The territory of the Space for Life, its Great Square and its projects are not only symbols representing life, but the embodiment of life itself, true ecosystems formed by a diversity of living beings, plants, insects, mammals, birds, amphibians, humans, in relation with their environments. The project wants to provoke the emergence of ecosystems where life abounds. It brings together human poetry and citizen action. Man is not only an integral part of the ecosystem, but also an essential actor in maintaining its balance.
Strategically located at the corner of the Botanical Gardens campus, the glass pavilion is the gateway to the outdoor gardens and the rose garden. The project closes the inner courtyard of the Biodiversity Center buildings. The Green Pavilion proposes a double movement to decompartmentalize the courtyard and open it to the gardens. The building splits into two volumes to free up an open space in the heart of the project; this is the blossoming of the pavilion. The pavilion then unfolds into the landscape: the floor of the hall, like a leaf that blossoms, unfolds towards the rose garden in a long living carpet, a porous surface, partially planted with roses and edible plants. In a second movement, the vegetal surface of the gardens envelops the pavilion which becomes a living architecture, a real chameleon that transforms itself over time. Set between the two vegetal caskets, a reception volume and a technical volume, the large transparent and luminous crystalline hall metamorphoses according to the activities that follow one another. It frames the entrance to the gardens. Dotted with points of reactive intensity, luminous, sonorous or technological, the living carpet reacts to the environment and becomes an interface between the building and the natural environment. It is a place of representation and action that encourages intellectual, social and artistic exchanges.
How to create a biophilic architecture? How to make it alive? By integrating it with existing ecosystems and creating new ones. A building in osmosis with its environment, which transforms itself over time, the hours of the day, the seasons. A building that feeds on the site, the soil, the air, the water, the light and the heat of the sun, a building whose human activities participate in the ecosystems. A building that collects rainwater and recycles it for its own needs; a building whose skin transforms and reacts to heat and light; a building whose vegetated walls and roofs attract, feed and house insects, birds, life, and change appearance according to the seasons; a building whose spaces evolve and transform according to uses. An immersive, embodied, never simulated experience. A living environment. Not a building with no impact on the environment, but a building with a positive impact. This is how we imagined the green pavilion.
The construction of the building is an opportunity to create a real social ecosystem. The living carpet becomes a public square that fosters human relationships. The integration of the landscape into the architecture and into the architecture allows us to understand and see the building as part of a global ecosystem.
(Competitor's text)
(Unofficial automated translation)
This proposal is articulated around three (3) volumes, a central glass one, in the extension of the courtyard of the Center on Biodiversity and the Rose Garden, housing the support functions, visually separating the great hall from the greenhouse sector and the third one on the street, serving as a reception area. The envelope of the entrance volume proposes a freestanding wall structure supporting vine plantings.
- The site analysis demonstrates a good understanding of the program and site issues. The result is an interesting and effective link with the Rose Garden and the Biodiversity Center courtyard.
- The proposal meets the expectations of the program in terms of operations, surface area, budget and the Leed component.
- The issue is the architectural treatment in relation to the accuracy of the conceptual analysis. The conceptual gesture is clear and strong but the resulting functional organization complicates the interior space; the initial concept is diluted in the final plan.
- The materials, the wall/vine, the circulation are unconvincing.
- Despite strong conceptual potential, the architectural tradition lacks strength.
- The jury recognizes the relevance and appropriateness of the approach.
(From jury report)
(Unofficial automated translation)
37 scanned / 37 viewable
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Section
- Presentation Panel
- Axonometric Drawing
- Perspective
- Axonometric Drawing
- Perspective
- Axonometric Drawing
- Perspective
- Schema
- Perspective
- Reference Image
- Perspective
- Reference Image
- Site Plan
- Reference Image
- Plan
- Reference Image
- Plan
- Reference Image
- Plan
- Reference Image
- Axonometric Drawing
- Reference Image
- Schema
- Reference Image
- Schema
- Reference Image
- Schema
- Reference Image
- Schema
- Schema
- Schema
- Reference Image
- Reference Image
- Reference Image
