an international architectural competition for an ... · alvar aalto foundation city of yskyl an...

AN INTERNATIONAL ARCHITECTURAL COMPETITION FOR AN EXTENSION BETWEEN THE ALVAR AALTO

MUSEUM AND THE MUSEUM OF CENTRAL FINLAND From June 29th to October 30th 2015

EVALUATION MINUTES

2 / 39COMPETITION PROGRAM

ALVAR AALTO FOUNDATION

CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ

AN INTERNATIONAL ARCHITECTURAL COMPETITION

FOR AN EXTENSION BETWEEN THE ALVAR AALTO MUSEUM

AND THE MUSEUM OF CENTRAL FINLAND

1 COMPETITION GOALS

The museums of the Jyväskylä Ruusupuisto area, Alvar Aalto museum and the Museum of Central Finland, are both significant works of architect Alvar Aalto. The goal of the competition was to create a design for an extension to connect the two museums in a way that represents the high architectural level of the place. The new extension will have to adapt to its worthy envi-ronment in a balanced way, and to find a natural connection with the architecture of Alvar Aalto (1898–1976).

The new extension between the museums will serve as a connecting gateway between the museums, as a shared museum shop and as a technical space. The extension will enable the shared use of the already existing exhibition spaces, the passenger elevator, the auditorium, the cafeteria and the workroom spaces. The functionality of the spaces is an essential part of the high level design requirements.

2 COMPETITION INFORMATION

2.1 Organizer of the competition

The competition was organized by the Alvar Aalto Foundation and the City of Jyväskylä. The land of the site is owned by the City of Jyväskylä. Both museum buildings are protected with the town plan (sr-1) and the site is listed as a nationally valuable cultural-historical environ-ment.

2.2 Design competition as a public procurement

This competition was a public procurement not exceeding the EU threshold value. The con-tract notice was published in HILMA, a Finnish service for public procurement notices, on 29 June 2015. The competition documents were published in pdf form, in Finnish and in English. The competition entries were presented in Finnish or in English.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




2.3 Participation right

The participation right for the public design competition was free. The competition was in-tended for the citizens of all nations.

2.4 Prizes

The total prize sum in the competition was 30 000€. There were three prizes in the competi-tion; first prize 14 000€, second prize 7 000€, and third prize 5 000€. In addition there were two purchases of 2 000€ each and two honourable mentions. Tax exemption was applied for the prizes. The payments were made via the Finnish Association of Architects, SAFA. SAFA charged a percentage of 7% on the prizes in accordance with its competition rules.

2.5 Further actions after the competition

The jury recommends giving the design assignment for the winning entry.

2.6 Jury

The jury comprised the following members appointed by the competition organizer: Esko Eriksson, City of Jyväskylä, Real Estate Director Ari Karimäki, City of Jyväskylä, Culture and Sports, Service Director Tommi Lindh, Alvar Aalto Foundation, Director, Architect SAFA Ulla Rannanheimo, City of Jyväskylä, Real Estates, Real Estate Planning Manager, chair of the jury Leena Rossi, City of Jyväskylä, Urban Planning and City Infrastructure, Head of Urban Planning, Architect SAFA Leila Strömberg, City of Jyväskylä, Urban Planning and City Infrastructure, City Architect, Architect SAFA Heli-Maija Voutilainen, Museum of Central Finland, Director

The Finnish Association of Architects appointed the following members to the jury:

Asmo Jaaksi, Architect SAFA

Anu Puustinen, Architect SAFA

The professional members of the jury required by the competition rules were Jaaksi, Lindh, Puustinen, Rossi and Strömberg.

Nina Heikkonen, Alvar Aalto Foundation, was the secretary of the jury.

The jury had five meetings during the competition.

2.7 Rules of the competition and the approval of the competition program

The competition was organized according to the rules of the Finnish Association of Archi-tects, SAFA. The competition program was verified and approved by the organizers, the com-petition jury and the competition board of the Finnish Association of Architects, SAFA.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




2.8 Competition schedule

The competition program and its attachments were free of charge. The competition invitation was published in the web site of HILMA, the Finnish service for public procurement notices from 29 June to 30 October 2015. The competition documents were available from the web site of Alvar Aalto Foundation www.alvaraalto.fi/ruusupuisto from 6 July 2015.

3 TECHNICAL COMPETITION INFORMATION 3.1 Competition documents

The competition documents are:

− the competition program − the town plan of Ruusupuisto area (pdf) − town plan subscriptions and regulations (pdf) − a map with the competition area outlines 1:500 (dwg, pdf) − the drawings of the Museum of Central Finland (dwg, pdf) − the drawings of Alvar Aalto museum (dwg, pdf) − the drawings of the Museum of Central Finland and the Alvar Aalto museum by Alvar Aalto − aerial photographs of the competition area − photographs of the area − photograph into which the plan was to be inserted

3.2 Submission of questions

Candidates had the opportunity to submit questions and request further information from the jury. The questions in Finnish or in English had to be sent by e-mail by Wednesday 19 August 2015 16:00 to [email protected]. The questions and the answers were published in Finnish and in English on the web site of Alvar Aalto Foundation on Tuesday 15 September 2015.

3.3 Judging the competition and publishing and displaying the results

A total of 689 entries were submitted to the competition. The entries were divided in three groups based on the assessment of the jury.

1. Winners (1st, 2nd, 3rd prize, two purchases, two honourable mentions) 2. Shortlisted (entries 8-46) 3. Others (entries 47-689)

Due to a very large amount of entries, the jury decided to make an individual written assess-ment only for the entries of the first and the second group. The rest of the entries were evalu-ated as one group.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




A publication and prize ceremony was held on the birthday of Alvar Aalto on 3 February 2016 16:00 in the auditorium of the Museum of Central Finland. The evaluation minutes was available on the organizers web site www.alvaraalto.fi/ruusupuisto after the publication and prize ceremony. The en-tries were placed on display in the exhibition space of the Museum of Central Finland from 3 Febru-ary 2016.

3.4 Right to use the competition entries

The competition organizers have the ownership to the awarded and purchased competition entries, while the copyright remains with the authors of the entries.

The publication rights shall remain to the competition organizers, the Finnish Association of Archi-tects and the Architectural Museum of Finland. The decision of the realization of the design will be done separately.

4 COMPETITION TASK

4.1 Background of the competition task and the competition area

The Museum of Central Finland is a cultural-historic museum. The museum serves both as the pro-vincial museum of Central Finland and as the town museum of Jyväskylä. In addition to the exhibi-tions, the museum carries out research of its field, collects archives, provides education and fosters the research and inventorying of the build heritage and cultural environment.

The history of the Museum of Central Finland dates back to 1932, when the museum was opened and administered by the Museum Association of Central Finland, which had been established a year before. The museum building designed by Alvar Aalto, was opened in 1961. It is situated in Ruusupuisto, in an area called Älylä, which has been named by the teachers who used to live in the area. In 1989-1990 an extension was build to the museum. The extension and the renovation done at the same time were designed by Alvar Aalto & Co., Elissa Aalto being in charge of the project.

The Association of the Alvar Aalto museum was founded in 1966. The museum began operating in 1969, and the museum building designed by Alvar Aalto opened in 1973. Also the Alvar Aalto Foundation was founded in 1969. From the year 1998, the museum and the foundation have been operating as one single organization. The foundation operates in two cities, Jyväskylä and Helsinki, where it is the custodian of four buildings that are open to the public.

The competition area is located by the campus areas of the University of Jyväskylä; Seminaarin-mäki in the very vicinity, and Mattilanniemi in the southeast of the area. The new university building called Ruusupuisto, is located in front of the two museums, leaving in between a visually shared square, which is however in two different plots.

The review area consists of the whole Ruusupuisto park. The competition area is the plot of the museums, in Alvar Aallon katu 7 (Alvar Aalto street 7). The construction site is the area marked in the town plan with “yh- alue” (area for administration and office functions). The buildings of the Mu-seum of Central Finland and the Alvar Aalto museum, including the water fountain, are protected in the town plan. The construction site of the new extension in the town plan is binding, though minor exceptions from the plan are possible.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




4.2 Design guidelines

According to the design guidelines, the new extension should connect the Museum of Central Fin-land and the Alvar Aalto Museum and enable the versatile use of the spaces of both museums. The requirement was to situate a new museum shop to the extension and enable the accessibility of the Alvar Aalto museum. The extension had to enable the shared use of the auditorium of the Museum of Central Finland, the cafeteria ‘Café Alvar’ of the Alvar Aalto Museum, and the versatile use of other meeting, working and educational spaces.

The space in between the museums with its terraces and water basins creates an interesting outer space. The development of this space was one of the design goals. In addition, the competitors were encouraged to express ideas of connecting the museums site to the neighboring Ruusupuisto square.

4.3 Summary of spaces

The indicative floor area of the extension between the museums was circa 280 m2. In the exten-sion had to be situated the museum shop and its utility spaces (circa 200 m2), while the shop area should functions also as a connecting gateway between the two museums. A plan of three worksta-tions in the museum shop was also to be taken into account. The extension had to consist of a stor-age space for the exhibition materials, and a technical room (circa 80 m2). These spaces are con-sidered as utility spaces and there will not be situated permanent workstations. The two museums had to be accessible and connected with among other things via the renewed elevator.

− museum shop with utility spaces and workstations / connecting gateway: Connection between the Museum of Central Finland’s first floor level (+87.554) and the Alvar Aalto Museum’s second floor level (+88.920).

− lower connective gateway, storage space for the exhibition materials and the technical room: Connection between the Alvar Aalto Museum’s first floor level (+85.690).

The review area The competition area The construction area



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




4.4 Assessment Criteria

In evaluating the entries, attention was paid to the consideration of the architectural totality and the suitability of the new extension in between the existing buildings of Alvar Aalto. An evaluation crite-rion was also, how the new extension will create added value to the new museum centre formed by the two existing museums.

The new extension between the museums should be architecturally and in materials high standard and fit well in the nationally valuable cultural build environment. The technical and economical fea-sibility should also be paid attention.

5 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENTRIES

5.1 Documents required and confidentiality

The entry had to be presented in three horizontal A3-sized sheets (pdf). The required documents were:

− general layout plan 1:500

− section plan, where the connection of the Alvar Aalto Museum, the extension and the Museum of Central Finland is presented 1:200

− floor plans (two levels), sections and elevations with material and color markings relevant to the entry 1:200

− illustration of the extension inserted into a given photograph

− summary report

− other material was allowed to be presented inside the given sheet space

The competition was pseudonymous. All documents had to be marked with the competitor’s cho-sen pseudonym.

5.2 Submission of entries

The competition entries had to be submitted by the online service of Alvar Aalto Foundation no later than 30 October 2015 16:00.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




6 COMPETITION ASSESSMENTS

6.1 General assessment

The international ideas competition was a huge success in its popularity. The participants submit-ted 689 entries by the dead line. The intention of the competition was to seek new ideas between the museums and their connection. This goal was well achieved. We weren’t looking for a complete building design. But instead we hoped for a candid approach towards changes and additions affect-ing the highly valued cultural environment.

6.2 The results of the competition

There were three prizes in the competition; first prize 14 000€, second prize 7 000€, and third prize 5 000€. In addition there were two purchases of 2 000€ each. The total prize sum in the competition was 30 000€. The jury also decided to award two entries with honourable mentions. The purchased and the honourable mentions are in alphabetical order, not in relative order with each other.

1. Prize (14 000€)”Silmu”

2. Prize (7 000€)”Kannel”

3. Prize (5 000€)”The Ground and the Roof”

Purchase (2 000€)”A2A”

Purchase (2 000€)”Huone näkymällä”

Honourable mention”Between Spaces”

Honourable mention”HELMA”

6.3 Assessments: Winners, purchases and honourable mentions

The following individual assessments are of the winners (3), purchases (2) and honourable men-tions (2).



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




1st prize”Silmu”

As the pseudonym of the entry suggests (‘bud’ in Finnish), the gentle form is superbly sensitive and powerful at the same time. It is memorable and structures the new architecture to specifically suit this location.

The simple, flat-roofed shape of the extension settles unostentatiously into its location. The curved forms of the interior can be sensed through the minimalist glass facade. Its lightness is in appro-priate contrast to the museum buildings, making the extension stand out as a new layer and not fusing together the museums into a single mass. In the space between the museums, the nuance of the existing natural state is laudably preserved due to the form and materials of the new building.

It is commendable that the exterior areas have been researched and structured so extensively. De-marcating the green areas with a broken line is interesting, but its relationship to the protected sur-roundings requires further investigation. The cafe terrace has found its natural location.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




The functional emphasis and broad outlines of the spatial solution are appropriate. The main space of the extension is on the lower level, and creates a spatial totality together with the Alvar Aalto Museum cafe. This is an ideal solution in terms of the functionality of the museum shop. The visi-tor is led by beautifully curving lines towards the upper floors along ramps that follow the soft forms of the bud. A functional weakness in the scheme is the connection to the Museum of Central Fin-land, which ends up being pushed towards the rear, next to the lift corridor, and feels somewhat cramped. The barrier-free access of the proposal is based entirely on the existence of the ramp, and the existing lift has not been utilised. The public access connection to the lift on the lowest floor can probably, nevertheless, be created, in which case the lower ramp could be made slightly steep-er, or perhaps even built as a stairs, thus making the connection somewhat more spacious at the level +87.554. The solution for the storage spaces should also be refined, so that they better serve both museums.

The courtyard solution raises conflicting feelings. As an idea and in its design it is a beautiful, inte-gral part of the totality, but both technically and functionally it is extremely challenging. As an exte-rior space it is should be developed into a form that is less in a natural state – the idea of thriving wild greenery in such a space is not credible. Its implementation as a glass-covered heated interior space could be a more recommendable solution. In that way, the space would be functionally more justified and versatile in use. In the diagrams for the proposal, preliminary guidelines for the use have indeed been provided, for instance for performances. The design concept is powerful and one can see that it could take even considerable further development without losing its architectonic ef-fect. The comprehensiveness of the bud shape should not, however, be compromised.

The proposal is a diamond in the rough. The decisive factor in the scheme is the beautifully curved line that calmly and naturally finds its place. The design requires a lot of further development, but it gives the promise of an architecture that is powerfully self-contained, while at the same time in a subtle balance with its surroundings.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ






CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




2nd prize”Kannel”

The skilfully executed proposal consists spatially of two tube-like objects. The wood-frame facades and roof draw their sophistication from the form of the cut chamfers, ensuring the proposal’s melo-dious tone.

The extension settles with a confident directness between the two museums. The roof height of the mass on the uphill side of the slope has been adapted to the roof level of the low plinth sections of both museums, whereas the oblique tube on the plaza side is lower. The facade is characteristically lighter than and subservient to the facades of the adjacent museums, so that the extension is per-ceived as its own separate section, yet one which connects them together.

The treatment of the surrounding landscape is limited to the Ruusupuisto plaza side of the building. By means of stepped terrain facing southwards towards a water basin and cafe terrace, a pleas-ant outdoor area is created, in which the only connection from the interior is via the cafe of the Alvar Aalto Museum.

The two museums are fluently connected through the extension. The circulation routes mainly work well and are spatially interesting. The wide stepped levels of the part of the extension with the slant-ing roof, which connect the cafe to the foyer of the Museum of Central Finland, is insightful and allows for the possible expansion of the cafe. The museum shop, which is stepped in three levels, opens up invitingly in the direction of both museums. The thoroughfare aspect of the space invites the visitor to take a closer look at what the shop has to offer.

The functionally weakest link is the dead-end corridor leading from the lobby of the Alvar Aalto Mu-seum through the cafe to the lift, and which functions as the barrier-free connection. It is proposed, however, that the walls of this corridor are to be utilised for exhibition purposes.

The impressive interior perspective raises doubts about whether the ceiling would most likely, if built, have a thicker structure, in which case it would awkwardly hide the important views from the museum shop towards the Ruusupuisto square.

The proposal has been beautifully fine-tuned and has a strong overall sculptural approach. The vertical wooden-framed structure was, of course, also used by Alvar Aalto; but in recent architec-ture it has often been used as a facade motif, and for that reason it was hoped that a different kind of design solution could be found for this location.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




3rd prize”The Ground and the Roof”

The simplicity of the impressive interior perspective is arresting. The image conveys the clarity of the proposal: in all its simplicity, the extension is merely a roof below which wide steps follow the form of the terrain. The boundary between the interior and exterior spaces has been blurred, and the contact with the surroundings is maximal. The connection with the Museum of Central Finland and the first floor of the Alvar Aalto Museum is impressive and spacious. The comprehensiveness of the interior atmosphere is enhanced by its simplified materiality: all interior surfaces are wood. The wide steps function as an auditorium and seating places, and the shop when necessary also acts as a gathering space and performance area.

The proposal’s treatment of the cityscape and immediate surroundings is vague, but the simple, straight glass facade would probably sit between the museums without conflict. The glass walls have been proposed as entirely openable, emphasising the grand idea of a space that freely flows through the extension. Our northern climate, however, does not give an easy starting point for the technical implementation of such a solution. There is no need or justification for the functional use of the roof plane.

The connection from the ground floor of the Alvar Aalto Museum turns out to be the biggest prob-lem in the proposal, where the drab and narrow corridor passes the storage on the way to the lift. Technically, this fulfils the requirement of barrier-free access, but the lack of a proper spatial con-nection from below is a major functional shortcoming. The stair connection could perhaps be solved between the cafe and the extension, but this would detract from the forcefulness of the scheme, which is its strength. In the simple and beautiful presentation, corners have been cut else-where, too; the structures supporting the roof have not been shown and the roof construction is un-realistically thin.

The design displays a bold approach and vision. There are very many merits in the balanced clarity of the overall design which offset its functional and structural shortcomings.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




Purchase”A2A”

In terms of the cityscape, the proposal has a balanced expression. The design of the new extension between the two museums is discreet and matter-of-fact. The unassuming, simple facade has been supplied with a dimmer function that utilises liquid crystal technology, such that the straight glass wall could function as a large LCD screen. It adds an appropriately interesting, modern and experi-mental element to the overall design, albeit the technical operability remains somewhat vague. The terrace at the front, with steps in the form of an outdoor auditorium, is well structured.

The spatial connections work well. The route from the Alvar Aalto Museum cafe towards the upper floors is natural. The double-height space could be more spacious and the stairs up to the level of the Museum of Central Finland could be wider. Consequently, the lower lobby could better expand for use as, for example, a cafe. In turn, the corridor intended to solve barrier-free access would be-come shorter, which would improve the functionality of that level. The design greatly exceeds the floor area given in the competition brief, thus raising the question of whether the spatial impressive-ness would disappear if the size were reduced to the target size.

The interior perspective promises both an impressive view and a connection from the Museum of Central Finland to both floors of the Alvar Aalto Museum. The seating steps are a functionally suc-cessful element and a natural performance space for events is created in front of it. The circular skylights contain a clear reference to Aalto’s architecture, which is distanced, however, from a direct quote by the appropriate variation in the rhythm of the layout.

The architecture of the proposal is skilful and balanced, and the presentation carefully executed. The functional requirements have been well resolved. Overall, however, the proposal lacks an in-sightful architectonic idea and character.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




Purchase”Huone näkymällä”

The proposal is novel, a fresh breeze of contemporary architecture with a hipster spirit. Its spatial idea is sculptural, sensitive and open minded.

The building mass forms a poetic room set within a garden. It has a rhomboid floor plan, the fa-cades of which simultaneously have a lightness, depth and dramatic curvature. The mysterious facade solution of two overlapping surfaces gives the new building a motif that differs from Aalto’s architecture yet adapts to its surroundings.

The yard has been treated as a cultivated garden, without any major functional changes, which leaves the surroundings unnecessarily passive.

The proposal is spatially very simple, yet unique. The spatial solution, consisting of two shells and the intermediate spaces between them, has been handled logically and without compromise. The outer shell comprises a thick, white-painted, semi-transparent steel mesh and glass. The in-ner shell, a steel wall that demarcates the museum shop as a separate room, is solid yet perforat-ed with openings that are comparable to the windows in the museums. The idea is that the inner, thick steel shell is the bearing structure for the extension, which as a solution is rather unorthodox, but could work. The access ramps are situated in the intermediate space between the two shells. There are interesting views from the ramp both outwards and into the shop.

The proposal has been executed with an uncompromising emphasis on the form, and thus the functionality has remained secondary. The ramp connections, with their tight turns, on both sides of the museum shop create a cramped and contrived circulation route. The lift has not been utilised, but instead the proposal relies on the ramps. The logistics connection to the lift from the lower sto-rey storage could be resolved, but in terms of the circulation of visitors the situation is more chal-lenging. From the point of view of museum operations, the internal traffic in the proposal is some-what non-functional.

The graphics of the proposal are beautiful in a simple way and its naivety is a conscious choice. Despite its functional shortcomings, the architectonic merits of the work are indisputable.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




Honourable mention”Between spaces”

The architectonic idea of the complex proposal relies on a beautifully designed ramp and a wooden wall of shelves that follows the ramp. The cohesiveness of the proposal is emphasised by the fact that as the ramp functions also as a walk-through shop its storage system – the wall of shelves – forms at the same time the vertical bearing structure of the entire extension. Barrier-free routes continue in the exterior spaces on both sides of the extension, and integrate also the upper yard into the totality. New entrances into the extension are proposed from both the Ruusupuisto plaza side and the Keskussairaalantie side.

As the exterior perspectives are vague, one is left guessing at the relationship between the facades of the new part and the museums. The shape of the roof of extension seems too expressive for this location, however, and what is a small middle section takes too much attention away from the mu-seums.

The route through the extension is exciting. Of all the competition proposals with meandering ramp designs, this is the most successful one, even though, from the point of view of museum opera-tions, the solution is rather convoluted. The proposal does not present alternatives for the flexible use of spaces.

Through the use of the meandering ramp it has been possible to resolve all the essential access requirements. The cafe connects well to the lower level. The lift has not been utilised, but the con-nections to the lift could be developed further. The connections to both museums are narrow and thus the intermediate part becomes its own separate unit.

The skilfully designed, cohesive proposal creates its own unique space between the two museums. Due to its abundance of forms and labyrinthine character, however, the proposal was considered unsuitable for the location.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ





The extension has a distinct layout between the two museums. The handling of the terrain suc-cessfully continues the same straightforward design. The pleated turf roof strives to provide char-acter for the totality. The roof shape and materials add a positive vibrancy, but not all aspects are fully convincing in this location. On the main facade side, the drooping roof plane doesn’t ring true.

The functional solutions are spot on. The interior of the extension has focused on the lowest level, where the Alvar Aalto Museum cafe and the new museum shop form a uniform spatial totality on the same level. The barrier-free route to the existing lift is created smoothly without corridors. The wide double stairs up from the shop integrates the Museum of Central Finland as part of the new space. The connection to the first floor of the Alvar Aalto Museum remains a somewhat character-less narrow gallery corridor without any function. The connections from the downstairs storage to both museums are good.

The extension has been drawn in its place with economic and well-substantiated lines. The func-tional solution is almost optimal. In terms of their general appearance, however, the design and presentation are bland. They do not convey the image of an architecture that, in regard to the cityscape as well as spatially, is sufficiently powerful for such a unique location.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




6.3 Assessments: Shortlisted

The following individual assessments are of the 39 shortlisted proposals that were selected in the jury’s final assessment round. The proposals are in alphabetical order, not in relative order with each other.

A fallen leaf

The extremely minimalist proposal, consisting of a folded awning-like roof and floor seems in the illustrations al-most to disappear into the landscape. The roof floats intangibly and lightly at a level that is lower than the roofs of the lower parts of both museums. The immediate surroundings have been treated schematically.

From the point of view of the museum operations, the necessary connections have been realized only between the lobby of the Museum of Central Finland and the exhibition space of the Alvar Aalto Museum. The cafe and lobby of the Alvar Aalto Museum are not connected to the new exten-sion. The existing lift has not been utilized, and thus the barrier-free access issue in the Alvar Aalto Museum is not resolved, and goods cannot be delivered from the storage space to the various lev-els by means of the lift.

The structural solutions remain guesswork. The thickness of the architectonically most important element, the roof, should with the necessary thermal insulation be considerably more than the pro-posal suggests. The proposed roof would structurally be impossible to implement without any fur-ther load-bearing vertical structures. Load-bearing structures, in turn, might take away the propos-al’s poetic lightness and striving for almost complete immateriality.

The graphics of the proposal are unusually beautiful.

Lasisäleet

The merits of the proposal lie in the impressive facade design. The curved glass wall built from glass louvers connects the museums insightfully and adds a new impressive element to the overall cityscape.

The facade, however, is not completely transparent, which raises questions. An interaction with the environment has not been created and there is a lack of views out.

The spatial solution works well, although the design of the interior is somewhat awkwardly angular, and thus the gracefully curved facade remains a detached motif. The connection to the Museum of Central Finland is too meagre – only via the stair landing.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




Aino

The terrain in front of the extension has been shaped as stepped contour lines that continue through the fully glazed facade into the building. A light, floating ceiling adds lightness to the design. The ter-racing provides an attractive place to sit, partly under shelter. The design of the facade and the me-andering interior is bold, perhaps even a bit too curvilinear.

The main space of the connecting part is on the same level as the first floor of the Alvar Aalto Mu-seum, which results in functional weaknesses: the connection down to the cafe remains remote and at the end of a hallway.

Aknafinmus

The stack of three different floors rises high be-tween the museums. The extension functions as a viewing point between the museums. The aim has been to achieve views from the top floor to-wards the lake.

Most of the competition proposals are modest in height and underline the existing character of the place. Against this background, the idea of the extension as a viewing point is novel and exceptional. The facade facing the Ruusupuisto plaza, however, raises more questions than it provides answers to: the facade of the viewing point is rather solid.

The presentation of the proposal is very schematic. The drawings do not actually show what kinds of links are created between the museums. The connecting stairs do not provide the necessary bar-rier-free access, but rather there are several alternative, albeit tricky, routes under, over and through the museum.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




APPRECIATE AALTO

The tall, narrow glass box is placed alongside the Museum of Central Finland, and in terms of the cityscape is more closely linked to it than to the Alvar Aalto Museum. The rear of the exten-sion pulls quite far back into the slope on the plot. The long monumental staircase continues from the exterior into the interior, forming audi-torium-like seating. The extensive paved pla-zas proposed in front of both museum entranc-es eradicates the vegetation from Ruusupuisto park and creates an environment that feels too urban for the location.

This building open-mindedly contains the ingredients for a larger building. The interior of the glass box consists of oblique surfaces, glass, and wrinkled, reflective metal sheeting. In the perspective il-lustrations it feels as if the space is rolling over the viewer. From the viewpoint of the museum opera-tions, the extension works well. Even the existing lift has been utilized.

The merits of the proposal include its bold approach, lightness and transparency. However, the total-ity is too copious for this location.

Aurora Borealis

A tall, clearly demarcated glass box with an un-dulating ceiling positions itself as an indepen-dent component that doesn’t attach itself to the roofline of either of the museums.

An extensive area of paving stones in the sur-roundings does not actually enhance the pleas-antness of the area between the museums from the viewpoint of exterior lounge areas, but rath-er gives the impression of a new main entrance.

The floor plan is clear. From the point of view of the museum operations, the connections work very well and accessibility is achieved from every level. The interior opens up as a single three-storey main space. The materials are carefully selected and durable. The wooden, undulating ceiling brings warmth and playfulness to the interior.

The architectural impression is somewhat rigid due to the almost symmetrical composition in re-lation to the central axis. The different parts of the design ultimately do not create a totality that is greater than the sum of its parts.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




A26+O23

The glass-walled shop has been raised into the air, supported by slender pillars. Between the extension and the museums is a gap that ar-ticulates the disconnection of the new part from the old, and saves the museums from large openings in their exterior walls. The connec-tions to the extension take the form of narrow bridges.

Dynamism in the design of the extension has been sought with a gently curving roof, which looks impressive and stylish between the two museums. The lobby of the Museum of Central Finland and the exhibition space of the Alvar Aalto Museum are connected by a single inclined level.

Functionally, the proposal is unconvincing. A shop placed on a completely sloping surface would prove challenging in terms of its operations, when the incline required for accessibility (1:20) is not satisfied. The proposal also does not take advantage at all of the lift in the Museum of Central Fin-land. From the point of view of museum operations, the lack of access is problematic. From the level of the Alvar Aalto Museum lobby there is no barrier-free access to the upper floor or the extension. The covered outdoor space beneath the extension could in a country located more to the south be pleasantly shady, but in Finnish conditions it would be dark and unattractive.

What is particularly positive in the proposal is the pursuit of lightness and transparency. Aalto’s build-ings are viewed with respect, but there is nevertheless courage to give the extension pavilion a dy-namic form. However, the development of the concept has been left unfinished. The work would benefit from simplification, as well as the development of the functional connections.

A+A

The sculptural ramps that structure the inte-rior are beautifully designed and sit in their place naturally. Of the numerous proposals based on an integrated ramp design solu-tion, this ranks among the best. The ramps also raised critical feelings; in the space they are almost aggressively dominant, yet being so narrow they are not functionally usable.

The simple, dynamic shape and surface of the facades support the overall architectural idea. The new museum shop is functionally well linked to the ground floor of the Alvar Aalto Museum and cafe.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




BAEROZY

A façade of vertical wooden battens takes its roof line from the level of the highest point of the roof of the Alvar Aalto Museum.

The undulating, wooden internal facade of the Alvar Aalto Museum’s exhibition floor, which rep-licates the wall of Aalto’s New York Expo pavilion, is continued through the extension all the way to the Museum of Central Finland, which could be an impressive motif.

The ramps spiral around the perimeter of the museum shop, which is located at the level of the lobby of the Alvar Aalto Museum, but is unnecessarily awkwardly separated by a draft lobby with curved walls. The draft lobby eats up the shop space, making it too narrow. Some of the ramps are too steep in regard to barrier-free access. A ramp connection has been achieved all the way to the top floor of the Museum of Central Finland.

The presentation technique is unclear, and does not provide a very lucid picture of the spatial and functional nature of the proposal.

Bond

The extension is pressed into the rear slope be-tween museums, leaving in the foreground a clear shape in the exterior space. The bound-ary is completed by a tube-like gateway on the first floor level. The yard is designated as an out-door exhibition space. This is a nice idea, but the function is not necessarily justified.

As a consequence of the design solution, the appearance in regard to the cityscape is nuanced, and the facade is perceived as multilayered. The dialogue generated between the interior and the exte-rior is more interesting than usual.

Due to the placement of the extension, the link created between the museums is not ideal. The main space, the museum shop, is placed on the same level as the ground-floor cafe of the Alvar Aalto Mu-seum in a way that works well, but the connection is at the end of a lengthy corridor. The connection to the first floor of the Aalto Museum has no barrier-free access, which is a mistake. Could perhaps the connecting corridor tube be designed so that it is tilted, thus constituting a barrier-free access ramp?



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




Enveloping

The proposal has been carefully and professionally executed. The minimalist glass facade and re-cessed vertical wooden structure create a light, pavilion-like entity. The overall shape is nicely un-pretentious. The extension complements harmoniously the space between the museums.

The stepped interior is interesting but functionally awkward and inflexible. The ramp along the perim-eter of the building feels somewhat contrived.

Equinox The merit of the proposal lies in its sculptural structural form, which gives the interior space a unique atmosphere. The internal connections, especially on the ground floor, however, have not found their place in a satisfactory manner.

The massing and facade layout are unique, pro-voking interest. The design does not, however, sit seamlessly in its demanding location, amidst the important buildings designed by Alvar Aalto.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




Indigo 21

In terms of its dimensions, the exterior conforms to the Aalto surroundings, al-beit there is no clear justification for the chosen roof height. The author’s reflec-tions on the nature of the new extension are poignant in that its purpose is not actually to create a new welcoming main entrance. The facade solution could, however, increase the overall appeal of the museum complex much more than has been presented in the proposal. The window line, with its solid plinth and window type, is conventional. Turning the intermediate space between the museums into a paved plaza does not really increase the pleasant-ness of the area when the greenery has been almost completely eradicated.

The merits of the proposal are functional. A lot of useful, flat floor space that allows for the flexible adaptation of the functions is created when the stairs and a new lift do not take up a large part of the floor area. A new lift, in addition to the current lift in the Museum of Central Finland, is not a generally desirable solution, but placed as it is here, it helps to provide barrier-free access in the Alvar Aalto Museum. All the relevant connection requirements, in terms of the museum operations, have been resolved.

Spatially, the proposal does not provide any interesting experiences. The potential of the place could have been better utilised by offering wider views also on the uphill side, in the direction of the ver-dant park. No architectonic temporal layers referring to the 2000s have been created, but rather the new extension has been resolved in a way that perhaps Aalto’s contemporaries would have done.

Istahdus

The site plan looks promising. The massing of the extension is a balanced composition between the museums. However, the main facade is not quite convincing, the roof that slopes down in steps is vague, and the fenestration is not very dynamic.

The spatial solution works well overall. The museum shop sits well on the ground floor level of the Alvar Aalto Museum, though the connec-tion, however, is rather surprisingly placed behind the kitchen, so that the cafe stands alone. A wide staircase leads up to the Museum of Central Finland, which creates an impressive connection. The first floor of the Alvar Aalto Museum, on the other hand, is at the end of a somewhat bleak and nar-row staircase and gallery corridor. The lift has been well utilized.

The proposal has an interesting sculptural approach to the massing and design of the spaces. How-ever, the whole does not achieve a completely convincing balance.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




WMOPB1936

The proposal represents a design solution in which the new extension has been resolved as a sepa-rate pavilion-like block placed between the muse-ums. From this starting point, the design is consis-tent throughout and a delicate expression in regard to the cityscape has been achieved.

Due to the basic design principle, the connections to the museums, however, are cramped and the extension remains spatially detached.

KATSE

The extension takes the form of an enclosed pavilion sep-arated from the existing museums. In terms of its facade treatment and eaves height, it is more closely linked to the Alvar Aalto Museum than the Museum of Central Finland, and does not clearly become their shared intermediate space. The two windows accentuated by frames look at the visitor as if slightly cross-eyed. The grassy steps in the plaza in front of the museums are a positive addition; they are well oriented and would encourage people to sit there.

The design of the new extension is very skilful. The accessibility required by the museum operations has successfully been resolved by utilising the existing lift. The choice of materials is minimalist. Un-fortunately, the red clinker tiles of the interior walls would in reality feel stuffier than in the proposal’s beautiful interior visualizations.

Why would so few vistas be created in such an impressive place? With more transparent facades, the museum shop would have received more visibility and natural light, as well as new inputs from the surrounding landscape.

Kihlaus

The lines of the concave facade delineate the dynamic extension part between the museums, as if the buildings would have been stretched apart from each other. The ex-tension has been compressed quite narrow, which empha-sizes the transparency and continuity of the landscape through the building interior. A consequence of the solution is that there is little interior space, and hardly any function-ally open and flexible main space. The landscape is excel-lently present, but the spaces are corridor-like. The internal connections work faultlessly.

In terms of the cityscape, the appearance is discreetly balanced. The curved lines are beautiful and appropriate in the location. The simple range of materials supports the overall design.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




LOLALINA

A skilfully executed proposal consisting of three new glass-wall corridors built between the museums, and be-tween which is a small courtyard. In terms of their height, the corridors adapt to the low ceiling heights of both mu-seums. Transparency, simplicity and the pursuit of a light architectural expression are in this location the correct de-sign solutions.

The interior is full of interesting experiences and vistas beautifully open up into the landscape in two directions, as well towards the wooded courtyard. The connection pas-sages run smoothly from a central location in the lobby of the Museum of Central Finland. However, the ramps are relatively steep, and do not fulfil the barrier-free access requirements for public spaces. The existing lift has not been utilized in the best possi-ble way. The shop is located on the uphill side of the slope, in a place where it will not attract visitors approaching from the direction of Ruusupuisto plaza.

The graphic presentation is exceptionally beautiful. The challenge of this spatially interesting pro-posal is the spaces’ lack of barrier-free access

MKNTMYNA

The mass of the tall, narrow, glass extension is set next to the Museum of Central Finland and seems more like an extension to it, than one for both museums.

The main focus of the proposal is in resolv-ing the exterior areas of Ruusupuisto park. The surroundings have been drawn in out-line: a large sculpture park extends outside the competition area towards Ruusupuisto park and the street areas. However, neither of the mu-seums in the competition have a need to display outdoor sculptures. As a treatment of the overall landscape, a paved circle seems somewhat formalistic and alien in this small-scale location, even if it doesn’t stand out clearly in its surroundings as it does in the site plan.

The new extension opens impressively towards the Alvar Aalto Museum with a pleated glass facade. The intermediate floors have not been extended all the way to the glass wall – which is indeed a so-lution along the right lines – so that the shape of the wall can be perceived both on the inside and outside. The connection to the Alvar Aalto Museum’s exhibition floor is via a glass bridge. The barri-er-free access connection on the lower floor is a narrow dead-end basement corridor leading to the lift.

The connection in the direction of the Museum of Central Finland is wide, but only vaguely defined. There are too many columns and a very tall cage-like shelf steals the attention.

The proposal is rich and diverse, and could have done with vigorous simplification.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




MUSEO-AUKIO

Functionally and spatially the design solution works well. The ground floor of the Alvar Aalto Mu-seum extends impressively spaciously into the new extension, and an excellent synergy is created between the museum shop and cafe. Also the con-nection to the Museum of Central Finland is quite good. The new lift is a mistake, but in this concept it could be left out, and the old lift could be modified to cater to barrier-free access.

The appearance in terms of the cityscape, on the other hand, is not successful. The facade and sky-lights follow too closely the architecture of the existing museums. The new part lacks its own individ-ual architectural character, and the desired temporal layering has not been created.

NOLI ME TANGERE

The terrain between the mu-seums is accentuated by large stepped terraces. The museum shop and storage are located below the terraces. The cultural landscape does not change dramatically, but the verdant park-like appearance has been preserved. The museums remain visually two separate buildings.

All the interior spaces are placed at the level of the lobby of the Alvar Aalto Museum. The connec-tions rely on a long ramp and lifts. The ramp is unfortunately too steep to fulfil the requirements of barrier-free access in public spaces and breaks the connection from the lobby of the Museum of Central Finland to the lift.

The museum shop receives natural light from clerestory windows. Otherwise, the character of the interior can only be guessed at. In the design solution that involves burrowing into the ground, the lack of views as well as the lack of interesting experiences does not make the new extension attrac-tive to the visitor.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




NZ-103S

The extension is perceived as containers in different materials stacked on top of one another. The look is bold, with the distinct containers differing interestingly in scale from the existing museum buildings.

The interiors are somewhat convoluted, and with no particular glamour. The proposal lacks a cohesive main space. The narrow corridor con-nection on the bottom floor of the Alvar Aalto Museum does not work and the museum cafe remains isolated.

Purjehtia

In enriching the cityscape within the over-all wider landscape, the proposal sug-gests adding a vast number of copper pillars in Ruusupuisto park, as well as a group of turbines taller than the museums and a flapping sail made of wire mesh. The terrain is heavily terraced in a large area in front of and between the museum buildings.

Functionally, the proposal focuses more on the creation of an active public plaza than providing practical solutions for museum operations.

The proposal is more a manifesto than a feasible and functional architectural plan. It stands out dif-ferently from the other competition proposals, but in the form presented it is very difficult to perceive it as part of the cultural environment.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




R700005

The tranquil but (due to the heavy concrete pillars) rigidly symmetrical glass façade, opens up towards the Ruusupuisto park. The proposal has more of a restorative ap-proach than aiming to create a new inde-pendent extension. The new extension, which conforms to Alvar Aalto’s architec-ture, has possibly borrowed its glass fa-çade layout from the facade of the Viipuri Library. A pergola formed from vertical battens, which connects the facade line of the Alvar Aalto Museum’s café and the new extension, continuing their compositional rhythm, conceals a new entrance. This is a beautiful idea. The remainder of the yard has unjustifiably been completely ignored.

In terms of the museum operations, the design solution could be smoother. The existing lift is not utilized and barrier-free access to the lobby of the Alvar Aalto Museum is realised from the exterior. It would be possible to achieve this connection with minor adjustments. The new extension’s inter-faces with the museums are narrow because there was a desire to leave the museums’ facades to-wards the extension unaltered.

The competition task has been resolved in a practical way, respecting Aalto and conforming to the themes he made familiar. However, what is lacking is an architecture that subtly refers to the present day, generating additional value.

Sarana

The spiral-shaped proposal has been well adapted in terms of its height be-tween the museums. The internal circu-lation of the new extension is evident in the façade that turns with the ramps. The vertical wooden lamellas and glass are natural material choices. Solutions for the exterior spaces have not really been pre-sented.

Functionally, the proposal is like its pseudonym (meaning ’hinge’). All the essential connections of a museum have successfully been resolved.

The interior perspective gives a too dreary impression. The whole of the proposal and, in particular the central space that impressively opens up from the shop recess, could have been made more in-viting if the evenly circular shape would have been made more relaxed with a freer curve.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




Silta

The relaxed yet bold design contains interesting vistas and rest areas, both indoors and outdoors. The exterior stairs leading to the roof of the Mu-seum of Central Finland is an impres-sive motif. This same idea can be found in several of the proposals, but there are no entirely convinc-ing arguments for this connection. In this proposal, however, the stairs is a natural part of the whole.

The spaces are located in the correct place. The museum shop is on the lower level, from which there is a well working access to the cafe and the Museum of Central Finland. A pleasantly mean-dering bridge leading to the first floor of the Alvar Aalto Museum adds character to the space, but in terms of its materials and details it is somewhat conventional. The charm of the plan lies in its easy panache, which could have been taken one step further.

In regard to the cityscape, the proposal sails in safe waters: the main facade is simple and unosten-tatious, consisting of an immaterial glazed wall through which the interior can be perceived.

Speak Low

The spatial layout of the proposal is successful: the centrally placed mu-seum shop is a tall space, around the perimeter of which winds an ascend-ing stairs and loft corridor, linking to-gether the floors of the museums. The solution is functional, albeit the plan has some individual defects, such as the access to the lift from the lower level and connecting the cafe to the museum shop. These would, however, be easily fixable.

The external architecture continues the well-balanced approach. The clear form and the rhythm of the vertical structures of the glass facade set the extension easily into its place. The enrootment is helped by the skilful treatment of the exterior space.

The interior space and the appearance in regard to the cityscape, however, lack architectural char-acter. This could be a conscious choice, considering the author’s pseudonym. In any case, a func-tional spatial solution would well have allowed for a more inspirational design, one which would have made the whole more attractive.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




Sunshinetc

The trick in the distinctive proposal is that the exten-sion is not visible in the landscape, but rather is hidden almost entirely un-derground. The only new element in the urban space is a light, U-shaped glass corridor. On the uphill side, within the shade of the glazed corridor, has been proposed a location for outdoor events, which could pleasantly activate the museum areas during the summer.

The floor plans are too vague in presenting the connections to the museums. In particular, the changes resulting from the proposed connection to the Alvar Aalto Museum remain unresolved.

The biggest challenge is that the main space in the extension, i.e. the shop, is completely under-ground and bunker-like. It would be difficult to entice museum visitors there when no visual connec-tion has been created from any direction.

Suvanto

A monumental stairs run-ning parallel to the slope and a powerful canopy to-gether form a generous space, which opens up pleasantly into the landscape in both directions. The canopy is supported by light-transmitting glass pillars. The plot is beautifully treated as a park and thoroughfare with varying views. The extension is a covered part of the park.

Essential connections have successfully been resolved as barrier-free access by utilizing the exist-ing lift.

The atmosphere of the space resembles somehow a station building where people pass through. The existing main entrances of the museums would receive stiff competition. The minimalist mate-rial palette underlines the serious yet nonetheless architecturally impressive character of the pro-posal. A little more relaxed and playful approach would have made the proposal an even more invit-ing place to be for the general public.

A very professionally executed and interesting proposal.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




Tangent Circle

The new cylindrical extension only slightly cuts into the outer perimeters of the two museum buildings. The roof height is ab-solutely correct. The facade ma-terials, dark-blue curved tiles on the lower floor, and the wood and glass on the upper floor, are all loans from Alvar Aalto’s buildings. In this place the dark curved tiles feel alien and even heavy. The power of the form of the new extension on its own, without several material loans, would have been sufficient to generate a dialogue between the old and the new. No improvements have been pro-posed for the exterior spaces.

Functionally, the proposal resembles a hinge. The shop is located in the middle and the ramps run around it in a spiral. The creation of an open central space seems a cohesive and workable solution. Extensive views open up into the surroundings. No internal connection has been proposed from the new extension into the cafe or the lobby of the Alvar Aalto Museum, but it would be possible to de-velop one. The existing lift has not been utilized.

The proposal’s concept is interesting, but it lacks originality and sensitivity, particularly in the choice of materials in relation to this place.

Tauko

The proposal represents the very best in the category “bur-rowed underground”. The new building is concealed in its en-tirety beneath a natural terrain form modelled on the exist-ing situation. This is, of course, quite a safe starting point in terms of the cityscape, but the interior inevitably become rather bleak. A contact with the surroundings is not created. Such a hidden design solution is actually difficult to justify.

In itself, the proposal, starting from its initial premise, is very consistently and skilfully executed. The internal circulation and functions are appropriately solved. Something special could perhaps have been created from the terrain above the extension; as presented, the greenness only trickles down without any deeper thought.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




THE HUB

The strong sculptural block between the museums does not defer to the museums alongside it, but rath-er determinedly takes its own place. The building ris-es above the Alvar Aalto Museum, which is already dubious.

The interior is impressive, even sacral. It is at the same time very self-contained, and does not suffi-ciently interact with its surroundings. The function-al requirements have been resolved, albeit in some places in a somewhat complex manner.

The Rays

The fan-like proposal divides the extension into five longitudinal units, the heights of which vary. In the di-rection of Ruusupuisto plaza and up the slope, the ends of the segments are made of glass, which is an appropriate solution. New routes criss-crossing through the extension might encourage encounters between people and encourage people to enter the museum shop.

The interior has the feel of an exterior space, like a pergola in the park. An entirely glass-roofed so-lution could be challenging in the Finnish climate, when the alternately freezing and melting snow often breaks the seals of skylights. Structurally, the proposal is nevertheless very distinct and con-sistent with its concrete screens and wooden beams.

From the point of view of museum operations, the proposal has not been fully resolved. The ramp takes up a lot of floor space and the existing lift is not utilised in the design of the extension. The mu-seums’ visitors do not have an internal barrier-free access from the lobby of the Alvar Aalto Museum via the extension to the Museum of Central Finland. The storage and technical space should also serve the needs of the Museum of Central Finland.

This is a structurally strong and clear concept, which has skilfully exploited themes favoured by Al-var Aalto, that is, the fan composition and an interior space with the feel of an exterior space.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




The Spiral embracing time

The proposal is a large sculpture, which un-questioningly has taken its place between the museums. The proposal has a strong will, and comprises interesting themes and ideas. The powerful design in this location already borders, however, on arrogance.

In the interior the author has focused on creating a dramatic central space. There are several func-tional shortcomings. There is no proper connection to the ground floor of the Alvar Aalto Museum and cafe. Also the connections to the extension are via tube-like intermediate parts, and thus impor-tant open spatial connections between the museums are not created.

Thoth

The idea of the water motif that continues through the new extension is interesting and draws together the spa-tial solution in an interesting way. The spatial solution is, however, functionally too fragmented.

In regard to the cityscape, the appearance of the exten-sion raises mixed feelings. The facade division of inter-linked blocks decreases the scale appropriately, but the design does not otherwise quite fit in with this location.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




Untitled 1955

A rational, glass-walled space has been designed on two lev-els beneath a gently curving turf roof.

In the exterior perspective the relationship between the extension and the two museums designed by Alvar Aalto is vague, but the turf roof merges with the landscape, especially in summer against the backdrop of the verdant wooded landscape. The shallow undulating form of the turf roof remains sloppy and too timid.

The merits of the proposal are the transparency of the glazed facades, the opening via the entranc-es into the exterior space, and the idea of utilising the yards on each side of the extension. The use of wood in the ceiling is a sympathetic idea.

The solution is spatially very distinct. The space for the museum shop is large, open, convenient and with the potential for flexibility. It is located naturally at the same level as the cafe, and a gallery links together the two museums at the level of the Alvar Aalto Museum’s exhibition space. The floor plan works well from the viewpoint of museum operations, but the connection to the lobby of the Museum of Central Finland from the landing of a slightly mundane staircase does not utilise the architectural possibilities of the design task.

The proposal solves the functional objectives, but spatially does not capture the equivalent sensi-tivity of an Alvar Aalto oil painting, which has inspired the concept. In this location that would have been an advantage.

user1314

The idea of the proposal is bold. The extension is formed of weight-bearing bookshelves which demarcate the ramps con-necting the different levels. The rest of the roof and facades are glass. The idea has been applied rigorously throughout, making the plan handsome and in a good way “non-building-like”.

However, the solution does not work very well. The spaces left between the shelves are corridor-like and inflexible. There is no proper connection from the ground floor of the Alvar Aalto Museum.

The extension is a fascinating revelation between the museums. However, its implementation would be quite challenging. A lot of the enchantment of the uncompromising design would disappear if the glass structures were not realized, in accordance with the proposal, as completely ethereal.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




150808

The functions and connec-tions have been solved well. The main space of the new extension is correctly placed on the ground floor, where there is a good connection to the Alvar Aalto Museum cafe and to the Mu-seum of Central Finland along an open stairs, which, however, could be wider.

In regard to the cityscape, the proposal is understatedly matter-of-fact. The facade, composed of bent glass panes, seems exciting, but its technical feasibility in a northern climate raises doubts.

9335 Wave

A glass pavilion with an un-dulating roof forms a “flying carpet” between the muse-ums. The roof curves in a fairly steady rhythm, and the resul-tant eaves line is not elegantly wave-like (“Aalto-like”).

The pavilion walls, both up- and downhill, are entirely of glass, which makes the pro-posal pleasantly lightweight and transparent.

The floor solution of the museum shop is stepped, and marked by broken lines. The connection from the exhibition floor of the Alvar Aalto Museum to the Museum of Central Finland runs behind four ramps. No interior connection is indicated either to the lobby or cafe of the Alvar Aalto Museum. The whole created by the ramp arrangements, together with the boundaries between the interior and ex-terior spaces, is disorganized.

When making a strong design gesture, as here for example with the roof, the other simultaneously strong gestures, such as the freely terraced ground level and the meandering demarcation of the fa-cade surface, begin to detract from each other.



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




6.5 ASSESSMENT: OTHERS

The following is a general assessment of all other entries than the winners, purchases, honourable mentions and shortlisted entries.

Many entries were almost too careful in their approach to the existing Alvar Aalto buildings. There were entries where the connection to the extension was created by simply opening the existing doors. A vast majority of the entries used glass as the major façade material, ramps for accessibility and terraces in order to develop the site into a more harmonized ensemble.

Reasons for not succeeding to the prize winning level were severe problems with accessibility, in-troducing a new unnecessary elevator, and exceeding the determined building site and given maxi-mum square meters.

You may argue that some of these faults can also be found in the winning entries. The result of the Prize Committee was to find the best ideas regardless of the problems. There was no entry with a perfect solution. So the Prize Committee had to base its decisions solely on the most promising ideas.

The glass boxes were the most common entry type. More than a fifth of the entries fall into this cat-egory. A combination of ramps and a glass box comes second. Ramps were very popular among the entries. In addition to these fine entries we must mention the entries with a tower structure, and the Aalto-Savoy-vase as a basis for the design.

8 OPENING OF THE FILES CONTAINING THE PSEUDONYM INFORMATION

The files containing the pseudonym information were opened after the decision of the winners in the meeting of the jury 13 January 2016.

1.Prize (14 000€)”Silmu”

Authors:

Sini Rahikainen Hannele Cederström Inka Norros Kirsti Paloheimo Maria Kleimola



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




2.Prize (7 000€)”Kannel”

Authors:

Tarmo Juhola Essi Peltola Anna Juhola

Assistants:

Anna Hakamäki Minna-Maija Sillanpää

3.Prize (5 000€)”The Ground and the Roof”

SMAR Architecture Studio

Authors:

Fernando Jerez Belen Perez de Juan

Assistants:

Xinyi Wang Kristen de Gregorio Alejandro Gil

Purchase (2 000€)”A2A”

Arkkitehtuurityöhuone BUENAVENTURA

Authors:

Janne Ekman Aapo Huotarinen Kasmir Jolma Teemu Paasiaho Ville Reima Lassi Viitanen

Assistants:

Juuso Iivonen Tytti Turpeinen



CITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ




Purchase (2 000€)”Huone näkymällä”

Authors:

Antti Soini Leo Lindroos

Assistants:

Tuuli Kanerva Milla Tissari

Honourable mention”Between Spaces”

Authors:

Luis Fco. Romero Martinez Sandra Gomez Alba


Author:

Sami Vikström