Aubin / Carrière Marleau
Therriault / Malderis
Breton / Boily
Qi / D'Aoust / Desroches / Toutant / Aguib
Bourque / Serio / Gache / Sorgniard
Fortin / McDonald / Chagnon / Larivière
Payette / Trépanier-Jobin
Lajoie / Morin / Thibault / Lambert / Hébert
Tremblay / Proulx-Cormier / Chawky
Lavallée / Joncas
Bouchard-Fortin / Guérette
Van Leur / Gunawan
Bulota / Leduc / Rivest-Khan
Crampé / Wang / Barette / Lavallée
Gauthier / Kovacevic / Kelly Dorais / Etemadi Shalamzari / Delavari
Martel-Labrecque / Ouellet-Pelletier / Nadeau
Illi / Cagelais / Caya / N'diaye
Blain / Simard / Martin / Georges Burger / Fustec
Cloutier / Soo
Santibanez / Sauthoff / Combe / Lang
Tremblay / Bureau-Alarie / Deguire / Descheneaux / Jacques
Landemaine / Marechal / Destombes
Labonté / Crossman
Gautier / Renault
Vuong / Luk / Wong / Manchoon / Reid
GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE COMPETITION
Métro Champ-de-Mars Montréal, Quebec, Canada
Surface area (m
2) 75000 m
Initial project cost
Ville de Montréal
Melvin Charney, Architecte
This ideas competition is one of the five "shukôs," or creative challenges, issued by the Mayor of Montréal, Gérald Tremblay, as part of the commitments made by the Ville de Montréal and its partners in the Action Plan 2007-2017 - Montréal, Cultural Métropolis. One of the goals of this plan is to promote excellence in design and architecture by widening the use of competitions, which in turn will help position Montréal as a UNESCO City of Design.
The competition is aligned with the detailed planning approach for the Ville-Marie expressway, outlined in the Ville de Montréal's Urban Plan. It is being launched concurrently with a feasibility study on covering the expressway. That study, being conducted jointly by the Ministère des Transports du Québec and the Ville de Montréal, will assess, among other possible options, the technical and financial feasibility of relocating the expressway exit ramps located near the Champ-de-Mars métro station.
The purpose of the competition is to elicit exploration and illustrations of a variety of development concepts made possible by the potential relocation of the expressway exit ramps.
Given the complexity of the technical validation process taking place concurrently, this is strictly an ideas competition, the results of which are intended to inourish a reflexion process by the public bodies, groups, citizens and professionals concerned with the future of the district. Therefore, it is not a project competition leading to the construction of any of the proposals received.
(From competition's documentation)
The jury, which reviewed 78 proposals, noted the high level of interest in the competition among both categories of competitors (47 professionals; 31 students) and the abundance of ideas. All the proposals studied are only at a schematic stage, which is consistent with the expectations of an ideas competition. Many questions are raised regarding the use of public spaces and the context of the Ville-Marie Expressway overlay. The main objective of the competition, which was to provide food for thought for the public authorities, groups, citizens and professionals concerned with the future of the sector, was therefore achieved.
The jury's deliberations were the subject of important and lively debates on urban design approaches. Thus, all of the projects submitted also allowed for interesting discussions on the approaches to be recommended with respect to the programming of the site (ref.: densification, links, housing, mix of functions, public space, etc.).
Proceedings of the deliberations for the "student" category:
After viewing the 3D animation videos, the jury recognized that this medium was generally better mastered by the competitors in this category. There are more atmospheric videos merged with 3D animation, which contributes effectively to the understanding of the concept. Finally, the sound and the rhythm are more in line with the projects.
A first round of review of the boards resulted in nine projects with at least one conceptual aspect of interest.
Since the five proposals selected in the second round do not present a resolution in plan, but are articulated around "urban objects" translating a strong idea, it was assessed that they constituted a valid and equivalent sample in urban exploration. As a result, the jury awards equal prizes.
The jury recognizes that the winning proposals do not necessarily provide answers to the planning resolution. However, they pose relevant questions that clearly reflect the concerns of future planners and young people in general. This may explain why most of the competitors, including the winners, considered it important to transcend the objectives set out in the Regulations and in this way to challenge the authorities responsible for the development of these places. This risk was appreciated by the jury since it brings us back to a more upstream reflection of "man in the city".
We also note that the students make more abstraction of the history. They seem to have freed themselves from it, which could be a sign of a change in values. They prefer to integrate concerns that deal with the body in relation to space. The proposals are thus multi-sensorial spatial experiences and of strong scale for several of them. We go beyond urban planning and we question the way of "living the city".
The jury unanimously adopts the selection and ranking of the proposals in the "professional" and "student" categories. In order to raise awareness among the authorities responsible for the construction of the interfaces of the site under study, in particular those of the CHUM, the jury recommends that the City officially inform them of the issues raised by the various winning proposals and the jury's comments.
The quantity and diversity of the projects submitted by the two categories of competitors demonstrate the relevance of the competition format. The Jury recommends that the City adopt a policy (or consider the advisability of implementing) a competition for the awarding of public contracts, and that it include competitions for projects that are open to the international community.
(From jury report)
(Unofficial automated translation)
Melvin Charney, Architecte Jury Odile Decq, Directrice, École Spéciale d'Architecture Paris Jacques Des Rochers, Conservateur de l'art canadien Michel Dionne, Architecte Raphaël Fischler, Urbaniste et professeur agrégé Mario Masson, Architecte paysagiste Alessandra Ponte, Professeure agrégée
Philippe Poullaouec-Gonidec, Architecte paysagiste
November 2, 2009 - Launch
January 15, 2010 - Registration deadline
February 10, 2010 - Receipt of proposals
March 8 and 9, 2010 - Jury deliberation
March 2010 - Announcement of winners
Second quarter 2010 - Distribution