Nik Elani Nik Aminaldin & Vanni Meozz
Co-Housing Louis Sauer RMIT Architecture Lower Pool Design Studio Semester 01, 2008 Tutor: Louis Sauer & Hans Tilstra Exhibited Students: Mark Hocking & Alex Hore Nik Elani Nik Aminaldin & Vanni Meozz Simon Wright & Adrian Banuelos During the fall of 2007, the RMIT Cohousing Forum and a RMIT undergraduate architectural design studio collaborated to produce a range of spatial alternatives to help define (or re-define) the characteristics of cohousing. Also, it was hoped to demonstrate that physical examples of housing design alternatives might increase the participants’ interest and involvement in developing a specific Cohousing site. The key issues addressed were: privacy and shared places, aesthetics, affordability, sustainability and management. Although there was broad agreement that cohousing could offer advantages over the normal marketplace, there evolved strong differences about the size and character of the private homes, what communal activities and services would be useful and how these would be paid for in both the initial purchase as well as their day-to-day management. A most interesting finding was that the brief of some participants essentially resulted in a re-interpretation of cohousing development to provide them a physical form to isolate them from the surrounding neighbourhood. The Cohousing Forum facilitator selected three sites and provided individuals who participated as clients for the students. Participant households met with a student team in their homes and the students redesigned the home to the participant’s desire. The student cohousing site designs were reviewed at three Forum meetings: at the beginning, the mid-point and at the semester’s completion. At these reviews the participants discussed their thoughts and gave the students direction for the kind of houses, community building and for the overall site. During the first Forum meeting, the participant and student dialogue produced a range of issues and concerns. This provided guidance for the students’ spatial design but they also served as a framework to focus the participant’s discussions. Interestingly at the Forum reviews, a few outspoken individuals most often commanded attention and overwhelmed differing thoughts. As a result, it was difficult to ascertain whether the verbal decisions were representative of all Forum participants. The decisions were organized around the participants for each specific site. The three selected sites are in the Melbourne metropolitan area: Preston, Belgrave and Hastings. Each site had unique physical, programmatic and participant characteristics. The participants for all sites wanted a community building with at least a kitchen and dinning room to accommodate all residents at a sitting plus some guests. They desired additional rooms for a separate children’s play, a small office, toilets, a combined workroom, tool storage and resident lockable storage and a building-site maintenance room. All participants want at least two motel-like rooms for hire in each site’s community building. Preston’s site is vacant, flat with no trees and is in an established single-family-detached housing neighbourhood characterized by
California bungalow house types. A public bus stop is on its main street. The designs acceptable to the Preston participants accommodated 22 terrace houses lining three of the site’s streets. Parking is to be combined in lot separate from the houses. Each two-story house should have minimal private yards. The participants want a single community open space with all houses facing it. Visitors are to access all of the residents’ houses from the community building and not from the adjoining streets, which the houses face. The Belgrave site is full with mature trees, very narrow, long, and steeply sloped, The owner of the site occupies a single family detached house on the site and is actively promoting the site’s use for cohousing. Council will restrict the site’s development to add an additional 10 houses. The participants want the houses to be one and two stories high with each to have direct car access, parking and private yards. The houses should be as isolated from one another as possible. The large and flat Hastings site is on the outskirts of the town and adjacent to a caravan park and two-story established single-family detached houses of various conventional developer/builder styles. Unlike the other two sites, there were no participants for the Hastings site who were interested in living there. Its participants represented various Mornington Peninsula Shire’s council staff and one person advocating senior housing. Thus, the senior housing use for this site came from council and not from any future users. In spite of four distinct designs prepared for the Forum’s review, no articulate brief was established. A striking feature was the Preston participants desire not to have any front doors facing public streets in order to separate themselves from visits from unknown people. They did not want their mail to be delivered to their front doors. They stated they did not want anyone knocking on their front door. Although they did not state it directly, this strongly suggests a desire to avoid participation with their neighbours. It is clear that for this group of participants, cohousing is perceived as a way to separate themselves from people different from themselves. In a similar vein, the Belgrave participants wanted to live in the site’s heavily landscaped environment but not see others, or be seen by others, living on the site. Although not spoken, one got the sense that they felt any oversight would intrude upon their appreciation of nature. Thus, with the Belgrave as with the Preston participants, for them to obtain a sense of physical isolation appears to be a dominant value for the development of cohousing. Although the participants for the Preston and Belgrave sites’ were very interested in the possibility to live in their selected cohousing site, no statements of positive shared community values were enunciated. This was a very surprising result because the normal understanding of what distinguishes cohousing from the conventional marketplace housing is that the people who desire to live in cohousing typically hold a common vision for social, political and/or spiritual values. It is interesting that the shared values binding a group of cohousing participants together should seek to the negate neighbouring and isolate themselves. Cohousing in this context takes on an essentially antisocial bias and the buildings become a kind of a fortress. Could it be that the typical suburban house plan, where the areas for active family socialization is designed to take place in the back of the house and in the back yard, is a very basic part of our contemporary culture? In past times, the street was the place for the celebration of community life and the house acted as a transition, and not a barrier, between public and private life. Could cohousing here in Melbourne be transforming its traditional value of engaging and sharing together to a defensive idea of protection from any others? Regardless of this unexpected interpretation of the co-housing idea, it is clear that the use of architectural design is an excellent device to obtain dialogue and to uncover the characteristics that people would like to have for their housing.
026
common house
027
Simon Wright & Adrian Banuelos
028
common house
3 bedrrom dwelling
Mark Hocking & Alex Hore
Nik Elani Nik Aminaldin & Vanni Meozz