IN n OUT
The implementation of an indoor soccer complex at the edge of the SMEC park is a major challenge.
Not that the size and impact of the volume is an obstacle, on the contrary, the project can become a formidable urban and landscape landmark. But the size of the footprint of such a project on a semi-urban site is considerable. The risk of reducing the permeability of the site is great and runs counter to the idea of an accessible and dynamic urban park in the making. This is why our proposal is above all a project of connections, pathways, sports gardens and natural gardens.
These four elements juxtapose, play, collide or pass each other. All interact individually or collectively and establish relationships between them: the sports fields become actors of a park and the park supports the sports activity, but more than anything else, both users and walkers are put in relation and rub shoulders, forming an extraordinary teamwork. The protective volume becomes accessory because it is not the identity element of the project. It contributes to it, but in a secondary way. It comes to arbitrate the whole, simply, elegantly but with rigor. The structure is thought in a simple and efficient way but is not a significant element of the project, it remains subtly perceptible from the inside through the perforated skin. This choice was made in order to respect the budget and to emphasize the functionality and the landscape experience for the users. Our proposal places the player at the heart of our concerns, but also the public and the users of the park.
The game begins with the layout of the indoor and outdoor courts, simple, dictated by the existing space, and taking advantage of the presence of Papineau Boulevard. The indoor court is lowered by approximately 2 meters, resulting in the deployment of the connection zone to the outdoor court and the reception area. Two functional levels are attached, the first reserved for services related to the field, and the second superimposed for the public, connected directly to the park. The interior grounds are located under the large, imposing protective volume, but totally detached from the landscaped base. By its implantation, the project preserves the existing trees to the maximum and makes use of the slope which borders the site, thus minimizing the disturbance of the latter.
(From competitor's text)
(Unofficial automated translation)
"A very functional project but one whose identity lacks character."
The project proposes an imposing volume, an opaque steel-clad rectangle resting on a thin band of glass on Papineau Boulevard and the entrance side; a more generous fenestration enlivens the quarry-side façade. The access to the bleachers, with a slight slope, offers a natural progression towards the public area for spectators.
It is distinguished by the simplicity of the functional organization, which offers a conceptual fluidity.
This design offers the best arrangement of spaces both inside and outside. Upon entering the building, the jury appreciated the addition of a glassed-in area on the grounds, the agora, to facilitate the reception of youth groups. The design is clearly user-oriented and meets the functional requirements of the program.
The project is appreciated for the high quality of the design of the interior spaces, the paths that connect them and their continuity with the park. In particular, the placement of the bleachers and the interior public spaces on the park side contributes to the human animation of the park. However, the jury considers that the heaviness and opacity in the treatment of the roof structure constitutes a visual barrier between the neighbourhood and the park.
However, the functional party has generated a significant difference in surface area at the level of the public areas, of the order of 932 m2. However, the jury deplores the evolution of the project's architectural treatment, and more specifically, at the level of the envelope and the volumetry.
The challenge of creating a building with a city-side identity has not been solved; the work on the façades does not stem from the structure, which is unclear as to its specific character. The different facades contradict the effect of the volumetry.
The minimalist approach lacks character and is unconvincing. The structural aspect was not developed in the performance.
The jury notes that none of the projects offers a functional solution, the desire for identity that is clearly mentioned in the program, and the respect of the budget.
(From jury report)
(Unofficial automated translation)
41 scanned / 33 viewable
- Presentation Panel
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Plan
- Plan
- Plan
- Section
- Section
- Diagram
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Plan
- Plan
- Plan
- Plan
- Section
- Section
- Section
- Elevation
- Elevation
- Schema
- Schema
- Schema
- Diagram
