Repentigny is now considered the commercial and service center of the MRC de l'Assomption. The heart of the city is being revitalized and transformed into a modern downtown area with large pedestrian spaces, offices, shops, recreational facilities and green spaces. Repentigny offers its citizens all the services of a large city.
There is great potential for the development of cultural life, but this is limited by the capacity of existing facilities. The Espace culturel project, which will take place in the heart of the city, between Île-Lebel and the Robert-Lussier library, aims to meet this need. Imagined as a true cultural corridor, this unique concept will include a performance hall an art and creation center as well as an arboretum and public art garden.
In 2017, the multidisciplinary architectural competition for the performance hall was launched. The mission of the project was to foster the active participation of the region's citizens in a rich and diverse cultural life through:
- Attendance at performances.
- Amateur artistic practice;
- Participation in training or development workshops;
- Participation in cultural mediation activities and,
By placing the citizens at the center of the mission of the new Repentigny performance hall, the intention was to imagine a place different from other performance halls, whether they are in the region or in downtown Montreal, a place above all citizen. The new venue had to target a younger audience, a hard-to-reach audience that tends to shun traditional venues, but doesn't necessarily want to go see shows in bars.
The hall had to meet the following criteria:
- Multifunctional hall with variable geometry; presentation of shows of different configurations:
- Italian style (traditional layout) - 350 seats
- Cabaret style with tables and chairs - 275 seats
- Mixed configuration (front standing portion, rear tiered portion) - 400 seats.
- 2 198 m2
More than a broadcasting facility, the hall had to be able to fulfill these roles:
- An open citizen space, a place for exchange and sharing;
- A place of identity for the citizens of Repentigny and the region;
- An intergenerational and intercultural place;
- An animated, lively, vibrant place;
- A center of creation;
- A center of excellence in cultural mediation;
- A place of possibilities.
(From competition's documentation)
(Unofficial automated translation)
Atelier Paul Laurendeau+ DKA: Paul Laurendeau's theatrical presentation emphasizes the importance of symmetry in his composition, which supports the simplicity of the architectural gesture: a red opaque box surrounded by a wall that reveals the hall and the stage cage in transparency. The jury appreciates this very controlled and uncluttered composition, which proposes a filiation with the history of performance venues, but the jury is concerned about its functioning and its contextualization on the site.
The reference to the theater through the color red, the central entrance with a balcony and the wall of the foyer illustrating a stage curtain are the identifying elements of the composition; the color and its night lighting represent a good potential for visibility in the city. The strength of the foyer is at odds with the positioning of the off-axis main entrance and the constriction of the access corridors on either side of the hall; the operation of the accesses is problematic in terms of the desired fluidity.
STBA: The jury recognizes that the design of this project is bold and has the potential to create a brand image, a signature in the city. This concept is particularly distinguished by the layout of the forecourt, its cloud and by the work on the effects of the curtain wall glass; the cloud is a very strong gesture because of its visibility, but it creates a break between the two pavilions of the Cultural Space, the art center and the performance hall. The 'sound wave' party found on the entire curtain wall of the envelope, translated by different types of glass, is difficult to evaluate and too present. The singular and distinctive volumetry, all in curves, worries the jury because of its high requirements in terms of execution; the line is thin between a completed form and a form that remains to be refined. The roof form is also very present and provides a view of its membrane from the forecourt, which concerns the jury knowing the levels of execution at which the context and budgets allow. In terms of functionality, the location of the administrative area, away from the dressing rooms, was questioned by the technical committee.
Provencher Roy: The overall concept of the project is pleasing and the green roof is very appealing to the jury; it amplifies the nature of the site and elegantly treats the rear facade on the arrival side by skilfully obscuring the presence of trucks on this prominent facade. The forecourt elevation provides a quality civic presence; there are several ideas, several languages that fragment the project; the red ribbon that extends into the foyer is not unanimously supported. There is concern that the language is too corporate for the purpose of the site. It is mainly the operation and the excess surface area that challenges the jury; the organization behind the scenes, including the location of the administration, is commented on by the technical committee. The floor area and the green roof are of concern with respect to the budget. The wood and granite square, crossed by paths, stands out; its treatment facilitates its appropriation by the citizens.
FABG: The concept is faithful to the conceptual text of the application file; it proposes beautiful reminders of the art center, through the structure and the materials. What characterizes this project is the addition of a covered terrace on the foyer, providing views of the city and the river while participating in the animation of the parvis. The opening of the foyer through large doors and the design of the forecourt provide the desired flexibility; the bleachers help to animate it. There are many possibilities for activities. The functionality is controlled and meets the PFT. The sobriety of the envelope on the other three sides may lack character and the jury deplores the succession of volumetric setbacks. They will have to be developed, particularly that of the reception area. A welcoming landscape gesture would be desirable from Iberville Boulevard. The use of wood in the structure is judicious; the wood in the wall cladding is reminiscent of the art center. The jury agrees that the experience in the field of performance halls and the sobriety of the proposed treatment are guarantees of quality; moreover, this concept offers an effective signature, thanks to its high terrace.
Urban component
Question of scale: in light of the viewing of the 3-D models, the jury considers that the scale of the buildings does not pose a problem in relation to the art center and the neighbourhood, thanks to the vocation of the site and its sufficient distance from the ground. The site already offers different scales of buildings, from Notre Dame Street to City Hall. Currently, the zoning on Iberville does not allow it, but there is a 6-story project further north, in line with the performance hall.
All four projects meet this criteria. FABG's volumetric concept is distinguished by a balance between the overall volumetry of the hall and the scale of the art center by creating horizontal layers in addition to the continuity of the materials.
Square: the jury agrees that the square will have its own programming and can be animated independently of the performance hall and the art center. The forecourt of STBA| Claude Cormier's proposal plays boldly with the cloud that will become a unifying and appropriable object. The water mirror is less convincing.
FABG| Marc Fauteux proposes an urban space with trees on the periphery, urban furniture and an open terrace with tables. The terraces remind us of the vocation of the building and make the strollers participate in the animation of the square.
Provencher Roy proposes an indoor and outdoor café that are not at the PFT for operational reasons. The size of the wooden surfaces should be reviewed for winter maintenance reasons.
Paul Laurendeau + DKA | Projet paysage proposes a more austere design, which does not compete with the concept of the building; it is an extension of the foyer but without any real relationship. Its appropriation seems difficult.
Urbanism: the jury evaluates this criterion based on the views, the impact on the neighborhood in terms of noise and lighting, and the alignments which are not an obligation. However, in terms of margins, all the projects are acceptable. The Paul Laurendeau+DKA project maintains a strict alignment with the art center. In terms of views, two projects exploit them, FABG with its well-structured terrace and Provencher Roy, with its accessible green roof. The jury believes that this idea, which focuses on views of the river and the church, would be beneficial to the community.
Architectural component
Functionality: According to the technical committee, the operational sector is best handled by FABG and Paul Laurendeau+DKA; the organization is clear and responds to the PFT. The foyer is a flexible space to accommodate different activities other than mini-shows; the addition of a mezzanine by three teams, FABG, SBTA and Provencher Roy, is an asset for the animation. However, Provencher Roy's mezzanine is too large and generates a significant overrun. The jury notes that in the Paul Laurendeau+ DKA project, the layout of the foyer hides the lateral accesses to the room and the axial composition emphasizes the access to the balcony with emergency exit type stairs. In the case of Provencher Roy, one of the entrances to the hall is not very visible from the foyer. The addition of bleachers in the foyer may or may not be an advantage; SBTA's are cramped and the second entrance at the top of the bleachers for the mezzanine is not desirable. FABG's foyer, with its proportions, seating and openness to the forecourt, offers the greatest potential for use.
Spatial quality: All four rooms have the same floor plan as suggested by the PFT. The treatment of the FABG room stands out with its use of wood in a classical mode, its sobriety and the calm that emanates from it; it is a warm room. The red of the Paul Laurendeau+ DKA room is too intense; the SBTA panels give an overloaded effect and the Provencher Roy room is neutral.
Materiality: In terms of context, the jury recognizes that the Paul Laurendeau+DKA project stands out as a beautiful aesthetic object. SBTA's use of wood on the exterior of the hall demonstrates a beautiful sensitivity and a willingness to dialogue with the art center, which has made the same use of it. The black stage house on the roof of the FABG project is not convincing; during the interview, the architect himself suggested that it be white like the rest of the project.
Visibility and signature: the four projects stand out because of their architectural signature, SBTA and Paul Laurendeau+DKA, in terms of the forecourt and the form, and Provencher Roy stands out because of its green roof, covering the entire building. For FABG, the terrace is more than a signature, it is a usable space with a high animation potential; it is the creation of a new function that completes the PFT while offering a good visibility in the city.
Engineering Component
The jury learned more about systems integration from the interviews than from the performance documents submitted, as the schematics and text were sketchy and generic. It was found that the major issue is the foundations due to the poor quality of the soil; the PFT specified piles but their depth may argue for another solution; only further analysis will allow to judge this element of the project. The jury therefore put this aspect of its evaluation into perspective.
Structure: the proposed structures are standard in nature without complexity that could divert the budget. Three projects are steel and one is a mixed concrete/steel project.
Mechanical: the proposed systems meet the PFT while making less expensive but standard proposals; the units are rooftop and the ducts are in the ceiling, which is questionable for a performance venue. The integration of the mechanics, especially in the hall, is made possible with the steel structure. In the Provencher Roy project, the mechanical room has a surface area greater than the program. The LED lighting present in all the concepts has become conventional but the jury wonders about the costs related to the architectural lighting of the building, to create the effects presented.
Sustainability: The notion of sustainability was not addressed in the concepts presented.
Parvis: The engineers stated that they had included the electrical connections described in the PFT and the lighting in their estimate.
Final evaluation
The jury proceeded to a synthesis of the qualitative and significant points made, mainly in architecture, for each concept:
Paul Laurendeau+ DKA; the project, very theatrical in its treatment, proposes a signature that is out of step with the desired multifunctional vocation. The problem of the sequence of circulation from the forecourt to the hall is important. In this sense the project relies too much on a very present signage to alleviate this problem. Signage is not an architectural solution. The result is a confusion of visibility and function for the public that can hardly be corrected by the design.
SBTA; the identity of the project comes from the cloud floating above the forecourt, a very strong brand image. This cannot be removed without weakening the overall concept of the building and the forecourt. In order for the building to take on its full identity, many technical challenges are required and the jury wonders about the technical and budgetary capacity to achieve them. In addition, the functional aspect is deficient.
FABG; this project is distinguished by its sobriety, the relevance of its terrace, the quality of its dialogue with the art center and its resolute functional organization. By its spatial flexibility, it offers a potential for animation and activities that meets the wishes of the operators. The jury deplores the draft of the rear volumetry, which will have to be finalized to be in harmony with the whole building, to solve the problem of the reception platform and to create an interface with the city. This can be addressed later in the file.
Provencher Roy; this concept was very appealing for its simple and effective visual approach, where nature and form offer an elegant solution to the problem of visibility from the site entrance; the project is articulated in a variety of architectural elements on the façade facing the forecourt. The jury is concerned that the loss of the green roof in whole or in part would destroy this strong concept, as the sight of a membrane is inhibiting. The difference in surface area and its budgetary consequences make this project risky.
In light of the many discussions and exchanges shared on the four projects, the jury is ready to proceed to the final evaluation, through the cumulative scoring grid. The jury's recommendation names the project of the FABG| Marc Fauteux| SNC Lavalin| TetraTech |LEM. As the winner of the competition.
(From jury report)
(Unofficial automated translation)
Jury | Thomas Balaban, Architecte et professeur |
| Louise Bédard, Architecte |
| Claude De Grandpré, Artiste |
| Frédéric Dubé, Architecte |
| Michel Gagnon, Architecte |
| Julien Lauzon, Directeur de l'aménagement |
| Charles Renaud, Ingénieur |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technical Commitee | Michael Atalla |
| Marcel Bourgault |
| Manon Fortin |
| Alain Galarneau |
| Vivianne Joyal |
| Luc Robillard |
Application proposal
Announcement of the competition in the media : November 24, 2017
Availability of competition documents on SEAO: November 24, 2017
Registration period: November 24 to December 20, 2017
End of question period: December 18, 2017
End of answer period: December 20, 2017
Deadline of transmission of addenda: December 21, 2017
Candidature deadline: January 15, 2018
Jury and selection of finalists: January 18 and 19, 2018
Approval of the selection of finalists by the municipal council: January 23, 2018
Communication to the finalists concerned of the selection of their application file: January 24, 2018
Public announcement of the finalist and publication of the jury report: January 26, 2018
Proposal
Obligatory individual meeting with each finalist: January 26, 2018
End of the question period: March 2, 2018
End of the answer period: March 5, 2018
Deadline of transmission of addenda: March 7, 2018
Proposal Deadline: March 16, 2018
Analysis of the proposal par the technical comittee: March 16 to April 2, 2018
Second jury meeting and selection of the winner: March 27 to 28, 2018
Approval of the selection of finalists by the municipal council: April 10, 2018
Public announcement of the finalist and publication of the jury report: mid-April 2018
(From competition brief)
(Unofficial automated translation)
Salle de spectacle à Repentigny : firme gagnante dévoilée, Portail Constructo, 2018
Le concept architectural du Théâtre Alphonse-Desjardins est dévoilé - Ville de Repentigny, Repentigny, s'épanouir
Théâtre Alphonse-Desjardins - Ville de Repentigny, Repentigny, s'épanouir
Lancement des travaux du Théâtre Alphonse-Desjardins, Hebdo Rive Nord
Coup d’envoi de la construction du Théâtre Alphonse-Desjardins, Voir vert - Le portail du bâtiment durable au Québec, 2019
Salle de spectacle de Repentigny : les lauréats sont connus, Ordre des architectes du Québec, 2018
Nouvelle salle de spectacle à Repentigny, Aramusique
- Programme
- Règlement
- Rapport du jury (global)