Cohousing Common House Design

schemata workshop

designing the cohousing common house Grace Kim, AIA

Š 2006 Grace H. Kim printed on 100% recycled paper

cohousing

schemata worksh o p

empowering communities through architecture

multi-family housing

single-family housing

Schemata Workshop is a full service architecture firm founded in 2004 and comprised of two principals and eight architectural staff. As a firm, our focus is to create successful and collaborative client relationships through exceptional, integrated design that meets client objectives. At the same time, we consider future flexibility, are sensitive to environmental issues, and are thoughtful with regard to the context of the work. Our handson approach ensures that we are intimately aware of all project issues and each project receives hands-on attention from both firm principals.

With a passion for cohousing, Grace Kim received a research fellowship from the University of Washington to study cohousing in Denmark. In 2004 co-founders Grace Kim and Mike Mariano lived in Copenhagen and immersed themselves in the culture of over 20 cohousing communities. Grace and Mike have visited over 30 cohousing communities across North America, and have lead the design team on projects of varying unit densities, and all with an integrated approach to sustainable ecological design.

Grace’s research in Denmark reinforced her belief that the most significant architectural difference between cohousing from other forms of multifamily housing is the social coherence afforded by the Common House and the common spaces that link to private dwellings. This in-depth study and detailed analysis is the subject of a book on the design of the cohousing Common House and informed the design of their first cohousing project in Portland, OR for the Daybreak community.

community

Thank you for purchasing this book.

For more information about Common House Design, please contact Grace Kim at grace@schemataworkshop.com or address below.

1720 12th avenue #3, seattle, wa 98122 v 206.285.1589 f 206.285.2701 www.schemataworkshop.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS page list of figures .......................................................................................................................... iii list of tables ........................................................................................................................... ix preface .................................................................................................................................. x acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... xii dedication ............................................................................................................................. xiii introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 chapter one: summaries ....................................................................................................... 3 List of Communities Visited ..................................................................................... 4 Ådalen 1 .................................................................................................................. 5 Bo 90 ....................................................................................................................... 12 Drivhuset ................................................................................................................. 20 Ibsgården ................................................................................................................ 28 Jerngården .............................................................................................................. 35 Jernstøberiet ........................................................................................................... 42 Jystrup Savværket .................................................................................................. 50 Leerbjerg Lod .......................................................................................................... 59 Munksøgård ............................................................................................................ 67 Stavnsbåndet .......................................................................................................... 75 Sættedammen......................................................................................................... 82 chapter two: findings.............................................................................................................. 89 Demographics ......................................................................................................... 90 Common House Features ....................................................................................... 95 Site Planning ........................................................................................................... 97 chapter three: design criteria ................................................................................................. 101 Pattern Language.................................................................................................... 102 no. 1 Activity Node [30] ............................................................................ 104 no. 2 Local Town Hall [44] ....................................................................... 105 no. 3 Main Building [99] .......................................................................... 106 no. 4 Centrally Located Common House ................................................. 107 no. 5 Degree Of Publicness [36] .............................................................. 108 no. 6 Gatekeepers ................................................................................... 109 no. 7 Local Centers - Satellite Activity Nodes .......................................... 110 no. 8 Community Street - Life in the Street.............................................. 111 no. 9 Communal Eating [147] .................................................................. 112 no. 10 Eating Atmosphere [181] .............................................................. 113 no. 11 Cooking Layout [184] .................................................................... 114 no. 12 Production Kitchen........................................................................ 115 no. 13 Central Bulletin Board ................................................................... 116 no. 14 Community Store ......................................................................... 117 no. 15 Social Hall ..................................................................................... 118 no. 16 Guestrooms .................................................................................. 119 no. 17 Connected Play [68] ..................................................................... 120 no. 18 Teenager’s Cottage / Apartment [154] .......................................... 121

i

no. 19 Bulk Storage ................................................................................. 122 no. 20 Community Laundry...................................................................... 123 no. 21 Common Areas at the Heart ......................................................... 124 no. 22 Alcoves [179] ................................................................................ 125 no. 23 Spatial Hierarchy ......................................................................... 126 no. 24 Ceiling Height Variety [190] .......................................................... 127 no. 25 Public Outdoor Room [69] ............................................................ 128 no. 26 South Facing Outdoors [105] ........................................................ 129 no. 27 Light on Two Sides of Every Room ............................................... 130 no. 28 Window Place [180] ...................................................................... 131 no. 29 Windows Overlooking Life ............................................................ 132 no. 30 Acoustics....................................................................................... 133 no. 31 Lighting ......................................................................................... 134 no. 32 Seating.......................................................................................... 135 Common House Program ....................................................................................... 136 chapter four: conclusions....................................................................................................... 137 bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 139

ii

LIST OF FIGURES figure number

page

Fig 1.1a: Ådalen 1 Site Plan .................................................................................................. 6 Fig 1.1b: Ådalen 1 Common House Plan .............................................................................. 6 Fig 1.1c: Aerial photo taken shortly after project completion ................................................. 9 Fig 1.1d: Exterior - Common House ..................................................................................... 9 Fig 1.1e: Exterior - Common Space ...................................................................................... 9 Fig 1.1f: Covered street ........................................................................................................ 10 Fig 1.1g: The presence of people in the covered street at night ........................................... 10 Fig 1.1h: Workshop ............................................................................................................... 10 Fig 1.1i: Common laundry .................................................................................................... 10 Fig 1.1j: Recently renovated dining room (Common House)................................................ 11 Fig 1.1k: Teen apartment kitchenette .................................................................................... 11 Fig 1.1l: Kitchen with dining room beyond (Common House) .............................................. 11 Fig 1.1m: Kitchen with covered street beyond (Common House) ......................................... 11 Fig 1.2a: Bo 90 Site Plan ....................................................................................................... 13 Fig 1.2b: Bo 90 Common House Plan ................................................................................... 13 Fig 1.2c: Building from Tnørnegvej ...................................................................................... 17 Fig 1.2d: Common courtyard shared by surrounding buildings ............................................. 17 Fig 1.2e: View along exterior corridor .................................................................................... 17 Fig 1.2f: Common House interior.......................................................................................... 18 Fig 1.2g: Sunken dining and lounge areas (Common House)............................................... 18 Fig 1.2h: Lounge area facing the public street (Common House) ......................................... 18 Fig 1.2i: Passive solar heat collection in attic ....................................................................... 19 Fig 1.2j: Plumbing to regulate water heated by passive solar .............................................. 19 Fig 1.2k: Central mail delivery at building entry ..................................................................... 19 Fig 1.2l: Storage lockers for individual residents ................................................................. 19 Fig 1.3a: Drivhuset Site Plan ................................................................................................. 21 Fig 1.3b: Drivhuset Common House Plan ............................................................................. 21 Fig 1.3c: Approaching the building entrance ......................................................................... 25 Fig 1.3d: Inside the greenhouse / community street.............................................................. 25 Fig 1.3e: View towards entry from upper balcony ................................................................. 25 Fig 1.3f: Garden-side of residential units .............................................................................. 25 Fig1.3g: Exterior view of Common House ............................................................................ 26 Fig 1.3h: View into kitchen from dining room (Common House) ........................................... 26 Fig 1.3i: Dining room (Common House) ............................................................................... 26 Fig 1.3j: Basement bike storage ........................................................................................... 27 Fig 1.3k: Resident’s personal storage in basement............................................................... 27 Fig 1.3l: Laundry room in basement ..................................................................................... 27 Fig 1.3m:TV lounge in upper level of Common House .......................................................... 27 Fig 1.4a: Ibsgården Site Plan ................................................................................................ 29 Fig 1.4b: Ibsgården Common House Plan ............................................................................ 29 Fig 1.4c: Central courtyard surrounded by residential units .................................................. 32 Fig 1.4d: Perimeter of courtyard / entries to upper level units .............................................. 32 Fig 1.4e: Original farmhouse adapted to Common House .................................................... 32

iii

Fig 1.4f: Dining Room (Common House) ............................................................................. 33 Fig 1.4g: Cooking island (Common House)........................................................................... 33 Fig 1.4h: One of two conversation areas in Common House ................................................ 33 Fig 1.4i: Children’s playroom on main level (Common House) ............................................ 33 Fig 1.4j: Teenager’s room on main level (Common House) ................................................ 34 Fig 1.4k: Community store in basement (Common House).................................................. 34 Fig 1.4l: Workshop in basement (Common House)............................................................. 34 Fig 1.5a: Jerngården Site Plan .............................................................................................. 36 Fig 1.5b: Jerngården Common House Plans ........................................................................ 36 Fig 1.5c: Residences along Montanagade ............................................................................ 40 Fig 1.5d: Montanagade residences from common courtyard ................................................ 40 Fig 1.5e: Common House (yellow) from Ole Rømersgade.................................................... 40 Fig 1.5f: Common House and garden from above ............................................................... 40 Fig 1.5g: Kitchen during meal preparation (Common House) ............................................... 41 Fig 1.5h: Dining room (Common House) ............................................................................... 41 Fig 1.5i: TV room on top floor (Common House).................................................................. 41 Fig 1.6a: Jernstøberiet Site Plan ........................................................................................... 43 Fig 1.6b: Jernstøberiet Common House Plan ....................................................................... 43 Fig 1.6c: Sawtoothed roofs of former iron foundry, entry at left ............................................. 47 Fig 1.6d: West facade and west-facing patio of Common House.......................................... 47 Fig 1.6e: Mailboxes and common entry to the Hall ............................................................... 47 Fig 1.6f: Private residential garden ....................................................................................... 47 Fig 1.6g: The Hall with Common House at far end................................................................ 48 Fig 1.6h: Production Kitchen (Common House) .................................................................... 48 Fig 1.6i: Serving island with dish storage (Common House) ................................................ 48 Fig 1.6j: Tables set for dinner (Common House) .................................................................. 48 Fig 1.6k: Cafe tables in the Hall just outside the kitchen ....................................................... 49 Fig 1.6l: Childrens play room on upper level of Common House ......................................... 49 Fig 1.6m:Community bulletin board in the Hall ...................................................................... 49 Fig 1.6n: TV lounge on upper level of Common House......................................................... 49 Fig 1.7a: Savværket Site Plan ............................................................................................... 51 Fig 1.7b: Savværket Common House Plan ........................................................................... 51 Fig 1.7c: Building Section illustrates “hierarchy of privacy” ................................................... 55 Fig 1.7d: Entry to community, south facade .......................................................................... 56 Fig 1.7e: Lush landscaping in covered pedestrian street ..................................................... 56 Fig 1.7f: Common House located at intersection of streets .................................................. 56 Fig 1.7g: Outdoor and indoor dining areas (Common House)............................................... 57 Fig 1.7h: Tables set for dinner, kitchen upper right ............................................................... 57 Fig 1.7i: Production kitchen open to dining area ................................................................ 57 Fig 1.7j: Wheeled carts for tableware storage (Common House)......................................... 57 Fig 1.7k: Common House pantry .......................................................................................... 58 Fig 1.7l: Seating area on main level of Common House ...................................................... 58 Fig 1.7m:Teen room in the crow’s nest of the Common House ............................................. 58 Fig 1.7n: Common laundry room located along each wing ................................................... 58 Fig 1.8a: Leerbjerg Lod Site Plan .......................................................................................... 60 Fig 1.8b: Leerbjerg Lod Common House Plans .................................................................... 60 Fig 1.8c: Cluster of residential units ...................................................................................... 64 Fig 1.8d: Covered parking ..................................................................................................... 64

iv

Fig 1.8e: Residential unit entry .............................................................................................. 64 Fig 1.8f: Garden-side of residential unit................................................................................ 64 Fig 1.8g: Kitchen (Common House) ...................................................................................... 65 Fig 1.8h: Dining Room (Common House) ............................................................................. 65 Fig 1.8i: Outdoor play area visible from kitchen window ...................................................... 65 Fig 1.8j: Outdoor dining area adjacent dinng room ............................................................. 65 Fig 1.8k: Workshop in basement (Common House)............................................................. 66 Fig 1.8l: Wash instruction tags for laundry .......................................................................... 66 Fig 1.8m:Fitness room in basement (Common House) ........................................................ 66 Fig 1.8n: Game room on upper level (Common House)....................................................... 66 Fig 1.9a: Site Plan of all 5 cohousing communities ............................................................... 68 Fig 1.9b: Munksøgård Ejer Site Plan ..................................................................................... 68 Fig 1.9c: Munksøgård Common House Plan......................................................................... 68 Fig 1.9d: Welcome sign depicting all five communities ......................................................... 72 Fig 1.9e Ejer community - condominium ownership ............................................................. 72 Fig 1.9f: Rental co-operative community for families............................................................ 72 Fig 1.9g: Rental co-operative community for young people .................................................. 72 Fig 1.9h: Common House with mussel shell roof ................................................................. 73 Fig 1.9i: Finnish fireplace provides heating for Common House .......................................... 73 Fig 1.9j: Separate cooking and cleaning areas in kitchen .................................................... 73 Fig 1.9k: Dining room maximizes daylight with central skylight ............................................. 73 Fig 1.9l: Windmill to pump water for irrigating gardens ........................................................ 74 Fig 1.9m: Organic gardens .................................................................................................... 74 Fig 1.9n: Extensive recycling and sorting program............................................................... 74 Fig 1.9o: Central heating plant for all five communities ........................................................ 74 Fig 1.10a: Stavnsbåndet Site Plan ........................................................................................ 76 Fig 1.10b: Stavnsbåndet Common House Plans................................................................... 76 Fig 1.10c: Residential units surround a common open space ............................................... 79 Fig 1.10d: Common House is located at center of open space ............................................. 79 Fig 1.10e: Kitchen opens up to dining room (Common House)............................................. 80 Fig 1.10f: Four cooks prepare dinner (Common House) ...................................................... 80 Fig 1.10g: Dining room set for dinner - ultimate hygge (Common House) ............................ 80 Fig 1.10h: Pillow room on upper level (Common House) ...................................................... 81 Fig 1.10i: Seating area & game room (Common House) ..................................................... 81 Fig 1.10j: Bike storage in basement (Common House) ........................................................ 81 Fig 1.10k: Community store in basement (Common House)................................................. 81 Fig 1.11a: Sættedammen Site Plan ....................................................................................... 83 Fig 1.11b: Sættedammen Common House Plan ................................................................... 83 Fig1.11c: 2-story residential units facing open space ........................................................... 86 Fig 1.11d: Exterior view of Common House .......................................................................... 86 Fig 1.11e: Sand lot in south common green .......................................................................... 86 Fig 1.10f: Hardscape play area with 1-story units in distance .............................................. 86 Fig 1.11g: Dining room with kitchen beyond (Common House) ............................................ 87 Fig 1.11h: Open and efficient kitchen (Common House) ....................................................... 87 Fig 1.11i: South-facing patio adjacent to dining room........................................................... 87 Fig 1.11j: Resident musicians rehearse in the Common House ........................................... 87 Fig 1.11k: Game room in Common House ............................................................................ 88 Fig 1.11l: Composting area outside Common House ........................................................... 88

v

Fig 1.11m:Central heating plant............................................................................................. 88 Fig 1.11n: Community bulletin board at entry of Common House ......................................... 88 Fig 2.1a: Workshop at Ådalen 1 ........................................................................................... 104 Fig 2.1b: Laundry room at Bakken ....................................................................................... 104 Fig 2.1c: Meal prep at Stavnsbåndet .................................................................................... 104 Fig 2.1d: Resident musicians rehearse at Sættedammen.................................................... 104 Fig 2.1e: Birthday celebration at Jernstøberiet ..................................................................... 104 Fig 2.2a: Spontaneous interactions ...................................................................................... 105 Fig 2.2b: After dinner conversation at Ådalen 1.................................................................... 105 Fig 2.2c: Residents linger to converse after dinner at Bakken ............................................. 105 Fig 2.2d: Post dinner conversation at Leerbjerg Lod ............................................................ 105 Fig 2.3a: Unique form at Blikfanget ...................................................................................... 106 Fig 2.3b: Distinct color & form at Kilen ................................................................................. 106 Fig 2.3c: Color & form at Munksøgård.................................................................................. 106 Fig 2.3d: Elevated location indicates importance at Trudeslund .......................................... 106 Fig 2.3e: Central location implies prominence at Stavsnbåndet........................................... 106 Fig 2.4a: Centrally located to all homes at Stavsnbåndet .................................................... 107 Fig 2.4b: Located at intersection of covered street at Savværket ........................................ 107 Fig 2.4c: Common House at Savværket............................................................................... 107 Fig 2.4d: Centrally located at Leerbjerg Lod......................................................................... 107 Fig 2.5a: Plants imply privacy at Drivhuset.......................................................................... 108 Fig 2.5b: Secluded patio at Leerbjerg Lod............................................................................ 108 Fig 2.5c: Seating along street at Ǻdalen1............................................................................. 108 Fig 2.5d: Frequent opportunities for interaction at Drivhuset................................................ 108 Fig 2.5e: Seating pulled into nook for privacy at Ǻdalen1 .................................................... 108 Fig 2.6a: Interactions close to Common House at Ǻdalen1 ................................................. 109 Fig 2.6b: Accoutrements of the gatekeeper at Ǻdalen1........................................................ 109 Fig 2.6c: Tea with community gatekeepers at Drivhuset ...................................................... 109 Fig 2.6d: Units near entry act as gatekeepers for Andedammen ......................................... 109 Fig 2.7a: Activity node for immediate neighbors at Savværket............................................. 110 Fig 2.7b: Central gathering spot along street at Ǻdalen 2 .................................................... 110 Fig 2.7c: Brunch shared by neighbors furthest from Common House at Ǻdalen1 ............... 110 Fig 2.7d: Sunny dining area for neighbors furthest from Common House at Savaaerket .... 110 Fig 2.8a: Street celebration at Ådalen1 ................................................................................. 111 Fig 2.8b: Sunday afternoon at Drivhuset ............................................................................... 111 Fig 2.8c: Looking through the window from street at Drivhuset............................................ 111 Fig 2.8d: The street at Kilen is a place for families and children .......................................... 111 Fig 2.9a: Dinner at Sættedammen ....................................................................................... 112 Fig 2.9b: Common meal at Jernstøberiet ............................................................................. 112 Fig 2.9c: The “cooks” table is an honored spot at Ibsgården ............................................... 112 Fig 2.9d: Community dinner at Trudeslund........................................................................... 112 Fig 2.10a: Flower & lights highlight dining tables at Overblik ................................................ 113 Fig 2.10b: Setting the mood for dinner at Sættedammen...................................................... 113 Fig 2.10c: Candles add to cozy atmosphere at Stavnsbåndet .............................................. 113 Fig 2.10d: Tables ready for diners at Bakken ........................................................................ 113 Fig 2.11a: Separate dishwashing area at Munksøgård ......................................................... 114 Fig 2.11b: Island cooktop and work surfaces at Andedammen ............................................. 114 Fig 2.11c: Galley-style kitchen for two cooks at Blikfanget .................................................... 114

vi

Fig 2.11d: Fig 2.12a: Fig 2.12b: Fig 2.12c: Fig 2.12d: Fig 2.13a: Fig 2.13b: Fig 2.13c: Fig 2.13d: Fig 2.13e: Fig 2.14a: Fig 2.14b: Fig 2.14c: Fig 2.14d: Fig 2.14e: Fig 2.15a: Fig 2.15b: Fig 2.15c: Fig 2.15d: Fig 2.15e: Fig 2.16a: Fig 2.16b: Fig 2.17a: Fig 2.17b: Fig 2.17c: Fig 2.17d: Fig 2.17e: Fig 2.18a: Fig 2.18b: Fig 2.18c: Fig 2.18d: Fig 2.18e: Fig 2.19a: Fig 2.19b: Fig 2.19c: Fig 2.19d: Fig 2.19e: Fig 2.20a: Fig 2.20b: Fig 2.20c: Fig 2.20d: Fig 2.20e: Fig 2.21a: Fig 2.21b: Fig 2.21c: Fig 2.21d: Fig 2.22a: Fig 2.22b:

Ample workspace for 4-6 cooks at Savværket..................................................... 114 Commercial burners and oven at Jernstøberiet .................................................. 115 Commerical dishwasher at Jernstøberiet ............................................................ 115 Carts for storage and easy table setting at Savværket ........................................ 115 Centrally located burners and pot filler at Kæphøj .............................................. 115 Bulletin board at Kilen.......................................................................................... 116 Meal signup at Trudeslund .................................................................................. 116 Mail / info boards at Ådalen 2 .............................................................................. 116 Cooking and cleaup assignments at Drivhuset ................................................... 116 Bulletin boards become meeting spot at Kæphøj ................................................ 116 Community pantry at Kæphøj .............................................................................. 117 Store at Ibsgården ............................................................................................... 117 Sundries at Stavnsbåndet.................................................................................... 117 Fully stocked shelves at Stavnsbåndet ............................................................... 117 Convenience items at Andedammen ................................................................... 117 Pool-side bar at Skråplanet ................................................................................. 118 Billiard room at Skråplanet .................................................................................. 118 Game room at Kæphøj ........................................................................................ 118 “Greek Night” community event at Ådalen 1........................................................ 118 Preparation for birthday celebration at Jernstøberiet .......................................... 118 Guestroom at Ådalen 1........................................................................................ 119 Guestroom with corner table at Savværket ......................................................... 119 Children encounter a party .................................................................................. 120 Pillow Room at Kæphøj ....................................................................................... 120 Play interrupted to look at fish ............................................................................ 120 Girls improvise a game at Jystrup Savvæket ...................................................... 120 Girls on bikes are intercepted by an adult at Kæphøj.......................................... 120 Teen apartment at Drivhuset ............................................................................... 121 Shared kitchenette at Ådalen 1 ........................................................................... 121 Teen bedroom at Kæphøj .................................................................................... 121 Shared living area for the teen apartments at Kilen ............................................ 121 Shared kitchen and dinng for teen apartments at Kilen....................................... 121 Resident storage at Drivhuset ............................................................................. 122 Common kitchen storage..................................................................................... 122 Pram storage at Stavnsbåndet ............................................................................ 122 Bike and sled storage at Stavnsbåndet ............................................................... 122 Lumber stored for community projects at Skråplanet .......................................... 122 Wash tags at Ådalen 1 ........................................................................................ 123 Laundry baskets queued up at Ibsgården ........................................................... 123 Wash instruction for community with blind resident ............................................. 123 Wash instructions left in basket at Klien .............................................................. 123 Laundry queue at Leerbjerg Lod ......................................................................... 123 Circulation through Common House at Savvæket .............................................. 124 Circulation occurs through Savvæket Common House ....................................... 124 Location facilitiates easy drop in at Kæphøj Common House (top of stairs) ....... 124 Casual seating outside Common House kitchen ................................................. 124 Nook for coffee or games .................................................................................... 125 Dining room surrounded by alcoves .................................................................... 125

vii

Fig 2.22c: Fig 2.23a: Fig 2.23b: Fig 2.23c: Fig 2.23d: Fig 2.24a: Fig 2.24b: Fig 2.24c: Fig 2.25a: Fig 2.25b: Fig 2.25c: Fig 2.25d: Fig 2.25e: Fig 2.26a: Fig 2.26b: Fig 2.26c: Fig 2.26d: Fig 2.26e: Fig 2.27a: Fig 2.27b: Fig 2.27c: Fig 2.27d: Fig 2.28a: Fig 2.28b: Fig 2.28c: Fig 2.28d: Fig 2.28e: Fig 2.29a: Fig 2.29b: Fig 2.29c: Fig 2.29d: Fig 2.29e: Fig 2.30a: Fig 2.30b: Fig 2.30c: Fig 2.20d: Fig 2.30e: Fig 2.31a: Fig 2.31b: Fig 2.31c: Fig 2.31d: Fig 2.31e: Fig 2.32a: Fig 2.32b: Fig 2.32c: Fig 2.32d: Fig 2.32e:

Alcove contains library ......................................................................................... 125 Dining nook at Sanct Hans .................................................................................. 126 Steps up imply hierarchy ..................................................................................... 126 Nook defined by walls & soffit .............................................................................. 126 Column and beam define nook............................................................................ 126 Varied ceiling at Trudeslund ................................................................................ 127 Varied ceiling at Savvæket ................................................................................. 127 Vaulted ceiling at Kilen......................................................................................... 127 Jerngården landscaped room ............................................................................. 129 Blikfanget - deep eave & railing .......................................................................... 129 Sættedammen - eave & plants ........................................................................... 129 Hedges define outdoor dining at Leerbjerg Lod .................................................. 129 Outdoor amphitheater at Skråplanet .................................................................. 129 Work-day break-time on patio ............................................................................ 129 Sættedammen dining terrace .............................................................................. 129 South-facing terrace at Bo 90 .............................................................................. 129 South-facing covered space at Ådalen 2 ............................................................. 129 Patio at street terminus opens out to garden beyond .......................................... 129 Corner windows in kitchen at Kilen ..................................................................... 130 Dining room at Jernstøberiet ............................................................................... 130 Windows & skylight at Bakken provide ample daylight ........................................ 130 Windows surround dining room at Overblik ......................................................... 130 Window-side table ............................................................................................... 131 Table for three by window .................................................................................... 131 Window seat ........................................................................................................ 131 Window seat provides cozy reading spot ............................................................ 131 Place comfortable chairs near windows .............................................................. 131 View of Jerngården homes .................................................................................. 132 View of entry from guestroom.............................................................................. 132 View out towards common path........................................................................... 132 Windows at Andedammen look out to main path ................................................ 132 View from Munksøgård home to adjacent farmland ............................................ 132 Geometric shaped wall panels ........................................................................... 133 Homosote panels on ceiling ................................................................................ 133 Dramatic use of Homasote .................................................................................. 133 Wood planks conceal acoustic panels above ...................................................... 133 Acoustical tiles integrated into initial ceiling design ............................................. 133 Lighting & candles set mood ............................................................................... 134 1-2 fxtures per table ............................................................................................ 134 Select fixtures to minimize glare .......................................................................... 134 Bright task lights cast a warm glow into the community street ........................... 134 Task lights in kitchen at Drivhuset are bright for cooking and cleaning ............... 134 Classic chairs in vibrant colors create visual interest .......................................... 135 Stackable chairs provide ultimate flexibility ......................................................... 135 Classic Danish chairs at Kæphøj ......................................................................... 135 Baby/child chairs are consistent .......................................................................... 135 Classic design in bold colors ............................................................................... 135

viii

LIST OF TABLES page

table number

Table 2.1: Summary of Demographics .................................................................................. 93 Table 2.2: Summary of Common House Features ............................................................... 96

ix

PREFACE

At the outset of my studies, I wanted to research cohousing but didn’t know where to focus my efforts. I did know that I wanted to address the social aspects of the physical design, so I took courses in Sociology and Geography. However, it took much convincing to obtain admittance to some of these courses. The professors of seminar courses were not initially interested in having a non-major graduate student take their courses. However, upon persistent communications, they agreed to let me add their classes. I read many statistical papers on demographics of urban areas, studied the earliest intentional communities in the U.S., and discussed the meaning of gendered spaces.

In taking graduate level courses in these social sciences, I realized that architects do not apply the same scientific, quantifiable or method-based techniques of data collection or inquiry employed by other fields.

This caused a bit of confusion when I spoke with other graduate students to determine the best way to conduct prospective interviews and collect comparable data. They spoke of the ethics in interviewing human subjects and were very dogmatic in the analysis of the data. This rigor helped me focus on topics that could be comparable and quantifiable. While the data collected is not entirely germane to the resulting conclusions, the questions prepared and the advance consideration greatly contributed to my field study.

Simultaneously, in preparation for the thesis, I visited many cohousing communities in the Pacific Northwest in hopes that this would help me identify an architectural problem that needed to be solved. As a result of these visits, I recognized that the design of the Common House often felt neglected or was inappropriate for the way the community utilized the building.

As I tried to investigate the resources available for designing cohousing communities and more specifically the Common House, I realized that there was a dearth of materials available, there were a few books, but most related to the social and logistical side of forming a new community. I regularly referenced the National Cohousing Association website (www.cohousing.org) which in turn provided links to the websites of individual communities. While I could research residential unit sizes for communities in the U.S. via the internet, the dimensional and programmatic characteristics of the Common House are rarely described on the websites. And to find comparable data for the Danish counterparts was almost impossible. There were a few websites listed on the US cohousing website, but only one had current contact information.

It was at that time I learned about the Valle Scholar Program. Given the difficulty in obtaining information about communities in Denmark, I was extremely fortunate to receive grant funding which allowed me to spend two months in Denmark conducting my field study.

As I began researching the Danish communities from Seattle, I realized that there would be significant

x

challenges ahead. The main hurdle would be to identify communities that I could visit. I had only the names of a dozen or so communities that I’d read about in the few books available. In my cursory internet searches, I’d been able to contact one community prior to my departure and was very discouraged about how to make additional contacts.

As it turned out, my approach to a social investigation as described in Chapter One helped open many doors and resulted in a word-of-mouth referral to over thirty communities (of which I was able to visit over twenty).

During the last week of my trip, while I was touring the community of Sættedammen, one of the residents presented to me a report published by the Danish Building Research Institute (SBI) in 1988 called Cohousing Communities: Collection of Examples (the Danish title is Bofællesskaber: En eksempelsamling, SBI Rapport 187 by Statens Byggforskningsinstitut). In 1971, the Danish government sponsored a competition for low-rise, high-density housing which inspired many of the early cooperatively-owned communities. This report was produced to document the status of these earliest communities and illustrate the concept for future study. The report included statistics and plans of the site, residential units, and the Common House as well as the names of architects and when the communities were founded.

While it came late during my field study, this report has been an invaluable resource in the compilation of my thesis document. Possession of this document prior to my arrival in Denmark would have greatly contributed to my planning efforts as the report also listed addresses for all of the communities established prior to 1986.

The remainder of this thesis will describe my field study and observations of the communities visited in Denmark. However, the following list includes the communities I have also visited in North America: Bellingham Cohousing – Bellingham, WA Cranberry Commons – Burnaby, British Columbia Duwamish Cohousing – Seattle, WA Jackson Place – Seattle, WA Puget Ridge Cohousing – Seattle, WA Quayside Village – North Vancouver, British Columbia Songaia – Bothell, WA Sharingwood – Snohomish County, WA Thornton Creek Coho – Seattle, WA Winslow Cohousing – Bainbridge Island, WA Windsong – Langley, British Columbia Appendix 1 is a precedent study conducted at the outset of my research which provides introductory information about eight of these communities.

xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

thanks to: The University of Washington Valle Scholar Program for providing grant funding to live in Copenhagen for two months while I conducted the research. This is a valuable resource that the university has to offer its students.

My thesis advisory committee for meeting with me over two years and helping me to shape it into a worthwhile endeavor. Especially to Jerry Finrow for providing me with the mentorship and support to challenge myself and explore this topic fully. Your insights and encouragement helped me attain an academic rigor that I did not know I possessed.

My husband and business partner, Mike Mariano. For being my “research assistant” in Denmark- you enabled me to do twice as much as I could have alone. Thanks also for giving me the space to complete this and being my sounding board for the ideas and conclusions.

My parents for their encouragement and instilling in me the importance of higher education.

The residents of all the cohousing communities I’ve visited both in Denmark and the Pacific Northwest for opening their homes and common houses, and most importantly their lives.

A special thanks to: Erik Skoven from the Danish International Studies (DIS) program in Copenhagen. While he had no reason to get involved with my studies, he graciously welcomed me into his school and culture. He provided contacts at cohousing communities, met to discuss my observations, invited me to present to his students, and even attended my thesis defense in Seattle.

I have been blessed by two very dedicated educators through this academic journey - Jerry and Erik.

xii

DEDICATION

In memory of my grandmother Duk Kyung Kim and grandfather-in-law Albert Druzianich, who both knew the meaning of community.

And also to Ellen Vad, one of the initial Saettedammen residents who passed away a year after she shared her community with me.

xiii

1

introduction Since 1988, when Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett introduced cohousing to the U.S. with their seminal book Cohousing, A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves, architects and designers have touted cohousing as an alternative form of housing with an emphasis towards community. However, cohousing is not an architectural solution, but a social response to a lack of community which happens to have an architectural expression as housing.

The first cohousing communities were completed in Denmark in the early 1970’s after many years of preparation. These earliest communities were led by founding members who had visions for “recreating a village”. They envisioned that cohousing would improve the quality of daily life and relieve some of the burdens associated with newly defined family and gender roles resulting from two-income, non-nuclear households. These founding members often identified the site, solicited successive members, instigated the design process and worked with a contractor to finance and construct the projects.

When cohousing was introduced to the U.S. by McCamant and Durrett through their book, they outlined six defining characteristics: 1.

Participatory process 2.

Neighborhood design 3.

Common facilities 4.

Resident management 5.

Non-hierarchical structure and decision-making 6.

No shared community economy (It should be noted that while McCamant and Durrett introduced cohousing to the general public, other architects were already developing designs for cohousing communities in the U.S.) In the design of a cohousing community, the architect often focuses on the site planning and design of the individual residential units. While these aspects of the architectural design are important, they are similar to that of any traditional single family or multifamily housing developments. In contrast, the Common House is the physical manifestation of the social and emotional center of a cohousing community. All too often, residents and architects leave the design and budget considerations of the Common House until the end of the design process - an afterthought to the residential planning. In some instances, the Common House is constructed well after the residential structures are completed.

Communitas is a Latin word referring to an intense community spirit exemplified by feelings of social equality, solidarity, and togetherness. In cohousing communities, communitas is most effectively achieved when the Common House is an integral part of the community.

As a registered architect and post-professional MArch III candidate, it is not my intent with this document to

2

introduction design a site-speciďŹ c Common House but rather to present my social and architectural investigations and provide guidelines for consideration during the design of a Common House.

Chapter One is descriptive in nature, documenting select Danish communities visited in the Fall of 2004; Chapter Two is a report of my ďŹ ndings; Chapter Three describes the design criteria; followed by conclusions in Chapter Four.

3

chapter one: summaries While the research methods were intended to satisfy an architectural investigation, the data collection relied on a social investigation of the twenty-one communities visited. In some cases, I stayed with a community for two-three days; the shortest visits occurred in a half-day. The visits were scheduled a few days to a week in advance with the following requests: • Participation in meal preparation • Dining with the community • Tour of community with possibilities to tour private homes • Interview(s) with residents • Collection of demographic information • Access / time to take measurements of common house to create measured drawings • An overnight stay if possible (most communities had guest facilities, some did not) It was not possible to make these arrangements prior to arriving in Denmark due to limited information and resources about the communities. Fortunately, each of my visits resulted in successive contacts at other communities as residents learned of my research and my interest to visit as many communities as possible.

With regard to sustainability, each community possessed an inherent level of sustainability through cultural norms for recycling and conservation. Additionally, while cars were seen at all of the communities (except those located in Copenhagen), most residents utilized the regional mass transit systems - train and bus lines, located within close proximity to their communities. Furthermore, the cohousing objective to “recreate a village” is an inherently compact, efficient, economical development pattern. All construction was highmass (eg. masonry) which provides the thermal benefit of minimizing diurnal temperature swings. Many communities had homes with shared party walls which minimizes the building enveloped exposed to the weather and thereby minimizes heating/cooling loads. Proximity of individual homes and the shared dining experience provides an additional level of efficiency with regard to meal preparation and minimizing waste.

Beyond this, some communities achieved additional levels of sustainability – those are mentioned within the following summaries.

A list of cohousing communities visited for this study are listed on the following page along with their addresses. Summaries are provided in Chapter One for select communities designated with an asterisk (*). The descriptive information in each summary is comprised of a site plan, floor plans, narrative, and photographs. A legend for the diagrams in the summary are also provided on the following page.

Refer to Chapter Two for demographics and Common House features for each community.

4

List of Communities Visited Cohousing communities visited in Denmark Ådalen 1 * - Vester Tværvej 12, Randers 8900 Ådalen 2 - Vester Tværvej 58, Randers 8900 Andedammen - Manenvej 1-17, Birkerød 3460 Bakken - Teglgårdsvej 1-25, Humlebæk 3050 Blikfanget - Hestkøb Vænge 1B, Birkerød 3460 Bo90 * - Tnørnegade, København 2200 Drivhuset * - Niels Ebbensensvej 24, Randers 8900 Ibsgården * - Ibsgården 62-74, Roskilde 4000 Jernstøberiet * - Jerstøberiet 4, Roskilde 4000 Jerngården * - Montanagade 18, Århus 8000 Jystrup Savvæket * - Skjoldenæsvej 36, Jystrup 4174 Kæphøj - Laddenhøj 59, Roskilde 4000 Kilen - Østerhøj Bygade 133, Ballerup 2750 Leerbjerg Lod * - Leerbjerg Lod 11, Hillerød 3400 Munksøgård * - Munksøgård 1-100, Roskilde 4000 Overblik - Birkerød 3460 Sanct Hansgade - Sanct Hansgade, København 2200 Skråplanet - Skråplanet 17, Værløse 3500 Stavnsbåndet * - Solhøjpark 1-53, Farum 3520 Sættedammen * - Sættedammen 1-26, Hillerød 3400 Trudeslund - Trudeslund 15, Birkerød 3460

LEGEND North Arrow Main entry to community B

Bike Parking Area

CH

Common House

P

Car Parking Lot

5

Ådalen 1 aka Ådalen 85 Vester Tværvej 12 8900 Randers, Denmark Architect: Peter Krogh

6

Ådalen 1

B

P CH 0

20’

120’

Fig 1.1a: Ådalen 1 Site Plan

line of floor above

Fig 1.1b: Ådalen 1 Common House Plan

0

5’

25’

7

Ådalen 1 Host: Kell Larsen Visit date: September 12-13, 2004 Site Planning The residential units line a glass covered pedestrian street. This interior street is oriented north-south and averages 3 meters wide and 4-5 meters tall. West facing units are two stories, have direct access to the gardens and are approximately 60 m2. East facing units are 5 levels with an upper terrace (though most residents do not consider this outdoor space to be functional due to turbulance).

The covered street is often used as an extension of the residence from April – October. In the summer months, the street is unbearably hot during the day, but after sundown, it becomes more temperate as the street radiates the heat.

Note: Ådalen 2 (aka Ådalen 86) is immediately adjacent to Ådalen 1. The two communities are nearly identical in their physical layout; their plans are mirror images with the Common Houses about 20’ apart.

However, there is very little interaction between the two communities - they are governed separately and have a distinctly different character which is evident in their “streetscape”.

Common House The common house is a simple square plan. The majority of the main level is used for the dining room and the remaining third for the kitchen and a toilet room. On an upper level directly over the kitchen is a TV/ meeting room, leaving the dining room with a higher ceiling. Since my visit, the dining space was expanded and now includes an outdoor terrace. [Ådalen 2 has a similar common house, however, their kitchen is laid out differently and has a cellar directly below.]

In the building adjacent to the Common House, there is a laundry, central boiler/furnace and pantry on the lowest level. – a half level below the street. The main level (a half level above the street) houses a guestroom and workshop (with on-grade access to a patio). The upper level has two teen apartments with a shared bath and kitchenette. One teen apartment has interior access to the adjacent unit - the owners of #38 have a son who lives in this teen apartment.

The common house is the site for board meetings and gathering as the dinner team prepares the evening meal. There are not many residents that linger after meals, though socialization does occur in the covered street before and after meals.

Meals Daily Sun-Thurs. They have 6 tags/jobs that they must do during a four-week rotation. Children over 12

8

Ådalen 1 have fewer tags but are expected to participate. At age 16, teens are allowed to be the lead cook.

The meals and laundry (washing but not drying) are paid for on a monthly basis. The cost is 350 kr/person.

There are no rebates if you don’t eat. During the summer, they take 6 weeks off from the common meals to accommodate vacation schedules.

Ownership Co-ownership (known as andelsbolig). There is no formal “interview” process. The potential buyers must attend one dinner prior to purchase.

Turn Over About 3-4 of the original 15 families still reside in the community.

Celebrations Summer Solstice (known as Sankt Hans Day) Birthday parties Sustainable Design Solar heated hot water is used for washing clothes and dishes.

Impressions Life along the interior street is extremely important to the residents. Morgens sits out every morning and evening, reading his paper/magazines and smoking his pipe. His wife Lotte joins him in the afternoon before dinner, and they watch the activity of the common house. The families at the far end of the street from the Common House (Elsebeth, Soren Christian and Bruno) often share meals and gather at the greenhouse or in each other’s homes.

The central common space just inside the main entrance is small and used infrequently; in addition, there is no sense of territory or privacy to this common space due to the proximity of the entry and the ramps/stairs mediating two street levels. Ådalen 2 recognized this shortcoming and created the large common space at the center in lieu of the greenhouse at the end.

The community does a good job to maintain the appearance (non-cluttered, uniformity in design/ renovations). While there are 1-2 families that have more visible clutter than others, generally, this is contained to the entry niche. A resident electrician who is very knowledgeable of the importance of quality lighting and Danish heritage assists the community with maintaining common area lighting.

The feeling of “hygge” is present in the street at night with residents lighting candles and lanterns.

9

Ådalen 1

Fig 1.1c: Aerial photo taken shortly after project completion; Ǻdalen 1 on left, Ǻdalen 2 can be seen at upper right

Fig 1.1d: Exterior - Common House

Fig 1.1e: Exterior - Common Space

10

Ă…dalen 1

Fig 1.1f: Covered street

Fig 1.1g: The presence of people in the covered street at night

Fig 1.1h: Workshop

Fig 1.1i: Common laundry

11

Ă…dalen 1

Fig 1.1j: Recently renovated dining room (Common House)

Fig 1.1k: Teen apartment kitchenette

Fig 1.1l: Kitchen with dining room beyond (Common House)

Fig 1.1m: Kitchen with covered street beyond (Common House)

12

Bo 90 Tnørnegade 9 2200 København N, Denmark Architect: Unknown

13

Bo 90

Tjørnegade

Kapelvej

P street parking only CH

garden

0

B 120’

20’

Fig 1.2a: Bo 90 Site Plan

Fig 1.2b: Bo 90 Common House Plan

0

5’

25’

14

Bo 90 Host: Tina Jensen Visit date: August 25, 2004 History Bo90 is located in the dense urban neighborhood of Nørrebro in Copenhagen, just outside the old city center. There are 17 residential units in this urban community – 15 family and two student units. The student apartments are 32m2. The other units vary significantly in size (see ownership below), however, the typical size is 64m2. The community organized in 1990 and the building was completed 1993 in conjunction with a local non-profit housing authority. The original group wanted to move into cohousing but couldn’t afford to move into an ownership community so they contacted the housing authority to develop this project.

The residents were part of the design process and the communitiy is self-managed. While other buildings operated by the housing authority have maintenance staff, Bo90 residents clean and maintain their common spaces (the Common House is unique to Bo90, no other buildings owned by the housing authority have one). Residents indicate that the housing authority was surprised to see Bo90 succeed with their missions and self-governance but has not initiated other similar projects. Bo90 seems to be operated much like mutual housing cooperatives in Seattle.

Site Planning Bo90 is part of a full city block that surrounds a large central courtyard. The building addresses the street with a solid façade and several bay projections but opens up to the courtyard through exterior corridors at each level. As with typical Danish housing, all units have windows on at least two sides. Each unit has a small outdoor space that most have chosen to personalize.

Common House The Common House is on the main level but is elevated 1 meter above a public street. It is used every evening and families periodically use it like their living room if they are entertaining a number of guests.

The room may be signed out for private parties/events on the weekends at no cost. Each residential unit is assigned a storage unit (approx. 6m2) in the basement. In the basement is a mechanical room that houses the boiler (heated 40% by solar energy collected through a solar heat collector).

Meals Meals occur every weeknight and are attended on a voluntary basis - participation ranges from 8-15 people.

A new system of payment was recently implemented where residents track personal costs for groceries and deduct meals eaten from those expenses (honor system).

Ownership Bo90 is a rental cooperative. The residents pay a deposit of 3 months rent upon move-in to be returned

15

Bo 90 when they move out. Any damage to the unit is deducted from this deposit. Each unit pays a different amount for rent based on their income. The two student apartments were a requirement by the housing authority to ensure a variety of income levels. The student units are small but can be rented by singles or a group. One of the units was rented to a 35 year old student. The other was rented to three people in their early 20’s.

Since it is a cooperative, units can expand/ kitchen bath bedroom bedroom bedroom contract to suit the residents changing living / dining needs. This diagram living / dining bedroom bedroom bedroom illustrates two “basic units” with a living, dining, kitchen, bath, unit A unit A or B unit B and two bedrooms. The two bedrooms located between unit A and B can be rented by either unit (the doorway is blocked off as necessary to provide separation between the units.) This allows the basic unit to be expanded to become a 4-bedroom unit. The cost of rental is about 4500 kroner for the basic unit and about 500 kroner for each additional room. Thus, a 3-bedroom unit at 84 m2 would be about 5800 kroner. kitchen

bath

Turn Over Three of the 17 original families are still residing in Bo90 with most current residents living in the community for 3-5 years. One resident has sublet her unit for several years but intends to return. One of the original families has divorced and the husband is looking for a separate apartment in the community.

Sustainable Design Solar heat collection is utilized for domestic hot water. A rainwater and greywater collection system was in early use for flushing toilets but the health department has denied continued use after the first 3 years. The south façade is shaded by balcony overhangs and landscaping.

Impressions The Common House seemed undersized and underutilized - the table was not situated in a way to accommodate more than 8 people. But this was one of the few communities in which I did not participate in meal preparation or dining which could have affected my observation.

In keeping with typical housing development patterns in the city of Copenhagen, this project was one

16

Bo90 of many that ringed the perimeter of a large center block courtyard. This landscaped central space is a tremendous amenity that serves as a communal space for any adjacent multifamily building and is not speciďŹ c to cohousing. This type of housing pattern is indicative of the social and cultural differences that inuence traditional housing forms in Denmark.

17

Bo 90

Fig 1.2c: Building from Tnørnegade - Common House is located at far right on ground level

Fig 1.2d: Common courtyard shared by surrounding buildings

Fig 1.2e: View along exterior corridor

18

Bo 90

Fig 1.2f: Common House interior

Fig 1.2g: Sunken dining and lounge areas (Common House)

Fig 1.2h: Lounge area facing the public street (Common House)

19

Bo 90

Fig 1.2i: Passive solar heat collection in attic

Fig 1.2j: Plumbing to regulate water heated by passive solar

Fig 1.2k: Central mail delivery at building entry

Fig 1.2l: Storage lockers for individual residents (Basement)

20

Drivhuset Niels Ebbensensvej 24 8900 Randers, Denmark Architect: Nils Madsen

21

Drivhuset P

P

B

CH 0

20’

120’

Fig 1.3a: Drivhuset Site Plan

upper level

lower level Fig 1.3b: Drivhuset Common House Plan 0

5’

25’

22

Drivhuset Host: Ole Kjelgaard & Elsebeth Holm & Nina Visit date: September 12-13, 2004 History The name Drivhuset is the Danish word for greenhouse. There are 18 families in this community. It was started in 1982 by five families (including Ole, Elsebeth, Mona and another couple) that lived in a house together and often shared meals together. None had kids, but they often talked about the idea of living together and sharing meals in the future.

Leif (a town planner) was quite knowledgeable about the zoning and codes and kept a look out for property.

One day he and his wife were on a walk and saw a billboard advertising a housing development for this property. The group contacted the developer and found out that he had plans for 18 single family homes and although the plans had been prepared 3 years prior, there were still no buyers. The developer agreed to sell them the land.

The 3 families then sent a letter to over 200 family and friends inviting them to join in this project. Initially about 30 families were interested, but after 3 meetings it was back down to 5 families. The others dropped out because they thought that there were a lot of lofty dreams but no way to make it real. The 5 families decided to hire an architect to do some initial sketches. They paid him 5,000 kroner (equivalent to $830 USD in 2006) to do the initial studies with the promise of the commission if they could convince enough families to join. They sent the sketches out to family and friends and again had 30 interested families.

There were many discussions and meetings to plan for the design. They visited several cohousing communities including Ibsgården and Jernstøberiet. They also went to a community of 250 families in Eslo, Sweden – this development included schools and other public facilities. They started construction in August 1983 and moved in March 1984. The basement construction provided a concrete driving surface for unloading materials and enabled them to work throughout the winter.

The 18 homes range from 56 – 105m2. All but 2 of them are two-story units. The two single-story units are the smallest flats with 2 teen apartments above. The teen apartments are single rooms with a shared bath, kitchenette and entry vestibule. The teens in the community can live in them as long as they are in school.

When there haven’t been enough teens in the community, they have rented the rooms to others in the surrounding community. Rent for a teen apartment is 1200kr/month which includes utilities, cable TV, and internet access. Food is additional. At the time of my visit, one of the teen apartments was being used as a artist studio by one of the residents.

The flats have also been used by current residents as temporary quarters as they waited for a unit to

23

Drivhuset become available (or in the case of one mentally disabled person, to see if he could manage an apartment on his own prior to a financial commitment).

In 1984 when the building was completed, the average age of the adults was late 20’s to early 30’s.

Site Planning Double-loaded “street” of 2-story brick buildings. The covered street is a glazed greenhouse, wide enough for all families to have a table outside and not feel crowded. The street is used 6-8 months out of the year and is the site of parties and major celebrations. The Common House is located at the far end of the covered street from the entry.

Common House The Common House has a kitchen and dining room on the main level. The upper floor is a TV room that doubles as a guest room. The room is adjacent to two teen apartments.

Under the entire complex is a basement with large storage lockers for each family, a laundry room, bike storage, pantry, and places to put household items and clothing for trade (periodically these items/clothes that have not been taken by others in the community are donated to outside organizations).

The covered street is very much an extension of the common house and is the site of many celebrations. It is typical greenhouse construction (not skylight construction) and thus has single-pane glass which results in drips/leaks during heavy rains. There are operable segments of glass that are automated by a thermostat but with manual overrides.

Meals Daily Sunday through Thursday - Saturday is usually leftovers from the week’s meals. The meals are prepaid monthly at 400 kr/person. There are no rebates for not eating.

Residents have 6 tags (which correspond to cooking/cleaning tasks) that they must do during a 5-6 week rotation (there are currently about 36 people in the community). Children over 12 have 3 tags. Once during the period, each resident must be the lead cook. Generally 3 people prepare and 2 people clean up. If people are particularly busy during the week, they can prepare and clean up alone on a Sunday (corresponding to 5 tags/tasks) and therefore, have only 1 additional task for the rest of the period.

Ownership Co-operative ownership (andelsboliger)

24

Drivhuset Turn Over Almost half of the current community are original members. In the past 3 years, there has been a new family every year.

Celebrations Mardi gras, Summer solstice, 20th jubilee celebrated May 2004, Birthdays Sustainable Design Heating costs are reduced by about 20-30% due to the temperature mitigation of the greenhouse.

Impressions Each family has a dining table in the greenhouse (covered street). Although the greenhouse is not a conditioned space, the temperature is comfortable year round (with the exception of a few weeks during the summer). The amount of daylight in the street is also superior to that inside the ats (even on a rainy day), so residents prefer to to sit in the greenhouse to read or do work. The plants in between each unit provides a sense of enclosure and privacy. There is an understood body language that signals whether someone is interested in socializing or prefers to focus on their work. There was a great sense of communitas and coziness in the greenhouse.

Underlying the entire building was a large basement in which bikes were parked and resident storage occurred. This is one of the few communities visited that felt as if there was adequate storage provided.

25

Drivhuset

Fig 1.3c: Approaching the building entrance

Fig 1.3d: Inside the greenhouse / community street

Fig 1.3e: View towards entry from upper balcony

Fig 1.3f: Garden-side of residential units

26

Drivhuset

Fig1.3g: Exterior view of Common House

Fig 1.3h: View into kitchen from dining room (Common House)

Fig 1.3i: Dining room (Common House)

27

Drivhuset

Fig 1.3j: Basement bike storage

Fig 1.3k: Residents personal storage in basement

Fig 1.3l: Laundry room in basement

Fig 1.3m: TV lounge in upper level of Common House

28

Ibsg책rden Ibsg책rden 62-76 4000 Roskilde, Denmark

Architects: Jes Edwards and Helge Christiansen

29

Ibsgården CH B B

courtyard

B B P 0

20’

120’

Fig 1.4a: Ibsgården Site Plan

dw dw oven ref

Fig 1.4b: Ibsgården Common House Plan Top: Upper Level Bottom: Main Level Basement Level not shown

t errac e

kids play room

0

5’

25’

30

Ibsgården Host: Jesper Holck Visit date: August 15, 2004 History The 21-unit community was completed in 1983. The area was originally a farm that had been sold to the local municipality and then subdivided. The site for Ibsgården was actually the farmhouse and the adjacent horse stables (approximate location of the current residential units) had been used by the local municipality to store maintenance vehicles. However, a fire caused the horse stables to burn down. The group had vied for the Jernstøberiet site, but bought this one instead when they were not successful in obtaining the other property.

Site Planning The community is arranged around a courtyard with 2 entry points, the main one coming in on-axis with the Common House. The Common House is at the head of the community, overlooking the courtyard as well as a large open lawn to the north. The units are all unique, some being single story units stacked one over another and others being two-story.

Common House The Common House, a two story building with a basement, dates back to the 1920’s and is the focal point to the community. The first floor is comprised of individual rooms for the kids, teen, and adults. The second floor houses the kitchen and dining room. The kitchen has a commercial oven, stove, refrigerator, and two residential dishwashers. The basement is for storage, pantry/community store, laundry, and workshop.

The common house was used throughout the day that we visited (Sunday) - teenagers bringing over their recycling, a young couple cleaning up from a party the night before, residents checking on the meal, and cooks preparing the meal. The laundry room was busy, with a few baskets in the cue for washing and numerous baskets of completed laundry waiting to be claimed by their owners.

The various rooms on the main floor did not appear to be very well used except for the kids room after meals. There were newspapers in one of the adult sitting rooms with evidence that they’d been read but no one was present. Our host indicated that the community was considering reorganizing the main floor to make it more functional, including the possibility of one of the kids rooms being converted into a guest room.

Meals Meals are not mandatory. But it is intended that there are meals every night. Occasionally there are not meals if the dining room is booked for a private event or if there are not enough volunteers to prepare the meal. Generally an announcement is made on Sunday night to indicate when assistance is required over

31

Ibsgården the upcoming week. If no volunteers come forward, meals do not occur on those evenings. Leftovers are held in the refrigerator until the next meal. Food from private parties can also be left in the common refrigerators and anyone is welcome to eat them.

Ownership Co-operatively owned (andelsboliger). When a unit becomes available, the owner gives 1 month notice and the community is responsible for finding a buyer (see process below). Once a buyer is secured, they pay the seller the cost of the shares. No money is exchanged with the community. The benefit to the seller is that they don’t have to do the work to find someone. The downside is if the community has a difficult time finding a buyer and the seller has to wait to collect their payment.

Turn Over There has been a moderate amount of turnover. It seemed to be an average of about one unit per year.

Their newest residents (a young couple in their 20’s) had moved in a week ago.

When units are available, a committee decides the type of household they are looking for to balance the needs of the community (i.e., family with young kids, seniors, young couple, single parent, etc.) This allows them to maintain a diversity of households and future sustainability (they hope to avoid having all residents becoming elderly at once or all the children growing up and moving away simultaneously.)

Potential residents are contacted to attend an open house and then a few families are selected for interviews. Potential residents may be contacted from a waiting list or notified by public advertisement.

Impressions While the Common House was large and had numerous rooms for both children and adults, there was no guest room. Given that some of the rooms seemed redundant (there were multiple seating areas for the adults but none of them were being utilized during our visit and the community “office” was located in a predomiately empty room), it seemed a guest room could easily be accomodated in a future renovation.

The kitchen and dining room were located on the upper floor of the Common House, which creates a challenge for those residents and visitors with disabilities; but otherwise, the location is an excellent strategy for drawing people through the Common House and encouraging informal interaction.

32

Ibsg책rden

Fig 1.4c: Central courtyard surrounded by residential units

Fig 1.4e: Original farmhouse adapted to Common House

Fig 1.4d: Perimeter of courtyard / entries to upper level units

33

Ibsgården

Fig 1.4f: Dining Room (Common House)

Fig 1.4g: Cooking island (Common House)

Fig 1.4h: One of two conversation areas in Common House

Fig 1.4i: Children’s playroom on main level (Common House)

34

IbsgĂĽrden

Fig 1.4j: Teenager’s room on main level (Common House)

Fig 1.4k: Community store in basement (Common House)

Fig 1.4l: Workshop in basement (Common House)

35

Jerngården Montanagade and Ole Rømersgade Århus 8000, Denmark Architects: Ole Quist Pedersen and Finn Nørholm

36

Jerngården

stor

*

dn

Montanagade

garden

CH

B

Ole Rømersgade 0

20’

120’

existing house not part of community P street parking only

*

ref oven

Fig 1.5a: Jerngården Site Plan dw

up

drying workshop

laundry

mech mech

up Fig 1.5b: Jerngården Common House Plans Top: Upper Level Middle: Main Level Bottom: Basement Level

0

5’

25’

37

Jerngården Host: Marianne Thrane & Finn Nørholm Visit date: September 17, 2004 History The property was formerly a junkyard but due to the noise that it created in an evolving residential neighborhood, the company was forced to move their business out of the city. In hopes of expanding, the junkyard had purchased eight adjacent houses along two streets, Montanagade and Ole Rømersgade.

Finn (architect) and Marianne lived nearby and thought that local community should buy the junkyard and create a children’s park and community center. When the local municipality declined their proposal, Finn and Marianne rallied their friends in the neighborhood to buy the property themselves. They wanted to have a good place to live and for their future children to safely play and had decided that they didn’t want to have to move out of the city in order to have to this lifestyle. Originally, this was not a highly desirable neighborhood, now it is a highly sought after urban neighborhood in the second largest city in Denmark.

Site Planning The individual homes line the SE corner of a city block with entries directly on Montanagade and Ole Rømersgade. The Common House occupies roughly the corner of the site. A significant portion of the site (formerly used as a junkyard) was converted to a common garden.

During the early planning phase, the community realized that the zoning allowed the property to be built out to a greater density. They instead chose to to reduce their property taxes by retaining the existing number of homes. Just recently, a family offered to build a new house at the SE corner of the site (where the storage/bike shed was built), and again they declined this opportunity to build out, but this time believed there would be an adverse effect to the community given the size of the Common House.

Common House Previously used as the office for the junkyard, the main level of the Common House accommodates the dining room and kitchen. The upper level is the TVroom / teen room. The lower level has the laundry, drying room, toilet, pantry, and workshop. There is a large picnic table and common garden outside the Common House.

Many of the residents feel that the common house is an extension of their own home. The scale of the Common House is comfortable for a meeting or gathering. At the same time, residents feel comfortable to watch TV alone or use the oven for personal baking (one house has never had an oven.)

Meals Daily Sun – Friday. Each night the meals are prepared by two people. The shopping is done locally by 4pm

38

Jerngården and preparation is complete by 6pm. The cost of the meal is divided by the number of diners that evening.

All families participate.

Ownership The homes are privately owned with a share of the common space. While the property was affordable at the start, the homes have appreciated significantly in value. The entire property and 8 homes were 600,000 dkk in 1976. Now each home is worth about 2.5million dkk.

The homes are sold by the individual owner. While the homes are all privately owned, the community has created an agreement that after the market price of the home is established and a buyer has been located, the community has the first right of refusal to purchase that home. In this way, they can “choose” potential buyers by purchasing the property themselves and selling to a preferred party. This also allows the buyer to sell even though their potential buyer may be rejected.

Turn Over 3 of the original 8 families remain in the community. Turn over has not been common due to the small number of units available. Eight families originally lived here, but one of the units has been legally divided into 2 units.

Sustainable Design Reuse of the existing masonry rowhouses and reducing reliance on transportation and infrastructure are two primary sustainable features of this urban community. Otherwise, there were no specific strategies employed in the design/construction nor in the daily operations of the community above what is typical in the Danish culture.

Impressions Due to their proximity to the city center, the community does not see their young adults leaving as quickly as in suburban communities. While other communities have seen their teens anxious to leave at the age of 16 or 18, the teens at Jerngården have stayed into their early 20’s. There is also an elderly couple (70’s).

While it is possible that these individuals may feel isolated in other communities, here their connectedness to the surrounding neighborhood appears to maintain their interest to stay. The teens use the upper floor of the common house as a meeting spot, a place to have parties, or a crash pad after a night on the town.

This large room has probably been a significant reason for the teens to remain in the community.

In keeping with the grass roots beginnings of the group, the members of the community are still active in local politics (i.e., protesting the replacement of a childrens’ play park with car parking and the development

39

JerngĂĽrden of a new shopping mall).

Like all the other communities, the residents of Jerngürden cannot imagine their group any larger (or smaller). They feel that their small size allows them to be exible (doing the shopping for dinner the day of) and lends to the sense of a familiy - several people indicated they felt as if they had 2 families, their immediate family as well as this larger one of the entire community.

40

JerngĂĽrden

Fig 1.5c: Residences along Montanagade

Fig 1.5d: Montanagade residences from common courtyard

Fig 1.5e: Common House (yellow) from Ole Rømersgade

Fig 1.5f: Common House and garden from above

41

JerngĂĽrden

Fig 1.5g: Kitchen during meal preparation (Common House)

Fig 1.5h: Dining room (Common House)

Fig 1.5i: TV room on top oor (Common House)

42

Jernstøberiet Jerstøberiet 4 4000 Roskilde, Denmark Architect: Jan Gudmand-Høyer, Jes Edwards and Helge Christiansen

43

Jernstøberiet B

CH

P

P

P

hall

0

20’

120’

dw

Fig 1.6a: Jernstøberiet Site Plan

oven ref ref

Fig 1.6b: Jernstøberiet Common House Plan Right: Main Level Upper Level not shown

0

5’

25’

up

44

Jernstøberiet Hosts: Kaj & Anna Jorgensen Visit date: August 14-15, 2004 History Jernstøberiet was completed in 1983 as an adaptive re-use of an old iron foundry (the Danish word jernstøberiet means iron foundry in English). Kaj and Anna were part of the founding group and learned about the site after Kaj had surveyed it for another party as a 6-unit development. The city had a comprehensive plan and the project did not conform to the plan so it was not approved. Later, he heard that there was another plan for the site and was interested to see what was being proposed and went to the public meeting. At this meeting he learned that three families bought the property and were starting a cohousing group.

Site Planning The Hall is the forecourt to the Common House and also the “front yard” for 15 of the homes. It can be reached through a covered hallway from 3 of the other homes. It is used by children and adult throughout the year. There are rules for use including quiet times.

The Common House is a two story building within the volume of the Hall. There are café tables just in front of the kitchen that face the Hall and this area is regularly used by the adults as they come home from work.

Someone usually makes a pot of coffee and everyone stops by for a cup to catch up before heading into their home.

Common House Many renovations have occurred within the Hall and Common House over the years. Most recently the kitchen was extensively renovated – it was visually opened up to the Hall and is seen by the residents as a success.

The main level of the Common House is comprised of the kitchen, dining room, and toilet room. There is a large west-facing partio outside the dining room which is sometimes used for dining in the summer months.

The upper floor provides a children’s play room and a TV lounge that seemed to be too large for casual use.

Since the community has no guest room, this room serves this purpose for overnight visitors.

Meals The community doesn’t have any rules, especially around the meals. While many would like to have nightly meals, there are times when there are no meals. And some families never participate in the meals. The process is simple. If you feel like preparing a meal, you write into the calendar the meal you will cook. One other person will sign up to help prepare the meal. These two people buy the groceries, prepare the meal

45

Jernstøberiet and cleans up. Others will see that a meal is planned and may sign up to eat. At the end of the month a bill is prepared with a credit for groceries purchased and meals eaten.

Ownership Private ownership (ejerboliger). There was a family the weekend we visited that had actually exchanged houses, but it is very rare that two families have changes in family size and can actually afford to buy the other’s house. Since everyone owns their home, it’s been difficult for people to swap homes since they have to appraise them and the costs have become prohibitive to purchase.

There were 21 units at the outset, ranging from 30-120 m2. The small units have been considered the Achilles heel of the community as several families have been forced to leave because their family outgrew their units. However, there are still quite a few families that continue to live in extremely small quarters (a family of five occupies a 64m2 unit and a woman with 2 children has moved into the 30 m2 unit).

A year ago when one family decided to move, the two adjacent families requested to buy the unit and subdivide it to enlarge their homes. This was met with support by all but one resident. This was due to additional costs that the community had to incur. While the ownership of the homes are individual (they are sold individually through realtors), the common space was purchased in 1/21 shares. By consolidating from 21 to 20 units, the costs of the common space needed to be distributed amongst all the families (the community felt that this was the way to make the purchase affordable to the two families.) After much heated discussion, the opposing resident conceded and said he’d agree this one time. This was a challenging time for the community.

Turn Over The newest resident moved in a month ago. The tenure ranges from there to the entire period. Many wanted to live in Jernstøberiet due to the Common Hall and the positive environment for the children.

Impressions Most people have moved here for 2 reasons. 1) for their children, In fact one couple suggested that they would not have left the City if it wasn’t for their children. They really miss living in the City. 2) to have a connection with their neighbors. Many of the “elders” in the community stated that they lived in single family homes in/near Copenhagen, but didn’t like the isolation of not knowing their neighbors. And the fact that they could die and their neighbors wouldn’t know it for days. These are the same reasons that their counterparts in U.S. cohousing communities have provided.

In talking to the family in Unit 20, we realized that the Danish people afford their teenage children much greater freedom than in the U.S. This family had divided their small flat into the “teen” section, which

46

Jernstøberiet was closer to the entry, and an “adult/family” section towards the rear of the house where the kitchen and dining room were located. This allowed the children to come and go as they please without disturbing their parents.

There seemed to be some tension related to physical space requirements - the units here were among the smallest of any of the communities visited. Many younger families were feeling cramped in their smalle units; while many of the edlers complained of high monthly operational costs. However, the ownership structure seemed to make it difficult for residents to exchange their units. If the structure was a co-op, it seems that more of the older residents could trade their units for smaller ones (to help offset monthly costs), but it is also possible that the elders are accustomed to larger size of their home and may not wish to move into a smaller unit. This was a stated challenge by both the elder and younger members of the community.

47

Jernstøberiet

Fig 1.6c: Sawtoothed roofs of former iron foundry, entry at left

Fig 1.6d: West facade and west-facing patio of Common House

Fig 1.6e: Mailboxes and common entry to the Hall

Fig 1.6f: Private residential garden

48

Jernstøberiet

Fig 1.6g: The Hall with Common House at far end

Fig 1.6h: Production Kitchen (Common House)

Fig 1.6i: Serving island with dish storage (Common House)

Fig 1.6j: Tables set for dinner (Common House)

49

Jernstøberiet

Fig 1.6k: Cafe tables in the Hall just outside the kitchen

Fig 1.6l: Childrens play room on upper level of Common House

Fig 1.6m: Community bulletin board in the Hall

Fig 1.6n: TV lounge on upper level of Common House

50

Jystrup SavvĂŚrket SkjoldenĂŚsvej 36 4174 Jystrup, Denmark Architect: Tegnestuen Vandkunsten

51

Jystrup Savværket

P CH

0

20’

120’

B P

Fig 1.7b: Savværket Common House Plan Below: Main Level Upper Level and Crow’s Nest not shown

Fig 1.7a: Savværket Site Plan

up

dw

oven

up

up

ref pantry up

storage up

mech / stor

up up up

0

5’

25’

52

Jystrup Savværket Host: Steffen Lenschau-Teglers Visit date: September 10-11, 2004 History Located about 30 minutes from Roskilde and 20 minutes from Ringsted in the rural community of Jystrup, Savværket is the site of an old saw mill (savværket is the Danish word for saw mill). The founding members learned of the site because one of them worked for the local municipality. He knew the area had been slated for housing development so they knew their application would not likely be overruled due to land use policies (which had been the case in previously sought after sites.)

The founders had envisioned a plan much like Skråplanet with individual homes arranged around a common house. However, the architects instead proposed an L-shaped plan, much like Trudeslund, but with a covered street. The group liked this direction and everyone has been extremely pleased with the resulting “street-life”.

Site Planning L-shaped plan with one story units facing the west and south, and two story units to the north and east. The one story units are oriented towards the garden and have terraces directly outside their doors. The two story units do not have ground related terraces, but rather roof decks that provide them with solar access as well as a view. The homes range from 56 – 105m2. Originally the largest home was 95 m2, but two of the units adjacent the work rooms built out over the work room to create larger units.

The common garden is divided into smaller outdoor “rooms”. One is a rose-garden, encircled by rose bushes, trees, and hedges forming an enclosed space. Another is a small soccer field for the children. And the third space is a large lawn with direct access to the common house.

The Common House is located at the joint of the two wings of the “L”. At each end of the two wings are smaller seating alcoves, one with a large, south-facing greenhouse.

-----Common House The main level of the Common House (including dining room, kitchen, game and sitting areas) was recently remodeled. The architect opened up the two levels of the dining area and introduced new materials to enhance the daylighting and provide for various lighting leves and areas of illumination. The dining area is adjacent to an elevated sitting area with fireplace.

The upper floor of the common house has two teen apartments, one of which is currently used as a common meeting and computer room. If a teen is living in the apartment for just a few months, then no rent

53

Jystrup Savværket is collected, but for long term arrangements, a rent is collected to cover utilities and food.

In addition to the spaces in the Common House, two guest rooms are located in each wing of the covered street. There is a wood working shop in one wing and a craft room in the other. Since they are part of the daily life, these work rooms are often used. In addition, each wing has a laundry room (with a total of 3 washers and 1 dryer). The washing costs are included in the monthly dues and if the machines are busy, the laundry basket with washing instructions are left in a queue for the next person to start. The covered street is a signicant amenity, extending the Common House functions throughout the community. The Common House and covered street comprise 40% of the entire building area.

Meals Daily, Sunday through Friday. The meals are prepared in meal groups. Everyone must participate (including children of age 10 and older) in the cooking. On Saturdays, the group plans the menu and does the shopping. The vegetables are delivered fresh daily by a local farmer. Each person helps with the meals about 3-4 times during their week. Preparations begin at 4:30 with about 4 people (5 on Fridays due to the inclusion of dessert). On Friday nights, the entire meal group thoroughly cleans the kitchen leaving it ready for the next meal group. There are six meal groups rotating throughout the year.

The cost of the meals (400 kr/adult) is included in the monthly dues, regardless of whether or not you participate…as a result, most people participate. Meals are served at 6:30 with most people staying for an hour or so. On Fridays, people tend to linger and stay until 8 or 8:30, bringing cognac or apple brandy from their homes to share with their table. Meals for guests are paid for by their hosts at a cost of 30 kr/ guest.

Ownership Andelsboligforignen – cooperative. While this is a type of home ownership, the residents don’t own their physical home, they own a percentage share of the co-op and that share entitles them the use of their home. The shares owned are comparable to the square footage of their home plus a portion of the common areas. This ownership model appears to provide significant flexibility to residents as their families grow and shrink - several residents have lived in a couple of different homes over the years.

Turn Over 5 of the original 21 families still reside at Savværk. Since it is a co-op, the units are not sold by the individual residents. Prospective buyers are interviewed by a small committee – which includes the neighbors to either side of the unit, another neighbor on that street, and a member of the board. The prospective buyer is first interviewed, then required to attend a Friday dinner, workday, and one monthly business meeting. This ensures that the other residents have a chance to meet the prospective resident and that they fully understand their obligations and responsibilities. In this way, both sides have a clear

54

Jystrup Savværket understanding of the mutual expectations. Residents can veto a prospective buyer, but if more than 2 buyers are rejected by the group, the unit must be purchased by the co-op so that the seller can move out without prolonged financial hardship. In early years, available units were advertised in the newspapers, but these days, it’s usually by word of mouth.

Celebrations Blå Bio – film club with members in the surrounding community meets monthly to view movies. Blå Bio is Danish for Blue Films - everything in the community is named “Blå ______” meaning “Blue________”.

Once a year, a special theme night occurs where a meal and speaker are arranged in conjunction with a movie showing.

War games – a weekend of enacted war, waged in the dining room starting after dinner on Friday and concluding in the wee hours of the morning Sunday. There are about 10 players (male adults, children and grown children.) The miniature army figures, imported from England, are made of lead and carefully painted over the winter months. The group has taken weekend trips to real-life historical battle sites.

Impressions Quite a beautiful common house with the amount of light and the solar exposure. On an early fall afternoon, it is pleasant to prepare the evening meal with the sunlight pouring into the sunken kitchen.

The covered street is very successful and extends the social functions of the Common House throughout the community. The covered street is planted with vines and trees, providing a wonderful scale. The outdoor terraces for the 2-story units are located above sections of the covered street which helps to intermittently bring down the scale of the street. Level changes within the street also help to create interest and changing vistas within the street make it feel intimate.

The street has an operable skylight to moderate the temperature in summer months but is not heated.

However, it still facilitates the easy use of the common house in that people do not need to bundle-up or put on shoes to go to the Common House (especially important in the cold Danish winters.)

While there was typical clutter of shoes and extra furniture outside the unit entries, the plants and occasional trellis helped reinforce a comfortable scale and left an overall impression of coziness versus clutter. The community had agreed early on to purchase uniform storage shoe cabinets for eat unit. These are located in the street along with personal items and lend a sense of cohesiveness to the space.

Each unit has a large window facing the covered street. This window allows a tremendous amount of daylight to enter the unit, but is also a way to encourage interaction (many greetings are exchanged).

55

Jystrup Savværket Closing the curtains is an obvious cue that a resident wants privacy. The architect, Jens Arnfred, refers to the intimacy gradient employed in this project as the “hierachy of privacy.” This is best depicted in the building section shown below.

Fig 1.7c: Building Section illustrates “hierarchy of privacy”

drawing by Tegnestuen Vandkunsten

56

Jystrup SavvĂŚrket

Fig 1.7d: Entry to community, south facade

Fig 1.7e: Lush landscaping in covered pedestrian street

Fig 1.7f: Common House located at intersection of streets

57

Jystrup SavvĂŚrket

Fig 1.7g: Outdoor and indoor dining areas (Common House)

Fig 1.7h: Tables set for dinner, kitchen upper right

Fig 1.7i: Production kitchen open to dining area

Fig 1.7j: Wheeled carts for tableware storage (Common House)

58

Jystrup SavvĂŚrket

Fig 1.7k: Common House pantry

Fig 1.7l: Seating area on main level of Common House

Fig 1.7m: Teen room in the crow’s nest of the Common House

Fig 1.7n: Common laundry room located along each wing

59

Leerbjerg Lod Leerbjerg Lod 11 3400 Hillerød, Denmark Architect: Arkitektgruppen i Århus

60

Leerbjerg Lod

open to below

open to below

1

CH

2

B P

P 0 20’

125’

up

Fig 1.8a: Leerbjerg Lod Site Plan 3

up

8

5

up 4

7

6

Fig 1.8b: Leerbjerg Lod Common House Plans Top: Upper Level Middle: Main Level Bottom: Basement Level 0

5’

25’

plan legend 1 Game Room 2 Meeting / Multi-purpose Room 3 Pillow Room 4 Childrens Play Room 5 Foyer / Coats & Boots 6 Kitchen 7 Dining Room 8 Bike Storage 9 Metal Workshop 10 Fitness 11 Drying Room 12 Storage 13 Ping Pong Table 14 Laundry 15 Mechanical Room 16 Sauna 17 Showers 18 Darkroom

10

9

up 11

13

14

15

12 12

12

18

17

16

61

Leerbjerg Lod Host: Sue & Hans Peter Bech Visit date: September 5-6, 2004 History The 30-unit community was built in 1979 and recently celebrated their 25th anniversary. The community was started by a small group of friends from university days that lived in the same building/neighborhood. Sue & Hans Peter were part of the founding group. Claus and Brigite were the other founding family. Once they decided they would take on the endeavor, Sue and Hans Peter became the recruiters since they didn’t have kids, sending out information about their intended community and meeting with interested families.

They purchased the property from a contractor that owned the land with the stipulation that the contractor would build the project. At that point they had the option to buy as much land as necessary, so they had to decide the size of their future community. They settled on 30 because it would not be too big that people wouldn’t know each other, and yet it wasn’t so small that everyone had to get along all the time.

However, at that time there were just two families involved, so in order to maintain momentum for the project, they had to convince the contractor that they were representing a large group of people. The contractor did not entirely believe they would be successful with their idea of bofæelleskabet so the option was left open for the Common House to be replaced with four additional homes.

The houses are split levels with vaulted ceilings and range from 109-168m2.

Site Planning There are two entry points into the community, one pedestrian and one is for those who regularly use their vehicles. The vehicular entry is also the public entry and leads visitors to the Common House. The residences encircle an open green space and the Common House. However, the green space is bermed and the pathways leading to the individual homes provide spatial hierarchy that is defined through low planters and hedges. These two spatial elements provide an appropriate level of priviacy and visual separation.

Common House By far the largest common house visited. Functions on three levels have been modified over the years (except for the kitchen and dining room.) The main level has the dining room, kitchen, and two childrens’ play rooms. The kitchen windows face out to the sandbox. And there is a large terrace adjacent the sandbox and the dining room.

The lower level has a ping pong room, pantry, storage, laundry and drying room. The upper level has a

62

Leerbjerg Lod bar/pool room and meeting room. Aside from the main level and laundry, the common house seemed underutilized. They have plans to renovate the upper floor to include a media room.

The responsibility of securing the common house for the evening falls to the family in the unit corresponding to the date. i.e., the family in house 5 has this responsibility on the 5th day of the month. Since there are only 30 families, those interviewed were not quite certain what happens on the 31st.

Meals Meals occur Monday through Thursday. Every six months families sign up for the nights of the week they want to participate. Based on the number of families, they will decide the rotation schedule for which family will “host” the meals. The hosting family will provide and prepare the entire meal. No money changes hands.

Ownership (Ejerboliger). The houses are privately owned with a share of the common spaces.

Turn Over 6 of the original families still reside here (20%). Some have moved within the community several times.

About 15 families moved in/out between 1986-1990. Otherwise, the community has been pretty stable with a new family moving in every year.

Sustainable Design For almost 22 years there was a windmill on the property. It’s function was to produce power for the common house and initially it was also to be used to extract the heat from the water that was pumped from the earth. The water lines were quickly clogged with minerals from the hard water. The cost and process for maintaining this system proved too costly and it was abandoned. The excess power generated by the mill was sold back to the power grid. However, the cost and time for maintenance was far in excess of the return. A couple of years ago, a company that wanted to build a larger mill came around and bought up permits for the smaller mills in the area. And thus they sold their mill at a profit (the company even came to dismantle it.)

Work days The only requirement in the community is that every house must help with maintenance. Every house must clean a part of the common house every 6 weeks (a schedule is posted). There are four common work days each year – two for the exterior and two for interior. It is possible to “take a sabbatical” from the work days if you know that you will have a particularly busy year or two.

63

Leerbjerg Lod Voting Every house gets two votes. This allows for partners to disagree on topics.

Impressions This is a well established community with families that have been friends for many years. The children have strong bonds that are not common with their other friends from outside the community. The community felt very comfortable and communal, while respectful of privacy and boundaries.

In visiting this community, I realized that the difficulty in obtaining contacts for Danish communities results from the fact that Danes living in cohousing are not making any social or philosophical “statements” by their housing choices. Therefore, they do not feel that they need to “share their mission” or explain their lifestyle to others via a website. Nor do they rely so heavily on their websites for recruiting purposes, many communities obtain referrals for new members by word of mouth. While I’d never heard of their community prior to my trip to Denmark, I was glad that my host at Ibsgården had provided me with contacts.

It did not seem that they had many foreign visitors/architects touring their community over the past three decades. Although there were no guest rooms in the Common House, each of the residences were large and had private guestrooms.

64

Leerbjerg Lod

Fig 1.8c: Cluster of residential units

Fig 1.8d: Covered parking

Fig 1.8e: Residential unit entry

Fig 1.8f: Garden-side of residential unit

65

Leerbjerg Lod

Fig 1.8g: Kitchen (Common House)

Fig 1.8h: Dining Room (Common House)

Fig 1.8i: Outdoor play area visible from kitchen window

Fig 1.8j: Outdoor dining area adjacent dinng room

66

Leerbjerg Lod

Fig 1.8k: Workshop in basement (Common House)

Fig 1.8l: Wash instruction tags for laundry

Fig 1.8m: Fitness room in basement (Common House)

Fig 1.8n: Game room on upper level (Common House)

67

Munksøgård Munksøgård Ejer (1 of 5 cohousing communities) Munksøgård 21-40 4000 Roskilde, Denmark Architect: Martin Ruböw of Ruböw Nielsen

68

Munksøgård Families

B

B

Andel

Ejer

CP

B

B

Senior Youth

CH P 0 20’

120’

P cars are parked in central parking lot for all 5 communities CP central heating plant / recycling center for all 5 communities Fig 1.9a: Site Plan of all 5 cohousing communities

Fig 1.9b: Munksøgård Ejer Site Plan

pantry

teen room

kids /

mech room

up guest

up

0

5’

25’

Fig 1.9c: Munksøgård Common House Plan

69

Munksøgård Host: Jakob Bække Visit date: September 5, 2004 History Munksøgård was started in 1995 by a small group (including Jakob and his wife) that wanted to live in cohousing. The first families moved in September 2000. There are five separate cohousing communities of 20 units each.

From the outset, the project was envisioned with all five communities so that infrastructure costs could be shared. There was a serious intention to incorporate sustainable technologies and infrastructure (central heating, on-site water treatment, single telephone and internet switch) so there was an economy of scale to increasing the number of units. While they wanted to pump their own water, the site is atop the aquifer serving the City of Copenhagen and therefore, they were required to connect to the local municipality’s water system.

The property was previously farmland and was purchased from the local municipality. The municipality also rents them land beyond their property for raising sheep and cows (as well as serving as a green buffer.) The local and regional plan for the surrounding property is for additional housing developments.

The municipality had built Roskilde University out by the train with the hopes that the city would grow to this boundary, but it has taken 25 years for the development to occur. It is inevitable that the property surrounding will also become developed for housing.

Site Planning When they hired the architect, they didn’t know which residents would rent, own, or co-own. The five communities are organized in a horseshoe plan with the Common House closing off the horseshoe. These five horseshoes are arranged in a radial fashion from an old farm that Munksøgård is trying to purchase.

In the center is also where the central heating plant, recycling center, and central telecommunications are located.

Common House There is a Common House for each community. Aside from the community we visited, the Common House was constructed by the contractor along with the housing. (All of the housing is essentially the same design, however, the level of finish detail and materials used vary for each of the communities.) In Jakob’s community, the Common House contained a commercial kitchen and pantry, dining room, toilet, laundry room, teen room, and a kids/guest room. The upper level has not been completed, but there are plans for a kids play area and sitting room for adults.

70

Munksøgård Having lived at Kæphøj for a couple of years (while waiting for Munksøgård to be finished), Jakob felt that the kitchen would be more functional if the stovetop range were located centrally in an island rather than against the wall.

Meals Meals occur 3 days a week (W-F).

Ownership There are five separate communities of 20 units each – the ownership structure varies for each community.

The cohousing community in which Jakob lives is privately owned by the residents as a condo association.

Another one is a co-op (andelsboligforignen) and three are owned by a non-profit housing authority in Roskilde as rental co-ops. The rentals cater to three distinct groups – seniors, families, and young people (under 30 at the time of move-in).

Each community has a board that manages the operation of the community and represents the community.

Turn Over Only one unit has turned over in the past 4 years due to health reasons (respiratory problems due to dust from the surrounding fields).

Sustainable Design The Common House for Jakob’s community is a straw bale construction which was built by the community.

It was started in 1999 and took over 2 years to build (though it’s still not complete). The roof is also of straw bale construction and mussel shells are used as ballast for the roofing membrane as well as perimeter drainage and a capillary break under the building.

Extensive recycling (approximately 90-95%) occurs in the community.

There are 2 central furnaces fueled by wood pellets with a back up furnace fueled by oil.

On-site water treatment has required a change in toilet behavior (not only what is put into the septic system – i.e., no paper, but also physical behavior - sitting vs. standing for the men to separate liquid and solid waste.) The solids are separated from the liquid waste, including urine (with the understanding that if kept uncontaminated for over a year, urine can be neutralized and safely used for watering non-edible plants.

There are 4 storage containers for urine under each community (30 m3 each.)

Interior partitions of the individual homes are made of unfired clay bricks and no rebar – when the buildings are demolished, the materials should be able to go directly into a landfill with no concern about hazardous

71

Munksøgård materials and little energy required to extract construction products.

Impressions It took the community almost two years to build the Common House. Unfortunately no one had any prior experience with straw bale construction and therefore there were many mistakes along the way. Upon completion, the community was burnt out. They have been trying to get into a routine for common meals, but the participation was not high. It seems that the community had been so focused on their goals for sustainability that they didn’t consider the impacts to communitas. It would be interesting to see whether this has self-corrected within a few years.

While there are five cohousing communities co-located and sharing the central plant, it did not seem that there were close ties between the groups. This is probably the same situation as at Ǻdalen 1 and 2, where they are physically close, but functionally quite independent. The area surrounding Munksøgård, called Trekoner, was also being developed with many new market-rate housing developments - many with common buildings that looked and seemed to function like Common Houses. In addition, another cohousing community was completed in Trekoner by Tegnestuen Vandkunsten.

72

Munksøgürd

Fig 1.9d: Welcome sign depicting all ďŹ ve communities

Fig 1.9e: Ejer community - condominium ownership

Fig 1.9f: Rental co-operative community for families

Fig 1.9g: Rental co-operative community for young people

73

Munksøgård

Fig 1.9h: Common House with mussel shell roof

Fig 1.9i: Finnish fireplace provides heating for Common House

Fig 1.9j: Separate cooking and cleaning areas in kitchen

Fig 1.9k: Dining room maximizes daylight with central skylight

74

Munksøgård

Fig 1.9l: Windmill to pump water for irrigating gardens

Fig 1.9m: Organic gardens

Fig 1.9n: Extensive recycling and sorting program

Fig 1.9o: Central heating plant for all five communities

75

Stavnsbåndet Solhøjpark 1-53 Farum 3520, Denmark Architects: Ortving and Friis Jørgensen

76

Stavnsbåndet

CH P

P 0

20’

120’

B bike parking in basement of Common House Fig 1.10a: Stavnsbåndet Site Plan

bike parking Fig 1.10b: Stavnsbåndet Common House Plans Top: Upper Level Middle: Main Level Bottom: Basement Level

0

5’

25’

77

Stavnsbåndet Host: David Worthington Visit date: 9.20.2004 The original group hired a large contracting/development firm develop the project and the residents individually bought their homes from this company. The owner of this company resided in the community until 1996. When he left, his unit was subdivided and sold as 2 units. There is currently a developer with NCC (the largest market-rate, multifamily developer/contractor in Denmark) living in the community. There are several professionals in the community and the older residents think it is quite extraordinary / egalitarian to have “important” professionals making meals for them.

Site Planning The Common House is sited between two common green spaces surrounded by 30 residential units.

The community is very inward focused with an internal numbering system for the houses, completely independent from the addresses designated by the postal service. Most residents don’t use the entry on the “public” side and prefer to enter their units from the “community” side.

Common House There are three levels to the Common House. The dining room and kitchen comprise the majority of the main level. A small children’s play area is at one end of the dining room which causes the dining room to be quite noisy. There are also two common toilets on this level.

The upper level has a billiard room, sitting area, teen room, guest room, toilet/shower, and pillow room.

The basement has a large room with a ping pong table and shelves for exchanging clothes within the community (once a month, the unwanted items are donated to a charity). There is also a workshop, large room for bike parking, common house storage (holiday decorations, party supplies), and an extensive community store.

On days there are meals, the meal group prepares an afternoon tea at 3pm for children who are home from school as well as the retirees, and those working from home. The children and adults meet for up to an hour before the dinner group begins the preparations for the evening meal. While it is not their responsibility, if the evening meal group is not able to be at home in time to prepare the tea, the retirees are often called upon to help out. One retiree voluntarily bakes bread each day for the tea.

Meals Daily, Sunday through Wednesday. There are meal groups and each group is responsible for afternoon tea,

78

Stavnsbåndet preparation of common meals and clean-up for the week.

Ownership (Ejerboliger) The homes are individually owned with a share in the common space. Most are individual units, however there have been a few that were divided into two units.

Turn Over In the 25+ years of the community, there has been a healthy amount of turnover. Most recently, there have been about 5-6 new young families to move in. This has helped to increase the number of new families to the community.

Impressions Our host David and his wife Pernille had not intended on living in cohousing. But as an Australian moving to Denmark, David found it great to be welcomed so quickly into a community. David enjoys the afternoon teas.

The afternoon teas were started for the benefit of the school children so that someone would be home to look after them until all the parents returned home. But long after the children had grown, the tradition continued and is now the highlight of the day for those who work from home or are retired. It is a chance to socialize and interact with others prior to the flood of residents who return from work. The afternoon tea was my first introduction to the community. Our host had not arrived home from work yet, but we were met by those who showed up (they had been alerted to our arrival) and it was a natural, comfortable way to slowly become immersed in their community.

The community was located in the suburbs, almost a rural setting, but it was quite easy to take a bus/train back to Copenhagen late in the evening. Many of the residents worked in Copenhagen and were quite happy with their easy daily commute.

David was the first one to help me codify the meaning of “hygge” - often translated to English as “cozy”, the word also connotates perfection. Not only in the cultural consciousness to create the perfect level of coziness, but also for orderliness and precision of all acts, environments, and objects. Thus “hygge” can be used to describe design, architecture, art, scenery, etc. as well as a meal, social situation, or family ties.

79

Stavnsb책ndet

Fig 1.10c: Residential units surround a common open space

Fig 1.10d: Common House is located at center of open space

80

Stavnsb책ndet

Fig 1.10e: Kitchen opens up to dining room (Common House)

Fig 1.10f: Four cooks prepare dinner (Common House)

Fig 1.10g: Dining room set for dinner - ultimate hygge (Common House)

81

Stavnsb책ndet

Fig 1.10h: Pillow room on upper level (Common House)

Fig 1.10i: Seating area & game room (Common House)

Fig 1.10j: Bike storage in basement (Common House)

Fig 1.10k: Community store in basement (Common House)

82

Sættedammen Sættedammen 1-27 3400 Hillerød, Denmark Architects: Theo Bjerg and Palle Dyreborg

83

Sættedammen

CH CP B P P P

0 20’

120’

B P P P

CP central heating plant

Fig 1.11a: Sættedammen Site Plan

laundry

kids play room

sauna

game

patio multi-purpose

patio

Fig 1.11b: Sættedammen Common House Plan

0

5’

25’

84

Sættedammen Host: Ellen & Iver Vad Visit date: September 19, 2004 Sættedammen is the oldest cohousing community with 27 units originally, but many of the homes have been subdivided and there are almost 90 people who now live in the community.

The community has many social events and clubs which has been cited as a benefit by many. However, this comes at the expense of maintaining contact with friends and family outside the community.

Site Planning The entry is along a central north/south axis of a parkade which terminates at the central plant for the community. Directly behind that is the Common House. To either side of the Common House are two wings of housing encircling a common green. The homes along the west side of the green are one story and relate to the garden. The homes along the east side are two-story and have garden access to the east and west.

There property includes a soccer field, two common gardens, and a large pond (fabled to be a pond where a former king stocked trout for future fishing - the community name sættedammen is derived from this fable - dammen means pond and sætte is to put or place). Each of the common greens has a sandbox and play equipment. The community is very inward focused, both in site planning as well as social events.

Common House The common house is a one story structure with a flat roof. The dining room is generous and includes a seating area. The kitchen is along one end of the dining room and opens up to it - a large cooking/serving/ prep island separates it from the dining area. This functions quite well.

A TV/music room is located adjacent the dining area with a small meeting room adjacent to that. There are two common toilets and a laundry room (which is appeared to be too small).

Meals Daily, Sunday through Thursday prepared by nightly “meal clubs” where two adults pay, prepare, and clean up. Participation is optional, but most families participate.

Ownership Ejerboliger - The homes are privately owned with shares of the common space as a condominium. The cost of the homes is currently attracting young professionals or more established elderly people.

85

Sættedammen Turn Over Over half of the original families still reside in the community. However, as they continue to age and the value of the homes increase, there is looming question of how the community will change over time. Due to high cost of homes, they continue to attract older couples in their late 50’s. The community, particularly the younger couples, want to see the community maintain it’s multigenerational diversity, but they struggling with how to recruit young families and, thereby, lower the average age of the residents.

Activities A group of 6-8 chamber/symphonic musicians rehearses weekly.

A Dream Club meet to discuss dreams and once a year invites a professional to help interpret dreams.

Sustainable Design The modular design of the homes provides the maximum flexibility for the units to be adapted over time to the changing needs of the families.

Impressions This was a beautiful community, not only in terms of the surrounding natural environment, site planning, and how the architecture had been adapted over the years, but also the people. There was a strong sense of communitas was felt by all members with whom we interacted. While there was a conscious awareness of critical issues within the community, that was overshadowed by the genuine respect and committment they felt towards each other.

There is a significant age gap between the longtime residents and newcomers. Therefore, the aging population and succession planning is the topic of much discussion. The seniors, who have spent most of their adult lives in the community don’t ever want to leave, however, two had died in recent months (and others since our visit). While the young families acknowledge and appreciate that the elders have the initiative, knowledge and time to maintain the physical plant and oversee major community project, they realize that they need to take over some of these operational tasks so they are not left in the dark if an elder unexpectedly dies or leaves the community.

The young families respect the desire of their elders to stay in the community (and cite that it is a sign of a successful community) but for the long-term life of the community, they are very interested in having more young families move in.

86

SĂŚttedammen

Fig1.11c: 2-story residential units facing open space

Fig 1.11d: Exterior view of Common House

Fig 1.11e: Sand lot in south common green

Fig 1.11f: Hardscape play area with 1-story units in distance

87

SĂŚttedammen

Fig 1.11g: Dining room with kitchen beyond (Common House)

Fig 1.11h: Open and efďŹ cient kitchen (Common House)

Fig 1.11i: South-facing patio adjacent to dining room

Fig 1.11j: Resident musicians rehearse in the Common House

88

SĂŚttedammen

Fig 1.11k: Game room in Common House

Fig 1.11l: Composting area outside Common House

Fig 1.11m: Central heating plant

Fig 1.11n: Community bulletin board at entry of Common House

89

chapter two: findings The field studies resulted in data collection – some of which informed the conclusions, and some of which did not significantly relate to the Common House design. While it was the intention to collect consistent data sets, there were times that conversation would have been abruptly halted if I had adapted a rigid interview format. While there were many communities where residents helped identify demographics one household at a time, some of the demographic data was subsequently extrapolated from resident phone lists, meal sign-up sheets, and birthday lists. Similarly, the table of Common House features was created through studying photographs and floor plans as opposed to a methodical resident survey.

90

Demographics At the outset of my investigations, I was very interested in the demographics of communities – primarily in an interest to understand what I was observing. In my experience, it seemed that North American cohousing communities were generally comprised of educated, middle-income families and single women.

I wondered why there was an absence of ethnic minorities and lower incomes in the communities I visited.

As I conducted my preliminary visits in the Pacific Northwest, I asked many questions in this regard and puzzled on this notion for a considerable amount of time.

All of the communities I visited and spoke with in North America stated that diversity was a key founding mission. While some acknowledged that they had not succeeded in attracting members of diverse ethnic backgrounds, they were happy with the group that they did have. A couple of people I spoke with were sadly disappointed that they were not successful, wondering if they failed in their outreach, planning, etc.

One community in Vancouver BC had the highest population of minority residents and yet the numbers were fewer than 10. In talking to a founder of Jamaica Plain Cohousing in the Boston area, she shared that their community had a Mexican-American founder and they made significant efforts to reach out to their community. From the beginning, their community website had a Spanish language page and their community photos depicted people of diverse origin. They were actively trying to demonstrate to people of color that their community would be a welcoming place for them They were successful, but still only 25% of the adults are non-caucasian and some of the members lament that they should be more diverse. After a number of field visits and a greater number of discussions, I came to the following conclusions about why there was a lack of interest in cohousing from minorities and lower income populations.

1.

Many cultural groups (i.e., Asian, Hispanic, African American) have strong community ties through their churches or physical proximity to others. Furthermore, familial ties are stronger in these communities and extended families often live together.

2.

In cases where the cultural groups are recent immigrants, it is common for many families to live together in a single house or small apartment while they get established. A sign of success for these immigrants is their ability to purchase their own home and live out the “American Dream.”

The idea of paying more to live in a small house with a “group of strangers” (both in terms of cultural identity and social ties) does not represent a way of life that is appealing to them given the community ties they already have or as an indicator of upward mobility.

The second case is also true of blue-collar, working-class families. For the average American construction worker or restaurant waitress, signs of upward mobility include the ability to purchase a home, car, and other material possessions that indicate their financial success. They are likely to be living in an apartment and relying on mass transit. These are not lifestyle choices, but rather the realities of their economic situation.

91

Demographics Conversely, the cohousng residents have described an intention “live lightly on the earth”, reduce their consumption of resources, live more simply and reduce the number of “worldly possessions”. These notions are contrary to the financial objectives of the working class and new immigrants. This is not a statement of judgment of either group, but an acknowledgement of fundamental differences in values.

As I began my visits to cohousing communities in Denmark, I realized that there were very few minorities or lower income people in these communities – primarily due to the fact that outside of Copenhagen, Denmark is a fairly homogenous society with very few immigrants. Only in recent years has there been an ethnic population to speak of in the urban neighborhoods of Copenhagen. And their socialist government has provided national healthcare and education for all of its citizens, allowing those interested in attaining higher education to do so. And given the prohibitive costs of home ownership for most people in Denmark, most people who could afford to reside in cohousing communities were in middle and upper income brackets – however, we did visit one rental community operated by the local housing authority and I’ve read about some of the original communities which were rental cooperatives. Therefore, my previous questions about ethnic and economic diversity were not relevant in the Danish context.

As I talked with various communities about their concerns and challenges, I realized that there were a lot of issues which arose from the demographics of the community – an aging senior population, the need to recruit young families, and the need for a healthy mix of all generations.

The following matrix indicates the size of each community visited – both in the number of units as well as number of residents. In some cases, the exact breakdown of age was not provided and the numbers have been interpolated based on the visual observation and the discussions about family structures and demographic concerns heard during my interviews. In other cases I was not able to collect the data and those have been left blank aside from the information available. It should be acknowledged that this matrix represents a “snap shot” in time, since there were births, deaths, and newcomers moving in during the course of my visits.

While I didn’t calculate the density of each community, I did note their settings because this greatly affected the types and extent of amenities provided within the Common House or community. The setting also influenced the architectural character, types and sizes of homes provided. I also noted whether the buildings were new construction or an adaptive re-use of existing buildings – this had an even great impact on architectural character and size of homes.

92

Demographics Definitions: Settings Rural – predominately surrounded by farmland, limited bus service and car oriented Suburban – predominately surrounded by other single family homes, car oriented but frequent bus service available, short drive or bike ride to a commercial center Urban – within easy walking of a neighborhood commercial center, low-rise buildings City Center – located within a densely populated neighborhood commercial center, mid-rise buildings Housing type Duplex – two homes with one shared wall Attached – three or more home with shared walls Multistory – homes in an apartment style configuration with shared walls, ceilings and/or floors New construction – ground up construction with new foundations Adapative reuse – renovation of existing building(s) for a new use (CH indicates Common House only) Ownership Andel - short for andelboliger, refers to cooperative ownership Ejer - short for ejerboliger, refers to privately owned home ownership, condominium model Leje - short for lejeboliger, refers to rental housing

93 TABLE 2.1: SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHICS

Demographics Jystrup Savværket Jystrup

Ådalen 1

Ådalen 2

Andedammen

Bakken

Blikfanget

Bo90

Drivhuset

Ibsgården

Jerngården

Jernstøberiet

Randers

Randers

Birkerød 6,400 / 1.5

Humlebæk 22,000 / 5.4

Birkerød

København

Randers 15,000 / 3.7

Roskilde 6,040 / 1.5

Århus 2,300 / 0.57

Roskilde 8,150 / 2.0

Rural Peter Krogh

Rural Peter Krogh

Suburban

Suburban Tegnestuen Bakken Ap S

Suburban Tegnestuen Vandkunsten

City Center

Suburban Nils Madsen

Suburban Jes Edwards and Helge Christiansen

Urban Ole Quist Pedersen and Finn Nørholm

new construction full or partial adaptive reuse

yes no

yes no

yes no

yes no

yes no

year conceived year occupied housing type ownership structure number of units average unit size number of residents under 18 19-30 31-40 41-54 55-61 62+ gender male female types of households single single parent couples w/o kids couples w/ kids

1985 1987 attached andel 17

1986 1989 attached andel 17

36 12 1 5 15 2 1

40 17 2 7 12 2 0

1990 1993 multistory leje 17 64m2 36 11 7 4 12 1 1

1982 1984 attached andel 21 56-105m2 41 14 3 2 18 3 1

20 16

19 21

49 44

12 24

19 22

28 24

9 13

27 36

26 29

6 3 5 3

4 1 5 7

2 2 8 17

7 6 2 2

10 5 2 4

6 4 10 0

3 0 2 5

2 2 10 6

4 8 8 1

location site area (m2 / acre) setting architect

* numbers extrapolated

yes yes Original Villa converted Farmhouse to Common House and 3 converted into 3 residential units residential units 1982 1980 1984 attached attached andel + 4 ejer andel 18 29 83-139m2 73 93 16 36 3 6 4 12 25 24 25 8 0 7

1989 duplex 16

Suburban Rural Tegnestuen Jan GudmandVandkunsten Høyer, Jes Edvars and Helge yes no no yes Sawmill and Iron foundry Farmhouse = Historic houses outbuildings = converted to Common House and office storage converted to housing and CH housing and CH 1980 1993 1983 1977 1984 attached attached attached attached andel ejer ejer andel 20 20 9 21 56-105m2 52 25 63 51 18 6 31 16 2 6 3 2 11 2 10 15 14 7 13 12 7 2 6 6 0 2 0 0

Kæphøj Roskilde

Suburban Jes Edvars

yes no

1983 attached andel 21

94 TABLE 2.1: SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHICS (CONT’D)

location site area (m2 / acre) setting architect

Kilen

Leerbjerg Lod

Munksøgård

Overblik

Birkerød

Hillerød 28,000 / 6.9

Trekoner

Birkerød

Sanct Hans Gade København

Suburban

City Center

Suburban Jan GudmandHøyer

yes no

no converted worker's collective

yes no

yes no

yes no

1968 1973 duplex ejer 33

1976 1979 attached ejer 30

1968 1972 attached ejer 34

8* 18* 9* 2*

94 35 6 12 26 11 4

71 11 2 7 8 29 14

91 33 6 2 35 12 3

Suburban Suburban Rural/Suburban Jan Gudmand- Arkitektgruppen Ruböw Nielsen Høyer i Århus

new construction full or partial adaptive reuse

yes no

year conceived year occupied housing type ownership structure number of units average unit size number of residents under 18 19-30 31-40 41-54 55-61 62+ gender male female types of households single single parent couples w/o kids couples w/ kids

1985 1989 attached

* numbers extrapolated

Demographics

yes no

yes no

1995 2000 attached ejer, andel, leje 20/community

Skråplanet

Stavnsbåndet

Sættedammen

Trudeslund

Værløse / Jonstrup 24,750 / 6.1

Farum 13,000 / 3.2

Hillerød 20,000 / 4.9

Birkeröd 18,000 / 4.4

Suburban Suburban Ortving and Friis Theo Bjerg og Jørgensen Palle Dyreborg

Suburban Tegnestuen Vandkunsten

yes no

10* 13* 5* 2*

1979 attached ejer 30 109-168m2 101 44 3 4 36 12 2

26 26

50 51

32 36

43 51

30 41

45 46

3 7 10 0

2 2 5 21

2 4 13 1

7 0 5 18

8 2 20 4

4 10 15 4

20 52 22*

68 31*

attached

multistory

1981 attached 33

95

Common House Features The Common Houses in the various communities were very different. Some were detached, independent buildings within the community and others were attached structures. Some were modest in scale and amenities offered; others were well appointed and quite spacious. Some Common Houses were architecturally differentiated from the residential building, and others shared the architectural vocabulary of the overall community design. The following matrix identifies the various amenities and spaces that were encountered in the Common Houses.

If multiple functions were accommodated in a room, an “x” was placed in the primary function and an abbreviation for the primary room was indicated in the row of the secondary/tertiary functions. i.e., If a piano was provided in the dining room, an “x” is placed in the row labeled “dining room” and “dr” is indicated in the row labeled “music room”.

In the rows for guest room and teen apartments, a number is indicates how many of such rooms are provided by each community. A description of the teen apartments appears in Chapter Four under Pattern Number 18.

96

x

x

x x

x x tv x dr

x dr x

tv x x

x x x x x

x x

x

x

x x

x

x x

x dr x

x x

x x

x x

x

x x

x

x x x x

x x x kr x

x x x

Sanct Hans Gade

Overblik

Munksøgård

x x x x x kr

x x x x x

359 / 3,767 x x

355 / 3,821 x x

300 / 3,229 x x

632 / 6,802 x x

x

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

x tv/dr x

x x x

1 x dr

x

dr

sa

tv tv

x x

x x x x

Leerbjerg Lod

Kilen

x x x x x

840 / 9,041 x x

2

x lib

x

Kæphøj

cs

x x

Jystrup Savværket

dr

x x x x x

490 / 5,274 x x x x

Trudeslund

x x

Jernstøberiet

x

Bo90

Blikfanget

187 / 2,012 x x

Sættedammen

x

347 / 3,735 x x

Stavnsbåndet

x

493 / 5,306 x x x x x tv x

Common House Features

Skråplanet

1 x

Bakken

Andedammen

x x

Jerngården

1

x x x x x

565 / 6,081 x x x x x lib x x x

Ibsgården

x x x x x

328 / 3,530 x x

Drivhuset

Size including cellar m2 / f2 kitchen dining room (dr) central mail area bulletin board shared laundry guestroom sitting area/tv lounge (sa/tv) music room (mr) game room computer room library (lib) office meeting / multipurpose craft room wood/workshop bike storage kid room (kr) teen room fitness teen apartments community store common storage / pantry individual storage lockers covered street (cs) shared gardens shared animals landscaped public path or court common patio / terrace play structure / sandbox clothesline central heating plant recycling center swimming pool / sauna covered parking surface parking

Ådalen 2

Ådalen 1

TABLE 2.2: SUMMARY OF COMMON HOUSE FEATURES

x x

x x x

x x

tv

x

x x x

x x x x

x

x x x

x x x

x

x x

x x x x

x x

x x x x x

x 2

2

2

4

x x x x x

x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

x

x x

x x x x

x

x

x

x x x

x x x x

2 x x x x x x x x x x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x

3 x

x

x x

x

x x x x x x x x

x

x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x

x

x

3 x x

x

x x

x

x x

x

x

x x x

x x x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x x x

x x x

sauna x x

x

x x x

x x

pool x x

x

x

x

x

97

Site Planning Common house locations As you will see in reading Patterns 4-8 of the subsequent sectoin, the physical location of the Common House within the overall community significantly influences its success as the social activity center. At times the topography of the site or other environmental factors may predetermine the location of the Common House. In other cases, an existing building may dictate its location. And then there are also instances where the architect or community desire a particular location for formal compositional reasons. Regardless of how the location is determined, there are direct consequences to the community based on the location of the community that should be considered. Following are some site planning strategies that were prevalent in the communities visited with my conclusions about the strategy that seemed most succesful.

Center of community Locating the Common House in the physical center of a cohousing community is the most obvious location to ensure its success. It is visible from all homes and is roughly equidistant, implying that there is no preference or hierarchy for access.

This configuration allows the Common House to maintain an egalitarian position in the Community.

Leerbjerg Lod and Stavnsbåndet have Common Houses directly in the center of all the residents. In these communities the homes line the perimeter of the community and the main residential entry is visible from the Common House. These communities were very insular from the surrounding community, primarily due to their isolated suburban locations, but perhaps also due to the configuration around the Common House.

At Skråplanet, the homes are not arranged linearly around the perimeter of the site but rather a uniformly dense circle with the Common House is roughly at the center of the community. It serves both physically and socially as the nucleus for community activities.

Jernstøberiet does not fit into any of these broad categories because it was an adaptive reuse of old iron foundry. The original administrative offices and workers’ canteen became residences and the former foundry houses the Common House functions with residences saddle-bagged along the two long sides.

However, in the context of the groupings, the Common House is located at the approximate center of the community. Therefore, it best fits into this category. Aside from three of the units, all homes have direct interior access to the Common House.

Central to two wings At both Sættedammen and Bakken, the Common House is located centrally between two wings or halves of the community. This inherently creates two

98

Site Planning separate sub-groups which further breaks down the scale of the community. The Common House then becomes the hub for all central activities and coming together. This central location provides an autonomy that is neutral territory for those residing in either half of the community. The central location also provides the ability to maintain a degree of publicness from the residents who chose to live closer or further from the Common House.

In the case of Trudeslund and Jystrup Savværket, the two wings create an Lshape plan with the common house located at the junction. Both were designed

by Vandkunsten, an architecture firm that went on to design successive Cohousing communities, and it’s clear that Savværket was a refinement of the architectural ideals of Trudeslund. At Trudeslund, the Common House is elevated up on a plinth to become the visual high point for the community. While architecturally this might serve the purpose of visually expressing hierarchy in the community, this visually dominant location places the Common House out of the main circulation path for daily activities. Residents coming and going can skirt the perimeter of the Common House undetected by those inside. It was stated that during the winter months, the act of walking outdoors in the snow sometimes discourages residents from participating in the common meals. At Jystrup Savværket the site plan is very similar, but the simple act of placing the common house near grade and terminating the covered pedestria streets in the Common House, forces the circulation to occur through the Common House, creating utility and encouraging informal interaction. In both cases, the main access into the community for those entering by foot were not at the Common House. Although the main parking lot was located near the Common House, the pedestrian access from the bus stop or train station occured at the end of one pedestrian street.

Kæphøj is also an L-shaped plan but with one primary difference - the Common House was located at the gateway into the community and, therefore, all residents and visitors arriving by either car or foot would walk by the Common House. As such the Common House was a highly active place with people stopping in after work to see what the meal was, who was cooking, and to check on notices posted to the bulletin boards. It was an easy stop to make as it did not take anyone out of their way. And since it was part of their daily flow, people noticed if there was activity occurring at odd hours (i.e., unknown architects measuring the Common House during the day) and would stop in to make sure all was ok. This was one of the most active Common Houses we visited.

Gateway to community Andedammen, Blikfanget, and Jerngården were other communities marked by Common Houses that were located at the entry point into their community. After leaving ones car behind in the parking lot (or street as was the case in Jerngården), the first building that

99

Site Planning a visitor would encounter upon entering the community was the Common House.

At both Sanct Hans and Bo 90 in Copenhagen, the Common House occured at the base of the building where residents entered. For urban locations, this seems to be the ideal and preferred location. In most urban situations, the first floor uses tend to be more public in nature due to the ability of a passerby to have visual access through windows. However, in both cases, the common spaces were isolated from the main circulation stair and, therefore, residents had to make a conscious effort to interact with those who might happen to be using the Common House. In multistory buildings the Common House can serve as a gateway if all residents circulate through common spaces in order to access their units - Quayside Village in Vancouver, BC is a great example of this.

Focal point In some cases, while the site planning might not place the Common House at the physical center, it becomes the focal point of the community. Munksøgård, Ibsgården, and Overblik had Common Houses that were placed in a location offset from the center. The offset location provided a common open space at the center that was the ante-room for the Common House and held host to many community events. Residential units facing the common open space allowed for informal participation in the community even when events were not programmed.

At end of covered street Similarly, Ådalen 1 and 2, Drivhuset, and Kilen are communities where the Common House was located at one end of a covered pedestrian street.

And rather than having the central common open space, the street became their public venue for casual interaction - the scale of which became more intimate and personal. While in most of the preceding site planning strategies residents that live furthest from the Common House were more private, the covered street encourages the most remote residents to be more engaged in their community by the mere fact that they pass by the doors of many more of their neighbors.

Best examples of site planning strategies and Common Houses Communities enclosed spaces, such as Ådalen 1 and 2, Drivhuset, Jystrup Savværket, and Kilen with their covered streets and Jernstøberiet with its enclosed Hall and Common House, were the most successful overall in maintaining a strong sense of community. The enclosed common spaces were truly an extension of the Common House and in some cases became the social hall for the community. The community bonds, or communitas, was highly evident in the way residents interacted – they were very familiar with each other and appeared even more comfortable with their neighbors than witnessed in other communities. In all cases, the covered street was comfortably furnished and the presence of people in this semi-public “room”

100

Site Planning seemed to encourage frequent informal interactions.

The best examples of actual Common Houses were at Savværket and Kæphøj where the Common Houses were visibly an integral part of the residents’ daily lives. The Common House at Kæphøj provided a variety of spaces, well scaled for small groups, and seemed like integral place to the community. While there wasn’t a variety of other daily-used spaces within the Common House at Savværket, the circulation flow through the Common House activated it as both adults and children passed through during the day.

101

chapter three: design criteria As I began my investigations and site visits, I quickly noticed that many patterns identified by Christopher Alexander in the seminal book, A Pattern Language, were present in many cohousing communities. As a result, I re-read the text to see if there were specific patterns that would be relevant in the design of cohousing communities. As I read, I began to realize that many of the patterns that previously seemed irrelevant or inapplicable were very appropriate for cohousing projects that were disengaged from North American ideals of housing. I believed that a cohousing community could be wholly designed implementing Alexander’s patterns. However, as I narrowed my focus on the Common House, I began to realize that there were patterns missing. In this way, the design criteria for the Common House evolved with photographs to illustrate the written descriptions.

While a pattern wasn’t specifically codified, an overarching pattern of “hygge” exists in the design of cohousing. Hygge is a Danish word that is difficult to translate to English - it is an ephemeral feeling that roughly translates as “cozy”. There will be many references to this word throughout this document. This is the “secret ingredient” that summed up the reasons that many of the cohousing communities felt successful in its achievement of communitas. As an observer that experienced hygge in the covered streets late in the evening in several communities, I can try to describe it as the comforting sensation of walking in a familar place where people people are not seen but their presence is felt. I could sense that someone was just there when I saw a freshly lit candle in a kitchen window or lantern sitting in the covered street. Or the smell of tobacco smoke that lingers in the air after the pipe and newspaper has been laid down by its owner.

Hygge is the warmth of a desk lamp glowing in the upstairs window implying someone hard at work but just out of sight.

One resident of Sættedammen commented how she loved to look out her kitchen window before going to bed and feeling the security of her neighbors close by. Through the quality of light that filtered out of the windows she could see who was working or watching TV, and the lack of light would indicate that the neighbors were sleeping or hadn’t returned from their night out.

Hygge could also describe the coziness of a mid-week brunch among three neighbors under the greenhouse while a torrential downpour smatters the glass. It describes the perfectly framed view of old fishing sheds contrasted against the blue sky on a bright sunny day. Or the perfectly orchestrated set up of a campsite. Hygge embodies the cultural consciousness of Denmark – the intention to create something perfect in every regard. Perhaps for this reason, it’s evident why there was a sense of hygge in many of the communities – cohousing communities are full of intention, the intention to create an ideal village.

If hygge could be codified into a pattern, all designers would possess the ultimate secret to consistently creating meaningful and transformative places.

102

Pattern Language In 1965, Christopher Alexander and his team of researchers published A Pattern Language, the second book in a three-part series, intended to provide an alternative to the present-day ideas of architecture, building, and planning. Written by architects, planners, and sociologists the book provides a language of patterns determined by past human behaviors. These patterns serve as a framework for creating ideal spaces for human interaction at all scales of human habitation (from the larger region and city to the smaller scale of individual homes for habitation.) The patterns are arranged from larger to smaller with each pattern relating to other larger and smaller patterns.

Since the Common House is almost synonymous to the notion of community, it was difficult at times to separate the patterns for the Common House from the overall community. The following list intends to be just the requisite patterns for a Common House. A more extensive list of patterns for the design of a cohousing community can be found in the Appendix.

Whenever possible, the existing patterns were adapted to cohousing, but in some cases the interpretations were too loose and, therefore, several new patterns were identified.

The patterns are numbered and grouped into categories which identify the architectural aspect of the Common House it specifically addresses. However, for easy reference back to the original text, any pattern previously identified in A Pattern Language is denoted in brackets by its original number. Each pattern contains a brief description of how it relates to the design of the common house. Text placed in quotes is taken directly from the original Pattern Language text.

It should be noted that the patterns found in A Pattern Language are the result of extensive academic research by sociologist, anthropologists, and architects. While I have attempted to utilize a similar format in identifying the new patterns for Common House design, it should be noted that my patterns are based on field observations and do not reflect the level of research and analysis conducted by Alexander and his team.

103

Pattern Language Patterns for a Common House Role within Community 1 Activity Node [30] 2 Local Town Hall [44] 3 Main Building [99] Site Planning 4 Centrally Located Common House 5 Degree of Publicness [36] 6 Local Centers 7 Gatekeepers 8 Community Street Program 9 Communal Eating [147] 10 Eating Atmosphere [179] 11 Cooking Layout [184] 12 Production Kitchen 13 Central Bulletin Board 14 Community Store 15 Social Hall 16 Guestrooms 17 Connected Play [68] 18 Teenager’s Apartments [154] 19 Bulk Storage [145] 20 Community Laundry Key Patterns 21 Common Areas at the Heart [129] 22 Alcoves [179] 23 Spatial Hierarchy 24 Ceiling Height Variety [190] Design 25 Public Outdoor Room [69] 26 South Facing Outdoors [105] 27 Light on Two Sides of Every Room [159] 28 Window Place [180] 29 Windows Overlooking Life [192] Details 30 Acoustics 31 Lighting 32 Seating

104

no. 1 Activity Node [30] “One of the greatest problems in existing communities is the fact that the available public life in them is spread so thin that is has no impact on the community.” While this pattern was originally written with regard to the scale of a city, it relates directly to the community of cohousing, which closely resembles a village.

In discussions about memorable urban places, it’s often cited that people are attracted to places where there are other people. “To create these concentrations of people in a community, facilities must be grouped densely round very small public squares which can function as nodes - with all pedestrian movement in the community organized to pass through these nodes.” This principle can also be scaled down to a cohousing community. The Common House is a concentration of activities central to the community.

Fig 2.1a: Workshop at Ådalen 1

Fig 2.1b: Laundry room at Bakken

Fig 2.1d: Resident musicians rehearse at Sættedammen

Fig 2.1c: Meal prep at Stavnsbåndet

Fig 2.1e: Birthday celebration at Jernstøberiet

105

no. 2 Local Town Hall [44] The Common House is the venue for community decision making and committee meetings. While this pattern was originally written for the scale of a city or neighborhood, it aptly applies to the cohousing Common House. A local town hall is 1) “... made in a way which invites people in for service, spontaneously, to debate policy, and the open space around the building is shaped to sustain people gathering and lingering.” and 2) “...located at the heart of the local community and within walking distance of everyone it serves.” This is most visibly manifest in the site planning and location of the Common House within a community which is addressed in pattern number 4.

Fig 2.2a: Spontaneous interactions

Fig 2.2b: After dinner conversation at Ådalen 1

Fig 2.2c: Residents linger to converse after dinner at Bakken

Fig 2.2d: Post dinner conversation at Leerbjerg Lod

106

no. 3 Main Building [99] “A complex of buildings with no center is like a man without a head.”

As people move about in the physical world, they create mental maps of places they visit and inhabit.

“Such maps need a point of reference: some point in the complex of buildings, which is very obvious, and so placed that it is possible to refer all the other paths and buildings to it. A main building, which is also the functional soul of the complex, is the most likely candidate for this reference point.” Whether it be a child in the community, a frequent visitor, or a first-time guest; there should be visual clues about the hierarchy of buildings that would allow the Common House to be recognized as being more important than the other buildings in the community.

As the main building in a community, the Common House should be architecturally significant. A unique color, central or elevated location, or distinct roof form provide the important visual cues.

Fig 2.3a: Unique form at Blikfanget

Fig 2.3b: Distinct color & form at Kilen

Fig 2.3d: Elevated location indicates importance at Trudeslund

Fig 2.3c: Color & form at Munksøgård

Fig 2.3e: Central location implies prominence at Stavsnbåndet

107

no. 4 Centrally Located Common House As indicated in the patterns Main Building and Activity Node, the siting of the Common House is very important. Locate the Common House at a central location where every resident in the community is likely to come to it at some point during the day – to do laundry, check mail, eat meals. Its location will determine the frequency of its use and, thereby, its success.

To illustrate, at Ǻdalen and Drivhuset the Common House is located at the end of the covered street. While the street is successful as a gathering place, the Common House becomes just the place to prepare and eat meals. The covered street is more central to all residents and becomes the location for community festivals and celebrations. Conversely, Jystrup also has a covered street, but the central location as well as its size makes the Common House the obvious place to hold community meetings, events and celebrations.

As discussed in the Main Building, a central location implies a visual hierarchy and can serve as an architectural orienting device.

Fig 2.4a: Centrally located to all homes at Stavsnbåndet

Fig 2.4b: Located at intersection of covered street at Savværket

Fig 2.4c: Common House at Savværket

Fig 2.4d: Centrally located at Leerbjerg Lod

108

no. 5 Degree Of Publicness [36] “Some people want to live where the action is. Others want more isolation.” This is personal preference can easily accommodated within a community through proximity to the Common House. The homes closer will likely be occupied by people that become the community caretakers or “gatekeepers” who know each of the community members well. Likewise, the families further away may form closer ties with their immediate neighbors.

One can observe the degree of publicness residents are comfortable with by looking at the items placed in the public areas. At Drivhuset, some residents define personal space with landscaping while others required no barriers. Similarly at Ǻdalen, some residents placed benches outside their units while others placed a table and chairs. Given the narrow street section, residents who desired more privacy recessed seating areas into their entry alcove. At Leerbjerg Lod the patios outside each unit demonstrated varying levels of desired privacy - some were very open with low plantings while others were secluded by tall hedges.

Fig 2.5a: Plants imply privacy at Drivhuset Fig 2.5b: Secluded patio at Leerbjerg Lod Fig 2.5c: Seating along street at Ǻdalen1

Fig 2.5d: Frequent opportunities for interaction at Drivhuset

Fig 2.5e: Seating pulled into nook for privacy at Ǻdalen1

109

no. 6 Gatekeepers A Degree of Publicness discusses the tendency to be more public towards the physical center of the commmunity. In my observations, it appeared that those residing closest to the Common House acted as gatekeepers – informally monitoring activity in the community. At Ådalen 1, while all families had a small table and chairs in the covered street, the family that lived closest to the Common House served role of gatekeeper. The male head of household often sat at his table in the early morning and late evening to drink coffee, read the paper, and smoke his pipe. Often, other residents would come to sit with him or his wife to engage in a brief conversation before dinner.

Similarly at Drivhuset, the residents that occupied the unit closest to the public entry into the covered street served as informal gatekeepers, helping visitors find their way. Likewise, the units facing the common path at Andedammen were the “eyes” of for the community due to their proximity to the community entrance as well as the Common House.

Fig 2.6a: Interactions close to Common House at Ǻdalen1

Fig 2.6b: Accoutrements of the gatekeeper at Ǻdalen1

Fig 2.6c: Tea with community gatekeepers at Drivhuset

Fig 2.6d: Units near entry act as gatekeepers for Andedammen

110

no. 7 Local Centers - Satellite Activity Nodes Contrary to the gatekeepers, the remote location of those residing furthest from the Common House or entry point into the community seemed to encourage the creation of smaller territorial spaces for informal gathering. 3-4 households would often create a small, shared, semi-public space for them to socialize without having the frequency of traffic near the Common House. While it wasn’t the intent of these households to segregate themselves or exclude other members, their degree of publicness in the community seemed to instigate other measures for them to develop communitas without having to spend all their unstructured time away from their immediate vicinity of their home. These local centers are critical to the life of the community and are an extension of the public common space outside the Common House.

Fig 2.7a: Activity node for immediate neighbors at Savværket

Fig 2.7b: Central gathering spot along street at Ǻdalen 2

Fig 2.7c: Brunch shared by neighbors furthest from Common House at Ǻdalen1

Fig 2.7d: Sunny dining area for neighbors furthest from Common House at Savaaerket

111

no. 8 Community Street - Life in the Street The Community Street acts an an outdoor room that provided the opportunity to socialize or just be in the presence of others while still maintaining a degree of privacy. While this is not a room in the Common House, the communities with a covered street exempliďŹ ed that this pattern played a key role in the communitas of a community.

The presence of the community is not only evident in the physical presence of ifs residents but the artifacts of human occupation - furniture, toys, lights. These daily household items spill over into the community street giving it life.

Fig 2.8a: Street celebration at Ă…dalen1

Fig 2.8b: Sunday afternoon at Drivhuset

Fig 2.8c: Looking through the window from street at Drivhuset

Fig 2.8d: The street at Kilen is a place for families and children

112

no. 9 Communal Eating [147] “…communal eating plays a vital roll in almost all human societies as a way of binding people together and increasing the extent to which they feel like members of a group.”

Communal eating is the key to establishing communitas within a cohousing community. The opportunity to eat together seemed to form closer bonds in communities which had regularly scheduled common meals.

In addition, those communities that had rotating table assignments (monthly, quarterly or semiannually) seemed to form stronger bonds between residents which was evident from their conversations and interactions.

Since the act of eating together is clearly not about sustenance a great deal of import, pay attention to the environment in which dining occurs.

Fig 2.9a: Dinner at Sættedammen

Fig 2.9b: Common meal at Jernstøberiet

Fig 2.9c: The “cooks” table is an honored spot at Ibsgården

Fig 2.9d: Community dinner at Trudeslund

113

no. 10 Eating Atmosphere [181] “…when the table has the same light over it, and has the same light level on the walls around it, the light does nothing to hold people together; the intensity of feeling is quite likely to dissolve…. But when there is a soft light, hung low over the table, with dark walls around so that this one point of light lights up people’s faces and is a focal point for the whole group, then a meal can become a special thing indeed…”

Frank Lloyd Wright described this as creating a “room within a room” - the people sitting around a dining table forming the “walls” of this inner room. This will help create an intimate setting at the dining table within the larger dining room. Create a sense of intimacy by providing solid wood tables which comfortably seat 68 adults and placing a pendant fixture over each table. Conversation is easily maintained in a group of this size, if there are 10, then two separate discussions will occur because the people at the far ends of the table have a difficult time conversing.

Fig 2.10a: Flower & lights highlight dining tables at Overblik

Fig 2.10b: Setting the mood for dinner at Sættedammen

Fig 2.10c: Candles add to cozy atmosphere at Stavnsbåndet

Fig 2.10d: Tables ready for diners at Bakken

114

no. 11 Cooking Layout [184] “…it is essential that the cooking area be fashioned as a workshop for the preparation of food…. No need for the counter to be continuous or entirely built-in…it can even consist of free-standing tables and counter tops.”

The kitchen should be designed with the typical number of cooks in mind. This pattern identifies four main elements in a kitchen: stove, sink, food storage and counter. No two should be more than 10’ apart; total length of counter should be at least 12’; and no single section of counter should be less than 4’ in width.

Galley kitchens open to the dining room work for smaller cooking groups such as Overblik, Blikfanget and Sættedammen. A central work island accommodates larger cooking groups - Savværket and Leerbjerg Lod had central work surface, while Kæphøj, Trudeslund, Stavnsbåndet & Ibsgården had a central stove top. Bakken, Kilen, Munksøgård, Ådalen, and Drivhuset had separate cooking & cleaning areas to facilitate circulation flow.

Fig 2.11a: Separate dishwashing area at Munksøgård

Fig 2.11b: Island cooktop and work surfaces at Andedammen

Fig 2.11c: Galley-style kitchen for two cooks at Blikfanget

Fig 2.11d: Ample workspace for 4-6 cooks at Savværket

115

no. 12 Production Kitchen The common kitchen should be designed with large-scale food production in mind. Commercial appliances should be prioritized, whenever feasible. Stoves with 4-6 large burners should be centrally located to allow for maximum utility in kitchens designed for cooking teams greater than two. A water tap (or pot filler) located near the stove will reduce accidents resulting from the filling and transport of heavy pots.

Commercial ovens can accommodate numerous large baking pans and maintain constant temperature.

Commercial refrigerators can accommodate large boxes of produce and bulk quantities of meat and dairy products.

While it is possible to compromise on commercial stoves or ovens, the most important and necessary commercial appliance would be the dishwasher. In addition to a quick cleaning cycle (2-3 minutes), commercial dishwashers can accommodate a large number of dishes, especially oversized pots and baking pans, and provide a higher degree of sanitization due to hotter water temperatures.

Fig 2.12a: Commercial burners and oven at Jernstøberiet

Fig 2.12b: Commerical dishwasher at Jernstøberiet

Fig 2.12c: Carts for storage and easy table setting at Savværket Fig 2.12d: Centrally located burners and pot filler at Kæphøj

116

no. 13 Central Bulletin Board An easy way to encourage informal interaction is to provide a central location for mail delivery and the dissemination of information. Rather than each resident having a mail box in front of their home, the postal carrier would deliver the mail to the Common House, according to US Postal Service standards. Much like in an apartment building, each resident would have a key to their own mail box. In this way, residents would have a reason to visit the Common House at least once a day. In addition to the mail boxes, there could be a bulletin board for notices, meeting agendas, sign up sheets, and menus; and a shelf to put out leaflets or flyers. This central information hub should be located inside the Common House, but close to the entry.

Ideally, this area would be an alcove off the dining room so that residents in the kitchen preparing a meal could have the opportunity to informally interact with those checking their mail on the way home from work.

Fig 2.13a: Bulletin board at Kilen

Fig 2.13b: Meal signup at Trudeslund

Fig 2.13d: Cooking and cleaup assignments at Drivhuset

Fig 2.13c: Mail / info boards at Ådalen 2

Fig 2.13e: Bulletin boards become meeting spot at Kæphøj

117

no. 14 Community Store Many communities have a small community store for residents to purchase goods – some were solely beverages and convenience items, others had full range of cooking essentials & sundry items. This pattern takes advantage of bulk purchasing power and provides much needed storage for these goods. The intent of the store is to help residents reduce the size of their individual homes by eliminating the need for large pantries or storage rooms for bulk purchasing of items such as toilet paper, beverages, or crackers. The store can also be used by the community to provide snacks for impromptu movie nights or a last minute birthday celebration.

The room should be well ventilated to prevent items from going stale. The inventory should be documented and monitored to ensure that items don’t expire on the shelf as well as insuring that petty theft doesn’t occur.

Fig 2.14a: Community pantry at Kæphøj

Fig 2.14b: Store at Ibsgården

Fig 2.14d: Fully stocked shelves at Stavnsbåndet

Fig 2.14c: Sundries at Stavnsbåndet

Fig 2.14e: Convenience items at Andedammen

118

no. 15 Social Hall Given that alcohol may or may not be consumed in the Common House, the pattern of Beer Hall [90] is reinterpreted as the Social Hall. The Common House will serve as a social hall for various community and private functions. Residents may participate in games (billiards, cards, board games, ping pong or foosball) or hold conversations. Whether it be a birthday celebration in the dining room or the watching of movies or televised sporting events in the TV room; the Common House should have a range of room sizes to accommodate a variety of events.

Fig 2.15a: Pool-side bar at Skråplanet

Fig 2.15b: Billiard room at Skråplanet

Fig 2.15d: “Greek Night” community event at Ådalen 1

Fig 2.15c: Game room at Kæphøj

Fig 2.15e: Preparation for birthday celebration at Jernstøberiet

119

no. 16 Guestrooms This is a critical feature of a cohousing community if residents are expected to comfortably live in homes that are smaller than their comparably-priced, market-rate counterparts. While it is not often that families have guests stay in their homes, many homeowners want a dedicated (or dual function) room that can accommodate a mother-in-law, grown children, grandchildren, family friend, etc. While most guests are quite comfortable to occupy the private domain of their hosts, there are times when guests prefer staying in a nearby hotel so as not to disturb their hosts or to simply come and go as they please.

Provide a couple of guest rooms in the Common House or within the common space (eg. along the covered street) to allows the guests to become more familiar with the entire community and have some autonomy from their hosts. This room should be well situated – not located in an undesired nook that didn’t serve any better purpose; and should be well-appointed with a comfortable bed, bedside table and lamp, a small desk and chair, and a closet - essentially a small hotel room. An adjoining bathroom is preferable, but it’s possible for it to be shared with another guest room (but never more than 2 rooms per bathroom).

The room should have a nice view and yet provide some privacy. In order to encourage use, the rooms should be free or of nominal cost to members of the community. The rooms are not intended for long term stays, just a few days. A scheduling system and usage policy should be developed that is appropriate for the community.

Nearly all the communities visited have some sort of provision for guests. In some rare cases where a guest room is not provided, a children’s play area doubles as a guest room. For long term stays, arrangements may be made with other residents in the community who may have spare rooms or are away for the duration of the visit.

Fig 2.16a: Guestroom at Ådalen 1

Fig 2.16b: Guestroom with corner table at Savværket

120

no. 17 Connected Play [68] “Children need other children.” This sentence speaks volumes of the interdependence between a child’s personal development and his/her interactions with other children. In addition to basic social skills, a child’s emotional development can be nurtured through playing with their peers and taking care of younger kids.

The children’s realm in a Common House or adjacent outdoor spaces can provide places for the children to have meaningful relationships with one another. The Common House provides a place for children to gather and meet without the need for adults to intervene and schedule “play dates.”

Children raised in cohousing communities tend to be natural communicators - having watched their elders achieve consensus in their meetings and interactions with other cohousing residents. There are numerous anecdotes of cohousing children being asked by their school teachers to moderate fights between their classmates.

Fig 2.17a: Children encounter a party

Fig 2.17b: Pillow Room at Kæphøj

Fig 2.17d: Girls improvise a game at Jystrup Savvæket

Fig 2.17c: Play interrupted to look at fish

Fig 2.17e: Girls on bikes are intercepted by an adult at Kæphøj

121

no. 18 Teenager’s Cottage / Apartment [154] A teenager’s cottage or apartment provides a safe transition between living with the nuclear family and complete independence. Seen in many of the communities visited – the teen apartments were usually a small efficiency apartment located in the community, often in pairs with a shared kitchenette and bathroom.

Teens can request an apartment upon reaching a specified age. Parents or the teens would pay a modest monthly rent. At times there were no teens of the appropriate age within the community that wanted to rent the rooms, so occasionally a teen from outside the community would come to reside in one of the units.

These teen apartments provide young adults with autonomy from their parents/families, yet still provided the support of the family and familiarity of the community. A safe, yet big, step towards independence.

Fig 2.18a: Teen apartment at Drivhuset

Fig 2.18b: Shared kitchenette at Ådalen 1 Fig 2.18c: Teen bedroom at Kæphøj

Fig 2.18d: Shared living area for the teen apartments at Kilen

Fig 2.18e: Shared kitchen and dinng for teen apartments at Kilen

122

no. 19 Bulk Storage In any household or community, there are items that are not used daily but are necessary and require storage. Too often these bulk storage spaces are forgotten during the planning stages or omitted due to cost. In a Common House, there is a need for bulk storage of food items that can be accommodated in a pantry. Storage will also be required for seasonal decorations (Christmas tree, ornaments, and lights) and special events (additional folding chairs, tables, linens, special occasion stemware or dishes). There may be supplies for building maintenance or operations (light bulbs, lumber, ladders or lawnmower) that require storage. Storage spaces equivalent to 15% of the total Common House area should be reserved for communal storage.

Residents generally find themselves living in smaller homes than they are accustomed to and are not able to purge extra possessions. Provide a central storage locker for each unit in the Common House. If lockers are not provided, residents will often utilize porches and parking spaces to satisfy their storage needs.

Fig 2.19a: Resident storage at Drivhuset

Fig 2.19b: Common kitchen storage

Fig 2.19d: Bike and sled storage at Stavnsbåndet

Fig 2.19c: Pram storage at Stavnsbåndet

Fig 2.19e: Lumber stored for community projects at Skråplanet

123

no. 20 Community Laundry Central laundry facilities are often found in the Common House. Danish communities have devised ways to increase the productivity of the laundry rooms. In nearly all communities, there is a method that allows residents to queue up their laundry in community washing effort through the course of a day.

How it works: Resident B brings laundry to the Common House and finds the washing machine is busy washing Resident A’s laundry. Resident B sorts his laundry into the appropriate number of baskets, queues up the baskets with prescribed washing instructions (water temperature/cycle, amount of detergent, and drying request) and leaves. Resident C arrives to find that Resident A’s cycle is complete and puts the load in the dryer. Resident B’s load is then placed in the machine using the washing instructions provided. Then Resident C sorts his own laundry and places the basket at the back of the queue. Resident A comes back to collect their dry clothes, transfers Resident B’s load from the washer to dryer and starts up Resident C’s load in the washing machine. And so the cycle continues. These images depict some of the ways different communities indicate their preferred washing instructions to their fellow residents.

Fig 2.20a: Wash tags at Ådalen 1

Fig 2.20b: Laundry baskets queued up at Ibsgården

Fig 2.20c: Wash instruction for community Fig 2.20d: Wash instructions left in basket Fig 2.20e: Laundry queue at Leerbjerg Lod with blind resident at Klien

124

no. 21 Common Areas at the Heart This pattern can be seen at two scales within a cohousing community - the larger scale of site planning as well as the smaller scale of Common House design. As described in the patterns of Activity Node, Local Town Hall, and Central Location, the Common House is at the center of the community and should allow people to naturally pass through or by it during the course of the day.

In the context of space planning for the Common House, the dining room should serve as the common area at the heart. The room should be located such “that people naturally pass through it on their way into and out of the house”. It should be along a common path which people use every day but located to one side so residents are not forced to stop. If they want, they can stop to see what’s happening; and if they desire, they can come right in and settle down. Incorporating the pattern of Alcoves will increase the likelihood of residents to stop because there will be a wider diversity of informal and unprogrammed activities that might occur in the dining room throughout the course of the day.

Fig 2.21a: Circulation through Common House at Savvæket

Fig 2.21b: Circulation occurs through Savvæket Common House

Fig 2.21c: Location facilitiates easy drop in at Kæphøj Common Fig 2.21e: Casual seating outside Common House kitchen House (top of stairs)

125

no. 22 Alcoves [179] “No homogenous room, of homogenous height, can serve a group of people well. To have a group a change to be together, as a group, a room must also give them the chance to be alone, in ones and twos in the same space. This problem is felt most acutely in the common rooms of a house.”

While this pattern may be easier to accommodate in a house, the Common House should be considered in a similar fashion. The common dining room is large enough to accommodate the whole community, but the primary function of dining often discourages people from lingering at their tables to have an after-dinner conversation. It’s easier for people to simple go home rather than seek out other parts of the Common House.

There are often rooms in the Common House for adults (TV lounge, seating group) that are designated but due to their isolation from the main functions, these rooms are underutilized because if a single person wanted to be isolated in a room, then it’s just as easy to be in their own home.

But imagine if a teen wanted to do homework in the company of others and could sit in a small nook that was out of the way of the dinner set-up/clean-up crew. Or a small group of young kids could play a board game in the dining while parents converse nearby in a seating nook while another person sat reading the evening paper by the fire. These disparate activities could co-exist and allow residents to feel connected but not alone. Provide small-scaled, intimate spaces adjacent to the dining room within the Common House.

This pattern was not evident in any of the Common Houses visited.

This pattern is closely linked to Pattern No.23 Spatial Hierarchy.

Fig 2.22a: Nook for coffee or games

Fig 2.22b: Dining room surrounded by alcoves

Fig 2.22c: Alcove contains library

126

no. 23 Spatial Hierarchy Spatial hierarchy is exhibited when physical changes in architecture, paving, or landscaping help differentiate and provide a hierarchy of adjacent spaces.

The tables outside each residence within the public street at Drivhuset did not exhibit any spatial hierarchy but residents tried to achieve a defined space through landscaping. However, at Leerbjerg Lod, spatial hierarchy was each achieved at the transition from public path to each individual unit entry. And at both Ådalen 1 and 2 an implied hierarchy was achieve by recessing the unit entries.

However, no evidence of spatial hierarchy was exhibited within the Common Houses visited. The employment of this pattern in conjunction with alcoves could lead to the dining room becoming a highlyfunctional, all-purpose, 24/7 space.

This pattern evolved out of the the single-purpose nature of the Common House dining room. Common Houses are heavily used around the meal times, but this primary function prohibits daily use of the dining area since other uses would deter set up/clean up of tables.

The majority of the Common Houses tried to create a sense of intimacy through seating areas, but they were contained within the main volume and lacked any architectural differentiation between the supposedly intimate space and the greater room. Ascending 2-3 steps and passing between a cased opening would help reduce the scale and create an alcove worthy of use.

Fig 2.23a: Dining nook at Sanct Hans

Fig 2.23b: Steps up imply hierarchy

Fig 2.23c: Nook defined by walls & soffit

Fig 2.23d: Column and beam define nook

127

no. 24 Ceiling Height Variety [190] “A building in which the ceiling heights are all the same is virtually incapable of making people comfortable.”

It is all too often that the Common House is designed and built with the least funds (many communities prioritize the money for individual units) and therefore, the overall enclosure of the Common House is constructed with the idea that a future mezzanine or second floor will be added later. The resulting spaces for dining, conversation, and meal prepation all occur under a single ceiling.

Provide a variety of ceiling heights that are appropriate for the functions. The dining room may want to be a grand space with high ceilings, however, the kitchen will be more functional with lower ceilings. In addition, smaller seating groups for conversation are not inviting if they are located in a cavernous room with the same ceiling height as the dining room.

At Bakken, the dining and seating area all occur under the same ceiling. The seating area is not welcoming and did not encourage residents to linger and talk. However, over half of the dining room floor framing had been installed with the idea that the second floor mezzanine would be extended. While the project was never completed, the major framing elements were left in place creating an implied ceiling. The tables under this “lower” ceiling felt more intimate.

The height of a ceiling can also determine the intimacy of a space. The ceiling must be proportionate to the size of the room - a small room with a tall ceiling will feel equally uncomfortable as a large room with a low ceiling. The original pattern describes rules of thumb for ideal width-to-height ratios. The acoustics of any room are affected by the ceiling height and room proportion and should be given specific attention during design.

Fig 2.24a: Varied ceiling at Trudeslund

Fig 2.24b: Varied ceiling at Savvæket

Fig 2.24c: Vaulted ceiling at Kilen

128

no. 25 Public Outdoor Room [69] Often people don’t immediately know if they want to commit to a conversation or situation. An outdoor space with a moderate sense of enclosure can provide intimacy to hold people but allow the passerby to interject or join the conversation wthout committing to sitting for a long period. “What is needed is a framework which is just enough defined so that people naturally stop there; and so that curiosity naturally takes people there, and invites them to stay.”

The framework can be a physical enclosure provided by deep overhangs or railings. It can also be implied by a depression in topography or landscaping.

These public outdoor rooms are often adjacent the Common House dining rooms, allowing people to partipate in the common meals and still enjoy the nice weather.

Fig 2.25a: Jerngården landscaped room

Fig 2.25b: Blikfanget - deep eave & railing Fig 2.25c: Sættedammen - eave & plants

Fig 2.25d: Hedges define outdoor dining at Leerbjerg Lod

Fig 2.25e: Outdoor amphitheater at Skråplanet

129

no. 26 South Facing Outdoors [105] “People use open space if it is sunny, and do not use it if it isn’t….”

In providing the pattern of Public Outdoor Room, it is important that this exterior room be oriented towards the sun. In the communities visited, the most successful outdoor rooms were patios facing the sun such that during the warmer months, common meals could be shared outdoors. The warmth summer evenings would cause people to linger and converse well into twilight.

These south or west facing outdoor spaces were generally accessible from the main dining space with easy access to the kitchen. They were the venue for community work day breaks and special celebrations.

Fig 2.26a: Work-day break-time on patio

Fig 2.26b: Sættedammen dining terrace

Fig 2.26d: South-facing covered space at Ådalen 2

Fig 2.26c: South-facing terrace at Bo 90

Fig 2.26e: Patio at street terminus opens out to garden beyond

130

no. 27 Light on Two Sides of Every Room Rooms that have light entering from two sides are more comfortable to occupy and people will want to be there. Consider the differences in your experiences in rooms that are long and rectangular with a window at the far end versus rooms that are day-lit from two sides.

“The importance of this pattern lies partly in the social atmosphere it creates in the room. Rooms lit on two sides, with natural light, create less glare around people and objects….” This facilitates conversations by better illuminating facial expressions and hand gestures while allowing those with diminishing vision to see more of their surroundings. In addition, if there are two windows in close proximity of adjacent walls, the room can seem larger with the expansive views and increased daylight. There is an added benefit that light on two sides can also provide for cross ventilation, reducing mechanical ventilation requirements.

Design rooms to have light enter from two sides, even if the light is borrowed light from an adjacent room via a clerestory in the wall.

Fig 2.27a: Corner windows in kitchen at Kilen

Fig 2.27b: Dining room at Jernstøberiet

Fig 2.27c: Windows & skylight at Bakken provide ample daylight Fig 2.27d: Windows surround dining room at Overblik

131

no. 28 Window Place [180] Windows provide access to light and the view outside, and people are drawn to seats near them. A window place is a physical area described by an indentation in the way in the way of a bay window, window seat, or glaze alcove. However, it can also be created by a comfortable chair or seating area near a window with a low sill (12-14” above the floor - however, it should be noted that panes of glass located less than 18” above the floor will need to be safety glass.)

Combined with the pattern of Alcoves, the window place creates a comfortable place to sit and read, converse, or simply view the activity outdoors.

Fig 2.28a: Window-side table

Fig 2.28b: Table for three by window

Fig 2.28d: Window seat provides cozy reading spot

Fig 2.28c: Window seat

Fig 2.28e: Place comfortable chairs near windows

132

no. 29 Windows Overlooking Life “Rooms without a view are prisons for the people who have to say in them.” Windows mediate our interaction with the outside world. On cold rainy days, a view outdoors provides a feeling of comfort and security to the occupant of a warm room. A view to the activity outside on a sunny day may provide the viewer with a connection with other residents and life in general. While people indicate a desire to have daylight as a reason for being near a window, a view of a brick wall does not seem to count as a window.

Windows overlooking the activity of a community also provides additional eyes on the street, in the words of Jane Jacobs. These additional eyes lend a sense of security and enhance the sense of community.

Rooms in the Common House should have windows that look out onto other parts of the community, whether it is a public street or path, the children’s play area, the patio below or a community garden. The outlook will allow for residents who need to be indoors to feel connected to the world around them.

Fig 2.29a: View of Jerngården homes

Fig 2.29b: View of entry from guestroom

Fig 2.29d: Windows at Andedammen look out to main path

Fig 2.29c: View out towards common path

Fig 2.29e: View from Munksøgård home to adjacent farmland

133

no. 30 Acoustics Residents in both Denmark and North America complain of the noise level in the dining room during common meals and are in constant search for measures to minimize the acoustic impact of 50-80 residents conversing over dinner or children playing in the corner after a meal. The retrofit treatments were generally in the form of homosote panels attached to the ceiling surfaces to reduce or minimize the sound reflection of voices. The result was often not a visually pleasing one. At Stavnsbåndet, the acoustic ceiling was covered in a slatted wood for acoustical purposes. This was visually a nice treatment (see Fig 2.20d).

Physically separate the children’s play area, which tends to be a major source of noise, from the dining room so that the dining experience can be enhanced for all residents.

The design team should include an acoustical engineer and the design process should include a discussion about the noise level of the activities that are likely to occur in the dining room.

Fig 2.30a: Geometric shaped wall panels

Fig 2.30b: Homosote panels on ceiling

Fig 2.20d: Wood planks conceal acoustic panels above

Fig 2.30c: Dramatic use of Homasote

Fig 2.30e: Acoustical tiles integrated into initial ceiling design

134

no. 31 Lighting Eating Atmosphere describes an intimate setting around the dining table, prominently affected by the quality of light over the table. While this attention to lighting should not be limited to the dining experience, the dining room provides the best example of how multiple levels of lighting might be achieved.

Provide pendants over each table to provide flexible lighting - install dimmer switch to increase light levels for table setting and cleanup as well as a softer light level for eating. Additionally, provide brighter ambient fixtures around the perimeter or from the top of the dining room to provide overall illumination for sweeping floors or for general community meetings. Provide a third level of lighting to serves as a night light for those who enter the dining room at night and require only a minimal amount of light to navigate around the dining room. Consider similar lighting strategies for each room in the Common House so that they can be adapted to a variety of uses. Lights should be switched to maximize flexibility. Wall switches should be located at the entry point to the room.

Fig 2.31a: Lighting & candles set mood

Fig 2.31b: 1-2 fxtures per table

Fig 2.31d: Bright task lights of kitchen casts a warm glow at twilight into the community street at Ådalen 1

Fig 2.31c: Select fixtures to minimize glare

Fig 2.31e: Task lights in kitchen at Drivhuset are bright for cooking and cleaning

135

no. 32 Seating It is important to remember that the Common House is the “living room” for the community. Some visitors may never see the interior of a residential unit, so the Common House will be their only impression of the way a community lives. A Pattern Language identifies a pattern called Different Chairs, which may be appropriate for an individual residence, but is not appropriate for the Common House. If done without consideration, Different Chairs becomes the vehicle for residents to donate their old furniture to the community, creating an unkempt appearance through an eclectic assortment of unwanted, and perhaps uncomfortable, chairs.

Select a single style of dining chair – one that is comfortable, attractive, easy to maintain, and ideally stackable. Other styles of chairs may be incorporated into the alcoves around the periphery. While the teen room could accommodate donated furniture, allow the teens to accept/reject furniture that is being offered to them. Each of the guest rooms or teen apartments should have a comfortable chair and small table.

Fig 2.32a: Classic chairs in vibrant colors create visual interest

Fig 2.32b: Stackable chairs provide ultimate flexibility

Fig 2.32c: Classic Danish chairs at Kæphøj Fig 2.32d: Baby/child chairs are consistent Fig 2.32e: Classic design in bold colors

136

Common House Program While the preceding patterns will inform the design, the actual program and configuration of rooms are criticial to creating a successful Common House. Many programmatic elements were observed in the various communities visited, however, the list below identifies essential rooms to provide in a Common House. As space allows, the secondary and tertiary rooms could be provided based on resident preferences.

Many TV lounges and adult conversation areas were observed in the various Common Houses, and it appeared that they were under utilized and constantly renovated to accommodate the changing needs of the community or to increase utility. If the dining room could incorporate the appropriate mix of alcoves, these ancillary “adult” spaces would not be necessary. However, the teens and children need spaces of their own to have some autonomy from their home as well as opportunities to socialize and participate in the community.

Essential Rooms 1.

Dining Room with 3-4 alcoves elevated 3 steps above main dining area (i.e., small booth with table to seat 4-6, bay window seating for 2, nook with couch) 2.

Kitchen with serving counter separating it from dining room 3.

Pantry / Food storage Secondary Rooms (as space allows) 4.

Dish / seasonal decoration storage 5.

Kids room with doorTeen / game room 6.

Entry vestibule with Community Mailboxes, bulletin board, coat storage, and (2) toilets 7.

Laundry 8.

Guest Room(s) 9.

Teen Apartments Tertiary Spaces (would be nice but not necessary) 10.

Shop / workroom 11.

Computer room / community office Furthermore, the success of the Common House also relies on the programming of activities. The frequency of meals dramatically effects the use of the Common House. However more informal, unprogrammed activities (especially those that could occur within an alcove) like doing homework, playing board games, scheduled TV viewing times could help increase activity within the Common House and encourage more frequent, informal stops.

137

chapter four: conclusions Cohousing was started in an effort to recreate the village and help people regain a sense of community inherent in an intimately scaled social structure. Architecture wasn’t the sole solution, but it provided the framework for the social experiement to take shape. The organic development of the cohousing model demonstrates that the design of cohousing is not an exacting science. Looking at the projects of the pioneering architects like Tegnestuen Vandkunsten one can see the evolution of the L-shaped plan and how it transformed in successive projects to address topography, visual hierarchy, and pedestrian circulation.

As a successful iteration of this plan, Jystrup Savværket inspired many other projects with its covered street. This learning from preceding projects continues to impact the design of future communities as more resources become available for researching and comparing cohousing communities.

In looking at the current trends towards community spaces in more traditional market rate housing projects, it is apparent that there is an intentional desire to nurture community through the architecture and exterior spaces. The Common House in cottage-style housing developments is an obvious gesture towards this end. And much like the cohousing communities with covered streets, the central open space, the adjacent pathway linking to the individual residences, and even the private residential porches of the cottage-style developments provide varying degrees of social spaces that allow residents to interact with each other.

This continuum of community spaces can also be seen in larger scale condominium projects that have community rooms or party rooms available for use by the residents. As a destination, the Common House can serve as a destination for community events. However, the string of intervening common spaces contributes to the overall development of communitas within any residential community.

In the North American cohousing communities, the Common House dining room seems to be considered a “multi-purpose” space which is forced to satisfy a multitude of functions and therefore not serving any function particularly well. Architects interested in designing a successful Common House should carefully study the photos depicted in the patterns and compare them to the North American counterparts to determine the appropriate solutions that will help create an ideal dining room, and let the ancillary functions occur through minor temporary modifications to the room.

During my final thesis defense, I was asked about research techniques. One reviewer questioned why, as a research-oriented, master candidate, I had not measured decibel levels in the Common House to defend my design criteria for acoustics. While this question could certainly be addressed in subsequent PhD studies along with measuring light levels, recording wattages in light fixtures and documenting other aspects of the Common House in a more scientific way; it was not my intent to provide scientific evidence of the necessity for my proposed patterns.

However, a reviewer from Denmark informed us that indeed these types of research studies had been conducted in years past by the Danish Building Research Institute. Despite their intent to bring scientific

138

parameters to design, these studies were met with skepticism by the architectural community. The researchers were ridiculed for trying to quantify a subjective set of design criteria.

At the outset of this investigation, I had hoped to quantify the optimal sizes of rooms, types of functions, and sectional qualities of a Common House. In truth, despite my intention to find the ideal physical dimensions for the Common House, the physical aspects appear to be incidental to the creation of community. In taking those measurements and talking with the residents, I’ve learned that there is no single correct solution.

Rather than applying formulas or rules of thumb, it is apparent that considerate study of social patterns and the group dynamics of a community would be a better indicator for identifying successful design criteria for each Common House. In asking residents of each community to comment on the size of their community (number of households), most indicated that their community was the perfect size. This seemed to directly correlate to their expectations for privacy, the level of communitas, and their longevity as a community. As I didn’t solicit this information in a scientific manner, it’s difficult to determine if any or all of the communities felt that they had the ideal Common House. Based on the anecdotal evidence and observations, the optimal size and function of a Common House seems to dependant on the residents of the particular community.

Therefore, I acknowledge that it is not possible to produce definitive design guidelines for the perfect Common House. I present this document as a resource for newly forming cohousing communities and architects to consider in the design of the Common House with the caution that each criterion should be evaluated for its relevance to the needs and budgetary or site constraints of each community.

139

bibliography Books Alexander, Christopher, et al. A Pattern Language. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1965.

This seminal book is the second in a three part series intended to provide an alternative to the present ideas of architecture, building, and planning. Written by a team of architects, planners, and sociologists, the book provides a language of patterns determined by past human behaviors.

These patterns are intended to serve as a framework for creating ideal spaces for human interaction at all scales of human habitation (the larger region and city to the individual homes for habitation.) The patterns are arranged from larger to smaller with each pattern relating to other larger and smaller patterns. Each pattern is formatted to include: a reference for the larger related patterns, a statement of the problem, the sociological explanation for how the pattern has evolved a statement of solution, and a reference to the related smaller patterns. Photos and diagrams help illustrate each pattern.

Brown, Susan Love, ed. Intentional Community: An Anthropological Perspective. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002.

Collection of essays about intentional communities. Essay by Lucy Jayne Kamau posits that limiality, communitas, and charisma are necessary characteristics for successful communities.

Elizabeth A. DeWolfe provides discussion of gender and community through an historical account of the Shaker community in Enfield, New Hampshire. Johnathan G. Andelson investigates the formation and dissolution of communities, coining the terms “sociogenesis” and “schismogenesis” to define these periods of disequilibrium. Andelson uses early American intentional communities traditionally referenced in community literature to demonstrate the formative beginnings and eventual endings. The editor also provides an introduction for the book as well as an essay accounting the formation of the Ananda community and its charismatic leader/yogi Swami Kriyananda. Three other essays by Gretchen Siegler, Lawrence Foster, and Matthew RenfroSargent provide additional insights into intentional communities related to religion, alternative marriage systems, and refugee camps. The book provides an alternative viewpoint (aptly subtitled “An Anthropological Perspective”) on historic and contemporary intentional communities.

French, David and Elena French. Working Communally: Patterns and Possibilities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1975.

Negative account of intentional communities. Provides insights into communes and ICs of the hippy, drop-out generation based on personal experiences seeking community.

Fromm, Dorit. Collaborative Communities. New York: Van Nostrand Rheinhold, 1991.

The author provides a thorough overview of collaborative housing – in a variety of physical manifestations, but all centered on the idea of community. Divided into three parts, the book looks at European precedents, American examples, and the development “how-tos” of creating a collaborative community.

Part One starts off with an introduction to collaborative housing – how they are socially structured, developed, and managed. Danish, Dutch, and Swedish examples include social housing, cohousing, co-ops; collectives and service apartments. Part Two provide American examples of collective communities. These examples range from early cohousing communities, collectives, and co-ops as well as more creative methods of re-claiming backyards in a typical suburban neighborhood, and single family homes on shared rural acreage to create community. Part Three defines the considerations for creating a community, establishing mission, and how to make a community a physical place. Text is augmented by diagrams, plans, and photos of existing communities and illustrations of hypothetical projects. Basic project information (including location, year built, number of units, type of ownership, and architects) is provided for each case study.

This book is a good overview for those who want to learn more about collaborative housing as well as how to make it a reality.

140

Gehl, Jan. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1987.

Hayden, Dolores. Redesigning the American Dream – The Future of Housing, Work, and Family Life. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd., 1984.

The author, a professor of Architecture and Urban Planning at UCLA, is an innovative historian and critic of American community and its housing. In her historical overview of American suburban housing, she proposes that post-war suburbs became the American Dream for the working man, but was in reality a domestic prison for the homebound woman.

The text is augmented by many historical photos of housing and advertising that has aided the proliferation of this suburban condition. With major changes that have occurred in homeownership, the “ideal” home is no longer what it was in the days when men were the sole wage earners for a household. She encourages a rethinking of public life that allows women to be fully engaged in society through an architecture that provides housing alternatives. Increasing housing density through accessory apartments (now referred to as accessory dwelling units), duplexes and triplexes may provide increased sociability for a quickly diminishing number of homemakers as well as working single mothers. Many other housing options are suggested for a redefined “family” unit as well as special needs cases – elderly and battered women. Many photos and floor plans help illustrate these housing options.

Hanson, Chris. The Cohousing Handbook: Building a Place for Community. Vancouver, BC: Hartley & Marks, 1996.

As indicated in the title, this is truly a handbook, written by a seasoned cohousing consultant to help groups get cohousing built. While it is possible to do so, the book is not intended to be read cover to cover. Chapters are written in a step by step manner to facilitate easy reference of specific subjects and have titles such as The Development Process, Working with Professionals, Finance and Budget, and Legal Issues. Contributions from cohousing “experts” ranging from checklists, success stories, and “how tos” are incorporated throughout the text. In addition, sample documents (legal, rules, recruiting materials, letters) help illustrate the text.

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1992.

Marcus, Clare Cooper and Wendy Sarkissian. Housing as if People Mattered: Site Design Guidelines for Medium-Density Family Housing. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.

A book of patterns in the vain of Alexander’s A Pattern Language but specifically for multifamily housing.

McCamant, Kathryn and Charles Durret. Cohousing –A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves, Second Edition with Ellen Hertzman. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press, 1994.

Considered by most cohousing enthusiasts to be the “bible” for cohousing, this seminal book was first published in 1988 and paved the way for this social movement in North America. As the first introduction to the Danish model of bofoellesskaber (or cohousing, a term coined by the authors), there are profiles of eight Danish models; seven pioneering American communities; and a brief overview of the process for creating cohousing - from forming a group to getting it built. The profiles include site plans, floor plans, and photos from the communities.

141

Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut. Bofælleskaber: En Eksempelsamling - SBI Rapport 187.

Published 1988. ISBN 87-563-0648-2 Comprehensive document of Danish cohousing communities built by 1988 including site plans, residential floor plans, Common House plans, and project data. Text is entirely in Danish except for an English overview provided in the back of the book. However, a translation is provided for the Danish terms used in the comparative data which aids in the understanding of the descriptive information.

Schehr, Robert C. Dynamic Utopia: Establishing Intentional Communities as a New Social Movement. Westport:Bergin & Garvey, 1997.

Academic account of Intentional Communities as a New Social Movement. Schehr provides an overview of the IC movement in relation to community building process in the United States.

Schehr is a professor of sociology at the University of Illinois in Springfield.

Shenker, Barry. Intentional Communities: Ideology and Alienation of Communal Societies.

Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul plc, 1986.

Thorough account of Intentional Communities with case studies of classic ICs (Hutterites, Kibbutz).

Addresses origins, ideology, and socialization. Shenker addresses the individual, deviance and conformity, as well as exclusive relations.

Scott, Andrew. The Promise of Paradise: Utopian Communities in B.C. Vancouver, BC: White Cap Books, 1997.

Historical account of utopian communities in British Columbia starting with the settlement of Metlakatla by William Duncan in 1856. Early Anglican communal efforts were followed by the establishment of numerous Scandanavian: Norwegian colonies of Hagensborg and Quatsino pioneered by Reverend Christian Saugstad; the formation of a Danish colony by Rasmus Hansen following the model of the Danish ‘folk school’; and the Finnish community at Sointula founded under similar nationalistic auspices by Matti Kurikka. A wandering Russian preacher by the name of Danila Filippov established a religious sect that lived communally dubbed the Doukhobors.

The final community described is one surrounded by myth, started with a spiritual premise by Englishman Edward Arthur Wilson, later known as Brother XII. The book concludes with a summary of present day activity of communal living, highlighting cohousing and other alternative communities. Many historical photos are included.

Smith, William L. Families and communes: an examination of nontraditional lifestyles.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999.

Part of a series entitled “Understanding Families”, the book is written primarily for a college audience who are interested in cultural issues surrounding family, community, and religion.

Provides an overview of communal societies in North America, including profiles of historic communal Utopias. Smith provides a comparison of rural and urban communities during the ’60s‘70s and how they differ/resemble those of the ‘80s-‘90s. He draws conclusion from survey data on family structure, effects on children, development of intimate relationships, and community size.

His conclusions indicate anticipated growth of intentional communities in the third millennium with a greater diversity of hierarchical structures and shared beliefs. He posits that the pros/cons of community life may attract those with difference perspectives of what constitutes family…but that whatever the definition; families will have an essential role in communal life. Positives effects of community will be felt within society through individuals with balanced levels of life satisfaction.

Sprague, Joan Forrester. More than Housing; Lifeboats for Women and Children. Boston: Butterworth Architecture, 1991.

The author proposes a new way to consider housing for women and children in transition.

142

Lifeboats, as she refers to them, are places of residence that create a supportive community set within the larger context of a neighborhood. While not revolutionary, the case studies are realized projects that provide both an economic and social framework for working mothers. Aside from housing, lifeboats often provide social services such as childcare, counseling, play spaces, and access to training. These services may become a neighborhood benefit (or perceived as potential generators of problems). She does not claim a prescriptive process for the design of lifeboats.

Sprague provides a brief historical overview of the inequities of women in housing. Lifeboats have been designed (intentionally as lifeboats or not) for women in various stages in transition - single mothers, recent immigrants, welfare mothers trying to get their life in order, women with mental illness, former prostitutes, teen mothers, and women transitioning from drug or alcohol abuse. The text is illustrated with numerous photographs and floor plans.

University of Washington Architectural Theses Aufderheide, Michael, Cohousing communities as live-work environments, 1995 Caye, John D., Alameda cohousing : a comparative exploration of residential development, affordability, and principles of building sustainable communities, 2001 Kurtz, William Harold, A cohousing community design for OPAL Community Land Trust on Orcas Island : bofællesskab in the San Juan Islands, 1991 Masters thesis proposal for a cohousing community on San Juan Island. Through award of a Valle Scholarship, the author lived in a Danish bofoellesskab for four months to learn first hand about the social movement known in the U.S. as cohousing. His thesis document is illustrated by sketches of social and physical contexts from his studies in Denmark. The author provides a thorough summary of cohousing and Danish case studies as well as a detailed analysis of the site on San Juan. The proposal is well written and documented and includes many helpful diagrams of design concepts and intent.

McGilvra, Shane T., Clustered cohousing : a post-materialist American village, 2002 McLaren, John, An Alternative Approach to Community, Privacy, and Open Space: Proposal for a Cohousing Development in Seattle’s Mount Baker Neighborhood, 1989.

The first architectural thesis on cohousing to be completed at the Univeristy of Washington. The author provides a summary of the McCamant and Durret’s recently published book, Cohousing Communities: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves, including a thorough analysis of many Danish bofoellesskaber (cohousing communities). Document includes an urban design study of the proposed site in the Mt. Baker neighborhood of Seattle; design program; development proforma for proposed project; and proposed design for cohousing community. Many diagrams and illustrations accompany the text.

Stannard, Sandra Jean, Bofoellesskaber versus cohousing, 1992 An in-depth study of bofoellesskaber employing a great deal of interviews and notes from travels to Denmark.

Zielke, Stephen Walter, Dovetails where appropriate: live-work cohousing for Ballard Avenue furniture makers, 2000 Masters thesis investigating the potential for cohousing in Ballard for a group of furniture makers.

Documentation includes historical photos of Ballard, photos of furniture shops, and illustrations for the proposed project.

143

Essays / Articles McCamant, Kathyrn. “Cohousing Communities: A Model for Reinvigorating Urban Neighborhoods”, New Village, Issue 1, 1999.

An introductory primer on cohousing.

Kim, Gina. “A real feeling of community: Cohousing concept an antidote to society’s isolation”, Seattle Times, May 21, 2001. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134297646_cohousing21m.html.

Cooper-Marcus, Clare. “The Spirit of City Unconcealed.” Eco-Villages & Sustainable Communities: Models for 21st Century Living. Gaia Trust & Findhorn Foundation.

The Park, Findhorn, Scotland: Findhorn Press, 1997, p. 47-52.

Cooper-Marcus is author of several books on design guidelines for housing and communities, this article is part of the recorded proceedings from a conference sponsored by Gaia Trust & Findhorn Foundation in 1995.

Includes a brief history of cities, statement of current problems, and how to make cities more socially sustainable. Suburbanization in the industrialized West led to the creation of “castles” to “protect” middle class women and children. Offers urban design suggestions that could increase sociability and enriched public life, including housing alternatives. Also encourages access to nature over access to technology for children as well as adults.

Fonzi, Gaeton. “The New Arrangement.” The Nuclear Family in Crisis: The search for an Alternative. ed Gordon, Michael. New York: Harper Row, Publishers, Inc., 1972, p.

180-195.

A narrative on communal living in Philadelphia. Fonzi describes what he observes as differences among “crash pads”, cooperatives, and intentional communities. The first being a place stay with no commitments of time or money. The second being a cheaper way to live…share costs of living and sometimes eating expenses with others, but again with no commitments to other residents.

An intention towards community as well as feelings of family are common characteristics for communes (Fonzi uses commune and intentional community interchangeably.., which does not necessarily correlate to other definitions of the two terms.) He profiles a number of communes that arose out of political action oft combined with Quaker values of pacifism.

Hayden, Delores. “What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like? Speculations on Housing, Urban Design, and Human Work” Critical Perspectives on Housing. eds. Bratt, Rachel et al. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986, p. 230-246.

This chapter was originally part of text for a conference talk and has appeared in other publications.

Insightful article on how zoning and the historic role of women in domestic activities has led to housing options that are not suitable for working mothers and two income families. Hayden suggests a social housing model being employed in scandavian countries that acknowledges the contemporary needs of working mothers and integrating social/child care/service needs into the housing environment. While not quite the cohousing model, Hayden illustrates urban and suburban housing/living configurations that integrate these “day to day” aspects of contemporary life.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. “Communes.” The Nuclear Family in Crisis: The search for an Alternative. ed Gordon, Michael. New York: Harper Row, Publishers, Inc., 1972, p.

173-179.

Kanter is a pioneering sociologist who made significant contributions to the sociological literature related to communities before entering into the business world. In this early article, she states that a quest for togetherness has led to a proliferation of “communal living experiments” that vary widely from small urban groups sharing living quarters and family rearing to rural farming communes.

144

While communal living was experiencing renewed interest at the time of the article, Kanter points out that the American desire a Utopian community can be traced to the early 1860’s. In studying 19th century American communities, she has drawn conclusions and comparisons to anarchist communes and growth-center communities of the early 70’s. She found that the unstructured anarchist communes were too temporal and could not sustain themselves over time; while the highly ordered growth and learning centers could endure due to individual’s commitment towards a common vision of life in community.

------. “Communes in the City.” Co-ops, Communes & Collectives: Experiments in Social Change in the 1960’s and 1970’s. eds. Case, John and Rosemary Taylor. New York: Pantheon Books, 1979, p. 112-135.

Kanter points out the differences between contemporary communes with more conventional relationships to the “outside world” versus the “back-to-the-land” communes of the early 60’s that had counterculture roots with strong ties to more rural/spiritual communes.

Kanter characterizes urban communes as: challenging/altering assumptions of gender roles; signalizing a change in the future definition of family relationships; and attracting younger uncommitted adults, single parents, newly separated, and elders that are often in a transitional point in their life. She also cites the rewards and challenges of communes - a strong sense of belonging and community; perceived and real inequities of cleaning; benefits to social/emotional development of children; strength of “collective energy”; and cyclical/temporal nature of “success”.

While specific to communes, the literature draws some important conclusions about social structure and benefits to children that can be directly applied to cohousing.

Metcalf, Bill. “The Wisdom of the Communal Elders.” Eco-Villages & Sustainable Communities: Models for 21st Century Living. Gaia Trust & Findhorn Foundation.

The Park, Findhorn, Scotland: Findhorn Press, 1997, p. 77.

25-30 years into the global “new-age” of communal living, Metcalf states that longevity and crossgenerational sustainable are crucial to any analysis of the contemporary communal movement.

Diverse stories from elders demonstrate at: • communal living attracts and creates fascinating characters • a spiritual, “beyond self” orientation is almost always needed • leadership is critical • conflict is endemic but will somehow be resolved • material, political, social, and spiritual planes are all entwined • sustainable communal societies are possible but difficult

145

Websites General information http://www.cohousing.org/index.html \http://www.ic.org/ http://mn.cohousing.org/urban/ http://www.grahammeltzer.com/cohousing/index.htm http://www.re-solution.co.uk/ecohousing.htm Lists of communities http://www.ic.org/iclist.coho.html (list of communities) http://www.cohousing.org/cmty/groups.html (search communities by location) http://www.augustana.ca/rdx/eng/activism/comun_eng.htm (list of communities) Listserves / bulletin boards http://lists.cohousing.org/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l http://www.heartwoodcohousing.com/CHATLIST.html PaciďŹ c Northwest Communities visited http://www.bellinghamcohousing.org/ http://www.seattlecohousing.org/ http://www.duwamish.net/ http://www.scn.org/pugetridgecohousing/ http://www.winslowcohousing.org/ http://www.cranberrycommons.ca/ http://www.windsong.bc.ca/ http://www.cohousing.ca/cohsng4/quayside/ http://home.worldonline.dk/bo90/home/bo90.htm Additional Communities researched http://www.emeryville-cohousing.org/ http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/nstreet/ http://sharingwood.org/ http://www.swansway.com/ http://www.jpcohousing.org/ http://www.songaia.com/

146

Danish Communities visited http://home.worldonline.dk/bo90/home/bo90.htm http://www.stavnsbaandet.dk/ http://www.aadalen85.dk http://www.aadalen86.dk http://www.ibsgaarden.dk http://www.ab-drivhuset.dk http://www.fc.trudeslund.dk http://www.jystrup-savvaerk.dk/Jystrup-savvaerk.asp http://www.munkesoegaard.dk/ Additional Danish Sites http://www.communitarian.net/cohonet/denmark/tour.html http://www.faelleshave.dk/ http://www.svanholm.dk Cohousing Professionals http://cohousing.org/cohousing-professionals.aspx (list of professionals) http://www.cohousingco.com/cale.htm http://www.cohousingresources.com/ http://www.whdc.com/ http://www.cohousingconsulting.ca/ http://www.krausďŹ tch.com/ Resources http://www.census.gov/

www.schemataworkshop.com