The expansion of the Saul Bellow Library has been in 2011 of the first architectural competition in Quebec to open a "integrated design process". Three years later, while the winning project by Chevalier Morales, is under construction, it is tempting to go back to the way architects have responded to the challenges presented by the combination of these qualitative processes operating means strong different. In 1984, the city of Montreal decided to honor Saul Bellow, famous Canadian-American writer giving his name to the public library of the Lachine borough where he was born. 

The building was completed in 1975, one year before Saul Bellow receives the Nobel Prize for Literature. Some years after the death of the writer in 2005, the expansion project includes a 80% increase in the surface of the building, for a total of 2600m2, in order to update the operation and capacity. The aim of the competition was to provide the institution of the "innovative image" that one is entitled to expect of a "library of twenty-first century", knowing that the existing building should be retained and incorporated into new building. 

This project is part of a year marked by the revival of public libraries in Quebec decade.Since gbQ in 2000, no less than thirteen architectural competitions were held during the last thirteen years, resulting in the production of more than 140 projects. organization of competitions for Saul Bellow differs from the long series for several reasons, including an unusual number of teams selected to compete (7 teams, including three consortia, while the average for this type of competition is 4 competitors). The jury adopted a scoring system, weighted according to the criteria of judgment, in order to decide the number of competitors, the winning project is simply one who accumulates the most points. 

Another notable feature is the implementation of an Integrated Design Process (IDP) at the end of the competition, to ensure consistency between the environmental requirements, a target of LEED-Gold, and, of course, architectural quality in the development of the project. The program stipulated that the winning project should be revisited following the contest, according to a consultation process involving all project stakeholders. It was for competitors to convince the jury of the strength of their proposal and at the same time opening the exercise of integrated design. If this aspect of the competition was more or less attention depending on the candidate, he certainly influenced the judgment of the competition, to the extent that "the potential evolution of the concept for the future in light of the PCI" was one of the seven criteria, counting with "flexibility redevelopment" for 25% of the note. unusual Despite these constraints, the question of the integration of the existing building within the next envelope was the object of architectural responses varied. Some teams, like Faucher Aubertin Brodeur Gauthier (FABG) or Atelier In Situ relied on the addition of a strong roof to ensure the unity of their proposal. Others, such as the consortium Labonté Marcil, with Cimaise-FBA and Eric Pelletier have preferred to play on the presence of an articulated façade encompassing both old and new. Other proposals were to compose a box around the box, and Dan Hanganu Chevalier Morales favoring the expression of a suspended volume, while Manon Asselin and Jodoin (JLP) as the consortium team Brière, Gilbert with Blouin Tardif preferred forms partially open. 

The jury's report reveals that the first round has eliminated three teams following arguments related to the intrinsic quality of architectural projects: lack of articulation, undue complexity of traffic, or inadequacy of the architectural style. The draft FABG was eliminated in the second round, judged too expensive and "difficult to rationalize" despite a particularly developed concept which earned him a high score.Proposed by Chevalier Morales deemed "flexible, non-rigid" and "answers [ing] criteria without formal dogmatism" project, finally won the scoring before projects Manon Asselin / JLP and Brière, Gilbert / Blouin Tardif which offered a simpler but less rich spatiality domestic voyages. Browsing the jury report, one would think facing a consensual and cleared the project. This is however not the case. From the outside, the new building has operations suspended by a partially cantilevered overhang volume whose sleek profile and sculptural form a contemporary signal. The treatment of this volume of variable thickness, volume technical here and there living space, demonstrates the ability of designers to play on the perception of the scale, in order to achieve a fully integrated building in its urban context. 

Inside, architectural devices used to define autonomous spaces, while ensuring transparency and continuity both in the plan in the cup, the game hoppers, mezzanines and double heights. This volumetric and spatial work is complemented by work on the building envelope, sometimes wide curtain wall, sometimes translucent mesh, the development promises a rich tectonic expression. The winning strategy for this competition will have been that of a project, whose party, the qualities of space and architectural style are clearly expressed without seeming frozen so far, a condition that seems to better match the patterns developed by Chevalier Morales and through their recent projects and confirmed in other competition success. Implementing PCI Will apparently allowed the jury to rely on this later stage to consider the inevitable technical adjustments to the project winner. 

Despite a quantitative assessment system based on a specific scale, it is the potential of architectural design, to achieve LEED Gold requirements and within budget, which was evaluated, given that, as stated in the jury report, "PCI is an effective tool to meet this requirement." This freedom has had an undeniable impact on the process of judgment, which was able to focus on the architectural qualities "potential", as the researchers say LEAP, each of the proposals. Repelling the technical aspects of the project after the contest has helped raise the level of discussion from the point of view of architecture, but this approach leaves open the problem of the translation project in economically and environmentally effective constructive solutions. How then ensure that the discussions are really about PCI improvement proposed in the competition and not on a systematic questioning their relevance architectural solutions? 

> via Catalogue of Canadian Competition