Covering a stadium without retraction
We will have to wait until 2019 before the recurring problem of the Montreal Olympic Stadium could potentially be fixed. Could a new retractable flexible canvas be the solution, or a fixed, traditional roof? What if the stadium remained roofless? And what if the whole building needed to be demolished in order to solve this problem that some now consider a dead end? While engineers debate these questions-come-political-issues, architects explore the constructive problem of massive spans in sport stadiums by means of architectural design competitions.
A two-stage competition, organized by the city of Montreal in 2011, aimed for the construction of a municipal soccer complex in the Villeray/Saint-Michel/Parc-Extension borough on the western perimeter of the Complexe environnemental de St-Michel (CESM). The program of this 12,700 square meter project included two soccer fields, one indoor and another outdoors, serviced by connecting servant spaces (lobby, bleachers, locker rooms, multipurpose room, amongst others). Of the thirty competitors who submitted proposals in the anonymous first stage of the competition, the jury selected four teams to proceed to the second stage: Saucier + Perrotte/Hughes Condon Marler Architectes, Éric Pelletier/GLCRM, Côté Leahy Cardas/Provencher Roy Associés Architectes, and Affleck de la Riva Architectes/Cannon Design.
The competition program identified three major "challenges" that the future stadium needed to address: the "architectural expression" (volumetric concern, treatment of the long walls, relationship with the street and the site), the "structural challenge of an unobstructed span over the playing field", and the "principles of a sustainable sport-oriented architecture that integrates into the CESM park" (the LEED-NC Gold standard was used as a measure of sustainable development performance). This editorial examines the way these challenges were addressed by the competitors, with a particular emphasis on the architectural figure of the roof.
First, let us consider the "architectural expression" aspect. The competition program goes beyond the traditional problem of architectural composition by mentioning the idea of "architectural identity": the building should absolutely project a "strong image". These terms are found more than once in the jury's comments on each of the second stage proposals. A volumetric analysis of the thirty first-round proposals reveals a clear division into two categories according to the general formal scheme of the projects: the "volume" type buildings and the "roof" type buildings. The former are buildings that appear as monoliths containing the entirety of the interior functions, whereas the latter appear as elongated elements that cover the functions without necessarily containing them. Some proposals are situated at the cusp of the two categories, as is the case of the entries by Atelier Pierre Thibault Martin and by Marcotte/Bienhaker, for example, in which a "roof" type building folds onto itself to become a "volume" type building. The formalization of the "roof" style buildings varies greatly. Thus, some can be identified by the strong expression of their upper section, as is the case with the non-planar surfaces of Cardin Ramirez Julien and Thibodeau Architecture + Design's proposals. In other projects, the roof is not limited to a simple surface but becomes a floating volume that integrates functions into its thickness. This is the case in such projects as Labonté Marcil/Bourgeois Lechasseur or Ruccolo + Faubert Architectes. Overall, there is an equal number of projects of each type both in the first and second round. If Éric Pelletier/GLCRM's and Côté Leahy Cardas/Provencher Roy Associés Architectes' projects fall into the "volume" category, Saucier + Perrotte/Hughes Condon Marler Architectes' and Affleck de la Riva Architectes/Cannon Design's proposals are definite "roof" type projects. The jury comments clearly reveal a preference for this last category. Thus, the roof is immediately seen as a "strong image" (comment on Affleck de la Riva Architectes/Cannon Design) "with a simple and strong identity" (comment on Saucier + Perrotte/Hughes Condon Marler Architectes). On the contrary, the jury qualifies one of the monolithic project volumes as a project "whose identity lacks character" (comment on Éric Pelletier/GLCRM) and questions the architectural reading of the other: "this concept is ambiguous on a volumetric level, regarding the guiding principles that generated this form; is it a shell or a box with four different sides and a roof?" (comment on Côté Leahy Cardas/Provencher Roy Associés Architectes). One could conclude that "roof" type buildings responded better to the question of "architectural expression", regardless of the quality of the projects' architectural solutions.
The concept of the roof is directly tied to the "structural challenge of an unobstructed span over the playing field" as stressed in the competition's program. How to architecturally design a roof capable of spanning a soccer field? The buildings in both aforementioned categories envision vastly different solutions. As shown in the sections, the roof over the playing field is envisioned by the first category more as a technical problem: Côté Leahy Cardas / Provencher Roy Associés Architectes' project details a complex constructive composition, while Éric Pelletier/GLCRM consider it a simple large-spanning roof without further detailing it in the presentation documents. Quite the opposite, in the "roof" type buildings, the roof is developed in a more expressive manner, a sort of interior fifth façade. Both teams presenting such proposals push this approach of architectural composition to a level of detail that includes reflected roof/ceiling plans. For Affleck de la Riva Architectes/Cannon Design, the aforementioned plan is akin to an abstract graphic work of art, whereas for Saucier + Perrotte/Hughes Condon Marler Architectes, it is used to simultaneously express the complexity and aesthetics of the structural concept, left visible in the project.
Let us now consider the notion of "sustainable architecture" mentioned in the program. Numerous competition juries assign what may seem like a disproportionate amount of importance to the LEED-NC Gold standard. This is not the case in this competition, where the LEED-NC standard was barely mentioned in the jury's comments. In reality, the jury does not see the notion of "sustainable architecture" only as a materialization of the technical requirements, but also as an integration of the building within the existing context of the park of the CESM. Here too, the "roof" style buildings have an advantage: they are perceived as horizontal, floating above the ground and thus not conflicting with the park. Better yet, Saucier + Perrotte/Hughes Condon Marler Architectes' proposal shows a strong intention of fluidly linking the floating roof and the ground: the presentation documents explain that the roof is not simply a floating plane but a result of a delamination of a layer of the ground itself following a folding (pliage) operation.
"A pavilion in the park, with a simple and strong architectural identity" is the way the jury qualified the winning project, from the team comprised of Saucier + Perrotte and Hughes Condon Marler Architectes. Although qualifying a project of 12,700 square meters as a "pavilion" may be somewhat surprising, this description emphasizes the impression one can have of a building that can be summarized by the simple, light and solid figure of its roof. If, in the case of the Olympic Stadium, the roof is seen today as a problematic element materializing the crisis, or even the ruin, of a radical architecture, in the case of the future CESM soccer complex it should be seen as the very heart of an adventurous and integrated architecture.
Finally, we should highlight two unusual conclusions drawn by the competition's jury. On the one hand, as was the case for the Saint-Laurent sports complex competition in 2010, and as Jean-Pierre Chupin mentioned in his editorial on the competition (November 2012), the jury decided to publish not only a winning proposal but also a list of recommendations to the winners that they consider to be "essential to the development of the project". This highly unusual double operation enabled the jury to assume a more complete role in the design process than is normally seen in a design competition. On the other hand, in addition to naming a winner, the jury awarded a special mention to Éric Pelletier/GLCRM, thus recognizing the quality of the architectural ideas of a non-winning project. The history of architectural design competition is rich with projects that, while not being identified as winners, yet deserve this level of appreciation, either for the quality of the design solution they propose or for the relevance of the disciplinary questions they raise. The fact that the jury report ends with these unusual conclusions reminds us that the architectural competition should not be solely seen as the means of selecting a solution to a given problem, but also as a process of collective construction.
The City of Montréal wishes to proceed with the construction of a municipal soccer complex in the borough of Villeray - Saint-Michel - Parc-Extension, on the western perimeter of the St-Michel Environmental Complex (SMEC) park.
This project responds to the need for training and competition sites for young soccer enthusiasts and to a sustainable development model. It is based on the following guiding principles
- a policy of accessibility to youth (time slots, preferential pricing, program for disadvantaged clientele)
- a goal of self-financing operating expenses through revenues generated by ridership
- the harmonious integration, with the SMEC park, of a LEED-NC Gold certified building and the use of greening;
- the fit with the City's design action plan.
This large-scale project is an ideal opportunity to integrate a state-of-the-art sports facility in a part of the City of Montreal that lacks such a facility.
The architectural concept
The soccer center will be contemporary in its architectural design and in the design process. It will also contribute to the enhancement of the site. The architectural composition will clearly reflect the building's vocation and will also translate its ecological vision.
The building should offer a varied spatial experience, a volumetric organization that facilitates the understanding and orientation of occupants while ensuring the comfort and well-being of users, visitors and occupants.
The design of the project must clearly respond to the requirements of the occupants by an adequate functional organization, respecting the principles of sustainable development (parameterized by the LEED-NC requirements) in a concern of architectural quality, contextual and a clean signature. It is hoped that this architectural work will serve to promote the SMEC.
The challenge
This sports building does not present any major challenges at the functional level. Its organizational scheme is simple because the shape of the site limits the possibilities of implantation. The challenge lies rather in the architectural design of the building, in the way it assumes the volume of the building, in the treatment of its long walls, in its relationship to the street and the site.
The project also presents a structural challenge because of the unobstructed spans of the playground.
The building will have to respect the principles of a green architecture with a sporting character that integrates with the SMEC park.
The Model
The City is looking for a design that will create a new model of sports facility, a different identity from what has been built in recent years.
The building's primary vocation will be to provide sports practice spaces. However, it will also be a building open to the population. The architectural treatment will have to clearly respond to these two vocations. The population must be able to recognize the building from Papineau Avenue and the park. With the exception of the spaces dedicated to sports and the spaces reserved for administration and operations, the spaces will be accessible to the public during opening hours.
Thus, the building will be mainly dedicated to soccer fans, but will remain accessible to everyone, including people passing through the SMEC park during the center's opening hours (e.g. free access to the washrooms).
Integration with the site
Despite the constraints related to its imposing volume and the limited room for maneuver on a small site, the indoor soccer center will stand out by a clear desire to dialogue with the MSRC site and the residential built environment. It will bridge the two environments and become a participatory element in the landscape setting.
The presence of the building will be evident not only on Papineau Avenue but from most of the viewpoints of the park in the making. The architectural treatment of the facades interfacing with the park will take this into account.
(From competition program)
(Unofficial automated translation)
Subject: JURY REPORT/STAGE 2
Date: November 6-7, 2011
PRESENTATIONS
Members of the jury :
- Ms. Johanne Derome, Director, Direction des sports, Ville de Montréal
- Rémy-Paul Laporte, Architect, Property Manager, City of Montréal
- Francis Millien, sports commentator
- Ms. Isabel Hérault, architect
- Jean-Claude Boisvert, retired architect, planning consultant
- Ron Rayside, Architect
- Marie-Claude Le Sauteur, architect, Division Chief, Borough of Saint-Laurent
- Michel Rose, engineer, Direction des ressources financières et matérielles, École polytechnique de Montréal
- Jacques Plante, architect, professor, School of Architecture, Université Laval
- Peter Jacobs, landscape architect, professor, School of Landscape Architecture, Université de Montréal
- Louise Amiot, architect, professional advisor
PRESENTATION - 2:30 TO 6:00 PM
The four (4) teams presented their project, in front of the public, for 20 minutes, followed by a 20-minute question period, exclusively for the jury.
Public presentation of the four (4) finalists, in the following order:
- Affleck de la Riva/Cannon Design
- Éric Pelletier/GLCRM, architects
- Côté Leahy Cardas/Provencher Roy, architects
- Saucier Perrotte/Hughes Condon Marler, architects
DELIBERATIONS FROM 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
The president of the jury, Ms. Isabel Hérault, invites the members of the jury to make a first round of discussions based on their personal analysis and the presentations of the finalists.
The jury was unanimous in concluding that none of the concepts seemed to meet the overall program and the budget.
1-Affleck de la Riva / Cannon Design:
"A strong image but the development of which did not provide the expected responses."
The project proposes an image of inverted topography, where the ground modulation is covered by a large cantilevered roof, floating above the exterior welcome ramp, leading spectators to the top of the bleachers.
The jury deplores the evolution of the concept, which had good potential in stage 1: from an undeniable strength of identity, the organization proposes an unresolved functional solution, leading to a dead end.
The jury notes that the comments made in Step 1 were not given much consideration and could be repeated in this step.
The project remained at the graphic level; it is difficult to read at the functional level, which lacks clarity.
2- Éric Pelletier / GLCRM :
"A very functional project but one that lacks character in its identity."
The project proposes an imposing volume, an opaque rectangle covered with steel resting on a thin band of glass on Papineau Boulevard and on the side of the entrance; a more generous fenestration enlivens the façade on the quarry side. 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 component has not been developed in the performance.
3- Côté Leahy Cardas / Provencher Roy:
"A seductive and fluid architecture but disappointing in its resolution."
The project proposes a metamorphosis of the rectangular box through the play and undulation of the walls of the facades and the roof. This volumetric study, with its strong identity, has evolved into a beautiful fluidity, except on the Papineau Boulevard side, with a flat, somewhat disappointing façade.
This concept is volumetrically ambiguous as to the guiding principles that generated this form; is it a shell or a box with four (4) different faces and a roof?
This volume is deposited on two (2) mounds; the landscaping is well developed and offers a very good planning of the site, incorporating the notions of sustainable development.
The interior organization proposes interesting spaces including the bleachers on the park side, in a modulation of height going from the highest to the reception area and descending to the outside field. This requires spectators to climb up from the concourse and down to the last blocks of bleachers; bleachers at field level are not a viable solution for game visibility.
This modulation and the resulting structure implies high costs, amplified by interventions on the three (3) sides of the building. The locker rooms would be better located under the bleachers.
The jury wonders about the durability of this concept and its ability to age well, given the white exterior cladding and skylights.
4- Saucier + Perrotte / Hughes Condon Marler:
"A pavilion in the park with a simple and strong architectural identity."
The concept proposes a pavilion in a park, a large floating wooden roof covering the play activities; this structure deforms to support the outdoor bleachers. It provides a lively dialogue about the city, one of the issues of the project.
The jury appreciated the simplicity and elegance of the gesture; the use of wood is perfectly integrated into the concept. The use of the embankment along Papineau Boulevard creates a façade that opens onto the café. The result is a building with a strong identity and presence in the city.
The project proposes a volumetric integration of phase 2, through the extension of the roof structure; this approach reinforces the identity effect of the project.
The floating roof approach involves very large glass surfaces on all three (3) facades, which concerns the jury in terms of thermal comfort, light control and LEED Gold.
The jury deplores the narrow scale of the entrance and the lack of space in the lobby; the interior functioning is questionable and the circulation needs to be resized.
The jury questions the effectiveness of the user/park relationship; the bay window on the quarry side is far from the spectators and visibility seems obstructed by the proposed sunshade system, which is not relevant in this orientation.
The notion of transparency must be maintained because it is the strength of the project; on the other hand, it raises questions about costs and the LEED Gold criteria.
The jury had strong questions about the structure, both the roof and the columns and bracing; this aspect is not developed to the jury's satisfaction. The way in which the mechanics are integrated into the roof structure raised further questions; the answers offered were not convincing to the jury.
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.
BUDGET ANALYSIS
All firms, with the exception of CLC/PRAA, submitted an estimate in accordance with the budget submitted by the City in the competition rules.
However, the analysis of the BCS firm of construction economists, commissioned by the Technical Commission, noted that all services were significantly over budget. BCS also points out
that the initial budget appears to be underestimated in the context of a competition and LEED-Gold certification, which is not
LEED-Gold certification, which does not, however, justify the extent of the overruns.
In conclusion, the jury will base its evaluation on the quality of the architecture and the team, as the four (4) finalists have committed to respecting the budget, which will have to be confirmed by the City according to its priorities. The quality and experience of the finalists make them all suitable to meet the City's expectations.
TEAM EVALUATION
First evaluation
Based on a review of the applications included in the submission, the jury concludes that the four (4) teams have the skills and resources to complete this project; one comment was made regarding supervision, which should be provided by a senior supervisor.
SECOND DELIBERATION
The jury began another project evaluation exercise, comparing two (2) projects with functional and volumetric similarities on the city side, those of Éric Pelletier/GLCRM and Côté Leahy Cardas/Provencher Roy, based on the evaluation criteria.
The Éric Pelletier/GLCRM project stood out and was chosen by the majority of the jury, for the reasons already mentioned.
- spectator/player atmosphere
- quality of the interior organization;
- successful visual relationship with the park;
- successful indoor/outdoor concept.
The jury deplores the lack of identity and urban image, and questions the design of the embankments on the park side, preventing visibility of the game from the bicycle/pedestrian path.
At the end of the first day of deliberations, the jury concluded that, given the budgetary context, it was important to select a strong party, a significant architecture, with functional adjustment being possible in three (3) of the four (4) projects and, as such, the Saucier Perrotte/Hughes Condon Marler project remains in the running.
November 7, 2011
VIEWING OF THE 3-D MODELS
The jury concludes from this exercise that the Saucier Perrotte/Hughes Condon Marler project proposes :
- the strongest image;
- the view of the park from the bleachers is interesting and
- a true pavilion in the park;
- a classical compositional architecture with a contemporary language
- a new urban signal for the future development of the neighbourhood;
- the animation of Papineau Boulevard.
The Affleck de la Riva/Cannon Design project proposes:
- good identity value from the building entrance;
- good roof/glass band proportions on Papineau Boulevard, a true floating effect.
The Côté Leahy Cardas/Provencher Roy project proposes :
- a disappointing façade on Papineau Boulevard, too uniform and linear;
- a closed volume on the park;
- a questionable volumetry.
The project by Éric Pelletier/GLCRM proposes :
- a volume out of scale;
- a floating effect not perceived on the Papineau Boulevard side;
- a low volume at the entrance: overwhelming effect;
- an unconvincing treatment of the facades.
FINAL EVALUATION
The jury scores the projects, criterion by criterion, on a consensus basis; the result is equal between Saucier
Perrotte/Hughes Condon Marler and Éric Pelletier/GLCRM.
At the end of a vote requested by the president of the jury, the project of Saucier Perrotte/Hughes Condon
Marler was selected and endorsed by the jury.
The jury, mindful of the budgetary context and the comments made during the jury, proposes the winner
Saucier Perrotte/Hughes Condon Marler with a series of recommendations essential to the development of the sketch including:
- reducing glazing to improve energy efficiency
- improving the relationship with the quarry side;
- make only one side of the outdoor bleachers, on the city side, and plan for its future connection
- redesign the entrance and lobby;
- define the structure while maintaining the transparency effect.
The jury recommends that the project by Éric Pelletier/GLCRM be given a mention.
Issued by :
Louise Amiot, architect, MBA
Professional Advisor
(Jury report: unabridged version)
(Unofficial automated translation)
| Jury president S1 |
Isabel Hérault, Architecte
|
| Jury S1 | Jean-Claude Boisvert, Architecte |
| | Johanne Derome, directrice, centre |
| | Peter Jacobs, Architecte paysagiste |
| | Antonin Labossière, Architecte |
| | Rémy-Paul Laporte, Architecte |
| | Marie-Claude Le Sauteur, Architecte |
| | Marc Letellier |
| | Francis Millien, Expert en sports |
| | Jacques Plante, Architecte |
| | Ron Rayside, Architecte |
| |
|
| Jury president S2 |
Isabel Hérault, Architecte
|
| Jury S2 | Jean-Claude Boisvert, Architecte |
| | Johanne Derome, directrice, centre |
| | Peter Jacobs, Architecte paysagiste |
| | Antonin Labossière, Architecte |
| | Rémy-Paul Laporte, Architecte |
| | Marie-Claude Le Sauteur, Architecte |
| | |
| | Francis Millien, Expert en sports |
| | Jacques Plante, Architecte |
| | Ron Rayside, Architecte |
| | Michel Rose, Ingénieur |
| |
|
| |
|
| Technical Commitee | Denis Clavet |
| | Benoît Gariépy |
| | Buu Levan |
| | Annie Ypperciel |
Stage1/Proposition Date
- Announcement of the competition in the media - 6 June 2011
- Availability of competition documents - 8 June 2011
- Registration period - 8 June to 7 July 2011
- Question & answer period - 8 June au 6 July 2011
- Proposal due date - 20 July 2011
- Jury deliberation - 15 et 16 August 2011
- Announcement of finalists - 8 September 2011
Stage 2/Presentation
- Visit and distribution of program - 12 September 2011
- Question & answer period - 12 September au 12 October 2011
- Proposal due date - 25 October 2011
- Public presentation - 6 November 2011
- Jury deliberation - 7 et 8 November 2011
- Announcement of competition winner - 19 December 2011
(From competition documentation)
Ordre des Architectes du Québec, Centre de soccer au CESM : les finalistes dévoilés, 2011
Office de consultation publique de Montréal, Complexe municipal de soccer - CESM (Villeray - Saint-Michel - Parc-Extension), 2011
Lapointe, F., McGregor, D., Concours du nouveau complexe de soccer au CESM - « Saucier Perrotte / Hughes Condon Marler Architectes», Kollectif.net, 2011
Christian Chaloux, Un centre de soccer vert au CESM, 2012
Darren Becker, Concours d'architecture du futur complexe de soccer au CESM - Les finalistes sont dévoilés!, 2011, Montreal Ville UNESCO de design, NewsWire
Darren Becker, Saucier + Perrotte / Hughes Condon Marler Architects take top honours!, 2011, Montreal Ville UNESCO de design, V2com
Concours d'architecture complexe de soccer au CESM, 2013, Montréal Ville UNESCO de Design
Ville de Montréal, L'appel de candidatures pour le concours d'architecture est lancé- Le nouveau complexe de soccer de Montréal sur les planches à dessin !, 2011
Ville de Montréal, Concours d'architecture du futur complexe de soccer au CESM - Saucier + Perrotte / Hughes Condon Marler Architectes remportent les honneurs !, 2011
- Règlement
- Appel de candidatures
- Programme
- Communiqué de presse
- Communiqué de presse
- Article de revue spécialisée
- Communiqué de presse
- Article de revue spécialisée
- Article de revue spécialisée
- Article de presse
- Communiqué de presse
- Rapport du jury (global)
- Rapport du jury (global)
- Article de presse
- Fiche technique
- Rapport du Conseiller Professionnel
- Texte du concours
- Communiqué de presse
