FAQ

All and any communication as part of the Competition, i.e. submitting requests for clarification of the Competition Regulations and requests for other information shall be made solely via the Electronic communication platform at: https://www.soldea.pl/epz/epz/

Requests for clarification of the terms of the Competition Regulations may be submitted via the Electronic Communication Platform within deadlines specified in the Competition Schedule.

The Organizer will use the Electronic Communication Platform to publish anonymized questions of Competition Participants together with their answers.


06.03.2021

The Organizer published an explanation no 1 of the content of the Competition Regulations.

QUESTION 1

The question refers to item 1.6.c) of the Regulations. Will designing the reconstruction and extension of a historical complex of more than 10 000 m2 in total area to accommodate an Education and Museum Center be recognized as fulfilling the requirements of the Regulations?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUESTION 2

If 5 participants are qualified to Phase 2, how many are there in Phase I and can one apply in English?

ANSWER: The number of Participants in Phase II is presently not known, as this depends on the number of applications for admission to participate in the Competition, as well as on the number of Participants qualified on the basis of these applications. The Organizer has not foreseen a limit in this respect. The procurement procedure is carried out entirely in Polish. Applications must be also submitted in Polish.

QUESTION 3

Will the condition concerning technical capacity in item 1.6 c), i.e.: “(...) within the period of 15 years before the deadline for submitting Applications for admission, and if the overall period in business is shorter - within this period, the Competition Participant has duly completed services consisting in the development of design documentation comprising a building permit design and detailed design, and that the designed building received a legally building permit for 1 building with a cultural and entertainment program of no less than 10,000 m2 in total area.” be considered fulfilled when the competition participant was an employee of a company fulfilling these requirements, and thus the co-author of the completed building?

ANSWER: By this condition for participation in the competition, the Organizer requires that the Competition Participant prepared design documentation consisting in a building permit design, a detailed design, and for the building to have received a legal and binding building permit. The term “design documentation” should be understood as a multidisciplinary study, and therefore mere co-authorship in one of the disciplines will not suffice for this condition to be fulfilled. This condition is subjective and therefore requires the subject to be a part of a contract for the development of a comprehensive building permit design and detailed design.

The document can be downloaded HERE.


09.03.2021

The Organizer published an explanation no 2 of the content of the Competition Regulations.

QUESTION 4                                            
This question refers to Section III, 2: REQUIRED EVIDENCE, STATEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS CONFIRMING THE FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENTS SET OUT BY THE ORGANIZER.
In addition to the declaration and appendixes listed in the aforementioned point of the Regulations,
is it necessary to upload the original diplomas (regarding Section III 1.6 b.) or the original building permit (regarding Section III 1.6 c.)?
If these documents are indeed necessary in the Application for Admission, should we upload them as a separate file or merge them with the appendixes regarding each statement of fulfillment?

ANSWER:
At the stage of admission to participate in the competition it is not necessary to attach other documents than the statements mentioned in point 1.6.b. and 1.6.c. (documents mentioned above in the question may be requested at a later stage of the competition).

QUESTION 5                                            
Can you confirm if applicants should be providing architectural services only, or if engineering and landscape architecture are also required at this stage?

ANSWER:
This is to confirm that, at the stage of admission to the competition, applicants should be providing architectural services only. The winner of the competition, before signing the contract, will be required to demonstrate that he has, at his disposal, necessary engineering and landscape architecture needed
to perform the service in accordance with the provisions of Section X, point 1.2.

QUESTION 6                                            
Can the template for Appendix 3d be amended by the applicant, as long as all the information is still provided and in the correct order?

ANSWER:
The template of Appendix 3d cannot be changed in terms of content and layout, except for changes that do not affect its content.

The document can be downloaded HERE.


12.03.2021

The Organizer published an explanation no 2 of the content of the Competition Regulations.

QUESTION 7                                            
After the competition is settled, will the project be conducted in Polish as well? This applies to cooperation with local authorities, management of the construction process, etc.
The general description of the competition appears to be an international invitation and we understand that competition documents should be submitted in Polish in order to be used by the Competition Jury. However, we would like to understand the extent, to which we will have to plan translation assistance in order to facilitate the procedure.

ANSWER:
After the competition is settled, will the project be conducted entirely in Polish. All official contact and notifications in connection with the project and the progress of the Investment will be in Polish.
In the competition phase, all documents and materials submitted by the Competition Participant, i.e. the application for admission to participate in the competition, including the statements referred to in Section III item 2, the study referred to in Section IV and the competition design referred to in Section VI must be drawn up in Polish or translated to Polish, if drawn up or issued in any other language.


QUESTION 8                                            

QUESTION 8.1
When it comes to the language, in which appendices 3a through 3f should be submitted at the stage of submitting applications for admission, the format available in the regulations is written in English. We understand that these appendices are purely informative, but we would like to confirm if we are allowed to send them in English only, or whether we should enclose a Polish translation to comply with the regulations.

ANSWER:
In accordance with the provisions of Section I item 2.8, applications for admission to participate in the competition, evidence, statements and documents confirming the fulfillment of conditions for participation in the competition, studies, competition designs, and any other information submitted by the Participants, applications, notifications, declarations and documents shall be submitted in Polish. Any documents and statements submitted in a foreign language shall be submitted with a Polish translation certified for conformity with the original by the Competition Participant or their representative. The Principal shall allow requests for clarification of the terms of the Competition Regulations to be submitted in English.


QUESTION 8.2
With respect to regulations: “The maximum size of one file submitted via the Electronic Communication Platform is 20 MB”. Can links (We Transfer / Google Drive) be used to submit additional information: portfolio, project references, etc. which are likely to exceed the maximum file size?

ANSWER:
The maximum permissible size of a single file submitted via the Electronic Communication Platform is 20 MB. We will not accept any files submitted in the form of links (We Transfer / Google Drive).
The Organizer hereby advises that the Participant must only submit the electronic documents stated in the Competition Regulations and that there is no need to submit an additional portfolio or project references.


QUESTION 8.3
With reference to competition prizes. Can you specify the level of engagement of the 1st prize winner in the future development of the project (contract, phases, etc.)

ANSWER:
The object of the services provided by the winner of the competition after signing the contract is described in Appendix 1 to the Regulations, i.e. Material terms stipulating the completion of the Subject of single-source contract.

QUESTION 9                                            
If a Polish architectural office wants to register to participate in the competition jointly with an office headquartered in Japan, where a qualified electronic signature is difficult to obtain within the registration deadline, will the Organizer admit documents signed by a Japanese participant, i.e. a power of attorney appointing a joint representative (appendix 3f) and the statement of absence of premises for exclusion
from the competition (appendix 3b) in the form of a digital counterpart (scans) of documents drawn up in their paper form, signed and stamped by the person authorized to represent the Japanese participant, and then signed with a qualified electronic signature of the representative appointed to represent the complete Polish-Japanese team?
If the representative is not able to certify the conformity of the digital counterparts of documents with their hard copies, signed by the Japanese participant, can a Polish notary public certify it?

ANSWER:
The Organizer will accept documents signed by a participant from outside the EEA, i.e. a power of attorney appointing a joint representative (appendix 3f) and the statement of absence of premises for exclusion from the competition (appendix 3b) in the form of a digital counterpart (scans) of documents drawn up in their paper form, signed and stamped by the person authorized to represent the Participant. The conformity of digital counterparts of documents with their hard copies shall be certified by a notary public, using a qualified electronic signature.

QUESTION 10                                        
In the case of a consortium consisting of a Polish team (stated as the representative) and a foreign team (having the required references), will it suffice if only the Polish party - the representative - submits the application for admission to jointly participate in the competition as a consortium via the Soldea EPZ platform? Or are both parties obligated to submit pertinent applications? Or, alternatively, can the foreign team act as the leader and representative in the competition?

ANSWER:
Competition Participants jointly participating in the competition shall be obligated to appoint a representative authorized to represent Competition Participants jointly participating in the competition, including to submit the Application and documents and statements required in the Competition Regulations, the Studies and Competition Designs. One of the Participants jointly participating in the competition may act as the Representative. A template letter of attorney for Participants jointly participating in the Competition is included in Appendix 3f to the Regulations. The participants themselves decide on who will be representing them.
If a representative is appointed, the application for admission to participate in the competition and the statements and documents required under the competition regulations may be signed by the representative only, provided that the power of attorney stipulates this authorization, except the statement about the absence of premises for exclusion from participation in the Competition pursuant to the provisions of article 108 item 1 and article 109 item 1 pt. 4-5, pt. 6 with respect to members of the Competition Jury and items 7-10 of the Act, as included in Appendix 3b to the Regulations. The statement of the absence of premises for exclusion from the Competition shall be submitted by each Competition Participant, including each of the Competition Participants jointly participating in the Competition, and the entity sharing its resources with the Competition Participant. This shall also apply to the statements of entities sharing their resources with the competition participants. This statement shall be signed by the entity sharing its resources.


QUESTION 11                                        

QUESTION 11.1
Pursuant to item 1.3 (page 22 of the Regulations), the appointed Representative must by authorized to represent Competition Participants jointly participating in the competition, including to submit the Application and documents and statements.
If the appointed Representative is not a Competition Participant:
- which documents can be electronically signed by the Representative only?
- should the application - Appendix 3a and the remaining appendices - be signed with qualified electronic signature by all persons - i.e. the appointed representatives for each Competition Participant (according to the representation principle, authorized to submit statements of intent on behalf of an organizational unit), or can they be jointly signed by a Representative?

ANSWER:
The provisions of the power of attorney should determine the activities the representative is authorized to perform, and the scope of documents, signed with the qualified electronic signature, which may be submitted in their electronic form by the representative on behalf of the participant(s).
In accordance with Section III item 3.1.
To be admitted to participate in the Competition according to principles set out in these Regulations, the Competition Participant shall submit an application for admission to participate in the Competition, drawn up in accordance with Appendix 3a to the Regulations.
Documents shall be submitted in their electronic form, affixed with the electronic signature(s) of all parties authorized to represent the Competition Participant or Competition Participants jointly participating in the Competition. Submitting files in the PDF format is recommended.
All matters pertaining to the method of drawing up and submitting information and technical requirements for electronic documents and means of electronic documentation in a public procurement procedure or a competition are regulated by the REGULATION OF THE PRIME MINISTER of 30 December 2020, item 2452.


QUESTION 11.2
According to the definition of a Competition Participant, should each of the Competition Participants acting jointly appoint a licensed person and separately submit Appendix 3c?

ANSWER:
In accordance with the provisions of Section III item 1.6. in the case of Competition Participants jointly participating in the competition, the requirements referred to in Section III item 1.6 points b) and c) shall be deemed fulfilled if they are fulfilled by at least one of the Competition Participants acting jointly.


QUESTION 11.3
For technical reasons - if application 3a or the power of attorney is signed by qualified electronic signature by Participants during separate sessions - should the same, electronically signed document be submitted in two copies, signed separately by two Participants submitting the application jointly?

ANSWER:
In the procedure for signing and submitting the application on the EPC, there is no notion of session. The notion of copy in electronic documents is also not applicable to the situation as described.
The power of attorney may be submitted as a single document signed with several signatures, or as several, separate documents signed separately by each principal. For the application to be recognized as a joint and identical statement, 1 counterpart should be preferably signed with all relevant signatures, which is possible in every signing system (adding another signature). It will not matter if different signatures have different dates. The Participant should familiarize the principles of signing documents using qualified signature. With any doubts, create a training document for your own needs, and then perform its verification to check the operation for correctness. The Competition Organizer will not participate in such tests.

The document can be downloaded HERE.


17.03.2021

The Organizer published an explanation no 4 of the content of the Competition Regulations.

QUESTION 12                                        
With reference to section III item 1.6.c) of the Competition Regulations:
Will a building of ca. 80 000 m2 in usable space, with a Service, Commercial and Recreational function, containing a Cinema Multiplex (Culture), restaurants / food court and various entertainment zones which, together, form usable space of over 10 000 m2 (within the same building) fulfill the condition for participation in the competition pertaining to technical and professional capacity with respect to experience in accordance with appendix 3d?

ANSWER:
Yes.


QUESTION 13                                        

QUESTION 13.1
What should be the form of the statement of the entity sharing its resources with respect to having a person holding an adequate unlimited architectural design license at disposal, with respect to the designed and completed cultural and entertainment building of total area at least 10 000 m2, which is not a competition participant jointly participating in the competition.
Will a copy of such statement, electronically signed by the competition participant suffice?

ANSWER:
The statement of the entity sharing its resources must fulfill the requirements of item 1.7. b) and c) of Section III of the Regulations.
Such statement shall be submitted in its electronic form, affixed with the electronic signature of the entity sharing its resources.
The Organizer will accept the statement to be submitted in the form of a digital counterpart (scans) of documents drawn up in their paper form, signed and stamped by the entity sharing its resources.
The conformity of digital counterparts of documents with their hard copies shall be certified by a notary public, using a qualified electronic signature.

QUESTION 13.2
Under an effective contract, the Participant has a person holding an adequate unlimited architectural design license at their disposal, who is the author of a designed and completed cultural and entertainment building of total area at least 10 000 m2.
In what form should this qualification be presented?
Will a copy of such contract, electronically signed by the competition participant suffice?

ANSWER:
If the Competition Participant has persons referred to in Section III item 1.6. b) at their direct disposal (e.g. contract for specific work, employment contract, etc.), the Participant needs not submit a statement of the entity sharing its resources to be at the Participant’s disposal for the purpose of completing the competition task, nor does the Participant need to submit any other evidence to confirm that the Competition Participant will have the resources of these entities at their disposal.

QUESTION 13.3
We are able to provide evidence of a completed service consisting in the development of design documentation comprising a building permit design and detailed design, including a building permit and execution of cinema auditoriums on the third story of a large commercial and service complex of ca. 60 000.00 m2 in total area.
The complex has additional spaces which are necessary for the functioning of these cinema auditoriums or which are directly related to them, in particular:
- vertical and horizontal communication
- administration
- gastronomy
- car park
- sanitary facilities
- technical rooms
The total area of the cinema auditoriums and the aforementioned associated functions exceeds 10 000.00 m2.
Please clarify how the fulfillment of this condition in this specific instance should be documented.

ANSWER:
As proof of fulfillment of the condition specified in Section III item 1.6. c), the Organizer shall require a Statement of fulfillment of condition for participation in the competition regarding technical and professional capabilities pertaining to professional experience, including a list of services and information on the value, subject, completion date and entities, for which the services have been completed. The statement is included in Appendix 3d to the Competition Regulations.


QUESTION 14                                        
Please clarify how documents are to be signed by a participant from a country without qualified electronic signatures in formats required by the Organizer (Japan).
Will the Organizer accept documents which have been signed by the foreign participant, possibly apostilled, and then signed with a qualified electronic certificate by the participant, with whom the foreign participant intends to jointly participate in the competition?

ANSWER:
The Organizer will accept documents signed by a participant from outside the EEA, i.e. a power of attorney appointing a joint representative (appendix 3f) and the statement of absence of premises for exclusion from the competition (appendix 3b) in the form of a digital counterpart (scans) of documents drawn up in their paper form, signed and stamped by the person authorized to represent the Participant. The conformity of digital counterparts of documents with their hard copies shall be certified by a notary public, using a qualified electronic signature.

QUESTION 15                                        
Can an architecture office from outside the EU take part in the competition individually, or is it obligated to participate together with an office from the EU? Further to the above, can references apply to projects completed outside the EU

ANSWER:
An architecture office from outside the EU can take part in the competition individually and independently. In the competition phase, the Organizer shall not require references to completed projects, but a Statement of fulfillment of condition for participation in the competition, as specified by the Organizer, regarding technical and professional capabilities pertaining to professional experience, including a list of services and information on the value, subject, completion date and entities, for which the services have been completed. These services may have been provided outside the EU.
The statement is included in Appendix 3d to the Competition Regulations.


QUESTION 16                                        
Has a minimum number of Participants required for the Competition to be valid been specified?

ANSWER:
The minimum number of Participants is 2.


QUESTION 17                                        
If persons who are not Polish professionals apply for participation, does the “license number” required in the “Application for participation” need to be issued by an Association or an institution, to which these persons belong?

ANSWER:
Yes, if in a country where architectural design licenses are issued by a relevant Association or Institution, this is mandatory.


QUESTION 18                                        
The question refers to item 1.6.c) of the Regulations.
Will completing a service consisting in the development of design documentation comprising a building permit design and detailed design and interior design for: an Education - Sports - Recreation Center with a research and development unit and a sports hall, of more than 10 000 m2 in total area be recognized as fulfillment of requirements stated in the Regulations?

ANSWER:
The Organizer has specified a condition for participation in the competition regarding technical and professional capabilities pertaining to experience. This condition is considered fulfilled if the Competition Participant is able to demonstrate that, within the period of 15 years before the deadline for submitting Applications for admission, and if the overall period in business is shorter – within this period, the Competition Participant has duly completed services consisting in the development of design documentation comprising a building permit design and detailed design, and that the designed building received a legally building permit for 1 building with a cultural and entertainment program of no less than 10,000 m2 in total area.
The overall program of the building must support a widely understood cultural and entertainment function. It is the Competition Participant’s responsibility to prove to the Organizer in the phase of preparing the application for admission and submitting documents and statements that the completed service concerns a building with a leading cultural and entertainment function.


QUESTION 19                                        
Are documents available in English?

ANSWER:
Documents are available in English on the competition website at: http://competition.ecfcamerimage.pl/home,2,en.html
However, the English versions of documents are for reference only, whereas the competition is conducted entirely in Polish.
The application for admission to participate in the competition, evidence, statements and documents confirming the fulfillment of conditions for participation in the competition, studies, competition designs, and any other information submitted by the Participants, applications, notifications, declarations and documents shall be submitted in Polish. Any documents and statements submitted in a foreign language shall be submitted with a Polish translation certified for conformity with the original by the Competition Participant or their representative.
The Principal shall only allow requests for clarification of the terms of the Competition Regulations to be submitted in English.

The document can be downloaded HERE.


17.03.2021

The Organizer published an explanation no 5 of the content of the Competition Regulations.

QUESTION 20                                        
Section 1 of the Competition Regulations specifies the requirements which should be fulfilled by competition participants with respect to completed services consisting in the development of design documentation comprising a building permit design and detailed design, and stipulating that the designed building should have received a legally building permit for 1 building with a cultural and entertainment program of no less than 10,000 m2 in total area.
In the light of the above, will a shopping mall design housing such enterprises as, e.g. a multi-auditorium cinema complex, be recognized as a reference design?  

ANSWER:
The overall program of the building must support a widely understood cultural and entertainment function. It is the Competition Participant’s responsibility to prove to the Organizer in the phase of preparing the application for admission and submitting documents and statements that the completed service concerns a building with a leading cultural and entertainment function.
The Organizer will accept mixed-function buildings, where the cultural and entertainment function is the leading function or an important function from the point of view of the building’s users (e.g. a separated part of the building of more than 10 000 m2 in total area).


QUESTION 21                                        
If we understand correctly, you have requested that all documents be submitted in Polish (see the answer to question 8.1). However, the templates available on the competition site are in English only.
If we are not able to use these English templates in our application, could you provide ones in Polish

ANSWER:
All statements and documents to be submitted in Polish are available for download on the Polish version of the competition site, i.e. http://konkurs.ecfcamerimage.pl/regulamin,26,pl.html


QUESTION 22                                        
With reference to Appendix 3d to the Competition Regulations. Can we include a link to the building website, or is it not necessary in this phase of the competition?

ANSWER:
This is not necessary.


QUESTION 23                                        
With reference to technical requirements: designing and obtaining a building permit for a cultural and entertainment building of no less than 10 000 m2 in total area within 15 years before the deadline for submitting applications for admission to the competition. Does the cultural program need to be the main purpose of the building, or will a building supporting many programs (i.e. a Building of 70 000 m2 in total area) with more than 10 000 m2 dedicated to a cultural program also fulfill these requirements?

ANSWER:
The cultural program needs not be the primary purpose of the building. It can be a mixed-function building, where the cultural and entertainment function is the leading function or an important function from the point of view of the building’s users (e.g. a separated part of the building of more than 10 000 m2 in total area).


QUESTION 24                                        
Would a cultural building which obtained a building permit within the last 15 years but was not actually constructed fulfill the requirements?

ANSWER:
Yes.


QUESTION 25                                        
Section III item 1.6 b) of the Competition Regulations admits Competition Participants having equivalent professional qualifications in architectural design obtained in other states in accordance with the principles of article 12a of the Building Law of 7 July 1994 (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 1333). Will a license to practice as an architect in the Ontario province in Canada (which is a signatory of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union) be recognized a equivalent qualification for participation in the Competition?

ANSWER:
Since the Competition Participant submits legally binding statements, they are obligated to verify and prove to the Organizer that the professional qualifications in architectural design obtained in other states in accordance with the principles of article 12a of the Building Law of 7 July 1994 (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 1333) are equivalent and equally valid.


QUESTION 26                                        
The answer to question no. 9 suggests that the power of attorney to represent a Competition Participant headquartered abroad and without a qualified electronic signature can be drawn up in the form of a digital counterpart (scan) certified by a notary public using a qualified electronic signature. Assuming that a company headquartered in Canada intends to take part in the competition, and that it is nearly impossible to find a notary public with a qualified electronic signature in Canada, the process would require sending an original, signed and stamped paper document to Poland, where a notary public would only confirm the conformity of the paper document with its electronic counterpart, and not the fact of its signing by the authorized person. In this instance, would the Competition Participant accept a power of attorney certified for conformity with the original to be submitted with the paper copy of the study or any other form of confirmation submitted after the deadline for admission to participate in the Competition in lieu of a document issued by a Competition Participant’s representative and signed by the notary public using a qualified electronic signature

ANSWER:
The conformity of the digital counterpart with the original, signed and stamped paper document needs to be confirmed by a notary public using a qualified electronic signature.

QUESTION 27                                        
As a foreign company headquartered in Austria, can we affix our application documents with an Austrian qualified electronic signature?

ANSWER:
Yes, provided tat the signature fulfills the principles of putting electronic signatures on documents, as stated in the Electronic Identification and Trust Services Regulation - eIDAS, 910/2014/EC, which sets forth standard rules for all Member States. Before submitting any document signed in this manner, check if it is positively verified by generally available verification tools e.g. https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/DSS/webapp-demo/validation https://weryfikacjapodpisu.pl/ or a tool provided by one of domestic suppliers: SZAFIR (KIR), CENCERT, SIGILLUM, EUROCERT.

The document can be downloaded HERE.


22.03.2021

The Organizer published an explanation no 6 of the content of the Competition Regulations.

QUESTION 28                                            
Please clarify if a building with a didactic and scientific program, with fully furnished auditoriums (total area of ca. 20000 m2, building permit and detailed documentation, a legally binding building permit obtained) will fulfill the requirement stated in item 1.6 c) of the Regulations? The building is classified to the 4th category - buildings dedicated to culture, science and education.  

ANSWER:
The overall program of the building must support a widely understood cultural and entertainment function. It is the Competition Participant’s responsibility to prove to the Organizer in the phase of preparing the application for admission and submitting documents and statements that the completed service concerns a building with a leading cultural and entertainment function.
The Organizer will accept mixed-function buildings, where the cultural and entertainment function is the leading function or an important function from the point of view of the building’s users (e.g. a separated part of the building of more than 10 000 m2 in total area).


QUESTION 29                                        

QUESTION 29.1
With respect to the reference design of 10 000 m2 in total area, provided to confirm our professional competence, can you confirm that only the requirements of “Appendix 3d” need to be confirmed? Does this mean that no additional visualizations or data need to be submitted?

ANSWER:
The Organizer confirms that, in order to confirm the fulfillment of condition for participation in the competition concerning technical and professional capacity with respect to experience, the applicant needs only submit a completed and signed Appendix 3d, i.e. The statement of fulfillment of condition for participation in the competition, as specified by the Organizer, regarding technical and professional capabilities pertaining to professional experience, including a list of services and information on the value, subject, completion date and entities, for which the services have been completed.
No additional information, plans, documents or references need to be submitted in this respect.

 

QUESTION 29.2
With respect to “Appendix 3c”; if we, a leading architecture office, have employees with an equivalent license issued in another EU Member State, will this be construed as “direct” disposal of such persons? Do we have to submit a current license with a translation?

ANSWER:
If the Competition Participant is a company employing personnel with equivalent qualifications to those required from the Participants under the Competition Regulations, then this will be recognized as “direct” disposal.
The competition participant needs not submit any current licenses or their translations.

 

QUESTION 29.3
Can you provide a link to the site where the respective laws and conditions pertaining to equivalent licenses in EU states, as referred to in item 1.6. b) in the “Note” section, can be found:
“Note: Equivalent qualifications obtained in other countries, according to principles set out in article 12a of the Construction Law of 7 July 1994 (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 1333), considering the provisions of the Act of 22 December 2015 on the principles of recognizing professional qualifications obtained in Member States of the European Union (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 220) shall be admitted.

ANSWER:
Unfortunately, the documents containing these provisions are only available in Polish. Link to the Construction Law of 7 July 1994:
https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19940890414
Link to the Act of 22 December 2015 on the principles of recognizing professional qualifications obtained in Member States of the European Union:
http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20160000065


QUESTION 30                                            
With reference to question 4, can you confirm that by March 24, we will only have to submit appendices 3a through 3f, and that, in this phase, no other supplementary documents are required as evidence (including a Polish translation). If, according to appendix 3d or 3c, the leading applicant is obligated to submit a “statement of entities”, is there a form for that? Or perhaps this is a document which is drawn up independently by both companies to confirm their services provided?

ANSWER:
The Organizer confirms that by March 24 at 12.00, all entities interested in participating in the competition should have submitted Appendices 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d in accordance with the provisions of Section III item 3.2.
Appendices 3f are submitted by Competition Participants jointly participating in the competition only.
Appendices 3e are submitted by Individual Competition Participants, when an Individual Participant has appointed a representative.
The statement of the entity sharing its resources is to be prepared by Competition Participants themselves. The statement of the entity sharing its resources should fulfill the requirements of item 1.7. c) of Section III of the Regulations.


QUESTION 31                                            
With reference to section III item 1.b, does the person with equivalent qualifications need to have a Polish equivalent of such license in order to qualify in this phase? We are not sure if we will need our partner architect with a Polish license, or whether we will be able to participate in the competition by ourselves, being an office from a neighboring EU state holding the required, local professional qualifications. If possible, we would prefer to participate ourselves.

ANSWER:
The Organizer does not require an unlimited Polish architectural design and construction license,
but requires equivalent qualifications obtained in other countries, according to principles set out in article 12a of the Construction Law of 7 July 1994 (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 1333), considering the provisions of the Act of 22 December 2015 on the principles of recognizing professional qualifications obtained in Member States of the European Union (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 220).


QUESTION 32                                            
In order to finalize the application, will you accept a .zip file containing a single .p7m file (an extension associated with electronic signatures) containing the required appendices?

ANSWER:
As a “packaging”, the .zip file may contain signed files inside it.
The electronic signature placed on individual documents must be a qualified signature, fulfilling the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014, the so-called eIDAS Regulation.
If uncertain, verify your signature at
https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/DSS/webapp-demo/validation
https://weryfikacjapodpisu.pl/
or using a tool provided by one of domestic suppliers: SZAFIR (KIR), CENCERT, SIGILLUM, EUROCERT
Files must be signed according to the rules for signing documents of the signature supplier.
All questions in this respect should be answered by the supplier of the qualified signature.
.p7m is not an extension the Principal is obligated to accept, and, therefore, the competition participant should not use it.
Acceptable signature formats are XADES and PADES.


QUESTION 33                                        
The question refers to item 1.6.c) of the Regulations. We have experience in designing a sports center (as a cultural facility) and a school (as a didactic facility). Both buildings are more than 10 000m2 each. Would their design fulfill the conditions for participation in this competition? If yes, which one is more suitable when it comes to fulfilling the requirements?

ANSWER:
The Organizer has stated that this must be one cultural and entertainment building.
Presenting two buildings, where one has a cultural program and the second serves an entertainment function, will not be recognized as fulfillment of the said condition.


QUESTION 34                                            
If I used an UAE electronic signature to sign documents using Acrobat software, would this fulfill your requirements?

ANSWER:
The electronic signature placed on individual documents must be a qualified signature, fulfilling the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014, the so-called eIDAS Regulation. If uncertain, verify your signature at
https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/DSS/webapp-demo/validation; https://weryfikacjapodpisu.pl/
or using a tool provided by one of domestic suppliers: SZAFIR (KIR), CENCERT, SIGILLUM, EUROCERT.

 

QUESTION 35                                            
Do we have to appoint a lawyer to represent us in the initial and subsequent phases of the competition? Due to the issue of the qualified signature in Poland, we concluded that, as a foreign company, we will need your clarification of this issue.

ANSWER:
It is the Competition Participant’s decision about whether to appoint an attorney or a representative (including a lawyer). Unfortunately, the Organizer is not able to answer this question due to insufficient information about the Competition Participant’s need to appoint such a person.
The Organizer has not stated that electronic documents need to be signed solely with a Polish electronic signature.
The electronic signature must however be made in accordance with the provisions of the Electronic Identification and Trust Services Regulation - eIDAS, 910/2014/EC, which sets forth standard rules for all Member States. Before submitting any document signed in this manner, check if it is positively verified by generally available verification tools e.g.
https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/DSS/webapp-demo/validation
https://weryfikacjapodpisu.pl/
or use a tool provided by one of domestic suppliers: SZAFIR (KIR), CENCERT, SIGILLUM, EUROCERT.


QUESTION 36                                            
With reference to appendix 3d, can the design documentation referred to therein concern the reconstruction of a cultural-entertainment building of min. 10 000 m2 in total area, or does it have to apply to the construction of a new building dedicated to these functions?

ANSWER:
The Organizer will deem the condition referred to in Section III item 1.6 c) fulfilled when the reconstruction is made on a cultural-entertainment building.


QUESTION 37                                            
Can a foreign competition participant use a qualified electronic signature issued by a certified supplier recognized within the EU, but not listed by the National Certification Center (https://www.nccert.pl/)? Our partner purchased a signature at Skribble.

ANSWER:
The electronic signature placed on individual documents must be a qualified signature, fulfilling the requirements of the eIDAS regulation. It does not need to be listed by the NCC.
If uncertain, verify your signature at
https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/DSS/webapp-demo/validation
https://weryfikacjapodpisu.pl/
or use a tool provided by one of domestic suppliers: SZAFIR (KIR), CENCERT, SIGILLUM, EUROCERT.

 

QUESTION 38                                            
Due to a short deadline for submitting applications for participation in the Competition together with all and any evidence, statements and documents to confirm the fulfillment of Organizer’s requirements, will the Principal consent to postponing the deadline to 31.03.2021?

ANSWER:
The Organizer does not consent to any change of the deadline for submitting applications for admission, evidence, statements and documents.


QUESTION 39                                            
Please clarify whether an engineering office can be a member in more than one team of authors? According to the Competition Regulations, teams of authors, among others, can be Competition Participants jointly participating in the competition. Section III item 1.5 also contains a provision which states that a competition participant (also applicable to Competition Participants jointly participating in the competition) will be excluded from the competition if they have submitted more than one Application.
Please confirm if an engineering team can join several teams as an entity.

ANSWER:
An engineering office may not join several teams as an entity within the meaning of a Competition Participant. A Competition Participant (including Competition Participants jointly participating in the competition) will be excluded from the competition together with the Participants participating jointly with them if this Participant is named in more than one application for admission.


QUESTION 40                                            
Does the Organizer expect competition participants to copy the statements provided in Appendix 3s Section III and sign them individually? None of the appendices 3a-3f have a place for signature.
The same question applies to 3b, does the Organizer expect the bottom of each page to be signed?

ANSWER:
The Organizer hereby advises that all documents must be submitted in their electronic form, via the Electronic Communication Platform (https://www.soldea.pl/epz/epz/). Documents must be affixed with a qualified electronic signature, if such requirement is stated in the Competition Regulations.
Only in the case.
The Organizer will accept documents signed by a participant from outside the EEA in the form of a digital counterpart (scans) of documents drawn up in their paper form, signed and stamped by the person authorized to represent the Participant. The conformity of digital counterparts of documents with their hard copies shall be certified by a notary public, using a qualified electronic signature.
In the above case, the handwritten signature and stamp of the person authorized to represent the Participant may be placed at the bottom of each Appendix.


QUESTION 41                                        

QUESTION 41.1
Please order the names and the numbering of appendices to the regulations. The names of the files do not correspond to their contents, and some materials are duplicated under different names.

ANSWER:
The Organizer verified the Appendices published on the website and confirmed their correctness both in form and contents.

 

QUESTION 41.2
Please specify the contents of the study in the 1st and 2nd phase. The fact that parts of drawings can be placed on boards or on “A3” sheets will hinder comparison of designs for the Jury.

ANSWER:
The Organizer hereby advises that the description of the study and the competition design have been sufficiently specified in the Competition Regulations for the Jury to be able to compare and evaluate the designs.

 

QUESTION 41.3
Please specify the expected views (section IV, item 2.2 2) c).

ANSWER:
The locations of individual views shall be chosen by the Competition Participant at their own discretion.

 

QUESTION 41.4
Can the Principal provide appendix 7a in the DWG format in a 2010, 2013 or 2017 version?

ANSWER:
The Organizer is not able to provide Appendix 7a in the DWG format in the 2010, 2013 or 2017 version.
The Competition Participant may use free conversion software to convert files saved in the DWG format (e.g. Autodesk DWG Trueview).

 

QUESTION 41.5
Appendices 7e, 7f, 7g, 7j, 7k are missing in the materials available for download – please provide the missing appendices.

ANSWER:
Please read the text on the competition website, in the tab containing files available for download (“Regulations”). For Appendices 7e, 7f, 7g, 7j, the Organizer stated that they will be published after Participants have been qualified on the basis of applications for admission.
Appendix 7k is available for download in the “Regulations” tab, as a separate “Appendix 7k”.

 

QUESTION 41.6
Can you clarify the “information about value”, which should be provided with the list of services referred to in item 1.6 c)? - does it refer to the value of the complete investment or the value of service itself, i.e. the value of development of design documentation for the investment? In the published statement template - appendix 3d, there is no field for entering the value.

ANSWER:
The Organizer hereby advises that “information on the value of services” is not mandatory.

 

QUESTION 41.7
Point 1.6. c) states that the statement of fulfillment of condition for participation in the competition, as specified by the Organizer, regarding technical and professional capabilities pertaining to professional experience, including a list of services, should include a list of entities, for which the services were or have been performed – which contradicts the provisions of the preceding paragraph, which states that the service should be “duly executed and completed”. Please specify.

ANSWER:
Please provide the name of the entity, for which the service was completed.
 

QUESTION 41.8
Will a service consisting in the development of design documentation including a building permit design and detailed design for a building which received a legal and binding building permit, but was not issued an occupancy permit, fulfill the Organizer’s requirements under item 1.6. c)?

ANSWER:
Yes.

 

QUESTION 41.9
Will the Principal present a template for the statement of the entity sharing its resources referred to in item 1.7 b) and c)?

ANSWER:
The statement of the entity sharing its resources is to be prepared by Competition Participants themselves. The statement of the entity sharing its resources should fulfill the requirements of item 1.7. c) of Section III of the Regulations.

 

QUESTION 41.10
Is appendix 7a incorrectly described as “APPENDIX 8A TO THE REGULATIONS” within the document (Organizer’s note: concerns Section IV of the Competition Regulations).

ANSWER:
The Organizer reviewed Section IV of the Competition Regulations and found no occurrences of “APPENDIX 8A TO THE REGULATIONS”.

 

QUESTION 41.11
Appendix 7a specifies two competition scopes (study and design). Does the “scope of the study” encompass both of these areas?
According to the definition, the “Scope of the competition study” - shall be understood as the area covered by the study, as marked in Appendix 7a to the Regulations.

ANSWER:
The scope of the competition work shall include the design and the study, as set out in Appendix 7a to the Regulations.

 

QUESTION 41.12
The competition regulations include the term “A3 sheet”. Is the sheet understood within the meaning of the regulations as a single page, or is this a sheet consisting of two sides (front, reverse)?

ANSWER:
In the case of the graphic part, the “A3 sheet” should be understood as a sheet of paper in the A3 format, printed over on one side. In the case of the descriptive part, double-sided print on A3 sheets is acceptable.

 

QUESTION 41.13
Can the description be printed on A3 sheets so that they contain a maximum required volume of 5 x A4 pages? The descriptive part should be submitted in the form of an A3 notebook.

ANSWER:
The Organizer hereby advises that the description may be printed on A3 sheets so that they contain a maximum required volume of 5 x A4 pages.


QUESTION 41.14
Please confirm that the six-digit identification number should not be placed on the physical / paper version of the 100x70cm board (section IV, item 2.2).

ANSWER:
The Organizer hereby confirms that the six-digit identification number should not be placed on the physical / paper version of the 100x70cm board.

 

QUESTION 41.15
Please confirm that the six-digit identification number should be placed on the first page of the descriptive part in its electronic version (section IV, item 3.3).

ANSWER:
The Organizer hereby confirms that the six-digit identification number should be placed on the first page of the descriptive part in its electronic version.


QUESTION 42                                            
Please clarify if the required file containing the application for participation in the competition should be sent as a business secret.

ANSWER:
It is the Competition Participant’s decision to choose the information which will be treated as a business secret. The Organizer does not have such information.


QUESTION 43                                            
With reference to question 26 and the answer thereto - is it possible to postpone the deadline for submitting the version certified with an electronic signature to April 6? Of course, the remaining documents would be submitted until March 24. This change of deadline stems from the need to send completed documents by courier mail to Poland, which will take a lot of time. The electronic signature is rarely used in America, and works in other systems which are not acceptable in Europe. To sum up: On March 24, we would submit all documents without an electronic signature, and on April 6, the same documents would be submitted with an electronic signature.

ANSWER:
The Organizer does not foresee any change in Competition deadlines, nor any change of the form, in which documents are to be submitted.


QUESTION 44                                            
Does the single-source contract need to be signed by the design architect, or whether another office, for instance a local planner (with an international design architect as a subcontractor) can be a contract partner? If yes, does the design architect need to appoint the main contract partner in the phase of submitting the application?

ANSWER:
The contract must be signed by an Individual Competition Participant or by Competition Participants jointly participating in the competition (e.g. a consortium) whose competition design was selected as the winner and who received the prize in the form of invitation of single-source contract negotiations.
If the design architect is an Individual Competition Participant, they will be obligated to sign the contract in person. If the design architect is one of Competition Participants jointly participating in the competition, together with another design or engineering office, the contract is signed jointly by all Competition Participants jointly participating in the competition, or only by one of them, provided that the remaining participants consented to this and all copyright matters have been settled among these Participants.


QUESTION 45                                            
Must all appendices 3a-3f be submitted by 24.03.2021?

ANSWER:
Yes.


QUESTION 46                                            
Section III item 1.7 of the competition regulations states: “In order to fulfill the condition for participation in the competition, as specified in points 2.1 b) and c) of these Regulations, the Competition Participant may rely on the resources of other entities, pursuant to the provisions of article 118 of the Act, i.e. (...)”
Is that an editorial error? There is no item 2.1 in section III. What should be the correct wording of this item, and where to look for item 2.1?

ANSWER:
The Organizer hereby advises that it is an editorial error.
Section III item 1.7 should read:
In order to fulfill the condition for participation in the competition, as specified in points 1.6 b) and c) of these Regulations, the Competition Participant may rely on the resources of other entities, pursuant to the provisions of article 118 of the Act, i.e. (...)”


QUESTION 47                                            
If an entity joins the competition with a foreign team, does the foreign team must also prove that the condition for completing design documentation for a reference building was fulfilled, and does the foreign team have to employ at least one person holding an equivalent unlimited architectural design license, or will it suffice if the team jointly fulfills these conditions: e.g. the reference building will have been developed by a foreign team and the required designer having an adequate license will represent a Polish office?

ANSWER:
The Organizer hereby advises that, in accordance with the competition regulations, in the case of Competition Participants jointly participating in the competition, the requirements referred to in Section III item 1.6 points b) and c) shall be deemed fulfilled if they are fulfilled by at least one of the Competition Participants acting jointly.


QUESTION 48                                            
The question concerns applications with a certified Polish translation.
Can we submit a Polish translation made by a Polish native speaker?


ANSWER:
Yes.
Any documents and statements submitted in a foreign language shall be submitted with a Polish translation certified for conformity with the original by the Competition Participant or their representative.


QUESTION 49                                        
Is it necessary to hire a sworn translator if documentation is submitted in Polish?

ANSWER:
It is not necessary to have a sworn translator translate documents into Polish.
Any documents and statements submitted in a foreign language shall be submitted with a Polish translation certified for conformity with the original by the Competition Participant or their representative.


QUESTION 50                                            
Will the condition pertaining to experience in the development of design documentation for a cultural and entertainment building of min. 10 000 sqm in total area be considered fulfilled when the competition participant has completed a shopping mall with an entertainment section (a cinema multiplex)?

ANSWER:
The overall program of the building must support a widely understood cultural and entertainment function. It is the Competition Participant’s responsibility to prove to the Organizer in the phase of preparing the application for admission and submitting documents and statements that the completed service concerns a building with a leading cultural and entertainment function.
The Organizer will accept mixed-function buildings, where the cultural and entertainment function is the leading function or an important function from the point of view of the building’s users (e.g. a separated part of the building of more than 10 000 m2 in total area).

The document can be downloaded HERE.


16.04.2021

The Organizer published an explanation no 7 of the content of the Competition Regulations.

QUESTION 1                                            
How and when will appendices 7e, 7f, 7g and 7j be made available to competition participants?  

ANSWER:
Appendices 7e, 7f, 7g and 7j be published until 20.04.2021.


QUESTION 2                                            
According to Appendix 7b to the Competition Regulations, the proposed area of the Festival Center is 8633m 2, but after adding individual counterparts of the Center, i.e. The Main House, the Foyer and the ECFC Administration, the total area is 9302m 2. Which of these values should be adopted? Please specify the expected Festival Center area.

ANSWER:
The program table included in Appendix 7b, i.e. the total area calculations for the Festival Center - item I of the table, states the area of the Main House - field 1. in the table, and the area of the Foyer (total) - field 2. in the table. The area of the ECFC Administration - item 3 in the table - functions separately (which is why it has not been included in the total area of the Festival Center). Therefore, it should be assumed as follows:
The total area of the Festival Center is: 2852m 2 (Main House - item 1) + 5781m 2 (Foyer - item 2) = 8633m 2, as before, plus the area of the ECFC Administration (item 3) = 669m 2
Therefore, item I. in the table in Appendix 7b - Festival Center, should be 9302m 2.
This correction, however, does not change the total, final area of all spaces covered with the functional program - the complete ECFC.


QUESTION 3                                            
According to Appendix 7b to the Competition Regulations, the proposed area of the Market is 2317m 2, whereas after adding all component areas of the Market, we have obtained a total area of 2407m 2. Which of these values should be adopted? Please specify the expected area of the Market.

ANSWER:
The program table in Appendix 7b - item II.2 (Exhibition room 1) and item II.3 (Exhibition room 2) erroneously states: 550m 2, for each room. However, the correct values should be:
II.2 (Exhibition room 1) - 505m 2
II.3 (Exhibition room 2) - 505m 2
Therefore, the complete area of the Market is 2317m 2.


QUESTION 4                                            
The Organizer stated that Appendices 7e, 7f, 7g, 7 will be published after Participants have been qualified to the competition. Can you specify when will that be (exact date)?

ANSWER:
Appendices 7e, 7f, 7g and 7j be published until 20.04.2021.


QUESTION 5                                            
As regarding the Study developed in Phase I of the Competition, does the Organizer foresee any participation in the expenditure incurred by the Participant?

ANSWER:
No.


QUESTION 6                                            
Where can I find the individual identification number of the Study assigned to me?

ANSWER:
The identification number of the Study is individually assigned by the Competition Participant.


QUESTION 7                                            
If the total area is maintained and each of the functional blocks is fulfilled within the complex, can the designer adopt some deviations from the requirements pertaining to mutual relations among individual elements (cinema auditoriums, the market, the museum, etc.) - if the architectural concept would require this?

ANSWER:
Yes, but the Organizer has thoroughly analyzed their needs and the resulting functioning of the ECFC building on this specific site and in these specific spatial conditions. Therefore, the recommendations for mutual relations among individual functional and program elements of the buildings, as well as the relations with neighboring areas and their development, as stated in Appendix 7b, should be treated as suggested by the Organizer. Of course, the Competition Participant is free to suggest their own vision of these suggestions, which will be evaluated by the Competition Jury together with its justification. Rationally, from the functional point of view, different proposals will not disqualify the design.


QUESTION 8                                        
Question to Appendix 7B to the Competition Regulations, page 1: To what extent spatial guidelines need to be observed? For instance, item 1 refers to a passage “on the southern side of the lot”, or item 3 refers to a square in front of the entrance - i.e. a northeastern location. To what extent are these guidelines binding and can they be deviated from?

ANSWER:
See the answer to question no. 7.


QUESTION 9                                            
Are the competition assumptions perhaps mutually contrasting? On the one hand, the Organizer expects the expression of unshackled architectural imagination, but, on the other hand, very specific relations of individual groups of spaces and their locations within the building and on the site are stated - which significantly determines the design. To what extent is the spatial layout of the investment binding (page 8, appendix 7b)?

ANSWER:
See the answer to question no. 7.


QUESTION 10                                            
Is the VIP zone in the circle of the Main House to include 35 seats of ca. 540 sqm? What function should the remaining area of the circle serve?

ANSWER:
In Appendix 7b, the program table erroneously states 35 seats in item I.1.2. The “number of seats” should be ca. 350. The Competition Regulations do not explicitly recommend the circle to be dedicated to a VIP zone. However, the designer may propose an additional VIP row in the circle. This will not disqualify the design proposal.
NOTE:
According to the Competition regulations, the central part of the middle sectors shall be reserved for VIP seats (ca. 300 seats).


QUESTION 11                                            
In the graphic part, can the Competition Participant prepare a digital visualization instead of a “schematic bird’s view of the site (...) from the eastern side” (item 2.2. Section IV of the Regulations) together with possible, additional visualizations?

ANSWER:
Yes.
For the study, the Organizer will accept the graphic part to be executed in any technique, provided that it is legible, clear and explicit, and that the idea proposed by the Competition Participant is clearly presented.


QUESTION 12                                            
Do the requirements for the contents of the study and the thematic scope of the study (item 2 Section IV of the Regulations) state the minimum or maximum requirements, i.e. can be supplement the guidelines and/or provide additional information we have deemed useful?

ANSWER:
In view of the comparability of the Studies developed by Competition Participants, as stated in Section IV, the requirements for the formal and thematic scope of this Study should be treated as maximum ones.
Any additional elements presented by the Competition Participant will not affect the evaluation of the Competition Jury, but will not disqualify the Study either.

QUESTION 13                                            
Please provide us with the following appendices:
Appendix 7e - Excerpt from the design documentation of the Jordanki Culture and Congress Center (CKK Jordanki) within a scope necessary for linking level -1 of its underground garage to the ECFC building.
Appendix 7f - Excerpt from the design documentation of the Center of Contemporary Art within a scope necessary for linking level -1 of its underground garage to the ECFC building.
Appendix 7g - Excerpt from the design documentation of the newly designed Center of Contemporary Art building within a scope necessary for executing a link to this building from the ECFC building at level +1.

ANSWER:
Appendices 7e, 7f, 7g and 7j be published until 20.04.2021.


QUESTION 14                                            
Please provide us with the following appendix:
Appendix 7j - A survey of green areas and greenery in the Jordanki area, including the competition area.

ANSWER:
Appendices 7e, 7f, 7g and 7j be published until 20.04.2021.


QUESTION 15                                            
According to appendix 7c to the Competition Regulations, the maximum development height on the investment site is 20m, with local super-elevations to 30m, in ordinate 83 m a.s.l., this will be allowed on 20% of the construction lot. To calculate these 20%, please confirm with us the spatial limitations we should be taking into account.

ANSWER:
The construction lot is the Investment site marked in Appendix 7a to the Regulations with the boundaries for design. The site is situated on lots no. 6/18, 6/20 and 6/22 in area 14 of ca. 1.85 ha in total area, which are owned by the Organizer, and a part of lot no. 6/10, a part of lot no. 6/21 and lot no. 6/9 and 6/17 of ca. 0.55 ha in total area.
This aforementioned area of c.a. 2.4 ha should be adopted in the balance of the investment site development design at the stage of the competition design.

QUESTION 16                                            
When and where will appendices 7e, 7f, 7g, 7j be published?

ANSWER:
Appendices 7e, 7f, 7g and 7j be published until 20.04.2021.


QUESTION 17                                            
Please confirm if we have correctly understood the terms of the competition: For the Study developed in Phase I, we are obligated to submit a design for the “Studio” part of the construction program, which is marked as “05” on the map.

ANSWER:
According to Section IV item 2.2 pt. 1) of the Competition Regulations, the Study must present the whole scope of the competition design, according to appendix 7a to the Regulations.
According to the provisions of Section II, the “Studio” building is Phase I of the overall Investment consisting in the construction of the European Film Center CAMERIMAGE, and NOT Phase I of the Competition, i.e.:
“The Investment consisting in the construction of the ECFC Building will be divided into two phases, which should be taken into consideration when developing the competition design.
Phase I concerns the construction of a Studio in the southeastern corner of the area belonging to the Organizer, the majority of which constitutes record parcel no. 6/22. Access to this building will be provided through the existing access road from ul. Wały gen. Władysława Sikorskiego (or, possibly, from the North, through the existing entrance to the CKK Jordanki area).
Phase II concerns the construction of the building containing the remaining ECFC program, i.e. the Festival Center, the Market, the House of Cinema, the Education Center and the underground garages, as well as the development of the entire area around the ECFC. The designer should incorporate a connection of the Studio with the building to be erected under Phase II of the Investment”

The Studio should be connected to the rest of the ECF Camerimage complex.


QUESTION 18                                            
Fig. 1 in appendix 7b to the Competition Regulations presents the general Functional Zones of the EFCF building (01 through 05). Is this division mandatory? Or does is simply display an idea for location various Functional Zones?

ANSWER:
The program and spacial instructions presented in Fig. 1 in Appendix 7b, pertaining to both the Functional Zones of the building and the land development around it, should be treated as schematic guidelines for the sizes and mutual relations of individual functional zones.
The Organizer has thoroughly analyzed their needs and the resulting functioning of the ECFC building on this specific site and in these specific spatial conditions. Therefore, the recommendations for mutual relations among individual functional and program elements of the buildings, as well as the relations with neighboring areas and their development, as stated in Appendix 7b, should be treated as suggested by the Organizer. Of course, the Competition Participant is free to suggest their own vision of these suggestions, which will be evaluated by the Competition Jury and will not disqualify the Study.


QUESTION 19                                            
Fig. 1 in appendix 7b to the Competition Regulations presents the future, grand square in front of the EFCF building (PL). Can this square be placed and shaped differently? We would like to know if the location is binding, or presented to illustrate an idea.
ANSWER:
See the answer to question 18.


QUESTION 20                                            
In photograph no. 0050 in the “Drone photographs of the ECFC”, we have noticed on a sign next to the entrance to the Jordanki underground garage that the clear height is 1.8m. Can the Organizer provide the sections of existing underground parking lots, with clearly marked heights and elevation ordinates?

ANSWER:
Appendices 7e, 7f, 7g and 7j be published until 20.04.2021.


QUESTION 21                                            
Can the main access road and the grand square be located on the western side of the design area, thus transferring the communication zones (K0, K1, K2 in fig. 1 in appendix 7b) and merging them with the delivery and service zones for existing and future buildings?

ANSWER:
This solution is advised against, since, according to the provisions of Section II of the competition regulations, the idea for the architectural and urban concept for the ECFC building, and the intention of the Organizer and the City of Toruń is to create a large public square serving as an element which would functionally and spatially integrate all cultural buildings situated in the Jordanki area, i.e.:
“It is the intention of the Organizer and the City of Toruń, which has actively participated in the ECFC investment, to create a center for cultural events in the Jordanki area, a melting pot for art initiatives, as well as a friendly and welcoming space. Authorial proposals for the ECFC concept should therefore aim to create interiors with a user-friendly atmosphere but an elegant and stately appeal (particularly the Festival Center), which, together with the yard surrounded by culturally significant buildings, would create the “salon” of Toruń. Creating a grand square will integrate the existing buildings and will serve as the place where cinema personalities and the participants of other cultural events will be welcomed with splendor. A grand entrance to the Festival Center should be designed on the building’s axis, e.g. by reflecting certain canonical solutions which have already been applied in the entrance areas to similar festival venues and palaces in the world.”


QUESTION 22
When will appendices 7e, 7f, 7g and 7j be published?

ANSWER:
Appendices 7e, 7f, 7g and 7j be published until 20.04.2021.


QUESTION 23                                            
In describing the scenario in Appendix 7b (explanation no. 1 to the Main House), could the Organizer clarify what they meant by a “rotating mechanism”?
 

ANSWER:
This is a stage design technology applying a rotating mechanism, in which a separated, round part of the stage or the complete stage can rotate. The rotating part of the stage must be flush with the rest of the stage and the wings.


QUESTION 24                                            
With reference to the Competition Regulations and the notification of our admission to participate in the competition dated 08.04.2021, we have compiled the following questions or request for clarification pertaining to the contents of the Competition Regulations, with regards to the procedure for preparing and submitting studies:

Fig. 2 (Appendix 7b) the Investment possibilities of individual elements to be developed as part of the competition design are determined by area “A” - the site where the main elements of the investment program are to be situated, including an underground part (the House of Cinema - the Museum/Art Gallery), and areas A1.1, A1.2 and A2.1 as the area of the underground and
above-ground part of the investment.
Question 1.1. Why have these areas been separated?
Question 1.2. Why has an underground part in area “A” not been separated?
Question 1.3. Are the boundaries of these areas to be treated as the boundaries for
design and construction?
The enclosed land development plan only partially answers this question (the northern and western border).
Please provide a clear and explicit answer as to the borders with the Center of Contemporary Art, BNP Paris Bank Polska S.A., the Marshal’s Office, and the Jordanki Cultural and Conference Center.
Question 1.4. The said land development plan does not determine the underground location of the House of Cinema / the Art Gallery.
Please explain this condition.

ANSWER:
Ad.1.1.

These areas were separated on the account of their ownership and agreements made with the city of Toruń, which is their owner. Additionally, this division stems from the current development of the neighboring areas and the future use of these areas according to their current design.
Ad.1.2.
By assumption, part A of the Investment area is primarily dedicated to the main elements of the investment program, including its underground part. An underground part was not separated because it will be the Competition Participant’s job to determine the scope of the underground part related to the House of Cinema - Museum/ Art Gallery, cinema auditoriums and underground parking garage, as well as any other elements of the program if the Participant decides to place them in the underground part of the building. The investment part pertaining to the Main House of the Festival Center includes an underground story and above-ground stories. The part housing the House of Cinema/ Art Gallery includes a zone within the property, where both above- and underground stories can be built, and a zone where only an underground story can be built, together with forms of surface greenery.
Ad.1.3.
The boundaries marked in Fig. 2 in Appendix 7b reflect the borderlines of individual lots in the land and mortgage register or their fragments, and point to the design scope of the Investment, which has been described in detail (the scope, to which the Investment can be implemented in given areas) in the Legend to Fig 2.
Ad.1.4.
The Land Development Plan determines that no above-ground structures can be built in the area beyond the impassable development line. However, underground building elements can be located there.


QUESTION 25                                            
Location of the House of Cinema - Museum/ Art Gallery according to Fig. 1 (Appendix 7b)
The spatial and program guidelines for the design area (...) foresee that the House of Cinema - Museum/ Art Gallery should have around 2000 m2 underground.
The program table states a much larger area 3959 m2, which is 100% larger.
Please correct the program guidelines or provide clear instructions that the Museum / Art Gallery can be located directly under the House of Cinema - Cinema Auditoriums, at the cost of parking spaces.

ANSWER:
The Competition Participant will determine the scope of the underground parts of individual program and functional zones of the ECFC building (including the House of Cinema - the Museum / Art Gallery, Cinema auditoriums, underground parking lots). Therefore, the Organizer obviously admits the location of e.g. the Museum / Art Galleries under the House of Cinema - cinema auditoriums or other spaces required by the program underground or directly under other parts of the building, depending on their design decisions.


QUESTION 26                                            
The area specified by the Terms of the Competition, intended for the project and the construction of the European Film Center Camerimage, appears to be insufficient for the program, both horizontally (boundaries) and vertically (elevation). We would like to propose larger tolerances to the size of the required program, +/- 10% for the Main House of the Festival Center and +/-25% for the remaining ECFC program.

ANSWER:
The Organizer hereby advises that the investment possibilities have been thoroughly analyzed in the context of the design area and the recommended program and functions of the ECFC building. A detailed capacity analysis was conducted which indicated that the program specified for the competition (assuming areal tolerances of +/- 5% of the Main House of the Festival Center and +/- 15% for the remaining ECFC program) is viable and implementable within the design area. Further to the above, there are no legitimate grounds for changing the size tolerances for the program, which were stated in appendix 7b to the Competition Regulations.


QUESTION 27                                            
Can area “PL” (appendix 7b) Program and spatial guidelines for the competition design area (...) intended for the grand square in front of the ECFC building be developed and built-up in any way, in order to evoke this grand character, instead of leaving a random, open space remaining in chaotic relations with the existing buildings.

ANSWER:
The program and spatial layout presented in Fig. 1 should be treated as an illustration of a certain idea for the functioning and for the spatial and program relations of the ECFC building and its development. These are not rigid boundaries of the locations of individual building zones or spatial solutions. They should not be used to directly determine any sizes or volumes. This layout serves as general guidelines stemming from analyses and a definition of the Organizer’s needs with respect to the functioning of the ECFC building.


QUESTION 28                                            
Can the proposed link at level +1 between the ECFC building and the new CSW building be otherwise routed?

ANSWER:
No.
The location of the link was partially discussed and agreed on with the designer of the new CSW building. The designated point of connection to the new CSW building is also determined by the location of the designed link between this building and the existing CSW building.


QUESTION 29                                            
Please consider the following remarks and doubts concerning the competition deadlines.
6.1. According to the Terms of the Competition, appendices 7e, 7f and 7g which are necessary for creating solutions for links between the ECFC building, the Center for Contemporary Art and the Jordanki Cultural and Conference Center, are to be made available after the competition participants have qualified to the competition, i.e. a month before the deadline for submitting studies - which is very late and unnecessarily so. These studies have still been unavailable.
6.2. Answers to questions regarding the competition procedure can be expected after 19.04.2021, which is days (!) before the deadline for submitting studies.
Apart from this, the international character of the Competition, the SARP recommendation and its sheer size - probably the largest design competition after 1989 (combined with the pandemic), further reinforce the argument for a reasonable schedule.
The proposed Competition deadlines are not sufficient for providing a full design response, even in the study phase.
Therefore, we hereby request the deadlines to be postponed by at least by 2 weeks.

ANSWER:
The Organizer is considering the possibility of postponing the deadlines. The Organizer is currently analyzing the formal and legal implications of making such change to the deadlines in connection with the provisions of article 342 of the Public Procurement Act of 11 September 2019.
All Competition Participants will be notified about the changed deadlines until 19.04.2021.


QUESTION 30                                            
According to the competition regulations, 8.04 was the final deadline for notification of participants of their admission or rejection from the competition. Yet, we have not received any reply. I presume that the results were already announced. Can I therefore ask for any information about whether our company qualified to the next phase?

ANSWER:
Notification of admission to the competition was sent out via the Electronic Communication Platform to ALL Competition Participants admitted to participate in the competition on 08.04.2021. The Organizer suggest checking the “SPAM” folder in the mailbox, which may include the said notification.
You are also reminded that an automatic notification is always sent by the Electronic Communication Platform to the Participant’s e-mail address, stating that a message has been received on the Platform. The Participant must then log into their profile on the Platform and read this notification or download the file.


QUESTION 31                                            
The description of the stage (appendix 7b, explanation 1. to the Main House) states that the stage will be located at level “0” - ground floor of the ECFC building. Does the Organizer mean that the stage must be located at the same level as the Grand Square in front of the building, or would it be possible to lower it by one level?

ANSWER:
The guidelines and recommendations presented by the Organizer should be treated as a set of preferred solutions, obtained through spatial and program analyses of the ECFC building and its locations. The Organizer is aware that many more spatial solutions are possible, which is why the Organizer announced a competition, leaving it to the Participant to finally design the program and the functions of the ECFC building and its land development, considering the general principles for the organization of spaces in the building, as stated in the Regulations and in the Appendices. The Organizer will accept a different level for the stage, if this reasonably stems from the logic of the entire design concept developed by the Participant, and if it is functional.
Furthermore, Section IV item 1.3. states that, in drawing up the Study, the Competition Participant should take into consideration the contents and guidelines of the Competition Regulations and the Appendices thereto, which means that this requirement is not obligatory. All materials presented in the Regulations are to familiarize the Participants with the Organizer’s expectations as to the future ECFC building, and whether or not to apply them will be the decision of the Participant, which will be judged by the Competition Jury.


QUESTION 32                                            
Can the delivery road (from k0 to k2 in fig. 1 in appendix 7b) be located at a different level than the Main Square?

ANSWER:
It is the Competition Participant’s decision, assuming that all requirements pertaining to technical conditions, fire service are observed, and that this will not deteriorate the general functionality of deliveries, nor cause any significant changes in the current land development of adjoining areas, particularly with respect to existing tree stand. The communication analysis provided in Appendix 7d to the Competition Regulations can serve as support here.


QUESTION 33                                            
The explanations to the Functional Program of the Festival Center are quite precise. Can the Organizer give an example of an Auditorium to serve as a point of reference for the design?

ANSWER:
No.
The Organizer has thoroughly analyzed their needs and the resulting functioning of the ECFC building on this specific site and in these specific spatial conditions. Therefore, the recommendations for mutual relations among individual functional and program elements of the buildings, as well as the relations with neighboring areas and their development, as stated in Appendix 7b, should be treated as desired by the Organizer. Of course, the Competition Participant is free to suggest their own vision of these suggestions, which will be evaluated by the Competition Jury.


QUESTION 34                                            
QUESTION 34.1

Does the Organizer foresee a specific function for the unmarked building which is to be connected to the planned CSW extension?

ANSWER:
No.
The Organizer suggested that this could house a restaurant, a media zone, a VIP zone, but the final decision is to be made by the Participant. The Participant should remember, however, that this part is closest to the Center for Contemporary Art, where, according to the guidelines, the western entrance to the ECFC should be located (green area). Therefore, it would be justified to locate adequate functions and programs there.


QUESTION 34.2
Please provide the design for the planned extension of the CSW building.

ANSWER:
Appendices 7e, 7f, 7g and 7j be published until 19.04.2021.


QUESTION 34.3
Should the triangular area owned by the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship, situated between the planned grand square and the Marshal’s Office, marked with a thin, orange line (dashed and a dot), marked in figure no. 1 in appendix 7b, be included in the sope of the study?

ANSWER:
No.

The document can be downloaded HERE.


20.04.2021

The Organizer published an explanation no 8 of the content of the Competition Regulations.

QUESTION 35                                            
QUESTION 35.1

The question refers to the number of seats in the circle: Is the provided number of seats (35) correct? Looking at the suggested area, we suspect an error.

ANSWER:
In Appendix 7b, the program table erroneously states 35 seats in item I.1.2. The “number of seats” should be ca. 350.


QUESTION 35.2
The question pertains to the lot fragment adjoining the newly designed square and the CK Jordanki amphitheater, with the land formations (embankments) - the site marked as A2 and A2.1 (appendix 7b_ Rys2_Mozliwosci inwestycyjne dla działek): Can this part of the lot be built-up or is this prohibited? Should the scarps remain intact?

ANSWER:
According to the description for site A.2 and A.2.1 from the “Legend to Fig. 2) in Appendix 7b, above-ground parts of the ECFC building must not be located in that part. Underground parts of the building may be situated there, as well as communication between the CKK Jordanki and ECFC buildings. Since the current function of the site must be restored, i.e. the amphitheater/auditorium, together with its connection with the grand square in front of the ECFC, It should be assumed that the scarps may be ultimately changed or liquidated The amphitheater may be recreated in a permanent form, or in the form of mobile elevations. Both an above-ground and an underground part of the ECFC building can be located in part no. A.2.1.


QUESTION 35.3
Please specify the scale, in which drawings of sections should be drawn on the 100x70cm board referred to in Section IV item 2.2 of the Regulations.

ANSWER:
The scale can be selected by the Competition Participant, on the condition that the proposed design solutions remain legible and explicit.


QUESTION 35.4
Please specify the orientation of the 100x70 cm board referred to in Section IV item 2.1. Of the Regulations - should the board be horizontal or vertical?
As a side note, the Polish version of the Regulations specifies a horizontal board, whereas the English version - a vertical board.

ANSWER:
The 100x70cm board should be prepared in the horizontal. There was an error in the English translation.


QUESTION 35.5
Please specify the orientation - horizontal or vertical - of the study in the form of A3 boards referred to in Section IV item 2.1. of the Regulations.

ANSWER:
The scale can be selected by the Competition Participant, on the condition that the proposed design solutions remain legible and explicit.


QUESTION 35.6
Please specify if the descriptive part referred to in Section IV item 2.3. Of the Regulations is to be prepared in the A3 format in the electronic version (saved in a pdf file).

ANSWER:
Yes.


QUESTION 35.7
Please clarify the meaning of “... views of the facade...” referred to in Section IV item 2.2 pt. 2 b). Are their to be in the form of facade drawings (orthogonal layouts) or perspective views?

ANSWER:
Due to the character of the Study, being an outline of the vision and design idea proposed by the Competition Participants, the form and method of presenting the facade can be chosen by the Competition Participant, on the condition that the proposed design solutions remain legible and explicit.


QUESTION 35.8
Please specify if the scope of the master map included in appendix 7a to the Regulations can be adapted by the Participant to match the scope of the design, in order to fit in the 100x70 cm board (adapted to the scope of the study), or whether its scope should remain exactly as prepared by the Organizer?

ANSWER:
According to the terms of the Regulations, the 100x70 cm board should present the scope of the study according to Appendix 7a to the Regulations, which refers to the boundaries of the design and of the study, i.e. the scope of the overall competition design, and which have been stated in this Appendix.
Of course, it is important to display the environment and the context of the future ECFC investment on the board, i.e. areas outside the boundaries of the design, as far as reasonably possible according to the concept of graphic presentation of the Study and the design ideas adopted by the Participant.


QUESTION 35.9
Please confirm that only the first page of the description is to be marked with the six-digit identification number. Therefore, the 100x70 cm board and the A3 sheets should not be marked with the identification number?

ANSWER:
The Organizer hereby confirms that only the first page of the descriptive part is to be marked with the six-digit identification number.


QUESTION 35.10
Please specify if the area marked as A2 (appendix 7b_Rys2_Mozliwosci inwestycyjne dla działek) can be built-up.

ANSWER:
According to the provisions of the Legend to Fig. 2 in Appendix 7b, in area A.2, it is only possible to build underground parking lots, and in the case of above-ground development, only elements related to ECFC and CKK Jordanki traffic service (including entrance to the underground garage) are admitted.
The designer must propose solutions to restore the current function of this area, i.e. an amphitheater auditorium (either stationary or mobile) in front of the square (stage) behind the CKK Jordanki building, and its functional and spatial inclusion into the grand square in front of the ECFC building.
Underground and above-ground development related to the ECFC building is only admitted on the area marked as A2.1.


QUESTION 35.11
Please specify if suspended building forms overhanging areas marked as A2 and A2.1  (appendix 7b_Rys2_Mozliwosci inwestycyjne dla działek) are admitted.

ANSWER:
Regarding the investment possibilities admitted for area A2.1, please read the answer to question no. 35.10.
As regarding the investment possibilities for area A2, the Organizer admits the possibility of suspending a designed building above the subject area, provided that the remaining guidelines for this area, as instructed in Fig. 2 and the Legend to Fig. 2 in Appendix 7b and the remaining guidelines of the Competition Regulations are observed.


QUESTION 35.12
Please specify if roofing or a canopy can be constructed in areas marked as A2 and A2.1  (appendix 7b_Rys2_Mozliwosci inwestycyjne dla działek).

ANSWER:
Regarding the investment possibilities admitted for area A2.1, please read the answer to question no. 35.10.
As regarding the investment possibilities for area A2, the Organizer admits the possibility of building a roofing or a canopy in the subject area, provided that the remaining guidelines for this area, as instructed in Fig. 2 and the Legend to Fig. 2 in Appendix 7b and the remaining guidelines of the Competition Regulations are observed.


QUESTION 35.13
Please specify if suspended building forms overhanging the area marked as A1  (appendix 7b_Rys2_Mozliwosci inwestycyjne dla działek) are admitted.

ANSWER:
No, since an impassable development line runs on the eastern border of area A1 according to the Zoning Plan.

 

QUESTION 35.14
Please specify if roofing or a canopy can be constructed in area marked as A1 (appendix 7b_Rys2_Mozliwosci inwestycyjne dla działek).

ANSWER:
See the answer to question 35.13.


QUESTION 35.15
Please clarify if area marked as A (appendix 7b_Rys2_Mozliwosci inwestycyjne dla działek) is to serve as part of the amphitheater in the square adjoining the CKK Jordanki complex.

ANSWER:
The Competition Participant will propose solutions related to the recreation of the current function of area A2, i.e. the amphitheater auditorium in front of the square (stage) behind the CKK Jordanki building and its functional and spatial inclusion in the area of the grand square in front of the ECFC building, that is area A. The Competition Participant should decide, according to their land development vision, on the extent, to which the amphitheater part in area A2 will or will not be part of the area marked with the letter A, whereas a grand square in front of the ECFC building must be treated as a priority here.


QUESTION 35.16
Please clarify if area marked as A (appendix 7b_Rys2_Mozliwosci inwestycyjne dla działek) is to serve as part of the amphitheater in the square adjoining the CKK Jordanki complex, that is if you could provide more detailed information about this amphitheater. In figures and photographs, the square adjoining the CKK Jordanki complex from the western side looks like a flat area - without the classic amphitheater form.

ANSWER:
The Organizer recommends the Participant to conduct a site inspection on the competition area and on neighboring areas. Of course, the square in front of the CKK Jordanki building is flat, since it currently serves as the stage for the amphitheater form including embankments serving as auditoriums. The Organizer does not admit that the current solution is a typical solution for an amphitheater, which is why the Organizer expects the Competition Participants to deliver design proposals for the development of this area in the back of the CKK Jordanki building in view of its amphitheater function, where the existing, flat square is used as the stage.


QUESTION 35.17
Please clarify if area marked as A (appendix 7b_Rys2_Mozliwosci inwestycyjne dla działek), which is “... an area shaped like and amphitheater for the purposes of CKK Jordanki...” is to be designed as a permanent element/amphitheater, or, perhaps, as a temporary element (e.g. folded/retracted platforms forming the amphitheater when unfolded).

ANSWER:
The Organizer hereby advises that the area marked with the letter A in Fig. 7b is not shaped and/or intended as an amphitheater for the purposes of CKK Jordanki. According to the Legend to Fig. 2 in Appendix 7b, area A is described as: “Lot no. 6/18, 6/20, 6/20. Area intended for locating the main elements of the Investment program. The site is owned by ECFC”. The context and any interconnections between this area (area A) and the area intended for recreating the amphitheater function for the CKK Jordanki building (area A.2) were described by the Organizer in their answers to questions no. 35.2, 35.10. 35.15.


QUESTION 36                                            
Will the Organizer provide drawings for the underground stories of the CKK jordanki and CSW buildings, in order to visualize the functional links and the use of existing ramps leading to the underground garage (according to program guidelines)?

ANSWER:
Appendices 7e, 7f, 7g and 7j, which contain, among others, the drawings of individual underground stories in CKK Jordanki and CSW, will be published until 20.04.2021.


QUESTION 37                                            
Does the Organizer plan to include lots no. 6/13 and the northwestern part of lot no. 6/6 in the scope of the competition, in order to expand the Grand Square and provide a functional link with the Marshal’s Office building?

ANSWER:
The Organizer is not planning to include lots no. 6/13 and the northwestern part of lot no. 6/6 in the scope of the competition, since these lots are not owned by the Investor or the city of Toruń. These lots belong to the Marshal’s Office, which has its own plans as regarding their development.


QUESTION 38                                            
Appendix 7c (Draft Zoning Plan Resolution), section 3, article 9, item 7 (page 6) sets out the principles of development and land use indicators. The minimum and maximum floor area ratio (point 7b) were defined at 0.01 - 5.0. Does the Toruń Office also take into account underground stories? There were many discussions devoted to this issue, which has been treated differently in many different cities. Unfortunately, there is no clear definition of the floor area ratio in the Polish law, which leaves significant leeway for interpretation. Please provide the Toruń interpretation.

ANSWER:
The floor area ratio calculations stemming from the draft Zoning Plan Resolution for the subject area should take into account both the area of above-ground and underground stories.


QUESTION 39                                            
We would like to know if the screens (Main House and Cinema Auditoriums) will be be flat or curved.

ANSWER:
The Organizer will support this with the following guideline:
As regarding the screen, a curved design shall be applied in the Main House and the Cinema Auditorium no. 2 in the House of Cinema - intended for large-screen projections, e.g. IMAX or Dolby Vision (or equivalent).
Flat screen designs shall be applied in the remaining cinema auditoriums of the ECFC building.


QUESTION 40                                            
Can you publish the list of groups admitted to the STUDY phase?

ANSWER:
The list was published on the competition website on 15.04.2021.


QUESTION 41                                            
The deadline for preparing the study is very short.
From the receipt of notification about admission to the competition, the participants have 1 month (31 days) for preparing the study, whereas this period includes a state holiday (May 1-3).

What is more, as of today, that is 26 days before the deadline for submitting the studies, the Organizer has not yet published very important appendices 7f, 7g and 7h, which are necessary for correctly designing the European Film Center and concerning the existing and designed neighboring development which should be taken into account in the study.

In the two-phase competitions which had been organized in the recent years in Poland, an average of 2 to 3 months have always been devoted to the development of the study, e.g.
- Competition for the International Music Center in Żelazowa Wola in 2017 - 2 months and 1 week
- Competition for public buildings and a Boulevard fragment on the Vistula River in Warsaw in 2017 - 3 months
- Competition for the revitalization and adaptation of the Main Furnace in Ruda Śląska in 2019 - 2 months
- Competition for an educational campus in Michałowice in 2019 - 2 months and 2 weeks
- Competition for the Prosecuting Attorneys’ offices in Katowice in 2021 - 2 months

Therefore, taking into account:
- the size of the ECF building complex
- the gravitas of the design subject
- the complexity of the project, connected with the expected phasing and the need to strictly adhere to the conditions imposed by both existing and designed neighboring development
- the adopted practices and schedules of past two-phase competitions
- the COVID 19 pandemic which has slowed down the pace of design works due to sick leaves and obstacles posed by work from home the deadline for developing the study should be at least 2 to 3 months.

In the light of these arguments, will the Organizer consider the possibility of postponing the deadline for submitting the studies at least to June 10, 2021, which is our explicit request?

ANSWER:
The Organizer has taken into account the request of the Competition Participant and agreed to postpone the Competition deadlines. This information was published on the Competition website on 19.04.2021 and sent to all Competition Participants invited to submit competition studies via the Electronic Communication Platform.


QUESTION 42                                            
When does the Organizer intend to publish appendices 7 e, f, g, j to the Competition Regulations?

ANSWER:
Appendices 7e, 7f, 7g and 7j be published until 20.04.2021.


QUESTION 43                                            
The Organizer requested all technical drawings in the 1: 500 scale. However, technical drawings will not fit into the A3 format vertically. Can we present them in a smaller scale, possibly 1: 750?

ANSWER:
The Organizer hereby advises that, according to the Competition Regulations, schematic projections of all stories of the ECFC building (including levels -1 and -2), legibly presenting the general spatial arrangement of the required building program and function for individual levels, are only required for A3 sheets in 1:500.
Having verified this, the Organizer hereby advises that the ECFC floor plans will fit in A3 sheets in the horizontal in the 1:500 scale, since the whole area of the design, according to the boundaries established in Appendix 7a (except a small fragment of area A3, where the ECFC building must not be located anyway) will fit in an A3 sheet in the horizontal. However, if there are any problems with fitting building projections in A3 sheets in 1:500, the Organizer will accept their presentation on two A3 sheets.


QUESTION 44                                            
Section IV item 2.1 states that the board should be drawn up in the HORIZONTAL, but the English version clearly specifies the VERTICAL.
What is the correct layout of the 100x70 cm board for the first phase of the competition?

ANSWER:
The 100x70cm board should be prepared in the horizontal. There was an error in the English translation.


QUESTION 45                                            
Should the functional and spatial program include an additional back facility used for spectacles or concerts to be held in the main house of the ECFC, i.e. changing rooms, rehearsal rooms, cloak rooms, restrooms?

ANSWER:
The Organizer admits the possibility of locating back facilities in the form of basic functions, such as a changing room with cloak rooms and restrooms, but without rehearsal rooms, if the Competition Participant is able to separate sufficient, minimum area for these functions while maintaining the area parameters of the main program, as listed in Appendix 7b to the Regulations.

The document can be downloaded HERE.


27.04.2021

The Organizer published an explanation no 9 of the content of the Competition Regulations.

 

QUESTION 46                                            
Will answers to Questions 1-34 be published in English as well?

ANSWER:
Answers to questions 1 through 34 were published on the competition website.


QUESTION 47                                            
Please specify the scale of drawings presenting the sections and facades of the designed ECFC building. According to the Competition Regulations, the land development plan and drawings of individual stories should be in 1:500. Does this scale apply to sections and facades?

ANSWER:
The scale can be selected by the Competition Participant, on the condition that the proposed design solutions remain legible and explicit.
In accordance with Section III item 2.2. of the Competition Regulations:
“...In terms of pictorial/graphic presentation, the Studies may include sketches, drafts and schematics, provided that the clear and explicit presentation condition is fulfilled, the proposed concept and architectural character of the building and adjacent land development are legibly presented using any technique. It is however required that, despite admitting some formal generalization, the Competition Participant presented the program and functional assumptions of the ECFC building and land development in an explicit and clear manner”


QUESTION 48                                            
Please provide additional information about area A.2 and the amphitheater situated there, which, according to appendix 7b, must be reconstructed there.

ANSWER:
The Organizer hereby advises that Appendx 7b - Legend to Fig. clarly states that the following condition has been established for area A2: “The designer must propose solutions to restore the current function of this area, i.e. an amphitheater auditorium in front of the square (stage) behind the CKK Jordanki building, and its functional and spatial inclusion into the grand square in front of the ECFC building”
According to the above, the designer is not obligated to recreate the amphitheater form. Instead, they must restore its function, adapted to new architectural conditions and to new land development of the ECFC square.
The Organizer suggests a field visit or thorough analysis of Appendix 7k (Photographs of the design site). The drawings published by the Organizer on 20.04.2021, presenting the floor plans and sections of the CKK Jordanki building (Appendix 7e) may prove useful to some extent.
The Organizer further advises that the current functioning of area A2 as an amphitheater/concert site also assumes the adaptation of the maneuvering yard behind the CKK Jordanki building to accommodate a stage, and the auditorium is located on provisional embankments on the western side of this square.


QUESTION 49                                            
The question was the unfinished test of question 50 - see below


QUESTION 50                                            
Please state if the functional division of individual buildings, as specified in the land development plan, must be observed in the competition design? Can the location of the square and the locations individual functions be changed?

ANSWER:
Yes, other locations can be proposed for individual functions, however, the Organizer has thoroughly analyzed their needs and the resulting, planned use of the ECFC building on the site, within the existing urban planning and monument conservation conditions, and has proposed the most beneficial functional layout. The recommendations provided in Appendix 7b, should be treated as suggested by the Organizer. Of course, the Competition Participant is free to suggest their own vision of these suggestions, which will be evaluated by the Competition Jury together with its justification. Rationally, from the functional point of view, different proposals will not disqualify the design.


QUESTION 51                                            
Is the designer obligated to keep the main access path next to the ramp descending to the Center’s underground garage...?

ANSWER:
It is the Competition Participant’s decision, having considered the Organizer’s opinion expressed in response to question no. 49.
The Organizer additionally states that the location of the grand square in front of the ECFC building is preferred by the Organizer and appears to be the natural and most functional solution from the point of view of urban planning, in the context of this area of the city of Toruń. Hence, the pedestrian-vehicle route on the southern side of the CKK Jordanki building should be preferably used as the main access path to the ECFC and the grand square.
Of course, the designer is also encouraged to propose additional entrances to the grand square and the ECFC building.


QUESTION 52                                            
As regarding the following functions: The House of Cinema – Museum / Art Gallery and House of Cinema - Cinema Auditoriums, as specified in appendix 7B, p. 5 – should they be interchangeably marked in appendix 7b, fig. 1? The areas of the lots dedicated to these functions appear to be insufficient or excessive for the applicable functions.

ANSWER:
The markings in Fig. 1 in Appendix 7b are correct.

See the answer to question 24 (Explanation 7 to the Competition Regulations), i.e.:
“Ad.1.1.
These areas were separated on the account of their ownership and agreements made with the city of Toruń, which is their owner. Additionally, this division stems from the current development of the neighboring areas and the future use of these areas according to their current design.
Ad.1.2.
By assumption, part A of the Investment area is primarily dedicated to the main elements of the investment program, including its underground part. An underground part was not separated because it will be the Competition Participant’s job to determine the scope of the underground part related to the House of Cinema - Museum/ Art Gallery, cinema auditoriums and underground parking garage, as well as any other elements of the program if the Participant decides to place them in the underground part of the building. The investment part pertaining to the Main House of the Festival Center includes an underground story and above-ground stories. The part housing the House of Cinema/ Art Gallery includes a zone within the property, where both above- and underground stories can be built, and a zone where only an underground story can be built, together with forms of surface greenery.
Ad.1.3.
The boundaries marked in Fig. 2 in Appendix 7b reflect the borderlines of individual lots in the land and mortgage register or their fragments, and point to the design scope of the Investment, which has been described in detail (the scope, to which the Investment can be implemented in given areas) in the Legend to Fig 2.
Ad.1.4.
The Zoning Plan determines that no above-ground structures can be built in the area beyond the impassable development line. However, underground building elements can be located there.

and see the answer to question 25 (Explanation 7 to the Competition Regulations), i.e.:

“The Competition Participant will determine the scope of the underground parts of individual program and functional zones of the ECFC building (including the House of Cinema - the Museum / Art Gallery, Cinema auditoriums, underground parking lots). Therefore, the Organizer obviously admits the location of e.g. the Museum / Art Galleries under the House of Cinema - cinema auditoriums or other spaces required by the program underground or directly under other parts of the building, depending on their design decisions.”


QUESTION 53                                            
To what extent is the Designer obligated to adhere to the boundaries designated for individual functions by the Organizer. Can individual functions transgress these boundaries?

ANSWER:
The decision whether to leave or shift certain boundaries between individual functions is to be made by the Competition Participant. See the answer to question 49.
Additionally, see the answer to question 27 (Explanation 7 to the Competition Regulations), i.e.:
“The program and spatial layout presented in Fig. 1 should be treated as an illustration of a certain idea for the functioning and for the spatial and program relations of the ECFC building and its development. These are not rigid boundaries of the locations of individual building zones or spatial solutions. They should not be used to directly determine any sizes or volumes. This layout serves as general guidelines stemming from analyses and a definition of the Organizer’s needs with respect to the functioning of the ECFC building.”


QUESTION 54                                            
Will the Organizer accept a solution, by which the exhibition spaces of the Market are organized as a suite of rooms?

ANSWER:
It is the Competition Participant’s decision, depending on their spatial arrangement ensuring the functionality of solutions adopted.


QUESTION 55                                            
Can the delivery road (from k0 to k2 in fig. 1 in appendix 7b) be located underground and covered?

ANSWER:
See the answer to question 32 (Explanation 7 to the Competition Regulations), i.e.:
“It is the Competition Participant’s decision, assuming that all requirements pertaining to technical conditions, fire service are observed, and that this will not deteriorate the general functionality of deliveries, nor cause any significant changes in the current land development of adjoining areas, particularly with respect to existing tree stand. The communication analysis provided in Appendix 7d to the Competition Regulations can serve as support here.”


QUESTION 56                                            
Please provide information about other qualified competition participants, preferably by publishing a full list of all participants.

ANSWER:
The Organizer would like to remind you that, in accordance with Section III item 4.3. of the Competition Regulations:
“To maintain the anonymity of Competition Participants with respect to the members of the Competition Jury, and Jury members shall not take part in the verification of application for admission to participate in the Competition. The list of Competition Participants will not be published.
Any action or omission of a Competition Participant, which could or has led to a violation of the Participant anonymity principle with respect to members of the Competition Jury shall result in the exclusion of this Participant from the competition.”


QUESTION 57                                            
Are the competition organizers in possession (or can point to an alternative source) or an electronic model of the urban space surrounding the project site, which could be provided to the participants? Otherwise, each participant will be forced to create their own model, which may hinder the comparison of the substantive value of their works.

ANSWER:
As of today, the Organizer does not have an electronic model, but will exercise all efforts to obtain it, if it is available from other sources.


QUESTION 58                                            
The deadline for submitting the hard copies of the studies is Monday, which forces teams planning to send the package by courier mail to complete their works before the weekend.  Would the Organizer consider postponing the deadline for submitting the hard copy by two days after the deadline for submitting the electronic version?

ANSWER:
The Organizer is not considering any change to the deadlines.

 

QUESTION 59                                            
QUESTION 59.1

Can the Organizer provide documentation or at least the concept for the newly designed building next to the Center for Contemporary Art?

ANSWER:
The Organizer published a fragment of the documentation for the newly designed CSW building as Appendix 7g on 20.04.2021.

 

QUESTION 59.2
Please provide the floor plans of existing underground garages in the vicinity of the planned ECFC building.

ANSWER:
The Organizer published the floor plans of all underground garages in the vicinity of the planned ECFC building as Appendices 7e and 7f on 20.04.2021.

 

QUESTION 59.3
Does the Organizer expect the circle in the Main House to accommodate 35 seats (according to the program guidelines), or rather 350 seats, which would correspond to the total expected number of auditorium seats: ca. 2500?

ANSWER:
See the answer to question 10 (Explanation 7 to the Competition Regulations), i.e.:
“In Appendix 7b, the program table erroneously states 35 seats in item I.1.2. The “number of seats” should be ca. 350. The Competition Regulations do not explicitly recommend the circle to be dedicated to a VIP zone. However, the designer may propose an additional VIP row in the circle. This will not disqualify the design proposal.
NOTE:
According to the Competition regulations, the central part of the middle sectors shall be reserved for VIP seats (ca. 300 seats).”

 

QUESTION 59.4
Should all auditorium seats be folded, or should this function be reserved to the seats in the VIP sector?

ANSWER:
All seats should be stationary and fixed, without a disassembly option. VIP armchairs should be more comfortable and without lifted seats.  

 

QUESTION 59.5
The program does not assume the presence of changing rooms and back facilities dedicated to the auditorium; does this mean that artists will be using the changing rooms in the Studio? Please clarify.

ANSWER:
The Organizer raised this issue in their answer to question 45 (Explanations 8 to the Competition Regulations) as follows:
“The Organizer admits the possibility of locating back facilities in the form of basic functions, such as a changing room with cloak rooms and restrooms, but without rehearsal rooms, if the Competition Participant is able to separate sufficient, minimum area for these functions while maintaining the area parameters of the main program, as listed in Appendix 7b to the Regulations.”


QUESTION 59.6
Does the provision concerning the “need to connect the front desk area and the cloak rooms for individual parts of the complex” mean their adjacency or the possibility of their simultaneous operation during a shared event.

ANSWER:
The provision concerning “the need to connect the front desk area and the cloak rooms for individual parts of the building” applies to the geographic adjacency of these areas, which also allows for their simultaneous operation during shared events.

 

QUESTION 59.7
2 bars and a canteen are foreseen on the piano nobile level. Will they be opened occasionally, or will be operating in a continuous manner? Who is the canteen dedicated to (staff or guests)?

ANSWER:
Bars will be opened for events held at the Festival Center and the Market. The bar/café at the House of Cinema - Museum - Art Gallery will be open in a continuous manner.
The canteen should function in a continuous manner, dedicated to the ECF Camerimage staff, as well as during various events - also to their organizers and less demanding guests (students, school pupils, and others). A restaurant is foreseen between the Festival Center and the Market, which should be operating in a continuous manner.


QUESTION 60                                            
QUESTION 60.1

1. VIP access:
1.1. Where should taxis and limousines drive the VIP guests and how should VIPS be brought into the building?
1.2. Are VIPs brought to the festival square in their means of transport or do they get out in Al. Solidarności and walk to the festival square?
1.3. Can VIPs also be driven to the site from the northern side as well?
1.4. Apart from the VIP entrance in the festival square, are other VIP entrances available (e.g. from the western side or from the underground garage)?

ANSWER:
It was the Organizer’s intent to have VIP guests delivered by their means of transport to the main ECFC entrance (grand square), which, of course, does not limit the possibility of bringing VIPs into the building using any of the remaining entrances (including the northern entrance and access road).  It is not recommended or logical to have VIPs get out of their means of transport in Al. Solidarności and have them walk all the way to the ECFC building, taking the promenade.
Of course, the Organizer will accept other, alternative solutions for VIP entrances, and it will be the Participant’s decision whether to propose different solutions.

QUESTION 60.2
2. The Festival Center and the Auditorium - In order to better assess the requirements for the Auditorium, please clarify:
2.1. How often will the Auditorium be used for film screenings and theatrical performances (e.g. in a 50/50 ratio or, perhaps, in a 75/25 ratio)?
2.2. What is the purpose of the rotary stage (e.g. for theatrical performances or for award ceremonies)?
2.3. What is the purpose of the stage superstructure - have any particular expectations been specified for this element?

ANSWER:
The Organizer understands that the term “Auditorium” is not used in the binding, Polish version of the Competition Regulations and therefore clarifies that the question pertains to the “Main House of the Festival Center”, to which the following answer will apply.
The Main House of the Festival Center is to serve the EnergaCamerimage Film Festival (the Festival is dedicated to the motion picture art, and therefore requires world-class film projections, characterized by highest image quality in all film formats, i.e. 16mm, 35 mm, 70 mm tape projections, as well as digital and laser projections. Professional sound engineering is also vital for film projections, which should not be confused with musical performances typical for philharmonic or opera houses).
The Main House of the Festival Center will also accommodate other festivals and artistic events, conferences or symposiums, which is why the designer should foresee the possibility of arranging the stage adequately to these events, in the basic scope. The ratios of film, theater and other events are not important. The dominance of professional functions - projections and screenings should be assumed, taking into account the possible organization of events surrounding the festival - opening galas, award ceremonies, as well as theater performances, musical events, conferences and symposiums.

The rotary stage will be used for different purposes, depending on the needs - this can be a theatrical performance, a spectacle, world, European and Polish film premieres, festival opening and closing events, award ceremonies as part of various cultural events, presentations during symposiums and scientific seminars, conferences within various industries, or music concerts, recitals, musicals.  The program assumes the presence of a shallow orchestra pit in front of the stage, to complete the functionality of the stage.
It is further suggested that the screen with the speakers are installed on a cart which can be moved to any depth of the stage to accommodate the changing stage decor. The bridge with the curtain and the moving wings should accommodate any reorganization of the stage.

The purpose of the superstructure is to install lighting, sound and set design frames.

 

QUESTION 60.3
3. Program Table 2.3 contradicts the textual description with reference to the placement of the VIP zone and VIP jury rooms.
Point 2.3.2. Of the Table states that jury rooms are also included in the VIP zone. Which information is correct?

ANSWER:
The VIP Zone in point 2.3.2. of the Table should include rooms for the Jury. Their location, as proposed in the table, is the second floor. The remaining information stated in the table description points to a functional and communication connections which are preferred by the Organizer, rather than detailed locations of individual rooms.


QUESTION 60.4
Please review the provisions for the area marked as A.5 - admissibility of:
- above-ground structures
- underground structures

ANSWER:
The Organizer will not review these provisions.


QUESTION 61                                        
Please clarify if it will be possible to design the planned connection of the newly designed ECFC building with the new part of the CSW building on the second story of the newly designed CSW building (level +9.50 - 60.20 m a.s.l.) – in the location marked in appendix 7g (file titled Miejsce lokalizacji łącznika pomiędzy CSW a ECFC.pdf).

ANSWER:
The Organizer hereby advises that it is not possible to change the location of the link between the ECFC building and the newly designed CSW building.
The location of the link was partially discussed and agreed on with the designer of the new CSW building. The designated point of connection to the new CSW building is also determined by the location of the designed link between this building and the existing CSW building.

The document can be downloaded HERE.


11.05.2021

The Organizer published an explanation no 10 of the content of the Competition Regulations.

QUESTION 62                                            
Please explain whether the scene should be equipped with a so-called Fly Tower - space above the scene, where guide strips are hidden, together with elements such as curtains, lights, decorations, sometimes people.

ANSWER:
The space, to which the Participant refers in the question has been described by the Organizer as the “stage superstructure” in Appendix 7b to the Regulations, in the Program Table in item I and 1.


QUESTION 63                                            
Please explain the provision from point 1 of Appendix 7b to the Competition Regulations and Regulations_(PDF), quoting: "... it is necessary to provide for a pedestrian passageway outside the ECFC building..." - is the passageway referred to in point 1 to be made exclusively as an external passageway – outside the ECFC building, is it possible for it to be routed inside the building in the form of an internal passageway / crossing?

ANSWER:
The passageway should be primarily routed outside the ECFC building according to the provisions of Appendix 7b item I pt. 1 (page 1), i.e.:
On the southern side of the investment site, the Designer should foresee the possibility of using a pedestrian route to travel on foot outside the ECFC building, near the John Paul II monument, pass by the junction of ul. Wały gen. Sikowskiego - al. św.
Jana Pawła II to the Grand Square in front of the ECFC building, and travel further, along CKK Jordanki to al. Solidarności. To ensure the continuity of external passage through the site, the Organizer has foreseen the possibility of crossing the ECFC
building through a “gate” or a “clearance” between its individual sections. Alternatively, as an intermediate solution, the Designer may also partially lead the pedestrian route to the inside of the ECFC building.”
The Organizer additionally advises that, for instance, a part of one passageway track can be routed inside the building, while the other is routed outside, thus providing public, unrestricted pedestrian access from the monument of John Paul II and the Park at the junction of ul. Wały gen. Sikorskiego and al. św.  Jana Pawła II to the Grand Square in front of the ECFC building, and further on, along CKK Jordanki to al. Solidarności. A gate or clearance created in the ECFC building, which would provide a safe passage, does not necessarily be located between the market and the Education Center (in Appendix 7b, this is only provided as an example). Such a passage may be located in any part of the ECFC building, depending on the concept adopted by the Participant.
The Organizer would like to remind all Participants that the spatial and location instructions of the development elements shown in Fig. 1 in Appendix 7b should be treated as a set of recommendations rather than literal boundaries and routes. In the case of a passageway, the general principle is that it connects the eastern part and the western part of the site.

 

QUESTION 64                                            
QUESTION 64.1

On page 31 of the Regulations, section 4 - point 3.1.b states that we must send you a paper version (hard copy) of our Study “with confirmation of receipt of the Study constituting Appendix 4a to the Regulations". We have not understood whether Appendix 4a referred to by the Organizer is something that we have to receive from the Organizer as proof of delivery or whether it is a document that we have to send to the Organizer. Moreover, if we send a paper version of our Study, how can we obtain Appendix 4a signed by you as proof of delivery?

ANSWER:
The method of submitting Appendix 4a is described in Section IV, point 3.7.

 

QUESTION 64.2
Can the Organizer provide more information about the location of the Investment: 3D model of location context and/or location sections?

ANSWER:
The Organizer does not have a 3d model. All information concerning the context of the competition site and its surroundings has been made available on the Competition website (http://konkurs.ecfcamerimage.pl/) as Appendices to the Regulations No. 7a through 7l.

 

QUESTION 64.3
On page 31 of the Regulations, section 4 - point 2.3 states that "the descriptive part should contain preliminary assumptions concerning the area of the ECFC building – an estimate, overall building surface balance and site balance". What does the Organizer mean by "balance“? Do we need to compile and show the economic balance of our proposal already at this stage of the competition?

ANSWER:
The notion of "balance of the building's surface area and site balance" should be construed as the summary the surface areas of individual sections and rooms of the building and the areas related to land development.

 

QUESTION 64.4
Appendix 7b, page 1, point 11, mentions 4 access points to the underground garage: 2 through existing ramps and 2 new ramps. Although we found the location of the northern ramp on page 8, we were not able to locate any indication of the new southern ramp. Can the Organizer explain where the southern ramp should run?

ANSWER:
The proposed location of a new ramp on the southern side is marked with the symbol "KW" in Figure 1 in Appendix 7b

 

QUESTION 64.5
Can the communication link/road 'K0' be covered - like a 'tunnel' - or must it be completely open?

ANSWER:
See the answer to question 32 (Explanation 7 to the Competition Regulations), i.e.:
“It is the Competition Participant’s decision, assuming that all requirements pertaining to technical conditions, fire service are observed, and that this will not deteriorate the general functionality of deliveries, nor cause any significant changes in the current land development of adjoining areas, particularly with respect to existing tree stand. The communication analysis provided in Appendix 7d to the Competition Regulations can serve as support here.”

 

QUESTION 64.6
Can we place a communication link/road 'K1' in area 'A1'? Can we place the 'SD' zone in the 'A1' area?

ANSWER:
No.
According to the description in the instructions for area A1 in the legend to Fig. 2 in Appendix 7b, it is only possible to locate above-ground development in this area in line with the current use, i.e. green areas and pedestrian traffic.

 

QUESTION 64.7
Can we change the topography of the 'A1' area, provided that there are only green lines and pedestrian traffic are designed there (i.e. without buildings)?

ANSWER:
Yes, provided that the valuable tree stand adjacent to area A1 is preserved and the continuity of pedestrian routes is maintained in the current functionality.

 

QUESTION 64.8
Can we propose a park landscape design on the western side, outside the boundaries of the plot?

ANSWER:
The participant may propose solutions outside the scope of the competition design, but in accordance with the provisions of the Competition Regulations Section IV item 2.7., materials not covered by the scope of the Competition shall not be taken into account when assessing the Studies and Competition Designs.

 

QUESTION 64.9
Can we cover (in whole or in part) the communication route (K0 and K1) - for example by creating a 'tunnel' - or must it be open? If we can cover these communication routes, is there a minimum height requirement?

ANSWER:
See the answer to question 32 (Explanation 7 to the Competition Regulations), i.e.:
“It is the Competition Participant’s decision, assuming that all requirements pertaining to technical conditions, fire service are observed, and that this will not deteriorate the general functionality of deliveries, nor cause any significant changes in the current land development of adjoining areas, particularly with respect to existing tree stand. The communication analysis provided in Appendix 7d to the Competition Regulations can serve as support here.”

 

QUESTION 64.10
Appendix 7b, page 8, contains a plan with the limits of the suggested items of the required program. Do we have to maintain the shift of Area “03” from the dashed line presenting the boundaries of the design? (i.e. is there a minimum distance that we have to take into account when placing buildings or can we build on the very edge of the site?)

ANSWER:
In accordance with the laws and technical conditions applicable in Poland.

 

QUESTION 64.11
Appendix 7b, page 2, states that the administration of the ECFC should be situated between the Festival Center and the Market and that both buildings should be connected both on the ground floor and at the first level; it is also mentioned on the same page that there should be a public crossing in the same area (between the Festival Center and the Market). This seems to be a contradictory requirement. Could the Organizer clarify this?

ANSWER:
There is no contradiction because the passage can be opened inside the building at a time when events held in the Market and the Festival Center are not related, or when there are no events in both or one of these functional zones. The designer should provide for such a communication solution which would allow for the connection of the ground floors of the Market and the Festival Center or the separation of the passage between these zones.
See the answer to question 63 concerning the location of the passageway (public passage)

 

QUESTION 64.12
Appendix 7b, page 1, point 8, mentions the stage for outdoor events next to the façade of the southern wing or the façade of the Festival Center. What exactly does the Organizer mean and where exactly should this space be located? Is there also a link between this space and the amphitheater in the design of the northern side of the competition site?

ANSWER:
The scene suggested by the Organizer should be located on the main square in front of the Festival Center. It may be part of the facade. Balcony, a terrace associated with grand stairs leading to the Piano Nobile.

 

QUESTION 64.13
Appendix7b on page 4 mentions that the Market should be located on the southern side, with the entrance "from the northwestern corner of the square". If it is to be situated from the South, could the Organizer explain how the entrance can be situated on the northwestern side?

ANSWER:
There was an error in the translation of Appendix 7b – the correct provision should read as follows: “4. Entrance from the southwestern corner of the square in front of the Festival Center.

 

QUESTION 64.14
In Appendix 7b, pages 5 and 6, the Organizer mentions that there should be a connection between the "eastern" wall of the ECFC (for both the Market and the Education Center) and the "western" wall of the new wing of the CSW building; although we understand that the link must be located on the western wall of the new wing of the CSW, why and how can it be connected to the eastern wall (on the opposite side) of the ECFC? Can they simply be connected on the western side of both buildings?

ANSWER:
It is the Organizer’s intention to connect the western façade of the building of the new CSW wing with the ECFC building through an aerial link proposed by the Participant and marked in Figure 1 in Appendix 7b with the symbol "Ł". This appears to be possible only on the eastern façade of the ECFC building, which protrudes to the South and is connected to the Market over the fire service road from the West and South of the planned ECFC building.

 

QUESTION 64.15
In Appendix 7b, the Organizer repeatedly mentions that the entrances to many buildings requested by the Organizer should be accessed from the Grand Square, in the southwestern corner of lot no. 6/10 - acute angle of the lot at its border with lot no. 6/18. Although the first entrance is clear, could the Organizer explain where exactly the second entrance should be?

ANSWER:
The entrance accessed from the Grand Square, in the southwestern corner of lot no. 6/10 (acute angle of the lot at its border with lot no. 6/18 – the area marked in Fig. 2 in Appendix 7b with the symbol "A2.1") applies only to the entrance to the House of Cinema.

 

QUESTION 64.16
With reference to the answer to question no. 35.14, please verify the Principal’s position with regard to the possibility of executing roofing or canopies in relation to the impassable development line.
The draft Zoning Plan defines the development line in the following manner:
[...]
impassable development line - shall mean a line marked on the site map or in the
plan, which shall not be crossed by any walls of the above-ground parts of the
building (towards the neighboring areas as separated by boundaries),
excluding such architectural elements of the building as: external stairs, delivery
ramps, canopies above entrances, cornices, pilasters, eaves, balconies, ramps for the
disabled, entrances and exits from underground garages, etc. as well as such structures as: earth structures,
monuments, etc., unless stated otherwise in the provisions pertaining to individual areas;
[...]
Further to the above, execution of roofing/canopies in:
- Area A.1,
- a fragment of area A, beyond the development line,
does not conflict with the draft Zoning Plan.
Please confirm that the above analysis is correct and that the Principal will accept studies, in which elements which are not classified as buildings (particularly roofing elements or canopies) will be located outside the impassable development line.

ANSWER:
With regard to question 35.14, the development possibilities associated with the area assumed by the draft Zoning Plan are subject to restrictions resulting from the provisions of this Zoning Plan, including restrictions resulting from the established, impassable development line. The definition of an impassable development line resulting from the provisions of the draft Zoning Plan contains an open catalog of architectural elements which are exempt from the restrictions imposed by the impassable development line.  Execution of a roofing element or canopy, to which this question refers, is consistent with the provisions of the draft Zoning Plan, provided that this roofing element or canopy is proved to be exempt from the said restrictions.  At the same time, it is necessary to remember the restrictions set out in Figure 2 (Appendix 7b) in the development of individual areas indicated there and described therein related to the properties of individual areas.
“Lot A is: “[...] the area intended for locating the main elements of the Investment program. The site is owned by ECFC”. Due to the nature of ownership of the property, the current and future nature and manner of development of area A in the northern part (in the part beyond the impassable development line), construction of architectural elements of the building complying with the definition of the impassable development line set out in the draft Zoning Plan is permitted in this area (beyond the development line).
Area A.1 is: “made available by the City of Toruń for the ECFC investment together with an indication of the investment possibilities attributed to this area”. And: “Area where underground development only can be located [...] Above-ground development according to the current use - green areas and pedestrian traffic.” Therefore, it is not recommended to introduce any above-ground elements, including canopies, in area A.1.


QUESTION 65                                            
We did not receive a clear answer to the previous question (QUESTION 24 / Question 1.3.) The question concerned the possibility of introducing above-ground development in areas A, A.1.1, A.1.2., A.2.1. , within the limits, that is, within the so-called strict zoning, and we’d require such answer. This is quite obvious within the northern and western boundaries (impassable development line established by the draft Zoning Plan), completely unclear within the eastern and southern boundaries with CKK Jordanki, the Voivodeship Office, the Bank and CSW building.
Once again, can we design and construct within the strict zoning of areas A, A.1.1, A.1.2., A.2.1.?

ANSWER:
The Organizer hereby points to the provisions of the draft Zoning Plan and provisions related to the possibility of locating buildings and development from the boundaries of existing plots and buildings.
The issue included in the question concerning the possibility of designing at the boundary of the lot is regulated by effective laws and the draft Zoning Plan for the area in question, which admit development directly at the boundary of the construction lot, provided that pertinent regulations are observed. The answer to the question asked is essentially related to the translation of existing and explicit laws in force. Such activities go beyond the scope of explanations provided for in the Competition Regulations.


QUESTION 66                                            
Refers to question 35.11 and area A2.
The answer is contradictory ( "the Organizer admits the possibility of suspending a designed building above the subject area...”) with the terms and conditions of the competition - only underground development and construction law - suspending a full-volume building will clearly generate development and development areas.
Please answer as explicitly as possible, if a full-volume building can be suspended over the area, or can we only design shelters, canopies and other elements which do not generate a development area?

ANSWER:
The Organizer allows for the possibility of designing a suspended building, including when it generates a development area, provided that other conditions set out in the Competition Regulations, among others those described in the legend to Figure 2 (Appendix 7b to the Competition Regulations) are observed.
The Organizer also clarifies that there is no contradiction here, since the answer to question 35.11 amends the guidelines and does not contradict them (see Section I item 2.9.) “In each phase of the Competition, answers to requests of Competition Participants for clarification of the terms of the Regulations shall be sent to Competition Participants and published on the Competition Website and shall be binding to Competition Participants without the need to amend the Regulations”.


QUESTION 67                                            
To what extent can we depart from the conditions set out in "Additional information/ Explanations" in point "6." concerning the auditorium and the number of seats?

ANSWER:
The guidelines and recommendations presented by the Organizer should be treated as a set of preferred solutions. The designer should strictly and precisely accommodate the Organizer’s expectations pertaining to the auditorium. The number of seats in the auditorium, either in whole and in individual sectors, should be designed according to the quantitative scopes specified in Appendix 7b in the Program Table. If the Participant of the Competition proposes a different number of seats and is able to justify it, the Competition Jury shall decide whether it is a reasonable design solution in the context of other solutions proposed for the Main House.


QUESTION 68                                            
To what extent can we depart from the conditions set out in "Additional information/ Explanations" in point "6." concerning the auditorium and the number of seats?

Note
The question was submitted three times in the same form and wording.  The question is repeated to maintain the numbering of questions on the Electronic Communication Platform.

 

QUESTION 69                                            
To what extent can we depart from the conditions set out in "Additional information/ Explanations" in point "6." concerning the auditorium and the number of seats?

Note
The question was submitted three times in the same form and wording.  The question is repeated to maintain the numbering of questions on the Electronic Communication Platform.

 

QUESTION 70                                            
The stage is to be 30 m wide and 18 m deep.
The wings are to be 6 m wide and 25 m deep.
The backstage is to be 20 x 2.5 m.
What is the “depth of the wings”?
Are we right to assume that the wings broaden the stage by 12 m (6 + 6)
and increase its depth by 2.5 m?

ANSWER:
Yes. The wings broaden the stage by about 12m, and the backstage extends to about 2.5m. The wings need not be of equal width. They should be functional above all.


QUESTION 71                                            
Should the stage superstructure of 30 m in height be limited to the stage only, or extend to the wings as well?

ANSWER:
The purpose of the stage superstructure and the Main House with the stage is described in Appendix 7b to the Competition Regulations and in the answer to question 60.2. It is the Competition Participant’s responsibility to design the stage of the Main House in order to ensure its correct functioning in line with its intended purpose. It is the Participant’s decision as to how the stage superstructure will be organized, subject to the requirements set out by the Organizer in the Competition Regulations and explanations to Competition Regulations.


QUESTION 72                                            
What is the required size of one seat (seat width x row depth)?

ANSWER:
The size of the seat, seating position and parameters such as, for example, the row depth should be determined by the design solution proposed by the Participant, which is to demonstrate, among other things, Participant’s knowledge of design of buildings of this type and function. The Organizer's intention is to obtain a seat which would fulfill the role stated in appendix 7b to the Competition Regulations: The seats shall be comfortable, allowing for several consecutive spectacles or screenings to be viewed in comfort (this is particularly important in the case of festival and conference events which typically last a whole day or more).


QUESTION 73                                            
“If possible, a staircase raising the rank of the entrance to the Center
should lead from the Grand Square to the piano nobile of the Festival Center.” One of other points (“9”)
the Organizer states:” ...on the axis, behind the grand stairs. Behind it, there should be a spacious
and comfortable Front Desk of the Festival Center...” etc.). In turn, the front desk, gates, etc. should be located
at the Foyer - ground floor level (item 2.1.)
This is a clear contradiction.
Please clearly define the functions at these levels in conjunction with grand staircase.
At which level should the main entrance be situated?

ANSWER:
The functional program concerning the Foyer system should be implemented in accordance with the guidelines from the Program Table in Appendix 7b - second column named: ‘Room name' and the proposed breakdown into floors. Therefore, the entrance zone with main entrance, front desk, cloak room, internal stairs, etc. should be located on the ground floor. If possible, the grand, external stairs leading directly from the Grand Square to the piano nobile, could serve as an additional, independent entrance to the Festival Center. The Organizer's intention is to organize a grand space in front of the Festival Center. External staircases resembling the staircase in Cannes can be replaced by other solutions that will allow for honoring the great cinematic personalities coming to the Festival and, at the same time, enabling the organization of stage events on the square.


QUESTION 74                                            
The part of the competition area marked with the symbol A5 (Figure 2 in Appendix 7b) is described as "Location of above-ground part of the ECFC Investment..."
Does this mean that the ramp to the underground garage or any underground part of this garage cannot be located in this area?
Can any above-ground part of the proposed building (carried out in the first or second phase) be located in this area?

ANSWER:
Only the above-ground part of the ECFC Investment can be situated in area A5 to provide communication service.


QUESTION 75                                            
According to the answer to questions 35.11 and 35.12, in the area marked with A2, it is possible to locate both suspended parts of the ECFC building and canopies. Therefore, if the current function of the site is fully restored, i.e. an amphitheater is re-established, can certain areas of the ECFC building be located underneath it?

ANSWER:
Yes, as such areas will be treated as underground, which is in line with the general intention of the Organizer in relation to the land development of area A2.

 

QUESTION 76                                            
Unfortunately, our office will not be able to take part in the competition. I would like to know how we should formally withdraw our application.

ANSWER:
The competition participant does not have to formally withdraw from the Competition. Failure to submit a Study is tantamount to resigning from further participation in the Competition.


QUESTION 77                                            
We kindly ask you to share a drawing of the Zoning Plan related to the annex to the Center for Contemporary Art. The drawings made available to us so far show the gate on the ground floor from the East of the new building, which is well below the current parking level, which suggests changing the access profile from Wały Gen. Władysława Sikorskiego.

ANSWER:
It should be assumed that the gate is at the level of the current parking garage. The ordinate of the ground floor of the new CSW building is 50.68.


QUESTION 78                                            
Please specify:
- the estimated area (dimensions) of the orchestra pit
- the required depth of this pit
- its location - whether it should be incorporated in the stage (18 x 30 m)
(as set out in the detailed program guidelines and functional and spatial guidelines)
or whether it should be situated outside the stage?
- required platform, passage on the axis of the house divides the space of the orchestra pit
into two areas. Should the orchestra pit be located on both sides of this platform,
(thus divided into two parts), or perhaps only on one side?
Can this platform be lowered when the orchestra is set up in the pit?

ANSWER:
The size of the orchestra pit should be determined by the design solution proposed by the Participant, which is to demonstrate, among other things, Participant’s knowledge of design of buildings of this type and function.
The Organizer additionally explains that:
- the depth of the orchestra pit of approx. half of the story should be construed as a suggestion, which means that this depth should result from the entire layout of the Main House adopted by the Participant.
- The guidelines also set out the following recommendation: “A small orchestra pit in front of the stage. It should be possible to cover it, thus extending the stage. “Flame-proof curtain at the edge of the stage and the orchestra pit”. The orchestra pit can be situated outside the stage, provided that other recommendations for the Main House functions are observed.
- The platform running on the axis of the House, from the stage to the VIP sector, was described as an optional solution. It is important to maintain the transition from the VIP sector to the stage on the axis of the House.
- If the orchestra pit is not used (the pit is covered), stage entry will take place on the axis of the House, on the stairs or using an optional platform directly from the VIP sector.
- If the orchestra pit is in use (an orchestra event), stage entry may take place on the axis of the House, both using stairs and when the platform is used directly from the VIP sector - for instance, on a narrow gangway set up above the orchestra. As a supplementary measure, the designer may consider using only the entrances on the sides of the stage (with perimeter access points to seating sectors closest to the stage).
- The Orchestra can be located on both sides of the possible platform, provided that it is possible to conduct orchestra. The designer should foresee the possibility of lowering/retracting the platform for orchestra events.


QUESTION 79                                            
Refers to the answer to QUESTION 52.
In response to this question, the answer to question 24 was also addressed.
As the person asking this question (question 24), we declare that we have not received an answer to it.
Once again, is it possible to design development on competition areas "A" and "A2.1” directly at the boundary (strict zoning) with the areas of CKK Jordanki, the Marshal's Office, the Bank and the CSW building?

ANSWER:
See the answer to question no. 65.


QUESTION 80                                            
How does the Imagine imagine meeting its own intention to "locate ECFC Offices in a layout perpendicular to the Grand Square above the level of piano mobile, so that the windows of office spaces oversee the piano mobile of the Market", for which the Principal envisages a location without connection with the square, additionally separated by the Education Center?
Are the offices supposed to be somewhere in a separate building, the windows of which will open up to the piano nobile (not to mention the Market!).
Does "perpendicular" mean going into area "01" (Festival Center)!?
Please specify in detail the Principal's intention to locate ECFC Offices.

ANSWER:
Administration - ECF Camerimage should be established in a separate, internal structure built into the "01" area, between the foyer of both stories of the Festival Center and the Market. It should be a ‘building inside the connected spaces of the Festival Center and the Market’. Entry into the ECF Camerimage Administration area should be from the square in front of ECF Camerimage. The ground floor of the ECF Camerimage Administration area should include a front desk and lifts and stairs to the floor/where offices will be located. The floor/s should be located above the foyer level (Piano Nobile) of the Festival Center and the Market floor level. Some of the ECF Camerimage offices should have windows to the Foyer Center’s interior to Piano Nobile, and some should open up to the Market interiors. Administrative management windows should be located at the facade of the building and should oversee the square in front of the ECF Camerimage building.

 

QUESTION 81                                            
Does the organizer allow for a slight correction of the size of cinema rooms, including the Main House, in order to ensure even better quality of seating in relation to the screen? - assuming the unchanged size of the screen and the unchanged number of seats in the room?

ANSWER:
In accordance with Appendix 7b, p. 2, point II:
The Organizer admits certain tolerances in the size of a given program at the following levels:
- for the Festival Center’s Main House - +/-5%,
- for the remaining ECFC Building program - +/- 15%, maintaining the recommended functionality of the building space and the land development”.
If the Participant wishes to make larger adjustments to the areas specified in the Program Table in Appendix 7b, they may do so, provided that  they are able justify the solutions adopted and that this does not affect the overall functionality and use of the cinema rooms and other areas of the ECFC building established by the Organizer.

 

GENERAL REMARK FROM THE ORGANIZER

All detailed guidelines concerning the ECFC building and its development specified in the Competition Regulations and Appendices to the Regulations are instructional and not strictly effective.  The Competition Participant may creatively interpret these recommendations while maintaining the general idea of functioning of the ECFC building space and propose, in their opinion, a functional and spatial solution.
The task of the Jury will be to assess these overall proposals and to select the best solution on the basis of the criteria described in the Regulations.

The document can be downloaded HERE.


17.05.2021

The Organizer published an explanation no 11 of the content of the Competition Regulations.

QUESTION 82                                            
Can the ramp leading to the underground garage be situated to the North of the boundary line?

ANSWER:
With respect to the boundary established by means of the draft Zoning Plan, it is not possible to locate the ramp to the underground garage to the North of this line. It is possible with respect to the impassable development line established by means of the Zoning Plan, but only in the area marked as A3 in Fig. 2 in Appendix 7b.


QUESTION 83                                            
Please specify the exact date and hour, to which hard copies of competition designs must be submitted.

ANSWER:
Hard copies of studies can be submitted from Monday to Friday at 9.00 to 3.00 at:
Europejskie Centrum Filmowe CAMERIMAGE
Rynek Staromiejski 36–38
87-100 Toruń
The deadline for submitting the Studies is 07.06.2021 at 3.00 pm.


QUESTION 84                                            
Pursuant to item 3.1 of the Regulations, The Participant submits the electronic version of the Study via the soldeaEPZ platform from the Competition Participant’s registered account.
Will this method guarantee the anonymity of the Participant, preventing their identification?

ANSWER:
Yes.
The anonymity of Competition Studies and Designs submitted via the Electronic Communication Platform is guaranteed by the Principal.

 

QUESTION 85                                            
Rooms marked as 2.3.2. VIP zone (180m² in total) - what is the expected surface area: single jury room, bar, jury chairman office? What is the capacity of a single jury room? Does the specified total area (180m²) include the bar facilities, or should the bar serve more like a self-service annex? What is the expected bar area?

ANSWER:
To specify the general guidelines, the Organizer advises to plan one, larger jury chairman office - ca. 30m2 and 8 rooms of 16-20 m2 each (one room for about 7-9 people). The surface area of the bar and the bar facilities may, but does not need to be included in the total area of 180m2. A part of the Foyer can be designated for this purpose. The Competition Participant will decide on the bar surface area, depending on the adopted concept for the VIP zone, assuming the simultaneous service of about 40-50 people from the bar. The VIP Zone should also have direct access to restrooms and, if possible, a vertical or horizontal communication link to the restaurant or the canteen, for fast and unobstructed meal service to the bar.  


QUESTION 86                                            
Should the surface area of the orchestra pit be included in the stage area or the auditorium area?

ANSWER:
The orchestra pit can be situated outside the stage, provided that other recommendations for the Main House functions are observed.


QUESTION 87                                            
Please specify the graphic part of the competition.
In our opinion, a description of the graphic part as one which consists of a 100x70 board and 10 sheets in A3 is insufficient for evaluating and comparing individual designs.
In particular:
•    The surface area of the 10 sheets in A3 is almost identical to the surface area of 2 boards in A 3.
To facilitate the comparison of designs, wouldn’t it be easier if participants prepared 3 boards of 100 x 70?
•    The actual scope of work to be performed by the participant in the study phase (despite apparent limitations) covers the full design scope: site map, floor plans for all stories, sections, facades, as well as an indeterminate number of views in perspective.
For the study phase, could the Organizer specify the scope of views and limit their number for all participants alike, e.g. to a bird’s eye view (from a specific side) and building view, as observed by a human standing on the ground from the side of the main entrance (the grand square)
•    Please specify the scale of sections, e.g. to 1:500, similarly to the site map and the ground floor plan. This will essentially facilitate the comparison of individual designs in terms of sizes
•    Pursuant to the contents of item 2.2 1) c), “if any space is still available on the 100x70 cm board, a part of the drawings dedicated to the A3 sheets may be presented there”.

Please specify the contents of the 100x70 cm board to ensure the
equal and comparable evaluation of materials submitted by participants

ANSWER:
The Organizer will not change the provisions of the Competition Regulations pertaining to the contents of the graphic part of the Study. In the Organizer’s opinion, the stated scope clearly and explicitly illustrates the number and type of mandatory drawings which are to be presented as part of the Study, while providing the Participants with some flexibility in the manner of their presentation in this competition phase.


QUESTION 88                                            
Should the land development design be oriented on the North-South axis, or can the orientation be changed, and the geographic North simply marked on the drawing?

ANSWER:
The land development drawing should be oriented on the North-South axis and should be placed on the 100x70 cm board in 1:500.

The document can be downloaded HERE.