Tallinn Port Masterplan 2030 Competition
Winning entry by Zaha Hadid Architects (image © Zaha Hadid Architects)
During Soviet rule until its independence in1991, Estonia, as a Soviet Republic, gained a reputation as a Silicon Valley hi-tech region, which set the stage for its evolution as one of Europe’s primary hi-tech centers today. Looking to the West instead of its eastern neighbor culturally, Estonia has embarked on a mission to transform its urban fabric, bringing it up to modern standards, both in function and appearance. Part of this is to counter the visual impact of Soviet-era housing stock, which has been most prominent in cities like Tallinn, its capital. Although its old city center has been designated by UNESCO as a World Heritage site, rising activity at its harbor has led the city to rethink not only expansion of the harbor itself, but how it relates to the rest of the city’s central area. With this in mind, the city sponsored a three-stage ideas competition, which focused on future expansion of the harbor to accommodate both its fast-growing cargo and tourist activity, as well as the surrounding area. The intent of the competition is to incorporate the ideas resulting from it by year 2030. The jury adjudicating the selection of finalists and the winner was very local, but did include several architects: - Valdo Kalm (chairman of the management board of the Port of Tallinn)
- Hele- Mai Metsal (Director of the Infrastructure Development Department of the Port of Tallinn)
- Endrik Mänd (chief architect of the City of Tallinn)
- Peeter Pere (vice-chairman of the Estonian Association of Architects)
- Ülar Mark (a member of the Estonian Association of Architects).
The final stage of the competition resulted in three finalists: - Zaha Hadid Architects with Tyréns U.K., London (Winner)
- Alejandro Zaera-Polo Maider Llaguno Architecture/Kavakava, London/Tallinn ([email protected])
- Andres Alver, Tallinn ([email protected])
According to jury Chair, Valdo Kelm, in a ‘press release’ by the sponsor:
“The winning entry (by Zaha Hadid Architects) stood out for its innovative and integrated approach to Tallinn’s maritime gateway. Zaha Hadid has very skilfully created a balanced connection between urban space and the port area with some carefully considered access roads and traffic solutions,” he said. “What stands out in their designs are the diagonals running through them of the pedestrian footpaths, around which a very diverse and memorable city space has been established. Interesting details include the water features they’ve designed along Reidi Street and their partial – and very smooth and effective – raising of the areas for pedestrians up to ‘another level.’ Adding to the overall feel of integration in their designs is the urban square and greenery they’ve come up with for the area around Admiralty Basin, stretching all the way from the front of Terminal A to the front of Terminal D. Their entry was also marked out by strong logistics and property development analysis and a convincing and realistic projection.  
 
 
 
Winning entry by Zaha Hadid Architects (images © Zaha Hadid Architects) In making their selection the jury assessed the entries for their compliance with the competition task set for this stage. Among other aspects, they evaluated how well the ideas worked with the surrounding environment, how well thought-through the connections were between the port and the city, how fresh and innovative the solutions were and how feasible it would be to realize the ideas. A Critical View
From the vantage point of a former resident of Tallinn, Andres Sevtsuk, now a professor at the Harvard GSD, the Zaha Hadid proposal also has its drawbacks and may not adequately address some of the communities most urgent priorities. He finds that it certainly addresses the replacement of outdated harbor facilities, the creation of linkage of the harbor to the Old Town, and the “proposed creation of a public park along the northern shore of the peninsula, leading to a landmark destination at its eastern end.” But he finds ‘the typological difference is not merely formal or a question of aesthetic preference: it creates a different rhythm of building entrances, encounters, land-ownership patterns, and street atmospheres. The waterfront area has long been disconnected from the rest of the city centre; it is absent from people’s mental maps and remains rarely visited today (except for by passengers). Formal differentiation would only further accentuate the separate character of the port from the rest of the city centre.” As for the circulation solution, he states that “The connection to Pirita prioritizes recreational users – joggers, leisurely walkers – but the much more important issue of creating continuous pedestrian access from the adjacent, existing city centre has not been properly addressed. For Tallinn city centre to constitute a continuous whole consisting of the Old Town, Kesklinn, Kalamaja and the new port area, it is vital to focus the masterplan on improving connections from these adjacent districts to the port.” The elevated above-ground walkways in the proposed luxury housing developmemts can hardly be supported due to the lack of a high density population area, and even suggest “an undesirable private character.” He also has a problem with the large free-standing buildings that stand in stark contrast to Tallinn’s typical built environment.” Sevtsuk’s observation about the above certainly has it merits, as many of the large buildings as illustrated by the ZHA images could result in a rather sterile atmosphere. Maybe the Tallinn officials should look to Malmo’s 2001 Housing Exhibition on their waterfront as an example to emulate. -Ed Finalist: Alejandro Zaera-Polo Maider Llaguno Architecture/Kavakava, London/Tallinn            
(images © Kavakava) Finalist: Andres Alver, Tallinn 
(image © Andres Alver) |
Completed IMEX by Tuck Hinton Architects. Photo courtesy Anecdote
It is not often that we look back to a competition that occurred three decades ago that was also covered in detail by COMPETITIONS (Vol. 4, #4; pp. 14-27). What made the Chattanooga IMAX different back in 1994 was that the article covering that competition was authored by Prof. Marleen Davis, then Dean of the University of Tennessee’s School of Architecture and a member of the jury panel. This was not just a short article, covering the high points of the competition with a few talking points about the winning design. This 4,000+ word document also described in detail the jury’s observations about all the finalists, including the honorable mentions—one of the few times we have gained such a detailed glimpse in this country from the inside of the competition process. Read more… Preparation and Organization of Design Competitions 
[phase 1] Benjamin Hossbach / Christian Lehmhaus / Christine Eichelmann
210 × 230 mm, 192 pp.
over 600 images
softcover
ISBN 978-3-86922-316-2 (English)
ISBN 978-3-86922-240-0 (German)
Dom Publishers
€48 in EU (For price abroad, see below)
Founded in 1998 in Berlin, Phase 1 has been a principal player in the organization and facilitation of design competitions, not only in Germany, but abroad as well. The accomplishments of the firm have been well documented in three volumes—The Architecture of Competitions—beginning in 2i006. Whereas these books mainly focused on the results of the competitions they have administered, the present work, Fundamentals of Competition Management, takes one from the very beginnings of the competition process to its conclusion. The authors envisioned the publication as “three three books in one: one „blue book“ with example projects, one „yellow book“ with statements and the „white book“ with the actual guideline to competition management.”
Although there have been a number of handbooks covering the administration of designcompetitions a study covering the entire process in such detail is a welcome addition to the the literature in this field. As a contribution to this important democratic process that has yielded exceptional design for decades, this volume is not only valid for Europe, but a current overview of the process for those globally who wish to raise the level of design by virtue of a design competition. -Ed Foreign institutions wishing to obtain a copy of the book will recieve a discount to cover the cost of foreign shipping.
To obtain a copy for that offer, go to: [email protected] 
Winning entry by Luca Poian Forms Image ©Filippo Bolognese images
Good design seldom happens in a vacuum. And so it was with an international competition for a new mosque in Preston, U.K. A mid-sized city of 95,000, and located in Lancashire near the west coast and almost equally distant from London and Glasgow, Preston has a storied past, going all the way back to the Romans and the late Middle Ages, where it was the site of significant battles. During the Industrial Revolution, the city prospered, and it was not until after World War II that Preston experienced the British version of the U.S. Rust Belt. In the meantime, the city has experienced an upswing in economic activity, with an unemployment rate of only 3%. Aside from the appearance of new industries, the city has benefitted from the establishment of Central Lancashire University (CLU), which employs over 3,000 faculty and staff, and, as such, is one of the regions major employers. Any new university requires new facilities, and one of the most outstanding examples of this at CLU was the new Student Centre and Plaza, a result of a 2016 RIBA-sponsored competition won by Hawkins/Brown
Read More
 Changdong Station winner – image ©D & B Partners Architects
Whereas international competitions for real projects have become a rarity lately, Korea is a welcome exception. Among the plethora of competition announcements we receive almost weekly, several have ended with foreign firms as winners. But the history of welcoming international participants does go back several years. One notable early example was the Incheon Airport competition, won by Fentress Bradburn Architects (1962-70).
Among the more recent successes of foreign firms was the Busan Opera House competition, won by Snøhetta (2013-) and the Sejong Museum Gardens competition, won by Office OU, Toronto (2016-2023).
Read more… 
1st Place: Zaha Hadid Architects – night view from river – Render by Negativ
Arriving to board a ferry boat or cruise ship used to be a rather mundane experience. If you had luggage, you might be able to drop it off upon boarding, assuming that the boarding operation was sophisticated enough. In any case, the arrival experience was nothing to look forward to. I recall boarding the SS United States for a trip to Europe in the late 1950s. Arriving at the pier in New York, the only thought any traveler had was to board that ocean liner as soon as possible, find one’s cabin, and start exploring. If you were in New York City and arriving early, a nearby restaurant or cafe would be your best bet while passing time before boarding. Read more… 
Helsinki Central Library, by ALA Architects (2012-2018)
The world has experienced a limited number of open competitions over the past three decades, but even with diminishing numbers, some stand out among projects in their categories that can’t be ignored for the high quality and degree of creativity they revealed. Included among those are several invited competitions that were extraordinary in their efforts to explore new avenues of institutional and museum design. Some might ask why the Vietnam Memorial is not mentioned here. Only included in our list are competitions that were covered by us, beginning in 1990 with COMPETITIONS magazine to the present day. As for what category a project under construction (Science Island), might belong to or fundraising still in progress (San Jose’s Urban Confluence or the Cold War Memorial competition, Wisconsin), we would classify the former as “built” and wait and see what happens with the latter—keeping our fingers crossed for a positive outcome. Read More… 
2023 Teaching and Innovation Farm Lab Graduate Student Honor Award by USC (aerial view)
Architecture at Zero competitions, which focus on the theme, Design Competition for Decarbonization, Equity and Resilience in California, have been supported by numerous California utilities such as Southern California Edison, PG&E, SoCAl Gas, etc., who have recognized the need for better climate solutions in that state as well as globally. Until recently, most of these competitions were based on an ideas only format, with few expectations that any of the winning designs would actually be realized. The anticipated realization of the 2022 and 2023 competitions suggests that some clients are taking these ideas seriously enough to go ahead with realization. Read more… |
