/2013 UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ PUBLIC DESIGN OY / J-PAINO OY MATTILANNIEMI CAMPUS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COMPETITION 25 JANUARY 2013 TO 25 APRIL 2013 JURY REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1 COMPETITION ASSIGNMENT................................................................................. 1.1 Organiser, character and aim of the competition ........................................... 1. Invitees ......................................................................................................................... 1. The competition jury and specialists ................................................................... 1. Competition rules ...................................................................................................... 1. Competition language ............................................................................................. 1. Compensation for participation ............................................................................ 2 THE COMPETITION INITIAL DATA .................................................................... .1 Background .................................................................................................................. . Town plan, urban structure and environment at present ............................ .................................................................................................... Traffic and parking 3 DESIGN GUIDELINES ................................................................................................... .1 The most important goals of construction planning ..................................... . Functions to be located in the building (space programme) ....................... . Project schedule after the competition stage ................................................... . Evaluation criteria...................................................................................................... 4 THE FLOW OF THE COMPETITION .................................................................. 5 GENERAL EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 6 INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION .................................................................................... 1 .1 “IN UNI” ...................................................................................................................... 1 . ”KAMPUSKAUPUNKI” ............................................................................................. 1 . “Castel dell´ Ovo”...................................................................................................... 11 . “LOOP” ........................................................................................................................ 11 . “FOCUS”...................................................................................................................... 1 . “LUCKY LAKE”............................................................................................................ 1 . “Another brick” ......................................................................................................... 1 7 RESULT OF THE COMPETITION .......................................................................... 1 .1 Decision of the jury .................................................................................................. 1 . Jury´s recommendation for further development .......................................... 1 . Signatures ................................................................................................................... 1 . Opening of the identity envelopes..................................................................... 1 The winner of the competition ............................................................................ 1 Honourable mentions ........................................................................................... Other entries (opening order) ............................................................................. 2 Architectural design competition programme ᕡ COMPETITION ASSIGNMENT 3 HISTORY 1.1 Organiser, character and aim Representatives of the University of Jyväskylä: of the competition • Matti Manninen, Rector • Kirsi Moisander, Director of Administration University Properties of Finland Ltd and the University • Suvi Jokio, Director of Facility Services he roots of the University of Jyväskylä date back to 1, when the of Jyväskylä arranged an architectural design compe- tition for extensions to the university’s premises in Representatives of the City of Jyväskylä: city became home to the first Finnish-language teachers’ college. The the Mattilanniemi campus area. The competition was • Markku Andersson, Mayor T City of Jyväskylä donated to the college a ridge area of approximately arranged as an international invited competition in • Ilkka Halinen, City Architect 1 hectares now known as Seminaarinmäki. The plans were drafted under co-operation with the City of Jyväskylä. • Tuija Solin, Project Manager The competition assignment was to find a design the leadership of architect Konstantin Kiseleff with the Board of Public solution to serve as a basis for realisation and to ap- Competitors´representative in jury: Buildings. point a designer for the university’s new construction • Professor, Architect Markku Komonen Alvar Aalto’s campus area on the hill Seminaarinmäki dates back to in Mattilanniemi. Specialists appointed by the jury: 1. The Mattilanniemi campus area is the centre point of three campuses in Jyväskylä. • Kalle Jokinen, representative of the Student Union A Nordic architectural competition was arranged in 1. The winner The competition task was to find a solution for the • Riikka Salli, Ramboll Oy, traffic issues was architect Arto Sipinen. The construction in Mattilanniemi commenced design research and learning environments and create • Veera Sevander and Seppo Saastamoinen, Pöyry Finland Oy, energy and environmental qualities in the 1s in accordance with Sipinen’s plans and continued at Ylistönrinne. a university environment that is efficient; has sound, safe, and sustainable structures; and is also suitable Today the university’s operations are based mostly on three distinct Pöyry Finland Oy / Architect Eija Larkas-Ipatti was for collaboration with enterprises. responsible for competition process coordination campus areas: Seminaarinmäki; Mattilanniemi on the north-west shore of and secretarial tasks at jury meetings. the lake Jyväsjärvi; and Ylistönrinne on the opposite side of the lake. 1.2 Invitees In the evaluation phase, University Properties ordered University Properties of Finland Ltd owns, develops, and rents out The following candidates with their teams had been from Pöyry CM Oy also calculations of economic effi- premises for universities and other institutions of higher education outside invited to participate in the competition: ciency and costs and a more detailed quality review in accordance with the targets of energy efficiency, Helsinki metropolitan area. Its intention is to create innovative learning • Arkkitehdit LSV Oy, Tampere constructability and healthy house principles of pro- Arkkitehtitoimisto JKMM Oy, Helsinki environments that support research and studies and to promote co-opera- • posals. • Arkkitehtitoimisto Lahdelma & Mahlamäki Oy, tion with businesses. Helsinki 1.4 Competition rules The objective of this architectural competition was to create a 1st- • Arkkitehtitoimisto SARC Oy, Helsinki century campus that fits within the milieu formed by the 1th-century col- • Arkkitehtitoimisto Sipinen Oy, Espoo The competition was arranged in accordance with this competition programme and the competition rules of lege area and the highly valued campus developments of Alvar Aalto and • martinezysoler + AV 1 Arquitectos, Granada, Spain the Finnish Association of Architects. Arto Sipinen. • MVRDV, Rotterdam, the Netherlands The purpose was to find a basis for further planning of the project 1.5 The candidates were expected to establish teams Competition language and to appoint a designer of the new building. with competence in sectors such as the following: The language of the competition was English. The • Urban planning and campus design Finnish language shall be used at the design and im- • Construction design (for public buildings and plementation stage. universities) • Structural engineering (sound structures) 1.6 Compensation for participation • Energy economics and indoor conditions Each team invited to the competition receives com- pensation of EUR (% VAT) with reduction of 1.3 The competition jury and specialists 1% for the fee of competitors´ representative in the jury and other expenses. The members of the competition jury were as follows: Representatives of University Properties of Finland Ltd: • Mauno Sievänen, Managing Director, as chairman • Aki Havia, Director of Real-Estate Development 4 ᕢ THE COMPETITION INITIAL DATA 5 2.1 Background Buildings B and C are three storeys high, made of Mattilanniemi campus area is University of Jyväskylä’s red brick, and almost identical. first extension site onshore of Jyväsjärvi. This area These buildings encountered later on severe prob- was constructed on the basis of a land-use plan origi- lems with indoor air quality and they have been vacant nating in Arto Sipinen’s winning Nordic architectural since 11. The protection of the buildings was widely competition entry in 1 and its further development. studied, and a decision was made in autumn 1 In addition to university buildings,