Re: 180 degrees (360 degrees actually)
From: Becky Weaver (beckyweaverswbell.net)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 07:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
I agree with James that the homes at at the ends of triangles radiating from a 
central parking area is probably not a good model for a cohousing site plan. 
   
  Different goal, different result. 
   
  I think that especially in an urban area, where a community has more control 
over what happens in the center of their lot, than on the edges (where there 
are probably already streets or buildings, and where they do not own the 
adjacent land) the best place for the pedestrian spaces is in the center of the 
lot. 
   
  The 360 degree strategy of minimizing parking/pavement might not work well in 
a city, where there is probably already lots of pavement around the site, and 
driveways/parking are going to take up nearly the same square footage no matter 
where they're located on the lot. At that point, one goal would be to keep 
paved areas away from living spaces to minimize heat gain. At least that's 
important in the climates I'm familiar with. Probably heat gain is not a big 
worry in Canada, or Denmark, or England. But maybe drainage is.  
   
  Becky Weaver
  Central Austin Cohousing/Kaleidoscope Village 
  Austin, Texas
  

James Kacki <jimkacki [at] mts.net> wrote:
  I come 
from England originally, but there is so much open land here that it's 
easy to forget that in much denser, more populated parts of the world 
'getting away from it all', 'back to the earth' means occupying a small 
triangle of land in the radiating garden plots that we've been looking at.
My only point in my last posting was that it did not seem to be an 
appropriate model for co-housing site plans. Although you 
apartment-block co-housers may have a different perspective?
James

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.