| Current | September 2023 | On Tuesday and Wednesday, 29 and 30 August 2023, the jury met again in Düsseldorf to discuss and evaluate the four designs that qualified for the second stage. In the meeting, the qualities and ideas of the designs revised on the basis of the information from the jury meeting in the first stage and the presentation dates of the participants' colloquium in the second stage were again intensively discussed. Finally, the design by UNStudio (Amsterdam) was awarded 1st prize. To acknowledge the high level of quality, the three designs by the offices ingenhoven associates (Düsseldorf), Hadi Teherani Architects (Hamburg) and HPP Architekten (Düsseldorf) were each awarded 2nd prize. All information on the competition result can be found under the tab "Result". The designs are also presented on the project homepage of the promoter. April 2023 | On Wednesday, March 29, 2023, the jury came together for their 1st stage jury meeting in order to discuss and evaluate the 10 designs that were submitted in the first stage of the competition. During the meeting the submissions, which consistently reflected a high level of quality and diversity, were intensively discussed within the jury and evaluated taking in account all the criteria of the complex design task. During the end of the all-day meeting, the four design works of the offices ingenhoven associates (Düsseldorf), Hadi Teherani Architects (Hamburg), HPP Architekten (Düsseldorf) und UNStudio (Amsterdam) were selected, which are now invited to further work on the design task in the second stage of the competition. January 2023 | The competition was launched on December 16, 2022, with the distribution of the documents to the participants. On January 19th, 2023 the jury discussed and approved the competition brief right before the participants' colloquium took place on the same day. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Promoter | HBS 39 GmbH & Co. KG represented through ddp Invest GmbH Rolandstraße 44, 40476 Düsseldorf, Germany in turn represented through Stefan H. Mühling and Bastian Julius Chief Executives in aggreeement with the City of Düsseldorf (state capital) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Type of competition | The competition was held as a restricted planning competition with two stages in accordance with the "Guidelines for Planning Competitions 2013" (RPW 2013) §3 para. 1 as a realization competition) and §3 para. 3, 4 and 5. The procedure was anonymous in the 1st stage and was carried out in the 2nd stage in a cooperative procedure according to RPW 2013. The assignment of the names of the participants of the 1st stage to the designs was made known to the members of the jury and the awarding authority only after the conclusion of the decision of the jury of the 1st stage. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Jury | Architectural jurors: • Louisa Hutton, Architect, Berlin • Prof. Regine Leibinger, Architect, Berlin • Prof. Cornelia Müller, Landscape architect, Berlin • Ruth Orzessek-Kruppa, Urban planner, head of the urban planning department, city administration of Düsseldorf (state capital) • Volker Raatz, Architect, Zurich • Manuel Scholl, Architect, Zurich • Prof. Jörn Walter, Urban planner, Hamburg • Michael Zimmermann, Architect, Cologne • Cornelia Zuschke, Architect, deputy for planning, construction, habitation and real estate, city administration of Düsseldorf (state capital) General jurors: • Stefan Mühling, die developer, Düsseldorf • Bastian Julius, Urban planner, die developer, Düsseldorf • Dr. Alexander Fils, CDU fraction, city council of Düsseldorf (state capital) • Lukas Fix, Die PARTEI / Klimaliste fraction, city council of Düsseldorf (state capital) • Alexander Führer, Tierschutz / Freie Wähler fraction, city council of Düsseldorf (state capital) • Peter Klein, Die Linke fraction, city council of Düsseldorf (state capital) • Daniela Masberg-Eikelau, FDP fraction, city council of Düsseldorf (state capital) • Markus Raub, SPD fraction, city council of Düsseldorf (state capital) • Astrid Wiesendorf, Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen fraction, city council of Düsseldorf (state capital) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Prizes and fees | Each participant of competition Stage 1 who submits a detailed and assessable design concept in accordance with the requirements laid down in the competition brief received an equal share of the total of EUR 240,000 (net) as a flat-rate fee. In addition, each participant of competition Stage 2 who submits a detailed and assessable design concept in accordance with the requirements laid down in the competition brief received an equal share of the total of EUR 160,000 (net) a flat-rate fee. In addition, a total of EUR 135,000 (net) was awarded as prizes in Competition Stage 2 with the following distribution: • 1st prize EUR 60.000 • three 2nd prizes of EUR 45,000 each The jury divided the prize amount differently unanimously according to §7 RPW 2013. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Participants | The following architectural firms have been invited to participate in the competition and have bindingly confirmed their participation: • 3XN Copenhagen A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark • BIG Bjarke Ingels Group, Copenhagen, Denmark • Buro Ole Scheeren, Berlin, Germany • C. F. Møller Architects, Berlin, Germany • David Chipperfield Architects, London, United Kingdom • Hadi Teherani Architects GmbH, Hamburg, Germany • HPP Architekten GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany • ingenhoven associates GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany • MVRDV Germany, Rotterdam, Netherlands • UN Studio, Amsterdam, Netherlands | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Dates |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Jury criteria | The jury's main criteria for judging the works concerned the following points, whereby the order does not represent any ranking or weighting. The specification of the criteria resulted from the discussion of the submitted works. • Idea / Vision • Quality of the urban and open space planning concept • Integration into the existing urban and functional context • Structure of the building masses, derivation of the building heights • Design of the buildings and open spaces • Design proposals for interior spaces, especially access and reception areas • Distribution and allocation of uses • Flexibility of the building structure for variable use concepts • Connection to the bridge link • Interior and exterior development • Quality of the mobility concept • Comprehensible handling of tree population • Ecology and new technologies • Economic efficiency in construction and operation • Realisability and ownership allocation • Accessibility • Consideration of climate protection, rainwater management, climate adaptation and noise. Experts were consulted to support the jury. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Eligibility | Pursuant to Article 4(1) of the RPW 2013, natural persons who, on the day of the announcement, were entitled to use the professional title of "architect" in accordance with the legal provisions of their home country and who responsibly represent the offices listed under "Participants" are eligible to participate. If the professional title is not regulated by law in the respective home country, the requirements are fulfilled by those who hold a diploma examination certificate or other proof of qualification, the recognition of which is guaranteed by Directive 2013/55/EU (EU Professional Qualifications Directive). After the invitation, the participating architect must nominate a landscape architect as team partner. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Impediments to participation | Excluded from participation in the competition are persons who, as a result of their involvement in the announcement or implementation of the competition, are privileged or could influence the decision of the jury. This applies in particular to the persons named in Section 4 (2) of the RPW 2013, their spouses, first and second degree relatives or in-laws, as well as their permanent business or project partners and the immediate superiors and employees of the excluded persons. Also excluded from participation in the competition are persons who have a business interest in the subject of the competition that goes beyond the planning services, if this may restrict competition for the services to realise the subject of the competition. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Further commissioning | When implementing the project, the awarding authority will commission one of the prize-winners, if necessary through a third party, taking into account the recommendation of the jury and the conditions specified in Section 8 (2) of the RPW 2013, with further services in accordance with Sections 34 and 39 of the HOAI (object planning of buildings and interiors as well as outdoor facilities) at least up to the completed approval planning (work phase 4), provided that there is no good reason why this should not be done. The implementation of the quality of the competition design is ensured by the type and scope of the commissioning. Since the complete implementation planning for the award of the construction work will be carried out by a general contractor due to the implementation of the task, the further commissioning of the award winner with, for example, the preparation of standard details and participation in plan approval, performance specifications, tender evaluation and quality control will ensure that the quality of the competition design is realised. Further participation in the other work phases 5 to 9 of the object planning is planned as an option for the awarding authority. The commissioning of the architect can be extended for work phases 2 and 3 to include specialist planning for structural design (Part 4, Section 1 HOAI) and specialist planning for technical equipment, plant groups 1 to 8 (Part 4, Section 2 HOAI). For this purpose, the awarding authority will hold contract discussions with the winners of the competition. By submitting the work, each participant agrees, in the event of being commissioned to further work on the task, to conclude an architect's contract in text form, based on the HOAI 2021 for participants with a place of business in Germany, in which copyrights and other property rights, in particular rights of use and modification rights, to the participant's work are regulated within the framework of the Copyright Act. In the event of a further commission, any services already rendered by the participant within the framework of the competition shall not be remunerated again up to the amount of the expense allowance plus any prize money awarded if the competition design is used unchanged in its essential parts as the basis for further work. If the awarding authority wishes to follow the recommendation of the jury and if the author of the recommended competition design does not have sufficient practical experience in the planning of construction projects of the size of the competition task in Germany, the awarding authority may request the formation of a consortium with an office that supplements the practical experience in planning in Germany that the competition participant in question lacks. The awarding authority has a say in the selection of this consortium partner. The awarding authority and the competition participant concerned must both agree on the ARGE partner. It must be ensured in the ARGE contract that the participant whose competition design is implemented is the sole determinant with regard to the planning and the architectural statement. The planning of the service phases according to HOAI after the conclusion of the competition is expected to be carried out using the BIM methodology. It is assumed that the participants will be able to implement the usual BIM use cases (e.g. collision check, quantity takeoff, etc.): Collision check, quantity takeoff, information check and derivation) and the assumption of the corresponding BIM-specific tasks is a natural part of their planning processes. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| In case of contradiction of information provided on this website and the competition brief, the information given in the competition brief shall prevail. |