Cohousing- the Answer to Sustainable Development

Cohousing- The Answer to Sustainable Development

by Kirra McCollum

A THESIS

submitted to Oregon State University Honors College

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Interior Design (Honors Associate) Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Sustainability (Honors Associate)

Presented May 21, 2018 Commencement June 2018

M c C o l l u m | ii

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

Kirra McCollum for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Interior Design and Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Sustainability presented on May 21, 2018. Title: Cohousing- The Answer to Sustainable Development.

Abstract approved: Marilyn Read

In response to climate change and limited resources this paper reviews cohousing as a possible option for sustainable development. Sustainable design practices that incorporate economic, environmental and social issues need to be present in our neighborhoods. Other development methods incorporate one, but not all three, of the triple bottom line approach. In order to present comprehensive implementation strategies, findings from a literature review were synthesized. Observational research methods were used for local cohousing communities to investigate outcomes and applications of design elements from the literature review. The purpose of this study was to investigate the design of cohousing developments in Oregon utilizing a holistic design approach for cohousing developments. The question investigated asks for ways cohousing can address the needs of sustainable development. It is hoped that this study allows designers and consumers ways to incorporate sustainable practices for future developments. Conclusions revealed current cohousing communities do not reflect holistic sustainable development. A movement towards Retrofit Cohousing is suggested to better fit the sustainability model.

Key Words: Cohousing, Sustainability, Sustainable Development

Corresponding e-mail address: [email protected]

M c C o l l u m | v Cohousing- The Answer to Sustainable Development

by Kirra McCollum

A THESIS

submitted to Oregon State University Honors College

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Interior Design (Honors Associate) Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Sustainability (Honors Associate)

Presented May 21, 2018 Commencement June 2018

M c C o l l u m | vi Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Interior Design and Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Sustainability project of Kirra McCollum presented on May 21, 2018.

APPROVED:

Marilyn Read, Mentor, representing Interior Design

Erika Beyer, Committee Member, representing Interior Design

Mariapaola Riggio, Committee Member, representing Wood Science & Engineering

Toni Doolen, Dean, Oregon State University Honors College

I understand that my project will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University, Honors College. My signature below authorizes release of my project to any reader upon request.

Kirra McCollum, Author

M c C o l l u m | vii Acknowledgements

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Marilyn Read, my mentor. Her continuous encouragement and positive energy throughout the duration of my thesis is greatly appreciated. Without her guidance, generosity, patience and knowledge I would not be able to complete my honor thesis. This opportunity has given me the chance to push myself to limits I didn’t think possible so I thank you for your unwavering support.

I am also grateful for Erika Beyer my committee member and lifetime mentor for her assistance and enthusiasm for this project. The level of support and friendship I gained throughout my experience at Oregon State University has positively shaped my undergraduate career.

I would also like to take the time to thank my committee member, Mariapaola Riggio.

The willingness to participate in my project is immensely appreciated. Your kindness and help through my time of need allowed me to complete my research. The level of knowledge provided has inspired me to further pursue my education in areas I never expected.

Lastly I would like to express my appreciation for my friends and family for always pushing me to explore my passions - without their love and loyalty it would not be possible.

M c C o l l u m | viii Table of Contents

Introductions Overview ...... 1 Sustainability… ...... 1 Housing Industry ...... 2 Cohousing ...... 3

Theoretical Framework Degrowth Theory ...... 4 Drawdown Strategy ...... 5

Literature Review History ...... 6

Housing Design Considerations Current Trend ...... 9 Affordability ...... 10 Communitas ...... 11 Hierarchy ...... 11 The Common House ...... 12 Common House Amenities ...... 15 Space Planning ...... 16 Communal Kitchen ...... 17 Kitchen Layout ...... 18 Eating Atmosphere ...... 19 Privacy… ...... 19 Passage Ways ...... 20

Building Design and Construction Integrated Design ...... 21 Building Envelope ...... 21

M c C o l l u m | ix Passive House Strategy ...... 22

Water Usage ...... 23 Insulation ...... 24 Windows ...... 24 Light ...... 25 Acoustic Attenuation ...... 26 Materials Sustainable Design ...... 27 Modular and System Construction ...... 27 Resource Efficiency Alternatives ...... 28 Building Materials back to the Material Cycle ...... 29

Research Methods Observation Overview ...... 30 Observation 1 ...... 31 Observation 2… ...... 35 Observation 3… ...... 38 Observation 4 ...... 42 Common Architectual Themes ...... 44

Findings ...... 49 Communitas builds Bonds ...... 49 Diversifying communities ...... 51 Implementation of Sustainable Design Elements ...... 52 Retrofit Cohousing… ...... 55

Conclusion ...... 56

Citations ...... 59

M c C o l l u m | x Introduction

Overview

With sea levels rapidly rising, and the world steadily warming, the impacts of climate change in the past 10 years are occurring stronger and faster than predicted by scientists. With risks for our planet higher than ever, sustainable development should be at the top of the world’s agenda. Sustainable development is economic development that is conducted without depletion of natural resources as defined by Merriam-Webster. Through an increase in the threat of climate change, cities should be actively thinking about urban development that can meet the needs of current citizens’ without compromising the needs of future generations.

With so many aspects that relate to sustainable development, the focus of this paper is on the housing industry in relation to sustainable development. Several theories including the

Degrowth theory and Drawdown strategies are applied to existing cohousing development projects with the goal of assessing how cohousing can be the answer to future sustainable development.

Sustainability

When talking about sustainability it is important to carefully outline a definition and context as the word has various meanings. For the purpose of the paper, sustainability, uses the

Triple Bottom Line concept. The Triple Bottom Line concept was developed by a business consultant John Elkington in the 1990s to describe social, economic, and environmental value of investment (Elkington, 2004). Since then, the approach has been used to more accurately value assets and resources (Hammer & Pivo, 2017). The term regards economic, environmental, and

M c C o l l u m | 1 social potions of sustainability equally as all of these areas play an important role in maintaining and establishing sustainable practices.

To better refine the topic of sustainability, the United Nations ‘Sustainable

Development’ goals where used. The United Nations Developed 17 goals as of September 25th,

2015 to be accomplished by 2030 (“Cities- United Nations Sustainable development Action”,

2015). These goals touch on various areas such as ending world hunger, poverty, clean and affordable energy, gender equality, and clean water. Of the 17 goals, goal number 11, sustainable communities and cities, was the main focus. Goal number 11 is to make cities more inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable (“Cities- United Nations Sustainable development

Action”, 2015).

Cohousing is a concept that fits well in the sustainability model as it hits the areas of the

Triple Bottom Line. Cohouing is socially friendly as the interdependent living allows for higher levels of social interaction. It is also economically friendly since cohousing units are priced similar to their typical neighborhood counterpart. Cohousing can be environmentally friendly with careful planning and integrated design.

Housing Industry

The housing industry is at the top of sustainable development goals as excessive energy consumption and pollution to the surrounding environment are common byproducts

(Anderson, 1998). The world’s cities occupy just 3% of the Earth’s land, but account for 60-80% of total energy consumption and 75% of total carbon emissions (“Cities- United Nations

Sustainable development Action”, 2015). It’s important when moving forward to prioritize

M c C o l l u m | 2 constructing efficient buildings that meet demands while lessening the impact on the surrounding environment. According to recent studies, the shortage of adequate and affordable housing is one of the most common problems facing urban areas across the world

(Kacyira, 2016). One of the other large challenges in the housing industry is the poor quality of houses. Residents may face locational challenges as many find themselves living far from jobs with limited accessibility to services and amenities such as grocery stores or schools.

Considering that six out of every ten people are expected to reside in urban areas by 2030, the housing challenge the world is facing is more important than ever (Kacyira, 2016).

Cohousing

Cohousing, or collaborative housing, was first pioneered in the United States during the

1980s. Before then, this concept of collaborative housing was seen in various Scandinavian countries including Denmark, Sweden, and The Netherlands dating back to the 1970s (Vestbro,

2008). Since then it has been a growing trend in urban and rural areas across America.

Cohousing is a Danish concept of intentional communities created through private homes clustered around a shared area. This idea of intentional communities was established to help engage and support a community in a time when industrialization was at its highest (Fromm,

1991). The Danish turned to this alternative to meet housing needs because the concept helps to strengthen social ties and helps individuals to balance work and family responsibilities. This model also aims to foster an interdependent environment between families and individuals of all ages to facilitate a healthier and happier way of living.

M c C o l l u m | 3 Over the course of the past 40 years, Cohousing has become increasingly popular.

Throughout the United States 160 communities have emerged with even more communities being constructed every year (“The Cohousing Association”). Cohousing creates a joining of individuals which can facilitate a lifestyle that surrounds one with others who value social interaction. The increase in social interaction can help create happier, healthier, and more holistic lives for community members (Kim, 2017). For individuals who choose to reside in cohouse communities, their happiness levels and live expectancy increases (Kim, 2017). In a culture with an increased dependence on social media and electronics it is easy to feel isolated and disconnected from your surroundings, in particular one’s peers. Cohousing adds a level of physical socialization that typical American neighborhoods don’t have (Vestbro, 2008). This key element of social interaction is one of the main traits that makes Cohousing so successful and in such demand. This paper, as follows, attempts to outline the attractiveness of cohousing communities and how they can help with sustainable development across the globe.

Theoretical Framework

Degrowth Theory

With an era of rapid growth, impoverishment, inequalities, and socio-ecological disasters there has been an emergence of the Degrowth theory for cities and communities across the globe. Degrowth captures simplicity and encourages downscaling of both production and consumption (Lietaert, 2010). Activists for Degrowth theory encourage users to reduce production and consumption levels as over consumption is the root cause in environmental

M c C o l l u m | 4 issues and social inequalities ((D’Alisa, Demaria, Federico, Kallis, & Giorgos, 2015). Degrowth aims to maximize well-being, happiness and other non-consumptive means through turning away from our materialistic customs (D’Alisa, Demaria, Federico, Kallis, & Giorgos, 2015). This concept encourages people to spend more time towards community, culture, family, and arts.

This means if societies begin to adopt this concept, fewer natural resources will actually be consumed since the model encourages the sharing or resources. When we look at an economic strategy like the Degrowth theory, cohousing aligns well because it is a way of living that promotes well-being while using fewer, and shared, resources.

Drawdown Strategy

Another economic strategy that has been suggested by Paul Hawken is the Drawdown strategy. Similar to the Degrowth theory, Drawdown strategies urge consumers to reduce use of resources and focus on reversing global warming. Drawdown means that first point in time when greenhouse gases peak and begin to steadily decline over time. It refers to a concept in which all efforts are to “draw down” carbon emissions (Hawken, 2017). The compressive plan separates its goals into eight main areas including; energy, food, women and girls, buildings and cities, land use, transportation, materials, and coming attractions. The theory gives climate change solutions for humans to put to action. It shares ideas for new ethos required to face the new world we have created for ourselves (Hawken, 2017). It also presents net costs for the purchase, installation, and operation of new concepts as well as the net savings the concepts will retain once in use. For this paper, energy, buildings and cities, and the materials sections of the Drawdown strategies relate to cohousing.

M c C o l l u m | 5 Literature Review

History

Cohousing is an intentional housing community with spaces allocated for communal use within a conventional method of living of individual houses. Cohousing is a Danish concept that has been around since the 1960s but it wasn’t until the 1970s that a development was constructed (Fromm, 1991). The first Cohousing development was constructed in 1972. Danish

Architect Jan Gudmand-Hoyer and five friends had set plans in motion around the 1960s to begin the development process of a cohousing (Fromm, 1991). The community was designed by

27 families who wanted a greater sense of community than the typical suburban neighborhoods that were commonly available to them. Cohousing was a method of living that addressed some of the more basic needs of humans such as social interaction (Fromm, 1991).

They chose to locate the development just outside of Copenhagen, Denmark.

With a country filled with famous architects and designers it is not surprising cohousing developments first started in Denmark. Danish architecture is known for humanism, where the importance of design is placed on human interaction (Peters, Farrelly, & Lorraine, 2014). Danish architecture also incorporates long lasting designs which is how the cohousing community designed for sustainable social interaction came to life. The cohousing community combines the benefits of private dwellings with community living to establish a model that accommodates more families who wish to seek higher social interactions (Kim, 2006).

There are more than 700 communities across Denmark as of 2010 (McCamant &

Durrett, 2011). Considering that Denmark has a population close to five million, this ratio of

M c C o l l u m | 6 citizens who choose to live in cohousing developments, approximately 30%, is quite high

(Vestbro, 2008). As the trend has grown in Denmark and other areas of Europe the trend also begins to spread in popularity in America. The increase in popularity is driven by those who feel that cohousing addresses some of their needs on a level that typical neighborhoods do not. As the structure of a typical family begins to change, the idea of a traditional neighborhood will begin to shift towards cohousing (McCamant & Durrett, 2011).

The households that are commonly found in Cohouses make up various demographics including several inter-generational families. Many who hear ‘cohousing’ often associate the term with communities who function as spiritual or educational centers but this is not the definition of cohousing. Cohousing developments are intergenerational and usually do not target any specific family type, or age; with the exception of senior cohousing communities that have a minimum age requirement (Kim, 2006). This results in a community that is composed of all sorts of individuals and families of various ages, backgrounds, and diversities. Residing in a community such as cohousing allows individuals to gain a more authentic experience and deeper connections to one another.

The following images are examples of Cohousing Developments located across the globe. Cohousing developments can be in high density urban areas or in low density urban areas and are designed in various arrangements.

M c C o l l u m | 7

*Sketch of Cohousing in Hexem, United Kingdom. Image Source: http://moderni.co/senior-housing-moderni/

*WindSong Community in British Columbia, Canada. Image: http://windsong.bc.ca/homes-environs/about-windsong- cohousing/

M c C o l l u m | 8

*Capitol Hill Urban Cohousing. Image by: https://capitolhillurbancohousing.org/building/

Housing Design Considerations

Current Trend

Today our communities are combined with a mix of individuals and families representing various races, religions, origins, and genders. The housing industry doesn’t reflect this new diverse range of home owners as 69% of American home stock is designed for a

‘nuclear family’ consisting of a homemaking mother, a breadwinning father, and two to four children (McCamant & Durrett, 2011). In fact, the family that has two working parents is becoming the minority in family dynamics (McCamant & Durrett, 2011). This shift in dynamic greatly affects the surrounding communities as the interactions with one another begin to

M c C o l l u m | 9 change. Cohousing is an alternative to traditional neighborhoods which can allow adaptations in community dynamics.

Since 1973 the average home size has increased by 62% (Perry, 2016). The increase in house size has led to an increase in construction costs from 2005 to 2015 by 8.5% (Perry, 2016).

The increase in home size demands more land to be developed to meet our residential needs

(Perry, 2016). With larger homes also comes greater expenses in utilities such as electricity.

Although homes are more energy efficient than previous years, they do not necessarily incorporate sustainable concepts. One of the main issues that residents face today is affordability of sustainable products and designs. Cohousing units are typically smaller in size as the communal areas such as the common house and additional storage areas make up for the limited space. This movement towards smaller home sizes promotes efficiency as fewer resources are used.

Affordability

Expense is always an issue with any construction project, especially with housing developments. Housing developments with greater variety of house plans have more expensive individual houses. The larger the home the more expensive the home will be. Therefore, to provide a more economically friendly choice, housing plans for cohousing units stick to two to three house plans that are universal and can fit the needs of a wider range of families. Smaller units can also help to make homes affordable. With the concept of having sufficient shared space there is less need for individual units to have large interior spaces. Instead the design drives users to common spaces for public activities and the individual units for private activities.

M c C o l l u m | 10 Communitas

Cohousing developments that attempt to establish communitas have higher rates of success (Kim, 2006). Communitas is a social science term that defines a social unit. This includes people who share something in common, usually norms, religion, values, or identity. In the case of Cohousing, this is shared outdoor and indoor areas. The sharing of common areas, meals, and equipment can contribute to this concept. Another way of establishing communitas is through shared meals. Shared meals has played a role in human societies throughout history as a way to bind people together (Vestbro, 2008). Closer bonds are shown in communities that have regularly scheduled meals than those who have irregular or scattered shared meals.

Hierarchy

A cohousing development is similar to a human body. There are multiple systems in place that all work simultaneously to create an output; life. At the head of the body is the common house. The common house is responsible for keeping the cohousing development alive. It is the space that separates a cohousing community from a traditional neighborhood. It is important to distinguish the head from the body therefore many cohousing units design the common house to have a unique architectural feature. Some of these design choices include an extreme color, elevated location or distinct roof line (Kim, 2006). Hierarchy in design allows certain architectural elements to appear more important than others. It draws our attention to the change in detail and signifies that the building holds the most importance of the development (McCamant, Durrett & Ellen). This allows frequent or new visitors to quickly and clearly distinguish the common house from the rest of the individual dwellings.

M c C o l l u m | 11 The Common House

The diagrams show the typical massings seen throughout cohouing developments. All massing arrangements correspond to various levels of social interaction as described below.

The outlined boxes represent dwelling units and dark boxes represent the Common House.

*Key: = Common House = Dwelling Units

M c C o l l u m | 12 The physical location of the common house plays a large role in the level of community engagement (Vincent, 2006). Common houses usually hold central locations on the property which facilitate greater social interaction as everyone needs to pass by or enter at some point.

Cohousing developments that are in suburban locations tend to have their common house located at the center of the property with housing dwellings surrounding the property; creating a physical and social nucleus for community activities.

Cohousing developments that have the common house as a focal point that is slightly offset from the rest of the units often shows informal events as the units look on to one another and can facilitate higher interactions, such as those shown in diagram A and B.

Communities that have the common house located at the end of a closed street have the highest levels of interaction. This is because the common house is located in an area that is designed for residents to pass directly by neighbor’s doors which helps to build a stronger sense of community, as seen in diagram C (Vincent, 2006). Common houses that hold a variety of spaces also see the most interaction as residents like to take advantage of facilities that would not normally be available to them.

Key: = Common House = Dwelling Units

M c C o l l u m | 13 Common houses that separate ‘wings’ of the development operate as a neutral

common ground for those who live in each wing; as seen in diagram D. The neutral ground

encourages users to inhabit the space as they please. It also allows users to choose the level of

publicness they wish as those who desire to engage more can reside closer to the common

house than those who wish to have more private lives (Kim, 2006).

Key: = Common House = Dwelling Units

When the common house begins to detach form the rest of the dwelling units the

activity levels begin to rise (McCamant & Durrett, 2011). Residents have to travel farther

distances by foot or car to reach the common house which results in users spending longer time

periods in the common house, as shown in diagram D.

Key: = Common House = Dwelling Units

M c C o l l u m | 14 When common houses are located as the ‘gateway’ to the community and are the first building entered when approaching the cohousing complex the engagement levels begin to drop. The area becomes isolated form the main circulation areas and tends to get overlooked, as seen in diagram E and F. Users often enter into the facility through the common space yet choose not to return.

Key: = Common House = Dwelling Units

Common House Amenities

The common house is a crucial part to successful cohousing design but there are other key features that play large roles as well. A local ‘town hall’ type gathering center is essential for promoting communitas. Cohousing may consist of a series of individual units but they all make up one shared development so having a space that facilitates conversations is important.

Committee meetings should be held in an area that allows as many members as possible an opportunity to share their thoughts and opinions. Often these town hall gathering areas are located in the common house as it is typically in a central location and accommodates many residents.

M c C o l l u m | 15 Common houses have many additional features such as guest rooms, dining rooms, music and recreation rooms, libraries, offices, bike storage, fitness areas, play structures for children, laundry rooms, storage, and many more facilities. For most citizens, many of these amenities are not located within a home due to expense or viability. Common houses can allow residents to see the benefits of these features without feeling the economic burden that usually coincides with the space and amenities (McCamant, Durrett & Ellen).

Another critical aspect of Cohousing developments is the appearance of additional rooms in the common house. Many of the individual dwellings onsite are much smaller than their counterparts seen in traditional neighborhoods (Kim, 2017). The decrease in house space often affects the number of bedrooms that is seen in units. Common houses will often counter this by having guestrooms or teenage apartments. The extra rooms allow residents to provide comfortable space for house guests or family without feeling the burden of a larger house. The teen apartments allow teenagers, who wish to live away from home, a space to call their own but to still be a part of the community. Guestrooms should be located in a desirable space with ample privacy. Adjoining bathrooms to the guestrooms also make for successful design. In some designs when space is limited often the guestrooms will also double as children play areas when not being used.

Space Planning

When space planning for the common house it is important to consider circulation areas as well as spaces that receive the greatest amount of use. The common house is an area that should be regularly passed by at all times of the day and encourages residents to stop by and

M c C o l l u m | 16 spend time. The dining room should serve as the heart of the common house for maximum socialization (Alexander, Ishikawa, Silverstein, Jacobson, Fiksdahl-King, & Shlomo, 1977). When the dining room is located in the heart of the common house more people will stop in at irregular hours of the day. Alcoves in the common house can add an interesting feature when designing the common house. No two people occupy a space in the same manner which is why it is important to allow user interpretation in design (Alexander, Ishikawa, Silverstein, Jacobson,

Fiksdahl-King, & Shlomo, 1977). Alcoves allow for residents to interpret and use a space as they please. The intimate space can be a spot for relaxation, children to play, or homework to be completed. This spatial hexarchy allows for better space usage in an area that receives a high amount of traffic. Facilitating a common path of travel allows for less-used areas to establish small gathering zones.

Communal Kitchen

The common glue that makes Cohousing so special is the intention of sharing spaces.

Specifically, the communal kitchens create a community through participation in social events, such as group dinners. This concept of a central communal kitchen stemmed from a building complex in Stockholm in 1905 that held 60 apartments, none of which had their own kitchens

(Vestbro, 2008). There was one central kitchen in the basement that helped connect the building to the individual residents. An internal telephone network allowed residents to order various meals from the kitchen, such as breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The “collective maids” helped to service the building by delivering meals to families after chefs prepared food. To limit the maids’ work, multiple families would get together for shared meals so there only had to be

M c C o l l u m | 17 one delivery of food. This concept led to the elimination of housewives having to cook and prepare for their families and encouraged a sense of community with neighbors (Vestbro,

2008). Communities that showed the highest rates of communitas were those that had regularly scheduled shared meals with rotating table assignments (Kim, 2006). This allowed residents to form stronger bonds through conversations and interactions over the course of their table assignments.

Kitchen Layout

The physical design for the Kitchen in which the food is prepared is equally important to promote a sense of community for the residents. A kitchen needs to be large enough for multiple residents to prepare food without feeling like a commercial kitchen. Instead of the typical residential triangle that allows for easy movement between the stove, sink, and refrigerator, cohouse kitchens need to include a fourth element; counter space. The common kitchen is most likely being used for large scale meal production for 50 to 70 people for each meal. For maximum efficiency each element listed above should be no further than 10’ from each other (Fromm, 1991). Counter space should be no less than 48 sq. ft. of useable preparation space. Common kitchens that have a central work island are the most efficient for larger groups whereas gallery style kitchens work better for smaller groups. Stovetops with 4 to

6 burners should be located near ample counter space. A sink positioned near the stove top also helps to reduce accidents and spills that may occur in the kitchen. Another important element to the common kitchen is the dishwasher. A high efficiency dishwasher that saves energy over the many cycles is recommended for the space. It is also important that dishes and

M c C o l l u m | 18 cooking equipment are properly sanitized as many cohousing developments have upwards of four shared meals each week (Fromm, 1991).

Eating Atmosphere

It is not specifically the act of eating, but the atmosphere that surrounds the occasion that determines the importance of the social engagement or feeling of community. Soft light that is centrally hung low over the table allows contrast with darker walls and facilitates a gravitation to the table. People tend to have a stronger connection to the conversation as light levels help minimize distractions elsewhere and focus the conversation to the present

(McCamant & Durrett, 2011). A sense of intimacy is also formed when tables are grouped in smaller numbers. Larger tables, 10 to 12 people, can facilitate too much conversation which often leads to confusion and lack of engagement. Smaller tables, 2 to 4 people, leave community members feeling left out and the need to seek conversation elsewhere. The balance table grouping lies with 6 to 8 people at one table (Kim, 2006). The overall eating atmosphere of cohousing plays a large role in developing communitas within a community which is why the importance of dining seating is stressed.

Privacy

The level of publicness is a significant element in cohousing. Some residents wish to live in the center of the action while others want to live in isolation. Providing various levels of public engagement can be achieved through proximity to the common house (Kim, 2006).

Those who wish to live close to the action they can live near the common house. Others who wish to have more peace and quiet can choose a dwelling unit that is located farther from the

M c C o l l u m | 19 common house. Landscaping is a great way to provide barriers between neighbors and allow privacy. Landscaping serves as much needed greenspace in busy urban areas as well as sound and privacy barriers in more suburban locations. It can easily be removed or added to customize each home depending on the user and family needs. Taller hedges and landscaping can hide windows while still letting light into surrounding buildings. Lower shrubs and bushes can facilitate social interaction as residents pass by units and see neighbors.

Passage Ways

The community streets, or passage ways, are the second most important place besides the common house. The community streets act as an outdoor room that allows for small socialization and various degrees of privacy depending on landscape choices. The pure presence of human life such as furniture, toys, and lights help give the community a sense of safety and vibrant life. This simple sight of seeing others can help reduce feelings of isolation (Revell &

Anda, 2014). Often three to four households will choose to make semi-public gathering spots on shared land in the community streets. This allows for socializations without the high traffic that happens near the common house.

Outdoor areas that are directly located to receive maximum amounts of sunlight are used more often than areas that do not receive sunlight (Revell & Anda, 2014). In warmer months residents will gather for longer periods of time in these areas (Revell & Anda, 2014).

Children are also seen to exert higher levels of physical activity when in direct sunlight than in areas that are not in the sun (Revell & Anda, 2014). West or South facing shared outdoor spaces

M c C o l l u m | 20 should also be easily accessible from the common kitchen which allows for maximum interactions amongst residents.

Building Design and Construction

Integrated Design

Using an integrated design and building process can help obtain a holistic approach to sustainable design as it incorporates numerous stakeholders and sustainable design elements

(Winchip, 2011). The integrative process can help designers to understand the various aspects of a building that need to be considered for sustainable design. Some of these factors include reducing building size, reducing consumption of new resources, reducing outdoor and indoor air pollutants, reducing energy needs, reducing wasteful water practices, reducing waste, and reducing negative impacts on the environment (Winchip, 2011). An effective integrated design plan pays close attention to the reducing its impact by developing an intricate plan that includes factors of the site, building envelope, orientation, mechanical systems, products, needs of users, and economic issues. The built environment has a large impact on energy consumption, emissions, and sustainability which is why it is important for Cohousing developments to not only pay close attention to needs of users but also to the other factors that impact sustainable design (Pollo, 2014).

Building Envelope

Similar to the human body, every building has an outside skin that protects the interior and helps the building to function efficiently. The outside skin is often referred to as a building

M c C o l l u m | 21 envelope as it is the physical separator between the interior and exterior of a building (Winchip,

2011). A design approach that encompasses maintenance and conservation rather than consumption and waste can be adopted when constructing the building envelop to ensure long lasting and durable buildings (Pollo, 2011). As a designer, it is important to remember to choose the best solutions that can reduce the impact on the environment.

Passive House Strategy

Lancaster Cohousing community is an eco-award-winning design that encompasses renewable technologies and sustainable design. A cohousing community such as the Lancaster

Cohousing community in the United Kingdom maximizes building efficiency and minimizes its impact on the environment through the use of passive house standards. Many houses and buildings throughout Europe use passive house standards as building methods for sustainable development (Corner, Fillinger, & Kwok, 2018). Passive house standards are developed to reduce the amount of overall energy used throughout a building (Corner, Fillinger, & Kwok,

2018). The German standards have been shown to reduce home energy use by up to 90% compared to homes constructed without these standards (Corner, Fillinger, & Kwok, 2018). The standard has three main requirements in order to maintain simplicity:

1. Specific Heating Demand: < 15 kWh/m²a or 4.75 kBtu/ft²-yr Specific Cooling Demand:

< 15 kWh/m²a or 4.75 kBtu/ft²-yr

2. Primary Energy Use: < 120 kWh/m²a

3. Air Tightness: 0.6 Air Changes per Hour at pressure (50 pascals) (Corner, Fillinger, &

Kwok, 2018).

M c C o l l u m | 22 The Lancaster cohouse used this standard in both its common house and individual dwelling units. The standard pays close attention to higher insulation and passive solar heating as efficient mechanisms for energy saving and thermal control. The most efficient form of energy is the natural formation of sunlight. Harnessing this renewable energy source helps reduce energy bills and overall energy used throughout a building. For success, a designer must consider topography of a site, local climate, and latitude of the site, shape of building, orientation of building according to the site, location of surrounding trees, and location of adjacent buildings (Winchip, 2011). The Lancaster Cohouse is located in the Northern

Hemisphere therefore orienting the building along an east-west axis with windows on south facing walls allowed units to receive maximum amounts of sunlight for passive solar heating

(“Lancaster Cohousing”). Rooms that are located on the south-facing walls should include heat absorbing materials such as concrete, brick, stone, tile or earthen facades (Winchip, 2011). The distance from the south-facing window and the opposing wall must be calculated to ensure the wall will be close enough to absorb the energy and heat each room.

Water Usage

Efficient water usage is an important goal of sustainable design. It is estimated that the average water use per person per day is 100 gallons (Winchip, 2011). Simple tasks such as kitchen uses, flushing a toilet, bathing, and lawn watering attribute to this. Individuals can take action to reduce their water consumption but a building’s efficient water usage will reduce the impact of water waste. Selecting appliances and equipment that conserve water usage is a critical consideration a designer must make. The two primary methods of conserving water are to consume less by using water-efficient equipment and to engage in water reclamation and

M c C o l l u m | 23 reuse (Winchip, 2011). Low-flow technologies for kitchen sinks, toilets, and shower heads reduce water consumption. Low flow technologies incorporate air into the water streams to maintain pressure while using lowered amounts of water. Other aspects of these technologies include water-restricting aerators, automatic shut-off devices, and self-closing faucets with infrared sensors. Installing appliances that feature low-flow technologies can help cohousing developments reduce their water usage practices.

Insulation

Insulation is another important factor sustainable design. The resistance of heat flow through a given thickness of material is known as R-values (Winchip, 2011). Insulation with high R-values on a building’s walls, ceilings, and roofs can reduce thermal exchanges (Winchip,

2011). Materials that have high R-value provide the greatest amount of insulation and resistance to heat flow (Corner, Fillinger, & Kwok, 2018). R-values that are specified in

International Building Codes do not always address the needs for sustainable design. Passive house R-values range from 45 to 60 in walls and 50 to 90 in roofs depending on location and climate (Corner, Fillinger, & Kwok, 2018). In addition to the material R- values, the composition and manufacturing of materials used should be considered to minimize the emission of Volatile

Organic Compounds (VOCs) in the interior environment.

Windows

Window placement can help improve cross ventilation, increase natural light, and encourage the Biophilia effect. The Biophilia effect describes the positive impacts that are associated with design that incorporates the sensory experience of nature (Revell & Anda,

M c C o l l u m | 24 2014). This could be through sight, sound, touch, or smell. In the case of windows it is usually though sight, sound, or smell. Windows with a low sill can increase the Biophilia effect as users are often drawn to the large window. Low-emittance windows help retain heat in a building as the thin glass coating reflects light from sunlight in the summer and absorbs sunlight in the winter (Winchip, 2011). In areas that do not have direct sunlight exposure, skylights can help provide additional light in a space. Windows on two adjacent walls of a room can also help provide better ventilation. Cross ventilation helps control the climate of the space with lessened mechanical input.

In cohousing communities, the interaction with sunlight and nature can greatly help to maintain residents’ health during cold wintery months. Window orientation should also be carefully thought out to maximize views and privacy. Windows are a way to mediate interactions with the outside world (Kim, 2006). When residents can view activity that is going on outdoors there is a stronger sense of community that begins to build. Establishing a connection to the world around us is an important part of design that often gets overlooked.

Smart window placement can help connect a community with individuals.

Light

Light plays a large roll in a cohousing development. Similarly to any design, it is important to consider light in respect to the way a space will be used. This includes both artificial lighting and natural light. Rooms that have light that enters the space from two different walls allows users to feel more comfortable and to be more productive (Winchip,

2011). The atmosphere of a space is often generated by the use of light. For a more social atmosphere, natural light should enter the room from two sides with additional adjustable light

M c C o l l u m | 25 for later hours of the day. Better illumination helped facilitate conversations as hand gestures, facial expressions and other nonverbal cues were observed (Kim, 2006). Windows that are arranged within close proximity form each other on adjacent walls also help make a room feel larger which can be important when space is limited.

Acoustic Attenuation

Acoustic attenuation is a term used for the reduction of the magnitude of a sound signal by a variety of means (Binggeli, 2008). The reduction of sound can be implemented through isolating the sound, absorbing the sound through materials, or cancelling sound waves by electronic means. Designers of cohousing developments need to pay close attention to the reduction of sound as residential buildings within close proximity to one another often generate large quantities of noise. With concentrated areas of high traffic and noise it is important to allow for additional acoustic barriers to control sound. Installation of absorptive materials increase the effectiveness of sound absorption throughout a building (Binggeli, 2008).

The noise-reduction coefficient, or NRC, is a scalar representation of the amount of sound energy absorbed upon a particular surface where 0 is perfect sound reflection and 1 is perfect sound absorption (Binggeli, 2008). The ceilings, floors, and walls opposite of the sound source in cohousing developments should be treated equally, in terms of their noise-reduction coefficient (NRC), to maximize sound absorption (Kim, 2006). Acoustical ceiling tiles in cohousing make for excellent sound absorbers and can be easily implemented later as needed.

Fabrics that have high thickness, density, resistance to airflow and porosity can also be used on furniture throughout a space as sound barriers. Carpet is another sound absorber and is the only floor finish that absorbs sound. Although the application isn’t ideal for all areas of a

M c C o l l u m | 26 cohousing development, carpet can be used throughout common spaces, such as the common house, to reduce noise.

Materials

Sustainable Design

Sustainable design must conserve water, energy, and materials. Although methods to reduce energy and water usage throughout a building was discussed, the impact of material choices on sustainability share equal importance (Winchip, 2011). The phrase ‘reduce, reuse, and recycle’ often comes to mind when referring to sustainable materials (Hawken, 2017).

When considering the interior applications of materials it is important to consider this phrase.

To improve the material cycle there are five key areas including modular and system construction methods, use of resource-efficient alternatives, materials classified as non- hazardous to health (low to no VOCs), increased efficiency of manufacturing process, and the return to the material cycle (Khouli, John, & Zeumer, 2015). This paper focuses on modular and system construction methods, use of resource-efficient alternatives, and returning building materials to the material cycle.

Modular and System Construction

Modular construction is a method of building that breaks down the house into several sections, or modules, that are usually constructed off-site. Historically modular building techniques were used in portable or temporary buildings but over the past 15 years modular construction has been used in various applications including schools, hospitals, offices, and

M c C o l l u m | 27 high-rise residential buildings (Lawson, Ogden & Goodier, 2014). This new movement toward off-site construction comes from the measureable economic and sustainable benefits.

In modular construction three-dimensional components are generally fitted out in a factory which are then delivered to the site as the main structural elements of the building

(Lawson, Ogden & Goodier, 2014). Cohousing developments hold no exceptions in benefiting from modular construction. Often the degree of fabrication in accordance with construction can lead to an increase in resource efficiency (Khouli, John, & Zeumer, 2015). Less construction waste is produced on site since preliminary cuts and calculation are done off site at the manufacturing center. Accuracy when using modular construction also increases as standardized processes are used in the manufacturing centers (Khouli, John, & Zeumer, 2015).

Since the construction components need to be transported to the site, the materials are lightweight with less material used which means less wastage in comparison to the traditional building method. Modular construction can also reduce costs to the client as the detailed design work is implemented by the modular supplier and the building times are shorter

(Lawson, Ogden & Goodier, 2014). Modular assembly can be composed of a combination of brick, steel, concrete or of timber construction.

Resource Efficiency Alternatives

Appropriate resource sourcing can establish resource efficiency alternatives. The use of locally sourced materials is an easy way to establish resource efficiency as the materials used are often best suited for the environment. Locally sourced materials is a concept specified in guidelines such as LEED or Cradle to Cradle (McDonough & Braungart, 2002). Other methods for resource efficient product alternatives include increasing the proportion of renewable

M c C o l l u m | 28 materials. One way to increase the proportion of renewable materials is through the use of timber construction. Timber construction uses large solid wood panels for floor, wall, and roof construction (Khouli, John, & Zeumer, 2015). Timber construction is beneficial in reducing global warning potential as it uses 30%-40% less in energy input compared to the load-bearing structure composed of reinforced concrete (Khouli, John, & Zeumer, 2015). In the context of

Cohousing energy input refers to the thermal energy wood can recover to reduce the amount of fossil fuels needed to control temperatures within a building.

Flooring and wall coverings are two aspects that often get overlooked which specifying sustainable finishes. Floors and walls comprise a considerable amount of a building’s surface area. Durability should be considered to reduce consumption and waste delivered to landfills

(Winchip, 2011). Flooring with low or zero VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) such as bamboo, wood, recycled-content tile, and Portland cement help maintain healthy indoor air quality.

(Winchip, 2011). Bamboo, that is organically and sustainably grown, can be a durable product for a cohousing development as it is fire-resistant, dimensionally stable, and exhibits that same hardness as red oak (Winchip, 2011).

Building Materials back to the Material Cycle

Household recycling is a way to reuse valuable materials and a way to return building materials back to the material cycle. Developers of cohousing communities designed with existing buildings would assess the usability of existing materials to minimize waste. An established cohousing community can also implement household recycling through valorization

(Hawken, 2017). Valorization is a term that refers to extracting the value that an item retains when it is thrown away (Hawken, 2017). Building materials from recycled products can reduce

M c C o l l u m | 29 waste inputs and outputs. For example, Interface carpet recycles products such as plastic fishing nets to be processed into beautiful carpet tiles which can then be installed in residential or commercial spaces as recycled materials (Anderson, 1998). For sustainable materials, the content of the matter should be made from recycled material as well as provide performance characteristics that are desired for a cohousing development such as sound absorbency and durability.

Research Methods

Observation Overview

Observations were conducted at four different co-housing developments in Oregon including EcoVillage, PDX Commons, Daybreak Community, and the Oakleigh Meadows. Several research objectives were the basis of the data collection process.

Research questions:

 How is the Common House located with respect to the building site and dwelling units?  What amenities are available on site (common house) or nearby?  What attempts towards sustainable practices are used?

M c C o l l u m | 30  Diversity of Cohousing residents?

*Chart reflects research questions outlined above for emphasis during observation. Areas marked “N/A” are for locations that are still undergoing construction.

Observation 1

The first observational research site was at the Eco Village in Corvallis, Oregon. The Eco

Village was designed in 2007 and is a collection of 34 individual homes on 6.8 acres in south

Corvallis. The site includes nine buildings with individual homes, two communal buildings for various activities, and parking. Shared garden and outdoor space with seating fills the streets and surrounding areas of the Eco Village. The common house is approximately 2800 sq. ft. with approximately seven rooms for various activities including a music room, recreation area, kitchen, and living room. The units consist of two-, three-, and four-bedroom layouts with unit sizes ranging from 850 sq. ft. to 1425 sq. ft. The visit to the Eco Village was on a Thursday in the middle of the day (2/8/18 at 1:30 pm). Most residents of the Eco Village were absent at school or work as the Eco Village did not seem to be as lively as it would be on the weekend. The observation of the exterior lasted for 30 minutes and another 30 minutes was spent on a tour

M c C o l l u m | 31 of the property by a homeowner. The notes as follows are listed as seen observing the property and are arranged in no particular order.

M c C o l l u m | 32

*Images by: Kirra McCollum

i. The Eco Village is situated on an East to West axis to follow the path of the sun,

maximizing useable sunlight hours of the day. Personal gardens and natural

spaces were seen throughout the community. Each garden/ greenspace

consisted of edible and non-edible local plants. Few residents were tending to

gardens/outdoor space, primarily elderly females and young children. Several

residents were sitting outside on decks or porches that faced towards the other

buildings. Each resident appeared to be eating or drinking something. Couples

M c C o l l u m | 33 and individuals walked amongst the greenspace to get from point A to point B.

Children’s toys, playground areas, and sandboxes were seen throughout the

property but children were not present due to the hour of the day visited. ii. The common house was located at the end of the path, central in location to the

rest of the buildings. Ample and large windows faced the outdoor space, each

room had windows on adjacent walls. The intention of this space appeared to

allow those inside to see what was going on between each house and those

outside to see what was going on inside the common house. This would be

convenient when young children are outside playing and adults are inside.

Facilities include laundry room, guest bedrooms, children play areas, library,

offices, dining room, commercial kitchen, woodshop, bike storage, communal

garden and greenhouse, and a hot tub. iii. Each individual unit had a private yard space around the back of the building

with some dwelling units that had small additions to allow for extra storage.

More than 10 homes have solar panels as well as the common house, garages,

and other shared spaces.

M c C o l l u m | 34 iv. The surrounding environment of the Eco Village features surrounding the

property include numerous bike paths and trails that disappeared into the

wooded forest and Crystal Lake. Clustered parking away from buildings is also

available for residents. The central path that weaves between the dwelling units

is foot traffic only. There is a bus stop approximately 600 ft. from the Eco Village

which allows residents to have access to public transportation. Bikes were

parked outside houses and by the parking area and stored in the bike garage.

*sketches drawn based on observations.

Observation 2

M c C o l l u m | 35 The second observational research site was the PDX Commons Cohousing in Portland

Oregon. This recently constructed community is targeted towards senior citizens who wish to live in a cohouse. The observation took place at the PDX commons open house tour on April

29th at 2:15 pm and lasted for 45 minutes. The notes as follows are listed as seen observing the property and are arranged in no particular order.

*Images by: Kirra McCollum

i. The location of the PDX is notably central as the street has many amenities

within walking distance of the building. It is located of SE Belmont St and

looks like a typical four-story condominium. There are lots of shops and

stores that line the street with the TriMet #15 bus station at the end of the

block. PDX Commons is also located within walking distance from Mt. Tabor

M c C o l l u m | 36 and Laurelhurst parks. The popular entertainment district of SE Hawthorne

Street is also located just a few blocks away. Considering the target group for

this cohousing community is elderly people, the building is in perfect location

as one could walk anywhere. ii. Although the Commons are located just off busy Belmont Street, once inside

the noise level is minimal. The building is oriented in a U shape with the

common house on the east side of the building where one first enters. A

courtyard lies in the center of the four-story building with a Communal

kitchen and dining area on the opposite side. On the main floor lies the guest

bedrooms and bathrooms, communal living room, laundry room, bike

storage and workshop, library, entertainment room, exercise room, and art

room. Upstairs, floors two, three and four, lies the individual apartments

ranging in one, two and three-bedroom units. The property consists of 27

apartments ranging in square footage with the three-bedroom, 1200 sq. ft

unit, to a two-bedroom 950 sq. ft unit to a one bedroom 700 sq. ft unit. iii. Although the units had been customized to fit the needs of each resident, the

units all had similar floor plans. Each apartment entered directly upon the

kitchen dining room followed by a living room with a view. Opening off the

living room was the bedrooms and bathrooms depending on the unit and

bedroom number. All units featured 14’ ceilings, white walls, large windows

overlooking the communal courtyard, minimal kitchens, and polished

concrete floors. Only 10 units out of the 27 units on site had private

M c C o l l u m | 37 balconies that overlooked a back street. Each unit had a master bedroom

with a bathroom suite that featured built – in closet space that divided the

two rooms. Ample daylight filled the rooms allowing rooms to easily heat up

and provide adequate light for residents.

iv. Each floor had walkway on the inside of the buildings that overlooked the

courtyard below. On floors three and two, small nooks had seating for small

groups to meet. The center courtyard had numerous seating options and

tables as well as a fire-pit and garden space.

*Sketches drawn based on observations.

Observation 3

The third observational research site was at Daybreak Cohousing in Portland Oregon.

This community is a well-established cohousing community just outside the downtown area of

Portland. The building finished construction in early 2008 with 30 homes and a 7,000 sq. ft. common house. The cohouse has many green features that have been incorporated into the

M c C o l l u m | 38 overall design of the house which has been divided up into 4 overall categories: Making good use of location and site, natural systems predominate, location-specific heating systems, material and construction methods (Kim, 2006). The notes as follows are listed as seen observing the property and are arranged in no particular order.

*Images sourced from: http://www.daybreakcohousing.org/

i. The Daybreak Cohouse made good use of the location as the existing site was

already developed with apartments before transitioning to the cohousing

M c C o l l u m | 39 development. The surrounding neighborhoods around Daybreak cohousing

more dense than other cohousing developments visited in Oregon including

Portland and other areas. The design accommodates this by having modest

sized homes with a larger common house in a central location. Another way

they addressed limited space was through the green areas featuring

landscapes that included both native and edible plants. ii. Daybreak Cohousing tries to let natural systems predominate. This means the

community wanted to allow the natural features of the area guide the house

design rather than adding additional system. It was important for the

Daybreak to have a building that generates all of its own energy with

renewable resources as well as properly harvest a d treatment of the ample

water that falls in Oregon. Built for passive-solar design, the homes have

optimal solar orientation and shading so that there is southern exposure in

all homes. There is also on-site storm water management as well as green

roofs and photovoltaic panels. iii. Location specific heating systems was also important for the Daybreak design

so a hydronic radiant floor heating system is in place. There is a ductless spilt

system in the Common house to use fewer materials. This allows better

regulation and heating/cooling room-by-room so only the rooms used are

betting addressed.

M c C o l l u m | 40 iv. The last but most important characteristic of Daybreaks “green” features is

the use of materials and construction methods. When first constructing the

building a deconstruction method was used rather than demolishing the

previous existing building on site. This allowed for recycling and reuse of

material to be used during the new construction. Locally sourced materials

was also used during construction. A more advanced framing method was

used during construction that has wood-frame of FSC lumber. The walls and

floors are highly insulated, with formaldehyde-free insulation, which creates

a tight building envelop. Energy efficient triple pane wooden windows were

installed to help control the indoor air quality. On the interior of the building,

all fixtures, lights, and appliances are energy efficient.

*Sketches drawn based on observations.

M c C o l l u m | 41 Observation 4

The fourth observation site was of the Oakleigh Meadow Cohousing in Eugene, Oregon.

This community has been recently established and still under development with an expected completion date of November 2018. The development will consist of 28 units on 2.2 acres of land near the Willamette River. The intergenerational community consists of independent households that share a common house similar to most cohousing designs. There are five types of units available on site including two, three, and four bedrooms individual flats and townhouses. After studying the preliminary drawings and visiting the exiting site the following observations were made.

M c C o l l u m | 42 *Images sourced from: www.oakleighmeadow.org/common-house-design/ i. Located just outside the heart of Eugene, the Oakleigh Meadow Cohousing site is

situated within close proximity to stores, recreation, parks, and two miles away

from the University of Oregon. Across the street from the development lies

Ninkasi’s Brewing and Tasting room. Within walking distance from the

community is a Whole Foods, numerous bars and restaurants, an arcade, book

stores, a fitness gym and various churches of different faiths. A bus stop that

connects passengers throughout the city is positioned less than 200 ft. from the

development. ii. The preliminary site plan indicates that the Cohousing development will be

broken into to dwelling areas with the common house centrally located. Both

areas have a combination of house sizes and are situated on an east to west axis

to allow maximum light to all units. All units connect to the common house

through vehicle free communal paths. Ample greenspace and garden areas is

located throughout the development to prove privacy and outdoor areas. iii. The common house sits two stories tall and centrally located amongst all

dwellings. Its amenities include a commercial kitchen, dining room, teen room,

laundry, kid’s play area, guestrooms, public bathrooms, extra freezer storage,

lounge areas, music room, mail room, and bike storage. Designed by McCamant

& Durrett Architects, the property has ample windows, skylights and solar panels

on the roof.

M c C o l l u m | 43 iv. The individual units are designed to have an open floor plan that allows for three

separate areas: functional, access, and circulation. The units also feature outdoor

spaces including front porches and large windows that separate the indoor and

outdoor spaces. The kitchen, living room, and dining room are all open to one

another to allow adaptation to individual units as needed.

*Sketches drawn based on observations

Common Architectural Themes

After conduction all four observations, common architectural themes were found. The common house holds the upmost importance for cohousing developments and seem to share similarities across the various environments. Transparency to the shared space, limited access points and circulation, multiple gathering areas, and distinct wayfinding of the common house is observed throughout the four cohousing developments. These design qualities create a sense of safety, comfort and interest to residents.

M c C o l l u m | 44 All of the developments had the common house located in a central arrangement. The individual dwelling units are oriented in a manner that allows for direct viewpoints of the common house or other shared areas. In cases such as the Daybreak Community, PDX

Commons, and the Oakleigh Meadows, the dwelling units look directly into the common house.

The EcoVillage is arranged in a manner that allows each housing unit to look onto the shared green space and the adjacent unit. In all developments the dwelling units feature large transparent windows that look directly into shared spaces. The transparency and abundance of windows allows for the facilitation of social interaction. The purposeful architectural detail permits residents to be constantly looking into shared spaces which can help contribute to communitas. The permeability of the space also contributes to a sense of safety among the community. Being able to see the common space enables residents to keep watch of those entering and exiting the space or of children playing.

Even though two of the developments observed were in low density areas of Oregon, all of the cohousing developments featured limited access points. The EcoVillage is arranged along an open central path of travel yet it is limited to two entry points where the main path of travel connects to the adjacent parking lot. There is also one central entry way and exit point to the common house at the Eco Village. The PDX Commons and Daybreak Community may be in urban settings but still maintain limited access points. In the PDX Commons there are two entrances and exits that lead directly into the first floor common house. In the Daybreak

Community there are four access points that allow for entry and exit. The Oakleigh Meadows development has only two access points into the common house. The limited number of access points into these developments directs a central path of travel into the common house which

M c C o l l u m | 45 establishes a sense of safety and interest. A sense of safety is provided as the few entry and exit points limits the amount of areas outsiders or young children can walk through without being noticed. It also contributes to a sense of interest because residents are forced to circulate the same areas which instigates socialization.

Common spaces are crucial to cohousing development. Therefore, many of the developments have smaller gathering spaces in other areas of the development besides the common house. This is demonstrated in the PDX Commons where each floor of the building has an enlarged landing area with seating to accommodate 6 to 8 people. The small gathering areas often look out to larger gathering areas such as the deck and fireplace area below in the case of the PDX Commons. Similar to the PDX Commons, the Daybreak Community had seating in areas where the walkways are widened. Many of the small gathering spaces are located directly across from dwelling units’ doors and adjacent to the common paths of travel. In the Eco

Village, these smaller gathering areas were seen between dwelling units and intertwined throughout the greenspace. The small gathering spaces allows for residents to meet in an informal manner. The establishing of these small informal gathering areas are a true distinction from cohousing communities and typical neighborhoods. Many social interactions and bonds are formed in these areas which are important for sustaining a community and providing a sense of interest.

Cohousing developments are often designed to appear cohesive at a quick glance. It is essential to distinguish the common house from the rest of the dwelling units for easy wayfinding. In successful design, wayfinding the entrance to a building is easy and obvious. In

M c C o l l u m | 46 Cohousing developments, the use of hierarchy, as discussed above, is often used to distinguish the common house from the dwelling units. Spatial hierarchy is exhibited when physical changes in architecture, landscaping or paving occur to help differentiate the common house from adjacent spaces (Kim, 2006). Spatial hierarchy is only exhibited on the exterior of the building and not inside.

In the case of the EcoVillage in Corvallis, the wayfinding to the common house occurs with an architectual change. The dwelling units at the EcoVillage feature gable roofs with colorfully painted wood siding. The buildings are all two stories in a range of colors including yellow, green, blue, and purple. The common house in a single-story building with a gable roof line and red-painted wood siding. The distinct change in architecture of the Eco Village’s common house allows for wayfinding of residents and visitors.

In the PDX Commons the cohousing development consists of one building. The hierarchy for the common house therefore comes through circulation. As one directly enters into the PDX Commons, the first level of the common house is seen. Since one must past through the common house to enter or exit the building the limited paths of travel indicate the public and private areas. Where the dwelling units begin the hallways are open to the outdoors with views circulating the common patio below. The transparent views to the common areas help signify public areas as the private areas have limited transparency.

The Daybreak Community features similar architectural differences as the Eco Village.

The community features four separate building with the southeast building being the Common

House. The flat-roofed buildings have vibrant yellow and red wood siding. The common house

M c C o l l u m | 47 is located on the first floor of the southeast building and is entirely red wood siding. The common house extends out further than the levels above which provides a distinct architectural change in the common house and dwelling units. This change can help wayfinding to the common hose for residents and visitors.

The architectural themes found amongst developments are unique as they distinguish cohousing from traditional neighborhoods. The common houses are the heart of the development and therefore have specific characteristics that create the collaborative environment. Cohousing thrives on collaboration and sharing of resources, spaces, and ideas.

By allowing for transparency of the shared spaces, deliberate and limited access points and circulation, multiple small gathering areas, and distinct wayfinding to the common house, the sense of safety, comfort, and interest is established.

*The graphic below represents the level of “transparency of the shared spaces, limited access points and circulation, small gathering areas, and wayfinding to the common house” for each of the cohousing developments visited. Where 1 is little, 2 is moderate, and 3 is high.

M c C o l l u m | 48 Findings

Cohousing relies heavily on shared spaces. Without the communal areas there is no community. The shared areas can be as simple as a shared garden or as complex as a

Communal house. After observing the Cohousing developments throughout Oregon it is clear that the root of cohousing success lies within the communal areas. Designs that incorporate large central kitchens and dining rooms show the most success. Shared outdoor space and gardens also reflect the level of active communities seen. Those cohousing developments with more greenspace showed higher rates of usage in those areas which facilitates higher social interactions. Overall there are several crucial elements of design that have been demonstrated and are crucial for successful cohousing developments that are discussed as follows: (1) generating of communitas builds bonds and helps strengthens communities, (2) diversifying of communities leads to greater inclusion, and (3)additional implementation of sustainable design elements within developments.

Communitas builds bonds

Communitas defines a social unit, people who share something in common, usually norms, religion, values, or identity. In the case of Cohousing, this is a shared outdoor area and indoor area. Communitas is something that gets developed over time through social interaction. Cohousing developments with well- designed site plans attribute to communitas, however communal areas hold the greatest impact. Communal areas, such as the common house, are the major source of social interactions and, therefore, are the most important contributors for communitas.

M c C o l l u m | 49 This sense of belonging can support one’s overall happiness and life expectancy (Kim,

2017). Communities bring support in all forms and interconnectedness of lives. This community is generated by more than just the structure and design of the building but by the actions and events that take place. The sharing of meals is a large contributor towards communitas.

Communities that have shared meals on a regular basis, one to two meals a week, showed a greater sense of communitas.

The common kitchen that prepares the shared meals should be large enough for residents to prepare food without feeling like a commercial kitchen such as the kitchen seen in the Daybreak, Ecovillage, and PDX Commons communities. The design showed ample counter space and easy movement between the stove, sink, and refrigerator. The presence of natural light through large windows was seen in the common houses of the Eco Village and PDX commons which created an effective atmosphere of the common house. The natural light and greenspace is the organic bond that attracts social interactions crucial to communitas.

Both the Eco Village in Corvallis, and the PDX Commons in Portland had seating arrangements with tables of 6 to 8 seats with low hung lights. Both communities also had regularly occurring meals each week as well as potlucks, garden parties, talent shows and other special events. These events along with shared meals can all help evoke the sense of communitas and deeper bonds. These cohousing developments are clearly incorporating the concept of communitas which helps enhance the community.

Diversifying communities

M c C o l l u m | 50 When looking at a typical neighborhood in the U. S., the arrangement of individual homes is composed of families and individuals with a range of diversity and backgrounds. Many

Cohousing developments across the US are intentionally only targeting senior citizens for their residents in these communities. These communities are intentionally set up to include individuals in the same age range. However, a range in religion, race, sex, political view, and social classes are all encouraged to promote improved quality of life indicators for individuals and families. Many Cohousing developments consist of individuals and families with limited demographic variables, including those who are white, middle-class, highly educated, and liberal. (Sanguinetti, 2015). Cohousing developments in Denmark show higher levels of diversity across all demographic and ideological variables, whereas those in the United States show a lack of diversity in demographic and ideological variables

Cohousing is priced slightly higher than its traditional neighborhood counterpart which makes it less appealing to young families and adults. Often individuals have to pay for the dwelling unit as well as home owner fees that go toward maintaining the common house and other communal spaces. There are several solutions that cohousing development could adopt to lower the expense on dwellings and attract more diverse communities, one being retrofit cohousing. Retrofit cohousing is a method that reuses existing house stock, over half of the housing units previously existed on site, for the formation of a cohousing community

(Sanguinetti, 2015). Retrofit cohousing can help lower expenses of developments as members who already own their home only need to pay for cohousing associate fees. The simple act of taking down fences in an already existing neighborhood can create a cohousing community.

The new community that develops has a wider range of diversity because the growth is organic,

M c C o l l u m | 51 and gradual and more affordable. Retrofit cohousing developments promote economic sustainability as they encourage vitality and diversity (Strobel, 2006). Individuals with lower incomes and fewer assets, racial minorities, those with less formal educations, and younger people are drawn to retrofit cohousing. Traditionally cohousing developments have been recognized for unconventional communities yet the communities are still homogeneous

(Strobel, 2006). Increasing diversity among cohousing developments will strengthen social and economic sustainability. The cohousing developments observed had strong communitas present but without diversity, cohousing cannot be sustained. Of the cohousing developments observed, the levels of diversity was limited, many of the developments appeared to have similar residents and families. Social sustainability is an important component of sustainable development and cannot be overlooked. Housing development models that address the need for diversity can be sustained for longer periods of time and are therefore a healthier take on sustainable development.

Implementation of sustainable design elements

Successful cohousing is greatly centered on the design of the site, buildings, and units.

Many of the cohousing developments are well designed and carefully thought out, but lack elements of sustainable design.

Of the cohousing communities observed, only one showed elements of sustainable design other than solar panels. The Daybreak Community adopted a design that centered on letting the natural systems predominate the design. The development had PV panels, green roofs, passive solar design, and storm water management systems. The construction of the

M c C o l l u m | 52 Daybreak Cohouse leads to its overall sustainability as there were many efforts to incorporate sustainable design including returning building materials to the material cycle, and the use of resource-efficient alternatives. During the construction process building materials from the previous site were used for the construction of the new development. Although the community was not built to passive house standards, the construction did place emphasis on the insulation of the building to ensure a tight envelope. The use of energy efficient fixtures, lights, and appliances also contributes to the use of resource-efficient alternatives.

Other communities observed only implemented solar panels rather than the other suggestions listed above such as modular construction and utilizing passive house standards.

Cohousing developments that use passive house standards use less energy and are therefore more sustainable and affordable. Passive houses can use as little as 10% of the energy compared to its typical counterpart home (Corner, Fillinger, & Kwok, 2018). Buildings that utilize passive house standards don’t need conventional heating and cooling systems and therefore can budget the money toward thicker insulation, ventilation systems and better windows. Cohousing communities such as the Lancaster Cohousing in the United Kingdom that has adopted passive house standards into their designs see benefits such as energy saving, lower bills, and better climate control (“Lancaster Cohousing”). The cohousing developments visited had sustainable elements such as solar panels that had been added later to the building to increase sustainability but none were really designed with this intention. Incorporating passive house standards to the cohousing designs increases building efficiency which ultimately helps achieves sustainable development.

M c C o l l u m | 53 Modular construction along with passive house standards achieve many sustainability benefits including more efficient manufacturing and construction. Modular construction allows reuse at the end of the building’s lifecycle and improved in-service performance of the finished building (Lawson, Ogden & Goodier, 2014). During the construction process, modular construction allows for less pollution, wastage of materials, and a faster construction process

(Lawson, Ogden & Goodier, 2014). Once constructed, modular buildings can be extended or adapted as needed which is a benefit in the context of cohousing. Cohousing developments are constantly growing and changing as the residents grow and change consequently it important for developments to include room and potions for adaptation. Modular construction can also improve energy performance as there is better airtightness and installation of insulation during assembly at the manufacturer. The main use of energy over the course of the building’s life is through operational energy that occurs through heating cooling and lighting.

Although modular construction is becoming increasingly popular within the U.S, none of the cohousing developments observed had used this technique. Cohousing communities, especially the PDX Commons community, can use modular construction to reduce the costs of building. This can lead to lower housing prices which promotes healthy diversity. Cohousing developments that implement modular construction and passive house standards can reduce their overall energy imprint from the duration of the building lifespan and through the construction process.

Retrofit Cohousing

M c C o l l u m | 54 Retrofit Cohousing alone doesn’t provide the holistic model for sustainable development as it is missing areas in the environmental portion of sustainability. Cohousing, as mentioned before, fits well into the Triple Bottom Line as the social and economic aspects are easily met through house pricing and high levels of social interaction. The environmental portions of sustainability are not as easily met through the current design methods for cohousing developments in the United States. To better address the areas of sustainability and cohousing, the graphic below outlines the sustainability model and the idea of retrofit cohousing.

*The Venn diagram represents the three aspects of sustainability (economic, social, and environmental) and how a retrofit cohousing can address all areas.

M c C o l l u m | 55 Cohousing is already benefiting our land use since the large common house allows for smaller dwelling units. In high density areas this model can be beneficial when land is limited but demand is high. The shared space seen in cohousing allows for units to be smaller in square footage and ultimately accommodate more dwelling units per building or per plot of land.

Retrofit cohousing is appealing for sustainable development because exiting neighborhoods and apartment buildings can be converted to cohousing developments. This keeps the process of construction, and ultimately material wastage, to a minimum.

With the incorporation of sustainable building practices, these developments can become more holistic. Incorporating green roofs or more garden space into the development helps improve water quality, mitigate the urban heat island (for cohousing developments located in high density areas), and conserve energy (Kelly, 2006). Integrating passive house standards to retrofit cohousing buildings will also help conserve energy and ultimately contribute to a more sustainable building. Using modular construction for any additions to the pre-existing development can also help improve the environmental aspects of retrofit cohousing as the method of construction minimizes wastage. Lastly, switching appliances and furniture to more environmentally friendly options can also help reduce the overall impact. The combination of implementing environmentally friendly design options into Retrofit Cohousing can help establish a more holistic housing model for sustainable development.

Conclusion

The concept of Cohousing communities fits well into economic theories such as the

Degrowth theory and Drawdown strategies for sustainable development. When it comes down

M c C o l l u m | 56 to design and implementation many current cohousing models don’t reflect holistic sustainable development. Developing a Cohousing community that implements careful site and building design, diversity, communitas, and sustainable design elements, is the next step to better aligning cohousing with sustainable development. The concept of cohousing has the ability to meet the changing needs of residents across the United States help of a few adaptations.

Retrofit Cohousing is a good alternative as it incorporates existing neighborhoods that already have a greater range of diversity. It also pushes the reuse of building materials back to the material cycle. By implementing environmental aspects into the developments, as discussed above, can help make retrofit cohousing into a more holistic model for sustainable development. Modular construction is another method that cohousing development can adopt in new developments. This type of construction aligns with the Drawdown strategy that encourages reducing the imprint on the environment. Modular construction can reduce building costs of dwelling units and the common house which means lower-income families can afford to live in cohousing communities. The lower-income family’s transition towards cohousing will aid to promote higher levels of diversity. Passive house standards can also be used in new cohousing developments to address environmental aspects of sustainable development. The tightly sealed and insulated building envelopes allow for lower energy use and emissions.

Moving forward there needs to be a change in our housing dynamic as the developments being constructed are not going to sustain our future generation. Options such as cohousing, retrofit cohousing, and cluster homes are good alternatives for sustainable

M c C o l l u m | 57 development. Retrofit cohousing offers a unique solution that can be sustained through increasing diversity amongst communities. In conclusion, the combination of adding diversity and sustainable design elements along with emphasizing communitas for cohousing developments is the future of socially, economically and environmentally friendly sustainable development.

M c C o l l u m | 58 Citations

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, Sara, Silverstein, Murray, Jacobson, Max, Fiksdahl-King, Ingrid, & Shlomo,

Angel. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction (Center for Environmental

Structure series; v. 2). New York: Oxford University Press. Anderson, R. (1998). Mid-course

correction: Toward a sustainable enterprise: The Interface model. Atlanta: Peregrinzilla Press.

Binggeli, C. (2008). Building Systems for Interior Designers. (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

Chatterton, P. (2013). Towards an Agenda for Post‐carbon Cities: Lessons from Lilac, the UK’s First

Ecological, Affordable Cohousing Community. International Journal of Urban and Regional

Research, 37(5), 1654-1674.

Cities - United Nations Sustainable Development Action 2015. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/

Corner, D., Fillinger, Jan C., & Kwok, Alison G. (2018). Passive house details: Solutions for high

performance design. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

D'Alisa, G., Demaria, Federico, & Kallis, Giorgos. (2015). Degrowth: A vocabulary for a new era.

Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the triple bottom line. In Henriques, A., Richardson, J. (Eds.), The triple

bottom line: Does it all add up? (pp. 1-16). London, England: Earthscan

Fromm, D. (1991). Collaborative Communities: Cohousing, central living, and other new forms of

housing with shared facilities. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

M c C o l l u m | 59 Grant Revell, & Martin Anda. (2014). Sustainable Urban Biophilia: The Case of Greenskins for Urban

Density. Sustainability, 6(8), 5423-5438.

Hammer, J., & Pivo, G. (2017). The Triple Bottom Line and Sustainable Economic Development Theory

and Practice. Economic Development Quarterly, 31(1), 25-36.

Hawken, P. (2017). Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming.

New York, New York: Penguin Books.

Kacyira, A. K. (2016, July 14). Housing is at the center of the sustainable development agenda.

Retrieved April 16, 2018, from https://blogs.worldbank.org/psd/housing-center-sustainable-

development-agenda

Kelly, A., & Library of Congress. Science, Technology, Business Division. Science Reference Services,

issuing body. (2006). Green roofs. (LC science tracer bullet; TB 06-1). Washington, D.C.]: Library

of Congress, Science, Technology & Business Division, Science Reference Services.

Khouli, S., John, Viola, & Zeumer, Martin. (2015). Sustainable construction techniques: From structural

design to material selection: Assessing and improving the environmental impact of buildings

(DETAIL Green Books). Munich, Germany: Edition Detail.

Kim, G. (2006). Designing the cohousing common house. University of Washington.

Kim, G. (2017, April). Retrieved May 05, 2018, from

https://www.ted.com/talks/grace_kim_how_cohousing_can_make_us_happier_and_live_long

er/transcript?language=en

Lancaster Cohousing. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.lancastercohousing.org.uk/Project/Standards

M c C o l l u m | 60 Lawson, M., Ogden, Ray, & Goodier, Chris. (2014). Design in Modular Construction. (1st ed.). Boca

Raton: CRC Press

Lietaert, M. (2010). Cohousing's relevance to Degrowth theories. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6),

576-580. https://www-sciencedirect-

com.ezproxy.proxy.library.oregonstate.edu/science/article/pii/S0959652609003916

Malmfeldt, J. (1990). Vertical cluster houses : An affordable plan for new homes. Kirkland, WA: The

Author.

McCamant, K., Durrett, Charles, & Hertzman, Ellen. (1994). Cohousing: A contemporary approach to

housing ourselves (2nd ed. / with Ellen Hertzman. ed.). Berkeley, Calif.: Ten Speed Press.

McCamant, K., & Durrett, Charles. (2011). Creating Cohousing: Building sustainable communities.

Gabriola, B.C.: New Society.

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/osu/reader.action?docID=688715&query=

McDonough, W., & Braungart, Michael. (2002). Cradle to cradle : Remaking the way we make things

(1st ed.). New York: North Point Press.

Perry, M. J. (2016). New US homes today are 1,000 square feet larger than in 1973 and living space per

person has nearly doubled. Retrieved April 18, 2018, from

http://www.aei.org/publication/new-us-homes-today-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-

1973-and-living-space-per-person-has-nearly-doubled/.

Peters, T., & Farrelly, Lorraine. (2014). Socially Inclusive Design in Denmark: The Maturing Landscape.

Architectural Design, 84(2), 46-53.

M c C o l l u m | 61 Riccardo Pollo. (2014). Building Design, Durability, Maintenance: Methodology for the Durability

Forecasting. Techne: Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment, (7), 178-185.

Roufechaei, Kamand M., Bakar, Abu Hassan Abu, & Tabassi, Amin Akhavan. (2014). Energy-efficient

design for sustainable housing development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 380.

Sanguinetti, A. (2015). Diversifying Cohousing: The Retrofit Model. Journal of Architectural and

Planning Research, 32(1). doi:10.1007/springerreference_61289

Strobel, H. (2006). Building reuse, cohousing, and the land ethic. Urban Action: A Journal of Urban

Affairs 2006: 13- 18

Sustainable Development. (2018, February 22). Retrieved April 14, 2018, from

http://www.iisd.org/topic/sustainable-development

Vestbro, D. U. (2008). History of Cohousing. Retrieved from www.kollektivhus.nu/pdf/colhisteng08.pdf

Vincent George, V. (2006). Sustainable Community: Learning from the Cohousing Model. Community

Development Journal, 41(3), 393-398.

Wheeler, S., & Beatley, Timothy. (2014). The sustainable urban development reader (3rd ed.,

Routledge urban reader series). New York: Routledge.

Winchip, S. M. (2011). Sustainable Design: For interior environments. Fairchild Books.

Zilberman, D. (2014). The Economics of Sustainable Development. American Journal of Agricultural

Economics, 96(2), 385-396.

M c C o l l u m | 62