The new building which is the subject of this Competition will be the third City Hall for the City of Winnipeg since its incorporation in 1873. The present one, completed in 1886, has long since outgrown its usefulness in terms of size, efficiency and significance as a "proud expression of its function as the centre of civic government."
A City Hall has been defined as "the physical embodiment of what the city is, what it stands for, and what it aims to be." Today it must assume the dual functions of an efficient office building and of a muncipal government administration centre. Its significance in the growth of a city results from its expression of the purpose and nature of municipal government as well as from its impressive monumentality. True, its functioning must be both efficient and convenient; it must be flexible and readily adaptable to changing conditions and requirements; it must be economical in initial cost, in operation and maintenance; but, above all, it must be attractive, expressing the dignity of its use, at the same time avoiding meaningless stylistic
ornamentation. Appropriateness should be the keynote and objective of its design. It should achieve a friendly dignity through discrimination and restraint, and avoid the architecturally sensational which so often results from aesthetic or technical connoisseurship.
This Competition for the design of a new City Hall for Winnipeg is a challenge to the architects of Canada to create a building which will fulfill the physical requirements of both the legislative and the administrative branches of the City's government and will at the same time be the physical embodiment of the qualities traditionally associated with civic government.
(Competition brief excerpt)
***All the visual documentation is taken from the book "Report on the competition A CITY HALL FOR WINNIPEG, Canada"
Judgment of First Stage.
Following a preliminary study of each entry, the Jury considered each model placed in the master model of the Broadway site and its environs. Elimination of entries commenced with this consideration of siting and environmental relationships in terms of mass, exterior spaces, vistas, scale, etc. Consideration of the general planning of public and reception areas, department locations, future extensions, traffic and parking then resulted in further eliminations. For the remaining group, each juror thoroughly analyzed each entry, recording his reactions pro and con. These were then fully discussed by the entire group before the jurors voted on six finalists. The first ballot was conclusive in its choice of the following six architects as finalists:
George S. Abram of Willowdale, Ontario; J. M. Dayton and R. Jessiman of Vancouver; Green Blankstein Russell and Associates of Winnipeg; Michael M. Kopsa of Toronto; Gerald Robinson of Toronto; Smith Carter Searle Associates of Winnipeg.
The Jury met in the Winnipeg Auditorium January 3, 4, and 5, 1959, to choose six finalists from among the 91 entries submitted in the Preliminary Stage of the Competition: alter thorough and exhaustive study of each entry in relation to the buildings and spaces of the site, the Jury selected Numbers 31, 174, 185, 20 l, 208 and 246 on the first ballot as the entries which appeared ta have excellent potentialities for the development of their basic concepts. On January 6th the envelopes containing the nomes of the architects who had submitted these entries were opened .by the Mayor and the names were annaunced as follows:
George S. Abram, Willowdale, Ontario.
John M. Dayton and Roy Jessiman, Vancouver.
Green Blankstein Russell & Associates, Winnipeg.
Michael M. Kopsa, Toronto.
Gerald Robinson, Toronto.
Smith Carter Searle Associates, Winnipeg.
The Jury met again in the Winnipeg Art Gallery on December 14, 1959, to select the winner of the Competition from the entries submitted by these six finalists. On its first ballot, after two days of intensive study and analysis, the Jury unanimously chose Entry No. 31. On the following day the Mayor opened the envelope of that number and announced the firm of Green Blankstein Russell & Associates of Winnipeg os the winner of the Competition.
The Jury extends its hearty congratulations to the winning firm and feels confident that the scheme which it submitted will develop into a truly outstanding City Hall appropriately symbolic of the City of Winnipeg. The Jury also commends the high standard achieved by the other finalists whose entries were bath competent and distinctive.
The Jury wishes to congratulate the City of Winnipeg for its wisdom in deciding ta conduct a competition for the new City Hall and to record its appreciation of the efficient manner in which the Competition has been conducted by the Professional Adviser.
We submit herewith the basic considerations for judgment and a summary of our comments and criticisms re the six finalists.
Criteria for Judgment
Before commencing the first judgment, the Jury had became tharoughly acquainted with the specific requirements as laid down in the Conditions of Competition. Early in its deliberatians, the Jury established the following points as the basic considerations to be made in assessing each of the entries:
1. The Siting-the building's relation to the site and to its surroundings having in mind particularly its relation to the Legislative Building.
2. The Internai Planning of the Building-including the requirements for the public, legislative, administrative and service areas and their interrelatianships.
3. The Exteriors and Interiors-in terms of their over-all character, symbolsim and scale and of the appropriateness of materials.
4. The Logic and Feasibility of the Structure - the economy of first cost, and the durability and maintenance of the completed building.
5. The Over-all Concept-in terms of both its physical and its expressive aspects.
The Jury agreed that it was searching for a building which would take its place as an integral part of the total camplex of buildings and open spaces which surround and focus upo,~ the Legislative Building,-to harmonize with as weil as to complement the features of the neighborhood.
ln the first instance, the Jury placed great emphasis on the mandatory requirement that a new City Hall constructed on the Broadway site must in no way conflict with the existing surroundings, notably the effectiveness and view of the Legislative Building as it terminates the vista along Memorial Boulevard.
Secondly, the Jury placed equally great emphasis on the character and function of a city hall as defined in the Conditions of Competition:
"A City Hall has been defined as 'the physical embodiment of what the City is, what it stands for, and what it aims to be''. Today it must assume the dual functions of an efficient office building and of a municipal government administration centre. Its significance in the growth of a city results from its expression of the purpose and nature of municipal government as well as from its impressive monumentality. True, its functioning must be both efficient and convenient; it must be flexible and readily adaptable to changing conditions and requirements; it must be economical in initiol cost, in operation and maintenance; but, above ail, it must be attractive, expressing the dignity of its use, at the same time avoiding meaningless stylistic ornamentation, Appropriateness should be the keynote and objective of its design, It should achieve a friendly dignity through discrimination and restraint, and avoid the architecturally sensational which sa often results from aesthetic or technical connoisseurship. The ultimate goal should be a unique and distinctive symbol of civic government which will function efficiently now and in the future."
Thirdly, the Jury devoted considerable time to the detailed analysis af planning relationships, structure, materials, and the many details of interior as weil as exterior which produce total architecture.
ln the Jury's discussions it became clear that the "expressive" aspect included not only the proud expression of civic government but also the expression of the dual nature of a city hall-its legislative and administrative functians. Clearly, some of the final tests to be applied were implicit in the questions: "Could this building be anything other thon a city hall?" "Is it human as well as urban in scale?" "Is it friendly and dignified, not aloof and haughty?"
Critique on Six Finalists
Winner : GREEN BLANKSTEIN RUSSELL & ASSOCIATES / WINNIPEG, MANITOBA
Siting:
An excellent town planning concept; the arrangement of high and low structures parallel to Memorial Boulevard forms a distinguished space focused on the Legislative Building, at the same time creating two fine plazas, one on Broadway for daily public entrance and one on York Avenue for City Council and ceremonial entrances.
The tall mass echoes and complements the new Provincial Government office building to the east. In doing so, it effectively coordinates and completes the whole group of buildings and open spaces in the vicinity of the Legislative Building.
While the two units comprising the City Hall compose weil with the other buildings in the area, they appear to be crowded rather close to one another. The Jury strongly recommends that the Government of Manitoba ease the specifjed alignment along the west side of Memorial Boulevard. In this way the two·story unit could be moved eastward and its relationship to the office block would thereby be improved. This would in no way interfere with the approach view of the Legislative Building; it would, in fact, create a more appropriate
asymmetrical balance with the Land Titles Office Building on the east side of Memorial Boulevard.
The Osborne Street side wouId be impraved by greater attention to landscaping, changes of level, and provision of an adequate and more dignified staff entrance.
InternaI Planning:
The basic plan is sound ond permits greot freedom of design, but has not been properly developed; it needs further study of the following points:
Two Story Building:
Access to the Mayor.
Circulation of Mayor to Council Chamber.
Connection from Law Department to Administrative area.
Excessively long stair runs.
Office Block:
Very tight in width.
Inadequate elevator lobbies.
Vertical circulation, especially to kitchen which has been neglected.
Kitchen service on reception level.
Link between two units weak (suggest a two-story link, with Legal Department and clerk on second floor of Office block).
Staff access inadequate, especially from west.
Provision of sheltered oreas in conjunction with plazas is suggested.
Exteriors:
The scale is well maintained both between the two units and between the City Hall and its surroundings.
The treatment of poured concrete should be carefully considered for durability of appearonce:
recommend some stone on both low and high units.
The treatment of the east-west exposure on office black displays good sense and good proportions,
and is very successful visually.
The proposed upward expansion should be studied further.
Interiors:
Very effective in space and detail. The form of the Council Chamber is questioned for good acoustics.
Structure:
Economical, logical and straight forward. Further development of low unit structure might produce a more significant sculptural form.
Over-all Concept:
Although some of the detailed planning has not been studied with sufficient care and thought, the basic scheme is excellent as a town planning concept. The Jury commended the clear expression of the dual nature of a City Hall. The grouping of legislative and ceremonial areas together with the major public-access elements in the two-story unit appears to be much more logical and successful as the expressive symbol of the relation between civic government and the people than the usual segregation of the council chamber by itself into a unit separate from the administrative office building unit. In this solution, this dual expression echoes effectively the newly created separation between the principal legislative and administrative buildings of the Provincial Government.
The total complex of the two buildings and the two plazas has excellent character: its majestic urban scale would appear to symbolize appropriately the civic government; at the same time it has a human scale which welcomes the citizen in a democratic manner. It succeeds admirably in expressing both the dignity and the friendliness of a City Hall which serves its citizens and welcomes its visitors.
The presentation of the drawings and model was bath competent and sophisticated, indicating a sensitive, thorough and competent architect: it left little to be desired.
There was no doubt in the Jury's mind that this winning solution gave the greatest assurance of being developed into a truly appropriate and unique City Hall for Winnipeg.
Entry no. 174 : JOHN M. DAYTON AND ROY JESSIMAN / VANCOUVER, B.C.
Siting:
Although not directly tailared to the specifie site, the building's cruciform shape establishes axial relationships in all four directions and thereby relates weil to the other buildings and spaces. The Jury commented favorably on the generous terrace whose sensitive shape relates well to the site.
Internal Planning:
Although the ground floor is generally gaod, the rest of the planning is quite involved, with little or no flexibility. This, of course, is a direct result of the arbitrary form with its resultant restrictions. The lower floor is inviting and appears to have exciting possibilities, but the other floors are congested and tortuous in their access to and arrangement of departments. The circulation around the Council Chamber is very restricted. The interiors and departmental layouts are complex and confused. The proposed extension on ground level is poor.
Exteriors:
Symbolically fine, but the upper mass is disappointing in its development: in the Preliminary Stage it had had a delicacy of scale which contrasted weil with the heavy structure below; furthermore it had had strong potential sculptural qualities which were subsequently sacrificed for a certain crudity resulting from the overhanging masses.
Interiors:
Complexity of planning prevented the development of distinctive interiors, except for the monumentality of the inviting entrance.
Structure:
Relatively expensive: the tour de force of great cantilevers 50 high above the terrace seems hardly worthwhile in the results os shown. Yet, in the Preliminary Stage the boldness and daring of the structure gave promise of great monumentality and symbolism.
Over-all Concept:
A bold imaginative concept with excellent potentialities which failed to "come off" in the Final Stage.
Entry no. 185 : MICHAEL M. KOPSA / TORONTO, ONTARIO
Siting:
Although a bit hesitant as a town-planning scheme, it has excellent plaza areas, providing good pedestrian access and well lighted basement areas. The Jury commended the handling of these entronce areas for their interest and variety.
Internal Planning:
The main floor is one of the best plans for organization of spoces and movement to them. The location, form and approach to the Council Chamber in the court is not as effective; there is little indication os to where it is. The Council Chamber might have been given a more prominent expression at the north end, or on the roof, rother thon being squeezed into its present "puny" locotion. The Court is too small; impractical as a collector of snow and dirt; it would be better if glazed over.
Exteriors:
There is little to distinguish this building from on ordinory office building; the addition of tower and flog poles is not enough to give it symbolic significonce os a city hall. The great amount of glass on all facades is questioned for sun control. The great projection of the columns along the east and west focades is not justified by the inside structure or by the classic monumentality of effect. The north and south facade treatment is even less successful. The over-all proportions ond the human scale of the plazo level are weil handled; the upper portion, however, lacks the beautiful simplicity and character of the lower floors. The
combination of aluminum, bronze and marble on the exterior would oppeor to lock unity.
Interiors:
The Council Chamber is well planned; the Health and Welfare Departments are treated with dignity; but generally the interiors need more careful detailing and greater refinement in the use of materials.
Structure:
Adequate, straight forward, reasonable, economical.
Over-all Concept:
Although it is one of the best solutions in terms of its terraced entrance treatment and the planning of the lower floors, it falls short in its handling of the public reception and the approach to the Council Chamber. Furthermore, it lacks significant character as a city hall and has placed "just another office building" on a very distinguished and successful platform.
Entry no. 201 : GERALD ROBINSON / TORONTO, ONTARIO
Siting:
Its relation to the site is good; its law proportions create appropriate scale; its long curved form defines and accentuates the Memorial Boulevard approach to the Legislative Building and, more than any other entry, recognizes and enhances the Osborne Street relationship to the total complex by both closing and opening the vista. The circular plaza (containing the Cenotaph moved from its present location) superimposed on the divided traffic plan of Memorial Boulevard is unsympathetic to the total site plan. The dynamic form of the building dominates the site, leaving no place to stop and rest. The rigid clumps of trees are questioned; their classic balance along the east facade would not be appreciated at such close range. The access to parking is tight.
Internal Planning:
Weak: the internai organization does not function weil. Areas have been distributed within the basic form of the building with little apparent concern for the way in which they should function or relate to each other. The off-centre placing of the Council Chamber is not successful. The court would have been better as an internal space if it had been covered at the main roof level.
Exteriors:
The model indicates a sensitive design, excellent in scale and fascinating in ils fine materials, immaculate in colour and workmanship. The drawings give no indication of such qualities; they are little more thon enlargements of the diagramatic layouts submitted in the Preliminary Stage, without definition of materials or detailing. The treatment of the north and south facades is not very happy.
Interiors:
Only fair. The Council Chamber is unbelievably low and insignificant for its actual importance.
Over-all Concept:
The Jury was greatly intrigued by the unique and exciting possibilities proposed in the Preliminary Stage. Basically, the concept, as presented in the final model and in the accompanying report, was excellennt. However, the planning, the exteriors and interiors as precented in the drawings were unaccountably poor in both function and detail. It was most disappointing to see a brilliant conception, which had been presented with such sensitivity in a superb model, considerably negated by neglect of its architectural development.
Entry no. 208 : SMITH CARTER SEARLE ASSOCIATES / WINNIPEG, MANITOBA
Siting:
Not a strong town-planning concept: the form of the building is not very sympathetic to the site. It still appears as if it were not necessorily developed for this site, and would be equally appropriate on some other site. The landscaping plus the plaza development of the site leaves much to be desired.
Internal Planning:
The excellent, well organized plan shows considerable improvement over first submissian. The Jury could find little ta criticize, except poar natural lighting conditions in basement. The Council Chamber and its relation to the Mayor, Aldermen, etc. is one of the best, most thoroughly thought out and developed solutions.
Exteriors:
The original square form of the building in the Preliminary Stage was more effective and had greater symbolism. The set-bock of the main and mezzanine floors produces an effective colonnade space, but this colonnade is not in good relationship to the floors above. The additional "expansion" floor improves the proportions of the building, but would be most difficult to accomplish successfully. The facade is restless due to the multitude of columns, which also induce the wrong sense of scale. The indentation of the corners was considered to be poorly conceived. The final model represents the building as sombre and uninspired. The Preliminary Stage model had much greater potentials in symbolism, scale, proportion and sparkle.
Interiors:
The public interiors achieve great dignity of space as places for the coming together of the people. Except for its lowness, the Council Chamber is most effective in its impressive but subdued expression.
Structure:
Satisfactary and reasanable, except for the two raws of columns so close together around the perimeter: these did not seem justifiable either aesthetically or structurally.
Over-all Concept:
Basically, the concept foiled in its lack of a positive symbolic expression of a city hall (it is an excellent office building); it also lacked sympathy with its site and its surroundings. Repeatedly, the Jury returned to reconsider it because of the excellent and very complete planning and the impressive interiors. Withaut a doubt this entry had the best graphie presentation. However, the Jury cantinued ta find it wanting in character and site planning.
Entry no. 246 : GEORGE S. ABRAM / WILLOWDALE, ONTARIO
Siting:
The form of the building, like similor rectangular block solutions, fails to complement the area; instead it seems just to sit in the centre with little relation to the other buildings and spaces. It tries to establish a N-S axis from the north, but the access ramp-bridge is a bit tricky; it does not lend itself ta ceremonial and festive occasions. The double podium has complicated the scheme and results in unfortunate vertical proportions. A single podium would have been better. The service entrance is unfortunately placed in front of the north
entrance.
Internal Planning:
Generally the areas are well organized and well related, although their development is somewhat sketchy. The poorly lit, depressed basement was criticized. The suggested expansion appears to be excessive.
Exteriors:
The original presentation hod great potentialities in the development of its rich tan-gold, bronze and white facade treatment. The present black and grey facade has lost in quality and character. The relative vertical proportions of podium to colonnaded space to upper floors is not altogether sucsessful.
Interiors:
Rather unimaginative. The Final Stage treatment of the Legislative area has lost the quality it had in the preliminary submission. The Council Chamber is rather dull.
Structure:
Adequate, economical. The form and shape would make for ease of maintenance and low first cost.
Over-all Concept:
Rather disappointing in its redevelopment. Although it has a certain degree of competence in terms of a weil organized plan with some fine internai features, it falls short in terms of a building which will represent civic gavernment to the people.
(Excerpt from the jury's comments)
-
Green Blankstein Russell & Associates (Winner)
-
John M. Dayton and Roy Jessiman (Finalist)
-
Michael M. Kopsa (Finalist)
-
Gerald Robinson (Finalist)
-
Smith Carter Searle Associates (Finalist)
-
Georges S. Abram (Finalist)
-
M. Sprachman
-
W. L. Somerville, McMurrich & Oxley
-
G. C. N. Tonks
-
K. E. Tidy
-
J. K. Young
-
G. J. Yamazaki, J. W. Ridpath
-
R. Whiteley
-
Roberts & Margetts
-
J. C. Parkin
-
N. Osler
-
R. G. Robbie
-
G. M. Ritchie
-
W. J. McBain & Associates
-
Libling, Michener & Associates
-
Mrs. E. M. Lord
-
MacLoed & Reimer
-
V. Depocas
-
R. D'Astous
-
H. Fliess
-
L. Forster
-
V. Prus, B. van Ginkel, H. P. D. van Ginkel, M. Prus
-
Gibson & Pokorny
-
P. Dobush, W. E. Stewart
-
M. J. S. Fish
-
E. J. W. Nickelson
-
Durnfold, Bolton, Chadwick & Ellwood
-
W. E. Sherriff
-
Servos & Cauley
-
E. J. Weir
-
Blankstein & Coop
-
C. B. K. VanNorman & Associates
-
M. E. Utley
-
W. R. Ussner
-
Thompson, Berwick & Pratt
-
Smith & McCulloch
-
A. Stern
-
W. R. Wilding
-
A. Elkin
-
Z. S. Kiss
-
J. E. Dudley
-
Grierson, Walker & A. B. Leman
-
I. Grossman & J. Baker
-
E. L. Hankinson
-
A. D. Geach & C. B. Oulton-Clark
-
E. Janiss
-
V. Virak
-
D. Cohn
-
J. S. Allison
-
Moody, Moore & Partners
-
Rother, Bland, Trudeau
-
C. H. Sawchuk & A. F. Peach
-
W. A. Salter & D. E. Flemming
-
S. M. Sproule
-
H. Vandelman
-
Mayerovitch & Bernstein
-
Clifford & Lawrie
-
W. E. Carruthers & B. Shawcroft
-
S. F. Heinonen
-
K. L. Graham
-
G. R. Beatson
-
D. E. Horne
-
A. M. Bowers
-
W. Agius
-
Izumi, Arnott & Sugiyama
-
S. G. Elsey
-
I. E. H. Grolle
-
Waisman, Ross & Associates
-
A. B. Etherington
-
J. K. English & Associates
-
D. J. L. O'Connor & F. O'Connor
-
F. W. H. Dawes
-
M. Bach
-
R. Sellors
-
S. M. Roscoe
-
E. Olekshy
-
A. S. Read
-
H. N. Semmens & Associates
-
D. L. Pinckston
-
F. R. Barnes
-
S. S. Schmidt
-
Lund, King & Associates
-
Ward & MacDonald
-
C. Owtram
-
R. Matthews
-
J. W. Graham
| Jury president S1 |
John A. Russell, Architecte
|
| Jury S1 | Pietro Belluschi, Architecte |
| | Peter M. Thornton, Architecte |
| | Ralph Rapson, Architecte |
| | Alfred Roth, Architecte et professeur |
| | Eric W. Thrift, Architecte |
| |
|
| Jury president S2 |
John A. Russell, Architecte
|
| Jury S2 | Pietro Belluschi, Architecte |
| | Peter M. Thornton, Architecte |
| | Ralph Rapson, Architecte |
| | Alfred Roth, Architecte et professeur |
| | Eric W. Thrift, Architecte |
| |
|
Invitations issued: June 2, 1958
Conditions of Competition available. Registration opens: June 17, 1958
Registration closes: August 4, 1958
The Preliminary Stage
Question period closes: August 18, 1958.
Receipt of entries delivered (in person) / Dispatch of entries shipped: Before 5:00 p.m. Monday, Decembre 8, 1958.
Notification of six competitors selected for Final Stage: On or before January 12, 1959.
The Final Stage
Question period closes: February 2, 1959.
Receipt of entries delivered (in person) / Dispatch of entries shipped: Before 5:00 p.m. Monday, May 11, 1959.
Announcement of Award: On or before June 1, 1959.
(From competition's documentation)
Winnipeg Architecture Foundation, Winnipeg Civic Centre
Winnipeg Architecture Foundation, Winnipeg Civic Centre 1964-2014
CBC News, Winnipeg city hall to get multi-million dollar facelift, upgrade, CBC News, 2015
M. Peterson, 510 Main Street : Winnipeg City Hall, 2014
Randy Turner, City Beautiful : How architecture shaped Winnipeg's DNA, 2015
- Règlement
- Questions et réponses
- Rapport du jury (global)
- Documentation
- Article de presse
- Documentation
- Documentation
- Documentation
