a participatory process for the design of housing for a first nations community

POLICY AND PRACTI CE

A participatory process for the design of housingfor a First Nations Community

Tracey MacTavish • Marie-Odile Marceau • Michael Optis •

Kara Shaw • Peter Stephenson • Peter Wild

Received: 15 January 2009 / Accepted: 30 November 2011 / Published online: 20 December 2011� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract First Nation (Indigenous) on-reserve housing in Canada is in crisis due to

severe shortages, high reported instances of mould contamination, overcrowding and

structural deficiencies. The Kitamaat reserve of the Haisla First Nation provides one

example. The intent of the study reported here was to engage with the Haisla to develop a

culturally appropriate, environmentally responsive and energy-efficient housing type that

the Haisla could implement in the future. This work was undertaken by Marceau-Evans-

Johnson Architects in collaboration with researchers at the University of Victoria. In this

article, the circumstances leading to the present housing crisis are reviewed, the consul-

tative design process with the Haisla and its outcomes are described, and the concept

design solution which was co-developed for future housing is presented.

Keywords First nations � Aboriginal peoples � On-reserve housing �Community consultation � Housing design process

T. MacTavish � M.-O. MarceauMarceau Evans Johnson Architects, Vancouver, BC, Canada

M. Optis � P. WildDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

K. ShawSchool of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

P. StephensonDepartment of Anthropology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

P. Wild (&)Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Victoria, Engineering Office Wing, Room 548,3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canadae-mail: [email protected]

123

J Hous and the Built Environ (2012) 27:207–224DOI 10.1007/s10901-011-9253-6

1 On-reserve housing in Canada

1.1 International context

With respect to housing, the relationship between Indigenous populations and settler

populations varies around the world due to the particular forms of land tenure which

developed between neo-European conquest states and surviving Indigenous peoples. These

stem from the kinds of dispossession of Indigenous people from lands (war, treaty,

involuntary removal) and forms of acquisition encouraged for expanding settler popula-

tions which occurred (squatting, purchase, land grants). In the United States, ‘‘Indian

Lands’’ set aside as reservations for ‘‘Native American Tribes’’ (the preferred terms) were

usually areas considered undesirable for European farming and ranching activities (Fore-

man 1933; Drinnon 1980; Dippie 1982; Hoxie 1984). Until recently, housing has not been

a high priority for the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the remote areas of the western United

States where half of all reservation-dwelling Native Americans live (Bureau of Census

1995a; Marino 1994; Meredith 2001). Forms of individual ownership historically

encouraged by the United States have often conflicted with ideas of collective rights to use

property, including housing, found among many Native Americans. Crowded, substandard

housing has often resulted: in the United States, for example, 20% of households on Indian

reservations lacked any form of plumbing in 1990 (Bureau of the Census 1995b).

In Canada, ‘‘reserves’’ (the preferred word) have a different history, as does land tenure,

mainly because very few wars were fought between settlers and Indigenous peoples, about

half of whom still live ‘‘on reserve’’, especially in traditional Northern territories where

‘‘First Nations’’ (the preferred term) often are a majority of the population. Housing on

Canadian reserves is the joint responsibility of the Federal government and individual

‘‘Band Councils’’ (on-reserve government elected by band members). First Nations in

Canada have been seeking to take greater financial and planning control over the housing

process (Assembly of First Nations 2009). Though the Canadian history of housing

ownership may vary from the United States, the quality of housing and the water supply on

reserves in Canada is at least as depressed as in the United States. Throughout the rest of

the Americas, land tenure among Indigenous peoples and the responsibility of the state do

not include the notion of reserved land. Consequently prevailing poor housing is due to

racism and local socio-economic factors rather than institutionalized forms of neglect.

Land tenure and housing policy in Australia is also very fragmented and policy varies

among Australian states and the federal government. Housing there is characterized by

very high rental and low ownership rates among ‘‘Aboriginal’’ people; crowding and poor

health associated with general disenfranchisement have also been well documented there

(Bailie and Wayte 2006).

1.2 Housing deficiencies in Canada

First Nations (Indigenous) peoples in Canada face a housing crisis on their reserves, where

40% of their population lives (Statistics Canada 2008). Housing stocks on reserves are

severely inadequate in both quantity and quality. This crisis is partly attributable to rapid

population growth, inadequate funding, restrictive government policies, lack of home

ownership, and culturally inappropriate housing designs (UN 2005; Abadian 1999; Kendall

2001). The consequence of the crisis is that the home, which for First Nations people has

traditionally been a place of pride and identity, instead today exacerbates many social and

health problems.

208 T. MacTavish et al.

123

In 2005, First Nations’ birth rates were double the national average; population had

increased 22% between 1996 and 2001 (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada [INAC] 2005;

Jakubec and Enegland 2004). This led to increased housing demand on reserves, where a

projected 4,500 new units are required per year from 2005 to 2015 (INAC 2005). In 2001,

of the 73,000 on-reserve homes 59% were owned and operated through bands; the rest

were privately owned and rented (Jakubec and Enegland 2004).

Due to impoverishment on reserves, most communities rely on government funding for

housing construction and maintenance. The median income for Aboriginal peoples in 2006

was $18,692–30% below the median income for the rest of Canadians (Statistics Canada

2008). Moreover, current government funding allocated to band housing (housing owned

or operated by the band council) is inadequate. In 2005, the government of Canada and

First Nations representatives negotiated ‘‘The Kelowna Accord’’ which committed the

federal government to an investment of $1.6 billion over 5 years to reduce housing

shortages by 40% by 2010 (Patterson 2006; UN 2005). However, in the three fiscal years

since the Kelowna Accord, the federal government committed only $300 million to on- and

off-reserve First Nation housing improvements (Department of Finance 2006), only 42% of

that committed in the Kelowna Accord. After inflation, the Indian and Northern Affairs

Canada (INAC) budget dropped by 3.5% between the fiscal years 1999–2000 and

2004–2005 (Assembly of First Nations 2004). Obtaining the limited funding available can

be bureaucratic and burdensome for communities. For example, a 2002 report from the

Auditor General on Canada’s major funding institutions, including INAC and the Canadian

Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), was highly critical of them for requiring the

annual completion of up to 168 financial reports by First Nations wishing to build housing

on reserves (Fraser 2002).

Locked into funding arrangements with CMHC and INAC, band councils have diffi-

culty asserting meaningful control over their housing programs. Though they retain some

authority in decision-making, band councils are hampered both by low or declining levels

of funding and a dense web of restrictions on their use of capital and operating funds

(INAC 1990; RCAP 1996; Drossos 2003). Many communities lack skilled and experienced

housing managers, planners and technicians—thus increasing the cost of housing due to

inefficient operations and the outsourcing of contractors (INAC 1990). This means that

training, labour and income are lost opportunities for economic development in many

communities. Band councils often take on increased debt loads to cover the gap between

INAC funding and actual costs, further restricting their ability to plan new construction or

maintain existing homes (INAC 1990). Housing reforms in 1996 and funding programs

developed in 2001 aimed to provide more access to and control over funding for housing

(INAC 1990, 1996, 2000, 2004; CMHC 2006; RCAP 1996; Devine 1999; Carter and

Polevychok 2004). These reforms and programs, however, have done little to increase the

quantity and quality of on-reserve homes, where shortages are estimated between 20,000

and 30,000 houses, nation-wide (Patterson 2006; RCAP 1996). Homes that have been

constructed are often of poor quality and not properly weatherized (INAC 2005; RCAP

1996; UN 2005). Housing designs are almost exclusively Eurocentric, frequently inap-

propriate to both climate and use, and generally devoid of any cultural significance that

First Nations have typically placed in their homes (Gareau 2004, 2005). Without the

responsibilities inherent in home ownership, community members living in band housing

often have neither the knowledge nor the motivation to maintain homes (Marceau-Evans-

Johnson and University of Victoria 2007). Without sufficient funding for maintenance,

band councils are no more capable of sustaining housing stock than are individuals. As a

result, many homes fall into disrepair. In 2006, 44% of on-reserve homes were need of

A participatory process for the design of housing 209

123

major repair and 26% were overcrowded, compared to 7 and 3%, respectively, for non-

Aboriginal Canadian homes (Statistics Canada 2008).

Compromised construction, insufficient maintenance and overcrowding yield increased

moisture in the interior space. Rain and moisture are able to penetrate the building

envelope while ineffective moisture removal and increased indoor moisture generation by

occupants yield increased moisture levels, which are sufficiently high for mould growth. In

a recent survey, it was estimated that 44% of on-reserve homes contained mould (NAHO

2006). In overcrowded conditions, viruses and bacteria are more easily spread (INAC

2005). As a result, many illnesses and diseases including tuberculosis and asthma are

experienced in highly disproportionate numbers on First Nation reserves compared to the

rest of Canada (Health Canada 2000; Adelsen 2005; McHardy and O’Sullivan 2004;

Drossos 2003; Lawrence and Martin 2001).

Given all these factors, many First Nation communities have become detached—

socially and psychologically—from their homes. Once a place to foster cultural identity,

educate youth, and strengthen family bonds, often overcrowded and even dilapidated

homes are now more closely linked to exacerbated social and health crises in many reserve

communities.

1.3 Efforts to improve on-reserve housing

In response to the crisis, a small number of government and non-government organizations

have sought to improve housing conditions by various means. Projects have made

improvements in on-reserve housing programs in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable

energy, community involvement, capacity building, flexible housing, and mould mitigation

(CMHC 2002; Green 2004; Ouje-Bougoumou 2006; Office of Energy Efficiency 2005;

Woloshyniuk et al. 2000).

Other studies have investigated the importance of housing design to First Nation culture

and have proposed ways the connection between people and home might be renewed

(Department of Housing and Urban Development 1993; Gareau 2004, 2005; Mackin 2004;

Marshall 2005). Through community consultation, these studies have found that housing

design should accommodate traditional cultural activities, foster cultural identity,

strengthen family bonds, and educate youth. Architecturally, this can often be fostered

through more open space concepts, integrated floor plans, dedicated space for outdoor

activities, single-level housing to accommodate elders, larger kitchen components for

traditional food preparation, and the use of local materials when possible (Department of

Housing and Urban Development 1993; Gareau 2004, 2005; Mackin 2004; Marshall 2005).

1.4 Intent of this study

The intent of the study reported here was to engage with the First Nation community in an

investigation of on-reserve housing with the goal of developing a culturally appropriate,

environmentally responsive and energy-efficient housing type that the Nation could

implement in future development of housing in their community. Emphasis in the study

was put on a consultative design process that would directly engage community members

in articulating needs and priorities and directly involve them in addressing these through

the design process itself. The work was undertaken by Marceau-Evans-Johnson Architects

(MEJA) in collaboration with researchers at the University of Victoria. The Haisla First

Nation in Kitamaat, British Columbia agreed to partner in this study.


123

Section 2 of the article provides background on the Haisla First Nation. Section 3 describes

the consultative design process. Sections 4 and 5 describe the outcomes from the two work-

shops held in the community. Section 6 presents the concept design solution which was

developed for future housing in the community. In Sects. 7 and 8, recommendations based on

the consultations are made and final thoughts on the consultative design process are given.

2 Haisla first nation and Kitamaat

Traditional Haisla First Nation territory totals over 4 million acres on the northwest coast

of British Columbia. The Government of Canada recognizes only 1640 of these as Haisla

territory. Kitamaat Village is located on the eastern edge of the Kitamaat Arm at the end of

Douglas Channel (548 00 North and 1288 420 West) (Figs. 1 and 2).

Currently, the population of the village is between 750 and 800 people of the 1,500 total

members of the Haisla First Nation. The population size of the village has not changed

significantly in the last 10 years, increasing by about 50 people.

There are 192 homes in Kitamaat Village. Therefore, there are on average about 4

people per household, though specific household composition varies and also fluctuates

seasonally, related to resource collection and work opportunities.

The majority of the homes were built in the 1980s and 1990s, though a few date back as

far the 1950s. Of the 192 homes, 50 are social homes meaning they are rent-to-own with

monthly rent paid to the band, some of which is subsidized by CMHC.

The condition of homes is widely variable, as is the level of maintenance carried out on

homes; some are in excellent condition, while others are falling into disrepair. A number of

homes are slated for mould remediation. Overcrowding exists, with community members

reporting 3-bedroom homes sheltering 9–10 people. The number of homes in an over-

crowding situation is not documented.

A significant portion of the population (400–500 people) currently finds accommodation

off the reserve, in the nearby town of Kitimat where other housing types are available, such

as apartments, 4-plexes, and condominiums.

3 Methodology

The study method centered on direct interaction with the Haisla First Nation to define

housing needs and priorities within the community, and to develop physical housing

models to reflect their culture and living patterns. The process was structured around three

well-attended community workshops, held during the evening with food provided as a

buffet. The first workshop was an open discussion forum facilitated by the architects,

where community members expressed their housing priorities and needs. A community-

defined housing priority list was then created by vote to establish direction for the second

workshop. The second workshop was a gaming session in which community members,

working in small groups and using design pieces with specific costs attached, designed

housing for three different social groups identified as those most in need of housing during

the first workshop. Based on the data gathered in these two workshops, the research team

distilled Housing Principles to guide the production of a Concept Design for a housing

unit. The third workshop was an informal discussion to review the Housing Principles and

Concept Design. Following the third workshop, the Concept Design was finalized, com-

posed as a report and submitted to the Band Council for their use in the future.


123

4 Establishing housing priorities

During Workshop 1, questions were asked relating to housing availability, traditional

housing, type of occupants, indoor and outdoor activities, and the physical quality of

Fig. 1 Claimed Haisla traditional territory, Courtesy of Stonington Gallery


123

homes, energy use and health. Workshop 1 was attended by approximately 25 community

members, ranging in age from small children to elders. Food was served, buffet style, to all

members of the community who attended. Workshop 1 lasted for approximately 3 h during

which many participants spoke freely about their desires and frustrations with their current

housing.

4.1 Ranked housing priorities

Several housing needs and priorities emanated from Workshop 1; each community member

listed the top 3 housing needs, priorities and characteristics they felt to be the most

important. The lists were cumulated to obtain an overall ranking, as presented below from

most to least important in rank.

Affordability was the highest rated housing priority. While there is a mix of privately

owned homes and socially assisted homes in the village, a central focus of discussion in

Workshop 1 was the provision of socially assisted homes. Affordability is a two-fold

characteristic. First, the Band Council has limited funding from federal organizations (i.e.

CMHC and INAC) to construct and maintain homes. Second, due to unemployment and

limited social assistance, some Band members have difficulty paying monthly rent and

utility payments to the Band Council. During Workshop 1, a strong need was expressed for

homes that could be constructed and maintained at low cost and that had low utility costs.

The lack of available housing was the next priority. The length of the current waiting

periods for rent or rent-to-own housing can be several years. This housing shortage is

particularly difficult for younger people. Community members reported that many young

men who have sought work outside Kitamaat now wish to return to the community.

However, they cannot be immediately accommodated and are placed on long waiting lists.

It was also reported that many young people are living with parents and/or grandparents

and wish to have their own accommodation. Young people in the community form a large

portion of the Band housing waiting list.

Durability was the next priority, as many homes in Kitamaat lack durability and quality,

principally due to poor installation practices and an inappropriate housing type for the

climate. Poor installation practices reported by the community include:

Fig. 2 Kitamaat village site, courtesy of Government of British Columbia, Canada


123

• Closing in wet building materials before they dry (in a very wet climate).

• Stove-top and bathroom exhaust vents that exhaust air into the attic space.

• Improper compaction of fill material and use of organic fill in foundations, causing

structural shifting and cracks in the envelope.

Further, many homes are pre-fabricated in metropolitan areas and are not built to with-

stand the heavy rainfall in Kitamaat. Examples of inadequate design for the climate include

lack of overhangs, rainscreen cladding and transition space to the interior where outdoor

clothing can dry. Due to these installation practices and housing types, building envelope

components become water damaged and deteriorate. Further, the prolonged presence of

moisture within the building envelop provides adequate conditions for mould growth.

Community members strongly expressed the need for improved construction methods and

materials to ensure structural integrity in the wet climate and minimize the risk of mould.

Accessibility was the next priority, particularly for elders. Several homes in the com-

munity have elevated ground floors with several steps up to the front door. This entrance style

is burdensome for elders who have difficulty ascending and descending staircases. Though

some homes have been equipped with an external elevator, these require continual mainte-

nance and are burdensome to use. As a result, many elders seldom leave their homes and are

unable to actively participate in the community. There is currently no elder home care facility

in the community and a strong desire for one was expressed. Currently, elders must often be

moved to other communities to receive home care and assistance, further preventing them

from participating in community activities. Community members expressed the need for

ground floor access for all new homes with doors that are at minimum three feet wide,

allowing walkers and wheelchair access to homes. The focus on better access and a specific

place for elders is related to both the elevated respect which elders enjoy in First Nations

communities and their critical importance as repositories of cultural history and knowledge.

Mould was the next priority. It was expressed as a very serious concern by some

community members, and is broadly acknowledged as a problem. 22% of Kitamaat homes

contained mould in 2006. The impacts of mould can be severe, including allergies such as

conjunctivitis allergic coryza, inflammation of the respiratory tract, bronchial asthma, skin

eczema and nettle rash. Infectious diseases related to mould growth include asperigilloses

and penicillioses. It was reported by community members that half of all school children in

Kitamaat have missed some period of school due to chronic respiratory illnesses which

may be related to mould. The presence of mould is due principally to the high levels of

moisture in the interior space and building envelope, which result from:

• Inadequate ventilation in attic spaces, kitchens and bathrooms,

• Stove-top exhaust fans that exhaust moist air to the attic space,

• Cracks in the building envelope which allow rainwater to enter

• Absence of rainscreen cladding

• Unsealed windows that allow rain water to enter

• Overcrowded conditions which result in increased metabolic moisture generation and

CO2

• Increased instances of open-pot cooking characteristic of traditional food preparation

for large groups

• Occupants choosing not to use kitchen and bathroom fans due to the excessive noise

they make, and ineffectiveness.

Capacity building was the next priority. Community members favoured a housing

policy that would provide employment and training opportunities to community members


123

in design, building and maintenance of homes. In particular, there was strong interest in

starting a community-based sawmill operation to make use of Haisla-owned forest

resources to manufacture wood products for new homes. There was also strong interest in

providing education and training for home maintenance, particularly prevention of water-

based structural damage and mould growth.

Energy efficiency was the next priority. Community members are very conscious of

their utility bills. In some instances, housing occupants keep windows shut and turn-off

their ventilation systems (in one case plugging up the ventilation duct) to prevent heat loss.

This behaviour results in increased moisture content in the interior space and higher risk of

mould growth. Community members favoured housing designs that are highly energy

efficient and make use of renewable energy sources.

A large and flexible space was the next priority. The need for large spaces to accom-

modate extended family gatherings and the preparation of foods for traditional feasting

activities was expressed. Recognizing the increased cost of constructing large spaces,

community members saw innovative and flexible housing designs as an alternative. For

example, it was suggested that the kitchen and living room could be strategically designed

such as to create an open space concept without increasing the footprint of the home. It was

also suggested that a partition could be added within the living room to create a bedroom

and could be removed when additional space was required for larger traditional gatherings.

Cultural aesthetics was the next priority. There was widespread interest in incorporating

local cultural heritage into new housing designs. Post and beam construction methods

(typical of traditional NW Coast housing) were desired, though it was recognized that such

methods would be limited to small portions of the housing frame to maintain affordability.

The entrance to the home was particularly emphasized. Community members wished to

include carved or painted cultural symbols at both the inside and outside of the front

entrance—a cultural tradition announcing identity and clan membership. The maximum

use of wood throughout was desired, provided durability was sustained.

Food preparation was the next priority. Many community members felt that their homes

lacked adequate space and facilities to accommodate traditional food preparation. Like

many First Nations people living on traditional territories, the Haisla at Kitamaat provision

themselves significantly by hunting, fishing, and food gathering. These activities require

adequate processing and storage facilities. Space and equipment is required for cleaning,

butchering, smoking, hanging, canning and storage of food products. Community members

often used the kitchen for all of these activities. Interest was expressed in an increased size

of a mud-room (or transition room) in proximity to the kitchen to allow more space for

preliminary food preparation. An increased mudroom size would also facilitate wood

cutting, equipment repair, equipment and food storage. Finally, community members

expressed interest in larger freezers and traditional underground root cellars which would

extend the availability of seasonal food types and their storage. A smokehouse is central to

many Kitamaat homes and was emphasized as a crucial part of the home, particularly by

men. In particular, community members discussed orienting the home and smokehouse in

accordance with prevailing winds and locating the smokehouse in proximity to the

driveway to allow the ease of loading and unloading of food products, especially fish.

Outdoor living was the next priority. Kitamaat experiences significant winter snow-

fall—and it is often heavy and wet. Thus, community members expressed the need for

sufficient roof overhangs and roof-slopes in order to avoid snow sliding into work and

access areas and unsafe weighting on roof structures. As well, there was a desire to place

laundry facilities and clothesline within proximity to the area used for food preparation, so

hunters and fishermen can clean their specialized clothing.


123

4.2 Social groups in key need

At the end of Workshop 1, community members were asked to identify the key social

groups within Kitamaat they felt to most need housing. Results would then be used to focus

the housing design process in Workshop 2. The identified social groups were:

(1) Singles—returning young people wishing to live in Kitamaat again and a younger

generation wishing to leave extended households and live independently. 35% of com-

munity members are under 30 years old.

(2) Elders—there is no elder residence in the community. 33% of community members

are at least 50 years old

(3) Extended families—inadequate housing space for multi-generational households

who prefer to live together rather than separately.

5 Gaming session

Workshop 2 was an interactive session where community members produced housing

designs for three types of residences, each of which addressed one of the key social groups

identified in Sect. 4.2. These designs were:

(1) A 4-unit single apartment complex—3 individuals, 1 single parent with child

(2) A 6-unit elder residence—two couples and four individuals

(3) A home suitable for a family of 7-mother, father, 3 children, 2 grandparents

Workshop 2 was attended by 25 people, including all age groups (some children

attended), each of whom worked on the housing design that was of most interest to him/

her.

The key components of Workshop 2 were gaming pieces provided by Marceau-Evans-

Johnson Architects which allowed community members to design their homes and yards in

significant detail. Gaming pieces each had a dollar cost attached to their base, and

included:

• Floor pieces with variable floor area, colour-coded by room type and associated square

foot costs

• Indoor components (e.g. stairs, bed, toilet, sink, dishwasher, couch, TV, etc.)

• Outdoor components (e.g. shed, garden, smokehouse, driveway, etc.)

• Sun angles and position

• Prevailing summer and winter wind directions

• Natural features (e.g. trees, shrubs, etc.)

Two groups designed the family home, while one group designed the singles’ units and

one group designed the elders’ residence. The singles unit design result is shown in Fig. 3.

Lots that are currently available for building within the community were selected for each

housing design. Once the housing designs were complete, the teams tallied up their total

floor area and cost. The importance of affordability was evident in the complete designs,

each of which was designed very modestly with minimal floor area.

At the end of the workshop, community members were asked to select one housing design

which would be further developed by the research team (i.e. detailed building envelope

specifications, heating and ventilation systems, estimated construction costs, etc.).

After much discussion, the singles’ unit was selected for several reasons. First, single

people are a very large contingent of the waiting list for housing and this group is also very

diverse, including single parents, young men returning to the village after working away,


123

and elders. Second, a singles’ unit would be small (650 sq. ft), and would cost less than a

family home, meaning more units could be built assuming the same yearly housing budget.

Consequently, small units like this could make an impact on overcrowding. Small units

could also function as ‘‘starter homes’’ for young people or first-time home owners, pro-

viding a measuring stick in terms of responsibility, allowing them to earn the ‘‘next step’’

to a larger home if their family grew. Finally, duplex, triplex and fourplex designs would

better utilize land and service infrastructure than single, detached units. The singles

apartment site design result is shown in Fig. 4.

6 Concept design for singles housing unit

6.1 What is concept design?

Following Workshop 2, work began on developing the concept design for a singles housing

unit. Concept design is the first phase in the design of a project in which the documented

housing principles are prioritized in order for a design to proceed in a unified and coherent

way. Housing and site characteristics are investigated from a number of possibilities that

respond to identified housing principles, which can sometimes conflict. Critical to this

phase is developing an understanding of the nature of the site (exposure, etc.), resolving the

space planning of the unit and understanding the community’s aesthetic objective.

For a typical construction project, concept design is followed by design development

that includes detailed descriptions of house dimensions, spatial arrangements, building

envelope design and heating and ventilations systems design. The design development

stage is followed by the completion of construction drawings and finally by construction.

Fig. 3 Singles unit design from gaming session, prepared by Tracey Mactavish and Marie-Odile Marceauand property of MEJA


123

6.2 Client and site description

The client profile for the singles units includes single individuals ranging in age from early

20’s to elders, male or female. Flexibility is required within the unit for a second person,

such as a child or a spouse.

Two trapezoid-shaped lots within a new subdivision in Kitamaat were selected as sites

which could be combined for the singles housing units. The lots are oriented in an east–

west direction providing long exposure to the south and views towards the Channel and

western mountains. Soil is largely sand and gravel. A creek runs at the back of the site, just

before the grade rises to the east approximately 2 m. Natural coniferous forest has been

retained at an approximate height of 20 m.

6.3 Design options

A balance was sought between all of the housing principles identified in Workshops 1 and

2, with an emphasis placed on affordability; other housing principles were incorporated

into the construction method and product selection whenever possible.

To address affordability, the total floor area of each unit is only 750 ft2. This is 100 ft2

larger than the floor area originally designed during the Workshop 2 gaming session, but is

still modest. Design emphasis was on simplicity; complicated details are avoided to

minimize cost and provide for ease of construction. The envelope is basic wood-frame

construction with economical scissor trusses that can be built without specialized labour.

prev

ailing

summer

wind

prev

ailing

winter

wind

24

23R

OA

D

smokehouse /work area

outside eating

south facing yard and decks

single storey duplex OR a combined one and two storey triplex

two storey duplex OR a single storey apartment

south facing yard and decks

outside eating

smokehouse /work area

forest edge

creek

creek

gravel access road

gravel access road

entry

entry

52 deg altitude

8 deg altitude

12.5 deg altitude

8 deg altitude

52 deg altitude

42.00°

62.50°

direct access to kitchen

direct access to kitchen

Fig. 4 Singles apartment site design from gaming session, prepared by Tracey Mactavish and Marie-OdileMarceau and property of MEJA


123

A traditional post-and-beam design was necessarily excluded due to the high cost of

materials, the required special equipment, and the required construction knowledge which,

at this time, would have to come from outside the community.

Units were designed as both two-storey and one-storey duplexes, as shown in Fig. 5. A

duplex design requires less materials and excavated land per unit than individual units, thus

reducing construction and infrastructural costs. The concept design remains flexible to

permit the construction of a triplex or fourplex, further reducing construction and infra-

structural costs per unit. Cost estimates for both the one-storey and two-storey duplexes

could meet the CMHC maximum unit price standard of $120,000 per unit (2006 pricing for

semi-detached, one-bedroom in Northern BC), provided that economical choices are made

regarding finishes and mechanical systems.

To address lack of available housing, higher density housing is used (i.e. higher number

of people per area of land). A two-storey duplex is placed on one lot and a one- or two-

storey triplex on the adjacent lot. While increasing density, this arrangement still allows

adequate yard space for traditional activities and parking for cars and boats. The design

provides accommodation for five people on the housing waitlist, reduces the construction

cost per unit and makes more efficient use of service infrastructure. Further, the reduced

Fig. 5 Singles apartment site design from gaming session. Shown in image are the two-storey design, one-storey design, work area and smokehouse. Prepared by Tracey Mactavish and Marie-Odile Marceau andproperty of MEJA


123

cost per unit frees more funding to be used to construct additional homes, helping to

alleviate the housing availability crisis. The design is sufficiently simple to allow multiple

configurations that match future lot characteristics. For example, units could be stacked to

a maximum of two storeys and attached side-to-side, indefinitely. Critical factors for repeat

of the design include a south orientation for the long wall in the living area and the position

of the entry relative to the street.

To address housing durability, the concept design features a building envelope equipped

with a rain screen assembly (i.e. airspace between the cladding and remaining building

envelope). This configuration is able to withstand repeated wetting from wind-driven rain

in the coastal climate without allowing water or moisture to enter the building envelope.

Water penetrating porous cladding is simply drained down through the airspace and away

from the envelope. An economical slab-on-grade foundation provides foundational sta-

bility and allows for an at-grade entry. Double glazed, low-e vinyl windows prevent

condensation on the interior window surface. Fiberglass shingle roofing provides an

effective barrier to rain penetration.

To address accessibility, a slab-on-grade construction with access at the ground floor

allows easy access for elders. The entrance to the unit is located in the middle of the floor

plan, minimizing circulation space and bringing visitors into the centre of living activity.

An increased bathroom size to accommodate elders is also included as an option. A floor-

plan of the concept design is shown in Fig. 6.

To address mould concerns, adequate ventilation in the concept design is provided to

keep moisture levels low enough to prevent the growth of mould. Inlet vents are placed in

each bedroom and living space, with exhaust fans in each kitchen and bathroom. In the

design development stage, it is recommended that the selected ventilation system be

sufficiently quiet and have heat recovery capability, in order to prevent housing occupants

from shutting off ventilation to reduce noise and conserve energy. To further reduce noise,

bat h

was

her

drye

r

furn .

tv

doubl e

35'-6"

11'-0

" 11

'-0"

fridge

stove

mic

r o

sink

alternate kitchen locatio n

30'-0

"

entry unit 1

view to water (road + houses across road)

entry unit 2

southern light (and solar heat) into outside area and living space

view to forest / yar d

optio

nal w

al l

close t

utility

pocket door

close t

storage

sliding glass door

hwt

fold

ing

tabl

e

36'-5 7/8"

16'-1

0"

closet close t

up

Fig. 6 Singles unit floor-plan, prepared by Tracey Mactavish and Marie-Odile Marceau and property ofMEJA


123

it is recommended that the HRV system be installed away from the living space, possibly

in utility rooms.

To address capacity building, the use of wood-framed construction and wood-based

exterior finishes throughout encourages the use of local materials and labour.

To address energy efficiency, the unit features a large south-facing window to maximize

solar gain. A concrete interior partition absorbs solar energy during the day and releases

the energy as heat at night, reducing night-time heating costs. The unit also features

double-pane low-emissivity windows and typical levels of insulation for the foundation,

walls, and roof. Heat recovery ventilation is strongly recommended as it provides a low-

cost and low-maintenance method to reduce heating energy costs.

To address the need for a large and flexible space, strategies were explored for stag-

gering floor plates, alternating the position of the entry doors and entry stairs, with issues of

privacy, visibility of the entrance, shelter of the entrance and the size and shape of the

house itself in mind. An open floor-plan with 50% glazing on the south-facing wall

provides abundant daylight to the unit, making the living area feel expansive. An open plan

without walls between lounging, eating and cooking areas facilitates space transformation

when hosting dinners or gatherings. Alternate kitchen arrangements were explored to

maximize flexibility in the main living space. Service and sleeping areas are relegated to

the north side of the building to maintain the open space concept. An additional bedroom

can be added very simply with an additional partition.

To address cultural aesthetics, opportunities for cultural expression through symbols

have been focused around the entryway of both units, with wood trellis/canopy designs that

could incorporate painted clan symbols, carvings or other cultural motifs. Traditional

‘crests’ (most often representations of animals) among the Haisla represent both the kin

groupings to which people belong, and their rights to land and sea resources. As such, they

are the essence of establishing a new home on traditionally occupied lands because they

represent ‘belonging’ to the place. Importantly, it is not just that a house belongs to a

family; the family belongs to a specific cultural place and so becomes both socially situated

and geographically located via culturally appropriate representations placed on a house.

This design encourages that kind of expression by providing space to include it.

To address food preparation, alternate kitchen arrangements were explored to build in

more freezer and pantry storage. Exterior food storage was explored in the form of a root

cellar built in tandem with the smokehouse.

To address outdoor living, the northern entry is designed as an indoor/outdoor transition

zone. When entering, a person moves from an exterior covered area to an interior mud-

room/storage and then into the interior space. The southern entry is a sliding door with

extensive southern glazing, allowing easy access to exterior storage and a visual con-

nection to the yard. Planning of the area surrounding the house is very basic, with ample

area for vehicle and boat storage and for direct vehicle access to the smokehouse and

exterior storage area. Units have been positioned to give the entry visual presence from the

street and to provide south-facing exterior living and working areas for both lots. A shared

smokehouse and root cellar, work bench area and exterior eating area are included in the

design.

7 Recommendations for future housing development

Looking beyond the singles housing unit, future planning in Kitamaat should ideally

include housing types for a broader range of people. Current provisions of large 3-bedroom


123

homes in numbers of 7 per year, while meeting a strong need in the community, are not

sustainable for the Band and leave distinct groups of people (i.e. singles and elders)

without the opportunity to live in the village. Maximizing efficient land use in a crowded

area and reducing the costs of utilities by building more than one unit per lot when

considering smaller units is a recommended strategy, maximizing the number of units that

can be constructed before having to develop a new subdivision on a limited land base.

Several initiatives can be undertaken to promote awareness of humidity levels and

mould growth within the home. First, it is recommended that devices that measure

humidity (i.e. humidstats) are installed in both the kitchen and bathroom. When humidity

levels are too high, occupants would be signalled and could then respond by using exhaust

fans or opening a window. Second, the distribution of locally produced, culturally relevant

posters that provide information on mould growth and prevention may be an effective

method to mitigate and prevent mould growth. Posters should be located in high-humidity

areas such as the kitchen and bathrooms. Third, educational lessons about moisture and

mould can be given to school children, who could return home to help educate other family

members and encourage moisture mitigation.

Finally, there is a strong need for standards within Kitamaat housing policy that identify

mandatory building materials and quality control procedures for construction and main-

tenance. These standards would help ensure that durable, weather-resistant homes are built

by experienced and accountable tradesmen. The standard would be developed locally,

written in plain language and enforced by the community.

8 Conclusions

The concept design document is a work in progress and is intended as a starting point for

the Haisla First Nation as they continue to develop a future direction for their housing

program. The design process and housing principles identified in this study are not limited

to the development of the concept design but can also be useful in guiding future housing

development within Kitamaat village and beyond to other Indigenous communities.

Should other researchers embark on a similar process, more complete community

ownership of the process should be carefully considered. While this work had many of the

elements of community-based research, control over decision-making about actual con-

struction was not part of the structure. The workshop consultation process was well

attended and there were a number of individuals who attended all three workshops and

consistently provided meaningful input, advice and clear insights. Yet, there was some

resistance to decision-making and no real leadership engagement. In particular, there was

no commitment by the Band Council in terms of future housing direction and policy. This

lack of commitment may have been due, in part, to an imminent Band Council election at

the time of the consultations and a subsequent change in personnel.

A strong recommendation for future projects would be to set up a project team—

perhaps a steering committee—at the outset that includes diverse community membership

with highly respected individuals as participants. This team could be made up of elders,

builders and other interested community members and would ultimately have the

responsibility for either direct decision-making, or at least be able to influence decision-

making processes among the community’s elected leaders, whoever they might be. Such a

project team could transcend, at least in part, the vicissitudes of transitory political

authority related to housing on reserves. Further, the project team would give the study

better focus and help ensure there is an ongoing drive within the community to continue the


123

project and see it through various stages of funding and development, independent of the

architectural, engineering and academic study team. It would also be at arm’s length from

the changing Band Council membership—for too close an engagement with leaders who

come and go could also mean a lack of follow-through. The first task of a project team

would be to identify future steps to propel the ideas and recommendations made within the

concept design report into future action.

Finally, the concept design may be applied in other communities as an example of a

process and as a source for design ideas that identify similar housing needs and priorities

on reserves, especially on the NW Coast area of North America. The concept has great

relevance for rapidly growing populations on limited land-bases associated with reserva-

tions throughout the region.

Acknowledgments We are grateful to: members of the Kitamaat First Nation for their participation in thisstudy; BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (BCMEMPR) for financial support andChristina Ianniciello of BCMEMPR for coordination of funding; Dennis Flynn, Housing Manger, KitamaatVillage Council for on-site coordination.

References

Abadian, S. (1999). From wasteland to homeland: Trauma and the renewal of indigenous peoples and theircommunities. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, p 524.

Adelson, N. (2005). The embodiment of inequity—health disparities in aboriginal Canada. CanadianJournal of Public Health, 96, 45–61.

Assembly of First Nations. (2004). Federal government funding for First Nations—the facts, the myths andthe way forward. Retrieved from http://www.afn.ca/cmslib/general/Federal-Government-Funding-to-First-Nations.pdf.

Assembly of First Nations. (2009). Housing: Special chiefs assembly report–2009. Available at http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=105.

Bailie, R. S., & White, K. J. (2006). Housing and health in indigenous communities: Key issues for housingand health improvement in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. AustralianJournal of Rural Health, 14(5), 178–183.

Bureau of the Census. (1995a). American Indian reservation households crowded in 1990. Washington,D.C: Department of Commerce.

Bureau of the Census. (1995b). Housing of American Indians on reservations—plumbing. SB/95-9,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (CMHC). (2002). Building a sustainable future: Seabird IslandFirst nation sustainable community demonstration project. Retrieved from http://www.google.ca/search?q=cmhc?seabird?island&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). (2006). CMHC on-reserve programs and initiatives.Retrieved from http://www.cmhcschl.gc.ca/en/ab/onre/.

Carter, T., & Polevychok, C. (2004). Literature review on issues and needs of aboriginal people to supportwork on ‘‘scoping’’ research issues for municipal governments and aboriginal people living withintheir boundaries. pp 1–21.

Department of Finance. (2006). The budget plan 2006—focusing on priorities. Government of Canada,Retrieved from http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget06/pdf/bp2006e.pdf.

Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1993). Our home: Buildings of the land: Energy effi-ciency design guide for Indian housing. United States Government, Retrieved from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/21217.pdf.

Devine, G. (1999). The housing and homelessness crisis. National Aboriginal Housing Association.Dippie, B. W. (1982). The vanishing American: White attitudes and U.S. Indian policy. Middletown:

Wesleyan University Press.Drinnon, R. (1980). Facing west: The metaphysics of Indian-hating and empire building. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.Drossos, A. (2003). The housing conditions of aboriginal Canadians: A determinants of health framework

and current policy analysis. Briefing document. Family Network, pp 1–40.


123

http://www.afn.ca/cmslib/general/Federal-Government-Funding-to-First-Nations.pdf

http://www.afn.ca/cmslib/general/Federal-Government-Funding-to-First-Nations.pdf

http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=105

http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=105

http://www.google.ca/search?q=cmhc%2bseabird%2bisland&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a



http://www.cmhcschl.gc.ca/en/ab/onre/

http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget06/pdf/bp2006e.pdf

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/21217.pdf

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/21217.pdf

Foreman, G. (1933). Advancing the Frontier, 1830–1860. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Fraser, S. (2002). Report of the auditor general of Canada—Chapter 1: Streamlining first nations reporting

to federal organizations. Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200212_e_1130.html.

Gareau, M. (2004). An examination of the use of domestic space by Inuit families living in Arviat, Nunavut.Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Retrieved from https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/b2c/b2c/init.do?language=en&shop=Z01EN&areaID=0000000043&productID=00000000430000000055.

Gareau, M. (2005). Architecture for elder health in remote British Columbia: A Nisga’a led research. CanadaMortgage and Housing Corporation. Retrieved from https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/b2c/b2c/init.do?language=en&shop=Z01EN&areaID=0000000044&productID=00000000440000000066.

Green, M. (2004). Building communities: First nation best practices for healthy housing and sustainablecommunity development. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Retrieved from https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/b2c/b2c/init.do?language=en&shop=Z01EN&areaID=0000000021&productID=00000000210000000003.

Health Canada. (2000). Statistical profile on the health of First Nations in Canada for the year 2000.Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/pubs/aborig-autoch/stats_profil-eng.php.

Hoxie, F. (1984). A final promise: The campaign to assimilate the Indians, 1880–1920. Lincoln: Universityof Nebraska Press.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). (1990). Laying the foundations of a new on-reserve housingprogram. Government of Canada.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). (1996). Guidelines for the development nation housing pro-posals. Government of Canada.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). (2000). Aboriginal and northern climate change program.Government of Canada.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). (2004). Sustainable development strategy 2004–2006—on theright path together: A sustainable future for first nations, Inuit and northern communities. Governmentof Canada.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). (2005). First nation housing: Information sheet. Governmentof Canada. Retrieved from http://www.aincinac.gc.ca/pr/info/info104_e.html.

Jakubec, L., & Enegland, J. (2004). 2001 census housing series issue 6: Revised aboriginal households.Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Research Division.

Kendall, J. (2001). Circles of disadvantage: Aboriginal poverty and underdevelopment in Canada. TheAmerican Review of Canadian Studies: 31.

Lawrence, R., & Martin, D. (2001). Moulds, moisture and microbial contamination of First Nations housingin British Columbia, Canada. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 60(2), 150–156.

Mackin, N. (2004). Nisga’a architecture and landscapes: Ecological wisdom and community-led design.Dissertation, University of British Columbia.

Marceau-Evans-Johnson Architects and University of Victoria. (2007). Haisla housing study—conceptdesign report.

Marino, C. (1994). Reservations. In M. B. Davis (Ed.), Native America in the twentieth century (pp.544–557). New York: Garland.

Marshall, S. (2005). The land we live on is our home—The ‘Gameti Ko’ project second community-ledworkshop. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

McHardy, M., & O’Sullivan, E. (2004). First nations community well-being in Canada.Meredith, H. (2001). A short history of the native Americans in the United States. Malabar: Kreiger.National Aboriginal Health Organization (NAHO). (2006). First nations regional longitudinal health survey

(RHS) 2002/03: Report on First Nations’ housing.Office of Energy Efficiency. (2005). Prince Albert grand council—a success story. Natural Resources Canada.Ouje-Bougoumou Nation. (2006). Ouje-Bougoumou—the place where people gather. Retrieved from

http://www.ouje.ca.Patterson, L. (2006). Aboriginal roundtable to Kelowna accord: Aboriginal policy negotiations, 2004–2005.

Library of Parliament, Government of Canada.RCAP (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples). (1996). Report of the royal commission on aboriginal

peoples.Statistics Canada. (2008). 2006 census: Analysis series—Aboriginal peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Metis

and First Nations, 2006 census: Findings. Government of Canada.UN (United Nations Housing Rights Programme). (2005). Report no. 7: Indigenous peoples’ rights to

adequate housing.Woloshyniuk, G., Pape-Salmon, A., & Marek, T. (2000). Old crow residential energy efficiency project.

Pembina Institute.


123

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200212_e_1130.html

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200212_e_1130.html

https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/b2c/b2c/init.do?language=en&shop=Z01EN&areaID=0000000043&productID=00000000430000000055







http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/pubs/aborig-autoch/stats_profil-eng.php

http://www.aincinac.gc.ca/pr/info/info104_e.html

http://www.ouje.ca

a participatory process for the design of housing for a first nations community

Documents