apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I wish I had a place like that here in Iowa.

The second picture is nice, but the first one looks like some kind of bombed out, post-apocalypse hell. It's the opposite of a Monet.

the concept is amazing, but i've seen these in person and they are ugly. they do look like post-apocalyptic total-recall-underground-mars like dwellings.
i like the idea of pre-fab apartments, and i know there are some really interesting projects with re-used shipping containers that are much nicer looking than these.
montreal is filled with these 60's poured concrete structures that are now all cracked and weather and dated, and really make the city look like sh1t. something easier to maintain, like metal cladding would probably extend the life of this kind of pre-fab building.

Rode a bicycle past these buildings a couple of years ago. The waterfront is nice, the buildings are ugly.

I was in Montreal recently and drove past this complex. I am a huge modernist and advocate of modern architecture, but I am sorry to have to say that from the exterior, at least, these buildings look awful. I appreciate the concept (and the great water views that everyone has) and certainly would prefer living in a "hill town" or pueblo rather than a high-rise, but unfortunately this particular design really missed the mark for me.

I want to live here someday, I find they look much nicer from a closer viewpoint. I agree with the above poster though that the first pic looks like some bombed out post-apocalyptic structure, the lighting in the pic doesn't exactly help either!

I've heard of 2 main problems with these places:

1 - outrageous condo fees (by Montreal standards of course)
2 - Good luck finding a suite that hasn't suffered through a bad 80's reno.

Other than that, I find them very interesting.

Did you guys check out the Mies Van Der Rohe building (Westmount Square) while in Mtl? I've never been in it, but walked by many times and the glass lobby looks stunning.

I agree with hh: the concept is fab but the execution sucks. Concrete simply doesn't hold up to the vagaries of time and weather. Some of Oscar Niemeyer's masterpieces in Brasilia look ravaged 40 years later due to their concrete construction. Shame.

In person, from some angles, they look kinda okay, but mostly they look awful. Also, poured concrete isn't the best choice for Montreal weather. Neither is the choice to maximize the exterior wall space-- when I lived in Montreal, I could feel the cold coming off my triple-paned windows. I wouldn't want to have to deal with heating one of those apartments. I'm not a huge traditionalist, but there are reasons certain building styles became linked to certain climates.

When I was little, this was my favourite building. I loved driving past it, every time we came into Montreal. To me, it looked like a piece of Bach sounded: layered, complex, the unfolding of a rich fugue to a carefully measured tempo...

But then I studied architectural history, and one of my professors explained how and why it is the very antithesis of humane architecture. Buildings and other forms of public architecture that are humane, foster human interrelations... they encourage the development of casual relationships. (Think about how the stoops of a brownstone can work to establish relationships over time with neighbours). Buildings that are humane give you a sense of safety-- you feel safer where many eyes can see, less safe in narrow dark corridors with narry another soul. Entrances and exits to the Habitat are like the latter; designed to give a sense of privacy, albeit unintentionally fostering a heart-quickening sense of aloneness, ripe for danger. The Habitat is not designed to encourage relationships amongst neighbours, on the contrary, the design deliberately seeks to eliminate the possibilities of encountering them. Yes, you have your little garden patch in the city, and a great view, but little other comfort.

When I look at it now, I see an architect playing with the abstract possibilities of prefab, nothing more and nothing less.

The irony of describing a piece of brutalist architecture as humane...

I think that living at Le Habitat would be extraordinary. The complex sits on an island in the St. Lawrence River facing the skyline and harbor of Montreal and is supposed to be one of the most spectacular and expensive places to live in the city.

Habitat was designed by a fresh out of school Moshe Safdie, whom I believe won the commission as a result of entering the proposal in an innovative housing architectural competition for Expo 67. As for styling, it's typically 60's/70's, but it is important to understand the innovations embodied in the project. Habitat is one of the first uses of prefabricated construction in multifamily housing and one of the few housing complexes where all residents have large private terraces. Its units can be merged and many owners have purchased multiple units and combined them into huge apartments. By embodying many of the features found in single family homes, the complex became a successful high-density housing alternative to the more sterile high rise apartment buildings people rich and poor inhabited then and now.

There are a number of websites with extensive examinations of the project, including that of Mr. Safdie's firm: www.msafdie.com which has links to an extensive archive on Habitat at McGill University in Montreal.

They are not for everyone -- but they are fabulous!

when we went in high school, we all thought they looked like a bunch of cardboard boxes all stacked on top of each other all caddywompus. but not in a bad way. i thought they were cool. but i'm from alabama, so.... ;-)

I hate to be pedantic, but sometimes, I can't help myself... As a native Montrealer and francophone, I have to correct you.
We call it Habitat 67, not Le Habitat, because (1) that is grammatically incorrect, and (2) L'habitat would be too general; no one would know what is being referred to.

In terms of the concrete structures in Montreal not weathering well, I think yes, it can be true, but I would not go so far as calling it bad design. Let's keep in mind that Habitat 67 is 40 years old. Also, I'm under the impression that Habitat's exterior was neglected, much like many other concrete constructions from that period which are now falling apart (namely highway overpasses, which have actually been collapsing and dropping large sections on roads below to grisly effect).

Mies Van Der Rohe also built concrete structures in Montreal, not just the steel and glass Westmount Square (which I had the chance of working in for a while....REALLY inefficient, energy-wise, but still, I like). In Nun's Island, he built 2 apartment buildings which, until 3 years ago looked like "the projects" until they were resurfaced and repainted 2 or 3 years ago.

I guess my point is this: because a building needs maintenance, it doesn't necessarily mean bad design. We must re-roof and repaint our homes, update windows when ours are old, or when better ones become available on the market. It's not like Habitat 67 is chronically faulty or was an eyesore from its inception. No. It's just old. (Maybe the condo committee should invest a little in the structure! :) )

That firsts picture looks bad because the building looks black - if it was painted white it would look totally different

For me, yes the outer appearance of a residence is important - but not half as important as what living in it is actually like - this building seems designed for living and I like it

"The Habitat is not designed to encourage relationships amongst neighbours, on the contrary, the design deliberately seeks to eliminate the possibilities of encountering them."

Sounds perfect! - Why the hell would I want to interact with random people that just happen to live near me??

Violetsrose took the words out of my mouth. Sounds like some people have some serious opinions based on some serious familiarity with this building.

I have to say also that the building (as everything in Mtl it seems) looks so much better in the spring/summer, when the heat and humidity create amazing vegatation which sprouts up extremely quickly and flows over buildings and fences.

Check out this photo:
http://www.worldofjuice.org/archives/home/worldofj/public_html/archives/Habitat-67.jpg

A world of difference I think!

I think it's just a question of color. I think this complex would look amazing if painted white. I've never seen it in person but I have always admired it.

To the person that said "Good luck finding a suite that hasn't suffered through a bad 80's reno."

That's true of just about every other home in America. Especially NYC.

Angie in Montreal: thanks for the fab summer pic!