Principles, methodology and expected outcome
We have long wondered how to enter into an integrated design process that is open, flexible and continuous from an architectural competition situation, which of course implies little direct communication with the client and the user and the absence of engineers and other key stakeholders. It became clear to us that the submitted documents, plans, images and other diagrams should be conceived as discussion drafts and working documents and presented as such on the boards, highlighting various issues that we wished to discuss in more detail in a charrette with our potential interlocutors and participants invited to collaborate in the integrated design process.
In order to continue and deepen this direction, we returned to the themes of the six charrette groups proposed in the first call for applications and to the contents of the agendas developed. With the development of the first drafts and after reviewing and refining the contents of the charrettes, we came to the conclusion that it was possible for us to prepare in detail and in advance the material for charrettes no. 2 - (Innovation and design: urban foresight and landscape architecture), no. 4 - (Innovation and design: Materials and Quality of Library Interiors), #5 - (Site Planning and Water Management in the Lachine Context) and #6 - (Energy, Envelope and Framing, Life Cycle and Existing Resources); with Charrette #1 still dedicated to feedback on delivery, program as well as engineering integration.
The parallel work on the documents required in the delivery as well as on the content of the charrettes was carried out according to three main principles: First, it was necessary to ensure that the solutions proposed were appropriate for a 21st century library; second, that the library was reinvented within an existing building with its own history and character; and third, that the project was geographically and culturally located in the heart of the borough of Lachine, at the crossroads of two of its major arteries.
Although some of the documents from the performance give it a definitive look, the final result of the process is unknown to us. The scorecard at the end of the line should be seen as a moving target, which can be refined within the process itself, but also in subsequent phases of development of the building and the area. The objective and the expected results remain clear: to create a meaningful and forward-looking place for the community to exchange and share knowledge.
(From competitor's text)
(Unofficial automated translation)
Criterion 1:
The potential for the concept to evolve is high because it is flexible, non-rigid, and therefore facilitating for the IDP; it meets the criteria without formal dogmatism.
The team has the potential to evolve the project.
Criteria 2 and 3:
The concept convincingly proposes a densification of the lot, by adding a multi-functional tower. The concept proposes a good interior functionality while respecting the existing, except for the openings in the floor.
Criteria 4 and 5:
The organizational parti offers a beautiful spatial and luminous richness, punctuated by a sequence of varied discoveries, rich in experiences.
The Technical Commission commented on the safety of the bleachers connecting the two (2) levels.
The appropriateness of the scale makes this a comfortable project with a current feel.
The height of the reception level is to be validated if the basement is raised.
The sustainable strategy is not fully integrated into the concept which has some potential.
Criteria 5 and 6:
This identity parti is imposing by its sculptural aspect and its elegant character; it offers a good potential of seduction. Its facade on 32nd Street still needs to be worked on, including the treatment of the existing building.
The signage volume at the corner of 32nd Street appears empty and not very functional: the jury is concerned about the way it will be realized.
On the budgetary side, the jury expressed concern about the area discrepancy; as discussed in the interview, the architects are confident of the potential for cuts in area to reduce the 147 m2 excess. Retention of the existing building helps to keep the project on budget.
(From jury report)
(Unofficial automated translation)
22 scanned / 20 viewable
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Photograph of Model
- Photograph of Model
- Photograph of Model
- Plan
- Plan
- Plan
- Section
- Section
- Section
- Diagram
- Diagram
- Diagram
- Sketch
- Sketch
