The jury greatly appreciated the mastery of the integration of the environmental treatment into the program. The L-shaped organization and the distribution of functions adequately respond to the atmosphere desired by the School by creating several meeting spaces that promote exchange; the search for varied atmospheres is present at all levels of the School, making the interior very dynamic.
This dynamic, which is evident on the exterior in a multitude of treatments and materials, makes the building complex to read. The lack of control calls into question the durability of a school project and raises questions about the clarity of the architectural party.
Technical Committee Report (July 9, 2001)
Program and functionality :
-The circus training spaces are grouped on the first floor.
-The meeting places are present in several places.
-The organization meets the expectations of the users.
-The organization responds to the diversity of the clientele.
-Access to the documentation center upstairs is questionable.
-Organizations in the area are far from the elevator and the entrance.
-Academic training, on the top level, is grouped with the offices.
Area
Concept: 8 854 m2 gross
Surplus of : 1 800 m2
Net/gross ratio of: .638 is performing well
Technical Analysis:
-Standard construction.
-Simple structure except for the volume housing the red carpet.
-Technical complexity of the envelope treatment: diversity of materials.
-Complexity of the roof openings in relation to the waterproofing.
-Due to its diversity, the maintenance of the envelope is demanding.
Environmental architecture:
-Principles are integrated into the design.
-The description of the materials shows a control of the ecological concept and the maintenance factor.
-The choice of steel is questionable in relation to the discourse.
-Controlled integration of geothermal and hydronic principles.
-The increased fresh air ratio is relevant.
-The natural ventilation is studied and sophisticated.
-The orientation of the courtyard to the south maximizes solar orientation.
Urbanism:
At 25 m in height, the project exceeds the height required by current regulations by 2 m.
Cost/Estimation
Reported cost: $15,746,500
Estimated cost: $15,677,000
The declared cost of the equipment is missing ($138,000).
(From jury report)
(Unofficial automated translation)
12 scanned / 7 viewable
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel Excerpt
- Presentation Panel Excerpt
- Presentation Panel Excerpt
