|Re: Cohousing-L Digest, Vol 153, Issue 4||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Susan (susan.mxgmail.com)|
|Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 09:17:59 -0700 (PDT)|
What does any of this have to do with *marketing Aria Cohousing in Denver to families*? Please change the subject line when you change the subject. Construction is in progress and most of the apartments have been sold so whether or not to stack apartments is irrelevant to my question. I do get it about the need for soundproofing but even those decisions have already been made. I was hoping to hear from parents and how they found out about new communities or people who know Denver. At this point we have one couple who will be having a baby in December. We won't be moving in until April. If anyone out there has more suggestions about this topic, please write back with the subject line I put in my original post. Thanks very much. Susan Green On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 3:16 AM, <cohousing-l-request [at] cohousing.org> wrote: > Send Cohousing-L mailing list submissions to > cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.cohousing.org/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cohousing-l-request [at] cohousing.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cohousing-l-owner [at] cohousing.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Cohousing-L digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: marketing Aria Cohousing in Denver to families > (R Philip Dowds) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 05:26:01 -0400 > From: R Philip Dowds <rpdowds [at] comcast.net> > To: Liang Mabel <mabel [at] twomeeps.com> > Cc: Cohousing-L <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org> > Subject: Re: [C-L]_ marketing Aria Cohousing in Denver to families > Message-ID: <AA128C8B-D5A9-4303-8B85-80BAC75DACC2 [at] comcast.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hello Mabel ? > > Yes, in a four story apartment building, there may be an apparent benefit > in making single units out of floors three and four, combined via an > internal unit stair. This eliminates not just one elevator stop, but also > egress stairs and corridors for the top floor. So at the fourth floor, > ?unsellable? common space paid for by all gets converted to ?sellable" > condo floor area. Is this a plus? Maybe for the community ? although the > expense and nuisance of interior vertical circulation then gets transferred > from the community to the dwelling unit. > > And Yes, I know that the finalized architectural design had to comply with > a building footprint that got jammed up in an approval process. Even so, > I?ve never quite followed why there is a two-story unit accessed from the > first floor, and two two-story units, from the second. I do know that our > current 1000 sq ft single level apartment works much better than our former > single family house, which was 1500 sq ft with a winder to the second level. > > Thanks, > Philip Dowds > Cornerstone Village Cohousing > Cambridge, MA > > PS: And thank you for being such a quiet overhead neighbor. > > > On Oct 2, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Mabel Liang <mabel [at] twomeeps.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Phil (who lives downstairs from us!), > > > > I don't pretend to understand, but we had wanted our 3+ bedroom > > apartment to be all on one level, and the architect told us he couldn't > > do it within the constraints of the footprint (which was already > > pre-ordained for him by the previous plans filed with the city). > > > > I think part of it has to do with the fact that with our commitment to > > visitability (see http://www.visitability.org/), we were putting either > > an elevator or a lift in both of our apartment buildings. By having the > > second floor of apartments be reachable only within the apartments, it > > means that the 4-story building only needed an elevator to go to the 3rd > > floor, and the 3-story building only needed a lift to go between the 1st > > and 2nd floors. Thus saving money. > > > > -- Mabel :-) > > > > mabel [at] twomeeps.com > > Mabel Liang > > Software Engineer turned Gardener > > Cornerstone Village Cohousing > > Cambridge, MA > > > > On 2016-10-01 06:52, R Philip Dowds wrote: > > > >> Actually, there is a lot of construction technology available for > effective noise mitigation. For instance, in wood frame construction, > there is the option of including a subfloor of 1" or 1 1/2" thick "Gyp > Crete" or "cementitious underlayment". Combine this with a ceiling hung on > resilient clips (not nailed direct to the floor structure), and acoustic > isolation between units gets pretty good. "Extra" cost is the main reason > why this very routine technology gets squeezed out of the project > construction budget. > >> > >> The building I live in is an elevatored, four story wood frame > construction with the usual common egress stairs. But the unit layouts > feature a number of un-flats: larger apartments divided into two stories > with an internal stair. Frankly, I've never much understood this > approach: The additional unit stairs consume space and add cost, and make > much of the apartment inaccessible to the mobility-impaired. In my > opinion, the identical floor areas would be more useful if kept in the > flat-over-flat format. With proper sound isolation, of course. > Eliminating the internal stairs could go a long way to paying for the Gyp > Crete. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Philip Dowds > >> Cornerstone Village Cohousing > >> Cambridge, MA > >> > >>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 5:39 PM, Beverly Jones Redekop < > beverly.jones.redekop [at] gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> 3. AVOID STACKED FLATS AT ALL COSTS! Our ugliest conflicts have been > the > >>> result of larger units (1440 s.f. with three bedrooms) stacked above > >>> smaller units (1000 s.f. two bedrooms). Families live above > empty-nesters, > >>> and our side-to-side soundproofing works great, but the above & below > >>> doesn't work much at all. Noise leads to short tempers and nasty > >>> comments. It would have been so much better to have these units side > by > >>> side as stacked personal homes (the 1000 s.f. as 500 down and 500 up; > the > >>> 1440 as 720 down and 720 up). If you must have a few 1000 s.f. units > all > >>> on one level for accessibility, put a unit that is severely skewed > towards > >>> child-free households above, such as a tiny studio or one bedroom...or > >>> common house storage or something. You will be tempted to stack units > to > >>> save money, but it is the worst possible disaster you could ever > inflict > >>> upon yourselves....and aren't personal interior staircases cheaper than > >>> public exterior staircases anyhow? > >> > >> _________________________________________________________________ > >> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: > >> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/ > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: > > http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/ > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _________________________________________________________________ > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: > http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/ > > ------------------------------ > > End of Cohousing-L Digest, Vol 153, Issue 4 > ******************************************* >
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.