Why Stacked Blocks Make Great Homes
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2024
- Click brilliant.org/Stewart Hicks to get 20% off your annual premium subscription!
Welcome to the fascinating world of pixelated residential developments! In this video, we explore the global trend of jagged and pixel-like architectural designs found in cities such as New York, London, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Toronto. Join us as we delve into the history and evolution of these unique structures and discover the advantages and challenges they present for modern living.
From the iconic Habitat 67 in Montreal, Canada, designed by architect Moshe Safdie, to the upcoming Habitat 2.0 in Toronto by architect Bjarke Ingles, we examine how these pixel buildings offer a fresh perspective on urban housing. Discover the intricacies of their construction and the influence of the bottom-up and top-down design strategies on their form and functionality. We explore the benefits of pixel living, such as increased outdoor spaces and a sense of individual identity within a larger complex, while also acknowledging the trade-offs and potential design flaws.
Correction: 00:10 This is Thailand, not Taiwan. I misspoke. My apologies.
_Membership_
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @stewarthicks
_About the Channel_
Architecture with Stewart is a RUclips journey exploring architecture’s deep and enduring stories in all their bewildering glory. Weekly videos and occasional live events breakdown a wide range of topics related to the built environment in order to increase their general understanding and advocate their importance in shaping the world we inhabit.
_About Me_
Stewart Hicks is an architectural design educator that leads studios and lecture courses as an Associate Professor in the School of Architecture at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He also serves as an Associate Dean in the College of Architecture, Design, and the Arts and is the co-founder of the practice Design With Company. His work has earned awards such as the Architecture Record Design Vanguard Award or the Young Architect’s Forum Award and has been featured in exhibitions such as the Chicago Architecture Biennial and Design Miami, as well as at the V&A Museum and Tate Modern in London. His writings can be found in the co-authored book Misguided Tactics for Propriety Calibration, published with the Graham Foundation, as well as essays in MONU magazine, the AIA Journal Manifest, Log, bracket, and the guest-edited issue of MAS Context on the topic of character architecture.
_Contact_
FOLLOW me on instagram: @stewart_hicks & @designwithco
Design With Company: designwith.co
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Architecture: arch.uic.edu/
#architecture #urbandesign
![This Incredible Megastructure Just Failed [Nakagin Capsule Tower]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vrwYUOg1bZQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I am glad that the engineering considerations were briefly discussed and addressed. As a civil engineer, my first thoughts are that there are much more surfaces to insulate and waterproof and there are so many cantilevers. In a world where we start considering carbon footprints and environmental efficiency, these pixel buildings need to be more carefully designed.
The space efficiency is also non-existent.
Carbon footprint is a scam. Look up who made it
Montreal could be harshly cold in winter. H67 is well known to be difficult and expensive to heat.
@@ericracine6305 more suited maybe to hotter or tropical areas.
@@JohnFromAccounting Yeah but a lot more livable than grey depressing apartment blocks. Homes should be made for people after all
Thank you for covering Habitat 67 and it's inspiration to current pixeled buildings. Moshe Safdie's masterpiece was one of my inspirations to become an architect.
This is one of my favorite building project.
I so want to build more of these buildings maybe with shipping containers
To try to avoid these monstrosities and bring architecture back to human dimensions and pleasing aesthetics?
@@Jorjgasm I have seen a colorized version of this build that looks super cool
@@jeffkrupke3810 I am sure and there is something in the aesthetic I like, but what will it look like in 30 years or if it will not be maintained? Nobody has ever passed by a run down modernist building and thought to himself "this is so romantic".
I loved Habitat 67 when I visited Montreal in 1990, they still hadn't "polished up" the World Expo buildings and I was free to roam and cycle around the island, there was hardly anybody around. Now the site seems to have been Disneyfied, and it's such a shame that so many of the original avant-guarde buildings were taken down, the same happened in London and Paris, what a loss. I really enjoyed hearing from the architect, what an amazing person
A lot of the Expo ground are now covered by the La Ronde amusement park (with some leftover buildings integrated into the park itself). The Montreal Casino is on the island and so is the Gilles Villeneuve racetrack.
Clever! im glad you interviewed the architect himself, it added a lot
Safdie was very much a citizen of Montreal, the city where I also grew up. He came as an immigrant, to a city with a complex urbanism that's fairly unique in North America, dominated by two large linguistic groups that tend to append various immigrant groups to them, based on the dominance of whichever of English or French prevailed in their country of origin.
It's a city that has a more intense form of community, especially in those days, than most others, with a lot of politics, and a lot of historical grievance, as well as fairly profound religious lines that were severe in the 1950's.
All of which is to say that I think the underlying driver of Habitat was to create a way of living that made forms of community, discussion, interaction, and even acceptance and cooperation inevitable. You can't pretend you don't live near other people, and the very fact that the windows of many units face the outdoor spaces of others, or overlook the routes people come and go is part of that, whether intentional or otherwise.
There's one more factor which is that Montreal was until the 1990's a dominantly rental focused city: it even had and still has a municipal law that prevents leases from ending except on (I think) July 1: everyone moves on the same day, and it's chaos! It was built as a rental city, with many many duplexes and triplexes, typically stacked and packed in tightly. There are rarely side windows, only light shafts and narrow separations, lots of skylights, including ones that continue down to the apartment below.
Many Montrealers grew up in these conditions, as did I. Habitat was a kind of upgrade to that way of living: more airy, more light filled, less oppressive. I think that in the end Habitat was a gift to Montrealers, more than to the world.
It opened in 67, and in the years before the Worlds' Fair opened, Montreal faced a huge crisis around poor quality housing. Already a poor city, with a rich elite, Habitat seemed to be a place that the rich would never take over: it was impossible to adapt it to the expectations of space and exclusivity; so it contained a kind of democratic ideal within itself. Commenters here who talk about the conditions of life within it may not really get how different life was in Montreal.
And then, Safdie was a kibbutzim in his Israeli youth. Surely that now lost socialist impulse to shape how people live was also part of how it came to be.
All of which is to say, I think that what Safdie showed is that architects who can't take account of these things may never succeed in creating architecture that isn't merely a monument. That immersion in the living ethos of the place is what never seems to make it into designed buildings: Habitat for me has always been the exception.
Very interesting and nuanced analysis. Greetings from a concitoyenne.
I was 10 years old, living in Montreal in 1967. What an exciting summer! We had "passports" and went to Expo almost every day. Habitat was so futuristic and cool!
I wonder why I find buildings like habitat 67 so aesthetically pleasing. Compared to a standard glass clad tower, it's just so wonderful to look at.
A standard glass clad leaves nothing to the imagination, no surprises and know new perspectives (it's the same which ever corner you look at). I also find buildings like habitat fun to look at and I imagine interesting to walk through. Also I imagined decorating is a unique challenge (if you like that sort of thing).
@@ange_109- Walking through it on a windy day isn’t, by any standard, a pleasurable experience. At minus 20C it makes you hate your life. There’s a huge plus, though: there is a (very, very small) chance to come across Moshe Safdie. He has always kept a unit for himself but visits less and less often.
@@brunodesrosiers266 wind tunnels are part of the surprise 😅 on a serious note I didn't consider this but thanks for bringing this up
Irregularities are pleasing. If something is homogeneous it can be boring, especially if that homogeneity is just a repeated grid as we see on most skyscrapers.
Probably because it has an actual aesthetic aside from "box people live in", or something like that?
When I was in undergraduate school for Architecture, I often used the "bottom up" strategy with stacked blocks to create the forms of the designs I did for mixed-use and multifamily buildings, with the shape of the units taking precedence over the hallways and other features. It often felt like this conflicted with the philosophy of the professors at the program, who seemed to favor a more top-down strategy of design.
I remember visiting Habitat '67 in the early 1970s. Its occupants had furnished the raw concrete structure mostly with fancy reproductions of antique French furniture.
The exposed concrete absorbs and holds massive amounts of water. Living spaces below decks also create problems for water proofing.
I think that's a basic problem of doing monolithic concrete. Which topological solutions akin to this one don't absolutley require, it was just logistically efficient, and also de rigeur.
As someone who has both worked on the design and witnessed the construction of the Toronto Habitat 2 (aka Toronto King West) I feel the need to point out the 2 very large oversight not mentioned here.
1. The building no longer has a circumferencial donut access corridor. There is a gap on the north east corner that transforms the access corridor more in the shape of a U or rotated C depending on how you approach it.
2. The high cost overruns of adapting the atypical pixelated design into the building. The "looks cool and not like other buildings" appearance of the facade has made the owners and contractors pay many times more for the pixelated look than a similar structure would have cost if it was even a little more regularly shaped.
Toronto has no creativity ... a city where it takes ages to finish one building or any construction .... The city of Toronto has been drowning in darkness for years and there is no hope for this city anymore
This was the basic idea with the Nakagin capsule tower in Tokyo. It worked pretty well but since the modules were designed to be replaced periodically they got worn down very quickly. They didn't keep the modularity fully in mind when designing it and having one person move/replace a module required many people to have their modules moved as well too. It was demolished last year.
Stewart did a video on this just 5 months ago
This basic idea is literally thousands of years old (Pueblo Peoples and probably others).
0:10 Said Taiwan while showing a picture of Thailand
Thanks, I misspoke. I added a correction.
I've always been a fan of the modular style, I really appreciate this as a follow up to The Nakagin Capsule Tower.
I really enjoy the way multilevel exposed walkways turn the claustrophobic feeling of a hallway into an extension of the space, it's a really inversion of the tight feeling of the pods. The appearance of a growing city, as you said, makes the building feel more full of life and engaging, certainly not the mundane or awkward Commie Tower we are so used to in Ontario.
I do think I would enjoy the building more if it were built on a first floor podium of a few stories. Housing some mixed use, particularly first floor commercial, would increase that city feel and create real engagement for residents. At the same time, it would reduce the level of redundancy needed in the modules by lowing the maximum load, potential saving cost. Such a podium could "tease" at modularity with some cut outs, creating a textured place feel for foot traffic, but might make the space feel more inviting by reducing the hidden corners.
This comment just saved this comment section for me. The need for a public space "podium" under the apartments is so spot-on. The big problem with auto-centric design is separation of residential & commercial spaces. One advantage of apartments in general (but especially the "commie blocks" (which so many on other threads hate)), is the density needed to support local business and the tax base to support more parks. I find comments (on other videos) of people who once lived in big apartment blocks in Eastern Europe (which are now being revived with color & new interiors) saying it was a great neighborhood. It was friends & neighbors who mattered. I think that's something a lot of people are missing. But you're right with the attraction to open walkways, which feel integrated into the whole space. I think towns & cities need modern, brutal, and traditional architecture in different places and sometimes mixed.
A variant on pixels that I play with in my brain:
A Ziggurat-shaped exterior (each floor is patio, slight overhang for extra space and feeling of enclosure around the exit) with all the houses on it, but stretch that Ziggurat into a prism, like a Toblerone. Then, within that Ziggurat's massive interior is a *HOLLOW* and a second ziggurat, smaller, like a Russian Matryoshka-doll of pyramid-prisms! That second, interior layer of structures and patios gets indirect, reflected light from slats of open air that separate homes above, AND the homes have balconies overlooking this interior plaza; shops and offices go in the smaller, interior Ziggurat's slots. Then, inside that *second* Ziggurat, you dig down to form a diamond-shaped cross-section, with an enclosed train station at the bottom, running *inside* the many-layered Ziggurats. The wide expanse surrounding that enclosed train station is for events - anything from concerts to art galleries to political town halls to high school chess tournaments, all enclosed and layered beneath the shop & office Ziggurat, so no noise or disruption occurs above, and attendees can hop back on the train easily. It creates separate 'enclosure' scales, and the connectivity between them, with open-air shops and green plaza meandering between the feet of the Ziggurat-hillsides.
I'm surprised that you didn't mention pre-street cities, like the Taos Pueblo, where instead of people accessing their homes via a street, they climbed and walked across the roofs of fellow residents.
May I just say I wholly agree with your username 👍🏻
Love love love the illustration of why bottom-up design is so much more human-centric, and the inspiration for how we can live communally while still preserving a sense of individuality. I think cities are crying out for more of this.
I enjoy this complex, but I do wish it was "softer" in appearance. Looking at all those sharp edges everyday seems stressful on an unconscious level, and if the units had a degree of curvature it would really make the whole structure look hilly and organic. I know that would be logistically more challenging, but I'd love to see someone take that on today :)
It's like it's halfway there. The pixelation gives a more organic and non-uniform structure. There's many more sharp corners than a standard box apartment complex, but the multitude of surfaces breaks up the pattern the eye sees with a conventional one-big-cube building.
Add in more dedicated greenspaces, at all heights, like tiny backyards, where overgrown hedges and vines and even full trees can hide many of the sharp corners, and that should give it the 'natural hillside' vibe you seek.
I can kind of get where you are coming from, but I definitely prefer this more square style.
Or maybe I've just played too much minecraft...
On a more serious note, I made something like this in mc once (on a smaller scale), and also tried similar blocky structures in different games. Idk, I just like it, quite cool to see it on a real life building.
My first thought on Habitat was thinking of the planning needed for the sewer hookups to work . . .
Or the water pipes...
@@PowerControl yes, to some extent, but since the water in is under pressure, it's much easier to make work, but sewer is still reliant on gravity to go away (I think, am a bit behind on new innovations)
Remember those central elevator towers and linear walkways along each level, the rhythmic nature of each spiral as at 9:41, and the fact the unit modules are in standardised shapes and rotated in a consistent way. While some of the pipe runs might travel down the side of a void space, I bet most of the vertical runs are in those elevator towers. The whole thing isn't as higgledy-piggledy as it appears from the outside.
The Terry Town houses from Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild are built kinda like this. Though they're more single family homes with the starting design being based on the families that move into them being more accustomed to living out of single large room houses. But they've got these single block designs that stack on top of each other and open on the connecting inside walls. And the roof tops of the first floor ones that meet up with second floor blocks become balconies.
And they're so bright and colorful. I love them so much and would actually love to live in one.
Would love to see an architect like this guy analyze them.
The homes of Tarry Town look so much more attractive than these.
This is a great video, but I do feel it only touches upon habitat 1.0’s weakness: those are REALLY expensive buildings to maintain. The maintenance costs there must be astronomical. (There’s a reason the construction style-remember this building was to have been a showcase of a new way if doing-was never really replicated, despite that being its initial intent.)
I don't know how your videos continue to get better and quality, amazing work as usual
Thank you for coming to Montreal, I hope you had a nice time here! Kudos on the video, the production quality is fantastic
I feel the 60s was a great era of architecture. Architects challenge them selves on designing esthetically beautiful building and yet don't afraid to employ new technology. Instead of simply subcontract the civil engineering part to someone else, the architects of that era participe actively in the engineering process.
Shame 90% of architecture from that era sucked, it’s all falling apart now and has aged poorly in both design and stability
@@Nostalg1a your name shows your negativity so is your writing
@@jeanbolduc5818 Not everything you don't agree is negativity, it's simply a factual statement, both neuro-aesthetically and materially.
One of Safdies inspirations is the Israeli Sukkoh balcony. An apartment is considered to have a "Sukkoh balcony" if the sky can be seen when looking straight up. Since this is what many families in Israel want, this became a very functional decision. Notice how in habitat 67 most apartments have balconies that get direct sunlight.
I enjoyed this video, it brought back memories too as I had always wondered how people got to their units (hallways , lifts) at Habitat.
I like the idea, but was told by someone who lived there as a child, that his parents didn't like some of the neighbours looking in on their terrace space. I suppose that is something to consider when placing the units at angles to each other.
My parents have owned a condo at habitat for years. I love it there but there are definitely a bunch of problems with the building
They are more problems with new cheap buildings skyscrapers than Habitat 67
@@jeanbolduc5818 yes but also no. You clearly have never lived at habitat
First of all HAbitat67 units are not condominiums .... before writing false information ,and negative ones , get the facts and Be Impeccable With Your Word ... you do not own the truth
@@WorldRaceMVG you dont know me and you do not know where i live . you are so bad educated
@@jeanbolduc5818 yes they own a 2 cube. Which comprises of 2 cubes. Together it makes a single condo.
An architect's dream.
A delivery service nightmare.
I've seen many photos of habitat 67 but never realised that its design is not only beautiful but has major benefits for the people living there as well! Thank you for a great video.
Bottom up units frankly look amazing to live in and that to me is the primary purpose of architecture.
Habitat 2.0 looks cool from the outside, but as a Minecraft girlie myself, I agree that the triangular rooms and long, windowless corridors are NOT IT.
Sometimes the design can be mathematically efficient, but that doesn't make it cozy.
I wouldn't mind walking through a mock-up of Habitat 2.0 in Minecraft to see how it feels though lol
Edit: RIP Nakagin Capsule Tower 😢💔 you were too cool for this world.
Great look and design, horror in maintenance. Habitat 67 costs 1600$/month just in condo fees (add to this your mortgage). A simple rectangle building, the condo fees will go down to 300-400$ a month for a building as old as this one.
Thank you for this essay! As someone who lives in Montreal and has visited Habitat a couple of times (and driven past it hundreds), I appreciate the history and the insight. This building is so iconic, that years before I moved to Montreal I had seen it in "The Disappearance", which was shot in and around Habitat. One point I would make, though, is that as fantastic a piece of design as it is, it is not exactly "climate friendly". Montreal winters hover in the -10C range (and frequently in the -20C), with a lot of snow, and Habitat's connecting walkways (beautiful as they are) require full winter gear to go downstairs and pick up your mail. 8-0
I just LOVE the Habitat 67!!!
I’m surprised building out of old shipping containers did not find its way into this video. Are there any adaptations at scale of containers? Or is it more stacking a few to make one home?
Thanks, Stewart! This was more educational than expected.
Amazing video! You do a great job of showcasing the building's essence and form that I only understood when visiting it :)
You should do a video worn Moshe Safdie about memorial design! He was also the architect behind Yad Vashem’s main museum.
I loved the remark Moshe Safdie made on a fractal approach. I believe that it holds many advantages, since it greatly increases your sense of your own home. To be able to have windows that face three directions or more rather than just one makes a big difference, just as the fact that you can identify the boundaries of your own space more easily. But it's fascinating also that he was the first to recognise that it diminishes efficiency on many fronts. I think this asks a very important question: will we want to favour fractal (or similar) buildings, for the benefits they bring to humans, making them thrive, or will we favour efficiency above all, including to protect our climate and planet? I would love to see how things will go, except that I already know that in architecture, the 'architectural gesture' is going to trump everything else, and will just distort the equation.
Also, can we get the full interview with Moshe Safdie?
Brilliant video. I live nearby the Ricard Bofill’s Walden building, and this video has helped me understand a little better the aims -not merely aesthetic- behind such a radical approach.
Love your well documented videos, specifically on residential buildings, so I got a request/idea/proposal for you: what about a video on building on very sloppy grounds, and how to match its limitations with the new prefab construction techniques.
Again, many thanks for your valuable work of looking beyond shape and tech in architecture 😊 Great channel, indeed!!
An interesting analysis of the pros and cons of this design concept and the different realities of the execution of the principals. Makes me appreciate Moshes design more than I did when i worked at the practice.
Ur KILLING the game bro, nobody is gonna make archtecture videos if you keep doing such a damn good job
I so badly want to "flatten" all those voxels into a neat single rectangular building
The building in 0:11 is Maha Nakhon tower located in Bangkok, Thailand, not TAIWAN.
Habitat 67 is a fabulous piece of architecture and a very interesting concept. I love it and I looked seriously into buying a unit in it, but was put off by three things. First, almost every surface - walls, floors and ceilings - are exposed to the weather, and are poorly insulated. This means that the building overall is incredibly inefficient thermally, so there are issues of thermal comfort, and it costs a fortune to heat and cool. Secondly, because the units are widely dispersed, the circulation is very inefficient, with lots of exposed concrete. Coupled with all the exposed surfaces in the units themselves, this means that there is an enormous amount of exterior surfaces that must be maintained in a very harsh climate. Again this is incredibly expensive. These two factors - thermal inefficiency + exterior surface area - make the condo fees for living in this complex at least twice as high as the average condo in Montreal. While the price of buying a condo in the building today is competitive, the high condo fees make it hard to afford. Third, the building is always shown from the exterior views, which are wonderful and are its best face. The view from inside of the huge void underneath the structure, however, is pretty unfriendly - intimidating even. Finally, while no longer a factor in the cost of buying a unit there (the costs have artificially normalized over its checkered ~ 57 year history, including years as subsidized housing), the method of construction is very inefficient structurally due to the excessive redundancy required as compared to a simple structure with loads concentrated in specific points where they can be addressed by a much more efficient column and beam (or flat plate) structure.
Amazing video. Have always had a hard time comprehending how Habitat works. Thanks Stewart.
You got me thinking here. Structuralism, as developed by Dutch architects like Hertzberger, might somehow being a way of combining 'bottom up' and 'top down'. It does start from units, both structurally and functionally, and then repeats and arranges these in a larger hierarchy.
Your video is a great illustration as to how architecture has largely become more about shape then about substance. There are of course still amazing buildings being made, but many lack imagination and are more about creating and selling a certain image. For inspiration, I often feel I have to go back to the post-war decades, maybe up to the eighties.
I've always found striking similarities between Habitat 67 and the Taos Pueblo Houses. Both uses modular designs to create private spaces in a community setting.
Montreal is very hot in the summer and very cold in the winter. The H67 design maximizes surface area, increasing heating and cooling costs as well as maintenance problems. It might be appropriate for Southern California, but few other locales.
Grade A video yet again! Great that you have highlighted both pros and cons of this way to design.
In principle I like the piles of boxes, and would err toward the bottom-up end of the spectrum. (I found this video quite fascinating, because it aligns with some ideas I hold somewhat dimly in my amateur head about how space should be organized. It's great to see things with these kinds of characteristics "in the flesh" - and executed by pros.)
There's something in being able to identify your own home from ground level, although suburbanites make do with low levels of uniqueness all the time without concern, so it's probably not a crucial factor. It's probably more important for the outside to just "look OK" (or nice, if possible), as a whole - as a matter of optional decor.
What spoils things is that these places have roads too close to them, as well as other buildings on at least one side. I'd say if you could have everything your own way, and weren't forced into compromises, you'd want your pile of blocks to stand alone in lots of green space. (And you'd want individual connections to individual gardens within those green spaces, and not just parks. This is a visual as well as a lifestyle quality. "Pixelated parks".)
The way I see it is that if you have spaces where the wind can blow through, you don't have to worry about wind loading that much, so can go tall. (You might have problems with wind howl, though. My mother lives in a complex of single storey garden units, where if the wind blows hard, it shrieks through the eaves for some reason. It's harmless, but makes a small storm much more dramatic than it really is.)
A unit should have a pitched roof (just pitched enough to direct some run-off, and ensure that nobody can ever use it as the floor of some future extension by enclosure), accessible from below as a kind of "shaded balcony". (I prefer plants to be down in the soil, and for "plant decor" to be artificial in a tall building. It seems a small benefit for lots of inconvenience, to allow for things like trees to grow there, especially if you plan to satisfy peoples need for contact with greenery to take place in garden allotments secured by active use.
If you had such "balconies" on top of each unit, nobody would hear the people upstairs thumping around, which cancels out at least one of the objections detached home fans have to high rises. You would also be able to fit a section of glazed "greenhouse roof" over the living room to let in more light (and provide a bit of nomansland for adventurous cats that might otherwise go over the edge - but would probably be scared of walking on glass). It might even be worthwhile putting in skylights over the rooms further in, just to catch a little bit of ambient light - but maybe not, given it's going to be shady far back.
I would just abut one block against the next, but would separate them (if possible - cost implications might be ridiculous) with cavity walls of transparent material. So on the "sun-facing" wall of the building you have a tall glass window between each unit, letting some light in to scatter off "frosted glass" in a translucent cavity between units. So when you walked in, you'd have a glassy or luminous wall on the "neighbour side" gathering natural light, and making things nice and hot and stuffy. This "glass cavity wall" would extend right up to the "balcony", so maybe one and a half floors worth of it. Or not. It might be a stupid idea. I just like the idea of the Sun finding a way in right to the dark side of the unit, that's all.
Boxes done this way might not look all that nice from the outside, I suppose, but they would allow nice convenient straight access corridors within, for one. And if you used enough mirror glass outside, your building might look like the sky. Sort of. With dark patches where the balconies are. The balconies would still break up the outline a bit.
You could "waste" a bit more on access corridors, just for the sake of making individualization possible. Have a passageway that is maybe half a meter to a meter wider than necessary, and made unusable right up against the units by having little "privacy walls" protruding into the walkway space. (Maybe even part of some frosted glass cavity that lets in sunlight to some extent? -- Hmm ... if that went all the way up to the very top of the building, and you sealed off between vertically separated units with clear glass - because you don't want to pipe the sound from the upper floors all they way down, and vice versa, so you'd have to seal off floor by floor - ... So if you had just about a literal "glass tower" right to the skyside, then you'd get quite a lot of light down there, because it would be facing the sky all day.)
I've gone astray. Wide access corridor. Take back a little "garden" of that space back in front of each unit. Nice place to put statues, found objects, fountains, urns with Granny's ashes in them, or beautiful beds of cloth roses. Your very own little faux-front-garden by your door. It would make the passages seem less confining, too.
The glass could go over the passage roof, couldn't it?
I like the idea of a parallel services passage running alongside the usual one. Units on one side, only. The idea is plain-view routing of pipes without having to fight off those who can't appreciate how beautiful that would be. Pipes, cables, phone lines, whatever, all running in a service corridor the maintenance crews can get at easy, diagnose easily, work on easily in adequate space, when need by. Couple that with things like triple redundancy in your electric and internet connections and you could make the place quite robust.
The roof of that services passage would be part of your "balcony", where you could go and look out at the view you can't see by just gazing out of your lounge window. It should be not quite crawl space, but should probably require a bit of bending of the head for most adults to move around there. (Again as a "do not modify affordance".)
It would seem to me that if I heated my mid-floor apartment, at least some of that heat would find its way up to your unit, above me, saving you some electricity (and so making me a happier person for having been of service). There must be some potential energy benefits in taller buildings? Or do the stronger winds higher up negate all that?
This is an interesting build idea and I'm a fan of adding some variety, but builds like this NEED to somehow incorporate businesses to occupy some of the "units" in order to further promote a sense of community and financial stability in the long run. Although I'm not an architect, I'm obsessed with the concept of living sustainably. By adding places to shop within established neighborhoods, people can have an extra reason to walk instead of drive places. We have more social interactions by walking which means more physical and mental health benefits.
By having the opportunity for people to work near where we live, we can reduce the cost of infrastructure significantly by having less wheels on our roads which then allows those who HAVE TO commute for work to be less impacted by traffic. If most of our errands and work sites are not completed by car, then perhaps we could promote better public transit options.
The family structure could benefit a lot by not having to travel so far to window-shop, go to a friend's home, go on a date, etc... Children can become much more independent at a young age when the places or people they want to see are available to them without a chaperone. Perhaps stay-at-home parents can be come proud enough to decorate more for their home and become friends with neighboring parents.
Additionally, think of the benefits over numerous years of recognizing neighbors and fellow shoppers who are local to your neighborhood. You might not yet know those people on a 1-on-1 basis, but recognizing people as part of your 'village' might be the key to feeling safer in your neighborhood.
And don't get me started on the ecological benefits of this hypothetical neighborhood. 😆
Habitat 1.0 looks like a beautiful place to live. It reminds me of those stereotypical Greek coastal villages with their blue roofs and shared spaces.
I really love your channel, Stewart, and I was excited to see this video.
The “pile of blocks” appearance is reinforced by the presence of an angle of repose among this awesome architecture. Thank you for another awesome video, Stewart.
I've never heard of Habitat 67 but I absolutely love it!
thanks for covering Habitat 67. seeing this building was really the first time I ever contemplated architecture as an art form.
You ever see a cathedral? Habitat 67 is so dystopian looking.
Habitat 67 is an amazing space to visit and live in !
Tout à fait!
It's interesting that you mention shading and reduced air conditioning costs as a benefit-when these projects are in Canada. Doesn't the increased surface area increase heating costs? It's true that the summers in Montreal are often irritatingly warm, but the winters are lethally cool.
Right next door to Habitat 67 is Les Tropiques du Nord, a building whose SW facing side (towards the river) is a glass curtain atrium forming a huge greenhouse. And yeah, Montréal. Why they decided to build a city there, I'll never know. Horrible winters, horrible summers, and short, short springs.
@@TristouMTL Same reason as Quebec City? Controlling river traffic at pinch points was how governments made money before they invented income tax. And Montreal was indeed rich until they, um, incentivised the financial industry to relocate to Toronto.
But yes, I've often said: Montreal, lovely, except for the location.
@@stephenspackman5573 location's great outside of those things. The politics is the bigger problem.
@@weatheranddarkness Well, yes. And the politics.
@@TristouMTL You are horrible
You are an archetypal architect! Not a single word about cost!
At this point, I'd live in a shack if I could own it
This video is very well done and helpful !
I’m a architecture student and my studio work this semester is how to make the urban
Environment more fitting for human
And the habitat 67 is the best way to do so!!!
Mr. Safdie's work is really inspirational. I would love to see something built like this as a mixed use and mixed income replacement of some of the bombed out blocks of my own Mid-west city. Possibly clad parts with the leftover bricks, and add architectural elements that mimic the historical buildings that are being destroyed by abuse decay and neglect of slumlords.
Marvelous episode! ❤
Next time you come to Montreal check out a 10 story building called "La Pyramide" by the St-Lawrence river in Verdun. Built in 1978. The 150 appartment building has over 50 different floor plans with nice terraces. It is not perfect but the architect had a good idea that could have been refined on the 2.0 version.
As always, this was insightful and illuminating. I would have like some more fine-grained details about "efficiency," in particular the number of units per lot and cost per unit to construct.
Wikipedia has an article that has some of that information.
Also, Habitat 67 has their own website.
I hope that is helpful.
No mention of Sydney's Sirius, public housing block built in the 70s. Iconic for so many Sydneysiders, being directly next to the harbour Bridge, its teardown plans got turned into a luxury redevelopment.
A notable mention would also be the Terrassenhaussiedlung in Graz/Austria planned in 1965 and built in the early 70s. People still love living there.
I like this, in a way that I didn't like the line-community idea. I can imagine being a kid growing up in this neighborhood, having all of these stairs, bridges and nooks and crannies to explore in relative safety. I could imagine small shops and businesses integrated with homes for a great walkability score. The "inefficiently" load-bearing properties of all levels means that it could hold up gardens, fountains, and even mini-parks. And it's not boring!
stacked blocks are mainly funny which is the main reason
Habitat 67 was one of the reasons I moved to MTL actually, representing how much I like the architecture there. It's not a flashy city, so you have to dig a bit sometimes, but there's tons of stuff to find. For quite some time, its downtown towers were stuck in the 90s, but a recent building boom has given it just enough new stuff for it to not look long in the tooth. And its brutalism, oooooh, its brutalism. MTL seems like Victorian warehouse meets Jetsons meets brutalism on steroids sometimes, and it works very well.
Flashy ? you mean bland urban development like Vancouver with all the same architecture and Toronto is the same , all concrete and glass bland towers. Montreal is a UNESCO design city like Berlin with 400 years of rich architecture you will not see in north america ,with magnificent churches and the largest urban park in Canada
A very interesting architectural design. Usually I'm more in favor of classical architecture - I think those styles feel more lively than modern options, which tend to feel overly manufactured and dead - but this block design is really appealing. It reminds me of nature, perhaps a village built into a mountain side. As Hicks said, it looks like a small city rather than a building. I think this is a great example of how modern architecture can still be beautiful and inspiring. A proper city built around cubes would be very interesting to see. I'd love to see more of these alternative, modern architectures that feel more human focused - fewer glass towers and more designs at the human scale.
Container home communities use H67 as an inspiration. But I really think there is a way to improve on H67 that is not just stylized top-down. The units can provide shelter for each other. We just need to keep working on the design improvements
Ya, I think you're definitely right. I feel like the inspiration has been limited to aesthetics.
Nicely done... subscribed now. Interesting prior vids I can see myself watching. Quite content dense...👋👋👋
Habitat 67 was a worthy experiment. Has Safdie ever returned to this concept on other projects?
Habitat 67 looks so pleasing to the eye and nice to live in too. I wish we built more things like that.
Weird to see the city I live in featured on your channel (since I mostly expect Chicago-Based stuff) but awesome!
How do they do the plumbing in something like Habitat 67?
I like your content. I saw the piece on Chicago windows before a trip to Chicago. Yup they are everywhere. I now recognize them in Kansas City, MO. My friends are suggesting that I stop pointing them out. They say they "get it."
You visited my city! Awesome!
Did you get a chance to check out some other cool stuff in Montreal? Le Stade D'Olympique as an example, also Vieux Montreal and Le Plateau have lots of interesting features.
At 0:09 this is Mahanakhon Tower in Bangkok, Thailand. Not Taiwan.
I know that a Pixel building like H67 is probably a nightmare to waterproof and heat but the human element is being overlooked by its detractors, I think. It was built in 1967 but it's still going strong and looks well cared for. Not a lot of buildings can boast that in this day and age. The beautiful and creative design with its emphasis on the unit and adding outdoor spaces ensured that the people living there were happy and proud of their homes, so they cared for it. I agree that construction likely had a negative environmental impact but the fact that it's still standing strong and in use means it's been better for the environment long term than if it had crumbled, been knocked down, and replaced with a more environmentally friendly building.
Focusing on efficiency alone is how we ended up with so many ugly functionalist apartment buildings that crumbled into disrepair. Buildings, especially residential buildings, need to have beauty so we love them enough to put in the time, effort, and money to maintain them. Form and function need to be in balance.
There is a demo you can download and run if you have a decent computer that fully renders the full Habitat 67 as it was originally envisioned as a full town in a small block of buildings all interconnected.
habitat 67 - still my favourite housing unit after all this time. I always hoped to see the formula elsewhere too. I guess costs were the issue.
theylove living in Habitat but they don't love brutalism...many of the units at stuffed full of old lady furniture. i've been inside Moshe's unit (which he just donated to McGill University) and it a very light and bright and the views are incredible...what's a shame is that it used to be social housing and now it's some of the most expensive real estate in Montreal.
These buildings come with disadvantages, for energy efficiency, thermal comfort, maintenance costs, survivability over time. I too found the complexity of Habitat 67 to be intellectually pleasing, but the older I get the more I realize that the key for the best architecture has already been developed through trial and error over millennia, and now we are just deluding ourselves that we are exploring the potential of new technologies (which is fine), when we are, in fact, undergoing a cultural revolution where we repudiate everything we have learned in favor of narcissistic originality and standing out from the cityscape as opposed to blending in. Whether we are discussing wellbeing, biophilia, environmental impact over lifetime, property values, energy efficiency and passivity, walkability, the older ways to build are still the best overall when paired with modern conveniences. And the public also recognizes this, with 70% in the US preferring "classical" architecture (meaning anything but modernist unornamented stuff). I will admit that I like some of BIG's projects, like Mountain Dwellings, which was a good way to mask a parking garage.
It is a maintenance nightmare, made for high fashion architecture and not very future-proof.
I'm totally fascinated by Habitat 67. It's one of those complex structures that I think even the architect wasn't fully realizing how it would impact and work on a human scale. And the 2.0 building is a 5 min walk from my house. The prices of those units are wildly expensive. I'm wondering if it will end up working. It's certainly an interesting location next to, and in behind and above other buildings. There's another development just to the south you might want to review. I think it's called the Well. Spadina and Front St.
This kind of aesthetic is the hardest one to actually look nice
great essay!
at 0:10, it is Mahanakorn in Bangkok Thailand not Taiwan
I remember reading about Habitat 67 in My Weekly Reader when it was pretty new. I thought it looked cool.
i fucking love buildings or stret with a bunch of corners, layars, edges and nooks. it just ticks sonething in my brain. feels cozy and happy
Awww man, Stewart came to Canada‽ Welcome Stewart!!!
You'll spend more time inside than out, so how do you design a 600 sf space (less interior walls) so that it doesn't feel like a glorified dorm room? Ignoring the dated materials, that kitchen in the Habitat 67 building is a typical design from someone who doesn't cook.
And as several have noted here, there is the issue of energy efficiency. So many exterior surfaces.
Love yor videos!
Concrete can be cast in molded shapes like the lampshade in the upper right. Then stacked, have cutouts to fit other shapes. The columns can become dual duty rooms which frees things and the experience up heaps imo. Laurie. NZ.
Hello from Montreal, it’s that funny that this concept is only being recognized now but for a long time it was an oddity and technology of prefabricated module homes was a novelty. Anyways did you visit the city. Montreal has quite diverse architecture you should come. Very much like Chicago. Did you notice in your video people surfing in the aerial shot, you can even surf there. The city was built because shipping at the time was prevented to travel west to the Great Lakes because of the rapids and water level. The st.Lawrence seaway fixed that. Take care
I have been seeing a lot of these sorts of places proposed, but people in my city hate them. They just aren't craftsman enough, and craftsman homes are considered when house design peaked. Makes it hard for young people like me to find a place to live.
what a high quality video!
Habitat '67 really is a brilliant building, probably my favorite of all time. Designing human scaled modules that can work together to form a viable large scale structure, yet retain or even multiply their positive attributes for the occupants stands in such sharp contrast to the sterile and oppressive structures that result from top-down methods. Human needs MUST come first, as anyone who's had to live or work in a soulless rectangle can understand.