The promoters of this international urban development competition have two main objectives:
1- the development of the sector by using the best inputs of advanced know-how and international talent in solving urban problems;
2 - an international emulation by retaining the solutions and possibly the professional teams most able to value the potential and vocations of the sector, I hopes polarizing the international functions of Montréal.
Advanced know-how
Candidates are asked to optimize an overall solution in the context of international expertise in relation to similar projects. Here we highlight some contextual considerations:
- the use of the air rights of the Ville-Marie motorway and the most appropriate technical solutions in terms of structure, ventilation, public safety, costs involved, and a highway both in trench and in a tunnel.
- the connections between the urban arterial highway network, the motorway network and the local service roads, as well as the distribution and accessibility of car parks and loading/unloading docks.
- the possible integration of a small public transit mode, connected to the existing metro network, to serve the old city (historic district of Old Montreal), the competition area, and the Business Center.
- respect for the built heritage, ensuring the continuity of the urban fabric rather than breaking its links.
- solutions to be considered taking into account Montréal's rigorous climate (fountains, snow removal, district heating, sheltered pedestrian networks, winter recreation, etc.).
- the development of public spaces and existing monuments.
- lighting designed for vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic, and the enhancement of the built environment.
International Emulation
Participants are asked to identify, for the competition sector, elements capable of confirming Montréal's international vocation, as much in terms of vocations (soil affections and vocation of buildings) as in the urban fabric. They are therefore expected to be somewhat familiar with similar efforts by other global cities, particularly those hosting the permanent headquarters of international organizations and engaging the business community and industry In the joint construction of commercial buildings and large assembly facilities.
(From competition program)
(Unofficial automated translation)
First Phase
The jury of the International Competition "La Cite Internationale de Montreal" met in Montreal from 4 through 7 September 1990.
Procedures of the Jury
The jury as a whole visited the site of the competition. It also was briefed by Mr. Pierre Sainte-Marie of the City of Montreal on the preparation of the Master Plan of the Central Area.
The jury has examined in detail all 94 projects submitted. It did not find, on the grounds of minor deviations from the program or presentation requirements any reason to reject any project from further examination. Following an initial examination of all projects, and prior to the elimination of any contender, a thorough discussion of the jury's understanding of the program documents and of the major constraints and potentials of the district was conducted.
Following this review, the jury agreed upon the following selection criteria:
PLACE-MAKING
ORIENTATION AND LEGEBILITY OF SPACES
IDENTITY OF THE DISTRICT
CONFLICT/PROBI.EM RESOLUTION
IMPLEMENTABILITY
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
CIRCULATION NETWORK
ENTERPRETABIILTY
BOUNDARY SOLUTIONS
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE QUALITY
These criteria were utilized in an iterative selection process. Each project which showed, in the opinion of at least one member, a sufficiently significant set of ideas, was thoroughly discussed by all members before being discarded or accepted for the next round of discussion. Through this process, the jury arrived at sixteen (16) contending projects within a period of three days, which were examined and discussed at least four times by the jury as a whole before its final choice. Two of the three finalists received unanimous support of the jury and one finalist majority support. Honourable mentions were then chosen unanimously, and the jury considers them of equavalent merit. The overall consensus on finalists and mentions was confirmed by a final vote.
Significant concepts
In the course of its deliberations, the jury identified a diversity of valuable and specific ideas. Although these did not always lead to satisfactory overall solutions, their consideration in the preparation of instructions to finalists may enrich the second phase of the competition.
- Various "city entry" proposals for University Street, involving such solutions as significatn building masses on both sides of the street, the reconfiguration of paved surfaces and associated landscaping, traffic nodes as entry points to the Cite Internationale, and proposals to transform the East side of University into a park or parkway setting.
- Variety of public open spaces with associated development, having distinct characters, used in different parts of the district as place-making elements.
- The differentiation of sectors of the district so that smaller precincts have their own distinct character.
- Open spaces and green networks, sometimes too ambitious, to link the district to adjacent areas of the City, particularly the old City and the Central Business District.
- Bold changes in the existing urban fabric to provide a significant setting for the International Conference Centre. Most of these proposals were rejected because of implementation difficuties.
- Emphasis, and sometimes over-emphasis on specific elements of architecture to achieve place-making. The jury is of the opinion that this district will be developed over time by various organizations, and will not achieve its identity mainly through a rigid uniformity of architecture.
- Attempts at introducing design principles beyond those limited to visual elements.
- Proposals to transform the overall right-ofway of Autoroute Ville-Marie, into the major spine of a public space network, linking University Street, Victoria Square and the Palais des congres.
- The use of courtyards as a basic design element for city blocks, particularly South of Saint-Antoine Street.
- The introduction of public transportation systems to overcome the obstacles to pedestrian communications between the upper and lower parts of the Central Business District, as well as more modest proposals such as exclusive bus lanes on Beaver Hall-McGill.
- Emphasis on the quality of enclosure of public spaces and streets.
Second Phase
In the light of most projects, and not only the selected finalists or honourable mentions, the jury has become convinced that the area bounded approximately by University Street, De La Gauchetiere Street, the Palais des Congres and Saint-Antoine Street offers the greatest potential to launch the overall development of the district as a whole. Most proposals for international functions are also located in that area by proponents. The jury consequently recommends that this should be the site for the second phase.
The jury proposes that information for the second phase include additional material regarding the following points:
- F.A.R. calculations, restrictions thereof, limitations on transfers, possible development mechanisms within the district, all things that have been interpreted differently by various proponents.
- More specific information on the International Conference Centre in terms of space requirements and locational requirements. A more specific analysis of development trends in Montreal regarding typical buildings being built, their floor-plates, etc. so as to avoid the unfeasible building form proposals that even finalists and mentions have put forward in the present stage.
- Any additional information which might assist the finalists in proposing more definite overall urban planning principles.
- Potentials and constraints resulting from land ownership patterns.
- More precise information regarding constraints and potentials above the Autoroute Ville-Marie.
- Review of the street pattern for motor traffic with an eye on reduction of through streets and intersections for the benefit of more pedestrian space and safety.
- Problems regarding retail development in the district.
Commercial Presentation requirements stated so as to achieve the same desirable level of detail (avoiding over-designed projects in terms of architecture), while stressing the importance of developing through urban design principles and guidelines.
- Presentation material, consequently, should include more written material than in the first stage. Moreover, the size of the area to be worked in detail in the second phase militates for three panels of AO size in the second phase.
COMMENTS TO THE FINALISTS
The jury made several observations concerning aspects of the premiated schemes. They were expressed with varying degrees of concern by members of the jury. Notwithstanding that the competition was an ideas competition, projects whose central character or aspect was deemed vulnerable were noted by the jury. The following comments reflect these concerns.
1) The Particular and Generic
- A number of projects produced "seamless" conceptions of a very particular nature architecturally. While it is recognized that urban design require illustration, and that what was drawn is an indication of intent as well as style, it is also true that the architect of the concept cannot expect to execute all buildings.
- Building proposals should take into account minimal requirements of flexibility in built forms, for a district that will, evidently, develop over many years through a variety of public and private development schemes.
- Proponents have not always been clear In distinguishing between organizing codes and rules, or design principles for new buildings, on the one hand, and specific elements of their overall proposal, on the other hand.
- The jury was perplexed by the lack of distinction in some projects between generic principles and illustration or elaboration. This prevented the jury from evaluating the implementability and development potential of many specific elements.
- In the opinion of the jury, statements of basic urban planning principles and urban design guidelines have been strangely missing in almost all proposals in the first stage of this competition.
- For the second phase, the jury identifies the need for more definite statements, in both written and graphic form, distinguishing between general organizing rules and specific architectural and stylistic proposals, or mere illustrations of such.
2) Built form Account
- Several schemes did not produce understandable representation of the built form, either at the district scale or (through extrapolation) at the precinct scale. No verifiable accounting of density or density distribution was preserved in some projects.
3) Building Footprints
- Schemes or part of schemes failed to take into account the present and foreseeable conditions for development in Montreal, such as typical footprints for typical uses.
- A number of projects suggested building footprints or configurations too atypical visa- vis conventional practice to be used as economically viable building types. Where such buildings are limited in number or special in use, concern was of a lesser order.
- The jury recommends that typical building footprints in Montreal be provided by the competition organizers for the second phase.
4) Heritage and other Worthy Buildings
- The jury was perplexed by the over presumption of a "tabula rasa" approach evident in some projects, regarding existing buildings, significant either for their heritage value or mere size.
- The removal of some buildings appeared arbitrary and to little effect in the concept of some schemes.
- For buildings to be removed, a demonstrable balance of benefits and costs should accrue to the quality or workability of the scheme.
- Clarification should also be forthcoming regarding in-fill proposals which apprear to deviate strongly from their immediate urban context.
5) Street Patterns
- Several projects propose new streets or public open space networks which, by virtue of their proposed form and uses, and their proximity to existing streets, appear to disperse street life at the expense of the vitality of major existing streets.
- The rationale for such proposals needs to be re-examined.
- Similarly, proponents should clarify the extent and the need for change within the existing public domain.
- In addition, some street widths and sidewalk provisions, though shown on small scale drawings, appear narrow particularly in respect to proposed street wall conditions.
6) Open Space Development
- A number of projects, understandably, centered on large and intermediate scale open spaces. Given the importance afforded these spaces in organizing and signifying the site, many spaces were insufficiently developed to establish their need, intent or character.
7) International Conference Centre
- All three finalists have proposed very credible locations for the I.C.C.
- Nonetheless, they have failed to achieve a balance between flexibility regarding its specific built form and the definition of its identity within the district. At this time, where its definite program is not fully established, this remains a crucial issue. The enunciation of guidelines, in written form, as well as illustrative material, must indicate how the design of public open spaces and surrounding building masses can offer a setting for the I.C.C. which is not unduly constraining while enhancing its presence.
(Jury report: unabridged version)
| Jury president S1 |
Michael Kirkland, Architecte
|
| Jury S1 | Gerhard Albers, Architecte et urbaniste |
| | Michel Barcelo, Architecte et urbaniste |
| | Guy Desbarats, Architecte |
| | Benjamin Forgey, Critique en architecture |
| | Aaron Green, Promoteur immobilier |
| | Michael Kirkland, Architecte |
| | Fumihiko Maki, Architecte |
| | Roger Montgomery, Doyen, College of Environmental Design, Berkeley |
| | Breit Reinhard, Architecte et urbaniste |
| |
|
| Jury president S2 |
Michael Kirkland, Architecte
|
| Jury S2 | Gerhard Albers, Architecte et urbaniste |
| | Michel Barcelo, Architecte et urbaniste |
| | Guy Desbarats, Architecte |
| | Benjamin Forgey, Critique en architecture |
| | Aaron Green, Promoteur immobilier |
| | Fumihiko Maki, Architecte |
| | Roger Montgomery, Doyen, College of Environmental Design, Berkeley |
| | Breit Reinhard, Architecte et urbaniste |
| |
|
| |
|
First degree / Contest for "Place Jacques-Cartier", and "La Cité Internationale de Montréal"
- Registration commences 1 February 1990
- Registration closes 15 May 1990
- Mailing of regulations and competition programs to competitors 15 May 1990
- Last date to receive questions 15 June 1990
- Mailing of responses to questions 29 June 1990
- Deadline. Projects delivered or post marked before 15 August 1990
- Date limit for arrival of projects (17h00, local time) 30 August 1990
- Jury deliberations (for the two competitions) 4 to 7 September 1990
- Choice of the finalists for "La Cité Internationale de Montréal" September 8, 1990
- Winners announced for "Place Jacques-Cartier" projects September 8, 1990
Second level / Contest for "La Cité Internationale de Montréal"
- Visit of finalists to Montreal September 24 to 28, 1990
- Date limit for arrival of projects 23 November 1990
- Jury deliberation 26 and 27 November
- Winner announced for "La Cité Internationale de Montréal" November 28, 1990
McLean, Malcolm, Cité Internationale, Montreal Business Magazine, 1992
- Pamphlet résumé
- Texte du concours
- Texte du concours
- Texte du concours
- Texte du concours
- Texte du concours
- Texte du concours
- Rapport du jury (global)
- Programme
- Règlement
- Règlement
- Plan
- Budget
- Plan
- Budget
