“It was very interesting for us to participate in this competition, despite the serious workload with current work,” the architects admit. “There are several reasons: first, to design the Guggenheim Museum is a serious creative challenge in itself; secondly, Helsinki is an understandable and well-known city from our travels, which, moreover, is related to Russian history; thirdly, the proposed site is located in the center, but is occupied by the unattractive warehouse buildings of the port terminal, and we are impressed by the opportunity to include it in the city's public life; fourthly, Scandinavian architecture and culture have always been very close to us in spirit; finally, it is important that the conditions for participation in the competition were simple and transparent."
The place for the future museum has indeed been chosen as a landmark. In fact, this is the sea gate of the city and its most tourist center, in addition, the beautiful Tyakhtitornin Vuori Park is located nearby, not far from the busy market square with the presidential palace, and the Assumption Cathedral on the opposite side of the bay. The solution proposed by the architects of the DNA group harmoniously fits into the existing line of the embankment development. The building "retreats" somewhat from the pier, creating a free public area. “The plot is allocated a small one, at the same time, according to the terms of the competition, the building height is limited, it is also impossible to go“underground”, and the functional program is quite extensive. Despite this, we have left a significant part of the embankment site free from buildings and made it available for urban life,”the authors say. Moreover, the first floor is designed almost transparent, which ensures absolute interpenetration of the external and internal spaces, and the second literally hangs over the embankment, making part of the public area comfortable in any weather.
The rectangular building is connected by a wooden bridge to the adjacent green hill, providing a pedestrian link between the park and the embankment. This bridge smoothly turns into a kind of "cut" in the body of the building, which is located on the visual axis of the park's observation deck - the Assumption Cathedral. It gradually expands, at an angle dividing the volume into two asymmetric parts and descends to the embankment as a spectacular amphitheater. This new urban space, which brings to mind the famous Senate Square staircase leading to the Cathedral, offers beautiful views of the bay, the Orthodox church and the presidential palace. And from the opposite side of the bay and from the water for sailing ships, the building looks a bit like a seagull spreading its wings. There are a lot of them here.
In Swedish the name of the city sounds like Helsingfors. Fors can be translated as “rapids” or “rapids”. This image was reflected in the project: a depression in the building's massif, directing pedestrian flows from the park to the embankment, really resembles a river bed with characteristic elevation differences. Another image is the ancient sacral stones found on the territory of northern Europe, the so-called seids. Often they are seemingly unstable boulders raised on low "legs". It is quite natural that wood was chosen as the main material. The authors proposed to sheathe the entire upper volume with wooden panels, with characteristic glazed slots, reminiscent of cracks in an old timber. The amphitheater is also wooden, and it is planned to use surfaces of various textures. The wood is used only by local producers and all of it can be recycled.
Since the social component in the project is very important, the architects functionally divided the building into two volumes - the lower “city” one and the upper one with the museum halls. The lower one is more transparent; access can be opened regardless of the museum's operating hours. It houses the lobby, conference room, shop, restaurant and classrooms. In essence, the first floor becomes functionally and visually a continuation of the embankment, solving one of the main urban planning tasks of this narrow section of including it in the system of the city-wide space. The entrance of the equipment serving the museum and restaurant is organized from the end opposite to the entrance and is combined with the platform of the cargo terminal of the port, so that cars will not interfere with pedestrians in any way.
The upper volume of the regular rectangular shape, in contrast to the transparent bottom, is made material and is intended for museum expositions. Its interior space is neutral and versatile enough, it is suitable for any kind of exhibitions. The wooden volume is lowered to the lower level with stepped supports. Their layered, gradually decreasing shape resembles the pattern of the age rings of tree trunks. The main support is the reverse side of the amphitheater funnel, which forms the space of the museum lobby. Additional technical rooms are hidden inside the wooden pillars, so that visitors perceive the space as unified and open.
But of course, such an ambitious project is impossible without sophisticated engineering and the integration of modern resource-saving technologies. The architects, based on the position of the building directly on the seafront, proposed using the water of the harbor for heating and air conditioning the premises of the building using heat pumps. There are also installed collectors to collect rainwater for use as "gray". In the roof of the building there are skylights covered with glass cones, their northern side allows light to pass freely inside, and solar panels are installed on their southern side, at the same time reducing direct sunlight. Mirrors are located vertically below them, redirecting sunlight down into the rooms. A similar re-reflection system works in the "slots" of the side facades. The ceiling and walls inside the building are made of frosted glass. On the walls behind it there is also a layer of TIMax GL translucent thermal insulation material.
It is customary to value Scandinavian architecture for its openness, connection with the environment, simplicity and laconism of forms, natural materials, and environmental friendliness. Critics of the direction call such projects boring, too “correct”, even a little insipid. It seems that Daniil Lorenz, Natalya Sidorova, Konstantin Khodnev, Alexandra Koptelova, Alena and Igor Kashirin managed to preserve all the characteristic and beloved features of the Scandinavian style, but at the same time they created an accurate, subtle, memorable image.
