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