INTERNATIONAL SKETCH DESIGN COMPETITION
“RIGA PHILHARMONIC”
ID No. RDĪD 2023/5
The 1st competition took place from 18 january until 10 may 2023
JURY REPORT
RIGA
2023
International Sketch Design Competition “Riga Philharmonic”, further in the text – Competition – is open and it is organized in two rounds.
1. The aim of the Sketch Design Competition is to obtain a sustainable, high-quality architectural and functional solution that would meet the requirements set out in the Competition Brief and the Designing Programme, a vision for the future development of the RIGA PHILHARMONIC and select a developer of the construction design.
1.1. The goal to be achieved in the 1st round of the Sketch Design Competition is to select 6 (six) Sketch Designs which, in the Jury’s opinion, have proposed the best functional and architectural solution for the RIGA PHILHARMONIC in the urban environment of the historic centre of Riga, so that in the 2nd competition round to elaborate this proposal in a higher level of detailing in accordance with the Brief and the Designing Programme.
1.2. The aim to be achieved as part of the 2nd competition round is to determine the winner of the Competition who will be invited to the Negotiation Procedure.
2. The subject of the Sketch Design Competition is the functional and architectural solution for the Riga Philharmonic in the urban environment of the historic centre of Riga, which consists of:
– the master plan of the territory of the Competition Object (including landscaping solution and transport movement scheme), taking into account its particular location in the historic centre of Riga and within the architectural monument of national importance – Kronvalda Park;
– the solutions of the functional layout and architectural image of the RIGA PHILHARMONIC in line with the list of the required spaces and planning requirements set out in the Designing Programme.
3. 2.1. The Commissioner means the Property Department of the Riga City Council, registration No. 90000038741, address: Riharda Vāgnera iela 5, Riga, LV-1050, telephone: +371 67037217, e-mail: Arta.Goldberga@riga.lv
4. The Jury commission
Chairperson of the Jury – Mr. Gatis Didrihsons, architect, member of the Council of the Latvian Association of Architects, head of the National Council of Architecture, appointed representative of the Ministry of Culture;
Member of the Jury:
Mr. Juris Dambis, architect, head of the National Heritage Board, member of the National Council of Architecture, member of the Latvian Association of Architects;
Mr. Pēteris Ratas, Riga City architect, head of the Riga City Architect’s Service;
Ms. Liene Griezīte, architect, representative of the Latvian Association of Architects; Ms. Indra Purs, landscape architect, head of the Board of the Latvian Association of Landscape Architects, member of the National Council of Architecture;
Ms. Katrin Koov, architect, Council Member of the Estonian Association of Architects, representative of EAA;
Mr. Rolandas Palekas, architect, representative of the Lithuanian Association of Architects, member of the Lithuanian council for culture;
Mr. David Cook, RIBA, BDA architect, Partner Haascookzemmrich Studio 2050;
Ms. Indra Lūkina, Latvian National Symphony Orchestra;
Mr. Guntars Ķirsis, “Latvijas Koncerti”, member of the board;
Aivar Mäe, manager, Estonia;
A standby member of the Jury:
Mr. Juris Poga architect, President of the Latvian Association of Architects, member of the National Council of Architecture
The Coordinator of the Jury:
Dace Kalvāne, architect, Board Member of the Latvian Association of Architects (representative appointed by the Organizer of the Competition)
5. Jury report
The Jury evaluated the Sketch Designs submitted in the 1st competition round against the principles of the New European Bauhaus, i.e. beauty, sustainability and inclusion, which will be taken into account in each of the following evaluation criteria:
5.1. Urban concept
5.1.1. Blending of the Object’s architecture within the urban scenery:
– respect of the building’s architectural image for particular conditions of the site (i.e. park, Riga historic center, mixture of various architectural styles, including historic (Soviet) values;
– suitability of the materials used in the finish of the newly constructed building (to accentuate its architectural image and uniqueness) in terms of historical references and scenic values;
– visual recognizability of the entrance area and its suitability for the character of the building;
– proposals how to link the proposed landscaping solutions and architecture with the park.
5.1.2. Integration into the city transport system (access, approach, deliveries):
– convenience of movement and access for the visitors of the Philharmonic, the park and transit of pedestrians/cyclists considering the specific type of the object;
– evaluation of public transport stops and pedestrian routes linking them and justification of the changes introduced;
– the quality of organization of supply routes to the Philharmonic, the approach of large trucks, the convenience of unloading/loading and the discretion of the loading area.
5.2. Reconstruction concept
– Historical continuity of the architectural object (both in the exterior and interior). Interpretation of the compositional nature of the existing facades or their parts and integration in the Sketch Design solutions.
– A claim to architectural quality and landmark qualities of the object.
5.3. Functional concept
5.3.1. Possibility of fulfilling the acoustic requirements:
– the cubic capacity of the room and the appropriate number of spectators/musicians;
– adequacy of the dimensions and proportions of the spaces of the Main and Small Hall.
5.3.2. Clarity of the layout and interconnectivity of groups of interior functional spaces:
– compliance of the arrangement, location, area and cubic volume of rooms and groups of rooms with the provisions of the Commissioner’s design assignment;
– compliance of the stage arrangement;
– ease of artists’ movement daily and during performances;
– convenience of supply/loading flows;
– the quality of the organization of a visitor flow, access to halls and convenience of using the foyer during breaks;
– a rational solution to the layout of the resident rooms, efficient use of areas, their connection with the Main and Small Halls.
5.3.3. Environmental accessibility and/or universal design principles used in all publicly accessible spaces, shared, rehearsal and performance spaces of the resident and guest artists.
6. Jury decision
The jury sessions were held between 8 and 10 June in the existing Riga Congress Centre with all 38 competition entries exhibited in the public foyers on three floors.
Before setting to work, the jury particularly emphasized this was the first competition round aimed at selection of 6 entries which could be improved for the second competition round. For the second round, the applicants must prepare more precise sketch design solutions, based on the suggestions (objections) expressed by the jury members.
The 38 entries illustrated different concepts for the arrangement of the main performance spaces, and their respective support spaces. This had an immediate effect on the massing of the proposals and their functionality. These concepts were developed to differing levels of resolution.
Jury sessions commenced with a brief review of all 38 entries with the jury members touring the exhibition (the jury members had received beforehand the entries in digital format) and discussing the attributes of the respective entries; general strategy, massing distribution, general organization, response to context (park and existing buildings). The jury acknowledged the complexity of the task, stressing the highly diverse programme with definite technical requirements, the demands of an inner-city heritage site where the retention of the existing building must be taken into consideration.
Reports were heard from the Technical Committee who had carried out their reviews in advance of the jury sessions assessing the compliance of the submitted entries, namely: adherence to the programme, acoustic requirements, compliance with technical organization, urban design considerations, landscape, transport, stage technology, management of the complex.
A healthy debate of the jury discussing the submitted sketch designs extended over the three days, the sessions were chaired by Gatis Didrihsons.
Results of the 1st competition round.
The jury agreed on concrete entries to be forwarded for the second round, rejecting non-conforming entries and additionally discussing those works on which jury members could not reach consensus. Certain submissions were rejected on the basis of flawed layouts and organization, incorrect plans and sections preventing full functioning of the building and fulfilment of its goals, where significant deviations from the programme were allowed, where significant ideological and design flaws of the work were present, as well as works lacking presentation quality or unfeasible works. The other entries works were thoroughly analyzed.
After first round of reviews the number of proposals diminished from the 38 to 21.
In the following sessions, the received solutions were evaluated taking into account the opinions by the technical experts, considering options for their further development, paying special attention to the advantages of the proposed ideas as well as their potential for improvement and implementation. Using this approach, 14 entries were selected by voting, which, according to the jury, could be among the shortlisted six entries.
After several votes, the debate continued before identifying 6 proposals out of these 14 which would advance to the second competition round.
The jury completed evaluation of the entries submitted at the first round of the sketch design competition on 10 June 2023 and prepared the Jury Opinion.
The jury has decided to include the following entries in the second round of the sketch design competition:
9_RIG19900504
17_EKADEFT
18_MOL7Y21T0L8
21_RFCNIL4
34_Baltic Shine
37_TAKE FIVE
The jury has decided to exclude the following entries in the second round of the sketch design competition:
1_96369
2_E6Z6
3_MZ/X
4_POLYPHONIC753
5_KV26LJ41
6_L56WR
7_080KK33
8_P41Y032
10_BK6312
11_AA8888
12_2bi!!008
13_LSD501328
14_STAGETHEPARK
15_MNTBRG23
16_SNYILB5836
19_5RIVERSTONES
20_R1GASHARMONICG3M
22_CRESCENDO
23_THE SOUND OF SILENCE
24_AUSMA
25_ PHILO
26_KP64R
27_FELL-HARMONY
28_ECHOES
29_MAKEITSOUND
30_01L17A25M07D
31_WING
32_ABSLTWNNR8
33_VĒJŠ UN AKMENS
35_TRMV00
36_MONIJA
38_SONUS
7. Jury confirmation:
Chairperson of the Jury
Mr. Gatis Didrihsons, architect, member of
the Council of the Latvian Association of Architects,
head of the National Council of Architecture,
appointed representative of the Ministry of Culture
Member of the Jury:
Mr. Juris Dambis, architect, head of
the National Heritage Board,
member of the National Council of Architecture,
member of the Latvian Association of Architects
Mr. Pēteris Ratas, Riga city architect,
head of the Riga City Architect’s Service
Ms. Liene Griezīte, architect,
representative of the Latvian Association of Architects
Ms. Indra Purs, landscape architect,
head of the Board of the Latvian Association of Landscape Architects,
member of the National Council of Architecture
Ms. Katrin Koov, architect,
Council Member of the Estonian Association of Architects,
Representative of EAA
Mr. Rolandas Palekas, architect,
representative of the Lithuanian Association of Architects,
member of the Lithuanian council for culture
Mr. David Cook, RIBA, BDA architect,
Partner Haascookzemmrich Studio 2050
Ms. Indra Lūkina,
Latvian National Symphony Orchestra
Mr. Guntars Ķirsis,
“Latvijas Koncerti” member of the board
Aivar Mäe,
manager, Estonia
A standby member of the Jury:
Mr. Juris Poga architect,
President of the Latvian Association of Architects,
member of the National Council of Architecture
The Coordinator of the Jury:
Dace Kalvāne, architect,
Board Member of the Latvian Association of Architects
Riga, 10 June, 2023