GENESIS OF THE CONCEPT
The architectural concept for the new Laval aquatic center emanates from a series of simple volumetric manipulations related to the design premises listed above. Below is an abbreviated description of the various stages in the genesis of the architectural concept:
1. The first step was to create a project in complete symbiosis with the adjacent wooded area, creating a green enclosure around the perimeter of the site. Acting as a filter along the highway and as a soft transition band with the Cosmodôme, this tree belt also allows to maintain a strong green presence along Terry Fox Street. This new forest belt defines an open central space like a clearing, a place that is perfectly suited to the establishment of Laval's new aquatic center.
2. In a second step, we simply proceeded to a 10m uplift of the central portion of the clearing in order to accommodate the 3 pools.
3. In order to respond adequately to the different programmatic needs, we lowered and raised certain portions of the shrubbery. The portion of the roof above the diving pool was raised by 5 m while the end of the plate facing the back of the diving pools (on the highway) was lowered to ensure a better control of possible nuisances related to the highway (direct morning light, noise, visual distraction, etc.). The north side of the diving pool was also lowered facing the wooded area to ensure a better control of light, without any "backlighting" effect for the spectators. On the side of the wooded area and near the main entrance, we also lowered the shrubbery to create an outdoor amphitheater. Directly linked to the vehicle drop-off zone, this outdoor amphitheatre enhances the program by providing an interesting gathering place for groups during competitions, but also during the arrival/departure of groups of users transported by bus. Inside, this volumetric depression elegantly separates the recreational pool from the 50 m pool and contributes to create a more intimate, even playful place for this part of the complex. A walkway connects the amphitheater to the public area of the hall located on the south side. Enclosed and air-conditioned, this walkway allows users to have interesting views of the different pools. Finally, a portion of the section overlooking Terry Fox Street is also lowered to give more privacy to the play area and a more "enchanting" atmosphere to this portion of the project.
(From competitor's text)
(Unofficial automated translation)
The jury appreciates the great gesture of identity given by the innovative structure and the modulation of the green roof seen from the outside; although attractive, it does not contribute to the interior experience because the emphasis is not on the pools or the circuit to get there. The large, largely glassed-in pool lobby overlooks the vehicular entrance that runs along the building and separates the complex from the woods. The pedestrian entrance is far from the street and the parking lot, which does not contribute to the notion of universal accessibility and is not very generous in scale; the entrance from outside is not realistic. The corridor to the locker rooms is not very lively.
The jury notes the visual interest of the concept but deplores the lack of economy of means with a complex and costly structure and envelope. The budgetary aspect worries the jury. The structural innovation is not enough to create an innovative complex in terms of activities or clientele, the general organization being neutral, with no specific experience other than the effect of the roof. The jury travels to the public hearings of the four finalists; questions will be asked in public but deliberations will be held the next day, behind closed doors. Jury members with a previously disclosed business or family relationship with a member of a finalist team will not be allowed to ask questions.
Following the team's response that their Level 4 Uniformat evaluation allowed them to reduce the design contingency from 15% to 6% as well as the administrative and profit costs, the jury concluded that at a conceptual stage, it was not realistic to reduce these contingencies.
According to article 1.6 of the rules, the jury asked to hear from the finalist; the answer on their estimate did not convince the jury who considered this project too risky in terms of budget.
In addition, the presentation highlighted the weakness of the integration of the entities and experts on the team.
On the architectural level, the jury returned to the problem of the entrance, the relationship with the wooded area separated by the access road, the poorly animated interior circulation with no views of the pools, and a complex structural system, each truss being different; all these elements cannot be ignored and compensated for by the interior ambiance produced by the more distinctive structure.
(From jury report)
(Unofficial automated translation)
25 scanned / 25 viewable
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Site Plan
- Plan
- Plan
- Plan
- Plan
- Plan
- Section
- Section
- Elevation
- Elevation
- Elevation
- Elevation
- Schema
- Schema
- Conceptual Sketch
- Sketch
- Photomontage
- Photomontage
