Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: A cohousing pattern language [21-37]

[Fred H. Olson WB0YQM (fholson]

On Mon, 14 Mar 94 20:48 CST, 
Frank Boosman  <cohousing-l [at] uci.com> wrote:

Frank, 

Thanks for getting into the specifics from the book.  At the first
cohousing event I attended 2.5 years ago some architects led a workshop 
based on _A Pattern Language_ .   Tho not nearly enough time was 
available, it was a useful exercize.  BTW, for those who havent see the 
book, it's huge and does appear to contain much useful in planning 
cohousing.  

One thing I remember from the workshop is the advantage of not getting
too specific too soon.  Leave detailed planning til after needs, goals
and general features have been defined.  Otherwise you may adopt or focus
on a suboptimal solution to the exclusion of other ideas.  This 
corresponds nicely with the typical process of dividing the process
into "programming" (a curious term for defining goals, needs etc.)
from design.

A few specific comments on your first installment:

>
>22. Nine per cent parking**
>
>Very simply--when the area devoted to parking is too great, it destroys the
>land.
>
>Therefore: Do not allow more than 9 per cent in any given area to be used
>for parking. In order to prevent the "bunching" of parking in huge
>neglected areas, it is necessary for a town or community to subdivide its
>land into "parking zones" no larger than 10 acres each and to apply the
>same rule in each zone.

If it could be done I'd like to see as close to zero percent devoted to 
cars as possible; but surely minimizing parking should be a goal. 
If 9 percent equals anything like 10 acres; the total area of the project
is much larger than any urban cohousing community I can imagine.  It would 
seem like the 9 percent criteria would have to relate to the density / size 
of the project. Cars take almost as much space on a dense site as a more 
generous site.  For urban sites here I usually talk about a "net density 
comparable to single family housing" (the predominant Minneapolis housing 
type) My estimates for 3 urban sites:

Mpls. single family lot (40' to 50' x 110' lot)                  6% -10%  
Andersen Ln Cohousing proposed 1.5 acre 22 unit existing housing 9% -10%
Seward Cohousing proposed 4 acre 30 unit new construction        6% - 9%

One technique urban sites have used to minimize the impact of parking and 
still meet zoning requirements for the provision of parking is to 
design some of the parking as multi use space and then minimize actual
use of it for parking.  At Andersen Lane for example we might agree to
avoid using those parking spaces that most impinge on viewing angles
of the common space.

>
>
>37. House cluster**
>
>People will not feel comfortable in their houses unless a group of houses
>forms a cluster, with the public land between them jointly owned by all the
>householders.
>
>Therefore: Arrange houses to form very rough, but identifiable clusters of
>8 to 12 households around some common land and paths. Arrange the clusters
>so that anyone can walk through them, without feeling like a trespasser.
>
Frank, I think the emphasis should be on the clustering which is a 
fundamental aspect of cohousing and not on the number of households.  
Does the book mention where the range "8 to 12" came from?  BTW I have 
seen (in McCamant ? ** ) designs that had court yards serving a part 
of the community tho that would not be my preference in a 30 unit or 
smaller community.

I think the notion of several transitions from public to private
discussed in McCamant is a preferable refinement of "Arrange the clusters
so that anyone can walk through them, without feeling like a trespasser."

Fred
--
Fred H. Olson   fholson [at] uci.com     Sysop of COHOUSING-L mailing list
1221 Russell Av N; Minneapolis, MN 55411        voice: (612) 588-9532
WB0YQM  146.64 MHz with DTMF Selcall: 233 ;        FAX by arrangement