Proposed conceptual approach
"The technique is quite simple: first interest the child in what others can do in this or that specialty, then give him the opportunity to participate himself. In other words, let him see what others can do, then let him do it himself."
Excerpt from a speech by Claude Robillard, then Director of the Montreal Parks Department, in May 1953. Speech given as part of the "Les ressources et notre avenir" conference.
1. From democratization to inclusion: evolving the original vision
The Centre Gadbois follows in the footsteps of Joseph-Claude Gadbois and Claude Robillard, who spent a significant part of their careers promoting sport, health and physical education. Their message is as follows: the education system must value the education of the body as much as that of the mind, and the city of Montreal, through the public infrastructures it makes available to its citizens, can encourage them to develop and maintain healthy lifestyle habits.
The creation of the Complexe récréatif Gadbois (CRG) in 1960 was an opportunity to expose the population of the Sud-Ouest to quality sports facilities, while nurturing their curiosity through access to a wide range of activities. The functionalist architecture of the original building, abundantly fenestrated on all 4 sides, created sports areas flooded with natural light; visible from all sides, the center's activities became inviting to the whole neighborhood. This desire for democratization expressed by its open architecture nevertheless lost its strength and clarity over the following decades. The successive appearance of the Turcot interchange, the George Mantha arena in the late '60s and the rest of the complex in 1985 contributed to the Gadbois center's withdrawal into itself, diminishing its interaction with the neighbourhood.
Today, it would seem appropriate to update this vision, which is at the very origin of the Gadbois center, and to improve both the accessibility and visibility of its activities, so that it can fully fulfill its social mission and rediscover the openness that once united it with its neighbourhood and its population.
(From competitor's text)
(Unofficial automated translation)
Arguments in favor of the proposal
• The conceptual approach and understated volumetry demonstrate an interesting sensitivity to the urban context.
• The proposal shows good urban integration and good integration with the existing building.
• The added volume develops a beautiful personality.
• The interior garden provides beautiful light to the center of the complex and acts as a landmark.
• The use of the site is judicious.
• The direct relationship between the triple gymnasium and the adjacent park is well done.
• Traffic, without ramps, is well controlled on the ground floor and garden level.
• Overall, the PFT is well respected in this proposal. The jury appreciated the analyses in the technical committee's report in this regard.
• The control of natural light in the various sports areas is well thought out and successful in preventing glare.
• The measures applied for sustainable development are adequate.
• The footprint is reduced.
• The construction system for the extension is clear and easy to implement.
• The structural strategy is interesting.
• The simplicity of the construction helps to demonstrate with confidence the budgetary feasibility of the project.
Arguments against the proposal
• The enlargement of the inner courtyard between stages 1 and 2 of the competition does not appear to be a positive development of the concept. The benefits have not been demonstrated, and the spaces presented do not allow for adequate gatherings or receptions. Furthermore, they alter the historical significance of the gasometer.
• The interior garden is an internal obstacle that fragments the spaces. It leaves restricted circulation spaces around its perimeter at garden level.
• The elevator is rather difficult to find from the south and west entrances.
• Circulation on the upper floor needs improvement.
• In general, universal circulation is difficult and remains to be resolved.
• The gym is completely isolated from the rest of the complex, which will also isolate families with young children (aged 18 months and older), many of whom use it. The reasons for locating it upstairs are not convincing.
• The integration of the interior garden significantly increases the surface area of the thermal envelope. It involves a lot of effort for little benefit to the sports complex.
• Mechanical considerations are still pending, and energy strategies have not been detailed.
Jury reservations
• The east entrance (park side) is set back significantly, making it almost invisible.
• The usefulness and potential use of the interior garden is not convincing, considering its size and the Quebec climate. Its maintenance remains uncertain given limited resources.
• There appears to be a concrete slab under the interior garden, which would not be conducive to large-scale planting. (A minor point to be clarified.)
• The feasibility of creating the exterior metal cladding as illustrated is in doubt, and the massive or uniform effect of the surfaces is debatable.
• The dematerialization on either side of Jean Cartier's mural in terms of its enhancement is questioned.
• The coordination of the proposal between professionals does not appear to have been demonstrated.
• The development of mechanical strategies could compromise the integrity of the concept presented.
(From jury report)
(Unofficial automated translation)
76 scanned / 76 viewable
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Perspective
- Presentation Panel
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Plan
- Perspective
- Section
- Axonometric Drawing
- Perspective
- Axonometric Drawing
- Perspective
- Schema
- Perspective
- Schema
- Perspective
- Perspective
- Schema
- Site Plan
- Schema
- Site Plan
- Schema
- Plan
- Schema
- Plan
- Schema
- Plan
- Schema
- Plan
- View
- Plan
- View
- Plan
- View
- Plan
- View
- Plan
- View
- Plan
- View
- View
- Elevation
- View
- Elevation
- Elevation
- Schema
- Schema
- Elevation
- Section
- Cross-sectional perspective
- Axonometric Drawing
- Axonometric Drawing
- Axonometric Drawing
- Axonometric Drawing
- Axonometric Drawing
- Axonometric Drawing
- Axonometric Drawing
- Axonometric Drawing
- Schema
- Schema
- Schema
- Presentation Panel Excerpt
- Reference Image
- Reference Image
- Reference Image
- Reference Image
- Reference Image
- Reference Image
- Reference Image
- Reference Image
