Helsinki Zoo Ideas Competition – Evaluation Report

(ELSINGINåKAUPUNKI +AUPUNKISUUNNITTELUVIRASTO

Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston julkaisuja 2009:2 Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston julkaisuja 2009:2 HELSINKI ZOO IDEAS COMPETITION – EVALUATION REPORT

Sarjassa aikaisemmin julkaistu: Helsinki Zoo 2009:1 Kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston toimintasuunnitelma 2009–2011, Toiminnan perusta ja keskeiset tehtävät Ideas Competition

ISSN 0787-9024 12.6.2008–31.10.2008 ISBN 978-952-223-351-6 (nid.) ISBN 978-952-223-352-3 (PDF) Evaluation report Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston julkaisuja 2009:2

9 789522 233516

Helsinki Zoo Ideas Competition 12.6.2008–31.10.2008 Evaluation report © Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto 2009

Graafinen suunnittelu ja taitto: Raija Juntunen Julkaisusarjan graafinen suunnittelu: Timo Kaasinen

Pohjakartta: © Kaupunkimittausosasto, Helsinki 011/2009

Paino: Edita Prima Oy 2009

ISSN 0787-9024 ISBN 978-952-223-351-6 (nid) ISBN 978-952-223-352-3 (PDF) Sisältö

1. Competition organization...... 5 1.1 Background of the competition...... 5 1.2 Organiser, nature and purpose of the competition...... 5 1.3 Participants...... 6 1.4 Compensation...... 6 1.5 Jury...... 6 1.6 Working committee...... 6 1.7 Experts...... 6 1.8 Competition process ...... 6 1.9 Competition schedule and questions...... 6

2. Competition area...... 7 2.1 Location of the design area ...... 7 2.2 Changes in the city structure...... 8

3. Aims of the competition...... 9 3.1 Planning Objectives...... 9 3.2 Zoo Planning Objectives...... 9 3.3 Landscape objectives...... 1 0 3.4 Cityscape, Functional objectives...... 1 0 3.5 The City of Helsinki: Recreational, educational and financial objectives ...... 1 2 3.6 Evaluation criteria...... 1 2

4. General evaluation...... 1 4 General evaluation...... 1 4 Yleisarvostelu...... 1 5

5. Estimation of individual proposals...... 1 6 5.1 Proposal “Beluga”...... 1 6 5.1 Ehdotus “Beluga”...... 1 7 5.2 Proposal ”Islands and Islands”...... 2 8 5.2 Ehdotus ”Islands and Islands”...... 2 9 5.3 Proposal ”KOZOO”...... 3 8 5.3 Ehdotus ”KOZOO”...... 3 9

6. Competition decision and recommendation for further action...... 5 6

6. Kilpailun ratkaisu ja suositus jatkotoimenpiteiksi...... 5 6

7. The competition jury...... 5 7 Affirmation of the jury report...... 5 7

8. Opening of the envelopes containing the names...... 5 8 The winner of the competition “Beluga”...... 5 8 Proposal “Island and Island”...... 5 8 Proposal “KOZOO”...... 5 8 4 1. Competition organization

1.1 Background of the competition on the basis of the competition results information concerning the decline of “Helsinki Zoo is active in conservation and and ideas presented in competition biodiversity and the effects of climate delivers a high-quality guest experience.” proposals. Detailed plans will be prepared change and other human impacts on The Helsinki Zoo focuses on area by area according to the schedule nature and wildlife. Much emphasis is conservation of endangered species determined later in the process. given to enclosures promoting natural and operates the whole spectrum of Further planning process and finally behaviour and breeding. conservation activities from breeding implementing the plans is estimated The park will provide aesthetic of threatened species, research, public to take at least ten years beginning in experience, various leisure time and education and training to in situ support 2009. Changing the city’s structure is recreational opportunities as well as of species, populations and their habitats. an on going process, as is the renewal smooth and safe routes for pedestrians, The zoo participates in global conservation of the zoo. despite the challenging topography. All programs. Today’s major task in Helsinki age and interest groups are equally taken Zoo is to describe their mission to visitors, into consideration in planning the zoo associate their zoo internal activities 1.2 Organiser, nature and purpose and services. Although traditionally the with external conservation programs of the competition customers of the zoo have been families and to create a strong engagement to The City of Helsinki, owner of Helsinki with young children, in future the zoo environmental and conservation issues. Zoo, is in the process of initiating a new on Korkeasaari could be interesting and The City of Helsinki hold a closed Master Plan for the zoo. A landscape alluring to all age groups. The zoo needs landscape architectural ideas competition architectural ideas competition has new facilities and service to supply for the planning of the Helsinki Zoo been arranged during 2008, serving as a different customers. in Korkeasaari and recreational areas framework for the Master Plan. A previous surrounding the zoo. Revitalizing the area Master Plan of the zoo was from 1994, has become a relevant issue due to new but the need for a more comprehensive land-use in the neighbouring harbour examination has become obvious. The areas and consequently a rising number objective of the competition was to of potential visitors to the island. The zoo renew the existing zoo and to provide can attract a large number of people and new ideas for the recreational use of the provide them with education, information entire competition area. and well designed environment. The purpose of the competition was The competition area includes three to explore the possibilities to develop the islands: Korkeasaari, Hylkysaari and area as a more attractive and appealing Palosaari. The existing zoo is located recreational area. The competition was on Korkeasaari, occupying the entire aiming at clarifying the guidelines for a island. Hylkysaari (3,2 ha) is located on master plan that is in keeping with the the southern side of Korkeasaari and area and meets the planning objectives, it has been occupied by the National and, based on this plan, high quality and Marine Museum until recently. Palosaari feasible starting points for making the is located east of Korkeasaari and it is detailed plan for the zoo, waterfronts and currently used for the zoo’s quarantine recreational use. Helsinki Zoo being one facilities. of only few zoos on an island, its new The first priority in the competition image should take full advantage of its was to find a feasible concept for the maritime surroundings and elements zoo renewal suitable for the landscape provided by its natural landscape. and conditions on Korkeasaari island. In the new Master Plan the zoo is to Ideas and principles are needed for more be seen as an ecological and educational detailed planning of the zoo. A master centre, attractive and inspirational to the plan for the whole competition area will visitor, maintaining rare and endangered be prepared by municipal authorities species and providing state-of-the-art

5 1.3 Participants Ria Ruokonen 1.8 Competition process Beckmann-N´Thepe Landscape architect, appointed by the Paris, France Finnish Association of Landscape Archi- 1.8.1 Competition rules and approval of tects MARK the competition brief Maisemasuunnittelu Hemgård The competition followed the rules, Helsinki, Finland Kirsi Pynnönen-Oudman which are accepted in December 2007 Helsinki Zoo, Secretary by the SAFA’s Delegates Council. The SLA jury, the competition secretary and the Copenhagen, Denmark Tuomas Hakala representative of the Finnish Association Architect, City Planning Department, of Landscape Architects approved Secretary the competition brief as adhering to 1.4 Compensation the competition rules of the Finnish Each participating architectural office Association of Architects. that submit a proposal which met the 1.6 Working committee requirements of the competition brief Seppo Turunen, Ria Ruokonen, Kaisa was paid EUR 50 000 (VAT 0%). Rodriguez, Kirsi Pynnönen and Tuomas 1.9 Competition schedule and Hakala formed the working committee questions of the jury. The competition was commenced 1.5 Jury at the opening seminar on the 13th The competition entries were evaluated of June, 2008, in Helsinki where the by a jury whose members were: 1.7 Experts competition brief and the necessary The following persons served as experts background information were presented Tuula Haatainen to the jury: to participants. In the seminar, landscape Deputy Mayor, Chair architect Monika Fiby served as • Monika Fiby, Diplomingenieur, Mas- moderator. In conjunction with the Tuomas Rajajärvi ter of Landscape Architecture seminar, the participants were also given Architect, Director of City Planning De- • Kaisa Rodriguez, Landscape Archi- the opportunity to visit the competition partment tect, Helsinki City Planning Depart- area. ment The competition closed on 31st of Oc- Seppo Turunen • Leif Blomqvist, Helsinki Zoo tober 2008. Director of the Helsinki Zoo • Taru Vuori, Helsinki Zoo

Sakari Mentu Architect, The National Board of Antiqui- ties

6 2. Competition area

2.1 Location of the design area The neighbouring harbour area and Korkeasaari is owned by the City of The geographical location of Korkeasaari the city skyline form a strong contrast Helsinki. At the state level, the zoo is mediates the Vanhakaupunki bay in between green areas in the competition under the supervision of the Ministry the north and the seascape of the area and Mustikkamaa recreational area. of agriculture and forestry, which gives Kruunuvuorenselkä bay in the south. In the south the view opens to an 18th the permission for operating the zoo. The competition area is located on the century sea fortress Suomenlinna. The The City building department supervises east side of the Helsinki downtown competition area is thus a focal point in new constructions at the zoo. Hylkysaari area. The design area consists of three a manifold cultural landscape. is owned by The National Board of islands connected to each other and Antiquities. to Mustikkamaa recreational area via bridges. The Helsinki Zoo is located on a 23 hectare rocky island, named Competition area Korkeasaari. The competition area further includes two small islands connected to the main island, one of them (Palosaari, 1.2 ha) housing the zoo quarantine building and a rehabilitation centre for injured wild animals. The other island (Hylkysaari, 3.2 ha) at present belongs to the state, serving as a conservation and research area for the National Marine Museum. There is also an old protected office/exhibit building and two protected small villas on Hylkysaari island. There is a bridge connection across the 240 m wide Mustikkamaasalmi (Mustikkamaa strait), which separates the zoo from public park Mustikkamaa, established in 1920. Year-round traffic is arranged via the bridge connecting the zoo to a recreational area with parking space for zoo visitors on the northern side of Mustikkamaa island. The main gate of the zoo, at the far end of the bridge, is about 800 m from the parking area. There is also a bus stop next to the entrance building. Korkeasaari is located in the middle of a large seascape of Kruunuvuorenselkä bay. Further 1,2 km east is Laajasalo and Kruunuvuorenranta, currently an oil terminal, which will be developed as residential areas in the next decades. The distance to the old city district, Katajanokka is approximately 450 m and from the future residential area, Sörnäinen-Kalasatama only 240 m.

7 2.2 Changes in the city structure will expect 18,000 inhabitants and 10,000 Kruunuvuorenranta is another The competition area will be greatly job opportunities to the area by 2030. future development area neighbouring influenced by development in the The current master plan for Kalasatama Korkeasaari towards east across the neighbouring areas. With the current has included the north-east shore of Kruunuvuorenselkä bay. The area is industrial harbours moved to Vuosaari Korkeasaari into the open recreational presently occupied by the Laajasalo oil in 2008, Helsinki will experience a major area with proposed bridges connecting harbour and it will be free of the harbour change in its urban structure during Kalasatama and Mustikkamaa. In the operations by 2010. A new seaside the next decades. Industry, storage local plan for Sörnäistenranta there housing district for approximately 15,000 and harbour operations are replaced is a pedestrian bridge connection to inhabitants will be built on the site of the by residential areas, administration, Mustikkamaa. The bridge spanning present oil harbour and the adjoining services and recreation. Through this over the strait will provide a new access land. change in the surrounding cityscape the route to Kalasatama metro station and A tramline will link Korkeasaari to functional appearance of the design area other public transport services. Bridge Kalasatama and the city centre via will change as well. connections in this area will encourage bridges in future. Close to Korkeasaari, new residential cycling and walking between the city development at the Kalasatama waterfront centre and eastern parts of the city.

Competition area seen from the south

8 3. Aims of the competition

3.1 Planning Objectives Circulation is functional Developing underground exhibits for The aim was to develop Korkeasaari All age groups are taken into nocturnal animals and Hylkysaari into a highquality and consideration in designing the path The zoo is extended by underground functionally diverse park open for zoo system and circulation in the zoo. The exhibits placed in bedrock of the island. visitors. It was hoped that competitors main routes need to be accessible for Nocturnal species can be shown in would generate fresh ideas and an overall elderly and disabled people, children underground exhibits where it’s possible perspective of combining the functions and baby strollers even in the winter to observe active animals in their conservation, education, recreation and time when there is snow and ice on the natural waking hours. In the bedrock history. ground. There should be only one public there can also be utilities like galleries, The general planning objectives we- entrance area to the zoo. auditorium and storage space which re divided into four categories. Planning Because of the future free public would be obtrusive if placed on the principles concern the concept of the access on the northern part of the zoo ground. The possibility to connect the zoo, landscape planning, urban structu- island, the security issues need to be new underground facilities with existing re and interests of the City of Helsinki. considered. The quarantine area and indoor exhibits should be examined. hospital for wild animals will continue Continuous indoor space is convenient to operate in connection with the zoo for visitors especially in winter time. 3.2 Zoo Planning Objectives and their position on a separate island is The zoo’s primary function is participation optimal for security reasons. in the conservation of biodiversity. Helsinki Zoo is especially suited for mountain and The zoo is rich in experience northern animals. The image of the zoo The enclosures should resemble natural as an expert in the conservation and habitats and be integrated into entire education of these species should be architectural concept of the zoological strengthened. The unique rocky island garden. terrain should be used to best advantage This approach offers an optimal in creating natural-like habitats. platform to inform visitors about wildlife and explain ecosystem in a Ecological display comprehensive manner. In a habitat Education and training are major tasks of based exhibits the visitor is placed inside the zoo. The zoo aims as well at promoting the habitat landscape by extending the environmental awareness in society. The complexity of the animal’s environment zoo focuses on providing information into areas where visitors walk, stand or concerning the human impacts on nature sit. In a landscape immersion exhibit and wildlife, conservation of biodiversity, the encounter with wild animals is more endangered and threatened species and emotional which emphasizes the learning environmental sustainability. Information experience. available for visitors will be integrated in Accomodation is provided in the zoo exhibit design. The visitors will have the area year round to enable longer stay live experience with the animal and their at the site. Overnight and extended day natural habitat. The zoo provides formal programs are available for visitor groups and informal education opportunities, after opening hours. Indoor exhibit space for example interactive learning assisted should be markedly increased. by latest technology. There will also be To provide families and children with nature school and an auditorium for enjoyable surroundings there will be formal lessons. more playgrounds and picnic sites.

9 3.3 Landscape objectives 3.4 Cityscape, Functional objectives

Maritime character is emphasized Korkeasaari island is a part of the The opportunity of being located in the waterfront promenade middle of seascape is a phenomenal A new bridge connection to Kalasatama starting point for planning. Currently, will link Korkeasaari island as a part of the ferry trip is the only possibility to continuous waterfront route. The north- enjoy the maritime scenes. Taking full east shore region stretching from the advantage of the maritime nature could main bridge west to the present ferry be achieved for example by re-opening harbour will be developed for public vistas to the sea, developing the shoreline use and recreational routes. Fencing and making the island accessible by boat. the public area is necessary and much Swimming beaches and other maritime consideration should be given to recreation can be situated in Hylkysaari designing the feasible and aesthetic island. solution for the fence between public area and the zoo as well as the path Landscape features are utilized in zoo system. A new entrance area to the zoo design and a possible tram stop will be located Distinctive landscape features like in this area. topography, vegetation and views to surroundings are emphasized to create Public transport routes are included in the unique atmosphere. Opportunities to plans rest and admire the views and other The new public transport route alignment enjoyable surroundings in the park are is planned through the northern edge of created on the shoreline and lookout Korkeasaari island. The other possibility spots. The underground spaces are is to reach the tram line to Kalasatama located in ample bed rock of the island. and connect the Korkeasaari island by a pedestrian bridge to Kalasatama. Either Korkeasaari and Hylkysaari are way the accessibility of the zoo by public characterised as active recreational area transport improves dramatically. The shorelines and parks are multi- functional and aesthetical to a high Improved connection to Mustikkamaa degree. The park is used for recreational island purposes and different kind of leisure The pedestrian route from Mustikkamaa time activities are encouraged. The old island parking area to the zoo needs park needs renewing, new plantation revitalisation and attraction along the and lights etc. The protected buildings route. The route is divided into series of in the park can be integrated in the park functional and landscape features. design. The national park character and Hylkysaari island focus on educational and recreational needs require are to be recreational use encouraged and strengthened. Hylkysaari island is to be developed into Korkeasaari provides the visitors with a multi-functional centre for education, a pleasant park environment inside the research and leisure time activities with zoo. Functions in Hylkysaari concentrate landscape and historical values. The on recreational use, education and historical values and preserved buildings culture events and exhibitions. are an important content of the plan.

Historical layers are preserved Potential sites for new building The aim is to preserve the park milieu The proposal should present the possible and buildings with historical value as a sites and areas for new construction. In part of new design. the proposal there should be presented the future possibilities for building in case of new requirement for zoo facilities.

10 11 3.5 The City of Helsinki: 3.6 Evaluation criteria Recreational, educational and In the judging of the competition financial objectives attention were paid to the functional and cityscape factors of the competition Korkeasaari attracts a lot of visitors proposals, with particular attention being Korkeasaari attracts both inhabitants paid to quality of the following aspects: from Helsinki as well as tourists from Fin- land and abroad. The number of visitors A. Landscape merits affected by: will increase in the future. • creation of a suitable visual identity Korkeasaari is a unique zoo. for the zoo and recreational areas The aim is to renew the zoo and create • general landscape approach original solutions. The traditional concept • freshness of ideas is insufficient to attract and inspire new • pleasantness and experiential qua- visitors. A new approach to the concept lity from the visitors and animal of a zoo and its maritime surroundings perspective will promote its attractiveness even at an • skilful use of vegetation to define international level. space • general appearance, character and The zoo strengthens the image of the city identity of the area The aim is to develop the zoo as a tourist • preserving the characteristics of the attraction and a sight worth visiting. built environment and park areas of In this sense the zoo will reinforce the historical value image of the city. • relationship with natural landscape features Place of education and research Korkeasaari island and Hylkysaari island B. Functional quality affected by: should be developed as a center for education and research concerning • the consideration of the needs of nature and conservation. The aim is different user groups to create a to create a strong engagement to functional concept environmental and conservation issues. • practical circulation in the zoo • functional and architectural character of the entrance area • the accessibility of the main routes • flexibility and multi-functionality in different seasons and at different times of day Outlook tower ”Kupla”/”The Bubble” • the exploitation and promotion of Architect Ville Hara the maritime character

12 Korkeasaari seen from the east

13 4. General evaluation

General evaluation

The competition level was good and The precision in presenting the new outlook to it. The juxtaposition in the the judges saw that the competition respective details varied greatly between entrance between the artificial area and produced feasible ideas on how to all the proposals. In part, solutions had the nature status of the rest of the area develop Korkeasaari. The competition been investigated carefully and adapted is a surprising, yet inspiring solution. produced three very different, interesting, skilfully to the existing geography. Some Implementing the work requires big and carefully thought-out plans about solutions were presented only in main efforts and investments. If implemented ideas. The plans include interesting principle, in reference and as lists. The well, Beluga could raise the Korkeasaari ideas, solutions, and viewpoints for main idea and concept were presented zoo to a new level and give the city a developing the concept of the zoo and very clearly in all the proposals, and new, individual tourist attraction. raising the recreational value of the the physical surroundings produced by Kozoo offers a commercial brand that area. The most significant differences the plans were understandable from has partly been developed very highly. between the different proposals were the schematic images and written However, using the competition work in evident in the level of processing needed explanations. The level of presentations question as the basis of the master plan and in the extent and versatility of the in the proposals is impressive on the is very challenging. There is an immense development possibilities offered by the whole. In one proposal, the plan had amount of single, individual ideas, proposals. The proposals represented been illustrated even with extra miniature some of which are unrealistic. The work a very moderate approach maintaining models. emphasises the national park side at the the current outlook as well as a novel The objective of the competition was cost of the zoo. approach creating something new to find an innovative and fresh way to Islands and islands is a work following and significantly changing the current develop the historical national park and the assignment that was given very strictly, status. zoo. A more clear and attractive identity is but also a little colourless and modest Based on all the proposals, it would sought for Korkeasaari, which was a part in its ideas. Preserving the old historical be possible to continue planning on a of the objective for the competition. structures has been considered, which conceptual level in order to form a more The approach to the city’s structure was will most likely be one of the factors detailed general plan while retaining the somewhat weak in all of the competitive guiding the construction in the future. basic idea of the plan at hand. proposals. Connecting Korkeasaari to The changes presented in the work are In estimating the competition, the its surroundings had been presented for the most part fully implementable. judges paid particular attention to the referentially or even against the principles cityscape and functional solutions of the that were presented in the competition’s proposals as well as to the modification agenda and no proposal presented of the landscape. The competition was wider ideas about the city’s structure held in a situation where the status of that would have been believable. For Korkeasaari is continually changing in example, the development of Hylkysaari the city structure. Thanks to the new [Shipwreck Island] has remained on tram connection, pedestrian bridges a very general and careful level in the and constructing the Kalasatama [Fish proposals. Mainly concentrating the harbour] area, Korkeasaari will form a work on Korkeasaari is understandable more integral part of the city structure and due to the landscape-architectural will be reached more easily. Even though nature of the competition. In addition, in all the proposals the presentation of the targets of the competition agenda the future rail traffic connection had were so extensive that taking all of largely been ignored, the possibility to them into consideration in one proposal integrate the plans with the future traffic seems to have been too challenging. solutions was one central point that was Beluga presents a radical solution estimated. All of the proposals had paid where only rather little of the old structures much attention to the accessibility of the is maintained. However, if realized, it zoo and the experiential routes on the clearly changes the zoo and brings a island.

14 Yleisarvostelu

Kilpailu oli tasoltaan hyvä ja palkintolau- Osittain ratkaisuja oli esitetty vain pää- Kozoo tarjoaa kaupallisen brändin, jo- takunta katsoo kilpailun tuottaneen käyt- periaatteissaan, viitteellisesti ja luettelo- ka on viety osittain hyvinkin pitkälle. Ky- tökelpoisia ideoita Korkeasaaren kehittä- maisesti. Pääidea ja konsepti olivat hyvin seisen kilpailutyön soveltaminen yleis- miseen. Kilpailu tuotti kolme varsin eri- selvästi esitetty kaikissa ehdotuksissa ja suunnitelman pohjana on kuitenkin erit- laista, sisällöltään kiinnostavaa ja huo- suunnitelmien tuottama fyysinen ympä- täin haasteellista. Yksittäisiä ideoita on lella tutkittua ideasuunnitelmaa. Suunni- ristö oli luettavissa suunnitelmakuvista ja suorastaan läkähdyttävän paljon, osa telmat sisältävät mielenkiintoisia ideoita, kirjallisista esityksistä. Ehdotusten esitys- niistä epärealistisia. Työssä korostuu ratkaisuja ja näkökulmia eläintarhan kon- tekniikan taso on kokonaisuutena vaikut- kansanpuistomaisuus eläintarhan kus- septin kehittämiseen ja alueen virkistyk- tava. Yhdessä ehdotuksessa suunnitel- tannuksella. sellisen arvon nostamiseen. Suurimmat maa oli havainnollistettu jopa ylimääräi- Islands and islands on tehtävänantoa erot eri ehdotusten välillä tulivat esille sillä pienoismalleilla. tarkoin noudattava työ, mutta toisaalta alueen käsittelyn voimakkuudessa ja eh- Kilpailun tavoitteena oli löytää innova- myös hieman väritön ja ideoiltaan vaa- dotusten tarjoamien kehittämismahdol- tiivinen ja raikas tapa kehittää historiallis- timaton. Vanhojen historiallisten raken- lisuuksien laajuudessa ja monipuolisuu- ta kansanpuistoa ja eläintarhaa. Korkea- teiden säilyttämistä on harkittu, mikä lie- dessa. Ehdotuksissa oli edustettuna sekä saarelle toivotaan selkeämpää ja vetovoi- nee joka tapauksessa eräs tulevaisuuden hyvin maltillinen ja nykyistä ilmettä säi- maisempaa identiteettiä, jonka määritte- rakentamista ohjaava tekijä. Työn esittä- lyttävä lähestymistapa että todella uutta lyyn kilpailulla pyrittiin. mät muutokset ovat pitkälti täysin toteut- luova ja nykytilaa merkittävästi muuttava Kilpailuehdotuksien kaupunkiraken- tamiskelpaoisia. käsittelytapa. teellinen ote kaikkinensa oli hiukan heik- Kaikkien ehdotusten pohjalta olisi ko. Korkeasaaren liittyminen ympäris- mahdollista jatkaa suunnittelua ideata- töönsä oli esitetty viitteellisesti tai jopa solta alueen yksityiskohtaisempaan yleis- vastoin kilpailuohjelman esittämiä peri- suunnitelmaan suunnitelman perusidea aatteita, eikä yksikään ehdotus esittänyt säilyttäen. sellaisia laajempia kaupunkirakenteelli- Kilpailun arvostelussa kiinnitettiin eri- sia ideoita, jotka olisivat olleet uskottavia. tyisesti huomiota ehdotusten kaupunki- Hylkysaaren kehittäminen on mm. jää- kuvallisiin ja toiminnallisiin ratkaisuihin nyt ehdotuksissa kovin yleiselle ja varo- sekä maisemalliseen käsittelyyn. Kilpai- vaiselle tasolle. Töiden keskittyminen lä- lu käytiin tilanteessa, jossa Korkeasaaren hinnä Korkeasaareen on ymmärrettävää asema kaupunkirakenteessa on muuttu- kilpailun maisema-arkkitehtuuriin painot- massa. Uuden raitiovaunuyhteyden, kä- tuvan luonteen johdosta ja toisaalta kil- velysiltojen ja Kalasataman alueen raken- pailuohjelman tavoitteet olivat niin laaja- tumisen myötä Korkeasaari tulee kiin- alaisia, että niiden kaikkien huomioimi- teämmin osaksi kaupunkirakennetta ja nen samassa ehdotuksessa näyttää ol- helpommin saavutettavaksi. Vaikka kai- leen liian haasteellista. kissa ehdotuksissa tulevan raideliiken- Beluga tuo radikaalin ratkaisun, jossa neyhteyden esittäminen oli jätetty pitkälti vanhaa säästyy vähän. Kuitenkin toteu- huomioimatta, oli suunnitelmien yhteen tuessaan muuttaa selkeästi eläintarhaa ja sovellettavuus tulevien liikenneratkaisu- tuo sille uudenlaisen ilmeen. Vastakkain- jen kanssa yksi keskeinen arvostelupe- asettelu sisääntulon keinotekoisuuden ja ruste. Eläintarhan saavutettavuuteen ja muun alueen luonnontilaisuuden välillä kävijöiden elämyksellisiin reitteihin saa- on yllättävä mutta myös innostava rat- rella oli kiinnitetty kaikissa ehdotuksissa kaisu. Työn toteutus vaatii isoja toimen- paljon huomiota. piteitä ja investointeja. Beluga voisi hyvin Ehdotusten tarkkuus yksityiskohtien toteutettuna nostaa Korkeasaaren eläin- esittämisessä vaihteli suuresti. Ratkaisu- tarhan uudelle tasolle ja antaa kaupun- ja oli tutkittu osittain tarkasti ja sovitettu gille uudenlaisen omaleimaisen matkai- olevaan maastorakenteeseen taitavasti. lunähtävyyden.

15 5. Estimation of individual proposals

5.1 Proposal “Beluga”

The proposal is very impressive from the area. Building the arctic area in the fill- The proposal has been presented architectonic and landscaping viewpoint, area next to Palosaari [Burn Island] makes in a very logical manner. The problems which is consistent in its design philosophy it possible to landscape the tram line with the current status of the area and it is rather interesting. terraces as a part of the island. However, have been solved by changing the The rocky island is developed from its the new buildings remain behind the nature and outlook of the entire area, natural starting points. The geographical highest parts of the island when viewed although the proposal has investigated areas for animals have sought their place from the sea, which means that the total the implementation of the change in based on the landscape. The woody and outline of the island remains as it was, phases. A strong total approach is the open areas are located naturally in the which is a part of the rugged insular proposal’s strength and its weakness; terrain, as clear entities. Korkeasaari is landscape of Helsinki. The total outlook the architectonic and landscape-related divided clearly into the constructed part and silhouette of the island remains park- impressiveness is based nearly too much for the visitors and the nature part for the like and rocky. on renewing, concentrating construction, animals. Only the protected structures The routes are interesting and the and on the architectonic look of the new and large trees have been preserved from versatility of the terrain has been utilised buildings. the current surroundings; otherwise, in the linings and levelling. The summer The protection of species has been Korkeasaari has undergone a revolutionary and winter routes present visitors with all taken into consideration in the presented change. The current buildings have been the different sides of the zoo. Directing species selections: polar bears represent demolished, except for the protected the winter routes to the indoor areas of taking climate change into consideration buildings. This emphasises the position the zoo opens a new viewpoint to the life and a serious look into the future. of the new suggested buildings in the of animals and their care. Utilising the aquatic environment has landscape. The botanical area and its The proposal has ignored some of been outlined innovatively in other ways picturesque realisation form a natural the starting points for the planning that as well. However, the species selections part of the national park. The most was given in the work agenda, such as also present difficult species to take care luxuriant parts of the islands have been strengthening national park history and the of. The measurements of animal spaces presented as park-like areas where the recreational use related to this as along are sometimes too small and it is not likely protected buildings, mainly from the with the traffic plans and connection to that household animals would be held in national park era, are located. Thus, the the current city structure. The proposal the presented scale. The animal spaces historical areas form a successful whole does not present a tram connection on have been planned to reach the shore, that includes not only the buildings, but the north side of the island, but can be which from a landscape perspective also the park-like near surroundings. seen as enabling by placing the tram gives a sense of openness in the animal Moreover, the green but rocky nature line on the Korkeasaari north shore. spaces (so-called borrowed landscapes), of Hylkysaari [Shipwreck Island] fits well Developing the area between Palosaari but this is demanding from the point of into the insular landscape. [Burn Island] and Korkeasaari as an view of environmental stress. The work The public park space has been area for arctic species and the entrance presents themes that fit the current minimised by locating a large terrain- building conforming to the form of the animal species. The large indoor spaces adapted building on the north side landscape both support the tram line. enable presenting the exotic biodiversity of the island. This building acts as the Constructing on the shores changes the themes mentioned in the assignment in entrance to the zoo. The entrance look of the island when viewed from close the northern conditions. building includes two tropical halls, a range. The concrete-rimmed cleaning The visitor’s experience is supported by hall exhibiting nighttime animals, as well sinks for drainage water form a fairly routes on which the visitor approaches the as services and a ticket sale point. From heavily treated shoreline. The sturdiness animal spaces little by little, in which not the Kalasatama [Fish Harbour] shore, the of the structures and the great amount everything can be seen at once. The terrace- entry is through a ropeway. Placing the of sinks are unnecessary considering the like structure on the east side of the island new identifying buildings at the points principles of handling drainage water. is an interesting and probably functional suggested is justified from the landscape The structures form a foreign border in solution in presenting animals from different point of view. The entrance building the islands landscape. The proposal has altitude zones. There is something to see forms a landmark that can be seen from not suggested the utilisation of the rock immediately next to the entrance, which the city proper and from the direction of resources, except for partly embedding is a clear deficiency in the current setup of the future Kruunuvuori [Crown Mountain] the entrance building into the terrain. Korkeasaari visitors’ route.

16 5.1 Ehdotus “Beluga”

The work supports the educational Ehdotus on arkkitehtonisesti ja maise- linjan penkereiden maisemoimisen osak- and instructional task of Korkeasaari e.g. malliselta kokonaisotteeltaan erittäin vai- si saarta. Uudet rakennukset jäävät kui- with teaching facilities and an outdoor kuttava sekä suunnittelufilosofialtaan tenkin saaren korkeimpien kohtien taak- theatre. Cane-grass cleansing has also johdonmukainen ja kiinnostava. se etelästä mereltä päin katsottaessa, jol- been considered as a theme related to Kallioista saarta kehitetään sen luon- loin saaren kokonaishahmo jää ennalleen environmental protection, although it is nollisista lähtökohdista. Eläinmaantie- osaksi Helsingin karua saaristomaise- oversized in the extent presented in the teelliset alueet ovat hakeneet paikkansa maa. Saaren kokonaisilme ja siluetti säi- proposal. On the other hand, reducing maiseman ehdoilla. Puustoiset ja avoi- lyvät puustoisena ja kallioisena. energy consumption or using renewing met alueet sijoittuvat maastoon luonte- Reitistö on kiinnostava ja maaston energy sources have not been included vasti ja selkeinä kokonaisuuksina. Kor- monimuotoisuutta on hyödynnetty linja- as factors guiding the planning. keasaari jakautuu selvästi kävijöille tar- uksissa sekä tasauksissa. Kesä- ja talvi- The work does not particularly protect koitettuun rakennettuun osaan ja eläimil- reitit esittelevät kävijöille eläintarhan eri- the historical values, e.g. the old ferry le tarkoitettuun luonto-osaan. Nykyisestä laiset puolet. Talvireittien johtaminen tar- harbour disappears entirely, together ympäristöstä on säilytetty vain suojellut hojen sisätiloihin avaa uuden näkökul- with many other old buildings. However, rakennukset ja suuret puut, muuten Kor- man eläinten elämään ja niiden hoitoon. the planning of recreational and visitor keasaari on kokenut mullistavan muu- Ehdotuksessa on ohitettu joitakin työ- routes is innovative: separate summer toksen. Nykyiset rakennukset on purettu ohjelmassa annettuja suunnittelun lähtö- and winter routes as well as the picnic suojeltuja rakennuksia lukuun ottamatta. kohtia, kuten kansanpuisto historian ja and play areas located on different sides Tämä vahvistaa uusien ehdotettujen ra- siihen liittyvän virkistyskäytön vahvista- are some of these new elements. kennusten asemaa maisemassa. Kasvi- minen sekä liikennesuunnitelmat ja liitty- The year-round visitor may be troubled tieteellinen alue ja sen pittoreski toteutus minen nykyiseen kaupunkirakenteeseen. by the suggestion of placing all the warm sijoittuu luontevasti osaksi kansanpuisto- Ehdotuksessa ei esitetä raitiolinjaa sivua- indoor spaces near the entrance. Using ajan puistomaista osaa. Saaren rehevim- maan saaren pohjoisosaa, mutta voidaan the animal spaces as warm support mät osat on esitetty puistomaisina aluei- katsoa ehdotuksen mahdollistavan raitio- points in the wintertime is possible na, joihin suojellut, pääasiassa kansan- linjan sijoittamisen Korkeasaaren pohjois- and it must be taken into consideration puistoaikaiset, rakennukset sijoittuvat. rannalle. Palosaaren ja Korkeasaaren vä- when planning the future buildings. The Näin historiallisista alueista muodostuu lisen alueen kehittäminen arktisten lajien implementation of the plan will clearly onnistunut kokonaisuus, joka pitää sisäl- alueeksi sekä maastonmuotoja myötäile- take over a decade. lään paitsi rakennukset myös niiden puis- vä sisääntulorakennus tukevat raitiovau- The plan creates a new attractive tomaisen lähiympäristön. Samoin Hylky- nulinjaa. Rantojen rakentaminen muuttaa zoo and a culture and science centre saaren vihreä mutta kallioinen luonne is- saaren ilmettä lähietäisyydeltä tarkastel- in Helsinki. The proposal has created tuu saaristomaisemaan hyvin. taessa. Betonireunaiset hulevesien puh- a strong sustainable idea that provides Julkinen puistotila on minimoitu si- distusaltaat muodostavat melko rankasti good possibilities to renew the current joittamalla saaren pohjoisreunalle suu- käsitellyn rantaviivan. Rakenteiden järe- zoo. ri maastoon polveutuva rakennus, jonka ys ja altaiden suuri määrä ovat tarpeetto- kautta eläintarhaan saavutaan. Sisääntu- mia ottaen huomioon huleveden käsitte- lorakennus sisältää kaksi trooppista hal- lyn periaatteet. Rakenteet muodostavat lia, yöeläimiä esittelevän hallin sekä pal- maisemassa vieraan reunuksen saarel- veluja ja lipunmyyntipisteen. Kalasata- le. Ehdotus ei ole esittänyt kallioresurs- man rannasta rakennukseen saavutaan sien hyödyntämistä sisääntulorakennuk- köysiradalla. Uusien tunnusrakennus- sen osittaista maastoon upottamista lu- ten sijoittaminen esitettyihin kohtiin on kuun ottamatta. maisemallisesti perusteltua. Sisääntulo- Ehdotus on viety läpi erittäin joh- rakennus muodostaa maamerkin, joka donmukaisesti. Alueen nykytilan ongel- näkyy kantakaupunkiin ja tulevan Kruu- mat on ratkaistu muuttamalla koko alu- nuvuoren alueen suutaan. Arktisen alueen luonne ja ilme, joskin ehdotukses- een rakentaminen täyttöalueelle Palo- sa on tutkittu muutoksen toteuttamista saaren kainaloon mahdollistaa raitiotie- vaiheittain. Voimakas kokonaisote on se-

17 kä ehdotuksen vahvuus että sen heikko- Ympärivuotista kävijää voi arveluttaa us; arkkitehtoninen ja maisemallinen vai- ehdotettu kaikkien lämpimien sisätilojen kuttavuus perustuu liiankin paljon uusi- sijoittuminen sisäänkäynnin tuntumaan. miseen, rakentamisen keskittämiseen Eläintilojen käyttö lämpiminä tukipisteinä ja uudisrakennusten arkkitehtoniseen il- talvisaikaan on mahdollista, ja se on otet- meeseen. tava huomioon tulevaisuuden rakennus- Lajiensuojelutyö on huomioitu esite- ten suunnittelussa. Suunnitelman toteu- tyissä lajivalinnoissa: jääkarhu ilmentää tus kaiken kaikkiaan on selkeästi yli vuo- ilmastonmuutoksen huomioimista ja tu- sikymmenen hanke. levaisuuteen katsomista. Vesiympäris- Suunnitelmassa luodaan uusi vetovoi- tön hyödyntäminen on muutoinkin inno- mainen eläintarha sekä kulttuurin ja tie- vatiivisesti hahmoteltu. Toisaalta lajivalin- teen keskus Helsinkiin. Ehdotus on luo- noissa on myös hoidon kannalta vaikei- nut kantavan vahvan idean, joka antaa ta lajeja. Eläintilojen mitoitukset ovat pai- hyvät mahdollisuudet nykyisen eläintar- koin liian pienet, ja kotieläinten pito esite- han uudistamiselle sen puitteissa. tyssä mittakaavassa ei ole todennäköis- tä. Eläintilojen on suunniteltu ulottuvan rantaan saakka, mikä maisemallisesti antaa avaruuden tunnetta eläintiloihin (ns borrowed landscapes), mutta on vaativa ympäristökuormitusten hallinnan kannalta. Työssä on esitelty teemoja, jotka sopi- vat nykyiseen eläinlajistoon. Isot sisätilat mahdollistavat tehtävänannossa esitettyjen eksoottisten biodiversiteettiteemojen esittelyn pohjoisissa oloissa. Kävijäelämystä tuetaan reitein, joissa kävijä lähestyy eläintiloja vähittäin, eikä kaikki ole kerralla nähtävissä. Terassimai- suus saaren itäpuolella on mielenkiintoinen ja luultavasti toimiva ratkaisu eri kor- keusvyöhykkeiden eläinten esittelyssä. Sisääntulon tuntumassa on heti katsot- tavaa, mikä nykyisellään on selvä puute Korkeasaaren kävijäreitillä. Työ tukee Korkeasaaren opetus- ja va- listustehtävää mm opetustilojen ja ul- koilmateatterin avulla. Ruovikkopuh- distus ympäristönsuojelullisena teema- na on myös huomioitu, joskin ehdotuksen esittämässä laajuudessa ylimitoitet- tu. Toisaalta energiankulutuksen vähen- tämistä tai uusiutuvia energianlähteitä ei ole otettu mukaan suunnittelua ohjaavi- na tekijöinä. Työ ei erityisesti suojele historiallisia arvoja, esim. vanha lauttasatama katoaa kokonaan, samoin moni muu vanha rakennus. Sen sijaan virkistys ja kävijäreit- tien suunnittelu on innovatiivista: erilliset kesä- ja talvireitit sekä eri puolilla sijaitse- vat picnic- ja leikkipaikat ovat näitä uusia elementtejä.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 5.2 Proposal ”Islands and Islands”

The proposal is quite traditional and and identity of Korkeasaari similar to The planning and locating of animal careful, but follows the issues that what it was. In the plan, the zoo is well spaces has followed the guidelines are required in the work agenda very organised. Korkeasaari offers possibilities that were given in the assignment fairly strictly, except for the public transport to spend free time, and the old national strictly. The work presents the use of arrangements. The visitor viewpoint is park tradition has been enlivened. The subterranean space as animal showcase emphasised instead of the architectonic thin park zone in the shores keeps the space, but it does not refine the theme. viewpoint. The visitor route in the zoo has general outlook of the island nearly in the The cane-grass area has been planned for been planned very logically. The public is current status. The biological cleaning drainage water and the wetland animals. led around the zoo on a specific route sink of surface water has been placed in The enlargement of the tropic and that is carefully phased in the plan. the strait next to Hylkysaari [Shipwreck subterranean showcase rooms to be built The proposal respects the current Island] and is included as a part of the in connection with them seems realistic complete outline of the island and environmental programme for the zoo. and implementable. However, placing discreetly takes into consideration The placement is good when considering the baboons on the roof of the building is the varying terrain. However, the total collecting the waters from the south-side somewhat surprising. division is fairly ordinary; the animal of the island. Re-using the old spaces as animal spaces have been added with ”hotspots”, The east-west park valley with its spaces is an interesting idea. These play areas, and public service areas. ponds and streams emphasises the value new ideas include e.g. using the small Except for the formation of the steppe of the landscape in the national park era. stone castle for the entrance of the area, the landscape has been kept The ideas for the current ferry shore as subterranean and tropical space as well nearly as-is. One of the largest renewal adventure play site and swimming beach as using Karhulinna [Bear castle] for actions in the proposal is a new tropical completes the recreational use of the sea mammals. In addition, utilising the house and connected series of tunnel park surroundings in a modern way. baboon castle for presenting birds is spaces showcasing the life of nocturnal The current buildings have mainly worth considering. animals. The new Amazonia house with been preserved and the new buildings The work has paid attention to subterranean spaces has been placed indicated in the plan bring their own using Kalasatama [Fish Harbour] and in connection to the current spaces. layer in the varying building base of Mustikkamaa in distributing information. Its glass roof remains barely below the Korkeasaari. The hotspots or the areas of the world intact treetop line, so the island outlook The proposal has not taken into containing the most species are a good remains as it was when viewed from consideration the tram line on the north starting point for a presentation of the a distance. The entrance to the tunnel side of the island. On the contrary, the species. The nature school and the network has been placed in the old Korkeasaari nature as a separate island Baltic Sea information centre has been Karhulinna [Bear Castle] that binds the has been particularly emphasised. The placed in Hylkysaari [Shipwreck Island], macabre remains of the old structures entryways to the island remain; a ferry but neither of them have been given any into the new complex. and the Mustikkamaa bridge. The ferry more thought. The proposal is based on one main pier has been moved next to the bridge. The work offers a clear public route route only. The route is carefully lined in The new entrance building has been that has secondary routes as side the terrain, partly excavated in the basic placed in an excellent location from a tracks. Using the bridge and shore level or placed up on panorama bridges. landscape viewpoint, but the related areas has been thought of from the The route offers the visitor interesting view open spaces seem to be confined in recreational point of view. In addition, angles and is unhindered throughout. size. A modest building is subjected aquatic topics have been used skilfully. The service route has been separated to a strong topography. A steep slope The themed playgrounds, picnic areas, from the main route skilfully by placing has defined the area of the open space. and restaurants have been placed on it into a different level or into a tunnel Modifying the terrain more strongly different sides of the island and can be in the critical points. The proposal has would have provided more space for the serviced through a tunnel network as turned entering the zoo into a full-scale central gathering and orientation place. well as aboveground routes. event by also placing gate structures to A new treatment of the north shore and Mustikkamaa and the Kalasatama [Fish the entrance area enable the laying out Harbour] metro station. Modifying the of the track next to the entrance area, current bridge to a more visitor-friendly but it has not been presented in the plan version is justified. pictures. Instead, Mustikkamaa shows a The proposal concentrates on solving new pedestrian bridge, which is against the problems in the current status, one the Kalasatama [Fish harbour] area partial at a time while maintaining the nature master plan.

28 5.2 Ehdotus ”Islands and Islands”

The subterranean space and new Ehdotus on melko perinteinen ja varovai- jen kapea puistovyöhyke säilyttää saaren tropical house add immersion displays nen noudattaen kuitenkin hyvin tarkas- yleisilmeen lähes nykyisellään. Pintavesi- that the zoo needs. Including the ti työohjelmassa vaadittuja asioita, jouk- en biologinen puhdistusallas on osoitet- historical buildings and combining them koliikennejärjestelyjä lukuun ottamatta. tu Hylkysaaren väliseen salmeen ja otet- into displays is clearly one of the most Arkkitehtonisen näkökulman sijaan pai- tu osaksi eläintarhan ympäristöohjelmaa. positive suggestions in the work. The nottuu kävijän näkökulma. Eläintarhassa Sijoitus on hyvä ajatellen saaren eteläosi- current animal species have been utilised kävijän reitti on suunniteltu hyvin loogi- en vesien keräämistä. and the presented indoor spaces enable sesti. Yleisö johdatetaan eläintarhan ym- Itä-länsisuuntainen puistolaakso lam- presenting the ecosystems given in the päri tiettyä reittiä pitkin, jonka jaksottumi- pineen ja puroineen antaa arvon kansan- assignment. nen on suunniteltu huolellisesti. puistoajan maisemalle. Nykyisen lautta- As a whole, the proposal is functional Ehdotus kunnioittaa saaren nykyistä rannan ideointi seikkailuleikkipaikkana ja and it includes many inventive solutions, kokonaishahmoa ja huomioi hienovarai- uimarantana täydentää puistoakselin vir- but the environment it creates does sesti pienipiirteisesti vaihtelevan maas- kistyskäyttöä modernilla tavalla. not necessarily offer an unforgettable ton. Kokonaisjäsentely on kuitenkin mel- Nykyiset rakennukset on pääosin säi- adventure or is not internationally ko tavanomainen; tarhoja on täydennet- lytetty ja suunnitelmassa osoitetut uudet exceptional and unique. The solutions are ty ”hotspoteilla”, leikkipaikoilla ja ylei- rakennukset tuovat oman kerrostuman- realistic, but very(excessively??) careful. söpalvelualueilla. Aroalueen muotoiltua sa Korkeasaaren kirjavaan rakennuskan- maastoa lukuun ottamatta maisema on taan. säilytetty lähes ennallaan. Ehdotuksen Ehdotuksessa ei ole huomioitu saaren suurimpia uudistustoimenpiteitä on uusi pohjoisosaa sivuavaa raitiolinjaa. Päin- trooppinen talo ja siihen liittyvä yöeläin- vastoin Korkeasaaren luonnetta erillise- ten elämää esittelevä tunnelitilojen sar- nä saarena on haluttu erityisesti koros- ja. Uusi Amazonia-talo maanalaisine tiloi- taa. Saareen saavutaan edelleen vain lau- neen on sijoitettu nykyisten tilojen yhtey- talla ja Mustikkamaan siltaa pitkin. Laut- teen. Sen lasikatto jää juuri ja juuri puus- talaituri on siirretty sillan kupeeseen. ton ehjän latvuslinjan alapuolelle, jolloin Uusi sisääntulorakennus on sijoitet- saaren ilme kaukomaisemassa säilyy en- tu maisemallisesti oivalliseen paikkaan, tisellään. Sisäänkäynti tunneliverkostoon mutta siihen liittyvät aukiot ovat mitoi- on sijoitettu vanhaan Karhulinnan, joka tukseltaan ahtaan tuntuisia. Vaatimaton sitoo vanhan rakennuskannan makaabe- rakennus alistuu voimakkaalle topogra- rin jäänteen osaksi uutta kokonaisuutta. fialle. Jyrkkä rinne on määritellyt aukion Ehdotus perustuu vain yhteen pääreit- rajauksen. Maaston voimakkaampi muo- tiin, joka on linjattu huolellisesti maas- toilu olisi antanut lisää tilaa keskeiselle toon paikoin perustasoon kaivautuen kokoontumis- ja orientoitumispaikalle. tai ylös näköalasilloille sijoitettuna. Reitti Pohjoisreunan uusi käsittely ja sisääntu- tarjoilee kävijälle mielenkiintoisia katselu- loalue mahdollistavat radan linjauksen si- kulmia ja on kauttaaltaan esteetön. Huol- sääntuloaluetta sivuten, mutta sitä ei ole toreitti on erotettu pääreitistä taitavasti esitetty suunnitelmakuvissa. Sen sijaan sijoittamalla se kriittisissä kohdissa jo- Mustikkamaalta on esitetty uusi kävely- ko eri tasoon tai tunneliin. Ehdotuksessa silta Kalasatamaan alueen osayleiskaa- on tehty eläintarhaan saapumisesta ko- van vastaisesti. konaisvaltainen tapahtuma sijoittamalla Eläintilojen suunnittelussa ja sijoitte- porttirakennelmia myös Mustikkamaalle lussa on noudatettu varsin tarkkaan teh- ja Kalasataman metroasemalle. Nykyisen tävänannon yhteydessä annettuja suun- sillan modifiointi kävijäystävällisemmäksi taviivoja. Työ esittelee maanalaisen tilan on perusteltua. käyttöä eläinten näyttelytilana, mutta ei Ehdotus keskittyy ratkaisemaan nyky- kuitenkaan jalosta teemaa edelleen. Ruo- tilanteen ongelmat yksi kerrallaan säilyt- vikkoalue on suunniteltu sekä hulevesille täen kuitenkin Korkeasaaren luonteen ja että kosteikon eläimille. Tropiikin laajen- identiteetin jokseenkin ennallaan. Suun- nus ja sen yhteyteen rakennettava maan- nitelmassa eläintarha on hyvin organi- alainen osa näyttelytila vaikuttaa realisti- soitu, Korkeasaari tarjoaa mahdollisuuk- selta ja toteuttamiskelpoiselta. Tosin pa- sia vapaa-ajanviettoon ja vanhaa kansan- viaanien sijoittaminen rakennuksen ka- puistoperinnettäkin on elvytetty. Ranto- tolle hieman hämmästyttää.

29 Vanhojen tilojen uusiokäyttö eläintiloi- na on mielenkiintoinen ajatus. Näitä uusia ideoita on mm. pienen kivilinnan käyt- täminen maanalaisen ja tropiikkitilan si- sääntuloon, sekä Karhulinnan käyttö me- rinisäkkäille. Samoin paviaanilinnan hyö- dyntäminen lintujen esittelyyn on harkit- seminen arvoista. Työssä on kiinnitetty huomiota Kala- sataman ja Mustikkamaan käyttöön in- formaation jaossa. Hotspotit eli maail- man lajirikkaat alueet lajiston esittelyn pohjana on hyvä lähtökohta. Luontokou- lu ja Itämeri-infokeskus on sijoitettu Hyl- kysaareen, mutta kumpaakaan ei ole ide- oitu pidemmälle. Työ tarjoaa selkeä yleisöreitin, josta sekundaariset polut lähtevät sivujuontei- na. Sillan käyttöä sekä ranta-alueita on mietitty virkistysnäkökulmasta, samoin vesiaiheita on käytetty taitavasti. Teemal- liset leikkipuistot, picnic-alueet ja ravin- tolat on sijoitettu eri puolille saarta, joita voidaan huoltaa sekä tunneliverkos- ton, että maan pinnalla kulkevien reittien kautta. Maanalainen tila ja uusi trooppinen talo lisäävät immersionäyttelyitä, joita eläintarhassa kaivataan. Historiallisten rakennusten mukaanotto ja yhdistämi- nen näyttelyiksi on selkeästi työn posi- tiivisinta antia. Nykyistä eläinlajistoa on hyödynnetty ja esitetyt sisätilat mahdollistavat tehtävänannossa esitettyjen ekosysteemien esittelyn. Ehdotus on kokonaisuutena toimiva ja se sisältää monia kekseliäitä ratkaisuja, mutta sen luoma ympäristö ei välttä- mättä tarjoa unohtumatonta seikkailua tai ole kansainvälisesti poikkeuksellinen ja uniikki. Ratkaisut ovat realistisia, mutta hyvin varovaisia.

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 5.3 Proposal ”KOZOO”

The proposal approaches the planning Lining the off-track routes in the rugged The treatment of drainage water has assignment intellectually, playfully, and rocky terrain is challenging in order to been made an integral part of the plan innovatively in handing the entire zoo protect the sensitive vegetation from and building the needed infrastructure concept. The spontaneity, curiosity, joy of wearing. has been suggested to service the entire learning, and versatility best describe the The work illustrates a modern approach island – not just for show. surroundings created by the proposal. to instruction, based on interaction There are altogether four entrances In the proposal, Korkeasaari zoo and the use of modern technology. instead of just one suggested in the has been turned into an internationally An innovative visitor route has been competition agenda. For both cost known brand. The significance of the zoo presented where differentiated learning management and security, this is a in protecting the endangered species on is possible for groups on a different level. major risk and the proposal does not earth and their habitats and biomass, in The weak part of the proposal is that in a satisfactorily cover the means by which relaying information and teaching has large part it remains only as a conceptual the public and paid part of the zoo will be been presented strongly. The information proposal and implementing the plan separated. The zoo is entered, in addition is relayed to the user through the web, under the terms of the Korkeasaari to the Mustikkamaa bridge, with small books, brochures, and experiencing the landscape has been discussed only very boats from the east, with a ferry from physical environment itself. The starting lightly. As a thought, the possibilities the west and through the Hylkysaari point for the proposal is not so much offered by the island topography have [Shipwreck Island] pier on a cruise ship. the physical surroundings but more so been utilised, even though they have Due to the large amount of entrances, the the whole concept that has been used not been presented in detail or planned plan was not able to present a solution for in the task. A macro cosmos as the one detailed enough. People move through separating the public and paid park in a presented could be implemented in other the zoo not only aboveground on safe manner with sufficient supervision. kinds of environments. The value of the different routes but also under it in an The public space is emphasised much work lies specifically in its conceptual extensive tunnel network excavated in more than in the other works. This kind nature. Developing the zoo has been the bedrock, as well as above the surface of separation between public and animal presented as a process that at the same on bridges and in observation towers. spaces with the presented species and time describes the constant change Numerous different, exciting encounters the available surface area is not possible. status of nature. are thus formed between the public and The planning of shore routes has been The zoo offers everyone an individual the animals. paid attention commendably much. way to familiarise with the area. The zoo The plan has defined locations for the Securing biomass theme remains is entered in different ways and from new buildings, but has not presented their thin and a little distant. Biodiversity must different directions; different kinds of architecture in detail. The new buildings be a more important aim than securing services, routes, learning and observation and structures bring their own layer into the biomass. The connection between adding promoting things are available. The route versatile building base of Korkeasaari. Old an abundance of vegetation and opening network is formed of a gently winding buildings have been saved, so the general the scenery and the spatial impression main route that is very easily reached outlook of the island is kept rather layered of the island remains open. The aquatic from any point. The learning tracks and and partly confusing as well. Except for theme is the only one presented in more off-track adventure paths separate from creating the subterranean world, many detail. main route in the form of a star chart, of the suggested actions are fairly light, The subterranean space has been leading to five observation towers. The such as building observation towers and utilised both as a teaching facility and calm promenade circling the island is pedestrian bridges. The new buildings as a logistical route. Furthermore, a part completed with various routes that criss- and structures have been located of the staff member facilities is located cross around and offer an innovative seemingly haphazardly around the island, underground. Utilising subterranean route network supporting differentiating but they have sought important scenery space may be the only possibility to learning and instruction. For the most locations and high points in the terrain. widen the operation and increase the part, the passageways modelling Planting the new trees in the amount space available for use by the public. This constellations have been lifted from the suggested clouds the spatial variation also enables implementing the layers of ground as bridges. They form a network of the landscape. The rhythm between time and cherishing the existing historical over the island that can be seen from the open and woody sections disappears building base. between the trees also when viewed and a part of the significant sceneries is from a distance. Getting the lifted routes hidden. The species presented will not unhindered requires building long ramps. thrive in Finland throughout all parts.

38 5.3 Ehdotus ”KOZOO”

Ehdotus lähestyy suunnittelutehtävää On esitetty innovatiivinen kävijäreitti, jol- kamaan sillan lisäksi pienveneillä idästä, älyllisesti, leikkisästi ja hyvin innovatii- la kulkiessa eritasoisille ryhmille eriytetty lautalla lännestä ja Hylkysaaren laiturin visesti koko eläintarha-konseptin käsit- oppiminen on mahdollista. Ehdotuksen kautta risteilyaluksella. Sisäänkäyntien telyssä. Spontaanius, uteliaisuus, oppi- heikkous on siinä, että se jää suuressa suuren määrän takia julkisen ja maksulli- misen riemu ja monipuolisuus kuvaavat määrin pelkästään konseptuaaliseksi ja sen puiston erottamista toisistaan turval- parhaiten ehdotuksen luomaa ympäris- suunnitelman toteuttaminen Korkeasaa- lisella ja valvonnan kannalta riittävällä ta- töä. ren maiseman ehdoilla on käsitelty hyvin valla ei ole pystytty ratkaisemaan. Julki- Ehdotuksessa Korkeasaaren eläintar- kevyesti. Ajatuksena saaren topografian nen tila korostuu paljon enemmän, kuin hasta on rakennettu kansainvälisesti tun- tarjoamat mahdollisuudet on hyödynnet- muissa töissä. Tällaisen julkisen- ja eläin- nettu brändi. Eläintarhan merkitys maa- ty vaikka niitä ei ole tarkasti esitetty tai tilojen välisen rajaamisen toteuttaminen pallon uhanalaisten lajien ja habitaattien viety suunnittelussa riittävälle tarkkuu- ei esitetyillä lajeilla ja käytettävissä oleval- sekä biomassan suojelussa, tiedon välit- delle. Eläintarhassa liikutaan paitsi maan la pinta-alalla ole mahdollista. Rantareit- tämisessä ja opetuksessa on otettu voi- pinnalla erilaisilla reiteillä, myös sen alla tien suunnitteluun kiinnitetty kiitettävän makkaasti esille. Informaatio välittyy kä- laajassa peruskallioon louhitussa tunne- paljon huomiota. vijälle netin, kirjojen, esitteiden sekä it- liverkostossa ja pinnan yläpuolella silloilla Securing biomass -teema jää ohueksi se fyysisen ympäristön kokemisen kaut- ja näkötorneissa. Yleisön ja eläinten välil- ja vähän kaukaiseksi. Biodiversiteetti lie- ta. Ehdotuksen lähtökohta ei ole niinkään le muodostuu näin lukematon määrä eri- nee biomassan suojelua tärkeämpi pyrki- fyysinen ympäristö kuin kokonaiskon- laisia jännittäviä kohtaamisia. mys. Kasvillisuuden runsaan lisäämisen septi, jolla tehtävää on lähestytty. Esite- Suunnitelmassa on määrätty uusille yhteys näkymien avaamiseen ja saaren tynlaisen makrokosmoksen voisi toteut- rakennuksille paikat, mutta niiden arkki- tilalliseen vaikutelmaan jää avoimeksi. taa muuhunkin ympäristöön. Työn arvo tehtuuriin ei ole paneuduttu. Uudet ra- Vesiteema on ainoa, jonka esillepanoon on nimenomaan sen konseptualisuudes- kennukset ja rakennelmat tuovat oman on perehdytty enemmän. sa. Eläintarhan kehittäminen on esitetty kerrostumansa Korkeasaaren hyvin mo- Maanalaista tilaa hyödynnetty se- prosessina, joka samalla kuvaa luonnon nimuotoiseen rakennuskantaan. Vanho- kä opetustiloina että logistisina reittei- omaa jatkuvaa muutostilaa. ja rakennuksia on säästetty, joten saaren nä. Myös osa henkilökunnan tiloista si- Eläintarha tarjoaa jokaiselle yksilölli- yleisilme säilyy hyvin kerroksellisena ja joittuu maan alle. Maanalaisen tilan käyt- sen tavan tutustua alueeseen. Eläintar- osittain sekavanakin. Maanalaisen maa- töönotto saattaa olla ainoa mahdollisuus haan saavutaan eri tavoin ja eri suunnis- ilman luomista lukuun ottamatta monet laajentaa toimintaa ja lisätä yleisön käy- ta, tarjolla on erilaisia palveluja, reittejä, ehdotetut toimenpiteet ovat melko kevyi- tössä olevan tilan määrää. Näin voidaan oppimista ja havainnointia edistäviä asi- tä, kuten näkötornien ja kävelysiltojen ra- toteuttaa myös ajallinen kerrostuneisuus oita. Reittiverkosto muodostuu loivas- kentaminen. Uudisrakennukset ja raken- ja vaalia olemassa olevaa historiallista ra- ti kaartelevasta pääreitistä, joka on kaut- teet on sijoitettu näennäisen sattuman- kennuskantaa. taaltaan helposti saavutettava. Pääreitis- varaisesti ympäri saarta, mutta ne ovat tä erkanevat tähtikartan muotoon aset- kuitenkin etsiytyneet tärkeille näkymä- tuvat oppimisen polut ja off-track seik- paikoille ja maaston kohokohtiin. Uusien kailupolut, jotka johtavat viidelle näkö- puuistutusten toteuttaminen ehdotetus- tornille. Rauhallinen saarta kiertävä kä- sa määrin hämärtää maiseman tilallisen velytie täydentyy runsailla erilaisilla rei- vaihtelun. Avoimien ja puustoisten osien teillä, jotka risteilevät ympäriinsä ja tarjo- välinen rytmi katoaa ja osa merkittävistä avat innovatiivisen, eriyttävää opetusta ja näkymistä peittyy. Esitetty lajisto ei kaikil- valistusta tukevan reitistön. Tähtikuvioita ta osin menesty Suomessa. jäljittelevät käytävät on pääosin nostettu Hulevesien käsittely on otettu olennai- siltoina ylös maastosta. Ne muodostavat seksi osaksi suunnitelmaa ja sen tarvit- saaren ylle verkoston, joka näkyy ainakin seman infrastruktuurin rakentaminen on puuston lomasta myös kaukomaisemas- esitetty rakennettavaksi koko saarta pal- sa. Nostettujen reittien saaminen esteet- velevaksi - ei vain näytösluonteisesti. tömäksi edellyttää pitkien ramppien ra- Sisäänkäyntejä on kaikkiaan neljä kil- kentamista. Off-track –reittien linjaami- pailuohjelmassa ehdotetun yhden sisään- nen karuun kalliomaastoon on haasta- käynnin sijasta. Tämä on kulunhallinnan vaa, jotta äärevien alueiden arka kasvil- ja turvallisuuden kannalta suuri riski ei- lisuus säilyy kulutukselta. kä ehdotuksessa ole selvitetty tyydyttä- Työssä kuvastuu moderni ote valistus- vällä tavalla keinoja, joilla eläintarhan jul- toimintaan, joka perustuu vuorovaikutuk- kinen ja maksullinen puoli erotetaan toi- seen ja moderniin teknologian käyttöön. sistaan. Eläintarhaan saavutaan Mustik-

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 6. Competition decision and recommendation for further action 6. Kilpailun ratkaisu ja suositus jatkotoimenpiteiksi

Decision of the competition Kilpailun ratkaisu After comparing the proposals, the judges Arvostelulautakunta totesi ehdotuksia found that the proposal Beluga best fulfils vertailtuaan ehdotuksen ”Beluga” täyt- the objectives of the competition agenda tävän parhaiten kilpailuohjelman tavoit- and unanimously decided to place it in teet ja päätti yksimielisesti asettaa sen first position. The other proposals were ensimmäiselle sijalle. Muita ehdotuksia not placed in any order of superiority. ei asetettu paremmuusjärjestykseen.

Recommendation for further actions Suositus jatkotoimenpiteiksi The judges suggest selecting the Arvostelulautakunta esittää ehdotuksen proposal Beluga as the basis for the ”Beluga” valitsemista Korkeasaaren ja continued planning of Korkeasaari and sen ympäristön jatkosuunnittelun poh- its surroundings. jaksi. Korkeasaari will draft a new master Korkeasaari tulee laatimaan koko alu- plan for the entire area based on the eelle uuden yleissuunnitelman ehdotuk- ideas presented in the proposal Beluga, sen ”Beluga” ideoiden pohjalta, jonka the parts of which will be worked on osia pyritään jatkotyöstämään voittaneen further with the proposal author(s). ehdotuksen tekijän kanssa. The continued planning will take Jatkosuunnittelussa tulee ottaa huo- into consideration the critique and mioon arvostelulautakunnan arvostelu- development needs presented by the pöytäkirjassa esittämä kritiikki ja kehitys- judges in the estimation minutes. tarpeet.

56 7. The competition jury

Affirmation of the jury report Helsinki 18 December 2008

Tuula Haatainen Ria Ruokonen Deputy Mayor, Chair Landscape architect, MARK

Tuomas Rajajärvi Sakari Mentu Architect, Director of the City Planning Architect Department The National Board of Antiquities

Seppo Turunen Kirsi Pynnönen Director of the Helsinki Zoo Helsinki Zoo, Secretary

Tuomas Hakala Architect, City Planning Department, Secretary

57 8. Opening of the envelopes containing the names

The envelopes containing the names behind the proposals are found to be unopened, and the creators of the proposals are:

The winner of the competition Proposal “Island and Island” Proposal “KOZOO” “Beluga” Maisemasuunnittelu Hemgård SLA Architects a/s Architects: BECKMANN-N´THEPE & Associés Gretel Hemgård, Landscape architect Stig L. Andersson Aldric Beckmann MARK Flemming Rafn Thomsen Françoise N´Thépé Hiroko Kivirinta, Landscape architect Helene Koch Wilfried Daufy MARK Salka Kudsk Anne Catherine Dufros Malin Blomqvist, Landscape architect Martin Søberg Constance Héau MARK MA-SU Planning Stine Christiansen Jessica Pallatier Tiina Taipale, student of architecture Ida Marie Wedfall Leena Antikainen, stu dent of Nikolai Vittrup Landscape Design: landscape architecture Daniel Carlsen TN Plus Lene Dammand Lund Bruno Tanant Zoo Experts: Jean Christophe Nani Guillaume Derrien Dirk Petzold, Biologist m. Sc., Zoo Andras Jambor Consult Bielefelt, Germany Agathe Turmel Jukka Alanko

Zoo Expert: Architect: Jean Marc Lernould Asmo Jaaksi, Architect Safa, JKMM Architects

58 Kuvailulehti

Tekijät Tuomas Hakala

Nimike Helsinki Zoo Ideas Competition 12.6.2008–31.10.2008 Evaluation report

Sarjan nimike Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston julkaisuja 2009:2

Sarjanumero 2009:2 Julkaisuaika 23.1.2009. . Sivuja 60 Liitteitä 0. . ISBN 978-952-223-351-6 (nid) ISSN 0787-9024. 978-952-223-352-3 (pdf). . Kieli koko teos FIN Yhteenveto FIN.

Tiivistelmä Helsingin eläintarha järjesti kansainvälisen kutsukilpailun eläintarhan kehittämisek- si. Kilpailuun kutsuttiin kolme toimistoa, joilta edellytettiin kokemusta eläintarhojen suunnittelusta ja maisema-arkkitehtuurista. Kilpailu käytiin vuoden 2008 aikana ja tu- lokset julkistettiin tammikuussa 2009.

Kilpailuun tuli kolme ehdotusta, jotka olivat ratkaisseet kilpailun hyvin erilaisilla lähes- tymistavoilla. Yksi ehdotuksista jatkoi nykyisen eläintarhan konseptin selkeyttämisellä ja valikoitujen asioiden voimistamisella. Yksi ehdotus teki eläintarhalle kokonaisvaltaisen brändin ja yksi ehdotus muutti nykyisen eläintarhan kokonaan.

Kilpailun voittanut ehdotus esitti kokonaisvaltaisen konseptin Korkeasaaren uudel- leenjärjestämiseksi. Ehdotus on selkeyttänyt saaren kulkureitit ja uusinut suuren osan nykyistä rakennuskantaa. Suunnitelma on toteutettavissa vaiheittain.

Asiasanat Helsinki, Korkeasaari, ideakilpailu (ELSINGINåKAUPUNKI +AUPUNKISUUNNITTELUVIRASTO

Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston julkaisuja 2009:2 Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston julkaisuja 2009:2 HELSINKI ZOO IDEAS COMPETITION – EVALUATION REPORT

Sarjassa aikaisemmin julkaistu: Helsinki Zoo 2009:1 Kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston toimintasuunnitelma 2009–2011, Toiminnan perusta ja keskeiset tehtävät Ideas Competition

ISSN 0787-9024 12.6.2008–31.10.2008 ISBN 978-952-223-351-6 (nid.) ISBN 978-952-223-352-3 (PDF) Evaluation report Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston julkaisuja 2009:2

9 789522 233516