Habitat ’67 by Moshe Safdie
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
 

    Habitat was completed in 1967, built for the government as a part of Expo ’67.  It was based on Moshe Safdie’s thesis design of 1961, which investigated the possibility of a modular, three-dimensional building system.  His other goal was high-density living in a high rise urban setting that introduced features only found in a suburban garden home.  Safdie envisioned a project that was a three-dimensional urban structure of modules that could be pre-fabricated and mass-produced, and that would be adaptable to any site in the world.  The project was originally conceived as a multiple-use project that would include 950 residential units, as well as shops, offices, and institutions.  Due to limited government funding, it was downsized to only 158 units, which are made up of a total of 354 individual modules.  Modules are clustered along a spine of 3 hill-shaped structures, and they could be arranged to produce 16 different living spaces.  A single module measures 11.3m X 5.3m X 3.0m, and they are stacked up to eight modules high.  Most units consist of two (60%) or three (29%) modules, and some occupants have taken over adjoining units over time, increasing the size of their own unit.  The residents of Habitat ’67 purchased the building several years ago, and now manage it themselves.
 

Habitat Images

Plans                                                       Exterior Gardens
Section                                                    Stacking of Modules
Axonometric                                            Aerial View
 

Habitat ’67
Green and Not-So-Green Aspects
 

    For Habitat ’67, Safdie designed the corridors (pedestrian pathways) which are exposed to the outside to be communal, giving access to every unit, and opening into common spaces.  There are advantages and disadvantages to these exposed and poorly sheltered pathways; the fact that they expose the building to the exterior is good in the summer when it allows breezes to flow through the building and ventilate it, providing some natural cooling.  Alternatively, they are inefficient in winter, when the cold air flows through the passages, not only increasing the heating requirement of the units, but also making them uncomfortable on the coldest days.
    The modular, building-block form of the building also has advantages and disadvantages.  The modules are essentially stacked concrete boxes producing a double wall between units, which provides acoustical privacy and thermal mass.  However, the potential benefit of any thermal mass is eliminated as the box-on-box massing of Habitat leaves a maximum surface area exposed to the cold of winter or heat of summer, increasing energy use for heating and cooling.  Also, the building is not oriented to take advantage of the sun, as it would need to do to benefit from any passive solar heating in winter.  In fact, the building almost turns its back to the sun—it is aligned on a north-south axis.  The massing of the building does allow for excellent cross-ventilation across individual modules, and that may help to decrease summer cooling loads—or at least balance out their over-exposure.  Another benefit of the modules, is that residents have been able to take over adjoining modules, when they need more space, by cutting through the walls—not an easy task, but it has been done in several instances already, making the building flexible, and simple to grow in.
Every unit was provided with at least one outdoor garden terrace (on the roof of the unit below) so that everyone would have access to green space from their unit.  This is an excellent feature that is rarely included in urban buildings.  The green spaces are not only beautiful, but can be used by the residents to grow their own vegetables, and replace the natural environment that was disrupted in the construction of the building.
Had the project been fully realized, there very likely would have been cost savings to the method of construction making this a very economical building alternative.  If the shops, offices and institutions had been included, residents would not be as isolated as they now are, which would reduce automobile use and therefore emissions. The building, in co-ordination with its neighbour, has set-up a shuttle bus for the use of residents, that runs regularly to downtown Montreal, compensating for the isolation of the building.  Habitat has essentially become an urban building set in a suburban context, and hasn’t achieved the environmental benefits it could have. Concrete is the material most used in the construction of Habitat ’67, and upon being built in the 60s, critics suggested that exposed concrete was not a suitable material for use in a northern climate.  The concrete has held up extremely well, but only because of a rigorous and continuous maintenance program, which has no doubt made ongoing maintenance costs for the building higher than they need be had a more appropriate material have been used.  The plain concrete surface does have one advantage, however, in that there are no paints or special coatings to maintain.

Housing Settlement by Atelier 66
Distomon, Greece
 

    Atelier 66 was founded in 1965 by Dimitris and Susana Antonakakis, and the Housing Settlement they designed in Distomon, Greece was built in 1969.  They wanted to design a building appropriate for the society and culture that would inhabit it, rather than just produce a structure with the required number of units.  The settlement is located at the end of a route from the town, and is intended to be an extension to the town.  Located on a sloping site, the buildings descend the slope parallel to the contours.  The settlement is zoned parallel to the contours into three divisions: open-air spaces, semi-covered spaces, and closed units, and has 50cm thick walls that define the zones.  The project was conceived as a multi-use settlement including housing, shopping, recreation and a church.  It was also designed for ease of expansion in the future.  Much like Habitat ’67, the settlement is an arrangement of similar shaped modules, which are joined to create living spaces.  These modules are not pre-fabricated, however, and are arranged to two basic housing types: those which contain all their service needs in one volume and take up only one zone, and those which cover three zones, either breaking up or bridging over the open (public) zone in between.
    Atelier 66 seems to have several goals in their buildings: a desire to preserve the natural environment, avoid use of mechanical systems when natural conditions can be used, attention to siting the building in relation to views as well as climatic conditions, and the use of rational forms in organic assemblies—“combining the grid and the path”.

Housing Settlement Images

Plans of Units                                            Aerial View
Section                                                    Close-up View
Site Plan
Site Usage                                               Schematic Diagrams of Zoning and Energy Walls
 

Housing Settlement
Green and Not-So-Green Aspects
 

    Firstly, the settlement takes wonderful advantage of its site, resting comfortably on it, and becoming a part of it.  Its form is a result of the slope, on which it sits, unlike Habitat ’67, which is built on a structure intended to resemble a hill.  The buildings in Distomon are somewhat sheltered by their siting and easily accessed by all.
    The materials used in the buildings are local stone with wood sills and lintels, no doubt very well suited to the local climate and environment.  The building appears as it was taken directly from the land, and appears to need no major maintenance—not even any paint has been applied to the exterior—saving on long-term costs.  Also, the thickness of the stone walls protects the spaces from the heat, keeping them cool and comfortable.  The use of local materials is also good in that they require much less energy in being transported to the site, and the stone and wood used require little or no energy for manufacture as they are natural.
    The modular unit system much like that of Habitat ’67 works much better here, where the temperatures are always warm, and the large surface area allows winds to flow through and between units, naturally cooling and ventilating them.  Paying attention to the direction of winds and using them for natural ventilation is something that Atelier 66 has done in their other projects.
    All units are given direct access to public outdoor spaces and often have their own private exterior spaces.  Placement of windows and doors is in relation to these outdoor spaces, as well as to the needs of the unit to which they belong.  These outdoor spaces don’t seem to be as green and lively as those of Habitat ’67, however, likely due to the hot and dry climate of Greece, which doesn’t allow for the same type of plantings.
    Services are efficiently laid out along parallel service corridors which run perpendicular to the slope approximately every 12m.  This ensures that all units are close to the required services, using a minimum of material, and keeping all wires and pipes in common locations makes them easy to service.  This design also allows easy expansion of the settlement as “energy walls” can continue to be placed every 12m along the ridge or extended as long as desired when necessary for growth.  Theoretically, like in Habitat ’67, adjoining units could be combined for growing families.
    The mixed-use environment of the settlement is a great way of reducing emissions, as people will not need to travel as much for the services they need.  In this case though, it seems that cars are not all that common, so the savings of emissions may not be as large as in a similar North American model.  The mixed-use aspect is still great as a convenience for the residents, however.  The site is occupied in a way that makes it easy to incorporate several uses, and makes it easy to expand the settlement later on.
 
 
 

Back to bibliography, etc.

Home