| 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 — 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 — Les Habitations Jeanne Mance.
go
to program options
SITE
OPTIONS
1.
RENOVATION / ADDITION — Les Habitations Jeanne Mance
Renovations/additions to 60's high
and low-rise housing complex: "Repairing the urban fabric"
Program
issues:
• Integrating
sustainable student housing within an existing social fabric- lessons
in transformation and accommodation
Technical
issues:
• Recycling of materials (similar to Benny Farm)
• Improve performance of existing structures
• Strategic location of new construction
• Nature of new construction
Site
issues:
• How to better integrate into urban fabric
• Introduce private green space
• Reduce parking area
2.
NEW CONSTRUCTION
High and/or low rise urban in-fill: "Re-interpreting
the urban block"
Program
issues:
•
Utopian
community
Technical
issues:
• Passive solar
• Natural ventilation
• Appropriate materials
Site
issues:
• Introduction 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 ‚ 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.
Same 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 |
10
studios
101 single BR
10 double BR
Other
Shared facilities: library, community center, common eating/party room, exterior space,
to be determined
go
to site options and top of page
|