with concrete block, it could easily be turned into something else. We don’t care if it’s concrete block or not, it just ended up being that way. All the siding is copper but we wouldn’t be afraid if it was galvalum or something like that. The architecture still stands. We always do that actually. Tom:When you started into the planning, the idea of the mosque and the 1,300 columns was originally what defined the planning? Talbot: That’s right. Tom:And it became more organized based on the fact that you were in Ontario and there are good masons, so you chose to use concrete block as one of the heavier materials and that started to tighten up the detailing and the actual size of the building. Talbot: That’s right. Tom: Gotcha. Talbot: We were given all our square footage and it was extremely tight. There’s not a space wasted in this thing, nothing gratuitous. All our public spaces — all our hallways and streets are programme-full. Tom: What do you mean by ‘programme-full’? Talbot: For example if you need 13 workstations, we’ll put ‘em in a hallway. We’ll just make the hallway wider to accommodate the programme. Tom: So putting the workstations in the hallway, that was something you guys may have learned from the CSB? Talbot: Oh definitely. We learned a lot from the CSB because it was fast-tracked. Right at the beginning, we came up with a common denomina- tor: that’s where it got complex. We knew we were going to have offices, we knew we were going to have classrooms, teaching labs, and park- ing spaces. We knew were going to have a lecture hall, café, etc. So okay, we say 30’ by 30’ is a good- sized classroom in the university, we determined that. Offices would be 10’ by 10; glass in a curtain-
wall system is 5’ wide, a parking spot is 10’ wide; a lecture hall is 30’ wide, so everything is divisible by five. We found a common denominator and all of a sudden we say, okay, we’d be safe if we went with a tartan grid in the computer science building of 10-30-10-30-10-30-10-30. Ten feet is pretty wide for travelling in, we’re making it a 10’ tartan to use for circulation, but we can also use it as a flexor zone just in case we have to programme it later, which we did. So hallways would then shrink down to 4’ as we encroach on them from the spaces next to them in the 30’ bay. It’s really neat. If you go in the building, you’ll be able to see that. If you plug in a classroom and the classroom needs to be a little bit bigger, you can actually take some of the floor space from that 10’ zone. That’s exactly what we did with the ARC building too — find a common denominator — which is extremely hard on a complex project like that. Tom: Okay, what was the common denominator then on the ARC building? Talbot: Two offices plus a hallway equals 24’. Good passage route in a lightwell for two storeys we found is an 8’-wide crack. We call those cracks between all the bars. So everything’s on a 4’ module in this building — and it was hard to find a common denominator in this building compared to the CSB because it was so complex, but we had to start somewhere so we came up with a 24’ grid for everything. That’s what the columns are on, and it happens to be a good concrete module too. Thirty feet is about the extent of concrete before it becomes inefficient. So not only is it programme, but also technology helps us come up with the common denominator. 8-24-8-24-8-24-8 is this grid that we’re doing now [on the ARC]. Its smaller than the CSB actually. One of the main reasons for that is I think this building here has more cellular than public space. There’s 130-odd offices in this building.
Tom: In the CSB, the public space is maybe a third of the whole building. Whereas in the ARC it’s almost zero, other than corridors. Talbot: Yeah, there are a couple of town squares and courtyards. The other thing with this building [ARC] is the bars and cracks. The way this works is, if you look at the plan you see that you get columns on a 24’ grid and just outside that is your concrete block. This is the key to the design. The structure is basically columns and slabs. The concrete block is a cladding, an internal cladding. The reason we did that is because we were playing it safe where it came to budgeting knowing that the concrete block could change to anything and not hinder the structure. Tom: So it could become steel stud and drywall. Talbot: Exactly. It would still be monolithic-looking, still be solid-looking. It could have been wood, it could have been anything. The market was so volatile at the time, and we didn’t have any idea about this building because nobody knew what it was going to come in because it’s a pretty odd- looking building. But we wouldn’t be heartbroken over a material change either, really, because I think the building would still stand. The concept is strong, but the materials really help define the concept even more. If you do it right. It’s like the Louis Kahn stuff, eh? The Yale Centre for British Art — you know how big an impression that made on me, right? It’s the same thing. Y’know you could have plugged those holes with cork instead of oak and still have had the same building. There is a fine line where it turns into a WalMart, you might lose everything: we wouldn’t do that either. You could though. Somewhere that could be the best thing to do. Tom: With WalMart you’ve got programatically one big space and up front you’ve got a bar of function; entry, exit, washrooms, cashiers and the rest is just open space. So there’s no real complexity to those buildings.
à point. Je ne crois pas que ce soit bien différent lorsqu’on parle d’une maison ou d’un immeuble public. Permettez-moi de vous parler du processus. Brian a insisté sur la conception participa- toire. C’est ce que nous faisons dans le cas des maisons. Ils entrent, nous les rencontrons sur le terrain, au bureau, puis nous élaborons le plan de con-
ception avec eux. Nous ne nous en allons pas pour ensuite reve- nir plus tard et leur dire « Voici ce que vous obtenez ». Lors de notre première réunion, après qu’on nous a octroyé le travail, nous avons dit : « Voici ce que nous ferons. Nous organi- serons quatre ateliers. Le pre- mier s’appelle le site , le second le programme, le troisième la forme et le dernier le matériel
et la technologie ». Ils étaient à un mois d’écart les uns des autres, et comptaient un comité central de huit personnes. Tom : Et ce processus vous écono- mise de l’argent? Talbot : Non seulement nous permet-il d’économiser de l’argent, mais il nous protège contre les modifications et les frais supplémentaires. C’est une économie de temps pour tout
le mondeÉ notre temps, le temps du client, les réunions d’urgence qui doivent se tenir à mi-chemin… Tom : …qui finissent par vous coûter des milliers de dollars. Talbot : Il s’agit là de l’une des économies impalpables, j’imagine. Tom : Pourriez-vous me définir le concept? Talbot :Tout le monde savait
22
O n S ite review
T ransformations
I ssue 7 2002
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator