In November 2013, an International two-stage architectural design competition for the buidling of the Arvo Pärt Centre to be located in Laulasmaa, Estonia approximately 20 miles West of Tallinn was announced. The open first stage asked for qualifications and the invited second stage included an international selection of 20 architects, with 18 final submitted entries.
Not quite your typical architectural competition brief, this video represents the special nature of this project well. More than a third of the video is dedicated to a drone video recording of the project site on a peninsula by the sea covered in pine forest to Pärt’s music. This reinforces the jury and foundation’s desire that the project „not work against the forest but with it“ and an understanding and translation of Pärt’s music.
Tabula model entry
Diagrammatic Plan
In June, the winner was announced by President Toomas Hendrik Ilves as Project entry „Tabula“ by Spanish architects Fuensanta Nieto and Enrique Sobejano. In the end of August I joined a group guided tour of an exhibition of all the competition entries at the Museum of Estonian Architecture in Tallinn lead by Michael Pärt, son Arvo and Nora Pärt, who acted as the chairmand of the jury and is also the Chairman of the Board of the Arvo Pärt Center.
Michael Pärt, son Arvo and Nora Pärt, leading tour through competition entries
It was an insightful tour, not just as a walkthrough of the entries but into the the thought process of jury and in understanding the goals of the Centre. They unanimously had agreed on the winning entry early on and most of the debate had been between the order of the 2nd and 3rd prizes. Having a strong idea and concept that drove the project design, but was flexible enough that required changes would not destroy the overall project vision was a strength of the winning project and a means through which Michael Pärt discussed the merits or restraints of the projects. For example a programmatic change, either in size or location that the jury identified would be needed could completely transform a scheme- making the project not hold up. In this way, Tabula offered a very flexible clear solution based on geometric patterns that could be adjusted. The conversations of the tour varied from design concept execution to practical matters such as materiality and roof designs collecting or shedding all the pine needles that will fall on the site.
Tabalu entry boards
Images from http://www.dezeen.com/2014/07/01/nieto-sobejano-arvo-part-centre-estonia/
The Jury’s assessment lists the most important criteria that the jury was considering as:
- the symbolic value of this small but important memorial establishment, which should be iconic in a humble way
- the suitability to the surrounding environment and opportunities for direct contact with nature
- the practicality, functional interaction and flexibility of the room layout
- sufficient daylight, especially in the workrooms within this generally shady forest environment
- the solution of the auditorium, to be a magnet aesthetically as well as acoustically
As an architecture student where so much of what we do in school is dependent on your ability to communicate your ideas through drawings, images and models it was interesting for me hear critique on the competition entries through an owner and jurors perspective.
Additional Information and Resources
See some more images from the tour :
A full jury’s report and assessment with comments on all projects
Competition information on the Architect’s Union website
The models of the projects were just as varied and interesting as the projects--- images of all of them can be found on the Arvo Pärt Centres webpage along with a wealth of information on the Centre.
Write ups by international architecture online magazines can be found here