{:fr}[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Le concours pour l’Hôtel de ville de Toronto a été remporté en 1958 par Viljo Revell (À gauche la maquette du concours, à droite une photo de l’auteur prise en 2015)
Le Centre des visiteurs de Fort York fruit d’un concours remporté en 2009 par Patkau Architects et Kearns Mancini Architects (En haut, un modèle numérique du concours, en bas une photo de l’auteur prise en 2015)
Devrait-on mesurer l’écart entre la promesse de l’image produite lors du concours à partir d’une maquette physique ou d’un modèle numérique et une photographie de l’édifice prise sous des angles similaires plusieurs années après ? Autrement dit : À quel point l’édifice construit devrait-il ressembler à la maquette qui en a anticipé l’aspect ?
Chaque maquette est un « modèle réduit » rappelle le Dictionnaire historique de la langue française, tandis que chaque modèle est lui-même une « figure à reproduire » (1). Au croisement de ces deux principes, la maquette d’architecture devrait être « une architecture réduite à reproduire » selon des degrés de fidélité variables. Un concepteur est toujours plus ou moins averti de la distance qui sépare ces représentations de la réalité bâtie escomptée. En revanche, dans les situations de concours, la maquette est aussi un outil d’explication du projet voire d’un argument pour emporter l’adhésion du jury, lequel n’est pas nécessairement préparé à considérer ces artefacts avec la même distance critique que leurs concepteurs.
Pour mesurer l’écart entre les maquettes de concours et les photographies bâtiments qu’elles représentaient à l’origine, il est éclairant de comparer deux projets lauréats de concours réalisés à 60 ans d’intervalle à Toronto : d’autant que ces édifices ont été respectivement récompensés de prix d’excellence confirmant ainsi leur valeur exemplaire propre à en faire des « modèles ».
Le concours pour l’Hôtel de ville (Toronto City Hall) a été remporté en 1958 par Viljo Revell, tandis que le bâtiment a de nouveau remporté un Landmark Awards de l’Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) en 1998. Le Centre des visiteurs de Fort York (Fort York Visitor Center), fruit d’un concours remporté en 2009 par Patkau Architects et Kearns Mancini Architects, a rapidement été récompensé du Canadian Architect Award Of Excellence en 2011, suivi quelques années plus tard d’un City Of Toronto Urban Design Award et d’une Honorable Mention For Design Excellence de l’Ontario Association of Architects en 2015, juste avant sa consécration par une Médaille du Gouverneur général en 2018.
Les maquettes de l’Hôtel de ville de Toronto réalisées lors de la seconde étape du concours étaient exigées pour l’ensemble des concurrents : et l’on connait ces célèbres images montrant des centaines de maquettes soigneusement rangées sur d’immenses tables afin que le jury puisse les examiner. Si la photo de la maquette de concours ressemble au projet construit que nous avons photographié en 2015, plusieurs différences sont à souligner. Le nombre des arches face à la tour est passé de 3 à 5 et leurs formes ont été simplifiées. Elles ont aussi coulissé vers l’est du plan d’eau, lequel a été réduit de moitié. Le découpage des étages de l’édifice principal, parfaitement régulier sur les photographies de maquette fait place à des paliers intermédiaires et finaux plus larges. Enfin, les pignons des deux tours sont moins vitrés que ce que montrait la maquette et donc le projet à l’étape du concours. Ces différences apparaissent minimes lorsque l’on rappelle que cette maquette a été produite 7 ans avant l’inauguration du bâtiment en 1965.
Le modèle produit par l’équipe lauréate lors du concours du Fort York Visitor Center, ne se livre qu’à travers les images numériques qu’il a permis de produire. Si ces dernières cherchent à anticiper la représentation photographique poursuivant des objectifs similaires à la photographie de la maquette physique effectuée dans le cadre du concours de l’hôtel de ville, il faut garder à l’esprit que ces images ont certainement fait l’objet de multiples retouches. Outre l’absence de public et l’herbe défraîchie témoins banals de la réalité, la photographie du bâtiment en 2015 apparaît également très similaire à l’image de synthèse produite à partir d’une modélisation numérique à l’occasion du concours. Le volume translucide, en toiture, paraît plus haut sur l’image qu’il ne le sera finalement, tandis que les vitrages semblent moins transparents qu’annoncé par la perspective : l’écart entre les deux images du projet est faible. La taille de certaines ouvertures a quelque peu changé et le nombre de panneaux en acier corten a été modifié en conséquence, mais le projet promis est très proche de l’édifice qui sera finalement livré 5 ans plus tard, en 2014.
A travers ces comparaisons sommaires, il apparaît que le changement de support des maquettes, c’est-à-dire, de la nature même des modèles architecturaux ne semble pas nécessairement modifier la distance qui sépare l’objet du bâtiment qu’il représente : les deux cas évoqués admettant des similitudes et différences du même ordre. Bien que la comparaison sommaire de ces deux projets ne saurait nourrir une quelconque généralisation, les modèles permettent effectivement d’anticiper la réalisation et cela laisse peu de doutes sur l’objectif de ces médiations qui méritent effectivement toutes deux l’appellation « d’architecture réduite à reproduire ».
On pourra objecter que la similitude observée dans ces confrontations diachronique de vues perspectives constitue en soi une exception et que peu de bâtiments peuvent se targuer d’être toujours aussi proche du projet initial. Néanmoins, force est de constater que ces deux édifices dont l’excellence architecturale a été reconnue ont reproduit le même exploit à 60 ans d’intervalle. On peut se demander si cette proximité constitue l’une des marques de l’excellence architecturale ? Dès lors, un bon projet, conformément à son étymologie, serait un bâtiment qui aurait été justement « jeté en avant » par son modèle, c’est-à-dire parfaitement anticipé.
A la différence des maquettes de conception, d’ingénierie ou d’exposition qui pourraient être respectivement être nommées modèles exploratoires, modèles prédictifs et modèle descriptifs, les maquettes de concours, qu’elles soient virtuelles ou physiques, sont les véritables modèles de projet (2) à disposition des architectes. Paradoxalement, en confondant ces derniers, ils sont souvent ceux qui font mentir leurs propres modèles.
Aurélien Catros
(1) – Rey, Alain. (Éd.), Dictionnaire historique de la langue française, Paris, Le Robert, 1998.
(2) -Ce que Marcial Echenique nommait dans les années 1970 des « planning models ». Echenique, Marcial, Models: A Discussion, Cambridge, University of Cambridge, 1968.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]{:}{:en}[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The competition for the Toronto City Hall was won in 1958 by Viljo Revell (On the left the model produced for the competition, on the right photography taken by the author in 2015)
The Fort York Visitor Centre as a competition project won in 2009 by Patkau Architects and Kearns Mancini Architects (Top, a digital model produced during the competition, below a photo taken by the author in 2015)
Should we be able to measure the gap between the promise of the image produced during a competition (from a physical or digital model) and a photograph of the awarded building taken from similar angles several years later? In other words: How much should the constructed building look like the model that anticipated its appearance?
Each architectural model falls into the broad scientific category of “models”, while each model is itself a “figure to reproduce” (1). At the crossroads of these two principles, the architectural model should be “a reduced architecture to reproduce” according to varying degrees of fidelity. A designer is always more or less aware of the gap separating these representations from the expected built reality. On the other hand, in competition situations, the model is also a tool for explaining the project or even an argument to win the jury’s approval, which is not necessarily prepared to consider these artifacts with the same critical distance as their designers.
In order to measure the gap between the competition models and the building photographs that they originally represented, it is enlightening to compare two winning competition projects 60 years apart in Toronto: they have been awarded prizes of excellence, confirming their exemplary value and making them “role models”.
The competition for Toronto City Hall was won in 1958 by Vilijo Revell, while the building won an Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) Landmark Award in 1998. The Fort York Visitor Center, the result of a competition won in 2009 by Patkau Architects and Kearns Mancini Architects, was quickly awarded the Canadian Architect Award of Excellence in 2011, followed a few years later by a City of Toronto Urban Design Award and an Honourable Mention for Design Excellence from the Ontario Association of Architects in 2015, just prior to its consecration with a Governor General’s Medal in 2018.
The models of the Toronto City Hall made during the second stage of the competition were required for all competitors: and we know these famous images showing hundreds of models carefully arranged on huge tables so that the jury can examine them. If the photo of the competition model resembles the built project we photographed in 2015, there are several notable differences. The number of arches facing the tower has gone from 3 to 5 and their shapes have been simplified. They have also slid east of the body of water, which was halved. The division of the main building’s floors, which is perfectly regular on the model photographs gives way to wider intermediate and final levels. Finally, the gables of the two towers are less glazed than what the model displayed and thus the project at the competition stage. These differences appear minimal when we recall that this model was produced 7 years before the inauguration of the building in 1965.
The model produced by the winning team during the competition for the Fort York Visitor Center is only presented through the digital images it has produced. If the latter seek to anticipate the photographic representation pursuing objectives like the photograph of the model carried out in the context of the competition for City Hall, it must be kept in mind that these images have certainly been subjected to retouching. In addition to the lack of public and the tired grass banal witnesses of reality, the building’s photography in 2015 also appears very similar to the computer-generated image from a digital modelling from the competition. The translucent volume on the roof appears higher on the image than it will eventually be, while the glazing seems less transparent than announced by the perspective drawing: the difference between the two images of the project is small. The size of certain openings has changed somewhat and the number of corten steel panels has been modified accordingly, but the promised project is very close to the building that will finally be delivered 5 years later, in 2014.
Through these summary comparisons, it appears that the change of support of the models, namely, of the very nature of the architectural models does not necessarily seem to modify the distance that separates the object from the building which it represents: the two cases mentioned admit similarities and differences of the same order. Although the summary comparison of these two projects cannot support any generalization, the models can anticipate the realization and this leaves little doubt about the purpose of the mediations, which both deserve the name of “reduced architecture to reproduce”.
It may be objected that the similarity observed in these diachronic confrontations of perspective views is an exception and that few buildings can boast of always being so close to the original project. Nevertheless, it is clear that these two buildings whose architectural excellence was recognized have reproduced the same feat 60 years apart. One can wonder if this proximity is one of the marks of architectural excellence? Therefore, a good project, according to its etymology, would be a building that would have been precisely “thrown forward” by its model, that is to say, perfectly anticipated.
Unlike models of design, engineering or exhibition that could be respectively named exploratory models, predictive models and descriptive model, the models of competitions, whether they be virtual or physical, are the real models of the project (1) available to architects. Paradoxically, by confusing the latter, they are often the ones who make their own models lie.
Each architectural model falls into the broad scientific category of “models”, while each model is itself a “figure to reproduce”. At the crossroads of these two principles, the architectural model should be “a reduced architecture to reproduce” according to varying degrees of fidelity. A designer is always more or less aware of the gap separating these representations from the expected built reality. On the other hand, in competition situations, the model is also a tool for explaining the project or even an argument to win the jury’s approval, which is not necessarily prepared to consider these artifacts with the same critical distance as their designers.
In order to measure the gap between the competition models and the building photographs that they originally represented, it is enlightening to compare two winning competition projects 60 years apart in Toronto: they have been awarded prizes of excellence, confirming their exemplary value and making them “role models”.
The competition for Toronto City Hall was won in 1958 by Vilijo Revell, while the building won an Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) Landmark Award in 1998. The Fort York Visitor Center, the result of a competition won in 2009 by Patkau Architects and Kearns Mancini Architects, was quickly awarded the Canadian Architect Award of Excellence in 2011, followed a few years later by a City of Toronto Urban Design Award and an Honourable Mention for Design Excellence from the Ontario Association of Architects in 2015, just prior to its consecration with a Governor General’s Medal in 2018.
The models of the Toronto City Hall made during the second stage of the competition were required for all competitors: and we know these famous images showing hundreds of models carefully arranged on huge tables so that the jury can examine them. If the photo of the competition model resembles the built project we photographed in 2015, there are several notable differences. The number of arches facing the tower has gone from 3 to 5 and their shapes have been simplified. They have also slid east of the body of water, which was halved. The division of the main building’s floors, which is perfectly regular on the model photographs gives way to wider intermediate and final levels. Finally, the gables of the two towers are less glazed than what the model displayed and thus the project at the competition stage. These differences appear minimal when we recall that this model was produced 7 years before the inauguration of the building in 1965.
The model produced by the winning team during the competition for the Fort York Visitor Center is only presented through the digital images it has produced. If the latter seek to anticipate the photographic representation pursuing objectives like the photograph of the model carried out in the context of the competition for City Hall, it must be kept in mind that these images have certainly been subjected to retouching. In addition to the lack of public and the tired grass banal witnesses of reality, the building’s photography in 2015 also appears very similar to the computer-generated image from a digital modelling from the competition. The translucent volume on the roof appears higher on the image than it will eventually be, while the glazing seems less transparent than announced by the perspective drawing: the difference between the two images of the project is small. The size of certain openings has changed somewhat and the number of corten steel panels has been modified accordingly, but the promised project is very close to the building that will finally be delivered 5 years later, in 2014.
Through these summary comparisons, it appears that the change of support of the models, namely, of the very nature of the architectural models does not necessarily seem to modify the distance that separates the object from the building which it represents: the two cases mentioned admit similarities and differences of the same order. Although the summary comparison of these two projects cannot support any generalization, the models can anticipate the realization and this leaves little doubt about the purpose of the mediations, which both deserve the name of “reduced architecture to reproduce”.
It may be objected that the similarity observed in these diachronic confrontations of perspective views is an exception and that few buildings can boast of always being so close to the original project. Nevertheless, it is clear that these two buildings whose architectural excellence was recognized have reproduced the same feat 60 years apart. One can wonder if this proximity is one of the marks of architectural excellence? Therefore, a good project, according to its etymology, would be a building that would have been precisely “thrown forward” by its model, that is to say, perfectly anticipated.
Unlike models of design, engineering or exhibition that could be respectively named exploratory models, predictive models and descriptive model, the models of competitions, whether they be virtual or physical, are the real models of the project (2) available to architects. Paradoxically, by confusing the latter, they are often the ones who make their own models lie.
Aurélien Catros
(1) – Rey, Alain. (Éd.), Dictionnaire historique de la langue française, Paris, Le Robert, 1998.
(2) – What Marcial Echenique named in the 1970s “planning models”. Echenique, Marcial, Models: A Discussion, Cambridge, University of Cambridge, 1968.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]{:}