Common bonds: what it takes to make a village

Residential Architect, August, 2002 by Kathryn McCamant

I first came across cohousing communities as an architecture student studying in Denmark in 1980. It seemed such an obvious approach to housing that I assumed most American architects would already know about it. I assumed wrong.

There was nothing written in English about these new communities that combined the autonomy of private homes with the advantages of community living. Designed as planned-unit developments, cohousing communities cluster homes around extensive common facilities such as a kitchen and dining hall, sitting areas, children's play rooms, guest rooms, and laundry facilities. Each home is self-sufficient with a complete kitchen, but common facilities and activities--particularly group dinners held several times a week--are an integral part of daily life.

The physical design of cohousing encourages a strong sense of community. Pedestrian-oriented site plans keep cars at the periphery and place play and garden spaces (people space) between the houses. Informal gathering spaces are defined by picnic tables and children's play areas throughout the site. Kitchens face the common areas between homes, making it easy to keep an eye on the kids or nab a neighbor for a recipe. These features create a different feel from a neighborhood of cul-de-sacs and garages. Typically 12 to 40 units, cohousing developments establish intergenerational neighborhoods where everyone really does know your name.

Several years after that first trip to Denmark, as my husband, architect Charles Durrett, and I pondered how we would juggle careers and family, we kept thinking of the Danish communities we had seen. In 1984, we returned to Denmark to take a closer look. This trip eventually led to our book Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves and the beginning of the North American cohousing movement.

growth and change

For a decade we have lived in a cohousing community ourselves: Doyle Street Cohousing in Emeryville, Calif. We celebrated its 10-year anniversary last week end, and the next day, we celebrated the groundbreaking for a new 30-unit community just north of San Francisco. Sixty-eight completed cohousing projects now span North America with another 150 in the planning stages. Cohousing is attracting middle-class families, singles, and seniors seeking a strong sense of community, shared facilities that complement private residences, and comfortable, energy-efficient homes.

Our firm, The CoHousing Company (part of McCamant & Durrett Architects) has provided design and development services for dozens of these communities (for an example of McCamant and Durrett's work, see page 57). Early on, we found that in order to have the opportunity to design cohousing, we needed to learn how to market, develop, and finance it as well. We eventually became a full-service cohousing development company in addition to an architecture firm.

One of defining characteristic of cohousing is active participation of future residents in the design and development of the community. Our firm involves residents in the earliest stages through a series of design workshops, and we keep homebuyers updated by working closely with various committees. The homebuyers' involvement helps them create a unifying voice during the entitlement process. It also helps them build a social community as we build the physical structures. The buyers also are significant investors in the development partnership, which ties them to the financial success of the community and reduces the risk of producing a traditional housing product.

blueprint for success

Working with a group client requires a disciplined design process with explicit agreements about when input from the group is needed and when it is too late. As architects, we must have group facilitation skills and listen to the consensus of the group--not just hear the ideas we prefer. At the same time, participants want to hear our professional opinions. I consider it my job to challenge the participants to understand their options and the implications of their decisions--especially monetary choices. The professional team must continually set realistic expectations about the budget and building standards.

The most important initial input our firm can receive from a community is a clear program that establishes their design criteria and priorities. We seek maximum involvement from our clients in the earliest programming and schematic design phases; then the professionals work out the details. Most of the community members we work with cannot afford custom homes. So, though we design custom neighborhoods, we must not let our clients slip into thinking that the customization extends to each individual unit.

I find that one of the most exciting aspects of a participatory design process is the ability to get direct market feedback on the tradeoffs people are willing to make. Homebuyer involvement has allowed our firm to use "green building" techniques, which would otherwise not be seen as marketable by speculative developers. We find that cohousing residents are ready to give up attached garages for more usable, child-friendly outdoor areas, even in northern climates like Michigan and Massachusetts. They value high-quality, energy-efficient heating and cooling systems and willingly increase house prices and forego air conditioning in order to include hydronic heat. They also will scale back the size of private homes to afford more community facilities.