Discussion about the finalists in the design competition for the new Museum of Architecture and Design are currently taking place, for example, on the City of Helsinki's Kerrokantasi platform. When reviewing the entries and the comments, it is important to note that the competition is still ongoing, and the proposals are still in draft form. The competition is a public procurement process, and the preparation of design guidelines for the second phase of the competition is currently underway for the selected proposals. Due to the ongoing process, the jury will not comment on the proposals at this stage, but we are providing additional information about recurring themes raised in the public comments.‍

‍Only the first five pages of the finalists' competition materials have been published to ensure that each team can focus on developing their own proposals.‍

The first phase of the design competition focused on how the proposal fits in the cityscape, the overall concept, functionality, and architecture of the proposals. The functionality and feasibility of the selected proposals will be further developed during the second phase, including how the museum integrates with the surrounding urban fabric. The jury decided to publish only five of the twelve boards submitted by the finalists, emphasizing the independent development of the selected works. To ensure the originality of the designs, it is desirable that the teams concentrate on refining their own solutions in the second phase without being unduly influenced by other finalists’ work. All 624 submissions from the first phase will be published fully once the competition concludes. The second-phase proposals will also be published in their entirety after the phase ends, allowing the public to review and comment on the completed competition entries in full.‍

In the second phase, the finalist proposals will be refined to best meet the criteria outlined in the competition brief.‍

The competition brief includes a wide range of important goals for the new museum building. The jury acknowledges that not all goals may be fully achievable in a single building, nor are all listed goals necessarily addressed in the preliminary proposals of the first phase.

The evaluation of the first phase focused on the proposal fits in the cityscape, the overall concept, functionality, and architecture, and the jury sought to identify potential for meeting the competition’s goals in the second phase. The competition brief specifically requested conceptual-level sketches in the first phase, so it is natural that compliance with all criteria cannot yet be fully assessed.

The finalists will receive further development guidelines at the start of the second phase, in the beginning of February. Based on these guidelines, the proposals will be refined. The goal is that the developed proposals in the second phase will meet the competition brief’s goals as well as possible. However, the proposal that is selected for implementation may undergo further development even after the competition.

(Competition brief, page 75: In Stage 1, the primary focus of the evaluation will be on the integration with the surrounding cityscape and the overall concept, functionality, and architecture of the work. The jury will emphasise the identity of the work and how the building feels and looks. Further development potential of the entry is more important than flawless details. The entries selected for Stage 2 must have great development potential, also from the perspectives of cost and scope, to meet the project’s targets.

Page 91: In Stage 1 of the competition, the jury will put greater emphasis on the overall concept rather than detailed plans and sections, or photorealistic visualisations. In general, we ask for entries with a low level of detail and encourage all participants to keep their entries at a conceptual level.)

Some competition entries appear to include elements of existing buildings or previous competition designs. Is this allowed?‍

Throughout history, architecture has often revisited similar themes, forms, and elements. The impressions evoked by competition proposals are always subjective and related to the viewer’s personal experiences. The jury considers successful architecture to be a combination of insightful interpretations of the project’s goals and an understanding of the surrounding environment’s demands. Many competition entries addressed these goals in similar manner and in ways that resembled existing buildings. References to other buildings do not inherently weaken a proposal if the design has integrity and meets the set goals.

The competition entries are evaluated by an international expert jury, the majority of whom are architects.

The competition organizers have appointed a jury of 13 professionals, eight of whom are qualified members of the Finnish Association of Architects (SAFA) under its competition rules. Additionally, five members represent the building’s clients, users, and other key expertise relevant to museum operations. The jury also consults a wide range of multidisciplinary experts during the evaluation process.