EVALUATION MINUTES - tampere.fi · EVALUATION MINUTES Evaluation minutes ... Rakennuttajapalvelu...

1

Evaluation Minutes

EVALUATION MINUTESEvaluation minutes

Design Contest for the Tampere Travel and Service Centre

EVALUATION MINUTES

Evaluation minutesDesign Contest for the Tampere Travel and Service Centre


Publisher: City of Tampere, City Centre project, 17 September 2014

Editor: Petri Kontukoski

Text: Jury and the workgroup

Layout: Architects Kontukoski Ltd. / Riku-Pekka Kärkkäinen

Translations: Translatinki Oy

Cover picture: COBE Aps and Lunden Architecture Oy

Photo on p. 13 Arkkitehdit Kontukoski Ltd.

Map: City of Tampere

Other pictures: Competition entries

Place of publication: Grano Oy, Tampere

Evaluation Minutes

Contents

Foreword �� 61. Course, objectives, and contents of the contest �� 8

1.1. Contest arrangements �� 91.1.1. Implementation method and contest schedule �� 91.1.2. Organizer, jury, and other organization of the contest ��101.1.3. The rules of the contest and the selection of the competitors ��111.1.4. Competition entries ��11

1.2. Planning task of the contest ��121.2.1. Planning area ��121.2.2. The objectives of the contest, the content of the planning task,

and the evaluation criteria ��122. Evaluation of the contest ��16

2.1. General evaluation of the contest ��172.1.1. General about the competition entries ��172.1.2. Operational entity ��182.1.3. Cityscape and the architectural entity ��192.1.4. Feasibility ��202.1.5. City planning matters highlighted by the contest ��22

2.2. Evaluation of the competition entries ��232.2.1. Pseudonym “Manse” ��252.2.2. Pseudonym “ReConnecting Tampere” ��312.2.3. Pseudonym “The Square” ��372.2.4. Pseudonym “Tampere Silmukka” ��43

2.3. The outcome of the contest ��482.3.1. The result of the contest ��482.3.2. Grounds for the decision and recommendations ��482.3.3. Signatures of the jury ��492.3.4. Opening of the closed envelopes containing the names of the competitors ��50

Appendices ��53Appendix 1. Pseudonym “Manse” ��54Appendix 2. Pseudonym “ReConnecting Tampere” ��62Appendix 3. Pseudonym “The Square” ��72Appendix 4. Pseudonym “Tampere Silmukka” ��82

Foreword

7

Evaluation Minutes

FOREWORD

The Travel and Service Centre is the most significant upcoming pub-lic construction project in Tampere. It will earn global recognition for the city itself, and for the country. The project will improve the accessibility and fluency of traffic flow, and will further enhance the city’s attractiveness through striking architecture.

The International Design Contest for the Tampere Travel and Ser-vice Centre posed a very difficult city and traffic planning task. The competition was the first step in the development of the area that is currently incoherent as a city environment, and which does not yet fully capitalize on its central location.

The competition entry that was judged best by the jury offers an excellent idea and a strong overall approach. In its vision, the two halves of the Tampere city centre – divided by the railway – are integrated into one nearly seamless city structure. In terms of traffic, the proposal connects the city centre with the rest of Tampere and Finland, and the wider world.

The conclusion of the competition marks the beginning of a mul-ti-phase planning and construction work that will last for years, per-haps decades.

The starting point is a vision of a functional hub uniting all modes of transport that is an attractive centre of business, workplaces, ser-vices, and housing. The aim is also to create high-quality city archi-tecture.

1. Course, objectives, and contents of the contest

9

Evaluation Minutes

COURSE, OBJECTIVES, AND CONTENTS OF THE CONTEST

The City of Tampere, the Finnish Transport Agency, Senate Proper-ties, and VR-Group Ltd organized an international design contest for the Tampere Travel and Service Centre and its environs. The de-sign contest looked for a shared vision for the area’s development as well as a shared view on guidelines for future measures. The con-test implements the objectives and content of the Tampere City Cent-re Development Programme, which was approved by Tampere City Board on 6 May 2013. The purpose and schedule of the contest are described in more detail in the following document: Design Contest for the Tampere Travel and Service Centre. Competition Rules and the Competition Programme.

1.1. Contest arrangements1.1.1. Implementation method and contest schedule

The contest was organized as a design contest in accordance with the Finnish Procurement Act. Five workgroups were selected as com-petitors from among the 40 requests to participate that were sub-mitted in February 2014. Four of these workgroups submitted com-petition entries. The result of the contest was announced in October 2014.

Full schedule of the contest

02 – 03/2014 Selection of competitors

03 – 06/2014 Preparation of the competition entries

08 – 09/2014 Evaluation and result of the contest

10/2014 Publication of the results

10/2014 – Planning phases following the contest


10 1.1.2. Organizer, jury, and other organization of the contest

The City of Tampere’s City Centre project was responsible for the organization of the contest. The jury met four times (14 August, 20 August, 5 September, and 17 Septem-ber 2014). The jury was assisted by a jury workgroup, which met 10 times.

The jury and the workgroup visited the com-petition area on three occasions in August 2014. During the visits, they studied the competition area from the roof floors of Hotel Scandic Station and Solo Sokos Ho-tel Torni Tampere. The members of the jury also independently studied the competition area. In evaluating the competition entries, the jury heard outside experts appointed by the contest organizer. The jury made the de-cision on the result of the contest in its final meeting, held on 17 September 2014.

The jury members were (Mayor’s de-cision dated 18 June 2014):

Appointed by the City of Tampere:

• Anna-Kaisa Ikonen, Mayor (chair)

• Risto Laaksonen, Purchasing Manager (vice chair)

• Taru Hurme, Planning Director

• Tero Tenhunen, Project Director (vice chair)

Appointed by the Finnish Transport Agency:

• Kari Ruohonen, Director General Projects

Appointed by the VR-Group Ltd:

• Ari Mäkinen, Property Director

Appointed by the Senate Properties:

• Antti Kari, Chief Adviser

Appointed by the Ministry of Transport and Communications:

• Tero Jokilehto, Special Advisor, Ministry of Transport and Communications

Expert members appointed from out-side organizations by the competition organizers:

• Lars Bendrup, Director, Architect, Transform (Denmark)

• Ilkka Halinen, City Architect, City of Jyväskylä

• Jorma Mäntynen, Professor, Tampere University of Technology

In addition, the following expert members appointed by the City of Tampere participated in the jury’s work without voting rights:

• Kari Kankaala, Group Director

• Ari Vandell, Planning Manager

• Mika Periviita, Manager, Public Transport

• Elina Karppinen, Head of Local Detailed Planning

The other expert mentioned in the competition programme was:

• Hannele Kuitunen, Researcher, Pirkanmaa Provincial Museum

The experts in real estate business ac-tivities and economy of construction were:

11

Evaluation Minutes


• Kaisa Vuorio, Senior Partner, Propdea Oy

• Arto Palo, Project Manager, Rakennuttajapalvelu Arto Palo

Competition secretaries:

• Kimmo Ylä-Anttila, Architect, MY Architects Ltd (until 21 May 2014)

• Petri Kontukoski, Architect, Architects Kontukoski Ltd. (starting on 21 May 2014)

Jury’s workgroup (appointed by the executive group of the Tampere Tra-vel and Service Centre project):

• Jorma Mäntynen, Professor, Tampere University of Technology

• Antti Kari, Chief Adviser, Senate Properties

• Jarmo Nirhamo, Project Manager, the Finnish Transport Agency

• Harri Vitikka, Senior Designer, Pirkanmaa ELY Centre (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment)

• Pirjo Huvila, Constructor-Architect, VR-Group Ltd

• Elina Karppinen, Head of Local Detailed Planning, City of Tampere

• Ari Vandell, Planning Manager, Traffic, City of Tampere

• Minna Seppänen, Architect, City of Tampere (vice chair)

• Veikko Vänskä, Project Architect, City of Tampere (chair)

• Petri Kontukoski, Competition Secretary, Architects Kontukoski Ltd.

1.1.3. The rules of the contest and the selection of the competitors

The competition rules and competition pro-gramme prepared by the contest organizer were published on 14 January 2014, along with the public procurement notification, which was made in accordance with the Finnish Procurement Act. The deadline for submission of requests to participate was 17 February 2014. A total of 40 requests were received within the time limit. The com-petitors were selected by the project direc-tor of the City Centre project based on the proposal made by the preparation group of the Travel and Service Centre project.

Five design teams were selected from among those that had submitted a request to participate. The organizer sent the cho-sen competitors the invitation to participate and the competition programme. The com-petitors had the opportunity to ask ques-tions about the contest, both before submit-ting their request to participate and during the contest itself.

1.1.4. Competition entries

Of the five design teams that were invited to participate in the contest, four submitt-ed their contest entries by the set time limit of 27 June 2014. The organizer opened the submitted competition entries and inspected their contents on 30 June 2014. All contest entries were submitted under pseudonym as requested, and each included the required documentation.

All competition entries received were pub-lished on the City of Tampere website on 4 August 2014.


12 1.2. Planning task of the contest1.2.1. Planning area

The competition area covers the Tampere Railway Station and the railway yard and its surroundings. Its size is roughly 18 ha. The competition area is situated very close to the epicentre; the railway station is locat-ed at the end of Hämeenkatu Street, which is Tampere’s main street. The railway yard clearly forms a dividing point between the epicentre and the city districts of Tammela and Tulli.

The competition area borders Erkkilän-katu Street and the Erkkilänsilta Bridge to the north and Kalevantie Road and the Sorinsilta Bridge to the south. In the west, the border of the competition area runs along Rautatienkatu Street until Ronganka-tu Street. Thereafter, the competition area borders the railway yard’s western edge. It has been proposed that the eastern border runs along the streets of Peltokatu, Murto-katu and Tullikatu. There are a number of buildings of various ages in the competition area.

In addition, competitors were allowed to propose plans concerning construction and traffic solutions, for example, in the study area, which is broader than the competition area.

1.2.2. The objectives of the contest, the content of the planning task, and the evaluation criteria

The design contest looked for a vision for the Travel and Service Centre area’s deve-lopment as well as a basis for guidelines for

future construction measures. The objective was to create a plan for the travel and ser-vice centre area that is of a high quality with regard to its functions and congruence with the cityscape. The travel and service centre area must integrate the following elements: a travel and service centre that serves the different modes of public transport, smooth transfer connections for the various modes of transport, pleasant urban spaces as well as high-quality office, service and housing construction. The objective was to create an operationally versatile extension of the city centre that has a clear identity and that links the districts of Tulli and Tammela to the city centre.

In addition, the objectives set for the various sub-areas included the following:

• Finding a solution for the functioning of the travel and service centre as a departure, arrival and transfer station for the different modes of transport.

• Locating the long-distance bus terminal in a natural way (as regards its operations and the cityscape) in the station and railway yard area.

• Strengthening the quality corridor for local public transport on the Hämeenkatu - Itsenäisyydenkatu axis.

• Enabling different modes of travel and a smooth transfer between them.

• Creating a versatile and active part of the city centre.

• Finding an overall solution for combining the station’s services, business premises and commercial services.

• Finding new solutions for the implementation of various functions.

• Planning a Travel and Service Centre

13

Evaluation Minutes



14

that is accessible to different modes of travel and providing a pleasant pedestrian environment.

• Supporting the preconditions for urban city life.

• Creating an identifiable cityscape for the Travel and Service Centre.

• Preserving the railway station’s position in the cityscape as the end of Hämeenkatu Street.

All of the above-mentioned and the other competition objectives have been descri-bed in more detail in the competition pro-gramme.

In the evaluation of the plan proposals, sig-nificant consideration was given to whether or not the objectives and instructions set out in the competition programme were taken into account in the proposals. The following aspects were used as the evaluation crite-ria:

• Operational entity

• Cityscape and the architectural entity

• Feasibility

More detailed instructions on the contents of the planning task, the preparation of the plans, the planning documents and the eva-luation criteria have been provided in the competition programme.

15

Evaluation Minutes


2. Evaluation of the contest

17

Evaluation Minutes

EVALUATION OF THE CONTEST

The jury has evaluated the competition entries without knowing the identity of the competitors, and solely in adherence to the criteria outlined in the procurement notifica-tion for the contest. The following have been considered in the evaluation in accordance with the rules, instructions and the competi-tion programme:

• contest objectives

• planning instructions

• evaluation criteria

The aim of the evaluation is

• to compare the competition proposals

• to find ideas and solutions with development potential from amongst the competition entries as a basis for further planning

• to pinpoint problems that the competition entries do not provide a solution for.

The evaluation consists of two parts

• the general evaluation of the contest (section 2.1, based on the individual evaluation of the entries)

• individual evaluation of the competition entries (section 2.2).

2.1. General evaluation of the contest2.1.1. General about the competition entries

Tampere Railway Station is Finland’s se-cond largest long-distance station in terms of passenger volumes. The new Travel and Service Centre will have regional, national, and international importance.

The competitors’ task was to draw up a consistent urban vision for this inconsistent, developing sub-area of the city. This turn-ed out to be a demanding and multifaceted planning task. The competition proved that the Travel and Service Centre area needs its own identity that is based on the current station building and is also complemented by a sufficiently strong (with regard to the overall approach and details) environment. The many restrictions set by the infrastructu-re and differences in elevation made it dif-ficult to create a uniform and clear vision.

The competition resulted in four different views regarding the way the area should be developed in the future; how the various functions should be located; and how the city could be made even more attractive.

The evaluation of the contest in Chapter 2 consists of the evaluation minutes accepted by the jury in its meeting on 17 September 2014.


18 The competition showed that a great city vision and bold expression are needed to extend the current city centre.

Three competition entries have regarded the tunnels passing underneath the railway track area as the most significant connec-tion between the different parts of the area. Even though these competition entries do have their strengths, they fail to turn the cur-rent situation into the attractive vision that was required of the proposals.

One of the proposals has managed to pre-sent a visionary and bold solution which utilises an historical opportunity to connect the different parts of the city with each ot-her, thus closing the gap between these city districts. Closing this gap in the city structu-re by roofing the railway track area in an urban way is a strong measure. This makes it possible to meet future financial and com-mercial challenges as well as those arising in the community’s infrastructure. This vision includes several significant challenges but the end goal is clear – a unified city centre as well as a united Travel & Service Centre and city centre. A strong vision also offers a good starting point for further development of the plan.

In assessing the competition entries, their correspondence with the competition pro-gramme was also assessed. Some differen-ces were found between the competition entries in this respect: these are specified in more detail in the assessment of each of the competition entries. On a general level, the most significant difference was the de-viation from the Tampere City Centre Traffic Network Plan. Several of the competition entries also failed to provide parking solu-tions.

2.1.2. Operational entity

None of the competition entries provide a city structure solution that could be used as a basis for further planning without de-velopment. Combinations of the proposals may be prepared in further planning that can be implemented in phases. The themes could include the location of tall buildings in the area.

In terms of traffic, the best of the proposals are the ones where an effort has been made to locate the focus of vehicle traffic in the Travel and Service Centre area clearly on the Tammela side of the Travel and Service Centre, as this allows the city centre side to be opened primarily to pedestrian and cycling traffic. In the best proposals, the walking environment has been improved significantly by high quality park and envi-ronmental construction.

From the traffic point of view, ReConnecting Tampere is the most impressive of the pro-posals as a whole. Functions located on dif-ferent levels form a clear entity in which the travel chains of all modes of transport, in-cluding flight traffic, have been considered carefully. The rail connection to the airport included in the proposal is a good idea in a national traffic hub like Tampere its size considered. It also allows the creation of a completely new kind of flight traffic travel chain.

Several of the competition proposals have defects relating to the arrangement of the traffic network and to prioritization of the various modes of transport. Some of the proposals tried to simultaneously favour several modes of transport throughout the area under development. Traffic calming on the Hämeenkatu side is crucial, and can only be achieved by good arrangement

19

Evaluation Minutes


and understanding of the city centre ring route, and by prioritization of pedestrian and cycling traffic on the city centre side.

Although the idea of changing the alignme-nt of the city centre ring route, proposed in several of the competition entries, is good in terms of traffic, the solution is difficult to implement within such a short time span. The part of the extended city centre ring route located in Tammela is particularly difficult to implement. Some of the competition ent-ries require rethinking of the traffic system.

In two of the competition entries (ReConne-cting Tampere and The Square), passenger car traffic has been cut at the Travel and Service Centre on Itsenäisyydenkatu Street. The proposed traffic network solution de-viates significantly from the Tampere City Centre Traffic Network Plan, which was the starting point for the competition. The fea-sibility of the solution was assessed using a simulated traffic network. The simulation showed that although closing Itsenäisyy-denkatu Street from traffic increases traffic volumes on Kalevantie Road, Erkkilänkatu Street, Lapintie Road, Rantatunneli tunnel, and others, the functionality of the city cent-re traffic network holds up under normal cir-cumstances. Traffic is diverted to streets that are already under pressure, or on which the traffic environment cannot cope with inc-reases in traffic volume. However, the de-mand for traffic and the modes of transport may change significantly in future.

The proposed closure of Itsenäisyydenka-tu Street to traffic is problematic in various exceptional situations. The capacity of the east-west street network is limited in the city centre area, and the smoothness of traffic flow must be guaranteed in situations invol-ving disturbances within the street network. Itsenäisyydenkatu Street is an important eastbound route for the Rescue Department,

and its continued functionality must also be safeguarded.

The functionality of the area in front of the station and the Hämeenkatu and Rautatien-katu junction is problematic in its current form. None of the competition proposals provide a solution to this. In all the compe-tition entries, insufficient attention has been paid to developing pedestrian and cycling connections in the southern part of the com-petition area.

2.1.3. Cityscape and the architectural entity

Surprisingly, the competition entries inclu-de few new cityscape elements that would create a clear travel and service centre identity. In three of the proposals, identity is created by increasing the height and scale of the buildings around the current station building. However, the change of scale has alone failed to create a unique and positive identity for the Travel and Service Centre. In one entry, an exceptional identity has been achieved by significant city restructu-ring. The travel and service centre is a key site in the city centre. Major changes have historically been part of the development of the city.

During the evaluation phase of the contest, views based on all the competition entries were inspected using a city model. The aim of this was to study the axes that are im-portant from a cityscape perspective, such as the end of Hämeenkatu and views to-wards Rautatienkatu and Itsenäisyydenkatu Streets. This revealed several problems with the competition entries regarding city views, a deck across the railway tracks, elevation differences, and canopies.


20 Management of the changes to urban land-scape and cityscape vary greatly among the competition entries, with some being far too sketchy in this respect. Locating tall or relatively tall buildings by the railway is the most popular large-scale cityscape solution in terms of building mass. Tampere’s urban landscape would accommodate even taller buildings than were proposed in any of the competition entries.

For the most part, the solutions offered for the core area of the travel and service cent-re are relatively cautious, or even too mo-dest in terms of the cityscape. The proposals include few innovative ideas in terms of city architecture. One competition entry offers a surprising and successful rearrangement of the urban landscape and cityscape.

The functional solutions proposed for the station square vary in size among the com-petition entries. In the best of the proposals, the square area is calmed by reserving it for pedestrian traffic and recreation, which creates a park-like series of spaces that would continue the station park tradition that is unique to Finland. A large cano-py and platform-specific solutions were both proposed as roofing solutions for the railway yard. However, the large canopy solutions are monotonous and monolithic, and the platform-specific proposals are restless and fail to create protective spaces.

On the whole, the architectural and city planning solutions offered by the proposals are fairly unaspiring. Most of the architec-tural solutions fail to create anything new, and tend to repeat old themes. In some of the proposals, various architectural ele-ments are not successfully integrated. The most successful proposals are based on lar-ge and clear architectural or city planning elements.

The lack of seriality in the public outdoor spaces is a weakness in many of the com-petition entries. In some of the competition entries, the environmental arrangement of the public outdoor spaces is either weak, or lacks a connection with the functional arrangement. At best, the competitors have managed to open completely new perspe-ctives to planning of the Travel and Service Centre area through the outdoor spaces.

What is central from the built cultural en-vironment point of view is continuation of the station functions, which are significant for the urban development of Tampere. They should also be modified in accordance with the urban architectural look and with pre-sent-day functional requirements. These tas-ks must be reconciled with care for the city’s existing cultural-historical and architectural values.

In terms of station architecture, none of the proposals succeeded in finding a new, high-quality 21st century solution that would supplement and cohere with the his-torical station setting. In modernizing the travel and service centre, the old archite-cture of the railway station, which is subtle and reflects the style of its era, requires spe-cial sensitivity in the planning of the buildin-gs to be constructed around it. If the scale is changed, the overall urban architecture and the position of the old identity buildings within the city structure become very signi-ficant.

2.1.4. Feasibility

From the perspective of real estate business activities, feasibility has been examined as an entity formed by the physical solution, the grounds for using the potential func-

21

Evaluation Minutes


tions, and the rentability and saleability of the premises. These elements were evaluat-ed on the basis of the answers to the ques-tions regarding the business idea, the target groups, the market prospects, the cost le-vels concerning the rent and maintenance activities, the implementation, and the risks. In addition to using the transport services provided by the Travel and Service Centre, the business idea, dimensioning, location and potential functionality of the consumer services have been regarded as important attractions for the area. They also function as services for the inhabitants and emplo-yees in the area. For this reason, they have been examined more closely than the dwel-lings and the office premises, to which it is easier to make changes (with regard to their location and shape) in further planning.

From these perspectives, all proposals ap-peared to provide a feasible basis for fur-ther planning. However, due to uncertain-ties concerning the cost structure of the deck proposed by ReConnecting Tampere, the risk level in terms of profitability is signifi-cantly higher than in the other proposals.

In the competition phase, planning is natu-rally carried out on a general level, which is why the details of the plan proposals have not been emphasized in the examination of the proposals. The key profitability figures have not been calculated. Most of the rent and maintenance charges that were present-ed in the plan proposals were on a general level, separate from the solution. However, the fact that their presentation was required clearly contributed to the realistic character of the proposals, which was the principal aim. Furthermore, the value of the buildings to be demolished, the parking solutions, the implementation solutions for users, and the various fees relating to construction (such as the cost of the building rights) will raise

the total costs presented and those calcu-lated in the evaluation phase. In addition, the requirements concerning the productivi-ty of the premises and structures that will be in public use significantly affect the entity’s profitability.

Technical and traffic requirements set by the railway yard area must be observed if the construction proposed in the competition entries is to be facilitated. The changes spe-cified in the master plan for the passenger railway yard must be implemented before the station area can be built. These changes will facilitate longer interruptions in railway traffic, and closing of the tracks on the pas-senger railway yard for longer periods of time. When construction work is done un-derneath the existing tracks, the existing track structures must be taken into account in planning the elevation of the structures.

Construction costs of the competition entries were assessed based on the scope and fun-ction of the buildings reported by the com-petitors, as well as on the evaluation of the design solutions. The construction costs and unit prices specified in the proposals were, to varying degrees, underestimated in all the competition entries. In addition to the scope, factors that increase the cost of each proposal were identified to the extent pos-sible based on the contents of the competi-tion entries. The possible additional costs of these factors were added to the estimated construction costs of the proposals.

It is possible to implement all plan proposals in phases. Increasing construction volumes will slow down the construction schedule for the area, which must be observed in furt-her planning. In phasing, it is also important to take into account the volume of rentable space that will enter the market and the vo-lume of objects to be sold as well as their relation to the competing projects. From the


22 perspective of the city’s vitality, it would be good to implement the Travel and Service Centre area as quickly as possible but this can affect the implementation schedule of the other projects that are waiting to be lau-nched. The cost level also affects the market entry schedule.

2.1.5. City planning matters highlighted by the contest

The contest and the evaluation and compa-rison of the competition entries revealed se-veral city and traffic planning matters that are significant for further planning. Some of these relate to the more extensive city struc-ture of the Tampere city centre, and some relate to the internal composition of the area. In the jury’s view, the following mat-ters must be considered in the development and further planning of the area:

The Travel and Service Centre as a national hub for travel chains

• local, regional, national, and international travel

• flexibly integrating all modes of transport at the hub

• emphasizing international accessibility and attractiveness

• connectivity and connections to the Central Arena

The internal traffic system of the City of Tampere

• changes in future demand, supply, and modes of transport

• impacts on the location and functionality of the city centre ring route

• special attention should be paid to the pedestrian and cycling connections between Hämeenkatu Street and the Travel

and Service Centre

Identity and cityscape

• impacts of the developing travel and service centre on the broader city structure in terms of the local master plan

• urban identity of the travel and service centre and its surroundings, its independence from and/or connections to the adjacent older districts

• the volume and location of construction, especially with regard to tall buildings

Location of retail activities and services wi-thin the Tampere city centre area

• the impact of the travel and service centre on the location of significant city centre functions

• recognizing customer segments

• future changes in demand and supply

• location and dimensioning of retail businesses in the Tampere city centre area

• mutual roles of the Travel and Service Centre and Ratina as new retail centres in the city centre

Deck structures and removing the barrier ef-fect of the railway tracks

• linkage of the built environment on the deck structures to the current and future cityscape

• technical-economic feasibility and phasing

• accessibility of the city environment

2.2. Evaluation of the competition entries


24

25

Evaluation Minutes


2.2.1. Pseudonym “Manse”

GENERAL ASSESSMENT

The starting point of this competition entry has been to increase the scale of construc-tion towards the railway track area. The aim is to “dignify” the travel and service cent-re area with a higher profile. The result is a plan that would be easy to implement, but which does not provide any fresh ideas or a main vision for the travel and service centre. Part of the plan is suitable for further development. For example, the towers lo-cated on top of the plinth structure continue the idea used in the massing of the Arena towers. However, most aspects of the ent-ry have been thoroughly thought out and it would require a considerable amount of further work. The competition entry does not propose any construction on top of the railway tracks, only a new platform cano-py. The barrier effect of the railway tracks has not been reduced significantly.

Operational entity

The current railway station will continue to serve train passengers. The bus terminal has been placed on the eastern side of the railway in accordance with the traffic refe-rence plan. The various travel centre func-tions have been connected to each other with business premises. However, from the perspective of the daily users of the travel and service centre, the proposed solutions do not live up to their full potential and they do not bring enough added value to the customers. The canopy proposed at the ends of the platforms is high and narrow, which seems to lessen its protective effect.

In the entry, more than one third of all floor


26 area consists of business premises. The in-ternal traffic at the travel and service centre and the creation of connections are based on the better utilisation of the existing tun-nels. The current Asematunneli underpass, the travel centre tunnel and the Pendoliino tunnel will be extended to function as a ring-shaped shopping centre together with the railway station’s premises. The business premises will be extended to the two-storey shopping centre that will be built on the site where the P-Asema car park is currently lo-cated.

If successful, the passages in the shopping centre premises will create a good pedestri-an environment and improve the connec-tions in the railway yard’s surroundings. The business premises will enable 24-hour ac-tivity at the Travel and Service Centre. The report says that the shopping centre may be closed at night, which is regarded as a disadvantage; in this case, only the Itsenäi-syydenkatu underpass would be in use.

The entry does not propose any improve-ments regarding the connection of the travel centre tunnel via the Pendoliino building to Pakkahuoneenaukio Square. Instead, the entry proposes a pedestrian bridge from the Deck to Åkerlundinkatu Street.

In addition, the entry allocates business premises beneath the station square and in the new city block that will be located in the current Posteljooninpuisto Park. It is ques-tionable as to whether or not the pedestrian connection that is proposed for implemen-tation beneath the station square and pas-sing underneath Itsenäisyydenkatu Street and Rautatienkatu Street is practical and sensible. The broad monumental stairs and the open-air auditoriums take up too much space from the station square and Postel-jooninpuisto Park, and they are problematic in winter. The stairs and business premises

located in the underground space are not attractive. At the same time, there is too litt-le space for drop-off traffic. Moreover, the drop-off areas have not been properly pre-sented. There is a ramp from the edge of the station square into the parking facilities that are located beneath the station square. No ramp is located opposite to the Verkateh-taankatu Street junction, which reduces the functionality of the solution.

The proposed traffic solution conforms to the traffic network plan. The pedestrian conne-ction from the Travel and Service Centre to Hämeenkatu Street has been presented as a multi-level solution, which makes the con-nection efficient and slightly improves the accessibility of the travel and service cent-re. The connections are also protected from weather. However, the connection between the station and Hämeenkatu Street is not practical at street level. The pedestrian con-nection should remain at street level and the connection should be made more attractive and safer. Also, ascents from underground to Hämeenkatu Street are excessively nar-row.

The entry proposes a ground-level bicycle parking area on the station square. Access to the bicycle parking area from the south is poor – and reaching it from the east re-quires a slight detour also. The location of the bicycle parking area is difficult in terms of available space and cityscape. The plat-form areas in the railway yard and the bus terminal area have been roofed, which ma-kes travelling more pleasant. However, the canopy is too large.

The Asematunneli underpass has been divi-ded between motor traffic and tram traffic. However, the scale of the solutions for pas-sing underneath Itsenäisyydenkatu Street is too large. The tram stops have been propo-sed in accordance with the master plan for

27

Evaluation Minutes


the city tram and the utilisation of the Ase-matunneli underpass for tram stops has not been proposed. Consequently, the distance between the tram stops and the station plat-forms becomes rather long.

A route across the railway tracks, which reduces their barrier effect, is proposed for the southern end of the Travel and Ser-vice Centre. However, no solution has been suggested for its connectivity to the route network and elevation differences on the eastern and western sides of the railway tracks. Level ramps are not sufficient to ma-nage the elevation differences created by the solution. The proposed north-south pe-destrian connection from the bus station across Itsenäisyydenkatu Street is proble-matic in terms of accessibility and safety. Also lacking is a connection to the railway station that would run parallel to Tullikatu Street.

As regards the city structure, the starting point of this entry has been to locate tall, tower-like buildings on both sides of the Travel and Service Centre. Being a low structure, the Travel and Service Centre will remain between the tall buildings and it will not be highlighted in the city structure. Consequently, this built islet on the western edge of the Tammela district will remain cut off and lonely.

As regards land use, the various functions are almost thoroughly mixed. However, the positioning of the various functions is not mutually ideal in every respect. While the Travel and Service Centre will form a func-tional hub and focal point in the city struc-ture, parts other than the Travel and Service Centre are highlighted in the district in terms of cityscape.

New workplaces have been located close to the station, which is good from the pers-

pective of public transport. From strategic as well as economic and industrial perspec-tives, the number of new workplaces is very small with respect to the area’s excellent traffic accessibility and location in the city structure.

Office premises have been placed in the bus terminal building as well as in the to-wers in the northern part of the P-Asema block. The office premises make up roughly one third of the total floor area. The parking spaces designated for offices can be used for shared parking.

Housing has been allocated in the towers that will be located in the current Posteljoo-ninpuisto Park and P-Asema blocks. Only 12 towers, whose location in the city structure is not the most pleasant, have been propo-sed for housing. In addition, the proposed housing solution only supports 24-hour ac-tivity in a very limited area. The dwelling area makes up less than one third of all floor area. The entry presents a garden on the roof of the plinth building in the block that has been proposed to replace the P-Asema car park. The roof garden will improve the quality of housing and recreation.

The entry has not specifically named any function that would be attractive 24 hours a day.

The proposal is chiefly accessible even though it contains sub-areas that are not easily accessible or that have accessible connections that are located far away. The long-distance buses and trains are located at the same level, which facilitates easier transfers between these modes of transport. The business premises beneath the station square are not accessible from all directions and fixing the matter would require measu-res that would weaken the urban space.


28 Cityscape and the architectural entity

The principle of locating the building mas-ses in the urban landscape is good, the area is connected to the tall-building zone and is part of the city’s silhouette. This entry presents the railway track area as an open urban landscape, which enables the visual connection of the different parts of the com-petition area. However, the entry does not create a sufficiently strong identity for the Travel and Service Centre.

The author has utilised images when desig-ning the architecture for the area (contai-ners, crystals, rippling water). As regards their shape, the new towers are kindred spirits of the towers designed by Daniel Li-beskind and they support the dynamic citys-cape, but continuing Libeskind’s design to the proposed extent cannot be considered positive. The proposal places too much im-portance on the exterior architecture of the buildings. However, the architecture of the buildings, structures and outdoor spaces is not impressive, and does not seem ap-propriate to Tampere. The canopy on top of the station platforms is too restless and complex and it does not bring any added value to the place. The plan focuses too much on irrelevant details such as the dwel-ling places, shapes and themes for stairs. Due to the area’s long construction time, implementing the crystal theme is difficult. The extensive use of glazed facades feels distant.

In this entry, the developed version of the current station square remains the only highlighted public outdoor space in the city structure, which is not enough considering the size of the area, the city structure, and the need for a pleasant pedestrian and cy-cling network. The principle highlights the

significance of the old railway station in the cityscape, which is good, but the operatio-nal structuring and environmental architec-ture of the station square are clumsy and do not meet the needs. The visual noise in the square will completely change the urban landscape and weaken the significance of the station even though the landscape’s structure is retained. The Hämeenkatusta-tion axis is disturbed by the new entrance ramps for Hämeenkatu Street.

The tall lone building along Itsenäisyyden-katu Street is problematic in relation to the station building when viewed from Hä-meenkatu Street and from Itsenäisyydenka-tu Street.

The proposal reduces the size of the green areas, as a new block will be located in Posteljooninpuisto Park and the rest of it will be designated as part of the station squa-re. This makes the Travel and Service Centre less attractive and reduces its 24-hour use.

In this work, history is visible in the railway structures and in the station building, which is retained. Other historical buildings have also been preserved but, for example, the freight yard and the Morkku Clubhouse site have not. The opportunities provided by the site have been ignored here. The Ukko-Pek-ka building has been demolished but the Pendoliino building is retained.

Gradual implementation will enable the construction of different places but the plan will probably not create a new and signi-ficant built cultural environment. Will the identity of a built Tampere become incohe-rent and will the vague elements become chaotic?

Feasibility

Provided that the profitability of business

29

Evaluation Minutes


operations is taken into account, the compe-tition entry Manse may provide a workable basis for further planning from the perspec-tive of real estate business activities.

The proposal is based on morphology and cityscape, with the business idea and its va-lidation having only a minor role. For this reason, the location of the proposed func-tions and their functional potential remain insufficiently thought out. The lack of daily errands and activities in the area affects the usability of business and service premises, and thus affects the rental income potential of these premises. The proposal includes clear entities to be developed and sold in smaller pieces.

Pedestrian routes have been indicated in the proposal, but they seem disconnected with other functions. An example of this problem in the plan is the proposed tram stop and passage to the deck level next to Rautatien-katu Street.

In the proposal, business premises are sug-gested underground between the station and Hämeenkatu Street. The proposal is worth further investigating, although in its current form it is incomplete (e.g. in terms of accessibility, logistics, size, and space types). Due to the lack of passing pedestri-an flows, the shopping centre that is pro-posed for Rautatienkatu Street may not be feasible in the form proposed. The solution increases the risk level of the proposal, sin-ce the shopping centre would have to be constructed before the construction of the buildings above it could begin. The means of phasing, in which the base of the towers is constructed first and the towers are gra-dually built on top of the base, is not realis-tic considering the likely lifespan of imple-mentation.

The dimensioning of the offices and housing

has been tested in relation to tower size, and the solution allows for flexible imple-mentation. The logistics of the housing and offices require further planning, however. The need for parking spaces to serve the area has been taken into account, and a proposal has been made to increase the number of parking spaces. This helps make the proposal more realistic.

A proposal has been made to extend the existing underpasses. Implementing these extensions would most likely require ex-cavations in the area, and would require gradual implementation one track at a time. Lowering the floor level of the existing un-derpasses requires excavation work (the P-Hämppi car park located underneath must be taken into account).

The construction costs of the proposal are average compared to the other competition entries. The construction costs per gross m2 were the lowest of all entries, which is par-tially due to the aforementioned deficien-cies in the proposal. The construction costs of the proposal are increased for example by the expensive facade solutions of new construction. The extensive - and expensive - canopy proposed over the railway yard significantly raises the price of the Travel and Service Centre.

The proposal does not specify other construction needs relating to new construc-tion, such as tunnels, bridges, stair, ramps, and lifts. The new possible functions or reno-vation methods of the existing buildings that will be preserved have not been specified.

The proposal can be implemented in pha-ses. In terms of implementation, the most critical issue to be resolved concerns the feasibility of the proposed shopping centre on Rautatienkatu Street.


30

31

Evaluation Minutes


2.2.2. Pseudonym “ReConnecting Tampere”

GENERAL ASSESSMENT

The entry presents an innovative land-use solu-tion, in which a mixed urban structure extends across the railway area. The entry is a versati-le, functionally attractive and visionary entity. Above all, the proposal shows energy and da-ring in introducing a brand new approach to the planning of the area. It is successful in the planning and combination of various modes of transport in particular.

A significant amount of construction is propo-sed on top of the railway tracks. However, the main east to west connection is still underneath the railway tracks. The entry also proposes a new open space of considerable size, i.e. a kind of “Central Park”, the location of which is good. The location highlights the significance of the Travel and Service Centre to the citys-cape and provides it with a new identity. The identity of built Tampere is refreshed with new content and added character. The work conti-nues the tradition of new bold initiatives, which has been typical of Tampere but which has been lost for some time.

The entry presents many ideas that can be fur-ther developed. In the competition area, the sub-areas have got their own distinctive cha-racter, which provides a good starting point for further development. The entry also has a lot of problems that should be resolved in further planning.

The competition entry presents a large number of ideas relating to land use that reduce the barrier effect of the railway tracks, all of which might not necessarily be feasible. In terms of pedestrian and cycling traffic, the area borde-ring the deck requires significant further deve-lopment.


32 Operational entity

The current railway station will continue to serve train passengers. It is proposed that the bus terminal be located on the eastern side of the railway tracks in accordance with the traf-fic reference plan. The entry proposes a large amount of space to accommodate the functions of the travel and service centre and, out of all competition entries, this entry combines the highest number of public transport functions under the same roof. Pedestrian connections to various destinations inside the Travel and Ser-vice Centre are good. This entry is the only one that broadly takes into account the future needs of flight passengers.

The long-distance buses and trains are locat-ed next to each other on the same level, which contributes to easier transfers between these modes of transport. The entry proposes a prac-tical entity with regard to the different modes of transport and travel chains. The travel connec-tions are clear.

A large canopy and a new storey for the public are proposed on top of the railway tracks. The intention is to make the public storey the heart of the travel and service centre and a place where passengers can get access to all pub-lic transport services. The Itsenäisyydenkatu underpass, which runs underneath the railway tracks, has been reserved for the trams and the local buses. Consequently, the entrances to the travel and service centre can be built at various points along the entire length of the underpass. The accessibility of the travel and service cent-re is good.

A significant number of new business premises have been proposed for the area. This is com-mercially motivated, as the plan forms a clear centre for the city. Both sides of the station con-tinue as business arcades. A large supermar-ket has been located in the travel and service

centre.

In the competition entry, vehicle traffic has been cut off at the western end of Itsenäisyy-denkatu Street, which will have a significant impact on traffic in the city. In addition, the competition entry considerably extends the city centre ring route compared with the traffic network plan, which brings more traffic onto Lapintie Road, Erkkilänsilta Bridge, Tamme-lan puistokatu Street, Yliopistonkatu Street, and Kalevantie Road. The surroundings of the above-mentioned streets are rather sensitive, and increasing the traffic passing through the Tammela district is a bad idea. The proposal is in conflict with the current plans. In the future, shifting the motor traffic further away as is pro-posed in the current plans could be an option, if the traffic arrangements of the northeastern corner of the extended city centre ring route can be resolved. The traffic on both Rautatien-katu Street and Ratapihankatu Street has been reduced but in practice, the role of these streets as part of the city centre ring route will remain significant.

The cycling network included in the proposal is extensive. The proposal creates a significant pedestrian and cycling connection north from the university across the deck over the railway tracks. This helps to enliven the deck. In terms of elevation, the deck is linked in a natural way with the Central Arena deck and Erkkilänsilta Bridge. The entry will enable the construction of bicycle routes via the Asematunneli under-pass on both sides of Itsenäisyydenkatu Street – even though the cycling route on the sout-hern edge passes through pedestrian traffic between the tramline and the train. A large bicycle parking area has been proposed for construction close to the current driving tunnel. The bicycle parking area is not easily accessib-le from different directions.

33

Evaluation Minutes


Construction proposed on top of the railway tracks will significantly help narrow the land-use gap in the traffic area. The entry will crea-te new, efficiently built mixed land-use areas within the core of the city’s structure and wi-thin the hub of the various travel networks. The mixed forms of land use will contribute to the vibrancy of the travel and service centre and improve its safety for public use around the clock and throughout the week.

The services are focused around the station’s environs and the southern part of the area, which stimulates and invigorates these parts of the competition area in particular. The construction of workplaces is fully integrated with the other functions in the competition area, including housing. The proposal will not create a special and particularly visible concentration of jobs, which could be good for the area from the perspective of its strategic image. Howe-ver, the accessibility of these workplaces by public transport is good throughout the area.

The entry proposes a significant amount of new housing construction on the deck that will be lo-cated on top of the railway area. Housing has been evenly proposed across the entire area. The housing construction on the deck requires special examination with regard to feasibility, economic efficiency and safety. Still, the entry has managed to solve most of the disturbance factors concerning housing. A “shared space” principle will be adopted in the broad deck area. The entry extends the Tammela district, which is focused on housing, onto the top of the railway tracks. As regards land use, the sout-hernmost residential blocks in the competition area will remain slightly isolated from the other housing in the city centre.

When examining the area from above, the plan works well. However, problems arise when the sections are studied. The deck structure, which is for the most part located higher than the sur-rounding terrain, forms a wall that divides the

city and requires the construction of several large connecting ramps. Some of the ramps have been integrated into the park areas. Ne-vertheless, several of the ramps are long and steep and do not have any resting platforms. In addition, the ramps are mainly unroofed. Ma-king the ramps accessible to all would chan-ge the plan significantly in most locations. The ramps are also problematic from the citysca-pe point of view. However, the entry presents many ideas on taking the level differences into account.

Cityscape and the architectural entity

The cityscape depicted in the competition ent-ry is memorable. In this entry, the new large station square and park are the most signifi-cant identifying elements in the city structure. The travel and service centre’s identity is aptly based on a functional multi-level solution and the related buildings and structures. The entry can be considered to contain international fea-tures. In relation to the bordering city districts, the identity of the blocks to be built on top of the railway tracks remains unclear.

The entry regards the railway track area as a scar on the urban landscape that must be re-moved. The city will be extended to the top of the railway area and the role of the railway in the urban landscape will all but disappear. The railway tracks and some cultural-historical fea-tures will disappear from the urban landscape but significant urban landscape elements will be created for the city centre: the new park and the districts that will be built over the railway tracks.

The entry proposes a new park in front of the travel and service centre that would extend for the entire length of the travel and service cent-re area. The park creates a surprising outdoor public space in the city’s structure. The citys-cape of the park is fine and its location seems


34 practical. The long, narrow basic form of this new, park-like dominant square will be functio-nally challenging, and its pleasantness will de-pend significantly on the character of the traffic and the environment on Rautatienkatu Street. The new park will function well as a connector between the travel and service centre area and the Arena.

The entry has also proposed other outdoor spaces that are necessary in the city structure. It has refined the spaces between the buildings for the most part successfully, while less atten-tion is paid to the architecture of the buildin-gs themselves. The location of the buildings on the deck seems random in places. The locati-on of the Travel and Service Centre is marked with one tower-like building, but this building lacks a contact with the ground level. The tower might be better located on the bus station side, for example along Itsenäisyydenkatu Street.

The most interesting elements of the visual en-vironment are to be found in the architecture of the indoor spaces in the travel and service centre. The edge of the deck creates an exciting background to the only monument in the area that is being retained, i.e. the railway station. The new station canopy and the arcades are impressive, and give the area a strong identi-ty. The arching wooden surfaces and structures create a warm atmosphere and nicely comple-ment the red-brick facades of the station buil-ding. The connection to the old station building still requires architectural refinement.

The special character and attractiveness of the entry and its green environment will also draw people to the area. Gradual construction will contribute to the creation of new meanings.

In terms of preserving the existing buildings, the proposal requires further development. The plan will bring about significant changes to the front section of the valuable engine sheds, and relocation of the freight yard in the proposed

manner is not feasible. However, the entry pro-vides an opportunity to create a new and sig-nificant built cultural environment. At the same time, it revives the tradition of constructing sta-tion parks. The entry proposes the demolition of the Ukko-Pekka and Pendoliino buildings.

Feasibility

From the perspective of real estate business activities, the competition entry may provide a workable basis for further planning, but it is riskier than the other proposals.

The main idea of ReConnecting Tampere is to cover the railway tracks, which makes the pro-posal inherently very expensive. The unit costs relating to construction of the deck have been counterbalanced by proposing a large volume of construction on top of it. The idea is worth further investigation. The cost of constructing a long tunnel over the operating railway tracks is likely to be higher than is estimated in the proposal, which would significantly add to the risks relating to implementation (starting date, duration of construction, costs). If the cost of construction of the deck is at least partly facili-tated by public financing, the buildings on top and next to the deck could be developed as entities for sale to investors.

The business idea of the proposal is to turn the area into a focal point of a growing Tampere, which is facilitated by the dimensioning. The business idea and planning of the customer needs of the related target groups remain on a general level. This approach is reflected in the incompleteness of the proposed business ser-vices and of the functionality of consumer ser-vices on top of the deck. The new station squa-re on the deck is located along north-south traffic flows only, and is therefore not a func-tional centre, at least not in the form proposed. By developing the proposed ideas, it would be possible to plan for the deck a purposeful and,

35

Evaluation Minutes


if wished, tranquil city centre environment suit-ed to a wide range of functions.

In addition to the major lines, the proposal includes individual functional proposals, and additional services such as a flight check-in service.

The location of housing, offices, and other ser-vices is decentralized and carefully thought out, and is for the most part modifiable. The proposed volume of business premises serving consumer clients is high, but these have main-ly been located in small units away from pe-destrian flows. Implementing the proposal in its current form would increase the volume of se-condary business premises in Tampere, which is already high within the city’s large grid-plan area. The deck level is difficult to access from Rautatienkatu Street.

It is difficult to mix a number of functions (which have different owners) across the various le-vels, but the location is ideal.

Construction work resulting from the plan will pose a significant risk during construction of the deck to the smooth functioning of national train traffic. In addition, the extensive roofing of the railway will mean that the railway track area will have to comply with requirements that are similar to those set out for tunnels. The sa-fety systems needed to implement the deck are determined based on a traffic and risk analy-sis. The systems required will have a significant impact on the cost and feasibility of the deck solution.

The structural solution of the deck must take into account the risk of a collision with a train travelling at any speed between 80 km/h and 120 km/h. The structural thickness and pillar spacing of the proposed deck seem overly op-timistic in relation to this requirement. The ap-propriate thickness of the deck would most li-kely be at least half a metre more, which would

increase the elevation of the deck from that proposed in the competition entry. Also, the proposal fails to make a space reservation for the drying structures of the deck and the mould and support structures that are required by the concrete deck during construction. Linking the elevation of the new deck with the elevation of the Central Arena deck will most likely be impossible.

The construction costs of the proposal are by far the highest of all the competition entries. The main reason for this is its scope that is sig-nificantly larger than in the other proposals (+50%...+100%). The construction costs of the proposal per gross m2 were the highest also, which is due to the very extensive deck construction. The construction costs were also increased by the extensive park areas and squares. The proposal specifies no space re-servations for parking.

The deck structure is expensive to implement and finding funding for the project may be problematic. The construction cost of the deck specified in the proposal, namely €2,000/m2, is underestimated. A realistic cost of the deck, without taking account of surface structu-res, could be around €3,000/m2. The method of implementation of the deck of the Travel and Service Centre requires harmonization with the Central Arena’s deck project.

Due to the large volume of construction, comple-ting the proposed development will take a long time. Several alternatives have been suggested for the phasing. In further planning, the phasing and in particular the schedule for it are crucial for the implementation of the proposal. Areas that are subjected to drawn-out construction projects make everyday life and business more difficult, and also negatively affect companies and investment value of properties.


36

37

Evaluation Minutes


2.2.3. Pseudonym “The Square”

GENERAL ASSESSMENT

A clear and compact proposal, in which the competition area is developed with a focus on the south. The proposal extends the existing underground connections in the railway area, which enhances the connec-tion between the two sides. The dynamics of the area focus on the passage under the railway area, but these aspirations are only partly met.

An indicatory plan only is provided for the Tammela district. Apart from the new plat-form roofs, the proposal includes very little construction on top of and under the railway yard, and so the barrier effect of the railway tracks has not been reduced significantly. A vision that would form the backbone of the proposal is lacking. Although unambitious as a whole, the entry is more realistic than some of the other proposals. Changing the P-Hämppi entrance ramp as suggested in the proposal is not possible.

Operational entity

The proposal suggests that the existing railway station be converted into a restau-rant (Grand Cafe). However, the station is too large to be used for this purpose only. The future role of the travel and service cent-re has been misunderstood to some extent. Railway passenger functions are located in the new terminal building on the eastern side of the railway, which would require de-molition of the Ukko-Pekka and Pendoliino buildings.

The long-distance bus terminal is located on top of the existing railway station in-


38 door parking facility, which deviates from the reference plan. The location of the bus station within the city structure is not ideal, and motor vehicle connections from there to Ratapihankatu Street are not functional. Services for train and bus passengers are located far apart. The proposed solution cannot be considered to be good.

The accessibility of the travel and service centre has been improved by widening the entrance area of the Asematunneli under-pass and by adding connections from the Asematunneli underpass. Taxi and drop-off traffic is proposed on both sides of the railway tracks, and is functional. For train passengers, a new focus area of services is created on the eastern side of the railway tracks only.

The cycling network proposed complies with the Tampere City Centre Traffic Network Plan. Converting the western end of Itsenäi-syydenkatu Street into a street reserved for public transport facilitates the development of high-quality pedestrian and cycling rou-tes on both sides of the street, and reduces the barrier effect of the street. No bicy-cle parking solution has been proposed, nor have any measures been suggested to reduce the barrier effect of Rautatienkatu Street.

The plan for the city centre ring route pro-posed by the competitor is slightly unstruc-tured. The proposed transformation of Ra-tapihankatu Street into a four-lane street is not possible due to lack of space. Reserving Itsenäisyydenkatu Street for public transport only would cause traffic network problems.

The proposed connections between train traffic, trams, and local buses are good. The local public transport stops, including

tram stops, are placed in the Asematunneli underpass. The location is ideal in terms of train connections. The proposal facilitates excellent development opportunities for cy-cling, including the construction of cycling routes on both sides of Itsenäisyydenkatu Street through the Asematunneli underpass.

The old western station building and the larger new eastern station building form a nice couple in the city structure, with a recognizable shared identity. Services have been located in the Travel and Ser-vice Centre area, on the western side of the railway tracks, and on the southern side of the post office building. The volume of ser-vices seems small considering the good lo-cation next to major customer flows.

Workplace functions are located in the im-mediate vicinity of the station, which is a good solution in terms of city structure. Ho-wever, the volume of workplace functions is very modest compared to the opportunities offered by the economic and industrial po-licy and the strategically good location.

New housing construction is proposed on the western side of the railway tracks only, and its volume is quite low. The location is not ideal, both from the city structure point of view and in terms of comfort of living.

Accessibility of the area is for the most part good in the proposal. However, trains and long-distance buses are located on diffe-rent levels, which makes transfer between these two modes more difficult.

39

Evaluation Minutes



The zone of tall or relatively tall buildings is a good urban landscape element, although its arrangement remains slightly sketchy. Also, the cityscape is slightly uneven. Alt-hough the competition entry contains many well-researched details, the typology and architecture of the buildings would need further development. The station square is the most significant new element in the pro-posal that creates identity.

Although the station square will be empha-sized as the most significant public outdoor space in the area, its development is not ful-ly convincing. This is despite its important identity values, which are linked to the city structure, have been preserved. The station squares are emphasized, but do not con-nect fully. The modest external architecture of the buildings is too similar to that of the old station building, which would create competition between them. The work con-tains no architectural and creative elements – raising the possibility that it will become old hat even before it is constructed?

While the urban landscape of the proposal is integrated with the grid-plan structure and identifies the central historical elements of the city, it does not highlight the signi-ficance of the railway. Visual connections between the buildings in the railway area are possible. However, the connection to the Tulli district has not been developed. The significance of the railway station as the end to Hämeenkatu Street is preserved, but Rautatienkatu Street dominates the landsca-pe of the station square.

In terms of identity, the proposal fails to create new or to continue the existing un-completed series of powerful develop-ments. The proposal represents careful infill construction, and gives way to “the old and

established”. The opportunities offered by the old building stock of the Ratapihanka-tu Street have not been considered in the proposal.

Although the station square provides an op-portunity to construct an attractive and sig-nificant location, implementing it as propo-sed would leave it rather cold and distant. The proposal is unlikely to generate a new and significant built cultural environment.

Feasibility

From the perspective of real estate business activities, the Square may provide a wor-kable basis for further planning by taking the profitability of business activities more adequately into account. The proposal is realistic and feasible, and is based on the estimated quantitative and qualitative spa-tial needs in the Tampere market area. This makes the proposal very plausible overall.

In the proposal, the business idea has been described on a general level, and the esti-mated needs of various user groups have been taken into account in the preparation of the plan. Different user situations have also been observed in the planning. The main feature of the proposal is a small traf-fic and service centre that serves passen-gers and also others in the area that seems functional but requires further planning.

The long-distance terminal has been lo-cated along Rautatienkatu Street. This hel-ps ensure that the functions located on the upper floors will have their own rental and investment appeal, independently of the lo-wer floors. The solution lengthens the tran-sfer distance of passengers using the ter-minal, but also makes it possible in further planning to take account of pedestrian traf-fic resulting from the transfer between diffe-


40 rent modes of transport.

Of all proposals, The Square is the most modest in terms of scale. Shops and ser-vices (including cafés and restaurants) have been planned for the users of the transport terminal, and to some extent for others also. Locating the business premises in the stati-on hall would serve passengers well, and restaurant and café premises have been suggested for the existing station buildings, which seems like a natural function. Offices are located in large entities, which makes it easier to implement various kinds of office service concepts.

Housing has been proposed along Rauta-tienkatu Street. However, further planning is required – including from a juridical stan-dpoint – of the ribbon-like dwelling section of the structure, which is located on top of the long-distance terminal and also serves as a foundation for the buildings above.

Constructing new extensive tunnels under the railway tracks is a difficult task. Wide-ning of the underpasses (in the proposal, approx. 40 m) requires gradual construc-tion one track at a time, and is probably not a realistic solution from a technological and economic standpoint. The elevation of the new structures is difficult; the available space will be wide and low.

A single roof structure over the platforms would be a better solution than the narrow and high individual structures that have been proposed.

The construction costs of the proposal were the lowest of all competition entries, which was due to the smallest total area covered by the plan. The construction costs per gross m2 were average compared to the other competition entries. The construction costs were increased for example by the high

number of buildings to be demolished. The price of the actual Travel and Service Cent-re is increased by the extensive inner yard of the station in the eastern part of the area.

The proposal does not specify other construction needs relating to new construc-tion, such as tunnels, bridges, stair, ramps, and lifts. No space reserved for parking has been specified for new construction. No specification has been provided of the possible new functions or renovation met-hods of the existing buildings. Only new construction is included in the cost calcu-lations.

The proposal can be implemented in pha-ses. Due to the clearly delineated units, the implementation schedule can also be shor-tened where required.


42

43

Evaluation Minutes


2.2.4. Pseudonym “Tampere Silmukka”

GENERAL ASSESSMENT

The proposal is carefully and expertly pre-pared, and contains new functional and ur-ban-space solutions. However, the compe-titors have not dared to properly challenge the current situation, or the existing conne-ctions, or the role of the Travel and Service Centre. Partly for this reason, the overall proposal fails to establish a new vision for the city.

In the competition entry, the area has been developed with a focus on the southern area without considering the development of the Tammela district. Construction over the railway tracks includes one lone struc-ture in the northern part of the competi-tion area, and a new large roof over the platforms. The barrier effect of the railway tracks has not been reduced significantly. While the proposal is based on flexibility and opportunities for further development, it remains relatively sketchy. The proposal offers no proper new vision as to hold the entirety together.

The scale and programming of construction that adds density to the existing structure are good. The proposal consists of clear partial solutions that can be developed separately from each other. Moving the P-Hämppi ent-rance ramp in the proposed manner is likely to be impossible.

Operational entity

The new travel and service centre empha-sizes the functional hub of the city structure in a successful and convincing way through simple architectural massing. The existing


44 railway station will remain in the use of railway passengers, and a new bus termi-nal is proposed for the eastern side of the railway tracks in accordance with the traffic reference plan. Construction of the new tra-vel and service centre building requires that the Ukko-Pekka and Pendoliino buildings be demolished.

The existing tunnels under the railway tracks will remain in use. The number of entrances to the Asematunneli underpass has been increased, which improves accessibility to the travel and service centre. The main ent-rance of the underpass has been widened also. The platforms in the railway yard and the bus terminal will be fully covered. The platform roof and the new multi-purpose building on top of the bus terminal enhance comfort. The location of taxis and drop-off traffic remains unclear.

The city centre ring route solution deviates from the traffic network plan. The ring route has been extended to Yliopistonkatu Street and Tammelan puistokatu Street, which may cause problems. The proposed location of the long-distance bus terminal complies with the reference plan. The railway, tram, and bus traffic forms a functional whole.

On Hämeenkatu Street, tram stops have been located in accordance with the mas-ter plan. Accessing the tram stop from the Travel and Service Centre requires crossing Rautatienkatu Street, which means that the objectives set for tram stop connections are not fully met. The solution would require that passing traffic be prohibited in front of the station building. The eastern tram stop at the station is located on too steep a spot on It-senäisyydenkatu Street.

The barrier effect of the railway tracks and the streets has been reduced by changing the areas on the eastern and western sides

of the railway tracks into slow traffic zones and by proposing a high-quality pedestrian connection under the railway tracks.

The cycling network proposed seems very extensive. For example, supposedly one-way cycling routes have been proposed on the either side of for example Itsenäi-syydenkatu Street and Rautatienkatu Street. However, there might not be enough space for the solution, particularly on Itsenäisyy-denkatu Street. Bicycle parking is proposed under the railway tracks and on the eas-tern side of the bus station. However, the accessibility of the parking is questionable, especially when arriving from the direction of Itsenäisyydenkatu Street. The bus station provides relatively little space for pedestri-ans, and the taxis are difficult to access sa-fely.

The focus of the services is by the Travel and Service Centre, and on the western side of the railway tracks in the south. The location is good and supports the old commercial city centre. The location of workplaces next to the Travel and Service Centre is good, but the volume of functions remains very low.

In the proposal, business premises are lo-cated in nearly all plots in hybrid buildings. They are, for the most part, located on the ground floor. It is proposed that the busi-ness premises in the existing Asematunneli underpass be opened to the pavement of It-senäisyydenkatu underpass. The Pendoliino tunnel will be preserved as it is. The sele-ction of business premises enables round-the-clock use.

Offices are proposed mostly for the hybrid buildings. Single-purpose office buildings include those in the Scandic Tampere Stati-on hotel’s plot and in the post office block, and in the bridge building on top of the

45

Evaluation Minutes


railway yard at Rongankatu underpass. The parking premises designated for the offices can be used for shared parking.

Housing will be located only in the hybrid buildings in the southern part of the P-Ase-ma plot, the post office block, and the freight yard block. This will liven up these blocks only. However, the location of hou-sing is not ideal in terms of living comfort.

The proposal includes two new hotels in the hybrid towers. One is located on the plot of the southern engine shed, and the other on the P-Asema plot. The hotel operations add further to the round-the-clock use of the Tra-vel and Service Centre.

Of the functions located in the area, the multi-function building on top of the bus ter-minal and the new hotels in particular are attractive around the clock. The relation of the multi-functional building to Tampere Hall and Tampere Central Arena must be separately investigated.

No new pedestrian connections are pro-posed to the Travel and Service Centre, ei-ther over or under the railway tracks. The pedestrian environments of the Asematun-neli and Itsenäisyydenkatu underpasses have been improved. A promenade from Åkerlundinkatu Street to Itsenäisyydenkatu Street along the upper deck of P-Tullintori and the edge of Pakkahuoneenaukio Squa-re is proposed as a new pedestrian conne-ction running parallel to the railway. Impro-vements and a new connection enhance the round-the-clock usability of the Travel and Service Centre area.

The accessibility of the connections between the city centre and the eastern side of the railway tracks has been observed in the proposal. However, there are parts in the proposal with stairs only, with unobstructed

access some distance away. Long-distance buses and trains are located on the same level, which makes for easier transfers. The ramp on the eastern side of the Rongankatu underpass has been replaced and its steep-ness reduced.


The old identity of the travel and ser-vice centre has been preserved, and new complementary identity elements have been created. The significance of other parts of the area in terms of identity is subordinated to it and connect with the future city struc-ture. The location of the new dominant buil-ding is perfect but the building is too large and looks heavy. The new block planned for the southern side of the station has its own special identity as a connection between the station and the Central Arena.

The new side buildings of the existing railway station are the same height as the station building, and are successfully envi-sioned. The taller buildings are linked with Tampere Arena. The proposal includes ex-tensive green roofs, which is a welcome new element in the centre of Tampere.

The large buildings and structures of the tra-vel and service centre have a good, clear-ly defined, architecturally systematic look both outdoors and indoors. The simplified new additions to the railway station merge well with the old clear-lined architecture, and accentuate its stylistic features. By com-parison, the side ends of the station square are somewhat lacklustre.

The location of the pair of public outdoor spaces proposed on each side of the Travel


46 and Service Centre is ideal, and empha-sizes the significance of the centre within the city structure. The size of the station square that connects with the park is good, but the location of the main entrance to the station on the Itsenäisyydenkatu Street side is poorly considered.

The proposal improves the quality of the Posteljooninpuisto Park and adds a new small park on station square, thereby en-hancing the usability of these areas. A pe-destrian zone with plantations is proposed on the top deck of P-Tullintori for recreatio-nal activities and winter gardens in the en-gine sheds for the organization of various events. These functions will lengthen the time these sites are used daily. Roof gardens are proposed on the roof of many buildings, nicely enhancing the quality of housing and recreation.

The basic idea of the remodelled station square that emphasizes green elements is good. Reserving the front area of the Travel and Service Centre for pedestrian traffic is a good idea.

The monumental axis of Hämeenkatu Street and the station has been preserved in the proposal. More of the old building stock could have been preserved: now only the freight yard has been preserved in the north. The new bus terminal threatens the existence of Tullikamari, and makes the urban space on Itsenäisyydenkatu Street more distant. The position of the railway sta-tion in the cityscape has been safeguarded. The proposal provides opportunities for creating a new and significant built cultural environment.

While implementing the area in phases faci-litates the establishing of the sites and gene-ration of meanings, the architecture seems distant and somewhat grim. The opportuni-

ties for chance encounters and events in the city space are slim.

Feasibility

Provided that the profitability of business operations is taken into account, the com-petition entry Tampere Silmukka may pro-vide a workable basis for further planning from the perspective of real estate business activities.

The core of Tampere Silmukka is the imp-ressive transport terminal and the HUB that will be constructed on top of it, offering multi-functional premises. A very general outline is provided of the business idea, ba-sed on the type of premises as opposed to a user-oriented approach. For this reason, HUB’s lobby premises are open, and the psychological accessibility and functional planning of the HUB building on top of the terminal are incomplete. Functions included in the proposal are risky in terms of starting the real estate development project and its long-term profitability. There is room for de-velopment in the further planning of the role and functionality of the building as part of the entity.

Silmukka proposes that several different functions are located on top of each other in the same building masses. The solution is interesting functionally and enables the purpose of the spaces to be altered flexib-ly also after completion. The location of premises can be made functional from the users’ point of view (residents, office wor-kers, hotel guests). To ensure the interest of real estate investors, it would be necessary to prepare a juridical-technical implemen-tation solution and to plan the operations of the entity carefully during further planning. Most of the business premises are located away from the main pedestrian flows, which

47

Evaluation Minutes


reduces their rental appeal and saleability.

The platform roof structure proposed is not realistic in terms of constructability or di-mensioning.

The construction costs calculated based on the proposal were average compared to the other proposals, both in terms of total costs and per gross m2. Factors increasing the construction costs include the expensive solutions relating to the facades of the buil-dings and structures constructed on top of other premises. The price of the actual Tra-vel and Service Centre is increased by the extensive canopy of the railway yard.

The indirect costs relating to the proposal have been more thoroughly investigated than in the other proposals. On the other hand, construction needs relating to new construction such as tunnels, bridges, stairs, ramps, and lifts have not been taken into account. No space reservations have been made for parking in new construction. No new possible functions or renovation met-hods have been specified for some of the existing buildings that will be preserved.

The proposal can be implemented in phases and, where required, within a tight imple-mentation schedule.


48 2.3. The outcome of the contestThe jury made its decision on the outcome of the contest in its meeting on 17 Septem-ber 2014.

2.3.1. The result of the contest

The jury unanimously decided to award first place to the competition entry “ReConne-cting Tampere”. The remaining competi-tion entries were not ranked in order of me-rit.

2.3.2. Grounds for the decision and recommendations

The aim of the Design Contest for the Tampere Travel and Service Centre was to find a vision for the development of the area in the coming years. The contest showed that the Tampere Travel and Service Centre can be developed into an attractive centre that functionally con-nects all modes of transport. The Travel and Service Centre is a hub of regional, national, and international traffic. In future, it will serve as a driving force for the development of the Tampere city centre.

The development of the area will bring about a public transport hub that is an attractive cent-re of business life, workplaces, services, and housing. At the same time, it is possible to form a completely new part of the city structure that connects the different sides of the railway area and creates new and surprising urban spaces.

The contest also showed that developing an entity of this size that extends far into the future and is significant in terms of city structure re-quires a remarkably open-minded approach. The best of the proposals offers a visionary

and daring solution to the competition task.

The contest was an ideas competition. None of the competition proposals managed to solve all the problems relating to the development of the area: even the best proposal requires signi-ficant further planning. However, the winning proposal met the objectives set in the compe-tition programme better than the other ones.

As a whole, “ReConnecting Tampere” brin-gs the city districts physically closer together and creates a diverse, urban environment. The proposal skilfully takes into account the travel chains connecting different transport modes, as well as the functionality of the Travel and Service Centre. The proposal offers plentiful ideas for further development of the competi-tion task and various parts of the competition area.

The jury proposes that in further planning the feasibility of the deck be investigated from va-rious viewpoints, as well as the developing of the areas located by the deck in terms of fun-ctions and cityscape and their integration with the surrounding city structure. The develop-ment areas of the proposal also include imp-roving the pedestrian and cycling connections from east to west.

The quality and volume of additional develop-ment to be implemented in the Travel and Ser-vice Centre area will affect the need for par-king spaces. The overall parking solution must be investigated in further planning taking into account not only the Travel and Service Centre area but also the city districts of Kyttälä, Tam-mela and Tulli.

The jury recommends that further planning of the Travel and Service Centre be continued based on the competition entry “ReConnecting Tampere”. In further planning, the main prin-ciples are in integrating the various modes of transport with the city structure.

49

Evaluation Minutes


2.3.3. Signatures of the jury

The jury signed the evaluation minutes and the decision on the result of the competition in its meeting on 17 September 2014.


50

2.3.4. Opening of the closed envelopes containing the names of the competitors

The competition entries were submitted anonymously. The anonymi-ty of the competitors was maintained until after the jury had made its decision on the result of the competition. The jury that evaluated the competition entries did not know the name(s) of the author(s) of any of the competition entries when they evaluated them or made the final decision.

The evaluation of the contest entries was completed and accepted in the jury meeting number 4, which was held on 17 September 2014 in Tampere. In that meeting, the jury made its decision on the outcome of the competition before opening the four envelopes containing the names of the competitors. After the envelopes were opened, the authors of the winning competition entry and the three other participants were revealed.

51

Evaluation Minutes


First place:

Pseudonym: ”ReConnecting Tampere”

• COBE Aps

Copenhagen, Denmark

Dan Stubbergaard

Sub-consultants:

• Lunden Architecture Oy

• Ramboll Finland Oy

Helsinki, Finland

Jouni Lehtomaa

• Newsec Oy

Copyright: COBE Aps and Lunden Architecture Oy

The remaining three competition entries, which were not placed in order of merit, are listed below in alphabetical order:

Nimimerkki: ”Manse”

• AZPML (Alejandro Zaera-Polo Maider)

London, UK

Alejandro Zaera-Polo

• Arkkitehtitoimisto Lahdelma & Mahlamäki Oy

• WSP Finland

Helsinki, Finland

Björn Silfverberg

• CBRE Finland Oy

• HML Project Management

• Beauty and the Bit

Pseudonym: ”The Square”

• KCAP Architects&Planners GmbH

Zürich, Switcherland

Ute Schneider

• Trafix Oy

Espoo, Finland

Juho Kero

• LOCI maisema-arkkitehdit Oy

• Ailecon Oy


• M5 Arkkitehdit

Pseudonym: ” Tampere Silmukka”

• Karres en Brands landscape architecture + urban plannig

Hilversum, The Netherlands

Marco Broekman

• Benthem Crouwel Architects


Espoo, Finland

Pekka Kouri

53

Evaluation Minutes


AppendicesReduced copies of the competition entries (A4 portrait)


54

Appendix 1. Pseudonym “Manse”


62

Appendix 2. Pseudonym “ReConnecting Tampere”


72

Appendix 3. Pseudonym “The Square”


82

Appendix 4. Pseudonym “Tampere Silmukka”


92

EVALUATION MINUTES - tampere.fi · EVALUATION MINUTES Evaluation minutes ... Rakennuttajapalvelu...

Documents

Transcript of EVALUATION MINUTES - tampere.fi · EVALUATION MINUTES Evaluation minutes ... Rakennuttajapalvelu...