For Everyone an Isolated Garden

Figure 1. “Terrace Door” Meredith Dixon Slide Collection

Written by Alice Lemay 

Edited by Madeleine Mitchell

The years following the Second World War are perpetually portrayed as picture-perfect cocktail parties, the baby boom, and urbanization. At the time, it was customary for the wives of neighboring households to alternate hosting duties after a tiresome week at work for their husbands.[1] Neighbours would gather at one house to enjoy barbecues and drinks in the backyard or living room while the children ran off to play wherever they pleased.[2] The architecture of middle class houses facilitated the common social gatherings of the time and incorporated generous spaces to accommodate guests comfortably. Meredith Dixon’s “Terrace Door” captures a cocktail party being hosted on the patio of a Habitat apartment (Fig. 1).[6] This image exposes the attempt to incorporate the social scene of the sixties into an urbanized context and its shortcomings. The many subtle constraints exposed in this photograph motivate the argument of this paper.

Figure 2. Huguette Fontaine and her husband dancing at a neighbourhood house, Repentigny, 1972 [12].

In 1967, Montreal hosted Expo 67, igniting a change in the city that was fueled by its international exposure and the desire to achieve recognition.[3] What had once been accepted as modern was now re-evaluated, including transportation and housing. Features such as escalators were used in pavilions, with the new intention of forcing visitors to slowly browse and amplify their role as consumers. An elevated train track was implemented for children and their parents to see the fair from above, with the Expo 67 theme song playing on repeat to stick in people’s heads. Factors like these complemented new architectural styles to put on display new techniques, which architects, engineers and designers were experimenting with at the time. Moshe Safdie was one of the people pushing for change in terms of architecture, considering people’s previous needs in a contemporary context. With his strong beliefs in the value of urban living in combination with nature, Safdie was selected to build a housing complex based on his thesis from the McGill University Architecture Masters program.[4]

The young architect uses the motto “For everyone a garden” to describe Habitat 67 as an urbanized version of the suburban house lifestyle.[5] His structure communicates with nature through its open corridors and generous sunlight exposure to integrate the sense of living in an individual household within the city. Transferring the quantity of space per suburban household to an urban setting seems implausible, yet Safdie claims Habitat 67 does just that. His structure consists of multiple alterations of concrete boxes stacked on top of one another, generating a massive, porous stack made up of heavy, brutalist elements.

Figure 3. Huguette Fontaine attending a dinner at a neighbour’s house, Repentigny, 1969 [13].

Indoor spaces played a crucial role in suburban communities’ weekly gatherings all throughout the year. More precisely, I will be comparing Habitat units to suburban houses and evaluating how they accommodate the lifestyle of typical middle-class inhabitants of the 1960s. To that effect, Moshe Safdie’s Habitat 67 fails to adequately create an urban replication of the experience of Montreal’s middle-income family homes that bordered the city in the late sixties through its insufficient outdoor living spaces and isolated location. This is demonstrated through the lack of exterior spaces to host events and cocktail parties popular in the sixties, the isolated balconies depriving children of their freedom to go from one backyard to the next and the incomplete urban experience due to the difficult city access from Habitat’s location.

The middle class of the 1960s will be defined according to yearly income during that time. In those years, the middle class made up the majority of the population and thus average statistics can be safely associated to this particular social group. In Canada, the average annual income in 1960 was $3,192.[7] In this essay, the middle class corresponds to people who earned approximately this much per year. 

Safdie’s Habitat 67 does not provide middle-class families with sufficient outdoor space to host the same expected events as in the suburbs. It seems as though the 1960s were filled with expectations and implied guidelines for all realms of lifestyle. In order for something to be considered proper, it had to conform to corresponding societal rules. Along with men working to support the family and women fulfilling their wifely duties, expectations were put on things as specific as how to host a successful cocktail party.[8]

Mary Grosvenor Ellsworth’s “The Golden Touch of Hospitality, To the Hostess – a Word About Today’s Parties” outlines the preparation required to ensure the comfort of the guests and to avoid any chaos that could risk disrupting the ambiance. The author also stresses the importance of planning the flow of traffic in three aisles of circulation: one for food and drinks, one for those in charge of replenishing and cleaning out the serving station, and one for the late-comers’ self-service bar. It is also crucial for the hostess to make sure none of these lines cross.[9] From this chapter, it becomes clear that a minimum amount of room is required to attain all these requirements. Although it may seem unfeasible, most middle-class houses of the 1960s did have sufficient space to enable this flowing circulation.[10]

Figure 4. Typical bungalow in Toronto, Ontario by architect J. L. Blatherwick, 1960 [18].

I had the chance to interview Huguette Fontaine, a French-Canadian wife and mother whose family inhabited a small Montreal-West duplex and then later moved to Repentigny, a suburb bordering the city. She was 28 when she visited Expo 67 with her three children and husband, who had worked on the landfill for the fair’s artificial islands, an ambitious project that almost delayed Expo 67 entirely[11]

Figures 1 and 2 are typical examples of events that took place amongst neighbouring households. Figure 1 illustrates a 1960s party with couples dancing and Figure 2 lays out the typical dinner scene with on family hosting another. Mrs. Fontaine spoke about the social life in suburban neighborhoods and recalled how “it was really about the community.”[14] They would reunite for the Saint-Jean-Baptiste, birthdays, and holidays. Everything was cause for celebration: 

“We also had picnics in a backyard where we would bring our blankets and the gin. The husbands had some. It was mainly the men [who drank], the women barely drank because they were with the children. They took care of the candy, the desserts, the chips…during the weekends and on weekdays when it was nice outside, [neighbours would meet up] between six and eight in the evening.”

Figure 5. Grouping of houses from Housing Design Part I, Ottawa, 1952[19].

Huguette Fontaine explained how these neighbouring relationships were present in Montreal-West, in Repentigny and at her sister’s house in Laval. Hence, the strong sense of community was very important at the time. She also stated there were at least 40 people at these events because the whole street would attend.

The guide to a perfect cocktail party and Mrs. Fontaine’s memories of the sixties set the tone for typical events that occurred in the middle-class of those years. Observing archived bungalow plans from suburbs in various Canadian provinces reveals a noticeable consistency in backyards’ surface areas. According to a Master’s Thesis from the Université du Québec in Montréal, they measure from 40’-0” by 30’-0” to 40’-0” by 100’-0” on average.[17] Figures 4 and 5 exemplify the typical size of backyards in the sixties. Without analyzing specific measurements, the generous amount of space allocated to these exterior spaces is visible in both the individual and neighbourhood plans. Logically, 40 by 30 to 100 feet is realistic because the yards’ widths run along the house’s rear façade and extend to the fence, which is normally set between 30 and 100 feet away from that point.

Figure 6. Sizable backyard of 1960s Toronto House[20].

A visual example of a typical backyard comes from a 1960s house in Toronto that has remained untouched since its first purchase (Fig. 6). Relating the previous plans (Fig. 4, 5) to the Habitat 67 plans (Fig. 7) demonstrates the difference in outdoor spaces. Habitat’s units often have two balconies measuring 37’-0” by 17’-0”, giving a total surface area of 629 squared feet.[21] Therefore, if one were to host a typical party as they did in the 1960s suburbs, assuming there were forty guests on one balcony,[22] there would only be 7.9 squared feet per person. According to Ellsworth’s guide,[23] this space is a little too restrained, especially when compared to the 65 squared feet per person available in the average suburban backyard.

Recalling “The Golden Touch of Hospitality” once again, three different traffic lanes are required to host a successful evening.[25] In Meredith Dixon’s photograph (Fig. 1), the door leading from the interior to the terrace of the Habitat 67 apartment proves itself to be quite limited. It is difficult to imagine how three separate and uncrossing aisles can coexist on these balconies, let alone fit through the units’ inadequate doors.

Figure 7. Habitat 67 Unit Configuration Plans[24].

All the cocktail parties and social events taking place in the backyard were vital to suburban middle-class culture. Though these celebrations mainly included adults, families also had many children in those years which have not yet been taken into consideration. They were greatly influenced by suburban planning and architecture and practically lived a life of their own, making use of connected backyards to run around from one lot to the next.

In fact, Huguette Fontaine mentioned how children would run across all the lots along the street freely as if there were no barriers at all.[26] Her Montreal-West duplex had an alley behind it, where the same effect was created: an interconnection amongst all separate properties of the community. At her Repentigny home, she describes how “in the winter, there was one who made an ice rink, the other one had a tractor and made small hills of snow for the kids to slide on.” Needless to say, the families shared their backyards to the point verging on becoming public spaces for the community (Fig. 8).

As for apartment living, since units are built one on top of the other, there are no individual lots that can be shared. Although Habitat 67 incorporates an urbanized version of lots, children cannot climb from one terrace to the other, thus the suburban effect is not recreated in this regard. Pia Teichman, a resident in Habitat 67 since 1973, speaks in an interview with the National Gallery of Canada, “Habitat is very, very private. There are people but I don’t see them. We just don’t see other tenants for days or weeks at times.”[28] Contrary to suburban life, Habitat’s architecture does not include a connectedness between properties and in turn, residents’ paths do not coincide nearly as much as neighbours’ do in the suburbs.

Figure 8. Huguette Fontaine’s backyard in Repentigny with children and friends, 1967[27].

Moshe Safdie did, however, attempt to build shared spaces taking into consideration the children’s needs. In a 1967 interview, he presents his Habitat project to CBC news. The young architect states that “there are two playgrounds where the children can play within the structure.”[29] However, looking at the aerial view (Fig. 9), these playgrounds are not very significant. If Habitat were properly accommodating to middle-class families with an average of four to five children, it would require a much greater play space to better replicate the suburban experience[30].

To summarize, as much as the suburban house layout helped adults fulfill their weekly social endeavors, it was also tremendously favourable to the children. The kids were used to running around freely and learning along the way. Habitat’s isolated terraces and limited communal playgrounds are insufficient in replacing suburban neighbourhood backyards. Huguette Fontaine had a pianist friend who lived in Habitat and having visited the building several times stated that “there is simply not enough room for kids in there.”[32]

Figure 9. Aerial View of Habitat 67 circling children’s playgrounds[31].

Safdie’s goal of bringing the suburban lifestyle to the city may have been incompatible with the specific realms of social life and children’s freedom, however the general attempt to build within a city may have failed in itself. Most people who live in the suburbs get to enjoy spacious lots and larger houses, while sacrificing time in long commutes to the city. An average commute into Montreal today is between 40 minutes and 1.5 hours.[33] In the 1960s, at a time when there was less traffic, it may have been shorter but nonetheless remains a negative factor associated with living outside the city. Habitat 67 was technically built a few kilometers across from downtown. If a path connected both locations directly with no traffic, it could be considered an ideal location. Although in reality, the river separating the apartment complex and the central city increases that distance significantly. Figure 10 exposes the few paths available to reach the general downtown area from the Habitat 67 location. 

Pia Teichman, the Habitat resident, says the bus ride into the city is approximately 45 minutes.[35] Before the grocery store was built near Habitat, it was otherwise somewhat deserted and residents still had to make the commute, just as they did in the suburbs.[36] In an interview with CBC, Mr. and Mrs. Robin Randall spoke about life in Habitat during Expo. Mrs. Robin Randall stated that if one needed a loaf of bread, “you have to go into Montreal…onto the buses...to buy a loaf of bread or whatever and then all the way back again.”[37] It is important to recall at this time, that Habitat 67’s main attraction is its “city location.” Whether it replaces the suburban middle-class house successfully or not is another part of the equation, but its initial goal was to be in the city. Is “technically” living in the city worth moving to Habitat if the commute is still a prominent factor?

Figure 10. Expo 67 Map including Habitat 67 (circled in red), the general downtown area (circled in white) and the highways available to reach the city from the island.[34]

As mentioned in the start of this paper, the middle-class of the sixties is defined as earning $3,192 per year.[38] Habitat’s rent in the beginning ranged from $350 to $750 per month, an amount that is simply unaffordable to the middle class of the time.[39] Safdie’s  argument is that, just like any prototype, costs run much higher than the estimated ones to account for the production of molds and issues that may arise.He explains how “one third of the construction budget [was] for equipment. But when it is reproduced in quantity, it would be competitive with conventional structure.”[40] This means if it were hypothetically recreated, since the molds would already exist, the price of construction would be much lower and consequentially, so would the rent. However, it is rare that cities have pieces of land like Habitat’s as it was artificially erected. Therefore, future projects like this would probably lie in the heart of the city. If that were the case, it would entail much less free space for the construction site. The location where Habitat is situated allows for a wide sprawl of equipment, like tractors and cranes, while downtown Montreal only has restricted spaces. In fact, the factory where the boxes were made stood 300 meters away from Habitat.[41] Boxes were carried whole to the site, which was located next door. This type of proximity between the construction site and its factory is unthinkable in the city’s core.[42] It would entail a much steeper cost of construction. Safdie’s initial statement of reduced cost post-prototype is proven unguaranteed because with new projects comes new constraints. This concludes that Habitat 67 did not stay true to its urban vision and even if it had wanted to, it had almost no chance of being in the real city and remaining affordable to the middle-class of the sixties.

To conclude, Habitat 67’s actuality does not hold true to Safdie’s initial purpose for the project. Substantial differences create a fracture in the transition from suburban middle-class houses to these urban apartments. More specifically, neighbourhoods outside the city encouraged social events through their generous backyard spaces, children’s freedom with their connected yards, and isolation from the city. Habitat attempts to recreate these phenomena within the city. The collected research in this paper demonstrates how the effects did not translate and Habitat’s remaining advantage of urban location had the same consequences of the suburban commute. Huguette Fontaine answers the question of whether Habitat corresponds to the suburban home by saying “not at all. It corresponded to single adults, to people with financial means; not at all to the middle class.”[43] In the end, Safdie’s concept was not a failure, but was rather ahead of its time. Intrinsically, Habitat 67 foreshadowed society’s desires today; those of urban life, independence and isolation.

endnotes

[1] Grosvener Ellsworth, “The Golden Touch of Hospitality,” 1953, 40.

[2] “Birth of the Suburbs,” 2001.

[3] Chodan, “Editor’s Note: Expo 67 Front Page Brings Back Happy Memories,” 2017.

[4] “The Moshe Safdie Archive,” Biography, 1998.

[5] Safdie, “For everyone a garden.,” 1974.

[6] Expo 67 Dixon Slide Collection Website, http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/expo-67/search/slideSearch.php

[7] Statistics Canada, « Les Générations Au Canada. »

[8] Grosvener Ellsworth, “The Golden Touch of Hospitality,” 1953 1-48.

[9] Grosvener Ellsworth, “The Golden Touch of Hospitality,” 1953, 40.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Huguette Fontaine’s interview was originally in French. For the purpose of coherence, the quotes have been translated to English. Original quotes will be included in the footnotes.

[12] Source: Huguette Fontaine personal collection.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Original citation: « C’était vraiment le voisinage. »

[15] Original citation: « On faisait des pique-niques sur un terrain, on apportait nos couvertes et le gin. Les maris en prenaient. C’était surtout les hommes, les femmes ne buvaient pas beaucoup parce qu’elles étaient avec les enfants. Les femmes étaient en charge des bonbons, des desserts, des chips… »

[16] Original citation : « Les fins de semaines ou les semaines quand il faisait beau entre six et huit heures. Huit heures, tout le monde était couché. Mais ça ne buvait pas dans la semaine. »

[17] Lachance, “L’architecture des bungalows de la SCHL: 1946-1974,” 2009, 54-72.

[18] Blatherwick, “There’s Lots to Learn from these Small House Plans from the ‘60s,” 1960, 91. (Note: Backyard is cut off in plan)

[19] Lachance, “L’architecture des bungalows de la SCHL: 1946-1974,” 2009, 167. (Note: Backyards are not cut off in plan)

[20] « L’intérieur de cette maison vous ramènera en 1960, » 2016, 32.

[21] Stanton, “Habitat 67,” 1997, 4.

[22] Reference to Huguette Fontaine’s interview

[23] Grosvener Ellsworth, “The Golden Touch of Hospitality,” 1953, 40.

[24] Stanton, “Habitat 67,” 1997, 4.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Reference to Huguette Lafontaine’s interview

[27] Source: Huguette Fontaine personal collection.

[28] National Gallery of Canada, “Global Citizen: The Architecture of Moshe Safdie. Interview with a Resident of Habitat ’67,” 2010, 3:30-3:39.

[29] CBC Archives, “Little Boxes: Moshe Safdie’s Habitat ’67,” 1967, 1:25-1:29.

[30] Statistics Canada, “Les générations au Canada,” 2015, 4.

[31] Westmount Magazine, “Habitat 67: The Shape of Things to Come,” 2017.

[32] Original Citation: « Il n’y avait simplement pas assez de place pour des enfants là-dedans. »

[33] Riga, “Montreal’s Exercise in Frustration: A Commute That’s Longer than Ever,” 2016.

[34] Ville de Montréal, “Un plan directeur évolutif,” 2015.

[35] National Gallery of Canada, “Global Citizen: The Architecture of Moshe Safdie. Interview with a Resident of Habitat ’67,” 2010, 3:18-3:22.

[36] National Gallery of Canada, “Global Citizen: The Architecture of Moshe Safdie. Interview with a Resident of Habitat ’67,” 2010, 3:12-3:15.

[37]CBC Archives, “Living in Habitat ’67,” 1967, 5:38-5:50.

[38] Statistics Canada, « Les Générations Au Canada. »

[39] Stanton, “Habitat 67,” 1997, 3-5.

[40] CBC Archives, “Little Boxes: Moshe Safdie’s Habitat ’67,” 1967, 3:35-3:47.

[41] « Partie II Le Secteur De La Cité Du Havre: Étude Patrimoniale Sur Les Témoins Matériels De L'Expo 67, » 2.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Original citation : « Ça ne correspondait pas du tout. Ça correspondait aux adultes célibataires, assez en moyens, pas du tout à la classe moyenne. »