A Background to Ageing Well Together

Cohousing for Ageing Well a collaborative design research project

Part 1: A Background to Ageing Well Together

Design Research Report, August 2020 Dr Damian Madigan

prepared for Office for Ageing Well, SA Health South Australian State Planning Commission Department of Planning, Transport & Infrastructure City of Unley City of Burnside Town of Walkerville City of Prospect Acknowledgements Cohousing for Ageing Well: a collaborative design research project was principally funded through Office for Ageing Well, SA Health’s Age Friendly SA Grants Program. A collaboration between the City of Unley, City of Burnside, Town of Walkerville, the City of Prospect and the University of South Australia (UniSA), additional funding was provided by the four Councils and by the South Australian State Planning Commission through the Department for Infrastructure and Transport (DIT). Each of the four Councils provided in-kind support in the form of planning assessment and advice, and the Commission, represented by Commission Member Craig Holden, and DIT, represented by Greg Slattery, provided overarching housing strategy and policy advice. Office for Ageing Well provided advice relative to ageing well.

The project was coordinated by the City of Unley, with the design research undertaken by the University of South Australia.

Project Coordinator: Judith Lowe, City of Unley

Codesign Workshop design, facilitation: Dr Aaron Davis, UniSA Match Studio.

Research Assistant: Alex Stadtkus, UniSA Creative

Research Author and Architect: Dr Damian Madigan, UniSA Creative members ofourcommunitiesisgoodhousingforall. and inothercities,undertheassumptionthatgoodhousing forolder is to bebroadly applicableto general infillhousinginother suburbs older residentsintheinnersuburbsofAdelaide,aim ofthework an accompanyingdesignguide.Designedinthefirst instancefor ofthehousingmodeland the authoringofnewinfillpolicyinsupport concludeswithrecommendednextsteps,whichinclude The report in aproject to increaseamenityandliveability. the projects arediscussedasdiscrete elementsthatcanbeincluded cohousing forthesites,broader designtacticsthatareembeddedin Where thefourdesignschemesillustrate bespokeapproaches to infill numeric sitemeasurementsystemcannot. thatapurelyGISor approach canrealiseinfillhousingopportunities suburbs. Together theydemonstrate thatawhole-of-sitedesign demonstrate deployabilityofthehousingconceptacross different Large. Basedonrealallotments,theyareanonymisedinorderto The sitesaredefinedsimplyasSmall,Medium,LargeandExtra degrees ofsharingindoorandoutdoorspace. operate, theworkinsteadexploresdifferentsiteoptionsthattest than settingaminimumallotmentsizeonwhichthemodelmight four allotmenttypestypicallyseeninolderAdelaidesuburbs.Rather The fourdesignschemesdemonstrate newinfillpossibilitiesacross concept. recommendations forthestepsto betakeninorderto progress the cohousing modelmightofferinestablishedsuburbs.Itconcludeswith (CHAW) designprojects thatexploreandexplainwhatasmallscale presentsfourdetailedCohousingforAgeingWell This DesignReport development definedas‘CohousingAccommodation’. advocating thatthemodelbeincorporated asanewformofpermitted State Government’s draft state-widePlanningandDesignCode, ofthepublicconsultationprocess fortheSouthAustralianpart During theproject asubmissionwasmadebytheproject teamas encouragement receivedforthemodel. and residents ofthefourcouncilareas,withgeneral support To informtheproject, acodesignworkshopwasheldwitholder - - - - The

model, ifitisdeemeddesirable. What policymechanismsmightbenecessaryto enablesucha retain andenhancelocalcharacter asthesuburbschange;and necessity to provide newandmorediversehousingthedesireto stock inoldersuburbsorderto strikeabalancebetweenthe How suchinfillhousingmightretainandreuseexisting stage; anewgeneral infillmodelsuitable support to every ageandlife- How suchauniversaldesignapproach forolderresidentsmight their community; collaborative infillhousingforpeoplewishing support to agewithin adapted to themuchsmallerscaleofsingleallotmentinorderto How thecohousingmodelofcommunity-focusedlivingmightbe Cohousing forAgeingWell project addresses: Summary Executive

1 Cohousing for Ageing Well

Visualising Cohousing 4: Part Extra Large-920m 3_4: Part Large -675m 3_3: Part Medium -530m 3_2: Part Small -325m 3_1: Part TacticsDesign 2: Part A background to ageingwelltogether 1: Part 18 13 13 12 11 9 8 100 88 85 31 30 30 29 29 28 26 25 24 22

Bibliography andsugges Visualisations Next steps Pets 8m Zones Shared Gardens Getting Along Finding Space Private and Public Accessibility Storage Memories Adaptability A newhousingdefinition So they’re tinyhouses? Why onebedr What weheard The Codesign W What is‘cohousing’? What is‘ageing well’? 2 2

oom?

orkshop ted reading

45 69 33 21 83 57 5 Contents

3 Cohousing for Ageing Well South Australia’s strategic vision for Ageing Well is to be “a healthy, connected, equitable and sustainable community, which takes a whole of life approach that fosters many years of living well . . .”

The State has three strategic priorities to make this happen:

1. Home & Community Homes and communities enable flexibility and choice, and support us to live how we choose, no matter our age, needs, wants and desires.

2. Meaningful Connections A future where everyone has the opportunity, support and encouragement to maintain and develop meaningful connections.

3. Navigating Change A future where we all have the capabilities and supports for remaining active participants throughout all life’s transitions.

South Australia’s Plan for Ageing Well 2020-2025

Cohousing for Ageing Well seeks to contribute to the realisation of this vision. Part 1: A background to ageing well together

5 87.3 years Australian female life expectancy 84.6 years Australian male life expectancy

71% of 75+ South Australian females report being in good health 67% of 75+ South Australian males report being in good health

24% of South Australians are aged 60+

74% of 50+ South Australians live in the metropolitan area 95% of 65+ South Australians live independently in the community

73% of 65+ Australians are homeowners

15% of 50+ South Australians live alone 33% of 80+ South Australians live alone

data source: South Australian Department for Health and Wellbeing (2020). South Australia’s Plan for Ageing Well 2020- 2025. Adelaide, Government of South Australia.

6 in-community withfamily, friendsorwithlike-mindedothers. pressures ofinfill. Theimaginedaudienceisresidentswishing to age- is testedinthisproject forfourlocalCouncilsthateachfacethe State’s residentsage,manyofthemdosoalone. to stayintheirownhomeandwithincommunity,however as the in thegreatermetropolitan areaofAdelaide.Olderpeople oftenwish independently inthecommunity,andmostdosotheirownhome population. to live The vast majorityofolderpeoplearefortunate oftheState’senjoy goodhealthandmakeupasignificantproportion as opposedto smallprivate courtyards. reconfigures thegarden to beasinglehigh-quality shared landscape renovates andextendstheexistinghouseinto multipledwellingsand disposition. The outcomeis2-and3-for-1intensificationthat in essence,buildingthesameamountofmaterialbut inadifferent bigger singlehomes,butsmallermultiplehomesonthe onesite; existing suburbanalterations andadditionsusedto createnotjust An alternativeformofinfillhousingexiststhatsees the patternof - - - suburbsfromquarantining infillisshortsighted: ofcertain loss ofcharacter andamenity.However, itcanbearguedthatsucha housing inthosesuburbsdeemedto belessnegativelyaffectedbythe against densification,therebyencouraging knock-down-rebuildinfill An urbanplanningcounterpointisto suburbs quarantine certain low scale,densityandheavily landscapednatureofoldersuburbs. This risksthecreationofanurbanheatislandeffectanderodes the ground-scapes andalossofmaturelandscapetreecanopies. parking have allincreased,leadingto anincreaseinhardroof- and suburbs atagreaterdensity,sitecoverage, buildingmassandcar tois oftendecriedascharacter-breaking. rebuildthe Intheefforts new infillhousingthatdrivesthedensificationofcitieslikeAdelaide Complicating andoftencloudingthisdiversityissueisthefactthat gain thehousingdiversityrequiredofchangingdemographic. populationgrowth andlongerlifeexpectancies,butdoesnot support as theirpredecessor. The citygainstheadditionalhousingitneedsto dwellings willoftenofferthesamethreebedroom accommodation in orderto provide twonewdwellings,butthesereplacement like replacement:athreebedroom familyhomemightbedemolished to changethrough urbandensification,theyoftendosowithalike-for- Even asthesuburbscontinue smaller andmoreaffordableproperty. age whoseekto enterasuburbthrough thepurchase orrentalofa The samecanbetrueforpeopleofany be littlechoiceoropportunity. neighbourhood andcommunitywithwhichtheyarefamiliar, therecan For residentswishingto downsizeto somethingsmallerwithinthe diverse anddonotformasinglehomogeneousgroup. South Australia isanageingcommunity.Itsolderresidentsare

average numberofoccupantsperdwellingdecreases. regardless, asexistinghousesarealteredandextended,even asthe it failsto recognise thatestablishedsuburbsseeperpetualchange longer therightfitforthem;and existing residentsinto theirlargehomeswhentheyfeelthisisno by failingto allowsmallerallotmentsandhouses,itriskslocking residents out; it risksgentrifyingentireneighbourhoods,therebylockingmanynew 3 The efficacy ofthisapproach 2 1 They largely They University. Doctor ofPhilosophy Thesis, Monash in theestablishedsuburbsofAdelaide. intensification, adaptationandchoice Infill: adesignstudyofhousing 3. Madigan,D.(2016). 2. ibid.,pp4-15. pp 22-24. AgeingWell. Support Innovation (2018). 1. The Australian CentreforSocial Challenge A Housing Future Directionsto Adelaide, TACSI, Alternative

7 Cohousing for Ageing Well: Background In this project, the people we are hoping to help ‘age well’ are not What is defined by their age, but by their ambitions. ‘ageing They are those who wish to age-in-place in familiar surroundings and with increased confidence and wellbeing. They are those who well’? wish to live independently for as long as they can and to do so in connection with others. These others might be relatives, friends, or new connections who are coming together with a shared set of goals for the type of housing to which they would like to transition. As such, the imagined proponents of these housing propositions might be a group of hitherto strangers - singles or couples - who redevelop an allotment together in order to create independent dwellings that enjoy the spatial and personal benefits that some form of sharing can deliver. They might be a community housing provider creating a new model of lifetime rental properties that sit alongside their traditional portfolio. They could be a family who decide to adapt their existing home and garden to preemptively create the final home for the oldest members and a first home for the youngest. Thought of in this way, the concept of cohousing for ageing well has a common thread: the desire for a suburban housing model that sits alongside existing single family homes but with a downsized footprint and in a more socially connected manner. Such a model works to achieve the ‘independence, integration and innovation’ crucial to creating age-appropriate housing, while strategically avoiding any planning, aesthetic or organisational manoeuvres that can otherwise render housing for older people as institutional.4 While home modifications for elements such as grab rails and step- free doorways are often the focus of housing considerations for older people, they are assumed as givens in this project. The advantage of moving beyond modifications towards a model that encompasses a broader housing strategy, is that housing designed for ‘ageing well’ can be considered more directly as housing for living well. Designing 4. Cameron, C. ‘Housing for an with older residents at the forefront of the imagined occupant group ageing population’, in Levitt, D. and J. results in housing that can be appropriate for anyone of any age who McCafferty (2018). The Housing Design wishes to live in a smaller suburban house in a garden setting. Handbook: A Guide to Good Practice, 2nd Edition. London; New York, Perhaps more challenging, though, is the concept of sharing living Routledge, p 82-85. arrangements with others. Two factors are key here. The first is that 5. When Bridge et al surveyed lower the cohousing model put forward in this project is for those who income older Australian residents, proactively decide to share and have control of their living choices, asking them to comment on their attitudes to sharing, only 27% felt that meaning they are predisposed to wanting to share. The second is that it was important to share with those many people are not only happy to share, but to do so with others who of similar religious, gender or other are not necessarily the same as themselves.5 characteristics. Bridge, C., L. Davy, B. Judd, P. Flatau, A. Morris and P. Phibbs Co-living arrangements seem particularly likely to gain popularity. (2011). Age-specific Housing and Care Multigenerational living in purpose-built housing with distinct, for Low to Moderate Income Older People. Melbourne, AHURI Final Report but connected, domains would be ideal for some extended No. 174, Australian Housing and Urban families. Choosing to live with friends is also beginning to feel a Research Institute Limited, p 44. very natural instinct later in life - for single people and couples. 6. Park, J. and J. Porteus (2018). Age- Today’s young people have to wait longer for a home of their own friendly Housing: Future Design for and many, perhaps even most, will have house-shared . . . Older People. London, RIBA Publishing, p 114. - Julia Park and Jeremy Porteus 6

8 through consensus. cohousing develops strategically anddeliberately, definingitsrules village develops organicallyover timealongwithasetofsocialrules, extension to thetraditional notionofthevillage,notingthatwherea a contemporary approach to anewidea. They explain itasalogical concept ofcohousingto theUnited Statesinthe1990s,describeitas McCamant andCharlesDurrett,architects whointroduced the cohousing ‘lite’. cohousing inthismodeltakestheformofwhatmight bedescribedas from afullcommon-housemodeldownto simplysharingthegarden, display arange ofsharing,butonavastly reducedscale.Ranging The fourdesignpropositions ofthisCohousingforAgeingWellproject needs forolderresidentsto stayconnectedastheyage. goodfitbetweentheambitionsofcohousingand a particularly it doeswhendesignedspecificallyforolderpeople, where thereis neighbourhood, thesystemfunctionswellforfamilies asmuch rather than cohousingdevelopments aredesigned Importantly, ------usually workoffacommonstructure: large siteofoftenagglomerated allotments,cohousingdevelopments Usually consistingofbetween20to 30homesarranged across a acohousingdevelopment. undertake thosewishing technical, regulatoryto andfinancialservices to support The CommunityHousingFund aimedatcreatinganationalnetworkof a mainstreamhousingform.In2016theUKGovernment established Often mistakenforacommune,cohousingisincreasinglybecoming in1972by27familiesoutsideCopenhagen. was undertaken Cohousing isbynomeansanewconcept. The firstdevelopment

neighbours. and providing asacheckonthe welfareof passivesurveillance encouraging interactionthe facilityandpastresidences,further car parkingisconsolidatedsuchthatresidentsmustwalkthrough incorporated; shared amenitiessuchasaswimmingpoolandbarbecuescanbe the individualhouses; freeingspacein when family,friendsoracarercometo stay,further a guestroom inthecommonhouse canbebookedbyresidentsfor in theindividualhouses; a commonlaundryanddryingareascanbeincluded,freeingspace hobbies,to socialiseandtoundertake have meetings; living space(s)forresidentsto shareamealwhentheychoose,to a commonhouseprovides alargekitchen,diningareaand design to encourage engagementamongresidents; houses oftenhave afront porch orsomeformofoutward-facing living spaceandbedroom(s); houses areself-contained,withtheirownkitchen,diningspace, common areas,asperaunitdevelopment; the housesareprivately owned,withresidentsowningashareof for them.Designedto createaneighbourhoodwithinthe 10 7 8 with theresidents 9

Kathryn ‘cohousing’? What is University ofSheffield. an Active Third Age.Sheffield,England, Generation of‘DownsizerHomes’for Designing WithDownsizers: The Next (2016). Ziegler andS.Wigglesworth residential development. Park, A.,F. integrated into normative anotherwise traditional cohousingdevelopments are of thekeyconceptsandadvantages of described byPark etal, wherebysome 10. ‘Cohousinglite’ isaconcept Society Publishers. Gabriola Island,BritishColumbia,New Approach to IndependentLiving, Cohousing Handbook:ACommunity 9. Durrett,C.(2009). New York, Routledge,pp301-303. to GoodPractice, The HousingDesignHandbook:AGuide (2018). 8. Levitt, D.andJ.McCafferty Publishers. Island, BritishColumbia,NewSociety Sustainable Communities. (2011). 7. McCamant,K.andC.Durrett Creating Cohousing:Building 2ndEdition.London; The Senior Gabriola 2nd ed.

9 Cohousing for Ageing Well: Background 10 20m A basesheetatthesamescale,allowing50m garden, largeetc)wereprovided ascutout blocks,allto scale. laundry, kitchen,etc)anditsgarden(largeshed,small The typicalelementsofahouse(largebedroom, smallbedroom, tasked withworkingthrough aspatialbudgetingexercise. werefirst participants currently beliving.Designedintwoparts, might downsizing from thetypeofdwellinginwhichparticipants and to demonstrate thatthemodelrequired apotentiallysubstantial development onasingleallotmentmightfunctionandbearranged, for theSmallandExtra Largesites,to showhowacohousing The workshopbeganwithapresentationofpreliminarydesigns feedback beingdominatedorskewedbythemostvocal participants. equally,therebyavoidingto begatheredfrom the allparticipants experiences andtheirindividualresponses. This enabledinformation wasableto recordtheirown was designedsuchthatevery participant theworkshop cohousing modelcouldbemadeto work.Importantly, living andthosewhowerenotto sharetheirknowledgeofhowthe ‘deal breakers’. This enabledthosewhowereveryopento shared could imaginelivingwith,andthosethatwouldbebarriersoroutright were taskedwithindividuallyidentifyingthedegreesofsharingthey living inacohousingdevelopment themselves.Assuch,residents regardlessoftheirlevel ofinterestin experiences’ ofparticipants, Rather thanconfirmingahypothesis,theworkshopsought‘lived Davis from UniSA’s MatchStudio. by theCityofUnleyanddesignedforproject andrunbyDrAaron residents ofthefourcouncilsatworkshop,whichwasfacilitated created fortheSmallandExtra largesites. These werepresentedto prepared to illustrate to residentshowacohousingmodelmightbe a codesignworkshopinitsearlystages. Two draft designswere forthisproject andwasachieved byrunning has beenimportant Informing theproject withthewantsandneedsofolderpeople which suggestedthatabackyarddwellingofaround 50m budgeted sizesweredeterminedfrom thetwopreliminarydesigns, was provided forresidentsto fillwiththeircutout functions. These common houseof50-70m that would help them feel more comfortable aboutsharingfacilities. that wouldhelpthemfeelmorecomfortable people theywouldbehappyorunhappyto sharewith, andthethings would behappyto shareandnot(andthereasonswhy), reflected onanddescribedtheelementsofacommon housethey In thesecondexercise, splitinto threeworksheets,participants locating theminthesharedfacilities. which elementstheyfeltcouldforegointheirprivate dwellingsby to theexercise consider enabledparticipants footprint. Furthermore, exclusions, astheyimagineddownsizingto amuchsmallerdwelling to prioritisetheirinclusionsand exercise challengedparticipants in thefunctionalcutouts thanspaceallowedfortheirallocation,the Going over thesespatialbudgetswasnotpermitted.Withmore choice maintaining agardensettingcompatiblewiththeexistingconditions. to maximisethenumberofadditionalhousescreatedwhilestill 2 forprivate outdoorspaceand50m 2 wasagoodbalancewhenattempting 2 forsharedindoorfacilities, 2 foraprivate dwelling, 2 anda Workshop Codesign The issued byeachofthefourCouncils responded to openinvitations was attendedbyresidentswho the CodesignWorkshop, which the spatialbudgetingexercise in facing page: 11 Cohousing for Ageing Well: Background The methodology of the Codesign Workshop provided the opportunity What we for individuals to provide honest feedback on the concept of a small- scale cohousing model for the established suburbs, based on their heard lived experience. It allowed them to highlight potential problems and opportunities in the model and to provide the project team with the insight that it otherwise lacked. We heard that:

- People are generally open to the principles of cohousing and can see the benefits when they are explained to them. - Residents strongly support a contextualised infill model that retains existing character housing and greenspace. - The perceived benefits of sensitive infill extend beyond housing for older people, to housing for multi-generations of the same family as well as multiple generations of non-related people. Participants could see the social and financial benefits of creating an additional dwelling for renting to a younger person, couple or small family. - A cohousing model can be difficult to envisage, particularly when certain aspects might resemble existing retirement villages or so- called ‘granny flats’ or accessory dwelling units (ADUs).11 - A governance system is desirable. Beyond the scope of traditional body corporate rules that cover general building maintenance and operational issues, a residents’ charter that covers agreed behaviours and grievance procedures was considered important. - A good social mix of residents is key, however not everyone wants to share with people who are similar to themselves. Some people like the idea of sharing with others who are different to themselves, with a cohousing model potentially providing the opportunity to broaden their connections and experiences. - Some people would only consider sharing with immediate or extended family while others never want to share with family. - Depending on the individual and their lived experiences, shared facilities such as laundries (and even sharing the same washing machine) can be anything from a non-issue to a deal-breaker. - Storage is important, and overflow seasonal storage in something like a small garden shed becomes increasingly important as the dwelling footprint reduces. - Even for those in good health, potential short-term mobility issues and longer-term physical decline are considered very real 11. The term ‘granny flat’ is used as a possibilities. Housing that can cater to reduced mobility is desirable. comparison reference here only due to its general use within the community. It is more easily understood and Together, these workshop insights point to the potential for a identifiable than the equivalent cohousing model to be successfully implemented in established ‘Accessory Dwelling Unit’, or ADU, suburbs. Whilst each development’s creators will need to determine which is the technical term used in the level of sharing involved and the form their development will take, planning nomenclature. ‘Backyard dwelling’ is preferred over both labels. the model as a concept appears robust, allowing older residents to It avoids unnecessary and potentially see its potential as a new housing form not only for themselves, but discriminatory age labels, opens up for a potentially broad age mix. the possibility that the new house can be more than a mere accessory to the The key appears to lie in the residents having a common belief in how existing, and points to the universality of a well-designed small house for they want their particular system to work, coupled with the tools to occupants of any age. ensure that it can.

12 flat’ andatypical40m units ofthisproject withtinyhouses,acommercially available ‘granny possible. The diagrams thatfollowcomparetwooftheone-bedroom as onlythatresidualbackyardspacewheresomething smallmightbe taking awhole-of-sitedesignapproach, rather than treatingthesite an equalhierarchy withothersonthesite. This isachieved through designed to besubordinateto a‘mainhouse’, butasdwellingsof noneofthehousinginthisproject is and itsamenity.Importantly, accommodation beingproposed isdifferentiatedbybothitssize houses’, ‘granny flats’,nor ‘ADUs’. Although small, thecohousing The onebedroom dwellingsofthisproject areneither‘tiny bedroom dwellings. to twoone- three-bedroom backyarddwellingthatcanbeconverted Small, LargeandExtra Largeschemes. The Mediumschemetestsa well-designed onebedroom dwellings,andthesearetestedinthe toprice pointforbothpurchase provide andrent,itisimportant If weareto addto oursuburbanhousingstock atanaffordable offering, itincreasesthepurchase andrentalpricesoftheproperty. significantly increasesthebuildingfootprint over aonebedroom space, unlikeabathroom), thisadditionalaccommodation notonly second bedroom whenbuildingahouse(dueto itbeinganunserviced our suburbanhousingmix.Whileitisrelativelyinexpensiveto adda quality, efficientandadaptableonebedroom homesbeadded to thathigh inestablishedsuburbs-itisimportant many -particularly outofreachfor live aloneandhousingaffordabilitymoves further provide residentswithspace.However, asmoreandpeople bedrooms shouldalwaysbeprovided asaminimuminorderto appeal ofonebedroom dwellings,anditcanbearguedthattwo of smalldwellings.Itiseasyto challengetheappropriateness and and triplingofexistingdensityto betrialled,whiletestingtheamenity been strategically proposed fortworeasons:itallowsadoubling In thisproject, amixofmostlyone-andtwo-bedroom dwellingshave prevailing gardensettingoftheneighbourhood. house withadditions,therebyreinforcing theexistingcharacter and and retainsmoreofthelandscape. This emulatesatypicalsuburban a house helps to reduce its height, makes it easier to minimise its bulk, backyard dwellingforthegarden.Putsimply,reducingfootprintof footprint whenextendinganexistinghouseandproposing a existing housing,itbecomesnecessaryto reducethebuilding When designingcontext-appropriate lowriseinfillinandaround 2 ADU. 12 the Smallscheme high amenity: small footprint, house. relationshipwiththemain subservient conditions relatedto heightand a bedroom? Why one tiny houses? So they’re no largerthan40m complying development isone that is form ofADUthatcanbeconsideredas and DesignCodestipulatesthatone 12. The draft SouthAustralian Planning 2 , subjectto meeting 13 Cohousing for Ageing Well: Background W

CHAW (Cohousing for Ageing Well) 1 bedroom backyard home designed to the Livable Housing Australia Gold level: 6.5m x 10.4m (64m2)

vs 6.5m x 6.0m (40m2) Planning and Design Code complying 1 bedroom ADU

vs 5.4m x 7.2m (39m2) commercially available 1 bedroom ‘granny flat’

14 Background W Cohousing for Ageing Well:

vs 2.4m x 7.2m (17m2) commercially available Tiny House with 1 bedroom

vs 2.4m x 6.0m (14m2) commercially available Tiny House with 1 loft bedroom

vs 2.4m x 4.8m (11.5m2) commercially available Tiny House with 1 loft bedroom

CHAW (Cohousing for Ageing Well) 1 bedroom backyard home designed to the Livable Housing Australia Platinum level: 9.0m x 7.5m (65m2)

vs 6.5m x 6.0m (40m2) Planning and Design Code complying 1 bedroom ADU

vs 5.4m x 7.2m (39m2) commercially available 1 bedroom ‘granny flat’

16 Background

Cohousing for Ageing Well:

vs 2.4m x 7.2m (17m2) commercially available Tiny House with 1 bedroom

vs 2.4m x 6.0m (14m2) commercially available Tiny House with 1 loft bedroom

vs 2.4m x 4.8m (11.5m2) commercially available Tiny House with 1 loft bedroom

17 As the project attempts to transition a large established cohousing A new model to a much smaller single allotment scale, and to do so in an established suburban setting, it may be that ‘cohousing’ is ultimately housing the wrong (or at least a misleading) term for this new infill model. Where a traditional cohousing development would see many dwellings definition accommodated across very large allotments with a large common house and associated shared facilities, this Cohousing for Ageing Well project seeks to create sensitive 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 infill housing designed in the spirit of cohousing.

While something like a shared laundry may free space in individual dwellings and shared parking and garden space might increase amenity and foster resident connectivity, ultimately it remains for the proponents to develop the operational model, site design and dwelling designs appropriate for their needs, the site and the neighbourhood context. It may be that ‘cohousing’ becomes increasingly misleading or irrelevant as the model develops.

How best to label the model has therefore been debated during the life of the project, particularly in relation to the project group’s response to the South Australian State Government’s draft Planning and Design Code (the Code).

The Code is a single planning policy and assessment source that replaces the state’s individual council-based development plans. It seeks to provide state-wide planning rules in order to deliver consistent and clear policy while making the planning application and approval process simpler, quicker and more reliable for applicants. The public consultation phase of the Code’s implementation coincided with the development of this project and a joint submission was made by members of the project group, recommending a new housing definition be adopted in further iterations of the Code.13

The four design propositions of this project suggest a new form of housing not currently covered in the Code. Whilst the schemes may share certain properties with existing definitions, they are neither: - Detached Dwellings; - Accessory Dwelling Units; - A Residential Flat Building; nor - Group Dwellings.

This definition difficulty results from two key design traits: 1. The allotment is not subdivided into separate land titles nor discrete measured areas attributable to any one dwelling. 2. Each dwelling, while identifiable, self-contained and not subservient 13. Given the State Government is the to any other dwelling on the site, relies on some level of common author and implementor of the Code, the public consultation submission built and/or landscape space and/or shared facilities. for this project was made collectively by the four councils and Dr Madigan. The draft Planning and Design Code submission therefore The State Planning Commission, DPTI recommended a new ‘Cohousing Accommodation’ definition be and SA Health were not a party to the submission in order to maintain created, based on the preliminary designs and observations of this propriety. project.

18 compatible andcomplementaryknock-down-rebuildmodel. of builtexamples,themodelmightbeconsideredforexpansiont This isundertheassumptionthatonceestablishedwithanumber regardless ofwhetherornotitissubjectto heritageprotections. where existinghousingisretainedandincorporated into thescheme, recommendation initiallysuggeststhemodelonlybeconsidered retains maturelandscapeand/orestablishesdeepsoilspace,the success across theentiresite.Mandatingasitestrategy that based onevidenced needandadesignresponsethatdemonstrates density increasesabove anticipated maximaforaneighbourhood, consideration ofreducedorzero carparkingrequirementsandfor localdesignreview panel.Itallowsforthe before anexpert provisions andto demonstrate thisasfit-for-purposeandcontext appropriate mixofdwellingdensity,openspaceandcarparking Accommodation putstheonusonproponent to establishthe development approach, thegroup’s recommendationforCohousing Encouraging adesign-led andsite-neighbourhood-specific ------Cohousing Accommodationcomprisesdevelopment that: referred to as‘CohousingAccommodation’. land usedefinitionsfordwellingsandaccommodationis A newhousingdefinitionisneededthatsitsoutsidecurrent

sharing, anddemonstrated need. relative to thenatureofdevelopment, itsdegreesof and zero carparkingrequirements) usingaflexibleformula, Provides carparking(includingtheconsideration ofreduced and street andto adjoining properties; soften theappearance andprovide ‘greenleafy’viewsfrom the space andprovides additionallandscapingtreatmentsto Retains maturelandscapingand/orprovision ofdeepsoil process; ofthepre-lodgement design review ofthedevelopment aspart pedestrian andvehiclemovement) andincludesarecognised within thesite(eg.resolvesprivate andcommunalareas Is designedto contribute to localcontextandisfit-for-purpose areas ofsharedopenspace; Reconsiders private openspaceinfavour ofconsolidated utilities (eg.water, electricity,gas,sewer); Includes sharedfacilities(eg.commoninternalspaces)and existing dwelling; with otheraccommodationthatisnotsubordinateto the Retains andincorporates theexistingdwellinginassociation with zone requirements; coverage andtechnicalnumericalvariations inaccordance Provides sitedensitydispensation,whilemaintaining entered into to maintainthisrelationship; and requiresalandmanagementagreement(orsimilar)to be Is situatedonthesameallotmentasexistingdwelling South Australian Draft PlanningandDesignCode - extract from theCHAW Project Group public consultationsubmissionto the

o a 19 Cohousing for Ageing Well: Background Cohousing for Ageing Well: a collaborative design research project

Recommended citation: Madigan, D. (2020). Cohousing for Ageing Well Design Research Report. Adelaide, University of South Australia.

University of South Australia Level 3 Kaurna Building, City West Campus 61-68 North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia 5000 +61 8 8302 0366 [email protected] CRICOS Provider no 00121B ABN 37 191 313 308 www.unisa.edu.au/about-unisa/academic-units/creative/