Four Things Antarctica Teaches Us About Housing Stability
- Nicole Fontaine
- May 12
- 8 min read
How design for extreme environment survival should guide the future of housing
What if the future of housing- where we live, how we inhabit- wasn't found in cities or suburbs, but on a frozen continent, where survival depends on design?
Antarctica— unforgiving, expansive- one of Earth's harshest climates.
Here, the clarity one gains from design- biological or man-made- is offered without discernment.
In an environment with katabatic winds rivaling hurricanes and temperatures dipping below -70° C, the stakes of design becomes visceral. Every design consideration- from connection joint to social layout- is tested daily, pushed to the edge in each season. And while few of us will ever live there, the lessons Antarctica teaches us about housing stability are deeply relevant back home. As we confront a climate crisis, market and industry volatility, displacement, and housing insecurity, we are continually learning just how to build for resilience, equity, and endurance.
In this piece:
Why Antarctica? Why Now?
Housing is no longer just about affordability, though now long-standing as a central concern in the influence of both individual and communal well-being. We must acknowledge that many of the studied causes- climate events, displacement, infrastructural decay, economic upheaval- are in many cases symptoms of systemic resilience failure. Homes are contending with heat waves, floods, fires, putrefaction.
A built world that can't hold itself up against the test of time.
An environment that anticipated temporality, and an optimism that outpaced our adaptation.
Of course within this, "resilience" can- and has- become a buzzword.
So what does it really mean to build resilient housing? How can we take on the lessons of yesterday and build for tomorrow? Who gets access?
For this, we can turn to Antarctica.
Even if it may seem remote, untouched, and unrelatable, but in extreme isolation and environmental volatility, we are provided some of the clearest case studies of survival architecture in the cold ice-continent.
They are structures that demand certainty. Every one of them is a life-support system.
Externally, brutal forces need to be withstood, emphasizing the urgency of form and design command. Internally, the building needs to sustain life socially, psychologically, and physiologically— often for months and without escape, making obvious our most necessary agents of survival.
These demands are not hypothetical. They mirror, in exaggerated form, the very failures we witnessed during recent world-altering events such as COVID-19, the rising housing crisis, and the increasing frequency of climate-driven disasters. These events exposed how ill-prepared our built environments are when pushed beyond routine. We've seen housing systems buckle under pressure, basic needs go unmet, and policy decisions that lacked foresight for extremity. We've witnessed how isolation without psychological infrastructure frays communities, and how inequitable design deepens already existing class divides.
But this is not luxury. It is precision. It is necessity. And it reflects something urgent about how we must now design for all housing— not just for edge cases, but the non-negotiable necessity of designing not just for what is likely, but for what is possible. It must be anticipatory.
In this piece, we explore crucial lessons that Antarctica teaches us about housing stability. These insights are not abstract. They are direct about shelter, systems, and support networks in a climate-uncertain world, where failure is fatal. Antarctica serves us as a quiet yet radical case study on everything from communal systems to sensory design, and should inform our housing baseline.
Different Latitudes. Same Stakes.
Check-in: What does stable housing mean to you?
A place that doesn't leak or break
A community I can rely on
A space I feel safe and seen in
I've never felt stable in my housing
I. Environmental Extremes Reveal Systemic Fragility
In Antarctica, survival hinges on system integrity. Housing isn’t just a structure— it’s a tightly regulated, high-performance life-support machine.
Energy is often generated on-site through diesel or increasingly hybridized microgrids.
Potable water is created through melt systems or desalination.
The building envelope must hold a stable interior climate while outside temperatures drop below -70°C and wind loads exceed 100 mph.
If the HVAC fails, if a pipe freezes, or if a structural seal breaks, the space becomes uninhabitable—immediately.
There is no buffer.
This clarity reveals the essential: housing is only as stable as its weakest system under pressure.
Now apply this lens to urban housing in climate-vulnerable regions: cities facing extreme heat, rising sea levels, wildfire smoke, grid outages, or water contamination, cases becoming less and less rare. When temperatures spike and the AC breaks, when the basement floods, when the air becomes unbreathable? Our homes are not "resilient." They are shelters in name only.
The lesson here insists that housing must be designed for performance under stress, not just for code compliance in static conditions, which is how many of us build today.
Most housing assumes continuity: stable power, clean water, moderate weather, responsive maintenance.
And that assumption is failing in real time.
Case Study: Phoenix, Arizona Heatwaves & Housing as a Systemic Risk
In the summer of 2023, Maricopa County reported 645 heat-associated deaths, the highest on record. The majority occurred indoors, often in apartments where air conditioning had failed or was too expensive to run. Many of these units were technically “up to code,” yet they were structurally incapable of maintaining safe internal temperatures during prolonged grid strain and heatwaves.
The systems weren’t broken— they were simply inadequate for the new climate reality.
Design Implications:
Build Redundancies:
Antarctic stations have overlapping power systems, insulated backups, and layered controls. Redundancy is stability rather than waste. Urban housing should include layered systems (solar + grid, passive cooling + mechanical), decentralized water storage, and independent microgrids where possible.
Design for Failure:
Assume things will go wrong. How quickly can a home shed heat during an outage? Can it operate without external power for 48 hours? Is the envelope airtight enough to retain warmth or cool? Buildings should have passive survival modes— not just optimal functioning states.
Invest in Performance-Based Code:
Most housing code is descriptive and reactive, not predictive. Performance-based codes, like those used in Antarctic and space architecture, define outputs: temperature stability, air quality, structural resilience. These metrics should be adopted more widely, particularly in public and subsidized housing.
II. Communal Design is Critical to Individual Survival
In Antarctica, no one survives alone. Research stations function as closed systems, where food, power, water, and even morale are collectively impacted and managed. Infrastructure is designed around interdependence— not only because it’s efficient, but because individual survival depends on shared responsibility.
An infamous instance of this was the feat of Leonid Rogozov, a surgeon who- when overwintering and left with no other option as the only surgeon personal on the team- performed an appendectomy on himself. (You can read more here.)
Medical emergencies, maintenance needs, and daily logistics are distributed tasks, and the social architecture of the station reinforces this.
This principle translates directly to urban housing. In vulnerable communities, when systems break down—whether it’s electricity, caregiving, or food access—it’s neighbors, not institutions, who become first responders. Yet, most housing is designed to isolate: separate units, separated resources, siloed services.
True housing stability requires a shift from isolated units to networked systems— resilience hubs, shared resources, and spatial layouts that facilitate cooperation, not disconnection.
Design Implications:
Embed Shared Infrastructure:
Think beyond the unit—design shared energy systems, water catchment, or community kitchens.
Cluster and Connect:
Co-locate housing with transit, schools, clinics, and resilience hubs.
Design for Mutual Aid:
Include adaptable social spaces, tool-sharing rooms, or emergency assembly zones.
III. Psychological Resilience is a Spatial Issue
Antarctica imposes deep psychological strain: isolation, darkness, monotony, and confinement. Station design directly addresses this—with color therapy, natural light simulation, spatial variety, and communal rituals. Mental health is treated as a design problem.
In low-income or emergency housing, this is rarely prioritized. Uniform, overlit, or crowded interiors can exacerbate trauma, depression, and stress— especially post-disaster or in transitional shelter.
“Sometimes I pretend the generator hum is an ocean, just to remember what noise used to feel like.” — The Noise of Ice: An Antarctica Story by Elizabeth Fesler
Design Implications:
Prioritize Light, Color, and View:
Use daylight access, warm tones, and nature references to improve well-being.
Create Zones of Control:
Give occupants agency over small environments—curtains, doors, dimmers, moveable furniture.
Design for Recovery, Not Just Shelter:
Incorporate sensory variety, privacy gradients, and quiet zones.
IV. Mobility and Modularity (Intentional Prefab: Not That Bad)
In Antarctica, buildings aren’t poured in place. They’re delivered in parts, assembled on-site, and designed to move if conditions demand. Modularity isn’t just a construction method; it’s a resilience strategy. Whether it’s seasonal use, site degradation, or evolving missions, structures are expected to adapt physically.
Meanwhile, in mainstream architecture, prefabrication still carries stigma. Seen as cheap, impermanent, or uninspired, installations come in camps of disposable or inaccessible. But as climate volatility displaces more people and infrastructure fails faster, fixed-location permanence can become a liability, not a virtue.
Case Study: Bharati Station, East Antarctica
Prefabrication in Extreme Conditions
Constructed first in Germany using 134 prefabricated shipping containers, the modular approach of this station allowed for the building to be assembled in a singular summer.
The station can be entirely disassembled and removed, adhering to the conditions of the Antarctic Treaty.
Design Implications:
Design for Assembly, Disassembly, and Re-Deployment:
Use modular systems that can evolve with changing conditions—stack, extend, relocate, or deconstruct. Avoid embedded dependencies (e.g., slab-on-grade, site-poured utilities) when climate or context is unstable.
Prefabrication as Precision, Not Cheapness:
High-performance prefab can exceed site-built standards—especially in insulation, airtightness, and speed. Reframe prefab as pre-emptive resilience, not discount design.
Design for Movement Without Sacrificing Dignity:
Mobility does not have to mean disposability. Use aesthetics, detailing, and spatial richness to ensure modular doesn’t mean “temporary” in experience.
IV. Maintenance is Mandatory
In Antarctica, daily maintenance is built into the survival routine. If something isn’t working—a seal fails, a vent clogs, a generator sputters— it’s addressed immediately. Why? Because deferral means death. There is no “wait until the fiscal cycle.” Every resident is trained, responsible, and empowered to intervene.
Contrast this with public housing, low-income developments, or even market-rate apartments in many cities. Maintenance is outsourced, delayed, or deprioritized. Repairs require tenants to fight. Problems compound. What begins as a leak becomes mold, then structural rot, then health crisis.
Lesson: Resilience is not just about the build—it’s about the upkeep. Without a plan, budget, and culture of maintenance, housing decays into precarity.
Case Study: Pruitt-Igoe, St. Louis
When Maintenance Becomes a Death Sentence
Opened in 1954, Pruitt-Igoe was a 33-building public housing complex heralded as a modernist solution to urban poverty.
Within two decades, it was demolished.
Almost immediately after opening, Pruitt-Igoe was underfunded. Elevators failed. Plumbing went unrepaired. Trash chutes clogged and were never cleaned. Security systems were nonexistent or broken. Tenants submitted requests that went unaddressed— not because they were unreasonable, but because no budget or institutional will existed to maintain the system they had been placed in.
What failed wasn’t only the architecture. It was the myth that buildings could function in social and political vacuums.
Design Implications:
Design for Maintainability:
Use accessible mechanical systems, durable finishes, and visible service routes. Avoid hidden, high-maintenance, or proprietary components. Simplicity sustains.
Embed Maintenance in Culture and Budget:
Make maintenance part of operating budgets—not just capital projects. Train tenants, staff, or community members in basic upkeep and empower proactive care.
Design for Feedback Loops, Not Just Delivery:
Maintenance requires information. Use sensors, user reporting, and post-occupancy evaluation to monitor and respond— just like Antarctic crews track building vitals daily.
Antarctica isn’t just a frontier— it’s a mirror. Its buildings teach us what happens when architecture is taken seriously as infrastructure for survival, care, and adaptability. In a world increasingly shaped by crisis, our housing must do the same.
If this resonated, stay with me. I write on design, systems, and survival— where architecture meets real life.
Subscribe to get future pieces directly, and
Explore more essays on housing, resilience, and the future we’re quietly building.
Comments