The position of the Estonian Association of Architects regarding the conditions of the architecture competition of Rail Baltic Ülemiste Terminal
The executive board of the Estonian Association of Architects (EAL) did not approve the conditions of the architecture competition of RB Ülemiste Terminal and provided RBE with their position on 30 April, as follows:
Following the thorough analysis of the architecture competition of Rail Baltic Estonia Ülemiste Terminal spanning over six months, the executive board of the Estonian Association of Architects decided not to approve the respective conditions.
We consider the competition brief relevant, however, we hold a dissenting opinion regarding three important points:
1. Clause 17.3 of the design competition procedures – Negotiations are held with the authors of all three awarded entries simultaneously and the negotiations are based on the price quote. The design competition guidelines of EAL as well as the design competition regulations of the Architects’ Council of Europe (ACE) and International Union of Architects (UIA) are based on the principle that the aim of the competition is to achieve and implement the BEST project, in other words, the winning entry.
2. Clause 7.1 of the procurement contract draft. The errors of the contracting entity that the contractor does not detect are left as the responsibility of the contractor. – This is not acceptable. The obligations of the contracting entity must be fulfilled by the contracting entity. Similarly, the contracting entity is responsible for the overall quality of the documents.
The quality of the construction project (the entire project from the idea to the completed building) is only and exclusively based on the quality of the preliminary work conducted by the contracting entity.
3. With the new competition, the issue of copyrights (altering the work of the winners of the previous architecture competition, that was held in 2014) is left to be solved by the authors of the winning entry in which we see a possible conflict with the principles of the professional ethics of architects.
For the reasons stated above, EAL could not approve the given conditions as they do not support the creation of architecture and urban space of the highest quality and they directly violate the good practices of architecture competitions and the rights of the architects.