français RESEARCH CHAIR ON COMPETITIONS   +   LABORATOIRE D'ÉTUDE DE L'ARCHITECTURE POTENTIELLE  
presentation   contact   help LIST OF COMPETITIONS
advanced search 

Competition

Centre d'interprétation du Bourg de Pabos


Projects

Cormier, Cohen, Davies, architectes (Atelier Big City)



1991

project documentation : 75%


Winner

Team's Web Site

 

Design team

  • Anne Cormier
  • Howard Mansell Davies
  • Randall Stuart Cohen
  • Claude Cormier
    •

Description

The Centre d'Interpretation du Bourg de Pabos





Introduction
The Centre d’interpretation du Bourg de Pabos was built as a result of one of the few new architectural competitions in Quebec. It is located in the Gaspé along a touristic route, on the site of an 18th century french settlement.



In interpretation centers, architecture and interpretation tend to be distinct elements. In Pabos, the challenge set by the competition organizers to make of the building a vehicule for interpretation is somehow unique. Therefore the realization of Pabos’ interpretation centre can be seen as an innovative experiment both in the setting of the competition and in the conceptualisation/ construction of the building.



While Pabos’ archaeological vestiges are very rich and quite peculiar, they are undecipherable fragments to the layman. The site however, evokes through its physical characteristics (the landlord’s island, the point where the fishermen worked and lived, the ’barachois’ closing the bay of Grand Pabos) the past occupations. It is through the site that architecture starts addressing interpretation.



Competing for the design of an interpretation center for the Gaspé region of Québec demanded the elaboration and communication of an architectural strategy, ie. how do we answer to a brief..? This strategy was presented in the form of four points...


1. Formal Position1
A structure comparable to a giant exhibition stand is installed on the point. Articulated and transformable, the structures walls open outward to the landscape in the summer, and in winter they contract, the structure closing in on itself.



In response to the seaside, in-season, off-season, nature of the Gaspé the building takes part in the regions transformation, closing up for the winter and springing to life like a fairground in the summer. Formally the project took on aspects of a giant cabinet with analogies to drawers and cupboard doors providing inspiration for the development of a kinetic enclosure system that technically operates at the level of a do-it-yourself (bricolage) project. Inspiration to this image is found in the agitprops of the Russian avante-garde, particularly the proposals of the constructivist Klucis.




2. Intervention/Scale
The intervention adopts the scale established by the large elements of the bay region:the breakwater, the railroad, the high tension lines, the landfill of the town of Chandler.



In the loneliest of conditions, where contemporary communications render the peripheral condition ambiguous (so near, yet still so far) how is one to acquire bearings? The physical connections remain primarily the car, the road, the rail line...Fundamental infrastructures denote human foraging into the wilds, they are the structures upon which we could build. In the case of Pabos this meant establishing a relationship with the road and rail line (perpendicular) and geographical (the cross peninsula movement). Then the problem of programmatic insignifigance (a problem of scale endemic to all peripheral conditions) pushes architecture beyond its traditional skin: the building is stretched, extrapolated across the site hence acquiring an enlarged (false) scale and sense of importance.





3. Movement/Program
The structure traverses the point, it is a passage from the beach to the island. The structure conversely is also the didactic filter of the site which passes across it.



In planning the intervention, program and nature, program and environment are superimposed: the logical use of the land (i.e. go to the beach,eat lunch, learn some history) is fabricated, or a structure capable of permitting this is proposed. The site concurrently slides through this structure informing and exposing both physically and (in this case) historically. It is not so much as to construct an autonomous and introverted object, but rather to infiltrate an environment.
Within this physical/historical matrix the programmatic components are rendered as sections of the tube/shed volume. A material/cladding logic which supports the 'diagram' is generated. Theis logic orchestrates material and colour choices (eg. The green treated pine room of hypotheses, green walls and ceiling, treated pine floor...). Cultural tensions through popular myth and stereotypes are invoked through this rendering. Modernity and tradition, precious/not precious and challenges to accepted tastes in materials (aspenite, treated woods, knotty pine) are sub-texts found in the realisation of the project.


4. Interpretation Strategy
The history of Pabos is superimposed upon its landscape: images evoking this history are reproduced on pivoting perforated panels. Viewed on an angle the panels are opaque and only the image is read. Viewed face to face, they are transparent, through the image the landscape appears.


.
A seamless relationship was developed between contents and container, avoiding the traditional seperation between communication and architecture as support or environment. The structure is a machine 'for seeing.' The structure-passage protects and directs the visitor. On its north side its pivoting walls (a kind of magic screen) superimpose the history of Pabos upon its landscape. The interpretation mediums (transparent panels, niches, etc.) are spatially and structurally significant, opening up the center to the site, not screening it off. The site and its history is interpreted by each visitor through various "clues" including, the site itself, the building, texts, artifacts, large transparent images, and discussion with guides. One interesting aspect of this non-reconstructive approach to interpretation is to leave the physical past of the site up to the visitors' imagination. Archaeology and history are often percieved as definitive and immutable. The notion of interpretation, and in this case an interpretation center, helps to underline the openess of these fields. A visit starts a process that creates a personal understanding of what happened there. More than one narrative is possible. The entire project becomes a low-tech interactive installation.

 

Jury Report

  

Press Review

Revues spécialisées:
ARQ février 1994 

List of accessible documents

34 scanned / 3 viewable