Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Questioning cohousing ideals

[Odysseus Levy (olevy]

Let me try to just answer your first question -- it is a big one.  Why have
parking on the periphery?

1. Better use of space.

If you look at most developments, an enormous amount of space is spent on
making room for cars and garages.  Just for laughs the Duwamish cohousing
community made two landscape plans, one was the real one with peripheral
parking, and the other one was a conventional plan that would have given
everyone their own driveway.

It was absolutely amazing to see the difference.  The car-centric plan had
no room for anything else except cars, whereas the periphery parking allowed
gardens and pedestrian paths and a wetland area along with many other
amenities.  Of course, to make it even funnier, the Seattle planning board
was much, much more comfortable with the car-centric plan and quite taken
aback to see the real plan.

2. Safer for children.

And not just because you don't have to worry about getting hit by a car.
Fortunately there are not that many psychopaths in the world, however they
definitely are out there.  If someone is bent on evil, it is much easier for
them if they never have to leave their car.  My mom has argued that the
reason we have more atrocities these days is not because the world has more
crazy people, but because it is now much more possible to commit
attrocities.

People are welcome to enter my community, but I do not want them to be
anonymous.

3. It is healthier.

I don't know what the situation is like in New Zealand, but here in the
states it has gotten a bit silly.  For example, my local sports club needed
to redo their parking lot, so they found an alternate spot a short five
minute walk away.  Attendance at the gym plummeted. They provided shuttles,
and most people insisted on using them.  I can't imagine anything more
bizarre than people on their way to working out refusing to do a five minute
walk to get there!

I lived in Japan for awhile, and in their design walking or bicycling is a
natural part of life.  Integrating walking into your daily life is such a
healthy practice.





-----Original Message-----
From: cohousing-l [at] freedom2.mtn.org
[mailto:cohousing-l [at] freedom2.mtn.org]On Behalf Of lance millward
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 10:45 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Questioning cohousing ideals


I am a landscape architecture student from New Zealand.  I have been in
contact with many on the list relating to a research paper  I was doing
on cohousing.  I am now designing a conceptual community linked to a
language school, swimming complex and fields in my community.

My lecturer is an urban designer WHO QUESTIONS THE POINT OF COHOUSING
AND DISBELIEVES ANYTHING I TRY AND SUGGEST TO HER ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF
CLOSER COMMUNITY.

This is a plea for help!!!!!

Please, please, please reply to these quesitions so I can clarify the
issues with her.

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.

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?

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.

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].

I have done considerable research into these things but there don't seem
to be any real justifications for them beyond 'that is what has worked
previously'.  I am aware that models of cohousing have been developed
over more than thirty years; but find it frustrating that i can't find
anything to justify using these techniques of closer community.  I have
a strong belief that they are better than what suburbia has to offer,
but need proof in some form.

I have sent very few emails to the list trying to only send the most
vital ones; again Im begging here for some people to respond with some
helpful personal comments, rather than books I should read as I only
have a month befor my project is due.

Sincerely

lance millward
landscape architecture student