the helsinki model

1715, is the number of entries the open design competition Helsinki Guggenheim has received. Whatever reasons being ruminated on its success the event has unleashed an unexpected problem of the age – How to pick an ideal solution in a viral design competition? The jury comprises of 11 individuals who are surprisingly of two categories, politicians and architects. “As jurors, we are privileged with the responsibility of assessing the submitted concepts and are excited to explore their potential for Helsinki and for museum design at large” clearly emphasizes that Mark Wigley and his crew aren’t going to get creative at the judging process. In spirit of “finnish openness” it is plausible if a bit more clarity is shed on methods of selection for the next Guggenheim iteration.

Criteria adequately positioned between the principles suggested is as outstanding design, landmark of Helsinki, sensitivity to historic waterfront, sustainable place-making, strong connections to the urban context and design informed by Nordic ideals. These ideologies are to be packaged on the identified parcel of land and presented in three parts with HEADS (contents) as follows: A (Concept Description), B (Four A1 Size Boards) and C (Two Images & Press Summary). Assuming each submission could have had minimum 2 collaborators working on it for a span of one month, 8 hours a day, time invested for this task is definitely calculated to the obscene. To quantify this magnitude of engagement on the project and categorically pool all the ideas proposed for ecological reasons services of data scientist is proposed for commission to serve on the jury list.

Model at Helsinki is suggested to as prototype for analysis of volume submissions at open design competitions. Based on the principles, data capture is broken down into six parts, i.e. six tags are required per project when cataloged. Tags are based on a mutually acceptable list under each of the principles as decided by the jury. With tags the first level of pattern formation to the design set is presented. Additionally, a simplified building form catalog can be assembled from options at hand. When a user interacts with the interface, priority will be given to sort tags and associate a desired building from on site. Due to present stage of the competition tags will be assigned per entry in recommendation by the review committee. Subsequent assignment of tags plays the role in distinguishing the entries and informs a tentative jury criteria of the broad project pile available. Two conditions can be presented for the user to submit a) selection from list of projects wherein all six tags are given or b) propose an alternative combination using a combination of tags and desired building form.

Viability of such a model shifts the role of the jury from a curated selection committee to an agency that enhances selection and creation of an already popular public building project. The Helsinki model is an enabler to extend and bring in broader conversations instead of just opinions on container design.

Thank you for your submission to CLOG: Guggenheim. Unfortunately, we will not be able to publish your pieces in this issue. We hope that you will consider submitting to future issues of CLOG.