented.
The plan for Pyynikintori Square is sketch-like, and the historical character of the trees has not been recognized
and the landscape space is lost.
A bus terminal has also been integrated into the heavy building mass in the Heinätori area, which is not feasible
from the point of view of traffic flow. The L-shaped residential buildings on top have a suburban feel.
129 YHDISTEET
Attention has not been paid to the organisation of the art museum’s outdoor spaces. The access to the awkward
mirrored-glass entrance pavilion is via a lawn field. This solution – i.e. burying the entire art museum
underground – has not yielded any benefit.
The direction of Amuri is emphasised strongly, even too obviously.
The interior plans are reduced to mere schemes, and the differences in level remain unresolved. The mood in
the interior view is clinical. Maintenance issues have not been considered; for example, how does a truck turn in
the street in order to deliver the art pieces to the lift? The emergency exit route does not work. The connections
and exhibition spaces are corridor-like.
The heavy, northwards descending deck on Pyynikintori Square is dreary. The placement of the trees does not
support the square’s historical character.
The bus terminal in the Heinätori area is not feasible, and the bus traffic turning to it would halt the traffic on
Pirkankatu Street completely. The point block at the end of Puutarhakatu Street is left on its own and does not
add anything positive to the cityscape.
131 KALEIDOSKOPE
The 45-degree angle has no point of reference within the lines of the environment and makes the art museum’s
architecture stiff. The theme has been carried through slavishly, even down to the design of the desks. In the
exterior illustration, fortunately, the stiff design of the art museum is not as disturbing. As a material, wood is
interesting, but in the images it mainly looks like terracotta.
The art museum forms a wall towards the north, and access to the Amuri Museum of Workers' Housing is
provided only through a gateway under a narrow passageway.
The exhibition facilities are strongly divided between the basement and second floor. No conclusions can be
drawn regarding the spatial character or lighting of the exhibition facilities based on the presented material, but
they are divided into small units, which compromises their modifiability. The angle would probably make the
spaces feel awkward.
The formalistic plan for Pyynikintori Square does not avail itself of the area's fine history. The ramp to the
parking facility is regrettably placed in the middle of the square. The vegetation does nothing to form a
landscape space.
The infill development is rigid and mainly based on the oversized complex along Pirkankatu Street. The
implementation of the hybrid would be difficult. The massing of the overly high colossal block is, in itself,
interesting.
133 WOODY
The art museum complex is rambling and does not fit easily on its plot with the diagonal open-air passageway
cutting through it. The artificial solution does not seem to bring any added value.
The Swiss-cheese idea of the art museum remains disconnected. This staged approach would be better suited
as a temporary convention structure that seeks maximum impact. From the side, the facade looks more like an
industrial building. The above-ground connection to the old granary building is awkward.
In the interior view, the walls are calmed down by boarding them up to close off the slatted exterior, and the
wooden slats are only seen in the ceiling to provide top lighting. An escalator in such a small museum is a drab
solution.
The Pyynikintori Square arrangements are confusing and do not relate to their location or the area’s history.
Placing the buses in a queue unnecessarily takes up too much space.
The infill development pays no regard to its environment and is too high.
137 LÄHDE
The art museum sits relatively easily in its spot, but would benefit from slight down-scaling.
The clustered massing of the art museum is flexible. The ideas for the facade rouse interest, even if the mood in
the exterior perspective view is somewhat generic and could also be from a commercial building, for example.
The exhibition facilities are clear and modifiable. Top lighting has been utilised. The mood in the view of the
lobby is promising, and the multiform wood staircase adds a piquant touch to the otherwise clean-lined and calm
architecture.
The proposal has put commendable effort in planning the Pyynikintori Square – perhaps even too much effort,
and trimming down some of the themes would have produced a better end result. The historical themes have
been taken into account, but the square could have been divided into zones instead of the same organic
expression spilling through and beyond the square.
The infill development has not been proposed in the best possible manner. The yard spaces required for
housing have been forgotten. The building mass along Pirkankatu Street is unclear and does not align itself with
the street, which leaves it disconnected from its environment. The art hotel as a part of the museum is an
interesting, but difficult idea in terms of the possible phased implementation.
138 8700
The U-shaped art museum facing the old granary building seems natural. Unfortunately, the opportunities
offered by the shape have not been utilised. Instead, there is a theatre in the courtyard, which was not included
in the room programme. Confusingly, the courtyard is sometimes presented as an open space, such as in the
site plan, and sometimes as a built space, such as in the floor plan. The space would have worked better as a
courtyard. As an exterior material, stone blocks are a foreign motif in this location.
The art museum is large and can only just fit onto its plot. There is no public outdoor space left around the
museum.
The layout plans have been presented on a schematic level only. The placement of the facilities is awkward; the
multipurpose room is situated at the far end in the maintenance space zone. The slight slant in the lines seems
cumbersome, and no justification for it can be found. The flow of the museum tour is clear, but the theatre
blocks the connection to the old part. The mood in the perspective images is not convincing.
The plan for Pyynikintori Square is confusing, and the dimensions are off the mark. For example, a bus terminal
requires more height.
The placement of residential infills is natural, but the developments are presented in very cursory terms, and the
site plan does not mention the number of floors. In the aerial view, infill development is not presented at all. The
dimensions of the high building mass on top of the art museum are completely unrealistic.
140 Colibri
The starting point for the planning of the art museum has been to create an expressive design. The multiform
body remains very foreign to its environment. The city structure analyses are superficial, and more could be
gained from this type of approach by defining the lines of force based on points of reference within the
immediate surroundings.
The author should make more effort to relate to the existing situation. For example, it would have been wise to
make an inventory of the trees and try to preserve them.
The building has been reduced to a sketch of a statuesque form, into which the necessary facilities have been
crammed after the fact. The layout is schematic. The floor plan for the ground level (+0) does not include a
presentation of the surrounding area, and the linkage with the environment at the ground level can therefore not
be evaluated. The floor plans are awkwardly divided between different presentation boards, which makes it
difficult to study them. If a design approach as demanding as this is chosen, the plans should be carefully
thought out, and the graphics should demonstrate how all the self-inflicted challenges have been solved.
The plans for Pyynikintori Square have remained mere outlines. The ramps on the sides of the square are an
unfortunate choice.
The residential development is scattered, and the plan does not present the number of floors. Based on the
sketch-like material, it appears that the targeted gross floor area is not achieved.
141 ZDESIGN
The disposition of the art museum is correctly directed, but the building spreads quite widely.
The lowness of the building and the way in which the roof is opened make for a relaxed whole. The differences
in level in the outdoor spaces seem cumbersome, and assessing them in the absence of survey height
markings is difficult. Preserving the existing trees is a nice idea, but difficult to implement in the middle of a new
building, because the entire plot will be excavated during the construction phase.
The layout plans have remained on a schematic level. With such a wild design approach, the graphic material
should be enough to demonstrate that the designer can handle the complicated geometry. The exhibition
facilities are on the ground level, making the transportation of large art pieces effortless. The maintenance traffic
does not work, as the vehicles cannot reverse out into the street.
The canopy on Pyynikintori Square is far too large, and the second ramp on the square is superfluous.
The infill development is heavy and focusses too much on office construction..
142 AGORA
The art museum sits easily in its plot and assumes the coordinates of the Pyynikki area’s block structure for the
internal courtyard, which links the museum to its environment. Studying the urban space with a scale model is to
be advocated, but the design has not managed to make the most of the model and the translucent museum
building does nothing for the analysis of the building in relation to its environs.
The appearance is characterised by megagraphics, which, as a theme, is dated and somewhat too conspicuous
despite its playfulness. The mood in the exterior view is beautiful, but the idea of an art museum as a
monumental building is old-fashioned. The interior could be more open towards the outdoor space, making the
building more approachable. The designer has presumably wanted to emphasise the closed nature of the
exterior face so as not to detract from the effect of the open internal courtyard.
The flow of the museum tour is clear, though the blind alley layout is a bit dull. The top lighting from the top of
the wall does not work. The point-like skylights would gain more effect if the rest of the architecture was calmer.
The main stairway is quite plain. The placement of the museum shop separately to rely on outdoor access only
is a mistake. The connection to the old granary building is offered only through the media room, which is not
practical. The interior views have a serene and promising feel.
The new vehicle access to Pyynikintori Square is questionable. The bus traffic should be arranged in a more
compact manner.
The infill development seems awkward. The shape of the slanted building mass on Pirkankatu Street is
uncontrolled, and no yard space has been allocated for housing. The roof-top yards between the branches of
the building would be too small as residential yards.
147 Tähkä (2)
The positioning of the art museum blocks the long view axis of Puutarhakatu Street in a way that does not
appear intended. The Amuri Museum of Workers’ Housing and the old granary building are left behind the new
building.
The ground-level floor mainly includes maintenance and office facilities, which does nothing to activate the
surrounding urban space. The idea of separate closed building masses that are only connected to each other
via glass corridors does not work in practice; during the daytime, the glass surfaces appear as black, reflective
masses and the end result is wall-like and closed-off. Brick is a natural facade material, but the ideas for its use
are unoriginal and slightly overdesigned.
The exhibition spaces are placed in a tube-like fashion one after the other. The mood in the perspective images
is commercial, even though the material choices are rough. Ceiling light point solutions have not been
presented realistically.
The plans for Pyynikintori Square are quite standard. The historical arch motif has been eliminated.
The proposed infill development is unrealistic. The bar-code-like construction is far too dense, robbing the
apartments of light and privacy.
Pyynikintorin järjestelyt ovat tavanomaisia. Historiallinen kaariaihe on hävitetty.

Täydennysrakentaminen on epärealistista. Viivakoodimainen rakentaminen on sijoitettu aivan liian tiiviisti niin,
että asunnot eivät saa valoa eivätkä yksityisyyttä.
2.2.6 LOWER CATEGORY
7 A13581
The art museum’s architecture is in no way connected to its environment. The outdoor spaces have not really
been addressed, and they are only presented in very rough terms. The material choices are foreign to the site.
Preserving the old tree in front of the old part is not possible in the middle of a new construction.
The author has not fully grasped the objectives of the competition: the new building brutally covers the old part,
which has not been addressed in the proposal at all and is assigned no functions. Likewise, the Amuri Museum
of Workers’ Housing is completely overlooked.
The division of the exhibition facilities between several floors with small respective surface areas is not a
practical solution. The maintenance and visitor traffic intersect in an unfortunate manner. The atmosphere is
akin to an office complex – nothing clearly states that the building is an art museum.
The bus traffic arrangements for Pyynikintori Square are not workable. The design of the square area is clumsy,
and the square space is lost under the crushing presence of the new buildings.
The overly high development is located on Pyynikintori only, which is a grave mistake and completely destroys
the character of the square.
18 Castor and Pollux
The concept of the proposal is too ambitious for this delicate site. For example, an underground connection
across Pirkankatu Street would not, in reality, be pleasant due to its darkness.
The ample perspective images are illustrative. The proposed construction on top of the former janitor’s house
and existing art museum does not impress. The grand gesture gives rise to a lot of technical challenges, but
does not yield corresponding benefits. Placing the entrance at basement level seems cumbersome in a high
tower, as the entrance is not easily accessible from the street level.
The exhibition facilities are divided over several separate buildings and many levels, making the museum tour
reliant on lift connections.
The solutions for Pyynikintori Square have been implemented on the terms dictated by the formalistic elliptical
design. Underground shops beneath the deck are unrealistic.
The proposed thick frame depths do not facilitate the implementation of high-quality housing.
The proposal has been carefully studied all the way down to the structural sections, but an all-glass art museum
is not a sensible solution in the Finnish climate. Natural ventilation in the carefully regulated museum conditions
would be an immense challenge.
39 KOPPELO
The art museum is presented with a design-first approach, and the interior spaces have been forcefully
crammed into the expressive architecture, which has led to some seemingly awkward solutions. The building
mass is fragmented, leading to long passageways. The too rich material palette further emphasises the
convoluted impression. The perspective images are very cursory and do not provide any additional information.
A confusing proposal that attempts to justify the overwrought design with the nearby library building. However,
the positioning of the new extension is natural.
The spaces offer little possibilities for modifiability. The connection to the old granary building is proposed to
occur both from the basement and via a second-floor level bridge. The bridge partially blocks the view towards
the Amuri Museum of Workers’ Housing, an element that has not been considered in the proposal at all.
The plan for Pyynikintori Square is presented as a quite general outline, with the exception of the over-designed
canopy that does not bring any added value but rather dominates the classic landscape space. The bus traffic is
cumbersome, and it would have been advisable to place the platforms diagonally.
The infill development has been resolved with two towers, whose downwards tapering design is structurally
difficult to implement. The towers do not meet the gross floor area demands, and the point-like development
does nothing to unify the urban space.
52 HEI HAY
The evaluation of the proposal is made difficult by the very confusing presentation technique. Placing the art
museum completely underground is not justifiable. If, however, such a design choice is proposed, the solution
should bring added value to the ground level as well. Glass pyramids are suited to a delicate historical
environment, but not in this case. The massive new building along Pirkankatu Street completely blocks the view
to the museum, which is a planning error.
An attempt has apparently been made to link the museum block with Pyynikintori Square by a diagonal axis, but
the gesture is not enough to compensate for the museum being left behind a large new construction. The
arrangements for both maintenance and visitor traffic are under-dimensioned and unworkable. The museum is
accessed through a narrow corridor and an understated staircase.
Even the personnel work spaces are placed underground, which cannot be deemed acceptable despite the
ceiling light points. The glass ceilings allow direct sunlight into the exhibition space, which does not work. The
media room should be separated from the exhibition spaces by more than just drapes.
The arrangements for Pyynikintori Square are disorganised and confusing. The dimensions of the ramps are
unrealistic, and the location is unadvisable.
Most of the plots designated for infill development have been left unutilised, and all of the gross floor area has
been crammed into a single, disproportionate building that is in conflict with its environment. Opportunities for
harmonising the urban space with the aid of infill development have been left unutilised.
104 BINB
The art museum architecture is heavy and clumsy. The proposal does not provide an explanation for the
relationship of the simple geometry to the location. The single-storey building mass is reminiscent of a
warehouse, and raising the office spaces as an emphasised crown on top of the art museum is hierarchically
illogical.
The maintenance traffic intersects with the access to the Amuri Museum of Workers’ Housing. The yard spaces
are presented in very rough terms.
In the site plan, the mass seems relatively compact, and the positioning is also approximately on target.
There are as many as four entrances, which is not good from the point of view of the museum’s functions. The
mood in the interior illustration is mundane and dull. The museum tour flows clearly, with the new exhibition
spaces placed schematically all on the same level and circling the central zone.
The plan for Pyynikintori Square has been left as is, with the exception of bus traffic, which has not been
addressed in a workable fashion; a comb-like organisation would work better.
The proposed infill development is fumbling. Simpler masses and aligning the buildings directly with Pirkankatu
Street would serve better to harmonise the urban structure.
116 THE TREE TOP GALLERY
The art museum building is light and collage-like. The building spreads widely on the plot and, in part, too far
onto the Saarikuja Street line. The exterior architecture is too rich and contains disconnected references.
Spaces of secondary value open up towards the atrium, and the significance of the atrium remains unclear. The
curved glass walls do not bring added value to the design.
The exhibition spaces are too corridor-like. The space arrangements of the entrance are cramped and under-
dimensioned.
The yellow terminal building on Pyynikintori Square is too large and commands more attention in the cityscape
than the museum building that remains subordinate to it.
The infill development on Pirkankatu Street is scattered, and the shapes of the building masses are artificial and
unsuited for the site.
117 DIAMONDS AND RUST
The art museum completely disregards the surrounding building stock and could, in principle, be located
anywhere. The architecture implies references to a space ship, and the mood in the confusing perspective
images is as if in a dystopia. If the intention was to create a statuesque mass, the lift shaft tower flattens the
attempt. The busy presentation technique makes the evaluation difficult. The ground-level layout plan includes
no presentation of the museum surrounds.
The layouts do not work – for example, not much besides the staircase can fit into the entrance level. The top
floor with the glass roof is, to all practical purposes, a hothouse. A second emergency exit route is missing.
The plan for Pyynikintori Square with the massive triumphal arch is completely detached from the environment
and downright intimidating in its monumentality. The author has completely misunderstood the character of
Tampere and the significance of the square's history. The plan also fails in terms of the square functions.
The proposed infill development is schematic, and the twenty-storey mass along Puutarhakatu Street stands in
complete indifference to its surroundings.
It seems, however, that the plan is not presented as a joke, but that the author has researched the names of
Finnish artists, for example, thus demonstrating at least some effort to grasp the task. The author is advised to
carefully study all of the appended competition material before undertaking the next competition entry in order to
fully grasp how the plans are to be presented and what aspects need to be taken into account in designing a
specific building (its connection with the environment, cityscape, surrounding yard spaces, the building's
functions, etc.). As it is, the proposal completely disregards the surrounding context, which has led to a sub-
standard end result.
119 YARDBIRDS
The selected art museum concept, which is based on subterranean facilities and varied sculptural bodies above
ground, is flexible, but the pieces have not found their place within the urban space and therefore remain
detached without forming an interesting whole. The connection to the Amuri Museum of Workers’ Housing
works well.
The architecture is plagued with formalism, and it would have been advisable to have picked more local themes.
The above-ground pieces could have been aligned with reference points in the surrounding areas, which would
have calmed down the whole.
The interiors remain schematic, and there are awkward differences in level between the spaces. The
emergency exit route does not work. The mood in the interior illustration does not impress as an art museum.
The avenue on Pyynikintori Square is justified from the point of view of providing necessary connections, but the
design disrupts the classical composition that it based on symmetry.
The infill development is based on point blocks and is quite suburban, confusing, and too high.
124 ILMATAR
The art museum has not found its place on the plot and has no ties to its environment.
The displacement of the building is underscored by the treatment and material of the facade. The outdoor
spaces have remained sketchy.
The concept is built around an overly impressive staircase and atrium lobby, and it is inefficient in its utilisation
of space. The exhibition facilities are awkwardly divided between the basement and the 3 rd and 4th floors. The
exhibition space lighting is not explained. Exhibitions on the top floor could have utilised ceiling light points. A
café on the top level does not activate its surroundings. The dimensioning is poorly handled; the maintenance
lift, for example, is under-dimensioned. A second emergency exit is missing. The mood in the interior illustration
is reminiscent of an office building.
The historical character of Pyynikintori Square is not taken into account, and a massive building in the shape of
an air glider is placed in the middle of the square, dominating the surrounding area. The treatment of the square
is in disregard for its environment and only works in regard to the bus traffic.
The frame depth of the three-storey base in the infill development is unfeasible, and the towers on top are over-
designed and therefore restless.
127 CON’TEXT
The new construction is relatively accurately placed, but pushes too far south, covering some of the old
buildings.
The huge office chunks seem overbearing in relation to the barn-like atrium. It is difficult to find justifications for
the concept, though the preservation of the old trees is a nice thought. The combining of the functions makes a
phased implementation difficult. Pressure-impregnated wood as an exterior material is not ecologically sound
and is therefore unjustified.
The exhibition facilities remain underground and receive no kind of natural light. Even the schematic idea is not
fully executed, but the staircase interrupts the tube-like exhibition tour. The mood in the interior views resembles
an office building.
Covering Pyynikintori Square with a deck is a heavy-handed measure and destroys the historical environment.
The presentation of the plans for the deck lacks credibility, and an idea as drastic as this would have been
better served by placing commercial premises along Pirkankatu Street to activate the bleak edge of the deck.
Infill development is presented schematically, but the solutions seem ordinary. The plan leaves no yard space
for the residential buildings on Pirkankatu.
132 NEXUS 3
The massing of the art museum buildings is confusing and has no connection to its location. The ravine-like
composition of two masses faces inwards, and the view from the old granary building is that of a brutal concrete
wall. The ravine inside the building remains very narrow and corridor-like, and the interior illustration made from
a worm's-eye view perspective does nothing to convince the viewer of the mood.
The exterior materials are confusing, and the exterior perspective views give off something of a rubbery
impression.
The layout is scattered, and the exhibition spaces are divided over several floors. The exhibition space concept
based on separate rooms is not modifiable. The connection to the old granary building is provided by an
exceptionally narrow passage. The emergency exit and maintenance routes do not work.
On Pyynikintori Square, the buses are spread out too widely, and the issue could be resolved in a more
compact manner. The buildings at the southern end of the square are a planning error, which dilutes the
square's historical value despite the semi-circular shape. In addition, the services are far away from the public
streams of Pirkankatu Street.
The dimensioning of the infill development is not handled properly when it comes to frame depths, among other
aspects. The yards are shady.
136 REVERSE
The art museum is positioned naturally, but the vague shape renders it unable to define the urban space.
Entry to the museum is by way of a stairway down to the basement, which offers a slightly dreary impression in
the exterior illustration. However, the exhibition facilities are brought to the upper level, which yields impractical
connections. The wedding-cake-like massing appears awkward and would also be structurally difficult to
implement. The materials are foreign to the area.
The allocation of the facilities is very confusing, and the layout is schematic. The toilet facilities are accessed
through the settling room, which means the author has not understood what the rooms are used for. Only an
outdoor access is proposed for the old part, which is a design error. The maintenance traffic does not work:
deliveries are loaded into the lift directly from the outside. The exhibition facilities have all-glass walls, which
begs the question, where is the art meant to be hung?
The plans for Pyynikintori Square are standard, but well-functioning.

The placement of the infill development is fumbling: the building mass on Puutarhakatu Street has ended up in
the middle of the plot and does not align itself naturally with the street. The round tower on Pirkankatu Street is
alien to its environment and too high.
139 FI1612
The appearance of the new art museum includes references to the old granary building, and the building height
is reconciled with the historical building. However, the end result is an almost comical massing of floors, in
which all of the parts have their own style. Relinquishing the symmetry would make the mass less monumental.
The idea to lift the museum entrance up onto a pedestal is an ill-conceived one: the museum should be easily
accessible, and placing it up on a pedestal gives an entirely wrong reference. The direction of the building is
taken from the old granary, which, as an idea, seems justified, but when examined based on the images, the
solution does not appear to work. The traffic arrangements are crude, such as the drop-off traffic entry and exit
points along Pirkankatu Street in front of the museum.
The layout is schematic, and the building does not work. The entrance level mainly functions as an entryway. It
is cumbersome to first have to climb up the monumental steps to reach the entrance, only to descend another
set of stairs down to the basement. The exhibition facilities are located underground. The mood in the view of
the lobby resembles that of a commercial building. The illustrations are technically skilfully executed, but the
impression they give is too rubbery.
The plan for Pyynikintori Square draws ideas from the historical semi-circular shape, but turning the arch at the
southern end of the square to face the opposite direction is not impressive, even if an attempt has thus been
made to create a connection towards the secondary school building.
The infill development plans are faulty. Residential buildings cannot be built so close together that they almost
touch each other; enough space needs to be provided between them to meet fire safety regulations as well as
natural light and privacy requirements. A yard is also required.
143 INCANDESCENT
The art museum’s exterior architecture is attention-seeking and completely alien to its environment. The trunks
sticking into the building masses are a forced motif, and, with the lighting, the impression given is that of an
amusement park.
The new building arrogantly dominates its environment and carelessly blocks the connections to the Amuri
Museum of Workers’ Housing.
The interior spaces are tubular, and the curved walls are unfeasible from the point of view of hanging art. The
exhibition facilities are divided over two floors despite the vast building mass. The mood in the interior views is
as if from a scary science-fiction film. The maintenance traffic ring route is a disproportionate solution for a small
art museum. The emergency exit route does not work.
The Pyynikintori Square terminal has two separate traffic areas, which eats up space for other functions. The
square’s southern part intensely closes in around itself.
The proposed infill development remains very roughly presented and protrudes on Pirkankatu Street to block
out the hay-weighing building. The yards have been dedicated as parking areas
144 JUST DRAW IT
The design of the art museum is clumsy, and the material choices do not seem justified. The conspicuous
building is independent and unconcerned with its environment, turning its back on the old granary building.
The new extension takes its bearings from Pyynikintori Square and opens strongly towards the square. The
whole of Pirkankatu Street has been directed underground in order to connect the museum plot seamlessly to
Pyynikintori with a lawn-covered deck. The solution is not feasible and would lead to dreary long ramps that
would be like scars on the cityscape. The building completely disregards its environment and blocks the view
and connections to the Amuri Museum of Workers' Housing. In the aerial view, the size of the mass is grossly
deceiving, and the dominating effect of this megalomaniac proposal is not fully exposed.
The tower-like solution is not functional in museum use, as the spaces are very separated and divided into
different floors, delivering very little modifiability. The building is distinctly divided into two parts. The exhibition
facilities in the southern part all face south with a large glass wall, turning them into hothouses and poor
exhibition spaces. The functions of the maintenance unit in the back are somewhat left to speculation. The need
for toilet and other service facilities is not as great as presented. Ventilation utility rooms are presented
separately for each floor only in the dropped ceiling space, which is not feasible.
Pyynikintori Square has been turned into an immense lawn with no regard for the square's historical character.
The six entrance buildings to the parking level are exaggerated. The current street-lining trees have been
replaced with a double line of trees.
No infill development is presented at all.
145 SAA17
The art museum has not found its place and also seems to still be looking for the right coordinates.
The building looks like it has sunken down by a floor. The busy and uncontrolled architecture is slightly calmed
down by the white modernist style of the facades, but the selected aesthetics are in conflict with the rest of the
design. The mood in the perspective images is rubbery.
The functions are presented as a schematic overview, and the layout contains functional and dimensional
errors. For example, the office can only be accessed through the exhibition space. There are two lobbies. The
shop is only served by an outdoor access. The exhibition spaces circle an internal courtyard with glass walls,
which is problematic from the point of view of both lighting and hanging the art. The extra connection to the old
granary building from the second floor is an eyesore in the cityscape, and it is also functionally unnecessary.
The arrangements for Pyynikintori Square are completely exaggerated. The bridge connection adds no value.
The underside of the bridge is a dark and dreary space.
The shapes of the infill development are awkward, and the buildings are considerably too high.
2.3 The result of the competition
2.3.1 The competition outcome
In their assessment, the competition jury concluded that the competition proposal submitted under the
pseudonym "Siilo" best fulfils the criteria specified in the competition programme. In deviation from the
competition programme, the jury unanimously decided to award the prizes, purchases and honorary mentions
as follows:
1st prize, €70 000, to proposal no. 88, Siilo
Shared 3rd prize, €30 000, to proposal no. 41, TAD Tampere Art District
Shared 3rd prize, €30 000, to proposal no. 74, dogma
Purchase, €15 000, to proposal no. 14, Amurin kattojen yllä
Purchase, €15 000, to proposal no. 113, LOOTA
Purchase, €15 000, to proposal no. 68, MUSEUM SQUARE
Honorary mention to proposal no. 21, THE MIND PALACE
Honorary mention to proposal no. 82, Nexus
2.3.2 The jury’s recommendations
On the basis of the competition result, the jury proposes the following future measures:
Museum building
The competition jury recommends to the Tampere City Board that the commission to design both the museum
and the block of flats situated on the museum plot be given to the author / authors of the winning proposal.
Using the same designer in both projects is the best way to ensure the functionality of the plot’s maintenance
arrangements, etc. As the buildings are located very close to each other, the design must also ensure the
architectural balance between the residential building and the public art museum.
In the event the implementation is given to a foreign company, it must name a cooperation partner, i.e. a person
who has the qualifications of a Finnish principal designer.
Planning for Pyynikintori Square and its surroundings
The solutions presented in the best competition proposals may be used as the basis for future development.
The City of Tampere may order further planning work from the authors of the prize-winning proposals.
The other infill development planning in the competition area that has been proposed by competitors will be
used as a basis for local detailed planning. Construction will be implemented as separate projects by means of
plot assignment competitions.
Prior to any further planning work, the competitor or group must demonstrate to the contracting authority that
they meet the requirements concerning the economy and financing, technical performance and professional
qualifications, in addition to being able to fulfil all statutory obligations.
2.3.3 Signing of the evaluation minutes
The jury approved these evaluation minutes
in Tampere on 09 August 2017
2.3.4 Opening of the sealed envelopes containing the names of the competitors
After signing the evaluation minutes, the jury opened the sealed envelopes containing the names of the
competitors who were awarded prizes, purchases and honorary mentions. The following authors were revealed
as the authors of the said proposals:
1st prize, proposal no. 88, pseudonym “Siilo”

Copyright:
Aarti Ollila Ristola Arkkitehdit Oy
Helsinki, Finland
Authors:
Team:
Erkko Aarti, Architect SAFA
Aarto Ollila, Architect SAFA
Mikki Ristola, Architect
Kuutti Halinen, Architect SAFA
Pyry Kantonen, Architect
Meri Wiikinkoski, B.Sc.
Scale model:
Aarti Ollila Ristola Arkkitehdit Oy
Shared 3rd prize, proposal no. 41, pseudonym “TAD Tampere Art District”
Copyright:
Lundén Architecture Company
Helsinki, Finland
Authors:
Eero Lundén, Architect SAFA
Maija Parviainen, Architect SAFA
Ron Aasholm, Architect
Carmen Lee, Architect
Assistants:
Emma Koivuranta, Architect
Xudong Yan, Architect
Tuuli Loukola, student of architecture
Traffic expert:
Jouni Lehtomaa
Scale model:
Klaus Stolt
Shared 3rd prize, proposal no. 74, pseudonym "dogma"

Authors and copyright:
Matias Kotilainen
Tuomas Martinsaari
Paul Thynell
Helsinki / Espoo, Finland
Scale model:
Pienoismallipaja Nina Pohjanheimo
Purchase, proposal no. 14, pseudonym “Amurin kattojen yllä”

Copyright:
Huttunen-Lipasti-Pakkanen Arkkitehdit Oy,
Risto Huttunen, Santeri Lipasti, Pekka Pakkanen
Helsinki, Finland
Authors:
Risto Huttunen, Architect SAFA
Santeri Lipasti, Architect SAFA
Pekka Pakkanen, Architect SAFA
Uula Kohonen, Architect SAFA
Assistants:
Aku Jokinen, student of architecture
Tomas Hartman, student of architecture
Irene Hämäläinen, student of architecture
Seppo Tusa, Architect SAFA
Essi Wallenius, Architect SAFA
Julia Falck, student of architecture
Landscape planning:
Emilia Weckman, Landscape Architect, MARK, WE3 Oy
Scale model:
Olli-Pekka Keramaa, Pienoismalli Oy
Purchase, proposal no. 68, pseudonym “MUSEUM SQUARE”

Sjöblom Freij Arkitekter AB :
Jacob Sjöblom
Axel Freij
Stockholm, Sweden
Scale model:
Sjöblom Freij Arkitekter AB
Purchase, proposal no. 113, pseudonym “LOOTA”

Team “LÄHELTÄ YLÖS”:
Kristian Kontula, Architect SAFA
Eveliina Sarapää, Architect SAFA
Jalo Sippola, Architect SAFA
Helsinki, Finland
Assistants:
Kari Pöykkö, Architect SAFA
Olli Nurminen, art student
Scale model:
Arkkitehtipionoismalli Matti Kangaspuro
Honorary mention, proposal no. 21, pseudonym “THE MIND PALACE”
Benjamin Schulman, student of architecture
Espoo, Finland
Scale model:
Svante Knuus, Maker3D Oy

Toni Järvitalo, 3D Formtech Oy
Arto Tuisku, Jyrsijä Helsinki
Henrietta Nyman-Lind, Henriettan kukat
Honorary mention, proposal no. 82, pseudonym “Nexus”

Copyright:
Atelier Lorentzen Langkilde ApS
Copenhagen, Denmark
Authors:
Kristian Langkilde
Kasper Lorentzen
Assistants:
Mathias Holm
Peter Stilling
Thea Berg
Scale model:
Asgar Hoegh
Vilde Livsdatter
3. IMAGES
3.1 The scale models

The competition organiser requested the 10 scale models. The site model into which the competitor`s scale model is fitted.
88 Siilo
74 dogma
68 MUSEUM SQUARE
113 LOOTA
21 THE MIND PALACE
82 Nexus
53 CALAMARI UNION
3.2 Prize category and honorary mentions. Presentation boards.
1st prize, proposal no. 88, pseudonym

”Siilo”
Shared 3rd prize, proposal no. 41, pseudonym
”TAD Tampere Art District”
Shared 3rd prize, proposal no. 74, pseudonym
”dogma”
Purchase, proposal no. 14, pseudonym
”Amurin kattojen yllä”
”MUSEUM SQUARE”
100 EVALUATION MINUTES OPEN INTERNATIONAL DESIGN COMPETITION ON THE TAMPERE ART MUSEUM AREA AND PYYNIKINTORI
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
”LOOTA”
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
Honorary mention, proposal no. 21, pseudonym
”THE MIND PALACE”
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
Honorary mention, proposal no. 82, pseudonym
”Nexus”
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
SQUARE
Publisher City of Tampere, 30 August 2017
Editor Arkkitehtitoimisto Tilatakomo Oy / Pekka Koli
Layout Arkkitehtitoimisto Tilatakomo Oy / Pekka Koli
Translation Translatinki Oy
Cover pictures Aarti Ollila Ristola Arkkitehdit Oy
Image 1 Lentokuva Vallas Oy
Images 2, 8 Blom 2015
Images 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, pages 79-83 Pekka Koli
Other pictures Competition entries
Place of publication Grano Oy
SQUARE
TAMPEREEN KAUPUNKI
Dno:TRE 2383/2016

Evaluation Minutes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation Minutes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation Minutes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OPEN INTERNATIONAL DESIGN COMPETITION ON THE TAMPERE

ART MUSEUM AREA AND PYYNIKINTORI SQUARE

1. THE OBJECTIVE OF THE DESIGN COMPETITION 2

1.1 Competition arrangements 3

1.2 Competition background and the design task 6

2.1 General evaluation 8

2.2 Proposal-specific evaluation 16

2.3 The result of the competition 53

3.1 The scale models 59

3.2 Prize category and honorary mentions. Presentation boards 64

Image 1. Oblique aerial view of the competition area

1.1.1 Implementation method and the organiser

1.1.2 Jury panel and other organisation

• Pirkanmaa Provincial Museum:

• Geotechnical and municipal engineering: Mikko Kielo, Senior Planning Officer

• Local detailed planning:

• Plot and land use matters:

Cost analysis was conducted by Sari Loponen, DUCO Rakennuttaja Oy.

1.1.4 Competition schedule

The competition started on 15 December 2016 and closed on 15 March 2017.

1.1.5 Competition entries

A numbered list of the competition entries::

1 KIVIKAVERIT 2 tuoppi ja pikari 3 stilleben

Nimimerkit, joiden tekijöiltä pyydettiin kilpailuohjelman mukaisesti pienoismallit olivat:

14 Amurin kattojen yllä

1.2.1 Competition area

Image 3. Pirkankatu Street and Pyynikintori Square

2.1 General evaluation

2.1.1 General information about the competition entries

2.1.3 Overall city structure

2.1.4 Internal city structure

2.1.5 Museum entity

Image 4. Art museum building Image 5. Art museum plot

THE ART MUSEUM AREA AND THE NORTHERN PARK AREAS

PYYNIKINTORI SQUARE AND HEINÄTORI SQUARE

Image 6. Pyynikintori Square Image 7. Heinätori Square

2.1.7 Infill development

2.1.10 Feasibility and overall cost-efficiency

2.2.1 EVALUATION CATEGORIES

14 Amurin kattojen yllä

21 THE MIND PALACE

Upper middle category

88 Siilo (1st prize)

41 TAD Tampere Art District (shared 3rd prize)

The proposed infill development is natural.

74 dogma (shared 3rd prize)

14 Amurin kattojen yllä (Purchase)

68 MUSEUM SQUARE (Purchase)

113 LOOTA (Purchase)

21 THE MIND PALACE (Honorary mention)

82 Nexus (Honorary mention)

120 ARCHIMEDEAN POINT

19 UNDER ONE ROOF

The arrangements for Pyynikintori Square are sketchy.

107 THE HUB

The proposed infill development is cursory and too high.

130 EMBRACING THE SPACE

The ground-level arrangements are presented quite summarily.

147 Tähkä (2)

Pyynikintorin järjestelyt ovat tavanomaisia. Historiallinen kaariaihe on hävitetty.