| Resident Participation in Design | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Danny Milman (danny cohousingco.com)
|
|
| Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:02:25 -0600 (MDT) | |
> THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --MS_Mac_OE_3038476989_960021_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable RESIDENT PARTICIPATION IN PRIVATE HOUSE DESIGN? Lately I=B9ve heard a lot of discussion in the cohousing world about an issue close to my heart. Should the private houses be designed with or without group input? Much of this discussion arises from the attempt to cut costs in the development of cohousing. I do believe that many larger issues should be solved if we=B9re serious about substantially bringing the costs of cohousing projects down. Resident input in design, if well facilitated, is a minor cost issue. There are 22 reasons the value of resident design overwhelms any costs that might be incurred in all but the most atypical project. 22 REASONS FOR PARTICIPATORY DESIGN: 1. VALUE Put the money where it=B9s needed and not where it=B9s not needed. Th= e group members are the most qualified to decide what their priorities are. 2. QUALITY Inclusion of group members in the design process leads to accountability on the professionals=B9 part. 3. OWNERSHIP We did it! To the extent that people help define their place i= s the extent that they own it and go the extra mile to make sure that it happens. The extra umph is often necessary to make a project successful. 4. LIVING LIGHTER Thoughtful always leads to less and smaller. If you give people time to think about it, they will figure out how to downsize. 5. BETTER HOUSES Clearer criteria leads to a better house. 6. LOWER COSTS Developers without clear criteria will straddle the fence between cohousers and the regular market and cost the project more. They will incorporate the perceived cohousing values (extra sound proofing, sustainable lumber, all fluorescent lights, etc.), and that would have to b= e a guess because each group has different priorities, and the perceived amenities for the general market like large bathrooms, garbage disposals, larger kitchens, etc. Group members can say which of those are important t= o them. 7. COMMUNITY Where we built is where we stand. 8. MARKETING "Check out this cool cabinet door. It was my idea." Oh and by the way=8A 9. MARKETING I=B9ve got to help get more group members so I can get to see that cool cabinet door built. 10. FASTER PROJECT I=B9ll be at the city council meeting for approvals, I=B9ll talk to the neighbor about access, I=B9ll meet with planning department about lesser fees, because I own it emotionally. I want to see that cool cabinet door get built. 11. SMOOTHER PROJECT To know is to decide. To skip over details is to backtrack, retrace, upend and undo. "A horse cart in reverse is ugly." 12. SHORTER TIME A horse cart in reverse is slower. 13. IT HAPPENS Some people who can=B9t be involved won=B9t participate. 14. REDUCED LIABILITY FOR PROFESSIONALS & REDUCED CHANCE OF THE HORROR OF LITIGATION FOR THE GROUP I asked Mike Corbett (the developer of Village Homes in Davis, CA) why more projects like Village homes have not been built. His reply was that no developer wants to create such an empowered homeowners association. On the other hand, our insurance company told us that the best way to avoid liability is a relationship with the residents and their participation in the design. I really believe that to the extent a project is codesigned, is the extent that people share responsibility and won=B9t point fingers. 50% of typical condo projects end in lawsuits. I wouldn=B9t have anything to do with that world. No cohousing communities hav= e gone to suit with the architect or developer. That=B9s a better world. It i= s this liability protection that actually allows cohousing to be built at all= . After the first suit caused by the typical separation of roles (residents a= s discreet from designers), that developer and architect will stay away from cohousing. 15. THEY WANT TO. And if they don=B9t, then I would suggest not doing it. But I=B9m not sure money and time will be saved in the end. 16. WOULD LOSE SOMETHING VITAL: While in Denmark, some folks didn=B9t want t= o talk to us because they didn=B9t want to see cohousing (bofaelleskaber) go to the US. We would "Americanize it" and key aspects of community and ownership would be lost. To cut the group out of the process would "Americanize it." 17. SUSTAINABILITY Two key qualities of sustainability are reduced resource consumption and stewardship. You stewward the part of the world you own emotionally. 18. MARKETING: This is a key part of the cohousers role in cohousing, create the community and excitement that sell the houses. Unless a "born salesperson," people will only help sell what they helped create. 19. BETTER UNITS: They are better units, not because they designed their own unit but because someone did, a group of folks with real lives and real experiences. The resulting units are able to cover many of life=B9s conditions. It is less important that people designed their own house. 20. QUICKER PROJECT: It goes faster. If people don=B9t participate, they always end up saying "can=B9t we just change this one little thing? How about this and a little of that?" It is faster just to do it with the group in the beginning and get it over with. And have all parties agree that we have that part behind us. 21. LESS RISK.: I can tell in about two minutes if I am going in the wrong direction with a household group or not. (As many of you know, we break down into 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, 3-bedroom, 3-bed deluxe, etc. household groups) Potentially we can end up with less houses that, in fact, no one is interested in. It has become an anthropological experience =AD OK, these are the kinds of houses these folks need and want. 22. SMALLER HOUSES: Of the dozens of cohousing projects we have designed all the way through, the average house size is less than 1,200 s.f. compare= d to 2,100 s.f. for the national average of new houses. The only way that people will go for smaller houses is when they have had the opportunity to listen to each other make a point about "okay, that is going to be in the common house" and "oh yeah, that is going to be in the common house=8A." People can agree or not, but no argument leaves us with all of our old habits. The same thing with houses on the interior of a cluster. People are sure they won=B9t work until they talk about them. "Oh, there won=B9t be enough natural light, they are going to be more noisy." Especially when mos= t people come from single family houses. All of this is critical in the context of people wanting more sustainable environmental design. Few things are more important than smaller clustered houses. OUR SUCCESSFUL EXPERIENCE Cohousers let you know what they think but, no one has ever expressed "wished you had just designed the houses without us" or "we think you did a bad job." Yet several communities have expressed strongly that "we wished you also designed the private houses with us like you did the site and the common house." HOW TO DO IT =AD KEYS TO THE SUCCESS Programming: You have to know what to design. Controlling the design process does need to be addressed. In one project (not one we designed) one third of the group had to drop out when the bids came in. Most architects involved with cohousing are mostly involved with custom houses. You just cannot sit down and say, "okay, what do you want?" And while two thirds could afford the high cost overruns, there are known ways to keep everyone in =AD it begins with a highly facilitated process wher= e every important question is put on the table; none are skirted over and all are decided in rapid fire succession, including prioritization. The group really sets the program. We have to be careful that we don=B9t tur= n it into just another product; it doesn=B9t matter if the personalities change because real people made a place for real people. However, there is definitely a discussion required. It may be possible to make the houses less costly. And better design. Flexible for each group: In the Emeryville project, the Oakland project, the Berkeley project, and others, we put zero washers and dryers in the houses of those projects. Never has anyone told us (and they would) "wow, I wish I had my own washer and dryer". However, this doesn=B9t work for all groups. Some people love the smell of detergent in their homes and that buzzing and rattling sounds of clothes tumbling and machines running and we need to accommodate them. Programming lets you know what that specific group needs to be happy. Good facilitator: The reality is that it does have to be designed in a very facilitated process by an architect with a great deal of experience in cohousing and production construction and with the right temperament. Also, to cajole a group into direction that makes sure those all-critical parties are served. We design all of the houses with a group in a week =AD but it can take a year if you=B9re not careful. Experience: What makes the case against private house designs so compelling is that architects get involved who don=B9t know exactly what they are doing. Chris ScottHanson has said on many occasions that the problems with participating in house design is that too few know how to do it. We have and remain willing to train new architects to do it. CONCLUSION It is a myth that architects don=B9t design production housing and therefore shouldn=B9t design cohousing. There are about 1,000 affordable units developed by non-profits housing developers in San Francisco each year; architects design pretty close to one hundred percent of these. Architects design houses when, one, it is even slightly complicated (and cohousing is, mostly because we want to change the box of what a house is) and, two, if the population is even slightly discerning. If cohousers weren=B9t discernin= g they wouldn=B9t be interested in cohousing. The main housing not designed with architects are the single family boxes sprawling across our open spaces. Projects are always designed with someone =AD I=B9d like that someone t= o be the future residents. If I thought that we could serve the larger goals, I would advocate doing away with the participatory design, but I don=B9t think that it would help; i= t only provides apparent expediency. Resident participation in the design process overwhelmingly adds a great deal to a cohousing community. Chuck Durrett The CoHousing Company "Architectural Design and Consulting Services towards the formation of Cohousing Communities" danny [at] cohousingco.com http://www.cohousingco.com tel. 510-549-9980, fax 510-549-2140 1250 Addison St. #113 Berkeley, CA 94702 ---------- --MS_Mac_OE_3038476989_960021_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Resident Participation in Design</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#FFFFFF"> <FONT SIZE=3D"4"><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">RESIDENT PARTICIPATION IN PRIVATE HOUS= E DESIGN?<BR> <BR> Lately I=B9ve heard a lot of discussion in the cohousing world about an issue= close to my heart. Should the private houses be designed with or with= out group input?<BR> <BR> Much of this discussion arises from the attempt to cut costs in the develop= ment of cohousing. I do believe that many larger issues should be solv= ed if we=B9re serious about substantially bringing the costs of cohousing proj= ects down. Resident input in design, if well facilitated, is a minor c= ost issue. There are 22 reasons the value of resident design overwhelm= s any costs that might be incurred in all but the most atypical project.<BR> <BR> 22 REASONS FOR PARTICIPATORY DESIGN:<BR> <BR> 1.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">VALUE Put th= e money where it=B9s needed and not where it=B9s not needed. The group mem= bers are the most qualified to decide what their priorities are.<BR> 2.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">QUALITY Incl= usion of group members in the design process leads to accountability on the = professionals=B9 part.<BR> 3.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">OWNERSHIP We= did it! To the extent that people help define their place is the extent tha= t they own it and go the extra mile to make sure that it happens. The = extra umph is often necessary to make a project successful.<BR> 4.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">LIVING LIGHTER&nb= sp;Thoughtful always leads to less and smaller. If you give people tim= e to think about it, they will figure out how to downsize.<BR> 5.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">BETTER HOUSES&nbs= p;Clearer criteria leads to a better house.<BR> 6.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">LOWER COSTS = Developers without clear criteria will straddle the fence between cohousers = and the regular market and cost the project more. They will incorporat= e the perceived cohousing values (extra sound proofing, sustainable lumber, = all fluorescent lights, etc.), and that would have to be a guess because eac= h group has different priorities, and the perceived amenities for the genera= l market like large bathrooms, garbage disposals, larger kitchens, etc. &nbs= p;Group members can say which of those are important to them.<BR> 7.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">COMMUNITY Wh= ere we built is where we stand.<BR> 8.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">MARKETING &q= uot;Check out this cool cabinet door. It was my idea." Oh and by = the way=8A<BR> 9.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">MARKETING I=B9= ve got to help get more group members so I can get to see that cool cabinet = door built.<BR> 10.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">FASTER PROJECT&n= bsp;I=B9ll be at the city council meeting for approvals, I=B9ll talk to the neig= hbor about access, I=B9ll meet with planning department about lesser fees, bec= ause I own it emotionally. I want to see that cool cabinet door get built. &= nbsp;<BR> 11.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">SMOOTHER PROJECT= To know is to decide. To skip over details is to backtrack, retr= ace, upend and undo. "A horse cart in reverse is ugly." &nbs= p;<BR> 12.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">SHORTER TIME&nbs= p;A horse cart in reverse is slower.<BR> 13.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">IT HAPPENS = Some people who can=B9t be involved won=B9t participate.<BR> 14.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">REDUCED LIABILIT= Y FOR PROFESSIONALS & REDUCED CHANCE OF THE HORROR OF LITIGATION FOR THE= GROUP I asked Mike Corbett (the developer of Village Homes in Davis, C= A) why more projects like Village homes have not been built. His reply= was that no developer wants to create such an empowered homeowners associat= ion. On the other hand, our insurance company told us that the best wa= y to avoid liability is a relationship with the residents and their particip= ation in the design. I really believe that to the extent a project is = codesigned, is the extent that people share responsibility and won=B9t point f= ingers. 50% of typical condo projects end in lawsuits. I wouldn=B9= t have anything to do with that world. No cohousing communities have g= one to suit with the architect or developer. That=B9s a better world. &n= bsp;It is this liability protection that actually allows cohousing to be bui= lt at all. After the first suit caused by the typical separation of ro= les (residents as discreet from designers), that developer and architect wil= l stay away from cohousing.<BR> 15.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">THEY WANT TO. &n= bsp;And if they don=B9t, then I would suggest not doing it. But I=B9m not = sure money and time will be saved in the end. <BR> 16.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">WOULD LOSE SOMET= HING VITAL: While in Denmark, some folks didn=B9t want to talk to us bec= ause they didn=B9t want to see cohousing (bofaelleskaber) go to the US. = We would "Americanize it" and key aspects of community and ownersh= ip would be lost. To cut the group out of the process would "Amer= icanize it." <BR> 17.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">SUSTAINABILITY&n= bsp;Two key qualities of sustainability are reduced resource consumption and= stewardship. You stewward the part of the world you own emotionally. = <BR> 18.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">MARKETING:  = ;This is a key part of the cohousers role in cohousing, create the community= and excitement that sell the houses. Unless a "born salesperson,= " people will only help sell what they helped create. <BR> 19.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">BETTER UNITS: &n= bsp;They are better units, not because they designed their own unit but beca= use someone did, a group of folks with real lives and real experiences. &nbs= p;The resulting units are able to cover many of life=B9s conditions. It = is less important that people designed their own house. <BR> 20.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">QUICKER PROJECT:= It goes faster. If people don=B9t participate, they always end up sayin= g "can=B9t we just change this one little thing? How about this and a lit= tle of that?" It is faster just to do it with the group in the be= ginning and get it over with. And have all parties agree that we have that p= art behind us. <BR> 21.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">LESS RISK.: I ca= n tell in about two minutes if I am going in the wrong direction with a hous= ehold group or not. (As many of you know, we break down into 1-bedroom= , 2-bedroom, 3-bedroom, 3-bed deluxe, etc. household groups) Potentially we = can end up with less houses that, in fact, no one is interested in. It has b= ecome an anthropological experience =AD OK, these are the kinds of houses thes= e folks need and want. <BR> 22.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Galliard">SMALLER HOUSES: = Of the dozens of cohousing projects we have designed all the way throu= gh, the average house size is less than 1,200 s.f. compared to 2,100 s.f. fo= r the national average of new houses. The only way that people will go= for smaller houses is when they have had the opportunity to listen to each = other make a point about "okay, that is going to be in the common house= " and "oh yeah, that is going to be in the common house=8A." &n= bsp;People can agree or not, but no argument leaves us with all of our old h= abits. The same thing with houses on the interior of a cluster. = People are sure they won=B9t work until they talk about them. "Oh, = there won=B9t be enough natural light, they are going to be more noisy." = Especially when most people come from single family houses. All of thi= s is critical in the context of people wanting more sustainable environmenta= l design. Few things are more important than smaller clustered houses. <BR> <BR> OUR SUCCESSFUL EXPERIENCE<BR> Cohousers let you know what they think but, no one has ever expressed "= ;wished you had just designed the houses without us" or "we think = you did a bad job." Yet several communities have expressed strong= ly that "we wished you also designed the private houses with us like yo= u did the site and the common house."<BR> <BR> HOW TO DO IT =AD KEYS TO THE SUCCESS<BR> <BR> Programming: <BR> You have to know what to design.<BR> Controlling the design process does need to be addressed. In one project (n= ot one we designed) one third of the group had to drop out when the bids cam= e in. Most architects involved with cohousing are mostly involved with custo= m houses. You just cannot sit down and say, "okay, what do you want?&qu= ot; And while two thirds could afford the high cost overruns, there are know= n ways to keep everyone in =AD it begins with a highly facilitated process whe= re every important question is put on the table; none are skirted over and a= ll are decided in rapid fire succession, including prioritization. <BR> <BR> The group really sets the program. We have to be careful that we don=B9= t turn it into just another product; it doesn=B9t matter if the personalities = change because real people made a place for real people. However, ther= e is definitely a discussion required. It may be possible to make the = houses less costly. And better design.<BR> <BR> Flexible for each group:<BR> In the Emeryville project, the Oakland project, the Berkeley project, and o= thers, we put zero washers and dryers in the houses of those projects. Never= has anyone told us (and they would) "wow, I wish I had my own washer a= nd dryer". However, this doesn=B9t work for all groups. Some = people love the smell of detergent in their homes and that buzzing and rattl= ing sounds of clothes tumbling and machines running and we need to accommoda= te them. Programming lets you know what that specific group needs to b= e happy.<BR> <BR> Good facilitator:<BR> The reality is that it does have to be designed in a very facilitated proce= ss by an architect with a great deal of experience in cohousing and producti= on construction and with the right temperament. Also, to cajole a grou= p into direction that makes sure those all-critical parties are served. &nbs= p; We design all of the houses with a group in a week =AD but it can take= a year if you=B9re not careful.<BR> <BR> Experience:<BR> What makes the case against private house designs so compelling is that arc= hitects get involved who don=B9t know exactly what they are doing. Chris= ScottHanson has said on many occasions that the problems with participating= in house design is that too few know how to do it. We have and remain= willing to train new architects to do it.<BR> <BR> CONCLUSION<BR> It is a myth that architects don=B9t design production housing and therefore = shouldn=B9t design cohousing. There are about 1,000 affordable units dev= eloped by non-profits housing developers in San Francisco each year; archite= cts design pretty close to one hundred percent of these. Architects de= sign houses when, one, it is even slightly complicated (and cohousing is, mo= stly because we want to change the box of what a house is) and, two, if the = population is even slightly discerning. If cohousers weren=B9t discernin= g they wouldn=B9t be interested in cohousing. The main housing not desig= ned with architects are the single family boxes sprawling across our open sp= aces. Projects are always designed <U>with</U> someone =AD I=B9d like that someo= ne to be the future residents.<BR> <BR> If I thought that we could serve the larger goals, I would advocate doing a= way with the participatory design, but I don=B9t think that it would help; it = only provides apparent expediency. Resident participation in the desig= n process overwhelmingly adds a great deal to a cohousing community.<BR> <BR> Chuck Durrett<BR> </FONT></FONT><BR> The CoHousing Company<BR> "Architectural Design and Consulting Services towards the formation of= Cohousing Communities"<BR> danny [at] cohousingco.com<BR> http://www.cohousingco.com<BR> tel. 510-549-9980, fax 510-549-2140<BR> 1250 Addison St. #113<BR> Berkeley, CA 94702<BR> <BR> <BR> ----------<BR> </BODY> </HTML> --MS_Mac_OE_3038476989_960021_MIME_Part--
-
Resident Participation in Design Danny Milman, April 13 2000
- resident participation in design NKaten947, May 26 2000
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.