Team Representative: Hugues Hernandez (FR) – architect; Associates: Morgan Baufils (FR), Ariane Marty (FR) – architects
21 rue Saumenude, 33800 Bordeaux (FR)
+33 642094802 – email@example.com
M. Baufils, A. Marty, H. Hernandez
1. How did you form the team for the competition?
We have been working together regularly since we met at the school of architecture. In parallel with our individual professional activities, our collaborations allow us to develop a common approach around subjects of architecture, design, urban planning, and on the direction to give to our practice of the project.
Europan 15, in Floirac, located in the Bordeaux metropolis, presented itself as a local space-time, a place based on economic activities, so both rich and problematic. This site seemed ideal in order to be confronted with the theme of the productive city.
2. How do you define the main issue of your project, and how did you answer on this session main topic: the place of productive activities within the city?
For us, the main problem of the project was the establishment of a multiple territory, capable of showing resilience and addressed to a diversity of actors in order to create different synergies. Through a reflection on the imaginary of the production places and its capacity to make sense, we sought to request the place of productive activities within this actual monofunctional territory. The environment quality contributes to make a territory productive, that's why a work has been started on the site amenities as well as on the interior of the production spaces and their ability to fit new needs.
3. How did this issue and the questions raised by the site mutation meet?
Our reflection on the site and its future led us to an identification of the territory qualities with the aim to introduce productive activities within a fabric capable of offering meaning. By accentuating some site characteristics and associating them with new productive forms, the project tried to create a narrative around identifiable urban objects. The mutation integration in this development process went through a phasing, with a deferred use of site resources and by taking into account the project adaptability.
4. Have you treated this issue previously? What were the reference projects that inspired yours?
We already have had the opportunity to deal with similar issues but on different scales during individual projects.
Among the references and sources of inspiration invoked, we can cite the Villette Park project from OMA for the stratification implemented and the multiplicity of developed landscapes.
The figure of the caravanserai corresponds our desire of meaningful architectural forms that are inscribed in the collective memory. Its ability to create social and commercial links around flows, within an enclosure, confirmed his adaptability to the current challenges related to productivity.
Finally, a building like the Barbican Center in London interested us for its diversity and its interlocking of uses as well as for its spatial richness.
5. Urban-architectural projects like the ones in Europan can only be implemented together with the actors through a negotiated process and in time. How did you consider this issue in your project?
Our approach consists to reveal the site potentials, architectural, landscaped, economic, productive and human. The developed interventions use the territory resources and are examples of possibilities for the site.
It should be discussed and developed in consultation with local actors and competent authorities. Architectures seek adaptability and flexibility to allow the evolution of spaces and programs over time. Projects lead to setup an imagination in a territory devoid of practice.
The phasing of the interventions, punctuated by events will allow a progressive appropriation of new places while involving the various actors in the project process.
6. Is it the first time you have been awarded a prize at Europan? How could this help you in your professional career?
After being inspired by the Europan culture, we are glad to have participated for the first time and to have obtained a special mention. We hope that this distinction concretizes our common office ambition and that it contributes to allow us to be part of the discussion on strategic urban contexts.
Average age of the associates: 27 years old
Has your team, together or separately, already conceived or implemented some projects and/or won any competition? If yes, which ones?
Together of separately, we have participated in a number of competitions or calls for ideas dedicated to young professionals:
- 2020: Shortlist, Festival Architectures Vives 2020 - Transition
- 2019: Mention innovation, Palmarès Régional d'Architecture en Nouvelle Aquitaine - Le logement en question
- 2018: Finalist, Archstorming - Residential Stadium: Adaptive Reuse
- 2018: Finalist, Non Architecture Competition - Dancing
- 2018: Honourable mention, Arch Out Loud - Reside
- 2018: 2nd prize, Fakro - Before and After
- 2017: Finalist, Arquideas - Museum of the Ancient Nile
- 2017: Finalist, Archstorming - Unbuild the Wall
- 2017: Shorlist, Kalejdohill - Design a Story
- 2016: 2nd prize, Breeders Competition - Melbourne Tattoo Academy
- 2016: 1st prize, Ideas Forward - 48h Competition: Deluge
- 2015: 3rd prize, SNCF - Gare Saint Eulalie-Carbon-Blanc
- 2014: Honourable mention, M-Arch - New ways to live Venice