3.1 Some members of the jury commented on Mr. Éric Pelletier's excellent presentation during the interview.
3.2 The integration of this bold architectural design into the urban fabric is questioned. A very large footprint is questionable in a dense urban context.
3.3 Links with the metro and day-care center are functional. However, the day-care center would benefit from a close link with the park, which is not the case in this project.
3.4 The intervention's set-back from the 700 and the street allows the existing building to retain its importance and recognizes its interest in the history of the neighbourhood.
3.5 Luc-Durand Park is well defined by the strong presence of the rear façade.
3.6 The variation in exterior ground levels brings an interesting dynamic to the exterior design.
3.7 The facades are generous. However, the main façade on Rosemont Street has significant gaps. The main entrance is poorly defined. A large part of the upper floor is blind, whereas the public square is intended to be seen from the building.
3.8 The forecourt is appreciated and seen as a dynamic meeting place, supported by the adjacent café at the far end of 700 m. It is an eye-catcher for potential library users. The forecourt should be landscaped without greenery.
3.9 The main entrance is too far from the street and not very visible. It seems engulfed and therefore unwelcoming.
3.10 The folded linear plan described is actually quite square, with a small extension on the first floor encircling the CPE courtyard.
3.11 The available portion of the third floor of the 700 is not used, leaving some question as to its use. The Ville de Montréal will have to provide additional budgets if it wishes to make this space available for other uses.
3.12 The family approach is very interesting and appreciated. The children's area is well positioned and logically linked to the CPE courtyard. A slight rearrangement of functions is required, in particular for the location of the multi-purpose room.
3.13 Should the CPE be expanded, the location of the library considerably limits the future actions of the second occupant of 700.
3.14 The division of the adult collection between the ground and upper floors is surprising, but could be considered by the client.
3.15 Spatial organization offers flexibility for adapting interior layouts.
3.16 The use of the forecourt, which has no slope, is entirely appropriate to facilitate occupancy. However, this poses the problem of different floor levels inside between the 700 and the extension, and is an irritant for everyday users.
3.17 The positioning of the teen sector shop window overhanging the forecourt is somewhat disturbing in the corner, it seems wedged between the 700 and the extension.
3.18 Building technology is well represented and explained. The systems used are simple, familiar and proven. However, the glass roof appears to be a weaker element in terms of the performance and longevity of the building envelope.
3.19 The metal veil, called skin or mantle, allows the building to be read in a second or third sense, just as Sol did with his puns that could have several meanings. This can be seen as a response to Sol's fantasy. However, down-to-earth questions such as maintenance and safety on the ground remain unanswered. The very presence of this veil leaves us wondering.
3.20 The positioning of the landing stage is advantageous for limiting traffic on the site and for the maintenance of the access roads.
(From jury report)
(Unofficial automated translation)
50 scanned / 25 viewable
- Plan
- Diagram
- Axonometric Drawing
- Elevation
- Elevation
- Elevation
- Elevation
- Section
- Section
- Section
- Section
- Plan
- Plan
- Presentation Panel
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
