|

|

|

|

|

|

Partners

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

Advanced Search

MODELS + VIDEOS

PUBLICATIONS + OPEN ACCESS

Competitor

NEUF Architects + Renzo Piano Building Workshop

Second Prize

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

Stage 1

Stage 2

Presentation Panel

01

Presentation Panel

02

Presentation Panel

03

Presentation Panel

04

Presentation Panel

05

Presentation Panel

06

Perspective

01

Perspective

02

Perspective

03

Perspective

04

Perspective

05

Site Plan

01

Plan

Ground Floor and Outdoor Spaces

Plan

Level B2

Plan

Level B1

Plan

Level 1 Lower

Plan

Level 1

Plan

Level 2

Plan

Level 3

Plan

Level 5

Plan

Level 4

Plan

Level 6

Plan

Level 7

Plan

Level 8

Plan

Roof

Plan

Roof - Integration of Services Into Landscape

Plan

Roof - Spring

Plan

Roof - Summer

Plan

Roof - Fall

Plan

Roof - Winter

Section

Context

Section

A - Longitudinal

Section

B - Cross

Section

C - Cross

Section

Integration of Services Into Landscape

Elevation

Context

Elevation

North - Wellington Street

Elevation

East - Metcalfe Street

Elevation

West - O'Connor Street

Axonometric Drawing

Sustainability Concept

Conceptual Sketch

01

Conceptual Sketch

02

Schema

Past Present Future

Schema

Preparation 1

Schema

Preparation 2

Schema

Insertion 1

Schema

Insertion 2

Schema

Reconciliation 1

Schema

Reconciliation 2

Schema

Organisational Concept 1

Schema

Organisational Concept 2

Schema

Organisational Concept 3

Schema

Phasing

Schema

Security

Schema

Security Entry

Schema

Bioclimatic Strategy - Atrium

Schema

Bioclimatic Strategy - Parliamentary Suite

Diagram

Exceeding Carbon Zero Objectives

Diagram

Landscape

Reference Image

Parliament Hill

Presentation Panel

01

Presentation Panel

02

Presentation Panel

03

Presentation Panel

04

Presentation Panel

05

Presentation Panel

06

Presentation Panel

07

Presentation Panel

08

Presentation Panel

09

Presentation Panel

10

Presentation Panel

11

Presentation Panel

12

Presentation Panel Excerpt

Detail - South Facade 1

Presentation Panel Excerpt

Detail - South Facade 2

Presentation Panel Excerpt

Detail - South Facade 3

Presentation Panel Excerpt

Detail - North Facade 1

Presentation Panel Excerpt

Detail - North Facade 2

Presentation Panel Excerpt

Detail - North Facade 3

Perspective

01

Perspective

02

Perspective

03

Perspective

04

Perspective

05

Perspective

06

Perspective

07

Perspective

08

Perspective

09

Perspective

10

Perspective

11

Perspective

12

Site Plan

01

Plan

Ground Floor and Outdoor Spaces

Plan

Typical Floor - Level 5

Plan

Level B3

Plan

Level B2

Plan

Level B1

Plan

Level 1

Plan

Level 2

Plan

Level 3

Plan

Level 4

Plan

Level 5

Plan

Level 6

Plan

Level 7

Plan

Level 8

Plan

Roof

Plan

Roof - Winter

Plan

Roof - Spring

Plan

Roof - Summer

Plan

Roof - Fall

Plan

Parliamentary Office Unit

Plan

Enlarged - Committee Room

Plan

Typical Structural System

Section

Context

Section

AA

Section

BB

Section

CC

Section

DD

Section

EE

Section

FF

Section

GG

Section

HH

Cross-sectional perspective

Block-2 West

Cross-sectional perspective

Close-up - Block-2 West

Cross-sectional perspective

Committee Room

Elevation

Existing Town

Elevation

Existing Crown

Elevation

West - O'Connor Street

Elevation

East - Metcalfe Street

Elevation

South - Sparks Street

Elevation

North - Wellington Street

Elevation

Mast

Elevation

South - Partial

Elevation

North - Partial

Elevation

Adaptative Structural Grid

Construction detail

Heritage Facade

Construction detail

South Facade 1

Construction detail

South Facade 2

Construction detail

South Facade 3

Construction detail

North Facade 1

Construction detail

North Facade 2

Construction detail

North Facade 3

Construction detail

Plan 1

Construction detail

Plan 2

Construction detail

Plan 3

Construction detail

Plan 4

Construction detail

Valour Building Facade Upgrade

Construction detail

North Facade

Construction detail

Window

Axonometric Drawing

Primary Structure

Axonometric Drawing

Intervention

Schema

Completing the Square

Schema

Dual Identity of Town and Crown

Schema

Symmetrical Stepback

Schema

Spine

Schema

Light and Visual Connection

Schema

Transparency

Schema

Articulation

Schema

Preservation

Schema

Rehabilitation

Schema

Replacement

Schema

Existing Site

Schema

Security Plan

Schema

Security Access

Schema

Phasing - Preservation and Demolition

Schema

Phasing - Construction Block-2 East and Basements

Schema

Phasing - Construction Block-2 West

Schema

Phasing - Valour Building Upgrade

Schema

Circulation Accredited Access to Rooftop

Schema

Circulation - Elevators and Exits

Schema

Circulation - Committee Room

Schema

Circulation - Palementarian

Schema

Circulation - Connection B2 East to LoP

Schema

Program Stacking East West Section

Schema

Program Stacking North South Section B2 East

Schema

Program Stacking North South Section B2 West

Schema

Plan - Atria

Schema

Section - Atria

Schema

Daylight

Schema

Integrated Design

Schema

Mechanical Strategy

Schema

Water and Drainage

Schema

Electrical Power

Schema

Fire Alarm, IT and Security

Schema

Water Conservation Management

Schema

Cold Conditions - Winter

Schema

Cool to Mild Conditions - Spring

Schema

Hot Conditions - Summer

Schema

Mild to Warm Conditions - Fall

Diagram

Dynamic and Progressive Collapse

Diagram

Water Reduction Assesment

Diagram

Operational Energy Reduction

Diagram

Exceeding Carbon Zero Goal

Diagram

Sustainability

Conceptual Sketch

01

Reference Image

"Bankers Row"

Reference Image

Materiality

Reference Image

Heritage Facade Retention

Reference Image

Committee Room

View

Temporary Exhibition

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE COMPETITOR

Competitor	Neuf Architectes
	neufarchitectes.com

	Renzo Piano Building Workshop
	rpbw.com


Distinction	Second Prize
Doc. level	75%

Description

Stage 1

The project for Block-2 is invariably associated with the organizing presence of the future Indigenous Peoples Space. The programming of Block-2 is dual in nature, facilities for the representants of the Canadian people and a future Indigenous cultural space. While the project must communicate contemporary democratic values, and be of its context, the block overall will express the ambition of the National project for reconciliation. The project synthesizes the North elevation to a tripartite composition of Senate - IPS - House of Commons. The volumes housing the senate and parliament functions support a forested landscape that is directly and wholly associated with the Indigenous Peoples Space. The roofscape provides a landscape for reconciliation on one of the country's most important civic spaces: an expression of the collective will to pursue the inclusive experiment that is characteristic of the Canadian experience.

Heritage and Conservation Approach
Heritage is understood in the longest possible scale and as such an analysis of project priorities led to the decision to simplify the North elevation to ensure the dignity of the 1000 Wellington Building and the overall elevations of the quadrangle. The decision to demolish the Union Bank and Victoria Building are not taken lightly but rather reflect the capacity for a culture to adapt and re-assess priorities with a long term perspective.

From an architectural perspective the raised landscape underpins the site's relationship to nature and creates a level plane that simultaneously reinforces the dignity and alignments to buildings on Wellington Street. The roofscape also creates a forested backdrop for Parliament Hill refocusing attention on the civic space by highlighting the edge and masking the buildings to the South. The massing of the block is recomposed to achieve the volumetric clarity associated with the Parliamentary triad and Wellington Street's formality.

The project embodies a strong gesture without ostentation providing an optimistic and hopeful response to the most pressing societal and environmental challenges facing the country.

Stage 2

The redevelopment of Block-2 provides the opportunity to reconsider the relationship of Parliament Hill with the immediate urban landscape today - that is, the relationship between Canada's most important national symbol of democracy and its people.

At an urban scale Block-2 on Wellington Street has invariably been tied to the functions of government, reflected in its monumental architecture. Conversely, Block-2 on Sparks Street has emerged as the main commercial and institutional spine in the city, a granular urbanism composed of smaller buildings. This project for the redevelopment of Block-2 uses this specific binary (or dual) urban condition as a starting point and driver for design decisions.

Since its construction in the 1850s Parliament Hill remains the site where the country is shaped and defined in the context of a modern and changing world with two primary issues at the forefront of consideration: one National - that of Reconciliation, and the other Global - that of Climatic Emergency. As such, the IPS is the organizing element of the site; its architectural position is retained and strengthened. The driving consideration for the Block-2 North elevation is ensuring the primacy and dignity of the future IPS.

(From competitor's text)

Jury Report

Stage 1

The clear conceptual approach offered by the design scheme is commended by the jury. In terms of overall design, the synthesis of old and new was found to be visually coherent and the project forming the "fourth side" of the Parliamentary Precinct ensemble was received as convincing. However, this was achieved by removing the constraints of dealing with existing building and heritage fabric and without providing a vision regarding a conservation approach. The design proposes additions - dematerialized and lighter in appearance - which seem to hover over the existing heritage buildings on Sparks Street, using a visual gap to express the difference between existing and new. In a similar way, a respectful distance to the 100 Wellington building is provided to allow the creation of the new Indigenous Peoples Space. Bearing in mind that the final IPS design may significantly depart from the present appearance of 100 Wellington, the lack of a direct relationship to the existing building is a rational and sensible approach.

To achieve these objectives of the brief (uniform monumentality and frontal qualities of a fourth side), the design scheme has deemed it necessary to remove the Union bank and Victoria buildings on the Wellington Street side. While architecturally convenient this also is provided without a clearly stated conservation statement, approach or vision. The existing Valour building is also reduced in height, and its facade is completely replaced. The result is a homogeneous monolithic block, organized in two different height levels of 7 and 9 floors respectively. As stated above, some members of the jury raised concerns about the conservation aspects, while other significant concerns were raised regarding the removal of the upper floors of the Valour building and the consequences for the provision of the required usable floor area.

The design scheme would benefit from a more explicit description of its conservation approach based on the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. This description should include a clear statement on the primary treatment chosen for the project, with reflections on how it applies to each heritage building and the overall design approach.

A key conceptual driver for the design is the roof garden which is manifested as a real forest of trees. The intention of the design is to represent a new landscape plane, returning land and nature to the site at this new elevation and providing a symbol of reconciliation of the Canadian nation at this important location. This design element will be visible from the street and from the Peace Tower and can be seen as a re-interpretation of the "strong roofline" typical of the historical surroundings. The roof forest can also act as a climate device and contribute to the reduction of the city's urban heat island effect, as well to provide a symbolically powerful expression of Canadas commitment to sustainability. While noting the conceptual grounding of developing a naturalized roof, Jurors questioned the need for an extensive roofscape/amenity given that there is significant existing open space across the street.

Technical infrastructure is integrated within the built-up area on the roof plane used to allow the soil required for the trees. Bridges connect the east and west blocks. This is an infringement of the IPS space and if the design team decides to continue to present a narrow bridge as an option, they must ensure that the bridge could be deleted as required without substantially diminishing the core value of the design. Some concerns were raised regarding the technical feasibility and significant challenges of the roof garden with large trees in the specific climatic context of Ottawa. While there are some comparable international examples already completed, this issue will need to be addressed in detail in the second phase to demonstrate the feasibility in this specific context.

The jury sees the potential of this design approach as an opportunity to rethink the block not only in its external appearance but also in the possibilities for creating optimal office space for the users. Unfortunately, here the design disappoints with very traditional office layouts, long narrow corridors, and deep cellular offices. The atrium proportions are also challenging with regard to daylighting. The access to Committee Rooms does not provide a good flow of circulation. The low ratio of circulation space to usable space reinforces these concerns and the jury feels that more care should be given to the creation of connecting communication spaces in the design.

The disconnection between the LoP support spaces and the Interim Main Library in the Bank of Nova Scotia, as well as other potential connections between the LoP and the upper floor of the new development were found as points to be improved.

Regarding the entrances, the second entrance from Sparks Street has an immediate impact on Valour Building: while adding complexity in terms of implementation (Valour is expected to remain operational throughout the redevelopment of Block 2), the proponent should reflect whether this is a key benefit that add value to the overall spatial organization principles of the scheme.

It is recommended for the second stage, that the team focusses on how to re-structure the block to achieve optimal spaces with views, daylight and natural ventilation for all the users and spaces which create optimal conditions to encourage communication, as ultimately, alongside the urban design and external appearance, the quality of future-orientated working space achieved must be weighed against the cost of sacrificing the embodied energy and heritage of the existing Union bank and Victoria buildings.

The treatment of the façade is materially diverging with existing fabric, rhythms, solid/void treatment, and classical ordering in the adjacent Blocks 1 and 3. A double skin facade is described but not shown on the drawings. The north façade is more transparent, relating to the nature and function of the spaces behind, and the orientation to the north, whereas the south façade is more opaque reacting to the need to avoid overheating as well as the integration into Spark Street. To be successful, the transparency expressed in the building's facades would carry over into the spatial organization and the internal layouts of the floorplates. The façade and building services design should be developed to achieve the project's desired goals regarding sustainability. The integration of active solar energy use (PV) into the roof and south façade designs should also be seriously considered. The three timber spires along the Wellington Street elevation was noted by some members as not adding strength to the scheme.

Stage 2

The Jury appreciated the unifying approach to Wellington Street, privileging the ensemble and offering a strong presence. This approach results in a dignified block, a very high level of efficiency within the office floors, a high degree of universal accessibility and a strong planning parti. However, this decision to strive for the unified completion of the block required the removal of Union Bank and the Victoria building, a fundamental question that was extensively discussed in the jury with disagreement as to whether this was the right move or not. The relation of the new ensemble to the Indigenous Peoples Space (IPS) was judged by the jury as not conclusively successful. It was appreciated how the building pulls back to open up the area around the IPS in a reverential manner and the aim for a balanced and strong relationship to IPS is understood. But the Jury felt it would be stronger if more breathing room could be given on the east side of IPS. In principle, the position was welcomed by the jury that there is a sense that this project doesn't compete with Parliament but completes it. The project succeeds in creating a strong "backdrop" to Parliament Square. It was noted however that the selected limestone may be too light as a material when viewed with other Parliament buildings, potentially calling too much attention to itself. In addition, to adopt this parliamentary language throughout, the entrances could be more dignified as those on Wellington Street are underwhelming and should be reconsidered. The jury also raised questions about the need for such height for the three tall wooden poles on Wellington Street.

The overall design solution of the appearance along Spark Street was praised as very successful. The connection to Sparks Street with the glass atrium is strong. The possibility for this space to even be open air was also discussed. Overall, a reconsideration for public access in this space would grant more opportunity for IPS to have a presence on Sparks Street. This could also allow for a throughway from Sparks Street to Wellington with ramps that are accessible to all.

The Jury appreciated the attention to detail of both the historic and new facades. There is a strong balance of the technical and aesthetic considerations, giving great confidence in this teams' ability to deliver a high-quality project. Other than the removal of two buildings on Wellington Street, the main heritage approach is to maintain some of the existing facades, carry out some rehabilitation, and set back the additions on Sparks and Metcalfe. There were concerns on the appropriateness of the massing, height, details and connections to the existing buildings on that corner specifically.

There was a significant amount of discussion around the green roof. Overall, the jury feels this is a strong and bold element to the project. Careful consideration to the planting, detailing, structure, maintenance and operational requirements will need to be thoughtfully analyzed if this project moves forward.

The overall planning and parti was recognized for its efficiency and intuitiveness. The clarity within the overall planning is very strong, with the project claiming the entire length of Wellington. If indeed the scheme cannot work if the Union Bank or Victoria Building were to remain, the demolition of the two buildings to make it possible to achieve the design intent is a question that needs to be addressed as these are designated buildings. Along Sparks Street, the jury appreciated the attention to detail of the historic facades from street level to the sky and noted the attention to facades along Sparks Street at Street scale. In particular, the reconsideration of the first two floors of the Valour Building provides a better pedestrian experience. Overall, the scale, proportion and massing work well with the neighboring buildings.

The jury recognised the solutions for the functional organisation of the floor plans and circulation as a particular strength in the project. Access to views and daylight within the corridors is a strong aspect to this project. The atrium space is a great center and orienting device in the west block, though the rendering provided does not yet showcase how used or welcoming a space it will be. There could be greater consideration to the human scale. Accessibility issues were raised and need to be addressed throughout the project. The planning of the parliamentary offices and circulation on these floors is generally very strong, but it is unclear why the middle slit to the West of 100 Wellington is not aligned with the corridor. This would be worth reconsidering to align with the opening towards the parliament in a single axis.

In terms of sustainability, the use of green roof and PV's is a good step, but this team could benefit from a more rigorous approach to sustainability. The design includes external movable solar shading on the south-facing facades, which is protected from the wind by a single-pane glazed exterior skin with a ventilated cavity. Low-e triple glazing is used, and the façade includes a horizontal parapet at floor level which helps to optimize energy performance in terms of the relationship between daylighting and thermal loads. Some office areas adjoin an atrium space and associated issues relating to acoustics, natural ventilation and daylight need to be carefully considered and worked out in detail.

An all-air VAV system is proposed for the office areas which implicates the use of recirculated air and large vertical shafts. The proposed location of the vertical shafts in the office areas (in every second office) has advantages in terms of shorter duct runs but will impinge negatively on the adaptability and flexibility of the building regarding future changes in use. It is recommended that the alternative of a dedicated outdoor air system for ventilation combined with a hydronic heating and cooling system be considered. This configuration would reduce shaft size, eliminate recirculated air in the offices with all the attendant disadvantages regarding indoor air quality and improve energy performance. The vertical shafts could be moved out of the office areas and be re-located in the central core areas.

The design proposes a concrete structure and states that the embodied energy of this construction type was calculated to be less that other alternatives including timber construction. This would have to be substantiated with further calculations. One of the designs strongest elements is the "fifth façade" - the roof design combines a solar energy production facility which would provide approx. 15% of the building's energy in operation with a publicly accessible rooftop forest. While all proposals include green roof elements, this project has by far the most convincing proposal. While the additional weight of the roof garden with 1.5 m of soil will necessitate a larger structural system with its associated embodied energy, the jury feels that the environmental benefits provided by the rooftop forest would far outweigh this initial effort over the next 100 years. These include reduced temperature in summer, reduction of the urban heat island effect, improved air quality and biodiversity, enhanced efficiency of the photovoltaic system due to lower ambient temperatures and reduced stormwater run-off. In addition to these environmental benefits, the proposed rooftop garden would create a special space, which could be visited by the people of the nation and could potentially become a symbol for Canada's future, a symbol for reconciliation (the giving back of Land), for democracy (people above institutions) and sustainability (the symbiotic integration of nature into the city).

Overall, the jury values the design as a courageous, consistent contribution whose conceptual and structural approach delivers the implementation of all functional requirements and sensitivity towards traditional context.

(From jury report)

List of accessible documents

199 scanned / 199 viewable

VIDEO DOCUMENTS

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