Nashville Civic Design Center Cohousing: A Community Housing Type for Nashville ground and a common house. Members cook and share meals in the Common House on one or more nights a week. Shared childcare, gardening, and other activities, as well as shared governance all fosters a sense of community. Generally, consensus is used as a means of decision-making. That is, the effort is made to hear all voices in the community, and to make major decisions only with the agreement of all members.
The six defining characteristics of cohousing 1. Participatory process. Future residents participate in the design of the community so that it meets their needs. Some cohousing communities are initiated or driven by a developer. In those cases, if the developer brings the future resident group into the process late in the planning, the residents will have less input into the design. A well-designed, pedestrianoriented community without significant resident participation in the planning may be “cohousinginspired,” but it is not a cohousing community. 2. Neighborhood design. The physical layout and orientation of the buildings (the site plan) encourage a sense of community. For example, the private residences are clustered on the site, leaving more shared open space. The dwellings typically face each other across a pedestrian street or courtyard, with cars parked on the periphery. Often, the front doorway of every home affords a view of the common house. What far outweighs any specifics, however, is the intention to create a strong sense of community, with design as one of the facilitators. Photo Courtesy of Harmony Village http://www.harmonyvillage.org/
Introduction to cohousing Cohousing is a type of cooperative housing in which residents actively participate in the design and operation of their own neighborhoods. Cohousing residents are consciously committed to living as a community. The physical design encourages both social contact and individual space. Private homes contain all the features of conventional homes, but residents also have access to extensive common facilities such as open space, courtyards, a play-
3. Common facilities. Common facilities are designed for daily use, are an integral part of the community, and are always supplemental to the private residences. The common house typically includes a common kitchen, dining area, sitting area, children's playroom and laundry, and also may contain a workshop, library, exercise room, crafts room and/or one or two guest rooms. Except on very tight urban sites, cohousing communities often have playground equipment, lawns and gardens as well. Since the buildings are clustered, larger sites may retain several or many acres of undeveloped shared open space.
Nashville Civic Design Center • Urban Design / Policy Brief • Cohousing: A Community Housing Type for Nashville • www.civicdesigncenter.org
1
4. Resident management. Residents manage their own cohousing communities, and also perform much of the work required to maintain the property. They participate in the preparation of common meals, and meet regularly to solve problems and develop policies for the community. 5. Non- hierarchical structure and decisionmak ing. Leadership roles naturally exist in cohousing communities, however no one person (or persons) has authority over others. Most groups start with one or two “burning souls.” As people join the group, each person takes on one or more roles consistent with his or her skills, abilities or interests. Most cohousing groups make all of their decisions by consensus, and, although many groups have a policy for voting if the group cannot reach consensus after a number of attempts, it is rarely or never necessary to resort to voting. 6. No shared community economy. The community is not a source of income for its members. Occasionally, a cohousing community will pay one of its residents to do a specific (usually time-limited) task, but more typically the work will be considered that member's contribution to the shared responsibilities.
Key elements of a cohousing community The characteristics aforementioned are not always true of every cohousing community, but together they serve to distinguish cohousing from other types of collaborative housing. While no two cohousing communities are the same, there are a few elements that insure successful cohousing communities: •
• • • •
Each household needs to have its own complete, private living space, but this is best when set in the context of a 'neighborhood', with the choice of some shared amenities. Environmental damage should be minimized and environmental benefit sought in all aspects of daily life. Diversity and equality between people is to be embraced and welcomed. Wellbeing of individuals and communities comprises cultural, emotional, spiritual, creative, social and material aspects of life. Cooperation and collaboration between households is mutually beneficial in terms of social and environmental benefits; each of which can be a precursor to economic benefits.
safely play and where residents can meet and greet one another as they come and go. Communities include a 'Common House’, which will have facilities where the community can come together periodically to share a meal or celebrate a social event. It will also house additional facilities that the residents feel to be important (laundry, workshops, children's play space, guest accommodation etc.) The aim of cohousing development is the creation of an intentional community. There should be attention given to designing for a diverse mix of residents. This includes, but is not limited to, handicap accessibility and a mix of all ages including single people, families with children and retired couples who wish to live independently in a co-operative way. Cohousing neighborhoods should be prepared to take responsibility for themselves, for their needs and for the impact they have on the environment.
Environmentally sustainable In designing and building the houses, workshops and other facilities attention should be paid to the environmental aspects and impacts of the development. Houses will benefit from solar gain and heat storage, water conservation measures including rainwater storage and grey water recycling for non-potable use should be inbuilt. Other energy saving features such as solar water heaters, district heating systems and if affordable photovoltaic cells should be elemental in the design. Reducing dependence on motorized transport can be achieved by having on site car sharing, carpooling and encouraging the use of public transport and bicycling. If appropriate utilizing alternative fuels for vehicles should be implemented in order to reduce pollution and CO2 emissions. Growing food can contribute to community needs and encourage other diversification in land use for the benefit of the community and the environment. Examples include biomass, orchards, allotments, and polytunnels. Economics are then tied into the social and environmental elements of the community, not incidental to them.
Retrofitting as a cohousing alternative Socially sustainable Proper cohousing design will enhance the opportunity for social interaction by having a pedestrian thoroughfare with cars being restricted to parking on the periphery of the site. This will create a traffic free environment in which children can
An evolving trend in cohousing development is retrofitting. Retrofitting is the creation of a cohousing neighborhood by buying adjacent properties and removing physical barriers separating them. Particularly in urban areas, where new construction is expensive and building sites are few, retrofit cohousing offers an alternative to typical cohousing communities, which are built from the ground up.
Nashville Civic Design Center • Urban Design / Policy Brief • Cohousing: A Community Housing Type for Nashville • www.civicdesigncenter.org
2
Retrofit cohousing neighborhoods differ from traditional ones because residents start with a few existing homes on a block, and then find innovative ways to adapt the houses, alleys, backyards and courtyards to make them more pedestrianfriendly and community-oriented. By nature, every retrofit neighborhood is unique, and each community has its own timetable, depending upon financial resources, availability of adjacent properties and the buy-in of neighbors. Cohousing amenities, such as a common house, are generally built after the fact; therefore, group meetings and community meals are generally alternated between homes within the community.
using an outdoor room as a social medium, cohousing communities are subconsciously committed to the ongoing livelihood of nature.
Urban relations Cohousing is one of many strategic design patterns for residential development. It gives design answers to the five essential attributes of sustainable urbanism as defined by Douglas Farr: definition, connectedness, compactness, completeness, and biophilia. Though cohousing is a much smaller, grassroots type of residential development, its positive aspects prove to be a viable alternative to land consuming suburban sprawl. First, cohousing supports definition in its defined center, which is generally a pedestrian alley. Along this alley are resident housing and the common house. Edges are defined by both parking and building, and may even be obscurely defined by the natural corridors that connect wildlife and critters across the site. Connectedness, then, is obtained through the natural corridor created by open space. Another form of connection is established by the abundant opportunities to walk, ride, bike, and wheelchair around the neighborhood. Assuming transit and land use are strategically integrated throughout the community, connectedness would extend into the city. Pragmatically, the opportunity for transit deals with compactness – the third attribute of sustainable urbanism. The idea of sustainable urbanism is not achievable at low densities. Aside from the benefit of a smaller development footprint, compactness also promotes walking and biking throughout the neighborhood. Thus, there is more community interaction and residents become socially sustainable. The fourth attribute of sustainable urbanism is completeness. While completeness refers to neighborhoods that have walkable amenities such as schools, post offices, or pharmacies, it can also refer to adequate diversity in housing types to sustain a mix of people. Varying housing sizes for large families, single peoples, and empty nesters allows for a community that is complete with a wide range of ages. The fifth and final attribute for sustainable urbanism is biophilia. Biophilia is the name given to the human love of nature based on this intrinsic interdependence between humans and other living systems. Within a cohousing community, compactness and connectedness are two strengths promoting biophilia. With an emphasis on outdoor activities like gardening, and
Nashville, Tennessee Photo Courtesy of Gary Layda
Greening Nashville Nashville has set out to become the “Greenest City in the Southeast.” Creating an effective public transit is a goal that Nashville sees as necessary in its evolution to a major metropolitan city. Aside from its obvious sustainability benefits, the transportation plans will allow for concentrated development along arteries from the city; thus, a reduction in auto dependency and an increase in Tennessee’s scenic beauty. The thought of an entire city supporting this movement is invigorating! A plea against the current sedentary lifestyle is long overdue. While giant steps are being taken at the state level, sustainable living starts with the citizens. Resources for information are becoming limitless while resources for commodities are dwindling. Residents can harmonize, neighborhoods can collaborate, and communities can network if Nashville truly wants to become the “Greenest City in the Southeast.”
But cohousing in Nashville? Look through any cohousing book, or online at any cohousing website, and they all have one thing in common: Tennessee is not mentioned… at all. As a concept, cohousing communities may prove to be too forward for a southern state like Tennessee. Interestingly enough, surrounding states such as Georgia, Alabama, and Kentucky all have cohousing communities; but once the borders of Tennessee are reached, cohousing is no where to be found.
Nashville Civic Design Center • Urban Design / Policy Brief • Cohousing: A Community Housing Type for Nashville • www.civicdesigncenter.org
3
Maybe Nashville, like many other southern metropolitans, is still in love with asphalt. Many residents would assume leaving “hippy communes” for more progressive states like California or Vermont. In reality, the diversity of Nashville’s people may prove to be just the catalyst for the dramatic lifestyle change that comes with cohousing. As young professionals, aging musicians, and retiring workers search for a place to establish themselves, Nashville proves to have a scarce source of true communities. The question then becomes, how relevant is cohousing in Nashville? While there is not one answer for this question, one should savor the overlapping benefits that cohousing can offer. Social diversity, sustainable living, environmental value, economic opportunity, reduced dependency on major corporations (gas companies, big box stores, ect.) and a higher degree of happiness are a few of the benefits that have been documented in all cohousing communities across the country. Taking into account the positives of these neighborhoods on the people, environment, and economy, it is a wonder why cohousing is not suggested as a development alternative.
Areas for opportunity Though cohousing is beneficial in most any urban/rural environment, there are specific areas within downtown Nashville that could take advantage of cohousing. The neighborhood qualifications could include availability of land, accepting attitudes, desire of infill development, and rezoning opportunities. Specific neighborhoods that have been analyzed by the Nashville Civic Design Center include: Germantown, East Germantown, Salemtown and Buena Vista (Red); Historic Edgefield and East Bank (Blue); Eastwood Neighbors, Historic East End, Lockeland Springs, Cayce and Douglas Park (Yellow); Cleveland Park, McFerrin Park, Cumberland Northeast and Ellington (Purple); Edgehill (Orange); Chestnut Hill, Wedgewood, Sudekum, Napier and Houston (Green).
Map showing neighborhoods within downtown Nashville
Nashville Civic Design Center • Urban Design / Policy Brief • Cohousing: A Community Housing Type for Nashville • www.civicdesigncenter.org
4
Photo Courtesy of right-by-design.co.uk
Photo Courtesy of right-by-design.co.uk
An average housing estate built to conventional standards
A design variation on an average housing estate using characteristics of cohousing development
Off site sewage treatment
Smaller environmental footprint
Off site energy provision from fossil fuel sources
Pedestrian center with cars on the periphery
Off site water piped in
District heating and/or CHP
Excessive infrastructure and paving
Water conservation
32 residential units on a 3.5-acre site
Reed bed sewage 27 dwellings and 6 - 9 workshops/offices on a 3.5-acre site
Nashville Civic Design Center • Urban Design / Policy Brief • Cohousing: A Community Housing Type for Nashville • www.civicdesigncenter.org
5
Case Study East Lak e Commons:
Photo Courtesy of World Habitat Awards http://www.worldhabitatawards.org/winners-and-finalists/projectdetails.cfm?lang=00&theProjectID=14
Location:
DeKalb County, Georgia (4 miles from Atlanta)
Property area:
20 acres; 8 acres developed
Units:
67
Units per acre:
8.4
Completed:
2000
Planners:
Village Habitat Design in Georgia
The 20 acres were zoned for duplexes on 7500 sq. ft. lots. A zoning variance allowed for the entire 67 homes to be placed on less than 1/2 of the land. The preserved 60% are gardens, woodland, pond, and play field. Sustainability Features include land preservation, pedestrian centered layout, shared resources, storm water filtration and retention, centralized parking, organic gardens, and HOA owned assets to be shared.
Sonora Cohousing
Photo Courtesy of Arizona Dept. of Water Resources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/Watermanagement/AMAs/TucsonAMA/Xeri scape_Contest_Winners_2006_000.htm
Location:
Tucson, Arizona
Property area:
4.8 acres
Units:
36
Units per acre:
7.5
Completed:
2000
Planners:
Wonderland Hill Development Co.
Sustainability features include large community garden, retention basins (100% of storm water retained on site), protected/relocated plants in compliance with the Native Plant Protection Ordinance (NPPO), vegetation that had to be destroyed was shredded for mulch, built on vacant city lot (close to services, transportation, and utilities), native desert not destroyed for the development, buildings oriented for solar gain in buildings, and pedestrian emphasis to reduce emphasis on parking.
Nashville Civic Design Center • Urban Design / Policy Brief • Cohousing: A Community Housing Type for Nashville • www.civicdesigncenter.org
6
Cambridge Cohousing
Duwamish Cohousing
Photo Courtesy of Duwamish Cohousing http://www.duwamishcohousing.org/
Location:
Seattle, Washington
Property area:
2.7 acres
Units:
23
Units per acre:
8.5
Completed:
2000
Architect:
Meg Ludlum
Founded on 6 core values: community, diversity, environment, decisions, group activities, and the larger neighborhood. Photo Courtesy of http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/vhLNvvsjMO4XYlN_gmYCug
Location:
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Property area:
1.5 acres
Units:
41
Units per acre:
27.4
Completed:
1998
Architect:
Bruce Hampton and Oaktree Development
Sustainability Features include pedestrian centered layout, shared resources, energy efficient homes, centralized parking, organic gardens, and extensive common facilities.
Sustainability features include varying unit sizes and shapes to accommodate diverse needs, keeping the cars hidden & creating open space, unit orientation toward pedestrian spine when possible, accessibility (stair chairs, elevators, ground-level entry), extensive common facilities, nodes at garden, and a serendipitous use of found on-site granite blocks.
Nashville Civic Design Center • Urban Design / Policy Brief • Cohousing: A Community Housing Type for Nashville • www.civicdesigncenter.org
7
N Street Cohousing (Retrofit)
Citation Selected wording in describing cohousing, cohousing characteristics and retrofit cohousing was conversant and adapted from http://www.cohousing.org/. All information and images gathered referring to particular cohousing neighborhoods were accessed through that communities website or http://www.cohousing.org/. Websites accessed: June 21-June 24, 2010. Selected wording in describing sustainable urbanism was conversant and adapted from: Farr, Douglas. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. Hoboken, New Jersey: Farr Associates, 2008.
Photo Courtesy of Fellowship for International Communities http://directory.ic.org/2092/N_Street_Cohousing/images/373
Location:
Davis, California
Property area:
3 acres
Units:
19
Units per acre:
6.4
Completed:
1986
Architect:
Clay Johnson (Common House)
N Street Cohousing is the premier example of retrofit cohousing. Beginning with a couple of neighbors tearing down
fences, N Street has evolved over 19 years and now consists of 17 houses on one block currently housing 40 adults and 18 children. From the street it looks like a block of 1950s tract housing, but behind the homes residents make full use of shared open space. A flagstone path meanders past grassy areas, lush flower and vegetable gardens, a community hot tub, children’s play equipment and a community chicken coop as it passes from house to house, connecting neighbors, friends and family. Residents eat common dinners several times a week, work, play and sometimes vacation together.
This Case Study was created by the Nashville Civic Design Center. The report was written by Brent Hunter (Design Intern) and edited by Gary Gaston, Design Studio Director.
Nashville Civic Design Center • Urban Design / Policy Brief • Cohousing: A Community Housing Type for Nashville • www.civicdesigncenter.org
8