| Q: Please clarify where we can find information as to what we can modify, design or propose on the larger “Competition Study Area”. |
| A: The territory of the competition study area is defined in the Competition Brief, i.e. also shown graphically. On your own initiative you can offer anything that is not laid down/defined in the Brief, the Local Plan and the legal acts applying to the territory in the wider “Competition Study Area”. |
| Q: The Main Type of Uses of the Territory mentioned in the Design Program page 21 are applicable to all the competition object or to just specific areas? If to specific areas, where are they shown? |
| A: On page 21 of the DP booklet there is a reference to the area TIN130 (Pedestrian Promenade along the Embankment of the Inlet of the Export Port), which is shown in the graphical scheme on page 18 of the booklet, and described on page 24, as well as the area TIN 146 (Berth where Special Provisions Apply). The graphical scheme on page 18 of the booklet marks the territory JC67 (Territory of Mixed Centre Construction), which is described on page 19 of the booklet, and TIN73 (Tram Infrastructure), which is described on page 27 of the booklet. For more information, please see the Local Plan of the southern part of the Export Port. |
| Q: Please let us know the location of the building 0100013200804. |
A:  |
| Q: Are we to propose or consider modifications to the Cruise Terminal building in anticipation of it becoming a Home Port in the future? |
| A: “Home port” would be the next phase of project development, which is not planned at this development stage. This is a city terminal, and if in the future Riga manages to attract a cruise line to create a home port, then this will be a place to offer since the idea of a “home port” refers to a more distant future. As part of the competition, you can offer proposals how to convert the terminal into a “home port” with possible expansion in the future. |
| Q: Can you provide more information on what are the Port Service Areas on levels 1, 2 and 3? |
| A: The Designing Programme of the competition states the indicative distribution of square meters, considering the percentage of spaces required for the daily operation of the terminal – 70% of spaces servicing the passenger port should be located on Level 1, 20% – on Level 2, and 10% – on Level 3. The participants of the competition should rely on the instructions laid down in the Designing Programme and submit their proposals for the most effective arrangement of functions. |
| Q: Can the program be organized on different levels to what they are shown on Page 21 of the RRT Competition Booklet? |
| A: The Designing Programme sets out the indicative zoning and arrangement of spaces, but the participants of the competition can submit their proposals for the most effective and useful arrangement of the spaces at different levels. |
| Q: Does ROPAX in Riga require security screening for embarkation with scanners and, if so, how many? |
| A: Yes, it is necessary, taking into account the number of passengers, the participants must offer the required number of scanners to ensure a smooth flow of passengers. |
| Q: Is the retail on the third floor anticipated to be part of a waiting area? |
| A: The Designing Programme indicates the desired area of the spaces to be provided as part of the first competition round and their arrangement on the floors, the proposal for the second competition round can be developed in line with the concept at the discretion of the participant of the competition. |
| Q: Can we include the roads designed according to the map Section of Eksporta iela from Petersalas iela in the study area? |
| A: The study area of the sketch design competition is defined, it must be adhered to as part of the competition. If the participants have additional proposals and suggestions, they can be included in the offer, but this is the participant’s additional initiative. |
| Q: The section “Requirements for a built-up area” says that “Materials with lower heat absorption capacity should be used in construction as much as possible”. Can you explain what the purpose of this condition is? Does it refer to facade finish materials, for example, or materials in the warm area, or construction materials in general? Does this requirement imply that, for example, the use of plaster on the facade is a priority over the use of brick? Is this condition related to the aspiration to have the lowest possible thermal inertia in interior spaces and does it apply to materials in the warm areas of buildings? |
| A: The solutions offered in the competition and the choice of materials must comply with the European energy efficiency rating of Class A. |
| Q: In the infrastructure scenarios for the water area described in the planning materials, Scenario III envisages the berthing of RO-RO vessels at Berth EO-8. Does this condition imply the construction of two RO-RO ramps at the berths? Do all four scenarios need to be reflected in the competition solution? |
| A: There is one RO-RO ramp, which may be set up in the middle of Berth EO-7, which can service both EO-6 and EO-8 with an extension. As a result of the previous study, it was concluded that the most effective solution is one ramp, not two. If two ramps are set up, it will be possible to simultaneously service two vessels of a smaller size (length). |
| Q: Is it intended to service two RO-RO vessels from the RO-RO ramp which needs to be built at Berth EO-7, or a ROPAX vessel can connect to it from EO-6, and a RO-RO vessel can connect from EO-7? |
| A: See the answer to Question 11. |
| Q: What level of detailing should transport schemes in the competition study area have? Should the transport infrastructure also be planned for the study area as part of the competition? |
| A: Possible access points should be shown schematically, how the traffic organisation scheme may function, respectively, access points should be offered without further detailing. |
| Q: Should there be solutions for massing and layout of the buildings to be constructed within the boundaries of the competition object, which are not related to the terminal itself, incl. their ground floor plans? |
| A: We expect the type of use for existing buildings in the territory, proposals can be submitted, but it is not a mandatory requirement. |
| Q: The attached local plan of the southern part of Export Port is for 2020, but a new local plan has been approved for this area in 2023. Which local plan should be used in the competition solutions? |
| A: There are two planning documents that apply to this territory: The southern part (the Protection Zone of the RHC) of the territory of the Competition object is subject to Binding Regulations No. RD-23-209-sn of the Riga City Council of 29 June 2023 “Binding Regulations on the Use and Construction in the Southern Part of the Export Port”. Binding Regulations No. 46 “Binding Regulations on the Use and Construction in the Export Port and the Territory Adjoining It” of the Riga City Council on 11 July 2018 apply to the northern part of the territory of the Competition Object and the study area. It is shown graphically in the Designing Programme Booklet page No. 15 |
| Q: Extension of the sketch design competition for one month. Submission on 25 March. |
| A: It is not intended to extend the deadline for submission of proposals for the sketch design competition in order to ensure equal rules of participation for all participants. |
| Q: The warehouse with cadastral designation 01000132008004 located in the study area has a gate on the border of the competition object opposite the cruise ship berth EO-8. Is this gate and the area in front of the gate intended to be used for the warehouse needs? |
| A: Yes, it is intended to be used. The plan showing the ramp also marks the area set aside for cargo handling. |
| Q: The areas to be developed in the southern part of the competition object are owned partly by the state and partly by a legal entity. Is it necessary to consider existing land unit boundaries when planning potential development? |
| A: In the future, it is planned to purchase the land area located within the boundaries of the competition object, so it is not necessary to take into account the borders of land units in this territory. |
| Q: Should the condition that “car parks and other landscaping elements are set up within the boundaries of the land unit outside the street lines” be interpreted as meaning that parking spaces must be planned for each land unit within the boundaries of the competition object, respecting the existing division of the plots of land, or can the territory of the terminal be viewed as a whole and parking spaces for the servicing of the terminal building may be arranged not only in plot 01000130218, but also in plot 01000130217? |
| A: The territory of the terminal can be viewed as a whole, providing parking spaces in both plots, i.e. 01000130218 and 01000130217. |
| Q: Could you explain the projected phasing of the project? Is it intended for a portion or all of the phase 2 construction proposal (13,000 sqm) to also be located in the existing warehouse building? |
| A: The total floor area of the three levels of the existing warehouse is 18,761.8 m², the useful (carpet) area is 17,378.1 m², it is also planned to arrange the functions of the 2nd phase in the existing buildings. |
| Q: Is the aim for all passengers on all three berths to go through the new terminal building? Will foot passengers board their vessel at berth 8 quayside or via an elevated tunnel connected to the terminal? |
| A: The competitors are open to provide solutions for both possibilities – that only passengers from berth no. EO-6 go through the building and that all passengers go through the terminal building. |
| Q: Is it intended to have both Schengen and Non-Schengen border control? |
| A: Upon necessity – yes, for both. Generally, Schengen passengers enter Riga from other EU port, and therefore the border control is not necessary. |
| Q: The location of the pedestrian/cyclist corridor connecting Eksporta Iela to the waterfront is shown in 2 different locations. a. It is shown roughly aligned with the end of Berth 6 in the stand-along transportation scheme PDF (file named 2_2_4_Eksportosta2_functional_zoning) and in the Functional Zoning plan TIN 134 (2_2_4_Eksportosta2_functional_zoning) b. It is shown further south in the Designing Programme Transportation Scheme (page 28) c. Should we consider both options to be possible, or is the location identified in the Functional Zoning plan correct? |
| A: The planned pedestrian promenade (TIN130) along the (Daugava) waterfront of the inlet of the Export Port is a public open space with priority for pedestrians and cyclists whose purpose is to ensure access to the inlet of the Export Port in the Daugava, and it is determined as a territory necessary for the development and construction of technical public infrastructure. A uniform landscape and construction design should be developed for the planned pedestrian promenade along the entire waterfront of the inlet of the Export Port, creating a publicly accessible and landscaped embankment, no less than 15 meters wide, including the minimum width of a pedestrian and cycling path – 6 meters (excluding side security spaces and the area occupied by landscaping elements). It is forbidden to fence the pedestrian promenade or to obstruct the free movement of pedestrians along the embankment and access to the waterfront with elements of refurbishment. In case the terminal for passenger ships (including ferries and cruise ships) and ro-ro passenger ships (ro-pax ships) may not be built as planned in the Local Plan territory, the possibility and necessity of extending the planned pedestrian promenade along the embankment of the inlet of the Export Port (the Daugava) northwards should be considered (see answer to Question 24). |
| Q: The Designing Programme refers to a zone TIN141 (Public Square). We do not see this identified in the functional zoning plan. Could you please clarify the location of this zone? |
A: The attached graphical scheme shows the prospective area of the public square. |
| Q: Is the waiting area for the ferry embarking passengers accessible to anyone or limited just to travelers? |
| A: It shall be a limited-access territory, accessible only to travelers. |
| Q: Can the competition be submitted in English for international teams – or double language is mandatory? |
| A: The competition documentation can be submitted in English. |
| Q: Which one is the max number of A1 boards? |
| A: The number of A1 panels is not determined, the graphical information must reflect the information requested in Clause 8.6.1 of the Competition Brief. |
| Q: Are all the 8 images of photomontage mandatory? Can we select from them? |
| A: Appendix 5_2_2 contains a section of the existing building in dwg format, while Appendix 3_1 contains the topography of the competition object and the study area in dwg format. |
| Q: Could we receive an obj/3ds/revit 3d model of the context beside the point cloud 3d file? Or any dwg drawings? |
| A: No, there is not one. |
| Q: Is there a 3d model of the existing building and its structure? |
| A: This issue falls within the competence of architects – whether to create separate spaces or mix them. At the same time, of course, it cannot negatively affect compliance with security requirements (CCTV, scanners, etc.). |
| Q: Given the mixed use of the building – is it recommended to have shared spaces, or the transport terminal needs to be completely independent for security reasons? |
| A: Appendix 5_2_2 contains a section of the existing building in dwg format, while Appendix 3_1 contains the topography of the competition object and the study area in dwg format. |
| Q: Can we receive Andrejsala development masterplan and/or 3d model of planned development? |
| A: The master plan of Andrejsala is a copyright object that does not belong to the organizers of the competition, so it cannot be transferred to third parties without its owner’s permission. Basic information about the development plans of Andrejsala can be found at www.rigaportcity.lv |
| Q: Are there any indications of the functional program from the client about the planned development territory North-East from the eventual port terminal? How do these buildings correspond to the port terminal? |
| A: It would be necessary to specify the development of which territory and in what timeframe this question refers to. However, conceptually, currently (in the next decade) the farther territory of the Export Port would be used for cargo handling (from Berth EO-9 and onwards), unless there is a significant increase in demand for the provision of passenger infrastructure and then it will be necessary to implement the next round of the Ropax terminal development, also including Berths EO-9 and EO-10 and the adjacent territory in the passenger servicing infrastructure. |
| Q: Could you provide the levels of the bridges/fingers arrival and departure access to the cruise boats and the ferry? |
| A: Currently, cruise ship passengers reach the terminal building by land, consequently, such information is not available. The most typical ships of the ferry line visiting Riga are Tallink ships Romantica or Isabelle. It is possible that this information can be found publicly, but the commissioner does not have it. |
| Q: Should we use the 24000 sqm total split over four floors for the ferry terminal and commercial program in the same building or should those be 2 separate buildings within the Object areas? |
| A: The area of the terminal building is 18,000 m², it is a single building with mixed types of use. A solution can be proposed that the functions of the terminal are completely separated by separate entrances, partitions, etc., and that there are mixed types of use observing security requirements. |
| Q: Or is the additional 13000sqm (phase2) of mixed-use to be in a separate building still within the object area or outside in the sketch project area? |
| A: Phase II is in the same terminal building. |
| Q: What is the brief and sqm for the sketch project area? |
| A: The following functions must be provided in the first round of the sketch design competition: – Public area 1340.00 m² – Port service area 250.00 m² – Rooms for public services 230.00 m² – Technical rooms 100.00 m² – Storage spaces 400.00 m² – Security service 110.00 m² – Border control and customs 250.00 m² – Port service area 250.00 m² – Technical room 200.00 m² – Public area 1600.00 m² – Port service area 250.00 m² – Bar 200,00 m² – VIP area 120.00 m² – Retail area/shops 390.00 m² – Tallink offices 600.00 m² – Corridors and staircases ~1070.00 m² During Phase II of the construction, besides the passenger terminal function, a concept for additional commercial spaces should be offered in the amount of ~13,000.00 m², which could include: – Catering area, – Retail area, – Business area, including shipping agent offices, – Education function, – Culture area, – Other functions at the discretion of the Competition participant. |
| Q: If phase 1 (7000sqm of ferry terminal program) and phase 2 (13000sqm of mixed use) are to be planned in the same building/volume, will the construction also be phased at different times? |
| A: Phases I and II must be planned in the same building. |
| Q: Can you provide further information as to what is the Public Service Area and Port Services Area? |
| A: Port Service area means an area where port services are provided, for example, if it is a building, then it houses a customs area, waiting rooms, etc., if it is a berth, then it is a sectioned-off area for loading/unloading ships, etc. Public Service area means an unrestricted access area (regardless of whether the visitor to the area is/is not the one who will use the ferry/cruise ship). If it is a building, then it houses shops, kiosks, cafes in the public part, if it is located outside, then it includes a playground, public transport stops, cafes, etc. |
| Q: As per 8.6.1.2 in the Competition Brief. Please clarify what is meant by Economic Parameters. |
| A: Technical parameters of the Competition Object are as follows: – Total area of the building (m²), – Useful (carpet) area of spaces of surface floors of the building (m²), – Roads and squares (m²), – Area of greenery (m²), – The number of parking spaces (pcs.); – The number of bicycle stands (pcs.); – The number of coach stands (pcs.). |
| Q: Regarding the RRT Competition Brief 2023_12_18: CLAUSE 6.5 “The exchange of information between the Commissioner and the Participants of the Competition regarding the Competition Brief and its appendices shall be made ONLY ELECTRONICALLY”; CLAUSE 7.3 “IF the Sketch Design is sent by post or by courier…” The two are contradictory and unclear – the keywords are “ONLY” & “IF”. We must adhere to the semantics in translation. – DOES IT MEAN the submission of the sketch design graphic, the bound document, & the data carrier CAN OR, CAN NOT be submitted electronically? – We are UK RIBA Chartered Architects, but based internationally in rural Kenya, East Africa. We are not able to print A1 boards locally, but can do in Nairobi, IF REQUIRED? We would rely on the Kenya Post Office if hard copy is required? – It would seem bizarre in the extreme if electronic submission is not acceptable (WeTransfer). |
| A: Clause 6.5 refers to questions and answers, and in this regard the communication takes place only electronically, while Clause 7.3 refers to the submission of the Sketch Design. The requirements to the Sketch Designs are laid down by the subsequent clauses of the Brief, Chapter 8, and they also provide for the submission of panels/ boards. Therefore, yes, it is necessary to submit not only electronically. |
| Q: I wanted to query 9.3 in the Competition Brief, it states the requirement that: “The Participant of the Competition must be registered in the Commercial Register of Latvia or in an equivalent register in a foreign country if the laws of the country in question so provide. This requirement applies to all members of the partnership (if the proposal is submitted by a partnership) or all members of an association of persons (if the proposal is submitted by an association of persons).” We are registered with Companies House in the UK. Could you clarify whether in this case we could enter this competition? |
| A: Yes, you can participate by submitting proof of your registration. |
| Q: In sections 9.4.1.1 and 9.4.1.2 you state: …The construction design proving the experience must be fully developed, The construction design proving the experience must be fully developed, Does this mean that the project is completed? If not does it mean instead that the project has achieved sign off for construction by a building control authority? |
| A: It means that the project has been developed and approved by the building control authority. |
| Q: If we are the design architects for a project example built in the last 5-years that had an executive architect submit the construction information for building control- would that qualify |
| A: Yes, it qualifies as it meets the requirement for authorship. |
| Q: When you say … The object is a public area… does this mean that the building needs to be a building developed by a government agency (a public body), or just a building that is open for public use- e.g. a commercial development- retail, offices, leisure, etc.? |
| A: Public buildings are buildings in which more than 50% of the building’s total area is occupied by public spaces or spaces for ensuring a public function, or engineering structures intended for public use. |
| Q: Could you please advise if in the urban plan layout we should consider, from the Masterplan for Local Planning Area Proposed by “Architecture Bureau OU R-Konsult”, 2021, to add the taxi drop-off, cars parking and buses slots parking? |
| A: At the authors’ discretion. |
| Q: Could you advise about the exact 2 levels of the finger bridge, arrival, and departures access, to the cruise boats and the ferry, for the TALLINK SILJA LINE? |
| A: The most typical ships visiting Riga from the Tallink fleet are “Romantica” or “Baltic Queen”. The levels can be based on the parameters of these ships. |
| Q: Which one is the max numbers of A1 boards? |
| A: The maximum number of A1 boards is not determined. |
| Q: Are all the 8 images photomontage mandatory? Can we select from them? |
| A: The deliverables of the sketch design competition must include eight visualizations or photomontages from defined vantage points. |
| Q: It is requested that we submit the masterplan of the competition object at scale 1:1000 on an A1 sheet format. It is not possible to fit the entire competition object on an A1 sheet at this scale. Should we present the masterplan at a different scale or is it acceptable to show only the main/central part of the proposal? |
A: The competition object at scale 1:1000 on A1-size sheet.  |
| Q: Please clarify whether it is acceptable to mail the competition proposal on March 25th (date on the postal stamp) or if the boards must be delivered to the office of the Latvian Architects’ Association by 10 a.m. on March 25th. |
| A: According to Clauses 7.1 and 7.3 of the Competition Brief, the Sketch Design must be delivered to the Latvian Architects’ Association by 25 March 2024, 10:00 a.m. If you want to submit your competition proposal earlier, please call the Coordinator of the Competition by phone +371 29480702. |
| Q: Please clarify whether the invited participants also need to (re)submit their trade register documentation together with the competition boards. |
| A: Yes, it must be submitted. |
| Q: Our team intends to name a subconsultant (an individual representing another design firm) to the role of the landscape architect. Please clarify whether the trade register documentation and the information about the annual turnover are needed also from the subconsultant’s firm. |
| A: Information about the annual turnover is necessary for the team or association of suppliers. |
| Q: Scanners: Are they required in the departure areas, or would a simple line of gates be sufficient to check tickets? (By scanners, we mean metal detector gates used to check for potentially dangerous items, similar to those in airports.) |
| A: Scanners would be desirable for security purposes. |
| Q: For the 3 boats (E06, E07, E08), is it necessary for them to embark/disembark people simultaneously? Or will there be a scheduled time organized with coordinated/separated times for embarkation and disembarkation? |
| A: It is not possible to handle three ships simultaneously because the ramp is planned in the middle. With regard to two ships, yes, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of disembarking from a passenger ship and a cruise ship at the same time. |
| Q: Do the 3 boats (E06, E07, E08) require independent bridges/fingers from the ferry terminal building? Do E06 and E07 need separate finger/bridge corridors to access the boat, or can we use only one bridge serving all three boats? Perhaps utilizing separated gates inside the ferry terminal building? |
| A: A ramp is needed on EO-6, as it is planned to service a ferry there (the ramp is planned from the berth). One corridor can be used for servicing two ships or one – at the discretion of the authors. Two gates in the terminal building can also be used (it will not be possible to service three ships because of the ramp). |
| Q: Is it necessary to have separate departure gates between the two operators’ lines, and two gates for arrivals? Or can one gate be used for exit and another for departure for multiple operator lines? |
| A: One gate may be used. |
| Q: Is it necessary to have separate departure gates between the two operators’ lines, and two gates for arrivals? Or can one gate be used for exit and another for departure for multiple operator lines? |
| A: One gate may be used. |
| Q: What is the required distance between the bridge and the boat? Are there specific regulations specifying this distance? If possible, could you provide section detail or a scheme for the telescopic/movable finger bridge to the boat that would work within the 22 m between the existing building and the berth edge? |
| A: There are no special requirements, these bridges must be as universal as possible. |
| Q: How do you envision Phases 1 and 2? Is it planned as a fit-out, where we build Phase 1 and leave Phase 2 empty? Or should we consider the phasing as more of a sequential construction of the internal architectural layout? For instance, should we position the commercial offer on a specific floor and/or specific side of the building? |
| A: Phase 1 will be built first; Phase 2 will follow. |
| Q: Regarding the deliverable of the combined 3D model of the Competition Object in .ifc format (LOD 200), Is the model to submit to be a simplified volumetric model or more an information model? |
| A: As a minimum, there must be a combined 3D model of the Competition Object in .ifc format (LOD 200), choosing meters (m) as a unit of measurement and adding textures and materials used to the model. |
| Q: It looks like it is not open on the date of the submission, i.e. Monday, 25 March. Could you let me know when the office is open for delivery, as we plan to travel to Riga to deliver the competition entry, and would like to ascertain when it will be open. |
| A: The deadline for submission of competition works is 25 March, 10:00 a.m. You can submit your proposal earlier by calling the Coordinator of the Competition by phone +371 29480702. |
