Thesis

“SHARED LIVES ARE HEALTHY LIVES” -McCamant & Durrett architects

M-GEN HAUS

MODELS FOR SUSTAINABLE MULTI-GENERATIONAL LIVING THESIS:

ARCHITECTURE & RESEARCH

[TAKE A LOOK INSIDE!!]

>>

02

38

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | 05 FOREWARD| 07 INTRODUCTION | 09

DESIGN PROPOSAL | 40 CONCLUSION| 62 BIBLIOGRAPHY | 64

[ABOUT]

[DESIGN] [INFORMATION] MULIT-GENERATIONAL LIVING| 12 ISSUES OF AGING | 14 UNIVERSAL DESIGN | 16 SUSTAINABILITY | 18 ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN ZURICH | 22 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS | 28 SITE | 34

10

02 |

“Aging brings changes to us all. As a person begins their aging in place experience, it is important to consier and plan for the changes that will happen and what impacts these changes will have on their lives.�

-National Association of Home Builders

[ABOUT] ABOUT | 03

04 |

ACKNOWLDEGMENTS The students of the M-Gen Studio would like to sincerely thank our professor, Susanne Siepl-Coates and our Regnier Chair, Swiss architect Beat Kaempfen, for challenging us this year with a project that allowed us to explore and learn about a large range of relevant topics. We thank Susanne for continuously encouraging us to push our personal limits and demanding the best work that we could deliver. Because of her genuine excitement about our potential, we were able to produce more than we ever thought possible. We thank Beat for his hospitality during our time in Zurich, his interest in our work (he visited our class four times- one more than was originally scheduled!), and for humbly sharing his knowledge with us.

We thank Professor Christopher Fein and Shannon Criss for assuming the roles and responsibilities of critics for our project throughout the year. Their comments and insights were greatly appreciated and served to better our projects.

For specialized insight on aging, and initiation of collaboration with her gerontology class, we thank Gayle Doll. We thank the Kaempfen fur Architektur team for their support throughout the academic year, and specifically Sigrun Rottensteiner for her time during our invaluable trip to Zurich.

The great benefits of this studio would not have been possible without the Regnier family, who played an integral role by making it possible for us to work closely with Beat Kaempfen as the Victor L. Regnier Visiting Chair during the 2012/2013 academic year. We thank the family for its investment in our studio’s goals.

We are grateful to have been a part of the M-Gen Studio and are thankful to all who have contributed to our education, experience, and success.

ABOUT | ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS| 05

06 |

FOREWARD - BY SUSANNE SIEPL-COATES The themes for this year’s studio came into focus when Swiss architect Beat Kaempfen, Dipl. Architekt ETH/SIA, was selected as the Victor L. Regnier Visiting Distinguished Chair in the Kansas State University Department of Architecture and it was determined that he would be working with my section of Architectural Design Studio VII/VIII studio during the 2012-2013 academic school year.

Beat Kampfen is principal of his office, Kaempfen fur Architektur (Fighting for Architecture), in Zurich, Switzerland. He is internationally recognized for architectural design that is guided by principles of energy efficiency and ecology. Beyond mere concerns for technological aspects, Mr. Kaempfen is guided by a holistic understanding of sustainability, one that encompasses social, environmental, and economic aspects. Mr. Kaempfen’s buildings are characterized by the application of contemporary cross-laminated timber (CLT) panel construction and a seamless integration of technical hardware into the contemporary architectural language of their facades. Furthermore, his work demonstrates that buildings, when considered appropriately, can feed more energy into the grid than they use in the course of a year. Mr. Kaempfen has been recognized for his work with numerous awards, including several Swiss Solar Prizes and a European Solar Prize.

Given his expertise, Mr. Kaempfen and I decided to present the students with a design challenge that would explore technical, environmental, and social aspects of sustainability. Thus the idea for the design of settings for multi-gnerational living on a site along Zwyssigstrasse in Zurich-Alstetten, a medium-density neighborhood, was conceived. Demographic conditions are shifting, the population is aging, with a growing number of people that will live well into their 80s and 90s- many of them spending their later years actively and in good health. We can already observe modifications in our understandings about the design of towns and cities, use of energy, and values according to which people want to recognize their lives. Zurich’s goal, adopted by its citizens in November 2008, to become a 2000-Watt Society by 2050, provided the context within which to situate the design proposals.

In October 2012, students traveled to Zurich to study the site, to visit many energy-efficient buildings, and to personally experience multi-generational living environments. Mr. Kaempfen visited the campus four times over the course of the year to participate in formal design reviews and to work with the students individually.

It was a year of intense engagement of a wide range of ideas and possibilities. Students worked creatively to develop visions expressed as architectural solutions, for a future that responds creatively to the multi-faceted needs of people as they age, while simultaneously considering the changing climatic and economic circumstances which have already begun to impact our daily lives. Their commitment and dedication to explore this project from so many different points of view is much appreciated.

ABOUT | FOREWARD | 07

08 |

INTRODUCTION What makes a multi-generational buildings successful? What is sustainability beyond technological principles? What is CLT? Why is designing for the aging Boomer generation different than current practices in design for aging populations?

How does the residential architecture in Zurich, Switzerland differ form the United States? Who is Beat Kaempfen?

These are just a few of the questions that the M-Gen Studio, a graduate-level architectural design class, pondered when first approached with the task of creating a sustainable multi-generational living complex in Zurich, Switzerland. In order to design new models of living that considers the needs of all age groups, the studio needed to understand shifting demographics, sustainability, the cultures of Zurich, the climate and context of Switzerland, develop proposals for viable structures that efficiently incorporate cross-laminated timber (CLT), and integrate active and passive solar technology into the architecture. There were many facets of the project, and the studio delved deeply into each, striving to respond to the challenges with thoughtful and effective architecture.

In early fall, Professor Susanne Siepl-Coates led the M-Gen Studio to Zurich to meet Beat Kaempfen, the renowned architectural leader in sustainability, experience the city and its people, and study Zwyzziggstrasse, the residential street of the project site. The trip was extraordinarily beneficial- Beat guided the students on numerous tours of net zero and even plus energy buildings and they were exposed to the innovative wood timber construction method of CLT. Additionally, the class was fortunate to engage in lengthy, insightful conversations with Beat in the Kaempfen fur Architektur office.

Upon returning to the United States, the students were inspired by their experiences abroad and eager to begin actively designing physical manifestations of their ideas. Firstly they conducted research regarding their respective foci for the project. The class shared research that pertained to all schemes, such as literature about the various topics that the project required the students to consider. Each student further developed their individual ideas based on evidence they discovered in their research. The M-Gen Studio, with their schemes rooted in research that justified design decisions, set off on an academic year’s worth of exploration to discover possible models toward a new building typology and new way of multi-generational living.

ABOUT | INTRODUCTION | 09

10 |

“Our kids are young enough that they might be in need of help, and our parents are old enough that they also need help.”

- Jim Shipley

[INFORMATION] INFORMATION | 11

MULTI-GENERATIONAL LIVING Multi-generational living refers to three or more generations living together in the same house, development, or community. A traditional multigenerational living arrangement involves a grandparent, parent, and child.

Multi-generational living has long been a common practice of living together. It is becoming a trend again, and the number of households with multiple generations is growing (Fleck). Household members can be immediate family or a group of individuals that have no biological relations.

People are moving in together for several reasons. One reason is for financial stability. When asked, thirty-four percent of persons cited a loss of income as driving their decision (Fleck). Another reason is the desire of families for closer proximity. Young couples are deciding that being closer to grandparents is a better way to raise a family. Elders want to maintain a sense of independence; that is not as readily available at retirement facilities, but often know they require help with day-to-day activities. These needs can be fulfilled by a family member, possibly a child or grandchild, or an unrelated person who can serve as a caretaker.

In the United States, trends show that minorities are choosing to move in together more often than other ethnicities. Statistics show that Caucasians are the least likely to participate, citing that only three point seven percent live in multi-generational homes compared to nine percent for African-Americans and Asian-Americas and ten percent for Hispanic and American Indians. The heritage of these minorities is that they often live together throughout their entire lives, compared to Caucasian families who have more commonly moved apart. In low income areas and single parent households, the trend is shifting to multigenerational living (El Nasser).

12 |

[F1]

Unemployment is sending many young people back home to live with their parents. “Partly that’s because of the Great Recession, but I’d say most of the growth in multi-generational households is because of the increase in Hispanics and other immigrants,” says Cheryl Russell, editorial director of New Strategist Publications.

In 2008, forty-nine million Americans lived in a multigenerational household, the highest the number has ever been (Pew Research).

[F2]

There are many benefits to moving into a home with family. Children who grow up close to their grandparents are likely to feel more rooted and loved; the grandparents also benefit, finding joy in sharing daily life with their grandchildren (Fleck).

The living situation gives elders more energy and helps fight loneliness. Parents are able to enjoy more free time, as the burden of children is often distributed amongst the family members. Chores can be shared as well, lessening the workload for all. In addition to benefits for individuals, community is fostered as family members are available to one another during important decision-making times (Haner).

Social interaction and communication are key in multi-generational living. For successful implementation of this type of living, residents need to communicate with each other about all kinds of issues, from major household decisions to when an individual prefers time to be along (proquest). Problems may arise with respecting the individuality of household members (Fleck). While there are problematic issues with multi-generational living, there are numerous benefits, and perhaps that is why it is becoming a popular trend today.

[F3]

INFORMATION | MULTI-GENERATIONAL LIVING | 13

ISSUES OF AGING The aging population is rapidly growing. The largest group in that demographic, the baby boomers, were born between 1946 and 1964. This shift in the population will have an impact on the housing market and how factors such as accessibility, convenience, usability, and the flexibility of a designed environment are considered.

Aside from these physical changes that may make daily living more challenging, there are often emotional responses to an aging life’s circumstances.

A sense of isolation, often caused by the loss of a significant other, is one of the most acute of these transitional problems. Over seventy-five percent of widows and widowers say loneliness is their most serious issue (Frumkin, 2003).

Retirement, another major transition, means a reduction of income, which can lead to a reduced sense of self-worth and prestige in older populations.

While some issues with aging are unavoidable, quality of life should not decline as one ages, and a designer must keep this in mind. For example, the loss of some physical mobility should not mean that someone should be prevented from going to a movie or enjoying the beauty of a national park.

It should be clear to designers that maintaining an appropriate quality of life is crucial to the overall happiness and well-being of an aging person. In this regard, exploring new models for living can benefit boomers, allowing them to reduce or avoid many of the limiting aspects of aging.

[F4]

The aging process is accompanied by significant physical and mental changes. A decline in dexterity, brain function, motor skills, eye sight, hearing, and generally a reduced ability to be physically active are common physical changes that humans experience as they age (Aldous, 2011).

As adults age, memory loss and confusion become common. Joints and bones show wear and tear, sometimes leading to osteoporosis or arthritis. Lowered performance can occur in the digestive and metabolic areas. About ten percent of those over sixty-five years old experience reduced functional abilities, sight, muscle strength, coordination, and reflexes (AARP).

14 |

[F5]

Finally, designers must become informed about how boomers want to live. Baby boomers have made it clear that their idea of retirement is different (Edmonds, 2013). They have a desire to continue being independent by working longer, taking up volunteering, etc.

While the generation prior to the boomers tended to opt for nursing homes and peaceful retirements, the current baby boomers are eager to stay in their own homes and continue being active. An AARP survey lists several characteristics of baby boomers: • Boomers love their community; they enjoy and desire a walkable community (i.e. a grocery store within close proximity) • Boomers’ homes provide a nice fit now, but may require modifications to enhance their occupants’ later years • Boomers are healthy, agile, and active, which pushes back their planning for their later years Another AARP survey found that seventy-one percent of boomers proclaimed their strong desire to stay in their homes as long as possible. This desire to stay in place has made the home-building industry more aware that the aging population has a strong influence on housing design (Edmonds 2013).

What do boomers want in a new housing model? What amenities would they enjoy having? What design innovations would allow them to stay in one place? What types of housing options could offer mutual support while maintaining a strong emphasis on independence? These are only a few of the many questions that have to be considered.

The goal of the M-Gen Studio is to create new housing models that encompass and accommodate not only the baby boomers, but all generations.

[F6]

INFORMATION | ISSUES OF AGING | 15

UNIVERSAL DESIGN Perhaps the most well-known model to achieve accessibility is universal design. Until just a few decades ago, many architects did not take accessibility into consideration during the design process, requiring modification at a later date.

In many cases, since these barrier-free modifications were add-ons or afterthoughts, they tended to diminish the overall design. During the past few decades, there has been an increasing emphasis placed on buildings to become accessible for all occupants so that they do not limit who can inhabit them.

What is universal design?

The idea of universal design in the simplest terms is described as architectural design that offers “the maximum opportunity and choice for all users throughout their lives and a strategy for improving the quality of peoples lives” (Sterling). The model moves away from the old practices of accessible design, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), being a specialized niche that only accommodates a certain user group, towards a goal of equal opportunity throughout the entire design.

The term “universal design” was originally coined by the architect Ronald L. Mace in the 1960s. Mace used this term to describe the concept of designing the built environment to be usable to the greatest extent possible by all people without neglecting the aesthetics of the design. Since the first exploration of this concept, many other designers and researchers have followed in Mace’s footsteps. Cynthia Leibrock states that universal design “meets the needs of all users, not just the average or the exceptional. Universal design integrates; it does not segregate into user groups.”

Leibrock also points out that close to forty percent of Americans with disabilities rarely leave their homes due to the obstacles and barriers that are present outside the walls of their residence (Leibrock & Terry, ix-x). Universal design strives to solve this issue by offering creative solutions of accessible design. Unlike previous codes, like ADA, which tend to set forth a series of minimum standards, universal design encourages designers to look at accessibility in an innovative manner and reach for the maximum.

[F7]

16 |

Universal design focuses on creating environments that any occupant would find functional, pleasing, and safe.

The implementation of design strategies related to accessibility, adaptability, aesthetics, and affordability allow for people of all ages and abilities to live in the same physical environment.

What groups does universal design target?

What makes universal design different?

Universal design has a major emphasis on providing equal opportunity to elderly and disabled people, but it is not limited to a population group. According to the U.S. Census Burear, one out of every five Americans (age 15 and over) needs assistance with sight, hearing, conversation, and mobility. Not only does universal design target individuals who need assistance, it also accommodates the needs of the aging population as well as small children.

Universal design has been considered by many to be successful because of its focus on convenience and adaptability for all, not on convention or specialization.

Many aging persons are expressing that they want to stay and live out their lives in their current homes. Since its main goal is the accommodation of people as they age, it is easy to understand why universal design is appealing to the older populations.

It is based on the concept that most people are challenged in some way, ranging from poor eyesight to arthritis. This approach promotes accessibility or barrier-free design to be planned ahead of time, even if it not an initial requirement, in order for spaces to be adaptable (Builder).

Many older persons are afraid that they will not be able to continue doing what they want to because of the effects of aging on the body. According to Cynthia Leibrock, elders are hesitant to select housing and products that make them appear different or isolated from the norm (Leibrock & Terry, xii).

The fear of aging can be reduced by taking advantage of supportive goods and appropriate design solutions that complement persons as they age.

[F8]

INFORMATION | UNIVERSAL DESIGN | 17

SUSTAINABILITY The movement towards sustainable design has emerged as a result of significant concerns about the unintended social, environmental, and economic consequences of rapid population growth, economic growth, and consumption of our natural resources.

Sustainability can be defined in many different ways.

Broadly, it can be stated that, “sustainability is based on a simple principle: everything that we need for our survival and well-being depends, either directly or indirectly, on our natural environment” (Sustainability).

The concept of sustainability became an important topic in the mid-1980s. The United Nations World Commission on the Environment and Development, known as the Brundtland Commission, published its report on sustainable development in 1987 outlining the world’s environmental problems and proposing a global agenda for addressing them (Hart).

The team inquired about everyday people’s environmental concerns and the ways in which they think these concerns should be addressed. “The results of the study was that there wasn’t one environmental issue that was first and foremost in peoples’ minds. People talked about living conditions, resources, population pressures, international trade, education, and health. Environmental issues were related to all of these, but there was no hard and fast division separating environmental social, and economic issues. All the problems were intertwined. There were links among the environment, the economy, and society that caused problems in one of these areas to affect the other areas” (Hart).

As a result the Brundtland Commission proposed an internationally accepted definition of sustainability at the United Nations conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janerio in 1992.

This internationally accepted definition of sustainability is “... that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: • The concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and • The idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 43).

Similarly, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines sustainability as “the act of creating and maintaining the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony that permits fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.”

[F9]

18 |

Sustainability can be broken into three separate yet connected pillars, known as the “Triple Bottom Line.� These three pillars include environmental, social, and economic issues. Once integrated approaches to these three pillars develop, a sustainable future is achievable.

[F10]

Environmental sustainability Morelli explains that environmental sustainability meets the resources and service needs of current and future generations without compromising the health of the ecosystems that provide them. More specifically, as a condition of balance, resilience, and interconnectedness that allows human society to satisfy its needs while neither exceeding the capacity of its supporting ecosystems to continue to regenerate the services necessary to meet those needs nor by our actions diminishing biological diversity.

Environmental sustainability is a vital feature that must be included in contemporary architecture designs. In response to Zurich’s climate, passive heating systems, solar power/energy, and geothermal energy must be incorporated into the design of buildings to increase environmental sustainability.

INFORMATION | SUSTAINABILITY | 19

Social sustainability Social sustainability can be defined as “the impact of products or operations on human rights, labor, health, safety, regional development, and other community concerns (Blake-Beard), or “the practice of creating a diverse and equitable society that successfully meets the basic social needs of citizens.”

Socially sustainable communities provide equitable opportunities for all its members, especially for those frequently overlooked. Diversity and connectedness are promoted throughout the community while ensuring that basic needs, such as housing, health, education, employment, and safety of every member are met.

Fostering a positive quality of living enhances the development and capabilities of the current generation without compromising capabilities of future generations, as it is a social investment in the health and well-being of people.

Social capital is an important aspect of sustainability because it is through communities and civil societies that we learn to work together for the common good.

According to the Western Australia Council of Social Services, “Social sustainability occurs when the formal and informal processes, systems, structures, and relationships actively support the capacity of current and future generations to create healthy and livable communities.”

Through architecture, social sustainability can be enhanced by providing balance between spaces for the individual and spaces for the collective whole. The built environment often influences connections between individuals within a building and also the surrounding community.

20 |

[F11]

Economic sustainability

Housing co-operatives

Finally, economic sustainability can be defined in a few different ways. Broadly, it can be defined as “the ability of an economy to support a defined level of economic production indefinitely” (Economic Sustainability).

Positive examples of social sustainability shaped by architecture can be seen in many housing co-operatives in Europe. For instance, Switzerland guarantees its citizens the right to housing in their constitution. That ideal circumstance has been fostered by a strong tradition of local community self-help, volunteer work, and collaborative housing organizations.

In other words, economic sustainability occurs “when a political unit, such as a nation, has the preferred percent of its population below its preferred minimum standard of living level” (Economic Sustainability).

Similarly, from a business viewpoint, it can be defined as economic growth sustainability. The U.S. President’s Council of Sustainable Development states that, “economic growth can and should occur without damaging the social fabric of a community or harming the environment” (Doane, 3.1.1).

While our project does not focus on economic sustainability, our designs can still encourage economic responsibility. Choosing local and/or renewable building materials, taking advantage of solar and geothermal energy, allowing the designs to maximize the allowable square-meter floor utilization, and meeting the maximum total occupancy number will allow the designs to increase their overall economic sustainability.

Swiss housing co-operatives are likely an increasingly popular living option because of the significant benefits they offer. Most are non-profit groups of people seeking practical and affordable housing with good conditions and thriving communities.

Since co-operatives are membership-based and non-profit seeking, they offer security of tenure, affordability of rents, and opportunities for community involvement. Rent is considerably lower than regular rentals, as it is based entirely on operating costs. On average, co-operative members pay twenty percent to fifty percent less rent in cities like Zurich, compared to the regular real estate market. As an additional social benefit, there are many shared amenities and services on the premises, whether that be childcare, garden spaces, group meals, or other common activities.

Currently, fifty-three percent of the housing in Switzerland is privately rented, thirty-five percent is owner-occupied, and nine percent is rented on a non-profit basis. Of the nine percent, five represents the co-operative housing option. Most are located in large cities, such as Zurich, where twenty percent of the cooperatives in Switzerland are located (Swiss).

The three pillars of sustainability must be taken into consideration when designing and creating buildings.

Once the solutions to these issues are carefully studied, selected, and successfully incorporated into the design, then, and only then, can a building be labeled as truly sustainable.

[F12]

INFORMATION | SUSTAINABILITY | 21

ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN ZURICH 2000-Watt Society On November 30, 2008, after a successful vote toward this goal, the city of Zurich, Switzerland moved to create a 2000-Watt Society by 2050. The 2000-Watt Society ideal requires citizens to use radically less energy and consume significantly fewer resources in order for the entire community to become sustainable.

Currently, Switzerland’s watt usage per person is roughly 6000 watts.

This includes everyday activities like taking the car to the store, using kitchen appliances, etc. In the United States, the average is two times that amount at 12,000 watts, while in some countries, such as Bangladesh, the amount is just around 300, bringing the energy consumption in the world to about 2000 watts per person on average. The implementation of the 2000-Watt Society has a major impact on architecture: how new buildings are constructed, how old buildings are renovated, and by what kinds of energy these structures are operated.

[F13]

Researchers identified the current use of fossil fuels as their concern in their push for the 2000-Watt Society. “By the year 2050, the amount of fossil energy sources can be cut in half from the current figure of 3000 watts to 1500 watts per person.

22 |

There are positive reasons for the extended time horizon: the change requires rigorous adjustment of the infrastructure and intelligent lifestyle, otherwise the 2000-Watt Society will remain merely a vision” (Novatlantis). The decrease of fossil fuel usage is an important step in moving the world in a more sustainable direction.

Many people might think that an individual’s life will have to dramatically change for the 2000Watt Society to succeed.

“On the contrary, security, health, the comfort and individual development of people are all improved whereas incomes would rise by around sixty percent in fifty years. However, these ambitious goals cannot be attained without decisive action” (Novatlantis). According to researchers at the ETH (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) and Novatlantis, issues to be addressed in order to attain the 2000-Watt Society include: • Enhancement of material and energy efficiency; • Substitution of renewable energy resources for fossil fuels and reduction in CO2 intensity of other uses of fossil fuels; • Creation of new forms of lifestyle and entrepreneurship according to the motto: • “Using instead of owning” • Professionalism in planning and investment as well as in the operation of buildings

According to the City of Zurich, “four-fifths of Zurich’s primary energy consumption occurs in buildings.” Zurich has chosen to put in place very strict design standards and regulations which will help the city achieve the 2000-Watt Society goal. These new regulations have been laid out as ‘seven milestones’ for environmentally sound and energy-efficient construction. They apply not only to new types of construction, but also to the renovation of existing buildings.

In addition to new ways of building, there are other areas of energy efficiency that still need to be developed for a more sustainable future. For example, public transportation is a key element to reducing emissions and creating a city that emphasizes environmental principles.

The 2000-Watt Society will become a reality only if the city’s residents continue to support the movement. The cooperation of residents and city officials to further implement the goals of the 2000-Watt Society is a crucial part of the plan. The use of building materials, construction techniques, and new technology will help create sustainable buildings and contribute to Zurich’s movement toward becoming a model for a sustainable city. With regard to architecture, perhaps the most significant aspect is the newly created label for energy-efficient buildings called Minergie. Minergie sets a standard for building practices within the city, and it is an essential part of Zurich’s plan to create a 2000-Watt Society.

[F14]

INFORMATION | ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN ZURICH | 23

Minergie Presently the majority of residences in Switzerland and other western countries are consuming significant amounts of energy and are not producing any. In response to this unsustainable circumstance, Switzerland has developed a building standard called Minergie (comparable to the LEED system in the United States).

Minergie is not simply a label, but the cornerstone of Switzerland’s building code. In order to encourage residents to adopt sustainable building practices, buildings now have to be highly energy-efficient, often generating electricity via photovoltaics and other means.

Electric companies in the country are required to buy produced surplus energy for four times the price that they are selling it for. This policy makes it possible to design buildings that make money for their owners.

Additionally, there is a greater incentive for builders to create environmentally sustainable projects.

The standard Minergie label requires that a building must consume seventy-five percent less energy than a comparable building, and consume no more than fifty percent of its fossil fuel. Despite these requirements, Minergie’s main priority is a continued high degree of user comfort and livability.

To ensure Minergie’s feasibility, building cost must not exceed an additional ten percent of a comparable building without the label.

The label is also conscious of how buildings affect people.

The Minergie-P Standard defines buildings with very low energy consumption. This standard corresponds with the international Passiv Haus Standard. Minergie Eco is a category which adds ecological, social, recyclability, and noise protection standards. This label ensures that the design of a building is not only driven by the project cost.

24 |

The Minergie standards have to be fulfilled for a project to become certified. Energy efficiency is the most important requirement so heating systems are engineered to be extremely efficient.

One system that can be used to produce heat is a ground source heat pump, which transfers heat from hundreds of feet below the surface to a building.

The sun’s energy can also be used to produce heat through thermal collectors which use the sun’s heat to warm water, which can be used in bathrooms and kitchens.

Lastly, wood pellet furnaces can be used for heating purposes. This system uses small compressed wood pellets which are efficiently burned to create heat. Pellets are considered a sustainable material because they are produced from wood. This system is more common in Switzerland than in the United States.

Despite the importance of producing heat efficiently and sustainably, it is as important to treat the building assembly with the same consideration.

In order to keep heat inside of the building during the winter, a heat recovery system can be used to transfer heat between the exhaust warm air and the outside cool air. The units are required to have an efficiency of more than eighty percent.

Efficient heating systems are very important in Switzerland, but if the building envelope is not designed sufficiently, the heating systems quickly become inefficient.

INFORMATION | ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN ZURICH | 25

The building envelope must be as carefully constructed as the heating systems, so exterior walls are required to be heavily insulated to reduce thermal transfer.

Exterior walls must not exceed 15 w/m2 and, windows and doors must be thermally efficient, and not exceeding 1.0 w/m2 and 1.2 w/m2, respectively. These highly insulated facades keep heat inside the building in the winter and outside during the summer. To achieve this, the building construction must be airtight.

Another way to gain heat is to use the sun to passively warm the spaces inside the building. Building orientation and glazing location is very important.

To reduce temperature transfer, triple paned windows are filled with argon and krypton gas, and are framed out of wood to reduce the temperature transfer between the outside and inside.

Since the building is required to be airtight to reduce the thermal transfer, ventilation becomes very important for human health.

26 |

People generate humidity, carbon dioxide, and odor, so ventilation is essential for a healthy environment. Efficient air transfer units expel warmed contaminated air and transfer heat to cool outside air. This system creates an environment that is comfortable and healthy to live in, but also takes less energy to heat the tempered fresh air.

Even net zero buildings and plus energy buildings call for heating occasionally, so high-tech solutions are sometimes required to assist in energy production or building heating.

Photovoltaic panels are one common solution in Switzerland, that uses the energy of the sun to produce energy which can be used to run multiple systems. The cost of photovoltaic panels is relatively high, so Zurich has an electricity buyback program which purchases excess electricity from private entities.

Solar tubes are also utilized to gather heat energy from the sun. The water filled tubes sit along rooftops and collect the heat energy from the sun; warming the water and is circulated throughout the unit.

The most prevalent solution involves geothermal heat pumps which require pipes to be drilled hundreds of feet into the ground to transfer heat. The system also requires a heat transfer system which can be located inside of the building.

Thermal mass heating is not necessarily a hightech system, but phase change materials store heat from the sun and disperse it into the building for a prolonged amount of time. Phase change material is a glass panel that is filled with salt water and when it changes from liquid to solid it gives off heat into the building. This allows for a lower heating demand when the sun is not heating the building.

The various Minergie labels represent a cohesive system guide for producing an energy-efficient building. It takes into account all aspects of a building from exterior construction to the internal systems. As systems become more efficient, so do Minergie certified buildings. It is a system that dissects building performance and should be implemented in the United States because it produces more efficient buildings and relies less on finite resources.

INFORMATION | ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN ZURICH | 27

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.� The impact of trees is far more profound than Mr. Roosevelt could have ever imagined.

Trees provide a solution to a serious environmental burden that we have created.

Buildings account for fifty percent of the world’s energy usage, from which a large percentage is in the embodied energy of the building materials. This term accounts for the energy it takes for every piece of a built form to be produced, involving the lights that are on in the factory or the gas that is burnt in the excavation of raw materials or transportation.

The fewer processes needed to produce a building, the less energy is embodied, which constitutes a higher degree of sustainability.

Although embodied energy and sustainability were not the main focus of construction methods at the time, carpenters in the early 1800s popularized a wood construction method known as the balloon frame.

The balloon frame evolved slowly over the course of the nineteenth century with advances in industrial processing of dimensional lumber.

Following World War II, balloon frame homes began to be sold as a kit of parts in an attempt to meet the needs of rapidly expanding populations. Standardization of lumber has positively impacted housing in the western world, but poor forestry regulations in the beginning of this construction innovation have left old growth forests bare.

The minimum diameter of a tree cut for dimensional lumber is twelve inches which takes five to twelve years to grow.

As the building industry grew, the demand for lumber also grew, but the forests could only grow so fast. This supply-demand gap opened the door for experimentation with other building materials.

Industrialized manufacturing of steel and concrete began filling the needs of the builders, but with a high cost to our environment.

28 |

The embodied energy of concrete and steel are five and twenty-four times more than wood, respectively (www.croslamsolutions.com).

[F15]

“Life cycle analysis of different building materials has demonstrated unequivocally the environment’s advantages of wood constructions.

This softer environmental footprint, coupled with wood’s renewability, its ability to store sequestered carbon dioxide and its superior insulation properties, will make wood the construction material of choice in the coming decades” (Roche, O’Connor, Tetu).

Although wood construction has proven its dominance in the field of environmental sustainability, there are other concerns, such as strength, fire safety, flexibility and construction.

Until Switzerland’s studies on wood construction in the 1990s these issues drove the decision to build with concrete and steel. As an extension of the technology that began with plywood and methods of balloon-frame construction, Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) was developed, which is an engineered wood product used for prefabricated construction. One of its great benefits is that it unifies structure and infill in one single element.

[F16]

CLT panels are created by gluing three layers of wood with the grain alternating at ninety degrees for each layer. Alternating the grain pattern provides omni-directional load-bearing and transfer capabilities, along with dimensional stability and accuracy.

It is also six times lighter than concrete construction (woodsolutions.com). By using this layering veneer technique, the material is strengthened, allowing it to be used for complete floors, walls and roofs without reinforcement.

INFORMATION | CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS | 29

Although it appears that CLT construction would be a fire hazard, this type of wood construction is actually fire-resistant.

The burn rate of wood can be precisely calculated. Wood will char on the surface but it takes a very long time to burn through; the more layers of wood, the longer the structure will remain intact.

The limits on the number of stories of construction has evolved over time, together with the developments in engineering of fire safety and refinement of CLT as a building material. The cap on the height of wood construction is rising with two buildings in the United Kingdom reaching eight stories. This limit will be tested and expanded as technology and building construction advance.

Advancements in technology are one reason CLT construction has become such a valuable option for building.

All panels are cut using CNC technology to ensure millimeter-perfect accuracy. Panels are pre-cut for windows and doors as well as filled with insulation similar to a structural insulated panel (SIP). In some instances, doors and windows are installed in the factory.

Because they are prefabricated in a shop, on-site weather conditions are no longer as big a factor in the schedule of construction. The panels are lighter than masonry and hollow-core concrete plank, and can be lifted with lighter equipment.

This allows construction to be conducted faster and less expensively. It also requires a smaller, yet well-trained crew to install the panels at the job site, which further contributes to rapid and efficient construction.

30 |

[F17]

Equally as important as the environmental benefits of CLT construction are the health benefits for the building inhabitants. “A properly designed CLT structure provides a healthier interior environment because it is the foundation of the vapor permeable structure which minimizes or eliminates moisture accumulation within the structure and the accompanying issues of mold and deterioration� (www.crosslamsolutions.com).

The interior air quality is greatly improved because of the high levels of carbon that is sequestered in the wood. Environmentally aware and time sensitive projects such as schools, healthcare facilities and public buildings are showing interest in this innovative construction type.

CLT is proving to be a competitive product that can replace less renewable types of construction such as concrete, masonry, and steel in low and mid-rise construction.

CLT construction is a way of building that utilizes the craft of past wood joinery with the technology of the present. It is the most environmentally sustainable material with the most potential for growth. The future of construction may be cross-laminated timbers.

[F18]

INFORMATION | CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS | 31

Raw materials such as dimensional lumber, plywood, and oriented strand board arrive at the manufacturing plant for use in the production of the CLT panels.

Old techniques of joinery, such as mortise and tenon, are used to limit the number of metal fasteners needed in the structure; reducing construction cost and time.

Engineers and draftsmen work together to implement the After each of the pieces has been fabricated with the CLT construction method into designs provided by the CNC router, they are robotically put together with glue or architect. staples. The panels are manually filled with insulation.

The draftsmen use special technology to create files for the CNC router to precisely determine the size, shape, and number of panels, and to cut each of the pieces with care being placed at every joint.

32 |

During this time the hooks used for lifting are fastened into the interior of the panel. Eventually the panels are lifted into the flat bed truck such that each piece can be lifted off the truck sequentially as needed for an uninterrupted work flow on the construction site.

While the panels are being fabricated, concrete work on site is being complete. Once on site, the CLT panels are lifted into place with a crane. Only a few workers are needed for the erection of the panels.

The panels arrive on site in order of erection, thus there is no space needed for storage materials on site.

Because the panels are precisely cut and organized, the construction time is minimal and buildings can be enclosed very quickly. This allows for interior installations to begin sooner than typical construction. Depending on design aesthetics, the CLT can be left exposed in the interior for a warm atmosphere, also accelerating the completion of the building.

The final step is to protect the exterior wooden structure from the elements, often by use of a rain screen facade application.

Buildings designed with CLT panels have a structural simplicity that directly relates to the capabilities of the building material. This simplicity can be read in many of Beat Kaempfen’s designs.

By utilizing this new and innovative timber construction Kaempfen is able to construct net zero and plus-energy buildings with renewable resources. As a leader in the field of sustainable design, his building techniques and details are ones to influence the next generation’s design culture.

INFORMATION | CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS | 33

SITE

34 |

Charged with the task of designing this multi-generational living environment, an urban size in Zurich, Switzerland was chosen for the study. Located about 5.5 kilometers northwest of downtown Zurich, the site is located on Zwyssigstrasse, a quiet, one-way street in Zurich Alstetten.

A three-parcel site with three separate existing residential buildings makes up the buildable area.

The existing buildings were built as part of a larger residential area between 1921 and 1945. The neighborhood is characterized by residential buildings with various typologies.

INFORMATION | SITE | 35

The property is located in a neighborhood with buildings that are allowed three standard floors and one penthouse floor. The standard floors have a maximum utilization of ninety percent of the total site area and the penthouse can be up to sixty percent of the standard floors.

Zurich has little surface area left in which to build upon; so any additional parking that is required for buildings and residential units must be placed underground with natural ventilation and as much natural daylight as possible. Other requirements of the site include above-ground accessible parking and typical setback.

36 |

The site’s proximity to amenities and transportation make it very desirable. Within a ten-minute walking radius there is shopping, dining, recreation, education, and public transportation.

The site is relatively flat with a southern orientation perpendicular to the street. The orientation of the built form becomes important to maximize thermal heat gain in a relatively oceanic climate like Zurich. The Alps play a major role in wind and precipitation patterns of Zurich contributing to a high average rainfall, mild winters, and strong westerly winds.

INFORMATION | SITE | 37

38 |

“Cohousing communities espouse no ideology other than the desire for a more practical and social home environment�

- Charlles Durrett

[DESIGN] DESIGN | 39

DESIGN PROPOSAL

Street view 40 |

Social interaction Aging individuals must have the ability to successfully cope with diminishing health, added stressors, and life changes. Some of these include loss of a spouse, becoming a caregiver, and loneliness (Fiksenbaum, Greenglass, & Eaton, 2006). Coping success can be directly related to an individual’s social support relationship (Tomaka, Thompson, & Palacios, 2006). Rewarding social relationships are associated with positive health outcomes and are a key factor in psychological health, including happiness and subjective well-being of individuals (Tomaka, Thompson, & Palacios, 2006).

[F19]

Cohousing communities express the social and practical advantages of a closely-knit neighborhood with extensive use of common activities (Durrett, 2009). These community activities such as communal meals, neighborhood upkeep, and gardening create instances in which social interactions can take place and relationships develop. The home in a cohousing community is just as important as the community itself by affecting and determining the quality of a person’s general well-being and health (Durrett, 2009). The designs of these individual apartments are uniquely designed for elders, families, and single residents of many situations and disabilities to encourage mulitgenerational social interaction.

This project proposes to use cohousing design principles to combat how programming and design can be utilized to create a strong sense of community with an emphasis on social activity. By understanding an individual’s ability to cope with issues affected by social relationships, this community can be designed to become a versatile neighborhood with an emphasis on the overall preservation of the emotional, physical, and social health of its residents.

[F20]

[F21]

DESIGN | DESIGN PROPOSAL | 41

Cohousing Cohousing is a relatively new model for contemporary communal living. Charles Durrett explains that the people of Denmark were, “frustrated by the existing available housing options and tired of the isolation and the impracticalities of traditional single-family houses and apartment units.

As a result they built housing that combines the autonomy of private dwellings with the advantages of community living. They developed cohousing: a housing type that redefined the concept of neighborhood to fit contemporary lifestyles”(11).

In the article “Building a Cohousing Community” Durrett further elaborates on cohousing: In many respects, cohousing is not new. In the past most people lived in villages or tightly knit neighborhoods. Even today people in less industrialized regions typically live in small communities linked by multiple interdependencies.

Members of such communities know each other over many years; they are familiar with each other’s families and histories, talents, and weaknesses. This kind of relationship demands accountability but in return provides security and a sense of belonging.

Cohousing offers a contemporary model for recreating this sense of place and neighborhood, while responding to today’s needs for a less constraining environment (McCamant).

Durrett describes that cohousing offers the social and practical advantages of a closely-knit neighborhood in the form of attached dwellings clustered around pedestrian streets or courtyards from urban factory loft conversions to suburban cities to small towns, all consistent with the realities, technologies, and customs of 21st-century life (17, 19).

42 |

[F22]

[F23]

Six cohousing characteristics Durrett concludes, after his study of cohousing projects in Denmark and several projects in the United States, that all cohousing projects share six key components from the very beginning of neighborhood development (Durrett 19): 1. Participatory Process: Residents help organize and participate in the planning and design process for the housing development, and they are responsible as a group for final decisions

[F24]

2. Deliberate Neighborhood Design: The physical design encourages a strong sense of community 3. Extensive Common Facilities: Common areas are an integral part of the community, designed for daily use and to supplement private living areas 4. Complete Resident Management: Residents manage the development, making decisions of common concern at community meetings 5. Non-Hierarchal Structure: There are no leadership roles. The responsibilities for the decision are shared by the community 6. Separate Income Sources: Residents have their own primary incomes; the community does not generate income

[F25]

These six components are major aspects needed within a cohousing project.

The first three influence the overall design of a cohousing project while the last three components express qualities and responsibilities needed for the community after the initial design is complete and has little to no direct impact on the finished design project.

[F26]

DESIGN | DESIGN PROPOSAL | 43

Participatory process

Deliberate neighborhood design

The Participatory Process component is known as the active participation of residents from the earliest stages through construction. It is the firstand possibly the most important- component of cohousing; and it stems from a desire to live in a cohousing community (Durrett 19-20).

The Deliberate Neighborhood Design component is the physical environment that encourages a strong neighborhood atmosphere and is the second most important component of cohousing.

Cohousing residents can request and build an environment that reflects their desire for a close community. Beginning with the initial development plan, residents emphasize design aspects that increase the possibilities for social contact through particular design decisions like allowing the community to be pedestrianoriented only while placing informal gathering places such as tables and chairs throughout the site (Durrett 22). When Durrett asked a few residents as to why a community may decide to have remote parking and be pedestrian-oriented only, residents responded with: “I used to simply drive directly into my garage. But it’s more important for my long-term well-being to see, talk to, and hang out with my neighbors (Durrett 23).�

This is where the type of neighborhood to be created is decided. Some cohousing neighborhoods are designed and layed out to be intergenerational and mulitgenerational living oriented while other cohousing neighborhoods are just senior/elder living oriented.

[F27]

44 |

[F28]

Extensive common facilities The Common Facilities are common features of cohousing that supplement the private homes (Durrett 23). These common facilities include open space, courtyards, a playground, and common house (Margolis 2).

The common house, the most consistent feature in all cohousing projects, is an extension of each private residence, based on what the group believes will make their lives easier and more economical, not to mention more fun and more interesting (Durrett 23). This common house is considered to be the ‘heart’ of the community; it is a place for common dinners, afternoon tea, games on rainy days, a Friday night bar, crafts workshops, and numerous other organized and informal activities (Durrett 24).

Outside land is generally viewed as common shared space in which communities have developed them in numerous ways. According to the survey when analyzing other common space criteria, ninetyfour percent of the communities have a common vegetable garden and often use the produce for common meals. Sixty-five percent of communities have common flower gardens and walking paths beyond the walkways to the units. And half of the communities have playing fields, woods, and orchards in this shared land (Margolis 7).

In 2011 a survey was completed that examined one hundred and eighteen United States cohousing communities and evaluated them on several specific criteria. One criteria was the effectiveness of the common facilities and more specifically the common house.

Common meals are often seen as a frequent activity that happens within the common house.

Nearly twenty-four percent of the one hundred and eighteen cohousing communities participate in one common meal per week and even as much as thirty-three percent of these communities participate in two or more common meals per week (Margolis 5). Common dinners have proven overwhelmingly successful, and most new cohousing groups plan for meals in the common house several times a week, with about half of the residents participating on any given evening (Durrett 25).

[F29]

DESIGN | DESIGN PROPOSAL | 45

Sustainability is a major characteristic of many cohousing projects and has been a major focus for new projects since the onset of the world’s energy crisis. These sustainability features include environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and social sustainability and are elaborated in detail previously in this book. In this particular project, however, social sustainability was the major feature that influenced the overall design.

Social sustainability Social sustainability refers to actions which limit the negative impact on social services while promoting diverse community relationships. These negative impacts include, but are not limited to social isolation and loneliness.

[F30]

It is important to understand the difference between social isolation and loneliness. Joe Tomaka explains in the journal The Relation of Social Isolation, Loneliness, and Social Support to Disease Outcomes Among the Elderly that: Social isolation typically refers to objective physical separation from other people, such as living alone or residing in a rural geographic area. Loneliness, in contrast, refers to the more subjective feeling state of being alone, separated, or apart from others. Loneliness has also be conceptualized as an unfavorable balance between the actual and desired social contact (Tomaka 360).

Baby boomers and the elderly in general are more susceptible to social isolation and loneliness because of : certain daily hassles and worries about their health and wellbeing... With aging, functional ability decreases. Many people find that they are unable to do daily things that they used to take for granted. This may include bathing oneself, going up a flight of stairs, or taking a bus or train oneself. In addition, certain chronic conditions become more prevalent with age such as arthritis, stomach problems, and vision and hearing impairments (Fiksenbaum 18).

46 |

[F31]

One way in which to combat social isolation and loneliness would to ensure that an individual has adequate social support. Research has shown fairly consistently that social isolation and loneliness are related to negative health outcomes and that social support of various types and from various sources is associated with positive health outcomes. Rewarding social relationships are also thought to be a key factor in psychological health, including happiness and subjective wellbeing (Tomaka 361).

At any rate, the data appears to be incontrovertible that some aspects of supportive social relationships have positive effects as psychopathology, morale, cognitive functioning, hospitalization, long-term care, cardiovascular disease, measures of physiological strain, and even mortality (Jackson 79).

In some cohousing communities, the use of multi-generational living helps with establishing these social relationships.

This is not only beneficial for elder members but for all members of the community. Within the survey conducted in 2011, residents of cohousing communities were asked to list the benefits of cohousing and: Several respondents wrote of the benefits of living in a multi-generational community and avoiding age segregation; having an expanded immediate social network; and being connected to diverse, multi-generational, multi-family groups...

This spread of ages was also mentioned by many who wrote of the benefits of cohousing for their children. They valued their communities because they provided nurturing, child-friendly environments where parents know their children’s friends and their families and where their children have safe neighborhoods where they can be out and about on their own (Margolis 6-7).

[F32]

[F33]

DESIGN | DESIGN PROPOSAL | 47

As a whole, this design project takes many aspects discussed previously into account. Once the data and information from the literature was collected, studied, and understood it was then regenerated and reformed to fit the criteria of the project and site. Creating a neighborhood with an emphasis on mulitgenerational community and sustainability were the main goals of this design.

Community A sense of community was created by using many characteristics of cohousing architecture and applying them to the project context. A central path through the whole site connects the units to each other to create spaces in which to mingle and interact. The common house, a main characteristic in all cohousing projects is centrally located on the site to bring the residents together in one shared space. Common dining room, living space,and large kitchen are all shared spaces within the common house. One guest room is located on the top level for guests of the residents to use if there is not room in the resident’s own home. Other communal outdoor spaces are located adjacent to the common house and in between the units and the back of the site. The outdoor space adjacent to the common house is utilized for all of the residents to gather here.

Childrens playground area, outdoor open green space to use for community games and gatherings, outdoor eating space, and laundry drying area are the designated activities that occur within this space. To the north and south of this central space are the communal spaces for the units themselves. Gardening, as mentioned above, is a central theme in cohousing communities that continues to be present. These two areas behind the units are designated for communal gardening.

Planters, edible trees, and open soil areas can be used to grow a variety of livable ecosystems from simple flowers in planters to tomato plants in the open soil areas. Fruits, vegetables, and herbs grown here can be used in both communal meals and also individual home meals.

Model of garden areas 48 |

Model of common house

Proposed site plan DESIGN | DESIGN PROPOSAL | 49

Unit type B 1 Bedroom

Bike storage

Unit entries

Common house Play area

Unit type A 2 Bedroom

Community gardens

Ground floor plan

50 |

Second floor plan

Community kitchen Community living area Community deck

Guest Room

“Granny flat”

Unit type D 2 Bedroom

Shared roof deck

Unit type C 3 Bedroom

Third floor plan

Fourth floor plan

DESIGN | DESIGN PROPOSAL | 51

Ground floor plan

52 |

Second floor plan

Third floor plan

Fourth floor plan

DESIGN | DESIGN PROPOSAL | 53

Sustainability Sustainability was also a major factor in this particular project’s design.

Environmental sustainability in this project is evident in the use of highly insulative cross laminated timber construction, radiant floor heating, geothermal heat pump, and direct solar gain allows for the units to retain and generate heat within the cooler months; while allowing operable windows and shading systems to be utilized to cool the spaces and reduce the amount of solar gain in the warmer months. Solar panels are used on the rooftops of the units and vacuum tubes are utilized within the railing system on the outdoor deck areas. The solar panels are used for energy generation and the vacuum tubes are utilized to heat water. A wood pellet burning system is also in place for heating water for the units if the vacuum tubes do not adequately heat the water, especially in the cooler months when the overall heating capabilities of the sun are considerably lower than in the warmer months.

Geothermal heat pump Pellet system

Section through unit 54 |

Radiant floor Photovoltaics

Rain collection

Solar vacuum tubes

Composting site

A water collection system was also implemented to collect the rainwater and reuse it within the project. Rainwater would be collected and stored within large tanks and filtered through filters to remove objects and other materials, then later used for toilets, laundry, and irrigation for the gardening areas. Two composting sites were also implemented into the design to be used by the garden area. Scraps from meals and gardening would be placed in the compost area and then later utilized as nutritious fertilizer for the gardens and plants on the site.

Geothermal heat pump

Economic sustainability was not a major focus on this particular project and as a result little of this aspect of sustainability is included in the design.

Rain collection

North elevation DESIGN | DESIGN PROPOSAL | 55

Social sustainability in this project is focused on social isolation and ways in which to combat and prevent social isolation and loneliness.

To create social relationships and avoid social isolation and loneliness a person needs a place in which to facilitate these specific relationships. A close, tight-knit community is one setting in which to provide this. Neighbors and friends within the community are important contributors to the quality of life in all ages but especially in old age: neighbors give more emotional support and less instrumental support than friends, and friends give more instrumental support (Walker 21).

Similarly Granberry states that in cohousing, residents know their neighbors well and enjoy a strong sense of community that is typically absent in contemporary cities and suburbs... this creates a close-knit neighborhood that offers a healthy balance of privacy and community (Gradberry 147). To provide for these different levels of friendship and community different levels of social activity are needed within a cohousing project. The common shared spaces within a cohousing community, like the common house and recreation areas, create ample opportunities for spontaneous interactions between residents (Granberry 146-147).

Walk through and bike storage 56 |

Scales of social nodes

Back porch area

The site design and unit layout itself influences the social environment of the community. Durrett explains that clustered housing is preferred when attempting to create a social environment (161). So, as a result these particular neighborhood units are arranged in sections and clusters to increase the chances of interaction between neighbors.

Spontaneous social interaction occurs because of the unit arrangement but also in other aspects as well. The overall outdoor shared spaces allots for neighbors to randomly gather in these spaces and interact and engage in conversation with one another. Again, different levels of scale and social interaction take place in the shared outdoor, unit spaces and the main communal space adjacent to the common house.

Axiel connections Unit entires Mehrabian states that, “courtyards containing a playground for the children and benches and shaded areas provides a central gathering point which draws the resident together and increases their chances for social interaction (Mehrabian 119).�

This particular situation occurs in the common outdoor space adjacent to the common house.

A childrens play area, outdoor seating, and shade from trees enhances the possibility of spontaneous interaction to occur.

Unit kitchen DESIGN | DESIGN PROPOSAL | 57

Common house living room

Front yard

Common house kitchen

Entrance

Secion through common house 58 |

Common house

Bike storage

Community gardens

The common house, not only with its communal meals and social activities, increases the chances of spontaneous interaction and conversation by the overall design and orientation of the furniture within the rooms themselves.

This is especially true in the common living space for Mahrabian states that: The angle at which strangers are seated in relation to another is a crucial factor in how much they interact.

Strangers who are seated parallel to each other, as on a couch, simply will not talk to each other very much. A faceto-face orientation will increase their arousal and greatly enhance sociability... Couches designed to seat three or more persons become more socially inefficient the larger they get.... it is better to have a number of smaller, more intimate conversational groupings within the social core rather than one large one (91-92).

[F34]

Couch layout As a result of this valuable information, the furniture layout in the common living space is arranged in such a manner that it allows for optimal interaction and conversations to ensue. Chairs and couches are oriented towards each other to allow for smaller, more intimate, conversations to occur.

Community interaction

South elevation DESIGN | DESIGN PROPOSAL | 59

Roof

Photovoltaic module Gravel 70mm Thermal Insulation 180mm Weatherproofing CLT panel 27mm Rock wool 240mm CLT panel 27mm

Wall

Gypsum board 15mm Rock wool 100mm CLT panel 27mm Rock wool 260mm CLT panel 15mm Water protection Back ventilation 35mm Wood cladding 27mm

Floor/ceiling

Slate stone 15mm Cement 80mm (radiant heating) Glass wool 20mm (sound insulation) Glass wool 20mm (electrical wiring) CLT panel 27mm Insulation 240mm CLT panel 27mm Gypsum board 15mm Air space Drop ceiling gypsum board 15mm

Interior elevation 60 |

Wall section

Exterior elevation

Conclusion In conclusion, it can be seen, based on evidence and data collected, that cohousing principles have much potential when it comes to creating a sustainable multigenerational neighborhoods. Social isolation is a factor that is dealt with, not only at an elder age, but at all stages of life and it is proven that it can be detrimental to ones overall health and happiness.

Through design at various levels of scale, however, the complications that arise from social isolation can be diminished and over all eliminated to create environments in which people enjoy their life and continue to live and grow. This later results in the person’s overall happiness and further preservation of their emotional, physical, and social health.

Common house DESIGN | DESIGN PROPOSAL | 61

CONCLUSION

62 |

Though the individual projects were finalized and presented at the close of the academic year, the work of the M-Gen Studio is not finished. The exploration required of the studio brought important realizations about the profound impact of the architectural profession.

The students will step into their positions in the field with greater understanding about efficient construction, effective design, and the creation of meaningful spaces.

The project challenged the students to not only consider how a building should exist, but why it should. Designing for the future requires thinking about needs that are both surfacing and not yet voiced. Students in the studio put forth tremendous effort to explore how multi-generational living might manifest into architecture, and they hope that they have been able to contribute to the discussion. The M-Gen Studio will not likely forget the imperative issues brought to light during this project, and will undoubtedly continue to rigorously fight for a high quality of life for future generations.

DESIGN | CONCLUSION | 63

BIBLIOGRAPHY “8 Areas of Age-Related Change.” U.S. National Library of Medicine. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ magazine/issues/winter07/articles/winter07/pg10-13.html>.

“AARP- Health, Travel Deals, Baby Boomers, Election News, Over 50, Online Games, Retirement Plan.” AARP. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. <http://www.aarp.org/>.

“Adult Children Living with Parents | Write on New Jersey.” Adult Children Living with Parents | Write on New Jersey. N.p., n.d. Web 14 May 2013. <http://www. writeonnewjersey.com/tag/adult-children-living-with-parents/>.

“Aging in Place Home Remodeling Renovation Universal Deisgn.” Aging in Place Home Remodeling Renovation Universal Design. N.p., n.d. Web 14 May 2013. <http://www. lifeconnectathome.com/Hom-Remodeling.html>.

“Aging in Place/Home Modification Pro.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. <http://forbes.com/fdc/welcom_mjx_shtml>.

Anastas, Paul T., and Joulie B. Zimmerman. “ACS Green Chemistry Institute.” 12 Principles of Green Engineering. ACS Publications, 19 Feb. 2013.

“Archive for Gallery”. Gallery Illinois Reflux Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. <http://illinoisrefluxsociety.com/category/gallery/>.

Bhamra, Tracy, and Vickey Lofthouse. Design for Sustainability. Hampshire: Gower Limited, 2007.

Blake-Beard, Stacy, Regina O’Neill, and Mary Shapiro. “Social Sustainability, Flexible Work Arrangements, and Diverse Women.” Gender in Management 25.5 (2010): 408-25.

Proquest.com. Emerald Group Publishing, Limited, 20 Oct. 2010. Web. Oct. 2012. <http://search.proquest.com/pqrl/docview/663363842/138CB5944D24F478780/1?account id=11789>.

Borland, Sophie. “Arthritis Sufferes ‘40 per Cent More Likely to Develop Fatal Heart Problems;” Mail Online. N.p., n.d. 14 May 2013. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ article-2112383/Arthritis-suferers-40-cent-likely-develop-fatal-heart-problems.html>.

Bray, Janis. “LOSS OF SPOUSE OR FRIEND CAN BE OVERWHELMING FOR SENIORS.” Smart Options for Seniors LLC. The Helping Hand, n.d. Web. <http://www. smartoptionsforseniors.com/apps/blog/overcoming-loss-of-spouse-or-friend-can>.

Bussang, Lynda. “Hebrew Senior Life Blog.” Hebrew Senior Life Blog. ReAge., n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. <http://blog.hebrewseniorlife.org/how-our-senior-living-communitycrosses-generational-divide>.

Caring for the Earth :. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN--the World Conservation Union, 1991. Print.

“CLT- Cross Laminated Timber Solutions for Commercial & Residential Construction.” Cross Lam Timber Solutions. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2013. <http://www.crosslamsolutions. com/>.

De La Roche, J. O’Connor, and P. Tetu. “Wood Products and Sustainable Construction.” Wood Products and Sustainable Construction. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2013. <http:// www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/1039-A2.HTM>.

Doane, Deborah. “Economic Sustainability- The Business of Staying in Business.” (2001): n. pag. The Sigma Project. Web. Oct. 2012. <http://projectsigma.co.uk/RnDStreams/ RD_economic_sustain.pdf>.

Durrett, Charles. The Senior Cohousing Handbook: A Community Approach to Independent Living. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society, 2009. Print.

“Economic Sustainability.” Thwink.org. N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2012. <http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/EconomicSustainability.htm>.

El Nasser, Haya. “More Multigeneratinal Households in Immigrant Areas.” USA Today. Gannett, 25 Oct. 2012. Web. 12 May 2013.

“Environmental Sustainability.” Thwink.org. N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2012. <http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/EnvironmentalSustainability.htm>.

Filksenbaum, Lisa M., Esther R. Greenglass, and Judy Eaton. “Perceived Social Support, Hassles, and Coping Among the Elderly.” Journal of Applied Gerontology 25. (2006): 17-30. SAGE. Web. 2 Oct. 2012. <http://jag.sagepub.com/content/25/1/17>.

Fleck, Carole, “Multigenerations Under One Roof.” AARP. N.p., May 2013. Web. 12 May 2013.

“Flos Carmeli.: Flos Carmeli RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. <http;//news.olmcmd.org?tag=children>.

64 |

Forte, Emmanuel. “Most Dramatic Rise in Multi-generational Homes in Modern times.” Emmanuel Fonte Bellevue Real Estate Seattle Real Estate. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. <http;//www.emmanuelfonte.com/most-dramatic-rise-in-multi-generational-homes-in-modern-times/>.

Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. <http;//www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjc.shtml>.

Frog Design. “20 Tech Trends That Will Define 2013, Selected By Frog.” Co.Design. Fast Co. Design, 2013. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.

“Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities [Paperback].” Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities: Mike Jenks, Nicola Dempsey: 978075663090. 11 Feb. 2013.

Granberry, Laura. “Cohousing and Shared Housing.” Re-creating Neighborhoods for Successful Aging. Eds. Abbott, Pauline S., and Laura Granberry. Baltimore, MD: Health Professions, 2009. Print.

Hamberg, Terry. “Baby Boomer Brain boosters | BabyBoomerDaily.com.” BabyBoomerDailycom RSS. N.p., 1 June 2011. Web. 14 May 2013. <http;//babyboomerdaily. com/2011/06/01/baby-boomer-brain-boosters-2/>.

Haner, Nicolle C. “All in the Family.” Orlando Business Journal 21.13 (2004): 19-. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 11 Feb. 2013.

Hanford, Jim. “Learning from Passive House.” MIller Hull Learning from Passive House. Miller Hull, 18 Feb. 2013.

Hart, Maureen. N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2012. <http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/Training/Indicators/Def-Br1.html>.

Hart, Maureen. N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2012. <http://sustainablemeasures.com/Training/Indicators/Def-Care.html>.

Hart, Maureen. N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2012. <http://sustainablemeasures.com/Training/Indicators/Def-Fait.html>.

Hebdon, M. Heathe. “Universal Design.” The Exceptional Parent, May 2007: pp. 70-. ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source; ProQuest Research Library. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.

“A Helping Hand for hoosier Alzheimer’s Caregivers- Stages of Alzheimer’s Disease.” A Helping Hand for Hossie Alzheimer’s Caregiviers. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2013.

IBM Corpoation. “Smarter Cities Contribute to a Smarter World.” IBM Smarter Cities. July 2012.

“Important Exercises for People in Pain | Tommie Copper.” Important Exercises for People in Pain | Tommie Copper. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. <http;//www.tommiecopper. com/resources/blog/important-exercise-people-pain>.

Jackson, James S. and Toni C. Antonucci. “Social Support Processes in Health and Effective Functioning of the Elderly.” Stress and Health among the Elderly. Eds. Wykle, May L., Eva Kahana, and Jerome Kowal.New York: Springer Pub., 1992. Print.

Jander, Mary. “Why Parks Matter: Ex-Commissioner Speaks Out.” UBM’S Future Cities. 23 Jan. 2013. 11 Feb. 2013.

Kolarevic, Branko. Digital Technology and Architecture. New York: Spon, 2003. Print.

Lehrer, Jonah. “The Psychology of Architecture.” Wired. N.p., 4 Apr. 2011. Web. 8 Feb. 2013.

Leibrock, Cynthia. Beautiful Barrier-free: A Visual Guide to Accessibility. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993. Print.

Leibrock, Cynthia, and James E. Terry. Beautiful Universal Design: A Visual Guide. New York: John Wiley.

Lynch, eimear. “The Future of Design: Architect Daniel Libeskind’s Predictions.” The Daily Traveler. Conde Nast Traveler, Nov. 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.

Margolis, Diane, and David Entin. Report on Survey of Cohousing Communities 2011. Rep. Cohousing Association of the United States, n.d. Web. 5 Sept. 2012. <http://www. cohousing.org/docs/2011/survey_of_cohousing_communities_2011.pdf>.

McCamant, Kathryn. “Building A Cohousing Community.” Caring for Families (1989): 42. Context Institute. Web. Mar. 2013. <http://www.context.org/iclib/ic21/ mccamant/>.

McKenzie, Stephen. “Social Sustainability: Towards Some Definitions.” Hawke Research Institute Working Paper Series 27 (2004): n. pag. University of South Australia. Web. May 2013. <http://w3.unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/publications/downloads/wp27.pdf>.

Mehrabian, Albert. “Residential Environments.” Public Places and Private Spaces: The Psychology of Work, Play, and Living Environments. New York: Basic, 1976. Print.

DESIGN | BIBLIOGRAPHY | 65

Minergie. “The Minergie Standard for Buildings (information for Architects).” Standard for Buildings (2010): PDF. 18 Feb. 2013.

Morelli, John. “Environmental Sustainability: A Definition for Envrionmental Professionals.” Journal of Environmental Sustainability 1 (2011): 19-27. Web. May 2013. <http:// www.environmentalmanager.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Article2Morelli.pdf>.

Novatlantis. Sustainability at the ETH domain. Novatlantis, 2007. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.

“On the Way to the 2000-watt Society.” Stadt Zurich. City of Zurich, Apr. 2011. Web. 8 May 2013.

Pearson, Sharon. “Login.” Buildingfaith RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. <http://www.buildfaith.org/2011/04/30/retirement/>.

“PORTFOLIO:: AGING IN PLACE.” Aging in Place ? HSA ? Home Remodeling and Additions in Washtenaw County. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. <http://www.hsa-remodel.com/ portfolio-aging-in-place-01.html.> Rosen, Marc A., and Hossam A. Kishawy. “Sustainable Manufacturing and Design: Concepts, Practices, and Needs.” Sustainable Manufacturing and Design: Concepts, Practices, and Needs. MDPI, 24 Jan. 2012.

Sandhana, Lakshmi. “Smart Buildings Make Smooth Moves.” Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 31 Aug. 2006. 12 Feb 2013.

Scott, Rory. “Non-Design: Architecture’s (Counter-Intuitive) Future”. Arch Daily. Arch Daily, 12 Feb. 2013.

Sterling, C. Mary. “Universal Design Problem Solving.” Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 96.2 (2004). 40-4. ProQuest Research Library. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.

“The Return of the Multi-Generational Family Household.” Pew Social Demographic Trends RSS. Pew Research, 18 Mar. 2010. Web. 12 May 2013.

“Sustainability.” Thwink.org. N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2012. <http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/Sustainability.htm>.

“Sustainable Development-concept and Action.” UNECE- United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2012. <http://www.unece.org/oes/ nutshell/2004-2005/focus_sustainable_development.html>.

Tomaka, Joe, Sharon Thompson, and Rebecca Palacios. “The Relation of Social Isolation, Loneliness, and Social Support to Disease Outcomes Among the Elderly.” Journal of Aging and Health 18 (2006): 359-384. SAGE. Web. 3 Oct. 2012. <http://jah.sagepub.com/content/18/3/359>.

“Universal Design.” Builder 22.10 (1999): S1-S13. ABI/INFORM Complete; ProQuest Research Library. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.

“Universal Design: Integrating Innovative Products and Spatial Design.” Continuing Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 may 2013. <http://continuingeducation.construction.com/ article_print.php?L=39>.

USGBC. “LEED 2009 for New Construction.” (2009): 18 Feb. 2013.

Vegesack, Alexander Von., and Jochen Einsnbrand. Open House: Architecture and Technology for Intelligent Living. Weil Am Rhein: Vitra Design Stiftung, 2006. Print.

Walker, Alan. “Quality of Life in Old Age in Europe.” Growing Older in Europe. Maidenhead: Open UP, 2005. Print.

Whaley, Linda. “Passive House Arrives in North America: Could It Revolutionize the Way We Build?” Building Green, 1 Apr. 010. 18 Feb. 2013.

“What Is Social Sustainability?” Hubpages. N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2012. <http://ithabise.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-Social-Sustainability-basic-needs-equity-human-capital>.

“What Is Sustainability.” EPA. N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/basicinfo.htm#sustainability>.

“Wood Solutions Home.” Wood Solutions Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2013. <http://woodsolutions.com/>.

Zimmy, Fred. “Multichannel Marketing and Customer Intelligence in 2013 (Part 4).” Fred Zimmys Serve4impact. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 may 2013. <http://serve4impact. com/2012/12/08/multichannel-marketing-and-customer-in-2013-part-4/>.

66 |

Figure 1: MacVitte, Lori. “The Multi-Generational Datacenter: From Toddlers to teenagers by Lori MacVittie.” F5 DevCentral. N.p., 20 Sept. 2010. Web. 12 May 2013.

Figure 2: “ The Return of the Multi-Generational Family Household.” Pew Social Demographic trends RSS. Pew Research, 18 Mar. 2010. Web. 12 May 2013.

Figure 3: “ The Return of the Multi-Generational Family Household.” Pew Social Demographic trends RSS. Pew Research, 18 Mar. 2010. Web. 12 May 2013.

Figure 4: Tender Loving Care. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. <“ The Return of the Multi-Generational Family Household.” Pew Social Demographic trends RSS. Pew Research, 18 Mar. 2010. Web. 12 May 2013.>.

Figure 5 : How to Strengthen an Alzheimer’s Patient’s Memory. N.p., n.d Web. 14 May 2013. <http://www.ehow.com/how_2125085_strengthen-alzheimers-patients-memory.html>.

Figure 6: Stillwater Area Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. < http://stillwaterareafoundation.org/>.

Figure 7: Universal Design... Going Mainstream. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2013. < http://designservicesltd.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/universal-design-going-mainstream/>.

Figure 8: Home Life Concepts LLC. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2013. < http://homelifeconcepts.com/how-we-help/ideas-for-your-home/>.

Figure 9: Renewable Energy & Conservation Programs. Digital image. Hudson Light & Power. N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2012. <http://www.hudsonlight.com/Conservation/cons.htm>.

Figure 10: N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2012. <http://www.ecpamericas.org/Blog/default.aspx?language=es-MX>.

Figure 11: 5 Steps to a Successful Sustainability Report. Burns & McDonnel. N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2012. <http://www.burnsmcdblog.com/2012/04/06/5-steps-to-a-successful-sustainability-report/>.

Figure 12: N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2012. <http://usgreentechnology.com/green-jobs-blog/green-jobs-green-jobs-beat-out-coal-jobs-this-year/attachment/green-energy/>.

Figure 13: N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. < http://mgenhaus.wordpress.com/research/energy-efficiency-in-zurich/> Figure 14:N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2013. < http://mgenhaus.wordpress.com/research/energy-efficiency-in-zurich/> Figure 15: N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2013. < http://mgenhaus.wordpress.com/research/construction-materials/> Figure 16: N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2013. < http://mgenhaus.wordpress.com/research/construction-materials/> Figure 17: Graphite Apartments Wood Construction. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2013. < http://www.envirogadget.com/site-news/graphite-apartments-wooden-constructions/> Figure 18: N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2013. < http://www.archiexpo.de/prod/timbory/brettsperrholz-bauplatten-84240-953344.html> Figure 19: RosieScribble. Our Favorite Games to Help Children Learn. Ready for Ten.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 May 2013. <http://readyforten.com/users/RFTrosie/posts/14606-top-educational-games>.

Figure 20: Social Support. All about Care.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 May 2013. <http://www.allaboutcare.com.au/social-support.html>.

Figure 21: Elderrings.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 May 2013. <http://www.elderrings.com/who-we-are.html>.

Figure 22: Cohousingblog.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 May 2013. <http://www.cohousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/je-cohousing1.jpg>.

Figure 23: Durrett, Charles. The Senior Cohousing Handbook: A Community Approach to Independent Living. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society, 2009. 203. Print.

Figure 24: Durrett, Charles. The Senior Cohousing Handbook: A Community Approach to Independent Living. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society, 2009. 116. Print.

Figure 25: Durrett, Charles. The Senior Cohousing Handbook: A Community Approach to Independent Living. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society, 2009. 116. Print.

Figure 26: Durrett, Charles. The Senior Cohousing Handbook: A Community Approach to Independent Living. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society, 2009. 208. Print.

Figure 27: My Alzheimer’s Archive of Articles and Memoranda. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 May 2013. <http://ic-mike.blogspot.com/2011/04/elder-cohousing.html>.

Figure 28: Cohousing. Spatial Agency. Http://www.spatialagency.net/database/where/social%20structures/co-housing, n.d. Web. 9 May 2013.

Figure 29: Cohousingconsulting.ca. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 May 2013. <http://www.cohousingconsulting.ca/>.

Figure 30: Social Isolation Could Raise Risk of Early Death. Huffingtonpost.com. N.p., 26 Mar. 2013. Web. 9 May 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/social-isolation-early-death-premature- loneliness_n_2956754.html>.

Figure 31: Mayo Clinic: Aging Parents: 7 Warning Signs of Health Problems. Digital image. N.p., 25 Feb. 2013. Web. 9 May 2013. <http://blog.seniorlivingexperts.com/senior_living_information/2013/02/>.

Figure 32: Shelton, Anne. How to Start a Senior Day Care Business. EHow.com. N.p., 03 July 2012. Web. 9 May 2013. <http://www.ehow.com/how_5910940_start-senior-day-care-business.html>.

Figure 33: Co-Housing: Issues Facing Families. Co-Housing. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 May 2013. <http://co-housing.wikidot.com/architecture>.

Figure 34: Mehrabian, Albert. “Residential Environments.” Public Places and Private Spaces: The Psychology of Work, Play, and Living Environments. New York: Basic, 1976. 92. Print.

DESIGN | BIBLIOGRAPHY | 67