|

|

|

|

|

|

Partners

230 competitions documented	469 competitions listed
6 049 projects	61 864 documents

Advanced Search

MODELS + VIDEOS

PUBLICATIONS + OPEN ACCESS

Competitor

Hopkins Architects + CORE Architects Inc.

Parliamentary Precinct Redevelopment - Block 2 in Ottawa / Réaménagement de la Cité parlementaire - Bloc 2 à Ottawa

Presentation Panel

01

Presentation Panel

02

Presentation Panel

03

Presentation Panel

04

Presentation Panel

05

Presentation Panel

06

Presentation Panel Excerpt

Phasing Concept

Perspective

01

Perspective

02

Perspective

03

Site Plan

01

Plan

Ground Floor and Outdoor Spaces

Plan

Level B3

Plan

Level B2

Plan

Level B1

Plan

Ground Floor

Plan

Level 2

Plan

Level 3

Plan

Level 4

Plan

Level 5

Plan

Level 6

Plan

Level 7

Plan

Level 8

Plan

Level 9

Plan

Typical Floor

Section

O'Connor Street

Section

Metcalfe Street

Section

Longitudinal

Section

Longitudinal AA

Elevation

Wellington Street

Elevation

Sparks Street

Elevation

O'Connor Street

Elevation

Metcalfe Street

Elevation

Partial

Axonometric Drawing

Structural Components

Construction detail

01

Construction detail

02

Construction detail

Evaluation of Structural Systems

Construction detail

Existing Facade Interface

Construction detail

New Facades

Schema

Block 2 should learn from its historic urban grain

Schema

Stepped Massing and Setbacks to Respect the Indigenous Peoples' Space

Schema

Possibility of Connection Between the IPS and the New B2 Colonnades

Schema

Organization of Architectural Elements

Schema

Security Concept - B2 West Entrance and Screening Sequence

Schema

Security Concept - B2 East Entrance and Screening Sequence

Schema

Phasing Concept - Step 1

Schema

Phasing Concept - Step 2

Schema

Phasing Concept - Step 3

Schema

Phasing Concept - Step 4

Schema

Grid

Schema

New facades contextually respond to the site

Schema

Sparks Street elevations are retained but the character of the ground floor is enhanced

Schema

Massing maximizes development area and addresses key axial lines

Schema

Energy Building and Services Concept 1

Schema

Energy Building and Services Concept 2

Schema

Sustainable Urban Regeneration

Schema

Sustainability Concept

Sketch

POU module

Sketch

100 Wellington Facade Study

Diagram

Sunpath

Diagram

Annual Energy Use Breakdown

Diagram

Annual Radiation Rose

Diagram

Psychrometrics

Diagram

Structural Options Comparison - Embodied Carbon

Reference Image

Restoring the historic urban grain of Block 2 and reinstating a dignified edge of Wellington Street

Reference Image

Facades 1

Reference Image

Facades 2

View

01

View

02

View

03

View

Corner and Junctions

View

Pattern and Meaning

View

Old and New

View

A Sensitive Response

View

Craft, Texture and Materiality

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE COMPETITOR

Competitor	Hopkins Architects
	hopkins.co.uk/

	Core Architects Inc.
	corearchitects.com/

Doc. level	75%

Description

This is one of the most important sites in Ottawa and we believe Block 2 should retain the essence of the fragmented beauty and human scale first seen in Bankers' Row 150 years ago. Our proposal is therefore about granularity, materiality, human scale and a celebration of old and new. It's a respectful composition that shouldn't compete with the surrounding buildings, but be in a supporting role to them (such as the Prime Minister's Office, Indigenous Peoples' Space and Parliament Hill)

This is a special, challenging site with a lot of existing buildings. The easiest approach would be to demolish all buildings and start anew, however this would be insensitive to the rich history and meaning of the site and therefore the approach to this project at this stage should be to aim to retain as much as possible and where necessary open up and make changes to existing buildings to avoid facadism.

We feel the floors for all new Parliamentary facilities should be at one level for Block 2 East and West to improve accessibility and long term use. However as the existing buildings are at different levels, the challenge is to reconcile the two together. This will need time to get right and we therefore deliberately avoided making a conclusion as to how to approach this for Stage 1 of our submission.

(From competitor's text)

Jury Report

This project responds to the historic context of the site and the existing buildings very well in terms of building massing, height, and setback of upper floors on Wellington Street, and retention of historic facades. The project team has made considerable effort to re-interpret into their design the materials and details of adjacent buildings and other nearby building blocks. The team has considered the infill of the Wellington Street facade to re-establish the historic scale of the street. The architectural treatment of the Spark Street facades demonstrates an effort to retain a variety of treatment but did not set back the new floor plates to reinforce a mix of heights and massing.

The approach meets the requirements for efficiency of plan and phasing of the project. The building office plan is coherent and has reasonable wayfinding clarity on the office floors.

The concept of the north side arcade is an interesting approach to setting back the main floor, but the jury had concerns about the comfort of that space in winter and whether the ground floor functions animated this space enough to make it welcoming and secure. The building entry locations are also not easily recognizable with this uniform treatment of the facade.

The jury had several concerns including:

The office floor areas fail to provide sufficient daylight or views for the south side offices of Block 2 west and appear to be built up to the Valour facade in some cases. The interconnection of spaces with the Valour building are not clear.

The floor levels in the Victoria building do not appear to relate to the window openings of the existing facade or the change in floor level in plan is not addressed.

The opportunities afforded in the program for celebration of meetings spaces such as conference room lobbies were not evident in the plan. Major meeting room, lobbies and building circulation are not provided exposure to the parliamentary campus or daylight.

The planning around the IPS space is poor. The massing is built up very close to the east and west sides of the IPS setbacks. This can result in loss of office views and daylight when the IPS project proceeds. More importantly it does not demonstrate an open and welcoming rapport with the IPS spaces as noted in section D-44 of the RFP.

The atrium spaces are quite compressed, and a significant number of office spaces rely on these elements for daylight and view.

The project statement mention a ground floor relationship with the Peace Tower axis but the architecture of the facade and the scale of the gesture in plan do not recognize or reinforce this statement.

A critical issue for the jury is that while there is some significant strength in the focus on a historic style of facade and massing treatment, this approach does not balance the importance or potential future dialogue with the IPS space other than in the architectural statement mentioning possible incorporation of indigenous design elements into the facades. This architectural approach is subtle and contextual but does not achieve the goals for the project for an " inspirational and forward-leaning design".

As a result, while the project displayed qualities that were recognized and praised by the jury, due to the above mentioned points, the perceived weaker potential for further development, and the relative strengths of other proposals, the project was not selected to advance to stage 2 of the competition.

(From jury report)

List of accessible documents

76 scanned / 76 viewable

IMPORTANT NOTICE : Unless otherwise indicated, photographs of buildings and projects are from professional or institutional archives. All reproduction is prohibited unless authorized by the architects, designers, office managers, consortiums or archives centers concerned. The researchers of the Canada Research Chair in Architecture, Competitions and Mediations of Excellence are not held responsible for any omissions or inaccuracies, but appreciate all comments and pertinent information that will permit necessary modifications during future updates.
info@ccc.umontreal.ca

Production

Partners