The new building which is the subject of this Competition will be the third City Hall for the City of Winnipeg since its incorporation in 1873. The present one, completed in 1886, has long since outgrown its usefulness in terms of size, efficiency and significance as a "proud expression of its function as the centre of civic government."
A City Hall has been defined as "the physical embodiment of what the city is, what it stands for, and what it aims to be." Today it must assume the dual functions of an efficient office building and of a muncipal government administration centre. Its significance in the growth of a city results from its expression of the purpose and nature of municipal government as well as from its impressive monumentality. True, its functioning must be both efficient and convenient; it must be flexible and readily adaptable to changing conditions and requirements; it must be economical in initial cost, in operation and maintenance; but, above all, it must be attractive, expressing the dignity of its use, at the same time avoiding meaningless stylistic
ornamentation. Appropriateness should be the keynote and objective of its design. It should achieve a friendly dignity through discrimination and restraint, and avoid the architecturally sensational which so often results from aesthetic or technical connoisseurship.
This Competition for the design of a new City Hall for Winnipeg is a challenge to the architects of Canada to create a building which will fulfill the physical requirements of both the legislative and the administrative branches of the City's government and will at the same time be the physical embodiment of the qualities traditionally associated with civic government.
(From competition brief)
All visual documentation is taken from the book "Report on the competition A CITY HALL FOR WINNIPEG, Canada"
Judgment of First Stage.
Following a preliminary study of each entry, the Jury considered each model placed in the master model of the Broadway site and its environs. Elimination of entries commenced with this consideration of siting and environmental relationships in terms of mass, exterior spaces, vistas, scale, etc. Consideration of the general planning of public and reception areas, department locations, future extensions, traffic and parking then resulted in further eliminations. For the remaining group, each juror thoroughly analyzed each entry, recording his reactions pro and con. These were then fully discussed by the entire group before the jurors voted on six finalists. The first ballot was conclusive in its choice of the following six architects as finalists:
George S. Abram of Willowdale, Ontario; J. M. Dayton and R. Jessiman of Vancouver; Green Blankstein Russell and Associates of Winnipeg; Michael M. Kopsa of Toronto; Gerald Robinson of Toronto; Smith Carter Searle Associates of Winnipeg.
The Jury met in the Winnipeg Auditorium January 3, 4, and 5, 1959, to choose six finalists from among the 91 entries submitted in the Preliminary Stage of the Competition: alter thorough and exhaustive study of each entry in relation to the buildings and spaces of the site, the Jury selected Numbers 31, 174, 185, 20 l, 208 and 246 on the first ballot as the entries which appeared ta have excellent potentialities for the development of their basic concepts. On January 6th the envelopes containing the nomes of the architects who had submitted these entries were opened .by the Mayor and the names were annaunced as follows:
George S. Abram, Willowdale, Ontario.
John M. Dayton and Roy Jessiman, Vancouver.
Green Blankstein Russell & Associates, Winnipeg.
Michael M. Kopsa, Toronto.
Gerald Robinson, Toronto.
Smith Carter Searle Associates, Winnipeg.
The Jury met again in the Winnipeg Art Gallery on December 14, 1959, to select the winner of the Competition from the entries submitted by these six finalists. On its first ballot, after two days of intensive study and analysis, the Jury unanimously chose Entry No. 31. On the following day the Mayor opened the envelope of that number and announced the firm of Green Blankstein Russell & Associates of Winnipeg os the winner of the Competition.
The Jury extends its hearty congratulations to the winning firm and feels confident that the scheme which it submitted will develop into a truly outstanding City Hall appropriately symbolic of the City of Winnipeg. The Jury also commends the high standard achieved by the other finalists whose entries were bath competent and distinctive.
The Jury wishes to congratulate the City of Winnipeg for its wisdom in deciding ta conduct a competition for the new City Hall and to record its appreciation of the efficient manner in which the Competition has been conducted by the Professional Adviser.
We submit herewith the basic considerations for judgment and a summary of our comments and criticisms re the six finalists.
Criteria for Judgment
Before commencing the first judgment, the Jury had became tharoughly acquainted with the specific requirements as laid down in the Conditions of Competition. Early in its deliberatians, the Jury established the following points as the basic considerations to be made in assessing each of the entries:
1. The Siting-the building's relation to the site and to its surroundings having in mind particularly its relation to the Legislative Building.
2. The Internai Planning of the Building-including the requirements for the public, legislative, administrative and service areas and their interrelatianships.
3. The Exteriors and Interiors-in terms of their over-all character, symbolsim and scale and of the appropriateness of materials.
4. The Logic and Feasibility of the Structure - the economy of first cost, and the durability and maintenance of the completed building.
5. The Over-all Concept-in terms of both its physical and its expressive aspects.
The Jury agreed that it was searching for a building which would take its place as an integral part of the total camplex of buildings and open spaces which surround and focus upo,~ the Legislative Building,-to harmonize with as weil as to complement the features of the neighborhood.
ln the first instance, the Jury placed great emphasis on the mandatory requirement that a new City Hall constructed on the Broadway site must in no way conflict with the existing surroundings, notably the effectiveness and view of the Legislative Building as it terminates the vista along Memorial Boulevard.
Secondly, the Jury placed equally great emphasis on the character and function of a city hall as defined in the Conditions of Competition:
"A City Hall has been defined as 'the physical embodiment of what the City is, what it stands for, and what it aims to be''. Today it must assume the dual functions of an efficient office building and of a municipal government administration centre. Its significance in the growth of a city results from its expression of the purpose and nature of municipal government as well as from its impressive monumentality. True, its functioning must be both efficient and convenient; it must be flexible and readily adaptable to changing conditions and requirements; it must be economical in initiol cost, in operation and maintenance; but, above ail, it must be attractive, expressing the dignity of its use, at the same time avoiding meaningless stylistic ornamentation, Appropriateness should be the keynote and objective of its design, It should achieve a friendly dignity through discrimination and restraint, and avoid the architecturally sensational which sa often results from aesthetic or technical connoisseurship. The ultimate goal should be a unique and distinctive symbol of civic government which will function efficiently now and in the future."
Thirdly, the Jury devoted considerable time to the detailed analysis af planning relationships, structure, materials, and the many details of interior as weil as exterior which produce total architecture.
ln the Jury's discussions it became clear that the "expressive" aspect included not only the proud expression of civic government but also the expression of the dual nature of a city hall-its legislative and administrative functians. Clearly, some of the final tests to be applied were implicit in the questions: "Could this building be anything other thon a city hall?" "Is it human as well as urban in scale?" "Is it friendly and dignified, not aloof and haughty?"
(From jury comments)
-
Green Blankstein Russell & Associates (Winner)
-
John M. Dayton and Roy Jessiman (Finalist)
-
Michael M. Kopsa (Finalist)
-
Gerald Robinson (Finalist)
-
Smith Carter Searle Associates (Finalist)
-
Georges S. Abram (Finalist)
-
M. Sprachman
-
W. L. Somerville, McMurrich & Oxley
-
G. C. N. Tonks
-
K. E. Tidy
-
J. K. Young
-
G. J. Yamazaki, J. W. Ridpath
-
R. Whiteley
-
Roberts & Margetts
-
J. C. Parkin
-
N. Osler
-
R. G. Robbie
-
G. M. Ritchie
-
W. J. McBain & Associates
-
Libling, Michener & Associates
-
Mrs. E. M. Lord
-
MacLoed & Reimer
-
V. Depocas
-
R. D'Astous
-
H. Fliess
-
L. Forster
-
V. Prus, B. van Ginkel, H. P. D. van Ginkel, M. Prus
-
Gibson & Pokorny
-
P. Dobush, W. E. Stewart
-
M. J. S. Fish
-
E. J. W. Nickelson
-
Durnfold, Bolton, Chadwick & Ellwood
-
W. E. Sherriff
-
Servos & Cauley
-
E. J. Weir
-
Blankstein & Coop
-
C. B. K. VanNorman & Associates
-
M. E. Utley
-
W. R. Ussner
-
Thompson, Berwick & Pratt
-
Smith & McCulloch
-
A. Stern
-
W. R. Wilding
-
A. Elkin
-
Z. S. Kiss
-
J. E. Dudley
-
Grierson, Walker & A. B. Leman
-
I. Grossman & J. Baker
-
E. L. Hankinson
-
A. D. Geach & C. B. Oulton-Clark
-
E. Janiss
-
V. Virak
-
D. Cohn
-
J. S. Allison
-
Moody, Moore & Partners
-
Rother, Bland, Trudeau
-
C. H. Sawchuk & A. F. Peach
-
W. A. Salter & D. E. Flemming
-
S. M. Sproule
-
H. Vandelman
-
Mayerovitch & Bernstein
-
Clifford & Lawrie
-
W. E. Carruthers & B. Shawcroft
-
S. F. Heinonen
-
K. L. Graham
-
G. R. Beatson
-
D. E. Horne
-
A. M. Bowers
-
W. Agius
-
Izumi, Arnott & Sugiyama
-
S. G. Elsey
-
I. E. H. Grolle
-
Waisman, Ross & Associates
-
A. B. Etherington
-
J. K. English & Associates
-
D. J. L. O'Connor & F. O'Connor
-
F. W. H. Dawes
-
M. Bach
-
R. Sellors
-
S. M. Roscoe
-
E. Olekshy
-
A. S. Read
-
H. N. Semmens & Associates
-
D. L. Pinckston
-
F. R. Barnes
-
S. S. Schmidt
-
Lund, King & Associates
-
Ward & MacDonald
-
C. Owtram
-
R. Matthews
-
J. W. Graham
| Jury president S1 |
John A. Russell, Architecte
|
| Jury S1 | Pietro Belluschi, Architecte |
| | Peter M. Thornton, Architecte |
| | Ralph Rapson, Architecte |
| | Alfred Roth, Architecte et professeur |
| | Eric W. Thrift, Architecte |
| |
|
| Jury president S2 |
John A. Russell, Architecte
|
| Jury S2 | Pietro Belluschi, Architecte |
| | Peter M. Thornton, Architecte |
| | Ralph Rapson, Architecte |
| | Alfred Roth, Architecte et professeur |
| | Eric W. Thrift, Architecte |
| |
|
| |
|
Invitations issued: June 2, 1958
Conditions of Competition available. Registration opens: June 17, 1958
Registration closes: August 4, 1958
The Preliminary Stage
Question period closes: August 18, 1958
Receipt of entries delivered (in person) / Dispatch of entries shipped: Before 5:00 p.m. Monday, Decembre 8, 1958
Notification of six competitors selected for Final Stage: On or before January 12, 1959
The Final Stage
Question period closes: February 2, 1959
Receipt of entries delivered (in person) / Dispatch of entries shipped: Before 5:00 p.m. Monday, May 11, 1959
Announcement of Award: On or before June 1, 1959
(From competition's documentation)
Winnipeg Architecture Foundation, Winnipeg Civic Centre
Winnipeg Architecture Foundation, Winnipeg Civic Centre 1964-2014
CBC News, Winnipeg city hall to get multi-million dollar facelift, upgrade, CBC News, 2015
M. Peterson, 510 Main Street : Winnipeg City Hall, 2014
Randy Turner, City Beautiful : How architecture shaped Winnipeg's DNA, 2015
- Règlement
- Questions et réponses
- Rapport du jury (global)
- Documentation
- Article de presse
- Documentation
- Documentation
- Documentation
