Statement
Design Intent
This design attempts to provide a basic framework of affordable and liveable housing units with built-in opportunities for growth and adaptation.
A modulated terracing slab wall System is developed to define a tightly knit urban neighbourhood. A combination of 5000 mm and 6875 mm wide slab walls are used to enclose the basic shell units which will meet CMHC standards and mortgage company requirements. The planning of these units is based on needs rather than 'wants' of a household. Only the very basics are provided in order to keep the cost to a minimum. However, the design attempts to encourage the outcome and diverse housing environment as the neighbourhood grows and personalized improvements or added to the basic shell units.
The following key provisions and opportunities were considered:
1. maximize southern exposure for use of passive solar energy
2. provide ail three- and four-bedroom units with
ground access ?
3. provide sound protection for units facing major . street ? No. 3 Rd. .
4. provide car-free pedestrian precinct ?
5. provide internal street for children to play and for adults to meet
6. provide central common facilities (laundry and - workshops) and play area 2.
7. provide an energy zone in each unit for future energy 3 conservation and adaptation
8. mix tenure to encourage diversity and stability
9. provide manageable social clusters ? no more than 4 30 units/cluster
10. allow an identifiable zone for self expression
11. use prevailing summer breezes for cooling 5
12. allow for future unit expansion (use pitched roof and dormers)
13. provide pedestrian paths that link ail major places (park, shopping etc.) 6.
14. encourage formation of a management group to assist individual improvement projects (e.g. among co- 7 op members) 8.
15. use of the above considerations are illustrated in the drawings.
Energy Conservation
The basic approach, like the overall concept above, to maximize opportunity for future adaptation. The emphasis is on passive design provisions which: contain little mechanical hardware use solar energy naturally require little or no energy themselves and tend to be low in cost and easily implemented.
This design has considered the following: maximize south-facing glass façade for direct gain locate buildings facing north-south orientation orient building for natural ventilation?at an oblique angle of 20°-70° between wall and prevailing wind direction allow for use of multi-zoned heating System?grouping bedrooms in one zone, general living area in another provide opportunity for using solar exterior features e.g. solar greenhouse, solar panel, vertical solar collector and storage wall, and window shutters? provide an energy zone in each unit encourage use of roof pans or planting for heat storage arrange units in a row to minimize heat loss use atrium to trap heat
Structure
Basically there are two typical housing arrangements: a) two-storey units and b) one level court housing. Because of their long proportion, court yard houses maximize sun orientation and privacy in the medium-density development. The stacking combinations of these two housing types provide a cohesive yet diverse layout on the site.
Because of the level of stacking, a combination of wood frame and precast concrete slab on block wall is used throughout the design. 300 mm precast core slab on concrete block wall is used to support the internal street and the wood-frame construction above. A summary of construction type and member sizes is included in the site section drawing. As a general policy in the design, use of prefabricated economical structural components is encouraged. It is suggested that 160 mm structural comb slab be used in the wood-frame construction throughout. There will be a substantial saving in installation time.
(From competitor's text)
Like Submission 10, the other submission that received an award, this scheme was admired primarily for the explicitness of its basic architectural idea. The giant "bowl" which the scheme conceived, which related ail the units to the central open space spine, was regarded as an interesting concept.
The jury's basic reservations were twofold. First, they did not think that the "idea" of this scheme was as complex as that of Submission 10, in that it lacked the "cluster" idea, which formed a sub-group of units within the whole. Then too, the open space spine down the centre was less explicit than in Submission 10. This also was criticized. Finally, the grid pattern of the overall site plan was thought by some of the jurors to be overly-regimented.
The qualifies of the submission that were admired included the following: first, the simplicity of the landscaped open space system; second, the social focus for the project provided by the laundry/workshop area; third, the attempt (not altogether successful, in the jurors' opinion) to mix tenure types within the project; fourth, the straightforward simplicity of the unit planning (though one juror lamented the tunnel-like quality of some of the long, narrow living spaces be-tween adjoining party walls); and fifth, the effort at allowing initiatives by the occupants towards personalization of their living areas (though here again, an admiration coloured by some jurors' feelings that the outdoor living spaces provided were too small).
(From jury report)
18 scanned / 13 viewable
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Presentation Panel
- Site Plan
- Axonometric Drawing
- Plan
- Plan
- Plan
- Plan
- Section
- Section
- Section
