29cohousing.pdf

Allan

Rosen

This

articleinvestigatesthe potentialof cohousing

as a

model

for sustainable communities.

Cohousing

isa

new

form ofresidentialdevelopment which has

become

popularin the United Statesover

the lastfiveyears. Itis conceivedasanalternativeto

conventionaltract-stylesubdivisions.

Cohousingcom-munitiesutilizeacommunity-baseddesignprocessand are intended to foster

more

cooperative lifestyles

among

theirresidents.

The

firstsection ofthisarticleprovidesbackground

informationtofamiliarizethereader withthebasicsof cohousing. Includedisaformaldetlnitionof cohousing,

abrief descriptionofitsorigin,anda

summary

ofthe current statusof cohousing in theUnited States.

The

secondsection investigatescohousing'srelationshipto sustainability.ltbeginsbydelineating thesustainability

movement

intothreeagendasforaction:the

environ-mental, equity, and process agendas; and then

dis-cusses

how

cohousingaddresses these agendas.

The

thirdsection looksattrendsincohousing's evolution

andatstrategies forfacilitatingitscontinued growth.

Three aspects ofits evolution are explored: the site

plan,targetpopulations,andtheplanningprocess.This

section alsosuggests

how

currentplanningpractices

can beadaptedto facilitatethegrowthof cohousing.

Defining

Cohousing

Kathryn

McCamant

andCharles Durret coinedthe

AIUdiRosenworksforSelf-Help, alocalcommunity bank inDurham. NC.

He

isastudentattheDepartment ofCity

andRei^ionalPlanningatthe University'ofNorthCarolina

at Chapel Hill, where he is specializing in housing and communitydevelopment This articlewasoriginally

writ-tenasa paperfora seminar onSustainableDevelopment in theDepartment.

English

word

"cohousing" in their 1988

book

Cohousing:

A

Contemporary

Approach

to

Hous-ingOurselves.

They

offera definition basedonfour

characteristics

common

tocohousing developments: • _{"Participatory Process: Residents organize and}

participateintheplanninganddesign processforthe housing development, and are responsible as a

groupforallfinaldecisions.

• Intentional

Neighborhood

Design:

The

physical designencouragesa strong senseof

community.

• _Extensive

Common

Facilities:

An

integral part ofthecommunity,

common

areasaredesignedfor daily use,tosupplementprivate living areas.

•

Complete

Resident

Management:

Residents

manage

thedevelopment,

making

decisionsof

com-mon

concernat

community

meetings."'

The

participatorydesign processallowsfuture

resi-dentstoplayaprominentandvitalroleindesigningthe

layout and format ofthe community. Residents

be-come

fullyinvestedinthe entiredevelopmentprocess.

Major

decisionsare

made

byconsensus. This process

results in the future residents having a significant

impactonthefinaldesign.

The

physicaldesign encour-agesasenseof

community

byincreasing the areasof social interaction. Placing parking on the periphery givestheneighborhoodapedestrianorientationandis

oneoftheprimedesignattributesofcohousing.

Another important design feature is the interface betweenthe publiccourtyardsandpedestrianstreets

formed bythe homes' locationand the

homes

them-selves. Frequently, the

more

public

rooms

in each

30

these publicareas. Similartothe

way

inwhich Frank

LloydWright'sresidentialdesignsintertwine the in-doorsandoutdoors,cohousing

homes

intertwine public andprivate spaces.It isthisarticulationofsemi-public,

semi-private patterns that encourages spontaneous interactions

among

neighbors.

The

extensive

common

facilitiesofcohousing

com-munities

complement

theself-sufficientprivatehomes.

The

common

house is the most prominent shared

featureofacohousing community.Itusuallyincludes

a kitchen and dining area for regularly scheduled

community

meals and one or

more

specialtyrooms, suchas alaundry, chiIdren'sroom,guestroom,

work-shop, and/orartstudio.

Common

outdoor spaces

may

includesportsfields,gardens, achildren's playground,

a pond, and/or a gazebo. Shared access to such amenities fiirtherstimulatesthecomradery ofcohousing communities.

Complete

resident

management

also encourages socialcohesion.

Through

collective responsibility for

activitiesincluding landscaping,maintenance,children's

activities,

common

meals, consensus building, and

disputeresolution,

community

residentsdevelop

inter-personaland

management

skills criticaltothe healthof

theircommunity.

Origin

of

Cohousing

In 1964,a

young

Danish architect,Jan

Gudmand-Hoyer,gathered togetheragroupoffriends toexplore

housing options.

They

sought an alternative to the

single-familysuburban house and tothe multi-story apartmentbuilding.

Row

houses

seemed

lessisolating

butthey lackedasense of community.

By

theendof

the year, the group had purchased property on the outskirtsof

Copenhagen

wheretheyplannedtobuilda

new

community

of twelve

homes

and a

common

house.Opposition fromlocalresidentspreventedthis

projectfrombeing completed.Yet.withinafewyears, the socialclimate

was more

acceptingofwhat

would

become

cohousing.

In 1967, author Bodil Graae published an article

entitled "Children Should

Have

One

Hundred

Par-ents",whichcalled for

more humane

residential neigh-borhoods. She concluded the article by asking that

those interested in forming a housing "collective"

which was

children-friendlytocontacther.

Over

fifty

people responded.

The

nextyear,

Gudmand-Hoyer's

article

"The

Missing Link

Between

Utopia and the

Dated

One-Family

House" was

publishedina national newspaper.

He

receivedoverone hundredresponses

from persons interested in living in a place like he described. Later that year,

Gudmand-Hoyer,

Graae,

and

some

families from the earlier failed endeavor

begantoplanacohousing

community.

Thistime they

weresuccessfu1.

The

firsttwo cohousing communities

came

outofthis effort. Inthefallof1972,27families

moved

intothefirst

community,

Saettedammen, and

thenextyear,33 families

moved

intoSkraplanet.

By

1980,therewere 12owner-occupied cohousing

com-munities in

Denmark.

Two

yearslater,there

were

22 and atthe endofthe decade

more

than 120ofthese communities had beenbuilt.- Clearly,cohousing had struck achord with

many

families.

InEuropethere are

now

severalhundred cohousing communities,primarilyin

Denmark, Sweden,

andthe

Netherlands. With over twenty years experience of cohousinginEurope,thevariouscommunitiesexhibit

many

variationsofthe basic model. Tenurepatterns

now

includebothrenterandmixed-tenure,inaddition

tothe originaltenurepatternofownership.

Where

the original communitieswereprivatelyfinanced

initia-tives,there are

now

alsocohousing communitiesthat

aregovernment-financedandpublic-private ventures.

Incontrasttothe limiteddemographicdiversityofthe originalcommunities,recentcommunities havegreater age and socioeconomic diversity. In addition, the cohousing

model

hasbeenadaptedto

meet

the special needsofelderly populations.'

The

Danishtermforcohousing, "bofoelleskaber,"

translates as"livingcommunities."Kathryn

McCamant

and Charles Durret are California trained architects who,duringathirteen-month period spanning1984 and 1985,conductedafieldstudyof46 cohousing

commu-nitiesin

Denmark,

theNetherlands,and Sweden.Their

book, Cohousing:

A

Contemporary Approach

to

Housing

Ourselves,

was

publishedforthepurpose of inspiring"peopletotakea

more

active roleincreating the

home

and neighborhood they

want

to live in."^

Sinceitspublication,

McCamant

andDurrethave been thechief proponents ofcohousingintheUnitedStates.

They

have conducted hundreds of

workshops

and

consulted with scoresof emerging

cohousingcommu-nities. It is safetosay that virtuallyallofthegroups

undertaking cohousing initiatives in

America

began

when

one or

more

individuals in the group either

attended a

McCamant

and Durret

workshop

orread

theirbook.

Current Status of

Cohousing

in the United States Accordingto the national magazine,

CoHousing:

Contemporary Approaches

to

Housing

Ourselves,

eachinthestatesofColorado,

M

innesota.

New

Mexico, andOregon.These communitiesinckideapproximately

two

hundredhomes,housing overfourhundredpeople.

Atleastsixothercommunitiesareinvariousstagesof

construction and will be completed within the next twelve months, three of which are located in the eastern United States:

Lake

Claire in Atlanta,

GA,

PioneerValleyinPelham,

MA,

andArcadiainCarrboro,

NC.

CoHoiisingalsolistsover 150 coregroupsinthe

U.S. and

Canada

that are currently inthe process of

planningacohousingcommunity.*^

Cohousing

isclearlyexperiencinggrowthinNorth America.Thisgrowthisalsoevidencedbythevariety

ofresources availabletopersonsinterestedincohousing

and bytheextentofnetworkingunderway. Umbrella

groupsareformingregionallyto facilitatetheeffortsof

core groups.^CoHoiising and Northeast

Cohousing

Quarterly, both extensive newsletter/magazines,have beenpublishedsince 1988.There have beenregional, national,andinternationalconferenceson cohousing and related issuesinthe past few years. Advice on a varietyofcohousing issues isavailablefrom experi-enced cohousing consulting professionals. Scholars

arepublishingbooks andjournalarticlesoncohousing and itis the focusofseveral graduate school master

theses. Finally,extensive national

media

attention is

beingdevotedtocohousing.

What

canthe

phenomenal

growth ofcohousingin

America

be attributed to?

A

primary cause is that cohousingoffers a practicalsolutiontothe

mismatch

between conventional housing options and today's households.Simplyput,

many

oftoday'shouseholds

view

the traditionalsingle-familydetached

home

ina residential subdivision not as an ideal but rather as

isolating,both geographicallyandsocially.Such

homes

arenotonlyanachronistic,theyarealsodysfunctional

for

many

families. In addition, traditional

American

subdivisionshavenotonlybeencriticized intermsof

isolation, but also as being unsustainable, i.e., they

require high inputs ofnon-renewable resources and have adverseenvironmental impacts. Landscape

ar-chitectClare

Cooper-Marcus

sums

itupthisway:

"The

conditions from which cohousing arises are

widespread: declininghouseholdsize,social

isola-tion, the demiseoftheextended family,changing

gender roles, and problems of social justice and

resourceconsumption.

None

oftheseconditionsis

just apassingphaseand, whilethe ideologyofthe

detachedsingle-familyhousewill persist,cohousing

isahighqualityandhighlysustainablealternative."^ It is the relationship

between

cohousing and sustainability thatI

now

turn

my

focusto.

Cohousing's

RelationshiptoSustainability Sustainabilityhas

become

abuzzword.

Around

the

world, ithascapturedthe attentionofpoliticiansand

policymakers, academics, business persons,andjust plainfolks.Sustainabilityattemptsto address

thecon-flict between

economic

growth and environmental

degradation. Sustainable development patterns are

those which ensure that the needs of the present populationaremetwithoutcompromisingtheabilityof

futuregenerationstomeettheirneeds.''Proposalsfor

adaptingvirtuallyallaspects

ofmodern

lifehave been

made

inthe

name

ofsustainability.

Prominent

among

the concerns raised by discus-sionsofsustainability isthe percapita level of

con-sumption ofbothmaterialgoods and non-renewable energy resources in the United States.

The

current

ratesofconsumption bode ill for the future because

theyareunsustainable.Furthermore,becausetheU.S.

isthe

envy

ofmany

developingnations, their

develop-ment

aspirations implicitly

assume

similar rates of consumption. Anotherissueofparamount concernis

the search for

more

sustainable settlement patterns.

Making American

settlementpatterns

more

sustain-able

would

notonlyestablish a sustainable future for

our country but

would

alsoserve as an

example

for

developingcountries.

Sustainability is amulti-faceted concept. Broadly

speaking, though, 1 believe there are three agendas

undertherubricofsustainability.Theseclassifications are labeledagendasbecauseIview

them

notsimplyas

definitions, but as calls for action, i.e., agendas for

change.Theseare theenvironmental,the equity, and the process agendas. Descriptions of these agendas areasfollows:

•

Environmental Agenda:

To

_{reduce and/or}

elimi-nate theadverseenvironmental impactsofhumanity's

economic

andproductiveprocesses.

• Equity

Agenda:

To

address issues of poverty,

livelihoods, equity,andsocialjustice.

• _Process

_Agenda:

A

_{harmoniousresolutionofthe}

environmentalandequityagendaswillbefacilitated

byaninclusiveplanning processthatactivelyseeks

inputfroma diversegroupofparticipants,

particu-larly those individuals and communities

who

are

usuallyatthesocioeconomic margin. Atthe local

level, informal, decentralized,andsmall-scale

ap-proaches are highly

conducive

to achieving

sustainability.

The

environmentalandequityagendasdefine

what

is to be achieved with sustainability. Aspects ofthe

patternsincluderesource useandconservation,

recy-cling, and pollution; those from the equity agenda

includehousingaffordability, childcare,andjob

cre-ation. In contrast to the goal-oriented nature ofthe

environmentalandequityagendas,theprocessagenda

statespreferencesformethodsof seekingsustainability.

Informal,decentralized,andsmall-scaletechnologies

thataresustainableinclude passivesolarheatingand community-supportedagriculture. This section

con-cludesbyidentifyingthoseelements ofthesustainabilit\

agendas thatcohousing isbest suitedto addressand

how

it addresses those issues.

Cohousing

and

the Environmental

Agenda

Cohousing's

most

obviousthrusttowardsa

sustain-ablefuture isintheenvironmentalarena.Its landuse

and resource utilization patterns go a long

ways

to-wardsachievingsustainability.

Land

Use

Existingcohousing developmentsintheU.S.exhibit three patternsoflanduse:progressivesuburban,infill

andadaptivere-use,and

mixed

use.

The

firstcategory

is similar to the best land use patterns adapted in

mainstreamresidentialdevelopment. Approximately

one-halfofthe cohousing communities displaythis

configuration.

The main

environmental goals ofthe

progressivesuburban pattern are theconservationof openspaceand minimalon-siteenvironmental

distur-bance.

In both Europe and the United States, the first

cohousingcommunities werebuiltonpreviously

unde-veloped land. Yet, achieving sustainable settlement

patterns will requireincreasedutilizationofinfilland

adaptive re-use strategies.

The

cohousing

model

is

flexible

enough

to

employ

these strategies. Three Californiacommunitiesdemonstratethis.InEmeryville, located in the East

Bay

area of San Francisco, an

abandoned

warehouse inan industrial neighborhood

hasbeenconvertedintoatwelve-unitcohousing

com-munity.

The

Southsidepark

community

in

downtown

Sacramentowillhave25

homes

onits 1.3 acresite.It isthefirstinner-city residentialdevelopmentin

Sacra-mento

in

many

years. In Davis, residents ofthe

N

Street

community

haveconvertedaresidential, grid-style block into a cohousing

community

through a

process of purchasing

homes

for sale over several years.

To

a varying degree, all cohousing communities have elements ofthe mixed-use pattern. At a

mini-mum,

thereisusuallyon-sitechildcareand

some

food productionfromgardens.

The

fullpotentialof

mixed-usecohousingcommunitieshas notyetbeenexplored.

however.

One

day

we may

see

more

emphasis on

providing non-residential servicesto the immediate community.This isespeciallyprobableinurban

set-tings.Suchusesmightincludeofficespace,spacefor

cottage industries, day care, and food and laundry

services. Inrural settings,itislikely that largeportions ofthe

community

'sfood needswillbeproducedwithin thecommunity.

ResourceUtilization

Regardless ofthesite'scharacteristics,virtuallyall

cohousing communities incorporate sustainable

re-sourceutilization patterns intotheirdesignprogram.

Conservation,the limiteduseoftoxicchemicals,and the increased use ofrenewable energy sources are typical areasofconcern. Resource conservation can applytoenergy,water,andmaterialsconservation.

On

theenergyfront,itistypicalforcohousingcommunities

to callforhigh standards ofinsulationand

weatheriza-tion,toconsider cogeneration technologies,andtake

intoconsiderationthe

amount

of

embodied

energyin

building materials

when

making

materialsselection. Indirectly,ofcourse,itisdesiredthatresidentsreduce

theiruseofprivateautomobiles.This

may

befeasible

because ofon-site childcare, cooperative shopping

trips, andon-siteentertainment,thusreducing

night-timeand

weekend

travel.

Water

conservation can be enhanced through the

useofwater conserving

plumbing

fixtures,landscape design and plant selection, greywater systems and

rainwatercollectionmethods.Materialconsumption

can bereducedbothduring constructionandafter.For instance,

wood

products derived from sustainable forestrypractices

would

be preferredoverthosethat

arenot.Durable-goods consumption can be reducedat

thehouseholdlevel;

vacuum

cleanersand

lawnmowers

are likelyprospects forshared use.

Non-toxic environments are another area of con-cernincohousingcommunities. Planningfornon-toxic

environmentsincludesrelying substantially,or

abso-lutely,onorganicandbiological

methods

forlawn and

gardenuse.

The

otherprimar>'concerninthisarenais

building material selection. Residentsofcohousing communitiestypicallyselectnon-toxicbui Iding

materi-als.Utilizationofrenewable energysources,primarily

viapassivesolartechnologyandphotovoltaics,isalso

highonthelistof cohousingresidents' goals.

Cohousing

and

the Equity

Agenda

The

cohousing

model

advancesthe equityagenda

primarily

by

making

housing

more

affordable.

Cohousing can lower housing expenses

two

ways.

throughhigher density,whichallowsthe"sunk"costs tobedistributedovera greater

number

ofunits.Other

means

forloweringthepurchasepriceinclude

reduc-tionof developmentfees, profitmargins,and

market-ingcosts.

Economies

ofscalein materials purchases

can also be achieved. In several instances, local

governmentsare participatingincohousingventuresto

promoteaffordability. Alternativeformsof ownership that

American

cohousing communities are experi-menting with can also reduce the cost ofhousing,

particularlyfuture salesprices.Theseincludelimited

equityco-opsandlandtrusts.

Second, cohousingalsohasthe potentialtoreduce

the

home's

operating expenses.Theselifecyclecosts

savings are primarily a function ofreduced energy consumption.

Cohousing

residents

may

also experi-ence increaseddisposable income. This

would

result

from the budget savings associated with reduced

expenses for food (from

common

meals andon-site

food production)andchildcare.

Cohousing

and

the Process

Agenda

By

definitionandpractice,cohousingisa

decentral-ized,small-scale,andinformalapproachtodeveloping

residentialhousing. For thosedirectlyinvolvedin cre-atinga cohousing

community,

the process is highly

inclusive.And,inAmerica,most cohousing

communi-tiesconsiderdiversityan importantgoal.Withrespect

to household size and residents' ages,

American

cohousingsucceedsinachievingdiversity.

Socioeco-nomic

diversity isachieved in two ways. First, local

governments haveparticipated in several cohousing projectswiththe expressaim of

making

some

ofthe housing units affordable. Second, by not practicing

exclusionary zoning,i.e.,requiringminimumlotand/or

house sizes, cohousingcommunities can

accommo-date awiderangeof

home

sizes. This,inturn,

makes

itpossibleforlessfinancially-ablehouseholdstojoin thecommunity.

Cohousing:

Trends and Support

Strategies

As

in Europe, cohousing in

America

is gaining popularityas a

model

for residential development. It

also

shows

greatpromiseasa

model

forsustainable, affordable,andpsychologicallysatisfying

communi-ties. Advocates of both sustainabilityandaffordable

housingwillbe lookingtothis

model

asanalternative form of development that addresses their areas of concern.Itisinstructiveforthoseinterestedin

promot-ingcohousingtofamiliarizethemselves with

evolution-arytrendsincohousingandinstrategiesformakingthe developmentclimate

more

conducivetocohousing.

Evolution of the

Cohousing

Model

CohousingSiteand

House

Plans

The

cohousing

movement

is beginning its third

decade.

Over

thistwenty-plus yearhistory,the

physi-calplansforcohousingsitesand houseshave

demon-strated significant changes.

With

regards to private homes, the most important change is that houses in

more

recentlydeveloped communitiesaresmaller than

theirpredecessors.

Community

residents are adjusting

their lifestylesso thattheyrequirelessprivate space. Siteplanshavealsoundergoneanevolution.Inhis

exam

inationof Danish cohousingplans,

Coldham

iden-tifiesthree stagesofplantypes.

The

courtyard

model

isbasedontraditionalvillagesettlementpatterns.

As

cohousing

became

accepted,thisplanevolvedintothe

pedestrianstreetmodel.This planbetterimplements

cohousing's goalsofcooperationandsocial

interac-tion.

The

thirdversion involves narrowingthestreet

and spanningitwithaglazedroof.Thisgalleria

model

allowsthe

common

spacesto be used year-round in

Denmark's

harsh winterclimate.Nearly twenty

Dan-ishcohousingcommunities haveutilized this feature.'"

Both changes noted aboveare based onthe Euro-pean experience with cohousing. In America, the

movement

is too

new

to indicatesuch patterns.

The

smallnumberofexistingcommunitiesinthe U.S.,built

over suchashorttimeperiod,donot yield a sufficient basis for comparison.

However,

similar trends

may

reveal themselves. In any event, those designing

cohousingcommunitiescan

make

useofthishistorical

recordtoguidetheirplanning. Inaddition, architects and other professionals can explore the tradeoffs

made

by cohousingconsumersregardingprivateand public space.

Model

Diversity

Variation in European communities is evident in termsof demographics,financing,andtenure.

Ameri-can cohousing developments are just beginning to

show

similardiversity.Withregardstodemographics,

American

communitiesaredemonstratingsignificant intergenerationaldiversity.American communitiesare not yetservingspecialpopulations,suchasthe elderly, asisthecaseinDenmark.

Two

initiativesinCalifornia,

though, are of interest. In San Luis Obispo, a core

groupisworkingwiththecountyHousingAuthorityto

developamixed-tenurecommunity. Halfofthe units areplanned tobe rentedto low-incomeelderly

resi-dents. In

Morgan

Hill,severalnon-profithousing

agen-ciesareworkingwith CatholicCharitiestodevelopa twelve-unitcohousing

commun

ityforlow-incomesingle

parent families CatholicCharitieswillprovide support

34

Local governments intheU.S. aredemonstrating willingnesstoparticipateincohousingventures.Thisis

generallydone inexchange for

commitments by

the

community

to

make

some

ofthe units available as

affordable housing units. This, however, coincides with the goals ofthe typical cohousingcommunity'.

Government

participationisusuallythroughthe

dona-tionorsaleofthesite,housingsubsidies, or both.Local

officialsare attracted tothese communities because

the strong sense of

community

is seen as an asset.

Seattle citycouncilman JimStreet,

who

has

become

a

supporterof cohousing by workingwith aninnercity

coregroup, believesthatcohousingresidents"bringa

strong

commitment

toreach outtotheirneighborsand build

community

spirit."'-Planning Process

The

one area

where

the cohousing

model

may

be

underthe

most

stressin

America

isthetimeittakesto complete a development.

Cohousing

developments

can takethreeor

more

yearstocomplete. Falsestarts, suchaselapsedsitepurchaseoptions,testthepatience

ofthecore group.Suchalengthytimeframe

discrimi-nates against those

who

can not afford to

make

financial

commitments

several years in advance of

occupancy.

Such

delays

may

alsoresult inincreased

housingcosts. For this reason, a market for experi-enced cohousingconsultantsisthriving.Core groups are also seekingthe services ofdevelopers,

some

of

whom

are in turn attempting to develop cohousing

communities.

This pressureondevelopingcohousingcommunities

more

quickly

may

lessen the

commitment

tothe par-ticipatoryplanningprocess.Thiswouldthreatenoneof

thefoundationsofahealthycohousingcommunity:its

senseof communit}'.It

may

inturn lessen theuseofthe

common

facilitiesandtheemphasis on

self-manage-ment

communities.Withoutthisinteraction,thesocial

cohesion ofthegroup

may

be stunted and the skills

necessar>' tomaintainahealthy cooperative lifestyle

may

notbedeveloped.

To

circumventthis,long-term

opportunitiesto

bond

asa

community

shouldbesought

to replace the process of designing a

community

together.There

may

be other vehiclesforestablishing the crucial sense of community.

As

core groups

delegatemoretechnicalresponsibilit>'to professionals,

theyneedto seeksuch alternatives. Planning for

Cohousing

Cohousing

isa grassrootsresponsetotheneedfor

a

more

humane

andfunctionalhousing form.InEurope

andAmerica,thechiefproponentsforcohousinghave been architects.

To

a remarkable degree, though.

these ventures have been established with limited professionalguidance.Yet,atonetime oranotherall

cohousing groups haveinteractedwith planners and

otherlocal officials.

The

suggestionscohousing

advo-cates offer forfacilitatingthegrowth of cohousingare similartothoseofaffordablehousingadvocates.

One

fundamental suggestion is that core groups should contactearlyandoften local planners,publicofficials,

and their future neighbors.

Such

a proactive stance

achieves several purposes. First, it informs key per-sons,inatimelyfashion,of an unconventional

develop-ment

proposal.Second,potentialproblems and

adver-saries can be identified and resolutionssought. This

leadstothe thirdreasontoengageinsuchadialogue.

The

core groupcan identifykeypersonsto lobby, if necessary.

CoHousing

publisheda listofeightregulatoryand

landuse techniquesthatlocalgovernmentscan useto

encourage cohousing.

The

suggested techniques are

to streamline permit processing, ease development standards,zoneforhigher density, establish inclusionary zoning programs, offer growth control exemptions,

encourageinfilldevelopment, encourageadaptive

re-use ofolder structures, and provide subsidies in the form oflanddonationsorwritedowns,feewaivers, or

lowinterestloans."Actions suchasthose describedin

thissection will

make

theclimate

more

amenablefor

cohousing.

Conclusion

Cohousing is proving itselfto be a versatile and

popular

model

for residentialdevelopmentinEurope

and America. Italsoappearstohavethe potential for

creating sustainable communities. In particular, cohousing communities aim to be environmentally

sensitiveandconservativeconsumers ofmaterial

re-sources.

Equally important is the scale ofcohousing.

As

a

model

forsustainablecommunities,itsattainabilityis

notconstrainedbytheactionsofelitedecisionmakers as is

much

of the sustainability agenda. Instead, cohousingtakesplaceonagrassrootslevelandcan be

accomplishedessentiallythroughcollective

determi-nation.Although cohousingclearlyexhiibitsattentionto

theenvironmentalandequityagendasofsustainabi1ity,

itsgreateststrength liesin itsproceduralorientation.

Cohousing

creates communitiesthat are not only environmentallysustainable,theyarealso

psychologi-callysustainable.

By

providinganurturing climatefor

individualsandfamilies,perhapscohousingresidents

canfindandsustainthe strengthnecessarytoachieve

References

CoHousing.Fall 1992,Volume5,Number3.

CoHousing.Fall 1993,Volume6,Number3.

CoHousing.Spring 1992,Volume5,Number1.

CoHousing.Spring 1993,Volume6,Number1 CoHousing.Summer1993,Volume6,Number2.

Coldham,Bruce.1991."SitePlan EvolutioninDanish CoHousing".

Northeast CohousingQuarterly. Spring 1991, Volume 2,

Number1.

Cooper-Marcus, Clare. 1991. "Cohousing—an option for the

1990's".ProgressiveArchitecture,Volume72,No.6(June)

112-114.

Lindemann, Don.1992.CoHousing:AnEmergingOpportunityfor

Planners.Student Paper,Masters of City Planning,

Univer-sityof CaliforniaatBerkeley.

McCamant, Kathryn andCharles Durret. 1988. Cohousing: A

ContemporaryApproach toHousingOurselves. Berkeley,

CA: Ten SpeedPress.

WorldCommissionon EnvironmentandDevelopment. 1987.Our

Common

Future.Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.

Notes

'KathrynMcCamantandCharles_Durret.CoHousing:A

Contem-poraryApproachtoHousingOurselves (Berkeley,CA: Ten SpeedPress, 1988), 36.

^Ibid.

'CoHousing6n?,(¥a\\ 1993).

''McCamant andDurret, 4.

'CoHousing6n^, 18-19.

'Ibid.

'CoHousing6#2(Summer1993),3.

"ClareCooper-Marcus,"Cohousing—an option for the 1990's," Progressive Architecture 72#6(June 1991): 113.

''World Commission on Environment and Development. Our

Common

Future (Oxford;OxfordUniversityPress),8.

'"BruceColdham,"SitePlan EvaluationinDanish Cohousing,"

NortheastCohousingQuarterly2 #1(Spring 1991), 4-5. "CoHousing5#3(Fall 1992). 13.

'^CoHousing6tt\ (Spring 1993).6.