Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Community & Architecture

[shedrick coleman (shedarch]

In message Wed, 19 Oct 94 13:08 CDT,
  Rob Sandelin <robsan [at] microsoft.com>  writes:

> I do totally agree that architecture can play a role in facilitating
> some human interactions with each other, which can be a prelude to
> community.  For example having a commonhouse to gather in is very
> important. Sharing meals is very important. Having a view on the
> outside activities of the community in each home is important.  But it
> is only a small part. You could gather together, share meals and not
> have very much feeling of togetherness if you didn't have an
> expectation or commitment to making togetherness happen at a level
> beyond just being in the same place at the same time.
>
> I obviously have a strong disagreement with the notion that community
> is dependent on, or even defined by architecture.  All my experience
> tells me they are not directly related. I also see a few cohousing
> groups as being long on architecture and short on community and I think
> that is a sad problem, because it seems to me, the whole point of
> cohousing is not architectural, it is creating community.  We get hung
> up on the architecture and miss the real point.   I was attracted to
> Sharingwood because of its community. As a site design Sharingwood
> lacks any sort of thought out social elements. The social site design
> elements we have are accidents or retrofitted.  There are other
> cohousing groups where I would not choose to live because I want more
> sense of community than they offer.  My choice of course is mine, and
> some people only want a more "convenient" place to live and want little
> community.  I think there is room for all of us, even within the same
> group.

I joined this group a few weeks ago to discover what cohousing was all
about.  As a architect I have long been interested in the area of
alternative housing methods in light of the current status of housing stock.
After viewing the ongoing conversation, I wish to say that the architecture
does play a part in the community.  There are plenty on examples where the
architectural character has actually destroyed any possiblity of group
association.  Also there are those developments which reinforce such
behavior.

The two must coexist.  A poor architectural setting can do alot to
discourage the residents, the inverse being that a good one can help.  The
actual process should be utilized to the advantage stated by Mr. Sandlin.
The architecture can only serve as a supplement to the unity of the
cohousing group itself. Retaining an architect who can honestly relate to
the spirit of cohousing would be the ideal starting point.

The entire group should have an idea of what they envision as their
preferred layout of the development and communicate this to the designer.
It will be "YOUR" home and should reflect your desires first.