The architects of this project wanted to create a unique place where imagination and rigor meet in a warm setting that favors contact with the environment and the space. They also wanted to make reference to the ephemeral movements of acrobats and caravans that move from city to city. They tried to recall the half-interior, half-exterior spaces in which circus artists evolve. For this reason, the project is not just a single building but rather encompasses the entire site, with the interior and exterior spaces of the school forming a permeable whole.
The project consists of four sharp strips located parallel to 2nd Avenue. These bands are metaphors for the different territories traversed by the circus: the urban, the field, the wasteland and the forest.
At the center of the project, a large tent crosses the four landscape bands. Long yellow posts anchor it to the ground while guy wires ensure its bracing. Various footbridges cross this tent and allow links between the activities. The training, creation and learning studios are installed around this tent. On the urban stratum, we find the studio 2 and the broadcasting studio whose vocation is the most public. On the strip of fields, we find the studio 1. At the very end, in the stratum of forest, we find the palestra. Each studio is housed in a simple volume that houses the studio itself as well as any related activities or services. Inside the tent, the gaps between the studios correspond to certain functions such as the entrance hall, the dining room and the cafeteria. These spaces benefit from a direct contact with the outside activities and a visual contact, by transparency, with the interior studios. A fourth volume, all in wood and stained red, warmly welcomes the services, offices and academic functions. On all levels, the transversal walkways allow direct access between the activities of the red volume and the studios. Thus, through the marquee, all spaces benefit from a direct visual and physical link with the training.
The school's garden is thus made up of these four strips of land. It reflects the idea of spectacle, movement and ephemeris of the circus. The first strip, called urban, is a representation of the organized character of building facades, city entrances and public places. The second band, the field band, is more private and expresses the linearity of fields. The third strip, the wasteland strip, contains some traces of the past such as concrete and crushed stones. This strip becomes an outdoor studio for the students and an outdoor extension of the dining room and cafeteria. Finally, the forest strip offers a density of nature allowing for outdoor recreation.
(CCC text)
The jury was very sensitive to the quality and intelligence of the thinking and discourse, especially with regard to the interpretation of nature in architecture. The balance between the choice of warm materials, such as wood and glass, and their juxtapositions demonstrate an architectural mastery of the envelope. However, the fragmented organization does not meet the operational objectives of the School, on the one hand because of the service to the front studios and on the other hand because of the isolation of the pedagogical and administrative sectors. The jury wonders about the orientation given to the project, with the atrium ending up at the back of the lot and its unpleasant surroundings.
Technical Committee Report (July 9, 2001)
Program and Functionality<
The design proposes a low-functional organization along a linear axis.
-The linear form of the center (wood volume) complicates the functional organization and interrelationships between the areas.
-The accessory lab is not directly connected to the workshop.
-The teachers' area is separate from the pedagogical department.
-Access to the outside is generous, but makes it difficult to control.
-Access to the documentation center is visible from the entrance.
-The basement landing causes problems with snow removal and the relationship with the studios.
-The location of the agora is too public.
-Technicians' offices are not close to the studios and work area.
-Academic training rooms are isolated on the top level.
-Student lockers are isolated and far from the entrance.
Area
Concept: 8,875 m2 gross
An overrun of : 1 800 m2
Net-to-gross ratio of:.58 is underperforming due to traffic
Technical Analysis:
-Simple structure and construction techniques.
-Simple envelope.
-Exterior ground materials may increase interior maintenance.
-Landscape type requires sustained maintenance.
Environmental Architecture:
-The stated concepts do not appear to be controlled or integrated into the project.
-The walkways will have no sunshade effect as stated.
-The landscaping is high maintenance.
-The wooded area in front of the waterfall wall reduces its effectiveness.
-The amount of glazing on the south side is important, the presence of canvas is not very efficient and requires handling and maintenance.
-The principle of natural ventilation is positive, as is the abundant natural lighting.
-The relevance of a green roof is questionable.
-The large surface area of the envelope makes it not very energy efficient.
Urbanism:
The building height of 24m exceeds the height allowed by the current regulations by 1m.
Cost/Estimation
Declared cost: $14,813,500
Estimated cost: $14,632,140
(From jury report)
(Unofficial automated translation)
32 scanned / 7 viewable
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel Excerpt
- Presentation Panel Excerpt
- Presentation Panel Excerpt
