Architecture Porfolio - 2016-2021 by Charles-Olivier Rocray

Charles Olivier Rocray architecture portfolio 2016-2021

folly no.1

CHAPTERS

EXPERIENCES

TO MAKE ANEW

GRWML

LIMBURG SETTLEMENT

CONVERSION

LOGEMENTS MONTAGNE

L’ÉPICERIE

VERLIPACK

folly no.2

CHARLES-OLIVIER ROCRAY

co.rocray@gmail.com +1 (438) 530-2716 Montreal

Int. M.Sc. Architecture KU Leuven University - passed Magna cum laude Brussels, 2016-2018 B.Sc. Architecture McGill University Montreal, 2012-2015

academic formation

DEC in Sciences, letters and arts Collège Jean-de-Brébeuf Montreal, 2010-2012

Project Manager RESERVOIR A Brussels + Charleroi, 2018-2021 Architectural Intern AEDIFICA Montreal, 2015-2016

work experience

Tennis Coach Tennis Montreal + Outremont town Montreal, 2009-2015

softwares

Autocad, Revit, Rhinoceros, 3DS Max Adobe suite: Photoshop, Illustrator, In Design, etc Website design (Squarespace)

languages

French / English German / Russian

interests

Restoration Litterature Tennis / Cycling Piano / Guitar

TO MAKE ANEW { ACADEMIC - THESIS } Can we bring back the past? The Charters, it seems, not only believe we can; they also promote it. But restoration will always be biased, in the sense that it discriminates moments, states, to choose only the most authentic. Embracing all the options can only be achieved if we base our restoration on memory; not on what happened, but on what people think happened. After all, the past is only what you make of it.

ATHENS CHARTER 1931

value

rehabilitation

relocate

reconstruction

conserve

preservation

dig up FINDING

2. Proposed Restoration projects are to be subjected to knowledgeable criticism to prevent mistakes which will cause loss of character and historical values to the structures.

bury

4. Excavated sites which are not subject to immediate restoration should be reburied for protection.

indeterminacy indeterminacy indeterminacy

restoration

5. Modern techniques and materials may be used in restoration work.

6. Historical sites are to be given strict custodial protection.

destroy

indeterminacy

7. Attention should be given to the pro tection of areas surrounding historic sites.

Athen’s Charter, 1931

VENICE CHARTER 1964 change of function only allowed for socially useful purpose / keep lay-out and decoration

rehabilitation

Article 5

value

safeguarding demands it? justified by national or international interest of paramount importance?

conserve

relocate

all reconstruction work ruled-out a priori, except for anastylosis

when traditional techniques prove inadequate, use modern techniques

Article 7

dig up

reconstruction

Article 15

Article 2 Article 10

additions cannot be allowed, except if not detracting from interesting parts, traditional setting , balance of composition and relation with surroundings

addition

Article 13

preservation

maintenance on a permanent basis Article 4

cultural significance? work of art? historical evidence?

FINDING

bury

restoration

restoration stops where conjecture begins

Article 1 Article 3

valid contribution of all periods

Article 9

destroy

site object of special care / cleared and presented in a seemly manner

revealing of an underlying state

exceptional circumstances / what is removed is of little interest / underlying state is of great historical, archeological or aesthetic value / group decision

Venice Charter, 1964

Article 11

Article 14

value

Athens and Piraeus are minefields. One can hardly start any new construction without unearthing layers of the past. When that happens, one must take decisions: to destroy, bury, dig up or relocate, depending on the value of the findings. For almost a century now, two charters have been dictating the correct way to operate: the Charter of Athens (1931) and the Charter of Venice (1964). In a way, these highly-loaded texts are responsible for much of how the two-headed city is currently shaped. Indeed, the state in which most findings and ruins are today was for the most part directly prescribed by the set of values the charters offered. Though Charters present themselves as neutral documents, they are in fact highly-loaded, prescribing texts that push forward specific set of values, hence pushing one towards one action rather than the other. In fact, it is possible to map the Charters as flowcharts that balance between preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, reconstruction, bury and destroy. In the following drawings, the thicker the line is, the more likely that action is to be taken compared to the other ones.

preserve a setting / no new construction, demolition or modification Article 6

SOFIA CHARTER 1996 underwater

Article 3 - Funding Adequate funds must be assured in advance of investigation to complete all stages of the project design including conservation, report preparation and dissemination. The project design should include contingency plans that will ensure conservation of underwater cultural heritage and supporting documentation in the event of any interruption in anticipated funding. Project funding must not require the sale of underwater cultural heritage or the use of any strategy that will cause underwater cultural heritage and supporting documentation to be irretrievably dispersed.

Article 15 - International co-operation International co-operation is essential for protection and management of underwater cultural heritage and should be promoted in the interests of high standards of investigation and research. International co-operation should be encouraged in order to make effective use of archaeologists and other professionals who are specialised in investigations of underwater cultural heritage. Programmes for exchange of professionals should be considered as a means of disseminating best practice.

total excavation

Article 6 - Qualifications, responsibility and experience All persons on the investigating team must be suitably qualified and experienced for their project roles. They must be fully briefed and understand the work required. All intrusive investigations of underwater cultural heritage will only be undertaken under the direction and control of a named underwater archaeologist with recognised qualifications and experience appropriate to the investigation.

partial excavation materials collected should be treated during investigation, intransit and in the long term

post-fieldwork analysis + documentation

Article 9

intrusive the project must be exhaustively prepared, and made available to the community

FINDING

the vulnerability, significance and potential of the site must be evaluated, as well as consequences of the intrusion for its long term stability

planning

Article 2

preliminary investigation

curation

artefacts collected must provide for public access and permanent curation Article 13

in-situ preservation, non-destructive and non-intrusive techniques are preferred to excavation Article 1

non-intrusive

Article 7

in situ preservation

non-intrusive survey and sampling is encouraged / investigation must avoid disturbance of human remains or venerated sites

sampling

Article 1 public access to the site should be promoted Article 10

indeterminacy

Article 4 - Time-table Adequate time must be assured in advance of investigation to complete all stages of the project design including conservation, report preparation and dissemination. The project design should include contingency plans that will ensure conservation of underwater cultural heritage and supporting documentation in the event of any interruption in anticipated timings.

Article 10 - Site management and maintenance A programme of site management must be prepared, detailing measures for protecting and managing in situ underwater cultural heritage in the course of an upon termination of fieldwork. The programme should include public information, reasonable provision for site stabilisation, monitoring and protection against interference. Public access to in situ underwater cultural heritage should be promoted, except where access is incompatible with protection and management.

Article 7 - Preliminary investigation All intrusive investigations of underwater cultural heritage must be preceded and informed by a site assessment that evaluates the vulnerability, significance and potential of the site. The site assessment must encompass background studies of available historical and archaeological evidence, the archaeological and environmental characteristics of the site and the consequences of the intrusion for the long term stability of the area affected by investigations.

Article 1 - Fundamental Principles The preservation of underwater cultural heritage in situ should be considered as a first option. Public access should be encouraged. Non-destructive techniques, non-intrusive survey and sampling should be encouraged in preference to excavation. Investigation must not adversely impact the underwater cultural heritage more than is necessary for the mitigatory or research objectives of the project. Investigation must avoid unnecessary disturbance of human remains or venerated sites. Investigation must be accompanied by adequate documentation.

Article 2 - Project Design Prior to investigation a project must be prepared, taking into account: • the mitigatory or research objectives of the project; • the methodology to be used and the techniques to be employed; • anticipated funding; • the time-table for completing the project; • the composition, qualifications, responsibility and experience of the investigating team; • material conservation; • site management and maintenance; • arrangements for collaboration with museums and other institutions; • documentation; • health and safety; • report preparation; • deposition of archives, including underwater cultural heritage removed during investigation; • dissemination, including public participation. The project design should be revised and amended as necessary. Investigation must be carried out in accordance with the project design. The project design should be made available to the archaeological community.

Article 9 - Material conservation The material conservation programme must provide for treatment of archaeological remains during investigation, in transit and in the long term. Material conservation must be carried out in accordance with current professional standards.

Article 5- Research objectives, methodology and techniques Research objectives and the details of the methodology and techniques to be employed must be set down in the project design. The methodology should accord with the research objectives of the investigation and the techniques employed must be as unintrusive as possible. Post-fieldwork analysis of artefacts and documentation is integral to all investigation; adequate provision for this analysis must be made in the project design.

Article 13 - Curation The project archive, which includes underwater cultural heritage removed during investigation and a copy of all supporting documentation, must be deposited in an institution that can provide for public access and permanent curation of the archive. Arrangements for deposition of the archive should be agreed before investigation commences, and should be set out in the project design. The archive should be prepared in accordance with current professional standards. The scientific integrity of the project archive must be assured; deposition in a number of institutions must not preclude reassembly to allow further research. Underwater cultural heritage is not to be traded as items of commercial value.

Article 8 - Documentation All investigation must be thoroughly documented in accordance with current professional standards of archaeological documentation. Documentation must provide a comprehensive record of the site, which includes the provenance of underwater cultural heritage moved or removed in the course of investigation, field notes, plans and drawings, photographs and records in other media.

Article 12 - Reporting Interim reports should be made available according to a time-table set out in the project design, and deposited in relevant public records. Reports should include: • an account of the objectives; • an account of the methodology and techniques employed; • an account of the results achieved; • recommendations concerning future research, site management and curation of underwater cultural heritage removed during the investigation.

Article 14 – Dissemination Public awareness of the results of investigations and the significance of underwater cultural heritage should be promoted through popular presentation in a range of media. Access to such presentations by a wide audience should not be prejudiced by high charges. Co-operation with local communities and groups is to be encouraged, as is co-operation with communities and groups that are particularly associated with the underwater cultural heritage concerned. It is desirable that investigations proceed with the consent and endorsement of such communities and groups. The investigation team will seek to involve communities and interest groups in investigations to the extent that such involvement is compatible with protection and management. Where practical, the investigation team should provide opportunities for the public to develop archaeological skills through training and education. Collaboration with museums and other institutions is to be encouraged. Provision for visits, research and reports by collaborating institutions should be made in advance of investigation. A final synthesis of the investigation must be made available as soon as possible, having regard to the complexity of the research, and deposited in relevant public records.

Sofia Charter, 1996

3.1 Therapy should address root causes rather than symptoms. 3.2 The best therapy is preventive maintenance 3.4 No actions should be undertaken without demonstrating that they are indispensable.

3.12 Each intervention should, as far as possible, respect the concept, techniques and historical value of the original or earlier states of the structure and leaves evidence that can be recognised in the future.

1.6 The peculiarity of heritage structures, with their complex history, requires the organisation of studies and proposals in precise steps that are similar to those used in medicine. Anamnesis, diagnosis, therapy and controls, corresponding respectively to the searches for significant data and information, individuation of the causes of damage and decay, choice of the remedial measures and control of the efficiency of the interventions. In order to achieve cost effectiveness and minimal impact on architectural heritage using funds available in a rational way; it is usually necessary that the study repeats these steps in an iterative process.

3.18 Provisional safeguard systems used during the intervention should show their purpose and function without creating any harm to heritage values.

2.5 Diagnosis is based on historical, qualitative and quantitative approaches; the qualitative approach being mainly based on direct observation of the structural damage and material decay as well as historical and archaeological research, and the quantitative approach mainly on material and structural tests, monitoring and structural analysis.

3.20 Measures that are impossible to control during execution should not be allowed.

diagnosis

anamnesis The medical history (often abbreviated hx or Hx) of a patient is information gained by a physician by asking specific questions, either of the patient or of other people who know the person and can give suitable information, with the aim of obtaining information useful in formulating a diagnosis and providing medical care to the patient.

therapy and control

Medical diagnosis (abbreviated Dx[1] or DS) is the process of determining which disease or condition explains a person's symptoms and signs.

Therapy (often abbreviated tx, Tx, or Tx) is the attempted remediation of a health problem, usually following a diagnosis. In the medical field, it is usually synonymous with treatment (also abbreviated tx or Tx).

when opting for change of use, safety and conservation requirements apply urgent measures should avoid modifying the fabric in an irreversible way

VICTORIA FALL CHARTER 2003

urgent safeguard

rehabilitation

Article 1.4

Article 1.7 reparation over replacement / dismantling and reassembly only if necessary

dig up rediscovered

value conserve

rediscovered and exposed buildings require different structural solutions

no relocation unless urgent safeguard measures demand it Article 1.7

Article 2.4

exposed FINDING

depending on cultural context Article 1.2

indeterminacy

bury

reconstruction

Article 3.3 Article 3.15 Article 3.17

relocate

interventions made should be ketp to minimum / if any, there should be a balance between urgent safeguard, reversible changes and safety issues

any measure should be reversible, and not limit further interventions

reversible changes

Article 3.9

preservation includes not only appearance, but also building technology / imperfections and alterations should be maintained

preservation

Article 1.3 Article 3.16

Article 3.5 Article 3.7

indeterminacy

as is

destroy

appropriate considerations may justify different approaches to safety than the modern ones

indeterminacy

safety

if difficulty of evaluating the real safety levels, use an incremental approach

Article 2.6 Article 2.7 Article 2.8

Article 3.8

1.7 No action should be undertaken without having ascertained the achievable benefit and harm to the architectural heritage, except in cases where urgent safeguard measures are necessary to avoid the imminent collapse of the structures (e.g. after seismic damages); those urgent measures, however, should when possible avoid modifying the fabric in an irreversible way.

3.8 At times the difficulty of evaluating the real safety levels and the possible benefits of interventions may suggest “an observational method”, i.e. an incremental approach, starting from a minimum level of intervention, with the possible subsequent adoption of a series of supplementary or corrective measures.

observational method (incremental)

removal or alteration of historic material should be avoided / compatibility with existing materials should be established

restoration

Article 1.5 Article 3.10 Article 3.11 Article 3.14

indeterminacy

2.4 In archaeological sites specific problems may be posed because structures have to be stabilised during excavation when knowledge is not yet complete. The structural responses to a “rediscovered” building may be completely different from those to an ”exposed” building. Urgent site-structural-solutions, required to stabilise the structure as it is being excavated, should not compromise the complete building’s concept form and use.

1.2 Value and authenticity of architectural heritage cannot be based on fixed criteria because the respect due to all cultures also requires that its physical heritage be considered within the cultural context to which it belongs.

3.5 Each intervention should be in proportion to the safety objectives set, thus keeping intervention to the minimum to guarantee safety and durability with the least harm to heritage values. 3.7 The choice between “traditional” and “innovative” techniques should be weighed up on a case-by-case basis and preference given to those that are least invasive and most compatible with heritage values, bearing in mind safety and durability requirements.

3.9 Where possible, any measures adopted should be “reversible” so that they can be removed and replaced with more suitable measures when new knowledge is acquired. Where they are not completely reversible, interventions should not limit further interventions. 2.8 Often the application of the same safety levels as in the design of new buildings requires excessive, if not impossible, measures. In these cases specific analyses and appropriate considerations may justify different approaches to safety. 2.6 Before making a decision on structural intervention it is indispensable to determine first the causes of damage and decay, and then to evaluate the safety level of the structure. 2.7 The safety evaluation, which is the last step in the diagnosis, where the need for treatment measures is determined, should reconcile qualitative with quantitative analysis: direct observation, historical research, structural analysis and, if it is the case, experiments and tests.

1.4 When any change of use or function is proposed, all the conservation requirements and safety conditions have to be carefully taken into account.

3.3 Safety evaluation and an understanding of the significance of the structure should be the basis for conservation and reinforcement measures. 3.15 Deteriorated structures whenever possible should be repaired rather than replaced. 3.17 Dismantling and reassembly should only be undertaken as an optional measure required by the very nature of the materials and structure when conservation by other means impossible, or harmful.

3.16 Imperfections and alterations, when they have become part of the history of the structure, should be maintained so far so they do not compromise the safety requirements. 1.3 The value of architectural heritage is not only in its appearance, but also in the integrity of all its components as a unique product of the specific building technology of its time. In particular the removal of the inner structures maintaining only the façades does not fit the conservation criteria.

1.5 Restoration of the structure in Architecture Heritage is not an end in itself but a means to an end, which is the building as a whole. 3.10 The characteristics of materials used in restoration work (in particular new materials) and their compatibility with existing materials should be fully established. This must include long-term impacts, so that undesirable side-effects are avoided. 3.11 The distinguishing qualities of the structure and its environment, in their original or earlier states, should not be destroyed. 3.14 The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided whenever possible.

Victoria Falls Charter, 2003

It is possible to test the relevance of the charters and how they push their systems of value by feeding one of these new ruins of Athens - the abandoned fertilizer factory - into each flow-chart-charter, and comparing all the outcomes. What the test shows is that each option really does have distinct, precise repercussions on some elements of the building. For instance, s/p/pi/i/pe/pad/c directly impacts the basement of the building, while a/c/du/rs fences it off; v/c/du/rs/rus returns its shape to the golden days of the 1920s, and a/b completely buries it underground. One outcome (v/c/du/rc/a) even returns the toxic materials back to the walls and roofs of the middle part of the building.

vf/c/r/du/us/rh

vf/c/r/r/us/rh

vf/c/e/r/us/rh

vf/c/e/ai/us/rh

vf/c/r/du/us/rc

vf/c/r/r/us/rc

Charters do change precise elements of the building, but not always in a relevant way. In any case, the take away is this: if the charters were designed otherwise, if any words were to be changed, the drawings below wouldn’t look the same at all.

vf/c/e/r/us/rc

vf/c/e/ai/us/rc

vf/c/r/du/rc/p

v/c/r/p

vf/c/r/r/rc/p

v/c/du/p

vf/c/e/r/rc/p

v/c/r/rc/a

a/b

s/p/pi/i/te/pad/c

v/c/du/rc/a

vf/c/e/ai/rc/p

vf/c/r/du/s/om/rs

v/c/r/rs/vcp

a/c/r/rs

s/p/pi/i/pe/pad/c

v/c/du/rs/vcp

vf/c/r/r/s/om/rs

vf/c/e/r/s/om/rs

v/c/r/rs/rus

s/p/pi/ni/isp/s/pad/c

v/c/du/rs/rus

a/c/du/rs

vf/c/e/ai/s/om/rs

Relevance test of the charters on Piraeus’ abandoned fertilizer factory

v/c/r/rs/rus

s/p/pi/ni/isp/s/pad/c

v/c/du/rs/rus

“… we can affirm that the Charter of Venice is a historical monument that should be protected and preserved. It needs neither restoration, renewal, nor reconstruction.” - The Actuality of the Venice Charter, 1990

the Athens Charter. The latter being the original, and only promoting restoration, it follows that all charters, in a sense, also promote restoration. Indeed, if we fold the charters onto themselves, in a form of auto-archaeology, the word that appears the most, the only one needed, really, is restoration.

If the Charter of Venice is actually a historical monument - or better: a ruin - then why can’t we apply its own rules against itself? Considering the fact that all charters are built upon the first ones, and extend their scope, if we were to take the Victoria Fall’s Principles for the Analysis, Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage (2003), then we could either chose to apply it as is, or restore it to a previous state; that state being either the Venice Charter, or the Athens Charter. In a similar fashion, if we were to take the Venice Charter, we could apply it as is or restore it... to

Auto-archeology 10

There exists in the heart of Athens, a very fresh ruin, that went through all sorts of transformations over the course of its life, both program-wise and architecture-wise, before dying of fire the 13th of February 2012: the Attikon Cinema.

Attikon Plan

However, it feels like restoring it to any previous state, really, would be equivalent to leaving it to the same fate the charters left most archaeological sites in: frozen in time, unproductive, dead. But this singular, puclic memory is not the only thing we know about the ruin. There also exists multiple, conflicted, personal memories about the Attikon, just like with any other piece of architecture that became a ruin. Stories. Testimonies. And though they are conflicted, that doesn’t mean they are any less true than the singular public memory from which we currently restore most buildings. Indeed, memory and belief are strange things, since they don’t carry absolute truth, but relative truths; and that can only paint a more complete picture of what the Attikon really was: complex, ever-changing, plural. A Charter that would allow all of this to happen would be able to paint, over time, the truest, fullest version of the Attikon cinema, and ultimately make it rise to a more authentic version than itself: the Attikon, sublimated.

“...there is no latin word corresponding with our term “restoration” in its modern sense. Instaurare, reficere, renovare, do not mean to restore, but to reinstate - to make anew.” Eugène Viollet-le-Duc

*anew 1: for an additional time : AGAIN 2: in a new or different form

Attikon Section 13

GRWML { ACADEMIC } The flemish town of Wemmel (just north of Brussels) is an intricate combination of urban and rural land. The junction of these two is drastic, and often appears as a road that sharply dies into the fields and into nature. Taking into account the impeding expansion of the town, the focus of the project stands in the protection of these captivating tipping points where nature meets urbanity.

The dead-ends, that are the essence of this project, are nodes where logically the densification and the urban development of Wemmel can happen by the extension of the roads. In order to keep the atmosphere that the dead-ends exhibit right now, we want to prevent residential development by creating a non-radical border, a space that has meaning for the residents. By doing so, we hope that residents themselves protect the land and may use the green space.

ON ON ON

ON ON

ON UN

ON ON

ON UN ON

ON ON

ON ON ON

ON ON

UN ON

ON ON

ON OO ON

ON OO

ON ON

ON ON ON ON ON

ON ON OO

ON ON

ON ON ON ON

ON ON

UN ON ON ON

ON ON ON

ON ON

ON ON UN

ON ON

ON ON ON ON

ON ON

ON ON ON

ON ON

ON ON ON

We chose to develop the project around a school integrated in nature, where students have the opportunity to study in the green spaces. By implementing a school, we believe that a great range of residents, from students to parents, will have this area in consideration. The future of the school influences the future of the residents' children and the future of the town.

ON ON

ON ON ON UN

ON ON

ON OO

ON ON ON

ON ON

ON ON UN

ON ON

ON ON UN

ON UN

UN ON

OO ON OO

ON UN ON

OO ON ON ON ON ON OO

ON UN

ON ON

ON OO

ON ON

ON ON ON

ON ON

ON ON ON

ON ON

ON ON ON ON ON

ON ON

ON OO

ON ON

ON OO

ON ON

OO ON ON

ON OO

ON ON OO

ON ON

ON OO

ON ON

ON ON ON ON ON

ON ON

ON OO

UN ON OO

ON ON

ON ON ON

ON ON

OO ON ON

ON OO

ON ON

ON ON ON ON ON ON

ON ON

OO ON

ON ON ON ON

ON ON

ON ON ON

ON ON

OO ON

ON ON

ON OO ON

ON ON

OO ON

ON ON

OO ON ON ON

ON ON ON

ON OO

ON ON

UN ON ON

ON ON

OO OO ON

UN UN

ON ON

ON OO

ON ON OO ON ON

ON OO

ON ON

ON ON OO

UN OO

ON ON

ON OO

ON ON

ON ON UN

ON ON

ON ON ON

ON ON

ON ON OO

OO OO

ON OO

UN OO

ON OO

ON ON

ON ON ON OO

ON ON

ON UN ON

ON ON

OO ON UN

ON ON ON

ON ON

ON ON OO ON

ON ON

There are many clusters of dead-ends at the outskirts of Wemmel where other variations of such a project can be developped. Examples of these clusters are represented in the adjacent map of Wemmel.

UN UN

ON ON

UN ON

ON ON

Wemmel

LIMBURG SETTLEMENT { ACADEMIC } Flanders is at a point where the land everywhere has been consumed, and there’s an urgent need for a paradigm shift from a society of consumption to a society of production. Furthermore, the region is expected to welcome 1 million immigrants by 2050, and Limburg has the potential to be a significant hub. In light of this, the project wants to address the densification and transformation of existing settlements.

INSIDE-OUT - PROPOSAL FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE FILLED POLYGON SETTLEMENT IN LANAKEN

The typology of the filled polygon settlement consists of a typical polygonal settlement that has been subsequently filled by new settlements over the years. The existing settlements of the central part, built as social houses, consists of 2 mains typologies: one-storey bungalows, and two-storey single-family houses. The way the houses are layedout is quite interesting: they all form little clusters which share a small courtyard, but they don’t work like clusters, and we soon realize this is a missed opportunity - every single garden is fenced off from the other one, leaving the bigger, shared courtyard, empty and unused. Thus, the decision was made to densify the bungalows, and convert the two-storey houses (by removing parts of slabs or partitions) into common rooms and facilities, essentially transforming one cluster into a unit of collective housing. A new steel structure was then added to support new rooms on top of the existing bungalows, in addition to supporting a walkway and a canopy that would connect the housing units and the common rooms together, unifying the unit and essentially turning inside out the facades that were once facing the street.

Filled Polygon Typology

OVERALL SETTLEMENT PLAN, SCALE 1:750

A Missed Opportunity 21

CONVERSION { ACADEMIC } The “Openbaar Entrepot”, in the heart of Leuven, has already been converted in a cultural center a few years ago. This exhaustive project tries to imagine a parallel reality: what else could have been done?

AA' 17.92

15.95

Having carte blanche to imagine a new program, the old beer entrepot soon became a cultural venue, much needed in the area, complete with two venues and a cascading cafe, leaving the facade wide open for a scenic view on the canal ahead. The decision was also taken to add one more story to the tower in the rear, allowing for a more intimate, but comfortable venue. A few skylights were also added to provide lighting in the darker central spaces of the building.

11.90

8.66

5.42

BB'

8.96

5.18

1.10

-1.60

0.60

17.92

15.95

8.66

5.42

1.10

-1.60

Moreover, structure changes, ventilation, and acoustic were all thougth through and calculated to inform the design. The final product was a 1:15, exhaustive section of the building.

Existing Sections

LOGEMENTS MONTAGNE { PROFESSIONAL } Rue de la Montagne, in Charleroi, was once a busy commercial hub between the lower and upper city. In 2020, it is but a shadow of its fomer self, with most buildings abandonned and left to ruin. This project of 13 apartments with a commercial ground floor, however, has the ambition of being the first step to breathing new life into the street and neighborhood.

Patio Section

Montagne Section

R+3 29

The client bought 4 neighboring buildings that had to be linked together by removing parts of the existing walls. All the party walls and facades were otherwise kept, and new wooden floors are to be installed throughout. All new exterior walls - for the penthouse and parts of the 4th floor - will be made of white varnished ceramics, so they can be distinguished from, but not overshadow, the existing. The 35, rue de la Montagne also features a restaurant on the ground floor, with a kitchen that will be visible from both the clients and the inhabitants; a small patio, in the back, offers transparency and views throughout. 30

DÉTAILS 1:10

20.06

19.32

COUCHE DE FINITION BITUMINEUSE SOUS-COUCHE ISOLANT - 14CM OSB - 2CM LAMBOURDES - ÉPAISSEUR VARIABLE CLT - 16CM

BRIQUE ÉMAILLÉE BLANCHE - 11CM VIDE FILM D’ALUMINIUM ISOLANT - 14CM MEMBRANE D’ÉTACHÉITÉ LAMINÉ COLLÉ - 20CM PARE-VAPEUR ISOLANT - 7,5CM GYPSE - 2,5CM

DÉTAIL 1

DÉTAIL 2

DÉTAIL 3

DÉTAILS DÉTAILS

1:10

16.17

LATTES DE BOIS LAMBOURDES PLOTS - ÉPAISSEUR VARIABLE MEMBRANE D’ÉTANCHÉITÉ ISOLANT FORME DE PENTE CLT - 16CM

COUCHE DE FINITION BITUMINEUSE BLOC YTONG BOIS OU MAÇONNERIE - À DÉTERMINER SUR CHANTIER

FINITION - 2CM CHAPPE - 8CM OSB - 2,2CM LAMBOURDES ACOUSTIQUES - 10CM CLT - 16 CM

FINITION - 2CM CHAPPE - 8CM OSB - 2,2CM LAMBOURDES ACOUSTIQUES - 30CM CLT - 16 CM

DÉTAIL 6 DÉTAIL 4

DÉTAIL 7

DÉTAIL 8

DÉTAIL 5

DÉTAILS 1:10

4.81

FINITION - 2CM CHAPPE - 8CM OSB - 2,2CM LAMBOURDES ACOUSTIQUES - 10CM CLT - 16 CM

DÉTAIL 13

FINITION - 2CM CHAPPE - 8CM OSB - 2,2CM LAMBOURDES ACOUSTIQUES - 10CM CLT - 20 CM

DÉTAIL 14

DÉTAIL 17

Details Samples

L’ÉPICERIE { PROFESSIONAL } L’Épicerie de la Manufacture Urbaine, in Charleroi, sells localy produced items such as bread, chocolate and beer. Eyeing expension, they asked us to imagine a new hub on the periphery of the city. The result is a minimal design where furniture, walls and ceiling are black - to put the goods forward - with the exception of three pieces of furniture, all custom made out of wood.

Niv. +12

RESERVOIR A

SITUATION PROJETÉE

Comptoir

PLAN ET COUPE 1:50

286.5

163.5

RÉSERVE

LOCAUX

SOCIAUX

4 M2

prises encastrées ou en appliques

73/ 201

1 1 03 MAITRE03 DE L'OUVRAGE

VENTE 42 M2

Épicerie LAMU Ville 2

19114

inPROGRESS

La Manufacture Urbaine

73/ 201

Ville 2

frigidaire LAMU

25000 M2

INDICE

5000

DATE

1.25m

DESCRIPTION

ECHELLE GRAPHIQUE machine à café PHASE sketchdesign ECHELLE 1 : 25

SFL-01 SFL-01 9 49000 4900

Niv. +150

0.25m

lavabo

RÉSERVE FFL-01 FFL-01

DATE 04/12/19

INDICE

PLAN N°

LG-17

TITRE PLAN MOBILIER 1 silos à café

FFL-01 6250 SFL-01 6150 Niv. +90

Niv. +115 Niv. +80

FPL-00 FPL-00 2900 94 2900

Niv. +90

415

Niv. +20

200 12 5

FFL-GN FFL-GN 0 0

Meuble présentoir

frigidaire

FPL-00 3000 Meuble à l'entrée

Meuble derrière comptoir

SFL-GN SFL-GN -100 -100

Niv. +150

Niv. +115

0.25m

1.25m

MAITRE DE L'OUVRAGE

Épicerie LAMU Ville 2

19114

inPROGRESS Ville 2

Niv Niv. +90

La Manufacture Urbaine

INDICE

0.5m 0

0.5m

2.m

DESCRIPTION

DATE 04/12/19

TITRE PLAN MOBILIER 2

Niv. +20

SFL-GN -100 0

DATE

ECHELLE GRAPHIQUE PHASE sketchdesign ECHELLE 1:25

FFL-GN 0

200

INDICE

PLAN N°

LG-19

12 5

2.m

frigidaire LAMU

ELV - 2020/01/23 LAMU VILLE 2

XÉPICERIE XXX

INDICE INDICE DATE

DATE

PHASE PHASE

Meuble présentoir

DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION

ECHELLE ECHELLE GRAPHIQUE GRAPHIQUE

INDICE INDICE PLAN N°PLAN N° DATE 04/09/19 DATE 04/09/19

1 : 50 1 : 50 ECHELLE ECHELLE

0202

TITRE PLAN TITRE PLAN Coupe transversale Coupe transversale Niv. +115

0.5m

MAITRE DE L'OUVRAGE

Template 2019 inPROGRESS

MAITRE DE L'OUVRAGE

2.m

Niv. +80 Niv. +90 19114 La Manufacture

Épicerie LAMU Ville 2

XXX

inPROGRESS

INDICE

Ville 2

Niv. +90

Urbaine

Niv. +90

Ville 2

DATE

DESCRIPTION

ECHELLE GRAPHIQUE PHASE

Niv. +150

ECHELLE 1 : 50

DATE 04/17/19

INDICE

Niv. +20

TITRE PLAN Coupe longitudinale

200 12 5

PLAN N°

Meuble présentoir

Meuble à l'entrée

frigidaire LAMU

MAITRE DE L'OUVRAGE

Épicerie LAMU Ville 2

19114

inPROGRESS

La Manufacture Urbaine machine à café

Ville 2

INDICE

Niv. +150

DATE

ECHELLE GRAPHIQU

PHASE sketchdesign

silos à café

TITRE PLAN MOBILIER 2

Niv. +115 Niv. +80 Niv. +90

Niv. +90 Niv. +90

415

Niv. +20

200 12 5

Meuble présentoir

Meuble à l'entrée

Meuble

33 0

MAITRE DE L'OUVRAGE

Épicerie LAMU Ville 2

19114

La Manufacture Urbaine

0.25m

VERLIPACK { PROFESSIONAL } Where once stood a glass factory, in Jumet, Charleroi, and on top of very polluted grounds, a developer asked us to build 325 housing, as well as commercial spaces. We instead made a park.

The region of Jumet doesn’t have many sizeable parks, and with this project the opportunity arose to do two things at once: cover most of the polluted grounds - too costly to decontaminate with healthy earth, and offer a park to the Jumet residents. The challenge here was to reconcile the level of the existing streets surrounding the site with the new levels of the park. It was however possible to reach a net backfill/excavation balance of 0, which means that no earth had to leave or enter the site. All species of plants and trees chosen are local and resilient, to be able to flourish in a in such a difficult, post-industrial environment. The housing, on the other hand, is organized in pockets - islands - around the main polluted zone; they grow higher around the park, to offer views and a sense of security, and lower where they need to reconnect to the existing rowhouses.

Project and Polluted Areas Map 35

TÂCHES SOUS CONFINEMENT - 50CM DE TERRE + GÉOTEXTILE

+144.50

+144.00

AMIANTE

+144.00

+143.50

TÂCHE À RISQUE

TÂCHES SOUS CONFINEMENT - 50CM DE TERRE + GÉOTEXTILE

PARKING

LOGEMENTS/PARC

TÂCHE À RISQUE

+144.50

+144.00

LOGEMENTS

AMIANTE

RUE INTÉRIEURE

+144.00

+145.40 +143.50

AMIANTE

PARKING

JARDINS + PARKINGS LOGEMENTS/PARC

RUE INTÉRIEURE

LOGEMENTS

PARC

LOGEMENTS EXCAVATION DE LA POLLUTION ET ENVOI EN CENTRALE DE TRAITEMENT

AMIANTE (À DÉPOLLUER)

LOGEMENTS

JARDINS + PARKINGS

TÂCHES SOUS CONFINEMENT - 50CM DE TERRE + GÉOTEXTILE

RUE JEAN-BAPTISTE LEDOUX

AMIANTE

+145.40

+144.30

+144.80 AMIANTE

JARDINS + PARKINGS

LOGEMENTS

EXCAVATION DE LA POLLUTION ET ENVOI EN CENTRALE DE TRAITEMENT JARDINS + PARKINGS

PARC AMIANTE LOGEMENTS (À DÉPOLLUER)

RUE JEAN-BAPTISTE LEDOUX

AMIANTE (À DÉPOLLUER)

TÂCHES SOUS CONFINEMENT - 50CM DE TERRE + GÉOTEXTILE RUE J. WAUTERS

LOGEMENTS

JARDINS

PARKING

LOGEMENTS

RAVEL

GENDARMERIE

+144.30

+144.80

+144.50

+144.00

AMIANTE (À DÉPOLLUER) TÂCHES SOUS CONFINEMENT - 50CM DE TERRE + GÉOTEXTILE RUE J. WAUTERS

AMIANTE

LOGEMENTS

PARC

JARDINS

PARKING

LOGEMENTS

JARDINS

AMIANTE

AJOUT DE 50CM DE TERRE AVEC GÉOTEXTILE ET CHEMINEMENT PIÉTON EN REVÊTEMENT STABILISÉ

LOGEMENTS

RAVEL

LOGEMENTS

RUE JEAN-BAPTISTE LEDOUX

AJOUT DE 50CM DE TERRE AVEC GÉOTEXTILE ET CHEMINEMENT PIÉTON EN REVÊTEMENT STABILISÉ

VOIRIE EN ASPHALTE SUR EMPIERREMENT STABILISÉ ET GÉOTEXTILE (COMPLEXE TOTAL DE MIN. 50CM)

+144.50

+144.00

GENDARMERIE

+143.40

AMIANTE

PARC

LOGEMENTS

+142.90

AJOUT DE 50CM DE TERRE AVEC GÉOTEXTILE ET CHEMINEMENT PIÉTON EN REVÊTEMENT STABILISÉ

AMIANTE

VOIRIE EN ASPHALTE SUR EMPIERREMENT STABILISÉ ET GÉOTEXTILE (COMPLEXE TOTAL DE MIN. 50CM) JARDINS LOGEMENTS

AJOUT DE 50CM DE TERRE AVEC GÉOTEXTILE ET CHEMINEMENT PIÉTON EN REVÊTEMENT STABILISÉ RUE JEAN-BAPTISTE LEDOUX

TÂCHES SOUS CONFINEMENT - 50CM DE TERRE + GÉOTEXTILE AMIANTE

JARDINS

LOGEMENTS

RUE INTÉRIEURE

LOGEMENTS

JARDINS GENDARMERIE

+143.40

+142.90

AMIANTE

JARDINS

LOGEMENTS

RUE INTÉRIEURE

TÂCHE À RISQUE

Diagrams of backfill / cut zones 37

LOGEMENTS JARDINS TÂCHES SOUS CONFINEMENT - 50CM DE TERRE + GÉOTEXTILE

GENDARMERIE