In the anonymous design competition for the new Museum of Architecture and Design in Helsinki we used co-creation on an unprecedented scale. We like to think our goal was to make the jury’s work more difficult by making all finalist designs as good as possible.  

By Tommi Laitio

Finland lives and breathes design and architecture. The Finnish design tradition is a globally known brand, a source of national pride and one of the main reasons to travel to Finland. So when in 2022, the Government of Finland and the City of Helsinki, together with philanthropic partners, made the decision to establish the Foundation for the Finnish Museum of Architecture and Design with the intention of building a new world-class museum, the expectations could not be higher.  

Combining architecture and design into one museum had been decades in the making. In the concept for the new museum, the ambition was nothing short of democratizing the tools of design and architecture, while raising awareness on how design can be used for creating more sustainable futures. The selected plot is part of Helsinki’s iconic skyline with the Presidential Palace, City Hall and the two cathedrals. The €150 million endowment for the museum would be made at a time when most museums, artists and arts institutions were facing austerity measures. Not to mention that this was not any museum but that of design and architecture.

Therefore, getting this right in terms of process and result was critical.

Balancing Anonymity and Engagement

The discussions with the Finnish architect community made it clear that every architect in Finland and beyond would want to win the project. Simultaneously, we knew that both the Association of Architects and the public funders required that the project would follow the 150-year Finnish tradition of anonymous, two-stage competition. In a two-stage competition, the jury chooses the finalists and the competition organization provides them with a development grant for their final submission. The works would compete anonymously, meaning that the jury and the commissioning organization would learn the identities of the designers only after the winner had been chosen. Due to regulations, the competition would need to be EU-wide and a public procurement process.  

There's a lot of reasons to be proud of the competition tradition. Most notable Finnish architects have made their breakthroughs in anonymous competitions. An anonymous competition is what has resulted in many of Finland’s iconic buildings, like Alvar Aalto’s Paimio Sanatorium (1933) and Helsinki’s Central Library Oodi (Ala Architects 2018). Ideally, an anonymous competition removes bias from the competition. The work speaks for itself regardless whether the architect is a seasoned professional or straight out of school.

Simultaneously we were doing something incredibly complicated. The museum building is part of a larger development of the harbour area, which requires immense amounts of coordination. The project’s public funding creates a moral obligation for public engagement and co-creation. Stakeholder engagement is needed to improve the design but also to build advocacy and legitimacy for the project. Also, the museum staff has tremendous and critical expertise, which would be foolish to ignore.  

So we needed a competition process that would build on ambitions that first seem to be in direct contradiction: doing things together and doing things anonymously. We needed an innovative way to bring more views and expertise into the process, while securing a firewall between the competition jury and the design teams. Breaks in the firewall could result in lawsuits, delays, decrease in public trust or even an obligation to disquality and redo the entire competition.  

‍Step 1: Supporting the Selection of Finalists

There is a strong precedent and an expectation that the competition needs an approval from the Finnish Association of Architects’s (SAFA) competition committee, which also appoints two members to the jury. After months of negotiation, we agreed on an enhanced version of the traditional two-stage competition.  

We knew from recent anonymous and international competitions for Helsinki’s Central Library Oodi (544 entries) and Helsinki’s Guggenheim Museum (1715 entries) that it was likely that the first stage would attract a flood of entries. There was no intentional goal to achieve a record-high number of applications and intentional decisions were made to manage this. The entry was limited to 12 pages, focusing on the building’s concept, exterior and its connection to the cityscape. The competition was limited only to graduated architects.

The expectation of a flood was not misplaced. The competition attracted 624 entries. An online gallery of all the proposals opened to the public during Helsinki Design Week in September 2024.

The jury undertook the extensive labour of reviewing the entries with the first milestop being a semifinalist list: 20-30 works that best met the ambitious demands set in the competition brief.  

It is common practice that as the jury moves from semifinalists to finalists, their deliberation is supported with expert reviews by urban planners, structural engineers, and economists.  

We wanted to go further.

Considering the ambitions set for the museum experience, we saw it as crucial that expertise on museum operations and urban culture would be elevated to the same level of importance as knowledge in financial planning, structural engineering or architecture. We recruited a group of internationally recognized urban culture and museum experts not affiliated with the competition organization. Their task was similar to that of engineers, architects and urban planners: to give detailed feedback based on their fields of expertise, such as exhibition design, museum logistics, city events, food and beverage, and customer experience. They commented on things such as how well the technical spaces functioned for moving large objects, the feasibility of audiovisual experiences inside and and on the museum, how the workshop spaces would function for children and how well the design demonstrated an understanding of the critical role of the library and resource center for research. As the independent facilitator for the entire engagement process, I then summarized this feedback into short briefs for the jury.

The jury announced the five finalists on December 18th, 2024. Upon agreeing to the terms of the second phase of the competition, such as adding various technical expertise to the design teams, each of the finalists received 50,000 euros to develop their final submission.  

The five first pages of each of the finalist entries were published on the City of Helsinki’s engagement platform for review and commentary. The discussion online was lively, critical and demonstrated a high level of understanding of architecture. Many of the comments focused on criticizing individual entries or calling for “wow” architecture. Reading some of the comments raised questions whether the online platform might have also functioned as a channel for anger and frustration for those architects and other design professionals who had put hundreds and hundreds of hours into their submission only to receive a negative decision. Looking back, there could have been a clearer communication effort from the competition organization to explain that the winning museum would not be selected based on the current material but now the teams would have months to develop or even radically change their entry based on the feedback they received from the jury.

Normally the teams develop their proposal based on written feedback from the jury. Again, we wanted to go further. We decided to do something that had never been done at this scale in Finland: to provide expert consultation on the functionality and experience to all the finalist teams.  

Step 2: Expert Feedback

In January 2025, four expert groups reviewed the finalist designs and provided feedback on each of them. The identities of the designers were not disclosed to these experts. The four groups of experts were selected based on the museum’s concept and they were:

• the museums’ staff
• teachers and other educators
• urban culture professionals such as police, skateboarders, youth work event organizers, and tourism experts
• accessibility experts

All of the experts had the same assignment: review the works individually and participate in a four-hour workshop in Helsinki. In the workshop, each entry received the same amount of time for review. As the independent facilitator for the entire process, it was my responsibility to ensure that each entry was treated fairly and to capture the feedback and suggestions into a report. Next to these stakeholder workshops, we also gathered feedback from technical and structural experts.

We designed the process with great respect for the mastery and craft of architects. The goal was not to redesign the entries but to support the design intent and provide practical feedback on functionality and experience. Rather than ranking or comparing the entries, we started fresh with each entry. In our preparatory sessions, I described our ambition as making the jury’s work more difficult by supporting all of the five finalist designs to be as good as possible.  

Unlike engineers or architects, most of the people we invited do not work with floor plans or circulation diagrams on a daily basis. During our planning phase, we regularly faced doubt and skepticism whether these professionals would be able to be objective. Looking back, I am glad we stood our ground.

While a teacher or a skateboarder does not work with CAD images, they do know a lot about needs and spaces. From our first preparatory sessions to the actual review workshops, we received regular affirmation that we have made the right decision. These professionals showed up prepared, in time and with a clear sense of respect and integrity. One of the early educators verbalized something we witnessed in all the workshops: the power of recognition. She said:”I feel really honoured that we and our kids are recognized as important like this. That our experience is brought in at this stage and not only when we need to fix something that really does not work.”  

Even when I have done most of my career in public spaces, I learned so much from these professionals.We discussed issues like the need for calming spaces for visitors on the spectrum or for a toddler having a hissy fit. An educator explained how easy access to restrooms from children’s workshop spaces defines the adult-to-child ratio in the group and therefore the cost of the visit. We learned how the museum’s library goes far beyond books to drawings and models and how designers or researchers often spend days or weeks working on a particular material. We talked about how in this museum an exhibition can consist of valuable items in vitrines but it can also be a noisy and messy process or a big machine. We discussed how the museum’s business model depends on event spaces that provide spectacular city views and can be used outside the opening hours. Something that really stuck with me was an educator who explained how a view, a wall, an elevator or a door, actually the entire museum building, is a pedagogical object beyond the exhibitions. Another note that will stay with me forever was the emphasis of an accessibility advocate on how important it is that people with special needs can move through the museum with their company rather than being sent around the corner for an elevator.  

As a result of this engagement, we as the competition organization and I as the facilitator, improved our capacity for inclusive engagement. We learned how to use Braille printers for floor plans, how tiny 3D-prints helped blind experts but were actually beneficial for everyone.  

After the workshops, we packaged the feedback with Project Manager Reetta Turtiainen and Competition Secretary Jussi Vuori. This feedback was integrated into reports with the standard technical feedback, structural feedback, and financial analysis. Each team received an extensive package of general feedback as well as detailed feedback on their submission. The level and amount of detailed feedback was way beyond a standard competition.

Step 3: Expert Workshops in Helsinki

As the second round of consultation, each team was given an opportunity to see the building site in Helsinki and receive three hours of in-person consultation from recognized experts in themes like museum pedagogy, exhibition design, food and beverage, public-private partnerships, museum operations, curation, audiovisual design and events. While a substantial financial investment, we saw this as a way to increase the quality of final submissions and an equity investment in an international competition. We designed the process with the assumption that at least some of the teams would be from abroad and many of them might not have had the time, money or means to come to Helsinki in the first stage of the competition.  

Each workshop followed an identical format.  

• Presentation of the entry and first reflections on the jury’s feedback (20’)
• Expert conversation on the strengths and challenges of the entry with no interjection from the design team (30’)
• Break (15’)
• Dialogue between the design team and the experts, focused on the issues the design team wished to discuss (90’)
• Visit to the museum site

When designing this process, we took the questions of anonymity and confidentiality very seriously. All of the experts received training on the importance of confidentiality and signed non-disclosure agreements and received training on the importance of confidentiality. We made it clear in the adcance communication and in the beginning of the workshop that the experts were familiar with the competition program but were not representatives of the jury and would have no say in choosing the winner. The design teams received a stipend for travel but arranged their own travel and accommodation. The jury was not informed of the place and time of the workshops. The experts, myself included, only learned the identities of the designers as we shook hands on the morning of the workshop to prevent curious googling or other information gathering. As the facilitator, I emphasized that the teams has responsibility to make sure that they used the experts in a way that benefited their process and that they had full discretion on how and how much of the feedback they would eventually incorporate into their design. As a way to promote anonymity, we did not do written documentation of the workshops and nothing of the discussion was reported to the jury.

Highly Positive and Beneficial Experience

We were doing many things differently and faced concerns and critique along the way. Therefore, we wanted to learn from the process. The anonymous feedback gathered after the workshops demonstrated that we are on the right track. On a scale of one to five, the workshop experience received an 4,7/5 average and a 5/5 median score. The usefulness of the workshops for them now and for future competitions received an 4,6/5 average and a 5/5 median score. A clear majority of the architects would recommend using such a format in future competitions.  

The most rewarding feedback was the acknowledgement of valuable expertise beyond tradition. One of the lead architects wrote that they felt that the experts were able to make valuable contributions without disrupting the project. The architect felt that the experts were trying to go along with the concept behind the project as much as possible. Another architect said that the reactions from the experts were valuable and strengthened their own presumptions and that they received valuable ideas and inspiration for further development. Several of the designers appreciated the level of preparation that the experts had done to understand their specific design.

‍Broadening the Circle of Expertise

The feedback also demonstrates that many of the finalists, like us, see great value in the tradition of an anonymous competition. While the usefulness of the engagement was ranked high, some did raise concerns about ensuring the anonymity of the process. As one of the designers said, "If anonymity can be secured, then this is quite an efficient system."

We take this concern seriously and took conscious choices to secure anonymity. Simultaneously, it is worth noting that already in the traditional competitions we have had urban planners, structural engineers, and financial analysts reviewing the designs or even meet with the teams in the final stages of the competition. Broadening the circle of expertise beyond finances, design and engineering demonstrates respect and builds legitimacy. Broadening the circle of valuable expertise sends an important message to disability advocates, curators, skateboarders, restaurateurs, the police, researchers, teachers, and arts educators that we need them and their expertise to create thriving public spacesis critical in creating a great museum. Our experience confirms our assumption that a teacher, an conference planner or a disability advocate can provide the same level of integrity, confidentiality, expertise and unbiased review as an engineer.

New Standard for Innovative Procurement

I spent a decade as an executive for the City of Helsinki, in charge of large capital investment decisions for instance for libraries, museums, recreation centers and libraries. Looking back, I would have loved this as a standard for procurement.  

What proved to be critical was how the role of the experts was framed. They approached the designs with respect and saw their contributions as consultation rather than critique or ranking.Those who met the teams had an arm’s length distance to the commissioning organization. As a sign of success, most of the experts could see the opportunities in all of the finalists.

The benefits are clear for the commissioning organization. This kind of engagement can help the design teams avoid mistakes that would work against an otherwise stellar concept. As a simple example, If you do not work with museums or children every day, you probably won't think about where to put 50 rucksacks when a group of enthusiastic and maybe soaked kindergarteners enter a museum but not solving that might destroy your lobby experience completely.  

The competition was a public procurement process. Procurement is a field in urgent need of innovation. Our experiment shows that we can find a balance between anonymity and engagement with careful design. Engagement practices can save us from a lot of frustration and conflict later in the process. Fixing something like the location of the service lift or the access to the toilets from workshop spaces is a lot cheaper and easier at this stage of the competition.  

What´s Next?

The competition teams have until the 6th of June to submit their final submissions. On June 17, the developed entries will be published for public comments in Voice Your Opinion platform hosted by the city of Helsinki. The winner will be announced in September 2025.  

The announcement of the winner kicks off a new stage in co-creation and engagement. As a major investment for the city and the country, the engagement will be essential for the legitimacy of the project. It will pose a test to the winning architects to navigate the often contradictory hopes and dreams of thousands of stakeholders and the public, the budget and structural limitations of the project while holding onto their original architectural concept. The current practices of an anonymous architectural competition do not take the designers´ capability and willingness for collaboration and co-creation into account.

I hope that such stakeholder engagement and co-design will become the norm in a few years in the development for major buildings. The engagement in Helsinki´s Central Library Oodi is earlier proof that a deep understanding of needs and collaboration can create conditions for world-class results. When done well, engagement improves the likelihood of innovation and legitimacy. And what organisation would be better in charting new standards for design than a Museum of Architecture and Design?
‍

Tommi Laitio is an internationally recognized leader and strategist on public spaces, engagement and innovation. Laitio designed and facilitated the engagement in the design competition with the competition organization. Laitio’s practice builds on his experience as City of Helsinki’s first Executive Director for Culture and Leisure (2017-2021) and his research on partnerships and engagement as the inaugural Bloomberg Public Innovation Fellow at Johns Hopkins University (2022-2024). www.tommilaitio.com

‍

‍