PCAgenda_91Jul22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

25 A site plan jor the 6vinslow Colrousirrg Group on Bainbridge Islmrd, 61'nsh- irrgton, cells jor 10 semidetndred ]rouses and hvo townhouse clusters in sizes r-nnging jrom 500 to 1,600 ~.,_ sclum•e jeet. Hnthryrr McCnnrmzt ~ w /below, lejtJ reviews n ed model jor the Doyle ~w"'b,.Po Sheet project in a Emeryville, Cnlijor- ~s nin. The jinished product will hm~e ~ 12 emits chrstered ~~ mrorurd 2,200 square jeer ojinterior conmron space. 0 U U ~ i9 ~ ~~% ched houses clustered around a com- mon house and a swimming pool, was never realized because of neighbors' ob- jections. "Even though we had not used the word collective in our description ...they simply saw 'red, "' he said. But the architect persisted and in the more liberal atmosphere of the early 1970s, several cohousing communities were built. These early developments, each of which accommodated about 30 families, pro- vided the fledgling movement with models. Today, Danish communities vary in size from two to 80 households, with the average consisting of 20 to 30. Although the developments in Den- markfollow noformula, certain patterns have emerged. In the suburbs (where most of the developments are locatedj, the units are either aligned along pedes- trianpaths or clustered around a central green or courtyard. Cars are relegated to perimeter parking lots. Several of the Danish communities are urban reuse projects. In the city of Aarhus, for in- stance, eight families have transformed old junkyard surrounded by eight de- pit rowhouses into a development that cCamant and Durrett describe as "an urban paradise." Common facilities are cohousing's most distinctive characteristic. Almost all the Danish projects include a variety of com- munal spaces-footpaths, gardens, play areas, even barns and greenhouses. Some include common interior space. One 21- unit development, for instance, is clus- teredaround an old iron foundry, whose roomy interior has become an al/-weather courtyard. "The heart of the cohousing commu- nity," write McCamant and Durrett, is the common house. Analogous in some ways to a condominium clubhouse, this building-generally 3,000 to 4,000 square feet-typically includes group cooking and dining facilities and, perhaps, guest rooms, workshops, darkrooms, music practice spaces, and shared offices. By accommodating many activities that or- dinarilytake place at home, the common house allows the individual units to be smaller than their conventional counter- parts-1,000 square feet as opposed to the 1,300 square feet that is the norm for a Danish house. All of the Danish communities are managed by the residents themselves, with decisions reached through consen- sus. Often, community responsibilities, such as preparing dinner or cleaning shared space, are rotated among work groups. The projects have been financed as condominiums and limited-equity coops, with some rentals included as well. According to Durrett, units in the early developments tended to cost slightly more than the market rate; today, they cost slightly less, largely because a 1981 law made cooperative developments of all kinds eligible for government-spon- sored loans. Obstacles Cohousing groups in the U.S. face two potential hurdles-zoning approval and construction financing. Receiving zoning approval will depend, of course, on state and local laws, and on the open-minded- ness of individual planning boards and communities. Virginia Thigpen, a mem- ber of the Muir Commons group, notes that Davis has traditionally favored pro- gressive housing. "Village Homes [the solar community built there in the 1970s] broke the ice," she says. "Its success has made officials here more open to new ideas-which certainly helped us with our development." In other places, the acceptance of planned unit developments may have paved the way. "I don't anticipate that zoning will be an obstacle to cohousing," says architect Bruce Coldham of Amherst, Massachusetts, the editor of the Northeast Cohousing Quarterly. Likewise, JohnEverts, a city planner who is now reviewing the zoning application of the Benicia, Cali- fornia, group, suggests that the fact that a development is a cohousing community "need not in itself be a problem. We're processing this application the way we would any condominium or planned de- velopment," he says. In some places, the cohousing tag may evenwork to aproject's advantage. That's true in Emeryville, where antigrowth sentiment is strong, and the Doyle Street Cohousing Community was approved specifically because it is a cohousing development. Financing may be a bigger obstacle. Connecticut architect Harwood Loomis, who has long been interested in coopera- tive housing, notes that "banks don't know what to make of cohousing groups. They're willing to deal with a developer who wants to build a condominium with two dozen units, but they're not at all sure how to handle 24 families who together want to build and finance a community. " Most U.S. cohousing groups are fol- lowing the Danish model and working with developers rather than trying to develop their communities themselves. Some of the firms involved are nonprofits. Others simply believe that cohousing makes good business sense. Stephen Hannah, the developer of the Emeryville