Re: Questioning cohousing ideals | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Berrins (Berrinsaol.com) | |
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 23:29:06 -0600 (MDT) |
1. How do you justify separating cars into central carparks on the perimeter of a community? Issues of access to the homes, weather etc seem to preclude having perimeter parking in her mind. Lots of good answers so far, so I'll just throw in a few minor points. - Car access is still available. Horrible weather, sleeping kids and shopping loads too large for the carts are all drive-up-to-the-house situations. But for the vast majority of times, it's really no problem at all to park and walk, and our house is the furthest from the lot (about 300 feet). In fact, it's much healthier. - I hope to put a basketball hoop somewhere in our overflow parking area; we even have the land and resources to put in our own court should we chose to do so. Try playing basketball in a one- or two-car driveway with a car in it! << 4. The rythmn of the street relies on buildings having a prescribed setback from the street [supposedly]. By clustering my buildings and facing them toward the local river, I have turned my back on this 'streetscape'. How do you address this change of rythmn and change of ownership of space [balance of public and private space has been altered.>> Urban buildings have virtually no set-back. The steps frequently empty right out onto the sidewalks or have a tiny walk. People sit on the stoop and interaction is high. Clustered buildings have a similar effect- get folks close to each other and they'll interact. Put a large lawn, driveway, or fence in the way and interaction plummets. Keeping the front yards small is one way that cohousing clusters create interactive neighborhoods. The "street" is simply a pedestrian one, like the sidewalk an urban building connects to. Cohousing also creates new "quasi-public" spaces. Houses are private, streets nearby but outside the community are public, and the pedestrian paths and green spaces within are "quasi-public"; used mostly by cohousers and friends but not by the general public. Facing houses toward the river is not a cohousing concept; facing them towards each other is. Sure, each house can have a view of the river, or even face the river; but they should also face each other. In other words, a well-designed cohousing house does not "turn it's back" on anything; the goal is inclusion, not exclusion. And it works. We lived for over 12 years on a 1/4 acre lot on a typical city street in Northampton. Off street parking, no sidewalk on our side. We rarely interacted with anyone from our street because we rarely saw anyone close enough to say hi to. We had some good friends one street over and went there a lot (still do), but for the most part people drove up to their houses, parked and went inside. So did we. I can't begin to tell you how much that has changed since we moved into Pathways five months ago. As far as your instructor's prejudice goes, I would ask you; on what research that directly investigates cohousing does she base her opinions? Also, has she ever spent any time at a cohousing community or has she formed these opini ons in a real-life vacuum? You may already know more than she does about cohousing. If that's the case, good luck! -Roger Berman Pathways Cohousing Northampton, MA
- Re: Questioning cohousing ideals, (continued)
- Re: Questioning cohousing ideals lilbert, September 7 2000
- Re: Questioning cohousing ideals Hans Tilstra, September 7 2000
- Re: Questioning cohousing ideals RowenaHC, September 7 2000
- RE: Questioning cohousing ideals Odysseus Levy, September 7 2000
- Re: Questioning cohousing ideals Berrins, September 7 2000
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.