Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Questioning cohousing ideals

[lilbert (lilbert]

----------
> 
> 1.    How do you justify separating cars into central carparks on the
> perimeter of a community?  Issues of access to the homes, weather etc
> seem to preclude having perimeter parking in her mind.

We have a city block and the alley was converted to parking. Our parking is
close to the homes and we have no cars where our children play. It works
great. Part of the reason for clustered parking is so that people have to
walk to their houses. It increases human interaction a great deal, thereby
increasing quality of life.
>
> 2.    How do clusters of houses help to improve closer relations between
> residents and how do you still promote the wider public using your
> assets?

Houses that are close together mean you have to cooperate more with
neighbors and there is more interaction. Why we would need to promote the
wider public using our assets is a mystery to me. This is private property.
Members are free to use the common spaces and common house for larger
functions, even if they are private, with permission from the group. This is
one of the reasons we have the large commmon property, so that our houses
don't need to be as large to accomodate the occasional large gathering. We
sometimes have public events, like the nieghborhood association meetings, in
our commonhouse. Again, this is a matter of convenience, and not something
we need to promote.

>
> 3.    What form would a common house take if you were attempting to
> provide a restaurant, common eating, laundry, conference rooms and
> apartments for short stay residents?  I have designed a three story arc
> shaped building with apartments above conference rooms about more shared
> assests like restaurant and community dining.

I know of no commonhouse with a restaurant, only a kitchen. Commercial use
creates a whole lotta problems that most groups don't want to deal with
during development, or after, for that matter. As for layouts, I'd look at
the individual groups' websites for more info. I'd also look to other types
of intentional communities that offer workshops and the like. What you're
describing sounds more like that.
>
> 4.    The rythmn of the street relies on buildings having a prescribed
> setback from the street [supposedly].  By clustering my buildings and
> facing them toward the local river, I have turned my back on this
> 'streetscape'.  How do you address this change of rythmn and change of
> ownership of space [balance of public and private space has been
> altered].

Nobody uses their front doors or front yards in a suburb anyway! They drive
to their garages, and enter from within the house.

Our members simply use their back doors more for community interaction, much
the same as it was in the suburb where I grew up. Our community looks no
different from the front than any other house on the street. And the rhythm
of the street can only benefit from not having three car garages sticking
out front like useless appendages. I know of no urban designer who thinks
that garages are a beautiful and necessary part of the streetscape!


And as an aside, I think your teacher sounds like an idiot. As an urban
designer, she should be more aware of the recent trends. She sounds very
closed minded, at a time when urban design is more dynamic than ever, and
new ideas are needed. Cohousing, especially an urban group such as my own,
is an excellent fit with urban infill, preserving greenspace and reducing
sprawl. Even in a suburban setting, much less land is wasted using cohousing
than traditional development. These things are patently obvious.


--
Liz Stevenson
Southside Park Cohousing
Sacramento, California