SITE
AND PROGRAM SUMMARY
Mixed-use
cooperative housing complex accommodating transient (student) and
permanent populations within walking distance of the McGill campus.
Students
will develop their own programs and choose from two site options within
walking distance of McGill ñ an empty site favouring new construction
and a utopic community vision, or the transformation of an existing
low income community with renovations and additions to an existing
social housing project ñ Les Habitations Jeanne Mance.
go
to program options
SITE
OPTIONS
1.
RENOVATION / ADDITION ñ Les Habitations Jeanne Mance
Renovations/additions to 60's high
and low-rise housing complex: "Repairing the urban fabric"
Program
issues:
ïÝ Integrating sustainable
student housing within an existing social fabric- lessons in transformation
and accommodation
Technical
issues:
ïÝ Recycling of materials (similar to Benny Farm)
ïÝ Improve performance of existing structures
ïÝÝStrategic location of new construction
ïÝÝNature of new construction
Site
issues:
ïÝÝHow to better integrate into urban fabric
ïÝÝIntroduce private green space
ïÝ Reduce parking area
2.Ý
NEW CONSTRUCTION
High and/or low rise urban in-fill: "Re-interpreting
the urban block"
Program
issues:
ïÝ Utopian
community
Technical
issues:
ï ÝPassive solar
ïÝÝNatural ventilation
ïÝÝAppropriate materials
Site
issues:
ïÝÝIntroduction of semi-public space and shared facilities to urban
housing typology
PROGRAM OPTIONS
MUCS
"The MUCS project
is dedicated to the creation of a sustainable urban residence acting
as both a community center and a learning environment for Montreal
citizens and McGill students. To address Montreal's housing crisis,
MUCS proposes practical and reproducible solutions, founded on co-operative
living, ecological sustainability, and the union of diverse communities."
150
- 250 RESIDENTS, WITH 2/3 TRANSIENT (student) AND 1/3 PERMANENT (seniors,
families, singles, final mix to be determined)
TWO
PROGRAM OPTIONS TO BE DEVELOPED:
1.
COMMUNE / CO-OP SMALL SCALE
1.1.
Individual and double sleeping
/ study rooms with shared facilities: living / dining / kitchen /
bathrooms / laundry
1.1a.
Modules of 10-20 people
(limitation is difficulty of a single individual cooking for larger
groups, also loss of intimate "residential" scale with larger
size, difficulty of scheduling or coordinating larger size group ñ
especially students)
|
Advantages:
|
intimate
scale, manageable group size for regular shared responsibilities |
|
Disadvantages:
|
social
stress of enforced group living (could be alleviated if space
provides private dining/socializing option) |
| AREA |
(20 people) |
|
| Rooms |
single 10x10 (10) |
1000 ft2 |
| |
double 10x20 (5) |
1000 |
| Living |
10x20 |
200 |
| Dining |
15x35 |
525 |
| Kitchen |
15x20 |
300 |
| Bathrooms |
10x15 (3) |
450 |
| Storage |
10x10 |
100 |
| Laundry |
5x10 |
50 |
| Total Net Area |
|
3625 ft2 |
| Total Gross Area |
( + 20% or 725) |
4350 ft2 |
1.1b.
Larger modules up to
200 (monolithic)
Larger
modules require more organization for cooking, cleaning, with multiple
cooks preparing each meal for instance, and commercial equipment.
If large enough, size could justify commercial style food service,
with paid staff, cafeteria or cafe. Presumably some kitchenettes would
be required as alternative option to paid meal. Similar to assisted
living for seniors
|
Advantages:
|
less responsibility, greater potential
for increased amenities because of number of users |
|
Disadvantages:
|
more costly than cooperative, less
intimacy |
1.2a.
Modules of 10-20 people
Individual
and double sleeping/study with bathroom with shared living/dining/kitchen
laundry (laundry could be shared by 2-3 modules)
|
Advantages:
|
greater privacy which is better adapted
to couples as well as cultural differences |
|
Disadvantages:
|
social stress of enforced group living
(could be alleviated if space provides private dining/socializing
option) |
| AREA |
(20 people) |
|
| Rooms |
single 10x10 (10) |
1000 + 350 ft2 |
| |
double 10x20 (5) |
1000 + 175 |
| Living |
10x20 |
200 |
| Dining |
15x35 |
525 |
| Kitchen |
15x20 |
300 |
| Public Bathroom |
|
25 |
| Storage |
10x10 |
100 |
| Laundry |
5x10 |
50 |
| Total Net Area |
|
3725 ft2 |
| Total Gross Area |
( + 20% or 745) |
4470 ft2 |
1.2b.
ÝSame as 1.1b.
2.
CO-HOUSING
2.1.
Minimally sized individual studios, 1 BR, 2BR, 3BR units each
equipped with small kitchen / bathroom / living / dining but also
with shared large kitchen, dining / social hall / guest bedroom /
laundry
Module:
20-30 units (limitation is manageability of organisation)
|
Advantages:
|
social
benefits of group without drawbacks of constant contact and responsibility,
increased privacy, better adapted to couple and family life, more
affordable than full scale home |
|
Disadvantages:
|
less
efficient use of space than Commune, less flexibility than freehold
housing or "anonymous" rental because preferences of
the group impinge on individual rights (in terms of sub-let for
instance, selection of new |
10ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝstudios
101ÝÝÝÝÝ single BR
10ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝdouble BR
Other
Shared facilities: library, community center, common eating/party room, exterior space,
to be determined
go
to site options and top of page
|