The Guggenheim’s open architectural competition for its proposed Helsinki facility has attracted “the largest number of entries recorded for a competition of this kind,” according to today’s press release by the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation. Some 1,715 anonymous submissions from 77 countries were received, “according to voluntary data provided by 70 percent of competitors,” the Guggenheim reports.
Whether this astonishing quantity will result in quality remains to be seen. Some, if not most, seasoned practitioners may well have declined to participate such a free-for-all of anonymous submissions, especially since the City of Helsinki has not entirely bought into the project.
Six entries will be selected by an 11-member jury to be publicly presented in Helsinki on Dec. 2. But although the shortlisted architects will be named, they won’t be matched to their designs (“in accordance with European Union procurement rules,” according to the Guggenheim’s press release). The chosen six will be invited to peruse the proposed museum site in December. Their final submissions will be due in March, with the winner to be announced in June. All six in this beauty pageant will received financial compensation: $136,000 for the winner; $75,000 for the five runners-up.
And then what?
There’s no assurance yet of government approval or sufficient financial backing for this project to actually go forward.
Former Guggenheim director Tom Krens, who envisioned a network of Global Guggenheims, excelled at getting great designs from his chosen architects for ambitious schemes. The only problem (with the exception of the Guggenheim Bilbao and a modest, now defunct Berlin outpost housed by Deutsche Bank) is that these projects never actually materialized, often because of insufficient local support and commitment.
Guggenheim director Richard Armstrong is now going to great lengths to give the Helsinki community a sense of ownership and (non-binding) participation in his institution’s latest foreign foray. In late October, an online gallery of submitted entries will be launched on the Guggenheim Helsinki Design Competition website and will include opportunities for the public to identify and share their top selections [emphasis added].
Whether the 11 jurors’ decision-making will in any way be influenced by this crowd-sourced vetting remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, Checkpoint Helsinki (along with G.U.L.F. [Global Ultra Luxury Faction] and Terreform, New York) continues its renegade ways, creating a Next Helsinki competition for alternate suggestions on “ways in which Helsinki and its South Harbor can be transformed for the maximum benefit of the city.”