A few weeks apart, the result of the parallel study mandates (MEP) for the Cherpines sports center (GE), and the investigation of the localized plan of the district (PLQ les Cherpines) where the project is located were made public. At the mere sight of the names of the teams selected – such as BIG and Zaha Hadid, figures of “starchitecture” of the years 2000/2010 – a certain skepticism sets in. We also wonder about the oddity of publishing the result of a competition before the PLQ concerned comes into force… especially since the project is partially implemented on another PLQ (Le Rolliet). Above all, we wonder who exactly this infrastructure estimated at 250 million francs is intended for and how it is financed.
The future sports center, planned for 3.5 ha, is part of a vast public-private urban development project located straddling the municipalities of Confignon and Plan-les-Ouates which ultimately promises more than 3,800 housing units and the creation of 2500 jobs. Supported by the commune of Plan-les-Ouates, the MEPs enabled the production of shimmering and ambitious images, some of which leave room for doubt: centre sporty or centre commercial? Can the architecture of mega-projects respond uniformly to different programs? While it is obvious that the winning project of Marc Mimram Architecture & Associates and collinfontaine architects is the one that fits best into the Geneva context, it is not so much the result of the competition that raises questions as the opportunism of this type of international procedure.
The object of the competition
From the first studies for the development of the neighborhood master plan (PDQ), the sports center was integrated into one of the “boxes” of the future Cherpines district – a grid inherited from the old agricultural network. As an extension of the existing sports center, the project covers a wide range of sporting and, to a lesser extent, cultural activities: 50 m swimming pool, 30 × 60 m ice rink, 1,200-seat multipurpose room, fitness center, accommodation, snowshoe center (more than fifteen courts), etc. Architecturally, competitors were asked to imagine a “neighborhood symbol with clear expressiveness.”
To see the results and the jury report, go to competitons.espazium.ch
In addition to a substantial and space-intensive program, the sports center aims to connect the various related projects in the neighborhood. On the east-west axis, it will constitute a stage between the residential sector of Rolliet, currently under construction, and that of Cherpines, whose adoption of the PLQ is planned in 2025. Between the route de Base and the Aire, it will articulate an industrial zone (ZIPLO), a future sports park, and the route of the new tramway, which divides the perimeter into two unequal parts by a diagonal. Like a keystone of the urban project, it is designed both as a centrality of this future “quarter-hour city” and as a factor of attractiveness on an intercommunal or even cantonal scale; a function that was that of shopping centers a few decades ago.
The procedure
The overall vision of a unitary and autonomous district located in two municipalities is confronted with their differential commitment, perceptible in the development of the MEPs1. Although the competition for the sports center takes place in the town of Plan-les-Ouates, which is the project owner, the programming explicitly takes into account the needs of Confignon. It is therefore surprising that only one person, without the right to vote, represents this municipality on the competition jury. Moreover, if the competitive dialogue concerning an infrastructure of such magnitude could, or should, have included Confignon, another actor is absent from the procedure: the GD Cherpines SA group, involved in the construction and financing of the district and which brings together two thirds of the owners2. This lack of representativeness of the parties risks ultimately leading to an evolution of the programming.
The complexity of the issues associated with sports infrastructure justifies the use of MEPs, a more flexible procedure than an anonymous competition. However, when the organization was awarded to Irbis Consulting, the latter convinced the commune of Plan-les-Ouates of the “uselessness of the Stample SIA [sic]»3or SIA 143 certification, and to cap the compensation of competing teams at a flat rate, taking into account the cost of the work and the fact that it will probably be carried out as a total contractor. There is a gap between the investment represented by the rendering and the mandate at stake. Only part of it will run until the building permit is submitted. In short, the organized competition offers the winner the possibility of producing a detailed and potentially scalable image of the project, but not of carrying it out.4.
The context
Tramway 15, already in service, crosses a vast plain which is being restructured. This is the context of the project: a tangle of town planning rules and land configurations. The perimeter of the sports center is spread over two PLQs, each being mainly attached to one of the two municipalities. Split in two, it was designed as an urban “balancing” piece allowing the equitable transfer of owners’ building rights across the entire district. However, neither the PLQ of Rolliet nor that of Cherpines imposes strong urban constraints on the sports infrastructure.
The scope of the competition includes twelve plots acquired or in the process of being acquired. Upstream of the procedure, the program is subdivided so as to be adapted to the land availability of the plots and the financial capacity of the municipality, thus influencing the on-site arrangement of activities and the phasing of the project. For example, a priority part of the program, including the swimming pool, focuses on the plots already controlled by Plan-les-Ouates. Questioned, the researcher in urban and economic geography Thierry Theurillat explains that, within the framework of a public-private partnership like this, the municipality exercises its surface rights as land owner then, as tenant of certain surface areas. activity, it guarantees its profitability5. The mechanism then makes it possible to secure part of the project while soliciting private investors.
The program
Signed by internationally renowned architects, the three proposals resulting from the MEPs suggest complex and attractive geometries, swirling roofs and wooden structures in keeping with the times. The architecture of the winning project smooths out a program that can evolve depending on future investments. The modeling of the envelope integrates several large sub-assemblies whose degree of completion seems to vary. In the jury report, there is talk of adjustments to the outdoor spaces of the swimming pool and optimization of the facade of the ice rink; the multipurpose room must be completely revised according to future operators; As for the accommodation center, it would not be surprising if it became a hotel and if the commercial and catering areas were expanded in order to finance the rest of the equipment.
The other invariant between the three projects is the bipartition between avant et back of the sports center, which is reminiscent, once again, of shopping centers. The winning project stands out for its organization of activities around a central esplanade facilitating interaction between mobility networks and the surrounding urban spaces (unlike the BIG project), while maintaining modest proportions (unlike the one by Zaha Hadid Unlimited). As a counterpoint, a motorized logistics access zone for the various programs is located to the east of the site. The project presents itself as a system adaptable to the needs of investors, globally defining circulation, alignments and templates on a site without major urban constraints. Competition images, technical diagrams and other detailed cuts seem to have been misused, presenting the competition responses as so many “leader products” for potential investors.
Too big to fail. Too big to fail, so complex and political that the architectural subtleties of the future sports center become secondary. More than a coherent result, the MEPs produced a marketing image of the project based on both the attractiveness of an international competition, the opulence released by the rendering boards, but also the possibilities of adjustment of ‘a generic program and architecture. The exemplary nature of the Swiss competition no longer needs to be proven as a procedure, but its frequent use for the implementation of gigantic and – potentially – contested projects calls for vigilance.
Notes
1. With more than double the population and the establishment of numerous high value-added companies (ZIPLO industrial zone), the commune of Plan-les-Ouates has more financial resources than Confignon.
2. The canton of Geneva, the municipalities of Plan-les-Ouates and Confignon and GD Cherpines SA – which brings together the current owners of nearly 73% of the plots – are signatories to an agreement relating to planning, financing and implementation of stage 2 of the Cherpines project in 2018. One of the missions of GD Cherpines SA is to fairly distribute building rights across the entire district, but also to conduct and finance studies and preliminary projects, or even PLQ of details, under the aegis of the canton and the communes.
3. Extract from Draft deliberation relating to the commitment credit of CHF 1,650,000 with a view to carrying out parallel study mandates for the sports and cultural facilities in room D at Cherpines in Plan-les-Ouatesof February 8, 2022, Municipality of Plan-les-Ouates.
4. The compensation for the three competitors in the second round of the MEPs is CHF 200,000, and would probably have been higher if the SIA guidelines were applied. The mandate awarded to the winner relates variably to the phases from pre-project to the submission of building authorization, or even partially to calls for tenders for the first programs to emerge from the ground.
5. Thierry Theurillat is a professor and researcher at the Haute école de gestion Arc, Neuchâtel (HEG-Arc/HES-SO). Part of his work focuses on the processes of financialization of sports and commercial centers in public-private partnership in Switzerland, a pioneer in this area.
Exhibit D – Sports and cultural facilities
Client: Municipality of Plan-les-Ouates
Procedure: Parallel study mandates at two levels, in selective procedure
Winning project: Marc Mimram Architecture & Associés and collinfontaine architects
Candidates 2e degree: Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) and Frei & Stefani Architecture and Development; Zaha Hadid Limited De Planta and Associates Architects
