Your Development

“A living environment where doors don’t need to be locked, where significant relationships with neighbours are the norm rather than the exception, where generations mix and everyone has a role, where people experiment with commitment to something more than their individual interests ... in short, intentional community.” (Mazo, 1992).

 Cohousing is a highly practical form of sustainable residential environment, present, growing, but still unfamiliar in Australia, and taking off overseas.

Cohousing residents have a social intention: to live co-operatively in community. The legal and functional structures balance private ownership and control of private quarters (usually clustered or attached housing), while allowing for collective ownership and egalitarian management of a carefully planned shared neighbourhood (‘common house’ and other structures). Shared resources and facilities are agreed on and designed in, usually including at least some shared meals.

Related strategies include EcoVillages, Urban Ecology, Co-operatives and Communes. Cohousing as such is mainstream.

The following sections provide an overview of the main characteristics of traditional Cohousing then move to considerations of opportunity and implementation for those in the planning and development industry who may be considering this type of project.

About cohousing

History of Cohousing
Danish double-income couples invented ‘Cohousing’ (1968), the first, Sættedammen, built in 1972. The model was named and imported to USA by architects McCamant & Durrett who had similar concerns about lifestyle (Jackson & Svensson 1992:156). Co-operative housers sought better quality of working life, shared child care and family time through sharing meals, amenities and expensive resources. Other European countries soon followed (McCamant, Durrett & Hertzmann (1994); Durrett (2005); ScottHanson & ScottHanson (2005).

Types of Cohousing
Cohousing is traditionally set up as a community of between 10 and 40 households (even 100 or more, but over 15-20 is usually split into clusters). Too few and there are not enough people for collective advantage or diversity of skills. Too many and the community naturally tends to split. When split up physically, each cluster usually has its own Common House and identity eg Munksøgård; (Jackson & Svensson 1992: 161); EcoVillage at Ithaca; (Walker 2005: 53+).

The houses are usually attached in clusters or opposing rows and frame a child-friendly ‘safe space’, free from cars, which are generally banished to the periphery.

IMAGES Overdrevet safe space & cars peripheral. Safe internal space with cars out! Overdrevet Denmark

Other patterns include affordable, senior (Durrett 2005), senior plus intergenerational, retrofit of former office or apartment buildings (eg Rainbow Cohousing Co-op Milton Keynes UK), and detached housing with a separate Common House and forming the housing element within an EcoVillage (Ithaca, Loudoun).

IMAGE: Danish public housing ‘Social Cohousing’ Ålborg Denmark

Traditionally, Cohousing mainly focussed on social aspects of living. Increasingly, ecological sustainability is emphasised, often expressed through permaculture design, ‘EcoCommunity Development’ – ECD – or SCD – ‘Sustainable Community Development’. See Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood in NZ, Jarlanbah Permaculture Hamlet in Northern NSW.

See also Urban Ecology Design Elements and Overdrevet (case study) which has organic agriculture and is nearly self-sufficient in energy.

Overlapping with Cohousing is Co-operative Housing, which is either an affordable housing approach (eg Pinakarri Co-op Cohousing WA) or a legal management structure used by co-housers where community title is unavailable, or for control over housing ownership when a Community Land Trust, government or investor may actually own the land. Some have a Limited Equity Co-operative, cheap to enter, but only input plus added value can be redeemed on exit. This happens in rural NSW on Multiple Occupancy Title.

Many low income arrangements, housing co-ops, half-way houses and student quarters in fact have a Cohousing structure, whether or not the common facilities are so used. In Scandinavia apartments very often have a common house but most under-use them. It all depends on the quality of leadership in the resident management committee and what the initial social intention was. This is demonstrably reversible.

Where residents are not involved in the design or professionals are inexperienced, social ‘glue’ that enables Cohousing’s great secret may not gel.

Back to top

Make a comment

Community Living

Humans together
NOT living in community is only recent. Communitarian motives over time have included survival, protection, resource saving, religious service, utopian experiment, political reaction, personal or spiritual growth, affordability and convenience: it is no different today.

Common houses
A community priority is its ‘heart’, a suitable meeting place or ‘common house’, available early, functional and large enough for communal meals, meetings and more. Cost-cutting should sacrifice this last.

American Cohousers have regretted prioritising the micro-design of private quarters over the common house, escalating costs and detracting from the critical community glue aspects (Lindemann 1993: 13).

Common House at Overdrevet Cohousing, Denmark Area 632 m²
Other common house areas: Muir Commons Cohousing USA 341mm²
Earthsong Cohousing: room for 80 people
Mariendalsvej Senior Cohousing: 440mm²
 

Community lifestyle
The community part of lifestyle in a Cohousing revolves very much around the common house and community projects.

At first there are endless meetings, everyone is expected to contribute in some way, and committees take care of different aspects eg committee of management, governance, budget & finance, common building housekeeping, purchasing, laundry, kitchen & meals, garden, building maintenance & repairs, social, machinery maintenance, waste management, vehicles management, ethics, children. This settles down eventually and people are happier to delegate. Positions may rotate (eg cooking team, housekeeping) or not, depending on skills, availability and interests.

What might we want?
Many startup communities now use internet surveys to begin to canvass potential markets and the elements they want. There are definite patterns of what a community might want to weave into its project, and there are unique features. The best way to appreciate this is to visit personally and to visit many websites (see Links).

Examples of those generous with nuts-and-bolts information are Earthsong (NZ), Loudoun (Virginia USA) and Merri (Melbourne).

DOWNLOAD Cohousing survey design suggestions

Startup costs a lot but living has many savings. The best organised Cohousings have only a handful of community-owned vehicles of different kinds (sometimes even boats, saunas, pools and other collective recreational assets as well) that can be booked by residents as user pays. Bulk purchasing and other benefits come easily.

The most common things shared are meals – not all, but most usually weeknights so people can return from work and spend quality family time, only rostered to cook occasionally. The other side of this coin is food production. Some Cohousings have large land parcels (eg Overdrevet) and take pride and pleasure in fresh organic or biodynamic food production. Smaller lots can still enjoy a little kitchen garden or small orchard.

Cohousing does not normally share a ‘common purse’; it has substantial opportunities for privacy as well as community. A nice balance.

Back to top

Make a comment

Traditional establishment processes

Resident input into design: critical
Future residents participate in the design of Cohousing. The process simultaneously designs their common neighbourhood with substantial common facilities, tests participant compatibility and motivation and builds a shared history. This must challenge aspiring developers.

Shared vision & values are needed
What is the community’s purpose?

Cohousing Vision: Older women’s Cohousing UK (seeking members):

• Acceptance and respect for diversity
• Care, respect and support for each other
• Providing a balance between privacy and community
• Countering ageist stereotypes
• Co-operating and sharing responsibility
• Maintaining a structure without hierarchy
• Safeguarding the environment
• Being part of the wider community.

http://www.owch.org.uk

Earthsong’s Vision:

• Design and construct a cohesive neighbourhood whose layout, buildings and services demonstrate the highest practical standards of sustainable human settlement
• Develop and foster a living environment which uses clear communication, decision-making and conflict resolution guidelines that promote tolerance, safety, respect and co-operation
• Assist in education and public awareness of sustainability by demonstrating and promoting innovative community design and environmentally responsible construction.

http://www.earthsong.org.nz/

Stick to your vision
A core group usually envisions and starts these projects, surveys, finds land, funds preliminary testing and professional assessments, costings, makes decisions, gets in-principle approvals, sets up legals & finance goals then seeks to expand the numbers. It is not smart to allow late comers to destabilise by demanding significant changes. Build in some choices, but the core group should affirm its values and vision and run with that. Last minute changes may cost thousands.

Consider a developer-community partnership

Experience has shown that Cohousing projects can process faster using a formal framework and an experienced developer or consultant. Henry Nielsen’s well-tested Study Group Process for Cohousing is detailed in Durrett (2005:99). Different balances of partnership (and thus relative risks) are possible (well discussed in ScottHanson & ScottHanson 2005). A true partnership has been found to work best (Durrett 2005: 99). Sweat equity does not always pay: cost this carefully against professional efficiency and insurance coverage.

Social structures early
With people living up-close as in Cohousing, it is important to settle early on an inclusive decision making and conflict management system. While a community may rely on a developer for implementing housing hardware and community infrastructure, community buy-in is critical for invisible social structures - they have to live with and manage sound processes in a spirit of cooperation and goodwill. It is essential that core group and developer understand the need, and that the community make the time and place and do it, even if they need training or facilitation in meeting procedures and process options.

Design brief

The design brief, however arrived at, is a detailed document. Time and money are saved by thorough research, good relationship building and advice from authorities, clear and community-approved descriptions, as much design, materials and fittings standardisation as possible and refusing to keep reworking objectives and decisions. For a typical Design Brief ask Earthsong for a copy of theirs http://www.earthsong.org.nz and visit the Merri Cohousing (Melbourne) site for a detailed Design & Location Questionnaire and Design Brief. Also see Alexander et al (1977).

Back to top

Make a comment

New opportunities for developers

Changing context: new markets
The time has come for serious ecological sustainability and the public is ready. Meltzer’s research over 10 years shows an ‘inexorable’ linkage between social and ecological sustainability (Meltzer, 2005).

There are also many ageing single-person householders, single parents with young children as well as anxious, isolated, lonely, stressed and depressed people. This suggests several large untapped markets for a different quality of life.

Cohousing community setup process
ScottHansons have identified a series of turbulent commitment thresholds in Cohousing development processes. Each stage has financial risk which quickly eliminates those without adequate resources.

Henry Nielsen’s model described by Durrett for Senior Cohousing facilitates commitment by simplifying the process. It problem-solves universal issues in advance. Its socialising process automatically builds community resilience. The process is developer- and local government-friendly, increasing certainty for all. See ScottHanson & ScottHanson (2005:44-45), Durrett (2005) & websites for EcoVillage at Loudoun & Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood.

Entry points for mainstream industry
The usual routes would be by invitation from an established group wanting assistance or partnership, or by your own initiative, alone or partnering with an institution or a community you advertise for.

Many people who could thrive in intentional community lack time or ability to develop it (Lindemann, 1993: 8). Experience in the United States shows that developers and experienced facilitators can prevent costly mistakes (Durrett, 2005).

How can a developer help?
Overseas, developers and developer- or facilitator-architects have had a longer association with Cohousing than with other types of intentional community.

Types of assistance offered by development professionals in the USA Cohousing sector can be seen from their advertisements http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-professionals.aspx/. After traversing the process themselves or learning from McCamant & Durrett, some move into consultant facilitator, designer and developer roles.

Roles might include: quick, controlled implementation, assessing feasibility, finding, co-ordinating & funding good consultants, unit cost estimates, budgets & cost control, sharing of liability, finding land and/or finance, underwriting construction finance, dealing with gatekeepers and development approval processes, documentation, and finding and overseeing builders and tradespeople. Compared with a small, enthused but pre-functional community, a development professional can more easily assess and secure land, and maintain realism around costs and budgets.

Who drives?
A lack of front-end finance is the main reason for delay and failure of Intentional Communities. A developer may be able to carry the early stages of a project, provide venues, advertising, facilitators, promotion and such essentials from an already-established development company operation.

Who designs?
User involvement in the design and development processes is core to traditional Cohousing. But the degree of user participation essential to a strong ‘sense of community’ long-term is uncertain, widely variable in practice and probably negotiable. Lindemann (1993) suggests that while some participation is vital, some aspects (eg overall vision, common house, neighbourhood design, children’s amenities – with input from the children) may need more participation than others, and control is not necessarily an issue once everyone agrees on plan and process.

Back to top

Make a comment

Key Issues

Benefits

To developers

• Corporate image, point-of-difference
• Contribution to social sustainability
• New partnerships, tax breaks, carbon trading certificates
• Access to government land: affordable housing crisis
• Future new technologies
• Pioneer developers can learn then earn as consultants (eg Crystal Waters, Somerville, EnergyArchitecture, Ecopolis) or peer trainers (Currumbin).

To government (Local – State - Federal)

• Resource demand reduction: social security, sustainability, health, energy, utilities
• Waste reduction from more likely dematerialisation & recycling
• Reduced load on centralised service infrastructure
• Partnerships to build affordable housing
• Addresses intractable issues related to social injustice, exclusion, loss of social fabric and suburban isolation

Benefits to residents

• Many social benefits & cost savings (as negotiated internally) from collective ownership & action
• Skills from responsible voluntary positions; better control of tenure conditions
• Social contact, personal growth
• Community life is lively, supportive, fun, meaningful, busy
• Lifestyle loved by children
• Attraction of energy & water technology rebates may offset other unique costs eg common house
• Full spectrum of ages or selected eg seniors who age in place.

Back to top

Make a comment

Risks

Interpersonal skills

• People skills essential.

Community

• No community
• Right people: biggest challenge
  Poor fit: design amicable exit; reliable induction process
• Community Title Act (SA) prescribes unanimous approval for some decisions. Precede votes by consent processes eg sociocracy.

Finance

• More expensive: common house. Thermal mass, eco-technologies. 
• Funding: Risk of refusal to lend to common owners, co-ops and multiple occupancy. Try Green Mortgages, research grants, partnerships.

Time

• Misjudging timescales: Rx retrofit Cohousing ± 9-12 months. greenfields 2 years. 12 months if processing efficient, no delays. Much longer without developer.
  Study group process coordinates steady progress, shorter time.
• Delays: usually external, related to non-standard processes.
  Rx inclusiveness in planning & design.
• Process rush: may backfire on community longer-term.
  Essential to have effective processes & leave community with good glue, agreed governance structures and processes.

Standards

• Avoid minimum standard mindset: true partnership with ambitious targets is best.

Professionals

• Inexperienced professional consultants
• Land/real estate agents: potentially dangerous: persistent ignorance of purpose despite training, undermine sales by emphasising negatives; fail to inform re vital info eg levies.

Insurance

• Sweat equity: avoid (cover may be disputed).

Back to top

Make a comment

Savings

Cost control and affordability

• Reticulation smaller capacity
• Community title avoids up-front head works deposits
• Saves clearance costs
• Landscaping infrastructure designed & laid with buildings
• Google maps improve residents’ site decisions
• Resident labour: planting, finishes, nil major
• Lower headworks costs: soft engineering: earth berms & swales, no kerb & gutter, flowways grass & riprap, retention ponds & dams, absorptive surfaces flood less
• Pass on bulk purchase savings (tanks, solar cells, white goods, building materials, plumbing fittings …) controls price
• Costs negotiable: know supplier’s actual costs & margins: do your homework.

Facilitate approval process

• Pre-assessment relationship building & input from local government planners, other stakeholders, formal pre-assessment meeting.

Materials

• Reused or recycled
• Local building material: transport energy greatest energy & CO₂ expense by far. Supports local economy 
• Blended cement’: cheaper, stronger/use less
• Magnesium cement absorbs CO₂ , CO₂ neutral.

Community savings

• Cohousing lifestyle: most goods & services less later
• Water-sensitive design & storm & grey water use
• Subsidised solar arrays and reverse metering: net income
• Save by sharing & self-managing
• TIME!

Back to top

Make a comment

Costs

Design

• Good design should not cost more. See Wrigley (2007) “Climate Change Needs Housing Change”
• Architecture: The highest cost professionals: normally used in Cohousing
• Common House: Costliest built element
• Design costs: from resident participation. Suitable venue(s). Facilitators. Recommend mainly work with core group. Avoid late design changes & extra in private quarters.

Eco-technology

• Will raise cost: substantial thermal mass, double glazing, argon-filled, triple glazed windows,solar arrays, sewage treatment plants. Increases in some areas can be offset by savings in others: search for these: avoid compromising long-term cost reduction items
• Rule-of-thumb: “For ESD add 10-20%”: Offset with Green Mortgages?
• Excellent marketing point: 10-20% up-front costs saves huge running cost reduction indefinitely
• ESD premium will narrow with uptake. Some is due to inexperience
• Cheap materials like straw: large savings potential savings from self-build but not if builder-constructed
• See permaculture® Case Study.  Case Study Permaculture®.doc

Budget control

• Cost over-runs. Rx budget control, relationship management: planners, financiers, ensure community does Governance processes early: decision making & conflict management. Detailed Master Plan, resident partnership or input; no fiddling with details by latecomers; focus on common house design & standardise choice of private elements.

Back to top

Make a comment

Barriers

Local government

• Unacceptable approval delays: familiarise planners with unusual aspects; accept advice; include in feasibility & design phases
• Assessment officers work off maps not site: encourage on-site meetings
• Planners with little expertise or authority may refer designs inappropriately: focus applications on long-term maintenance, separate criteria for policy & assessment officers
• Big sticks cause obstructive behaviour
• Community Title unfamiliar
• Old ‘engineering’ attitudes
• High planners & assessment staff turnover: keep in touch.
  See: Inclusive relationships with gatekeepers .

State government

• Utilities coordination ~ complaints from designers seeking common trenching.

Real estate agents

• Resist change: select & brief carefully.

Estate Design

• Ignorance of solar fundamentals: see Wrigley (2007).
• Resistance to ESD concept: remember: 5 star is a transitional objective, non-ideal for CoHousing.

Community

• Delays and resistance: lack understanding, local NIMBY ('not in my back yard' attitude)(eg ‘hippies’, excess traffic): invite locals - public events, transparency, inclusion.

Land

• Site aspect, design unsuitable for solar housing. See Wrigley (2007).
• Solar design: heritage trees Rx caveat on lot design, future planting locations.
• Prohibitive prices.

Developers

• Perception inadequate profits.
• Not understanding Cohousing, ESD, social options.
• Inexperienced with resident input and governance.

Training & Step-Up Projects

• Development industry inexperienced.
• Tradespeople unskilled in ESD and renewables technologies. Rx training eg Green Plumbers.

Finance

• Tightening + reluctance for non-standard housing.

Back to top

Make a comment

Benchmarks

Whilst most Cohousings are not benchmarked, resource tracking by sustainable community residents is not unusual. Most recent CoHousing now projects seek high level eco- and social sustainability strategies. Apart from traditional social objectives, a significant motivation is long-term resource conservation through design, lifestyle and sharing strategies.  Smaller scale opportunities to pilot radical reductions in resource demand suggest that benchmarking should be used more with intentional and early adopter communities.

Recent developer-led large scale sustainability projects with community emphasis are using benchmarking and/or environmental labelling eg Lochiel Park, Bonbeach, Currumbin Ecovillage. Household energy monitoring is now available.

The metric aspects of environmental management through CoHousing are no different from those for any other project, serving a needed feedback loop on which to build future design improvements for the developer and long-term demand management (and cost saving) for the owners.

The following sample of links and downloads may be useful:

• EnviroDEVELOPMENT
• Sustainability Rating Tool developed for Lochiel Park
• Van Vliet’s 9 Performance Characteristics
• Self-assessment or design using sustainability compass (The Natural Step and System Conditions for Sustainability)
• Ecomapping®: (household package under development).
• Pre-design surveys to establish needs: becomes design brief then internal checklist.

Back to top

Make a comment

Development phase actions

Feasibility

This stage and another I have called ‘pre-feasibility’ because many developers will be completely unfamiliar with the principles & practice of this type of development. These stages are critical. A lot of knowledge-gathering is necessary, preferably involving overseas and Australia-wide research. Relationship-building with local and state government gatekeepers and local community are more important than usual. Feasibility starts in earnest once land is identified and a community is identified. Can be in either order.

Before a first project, a pre-feasibility (pre-engagement) period of familiarisation with existing Intentional Community is strongly recommended, including visiting living with planning and other authorities, visiting many potential sites (notice solar aspect, terrain, soil, land prices).

Pre-feasibility: recommended actions for project drivers
Gain knowledge
Internet research on intentional communities, and on sustainability.

Video: Voices Of Cohousing: Building Small Villages in the City (2007)

Attend training workshops on permaculture design, sociocracy, eco village design, eco village economics etc, and identify the ‘right’ professional team.

Review papers on:

DOWNLOAD: Urban Ecology Elements
DOWNLOAD: Transition to Sustainable Community

DOWNLOAD: Full Intentional Community Bibliography:

DOWNLOAD Intentional Community Task list: IC TaskListCC~PPR.doc
DOWNLOAD Cohousing implementation processes compared: CoHImp~CC~PPR.doc/
DOWNLOAD Natural Step community sustainability: TNSC_AR_2005_06FINAL.pdf/

Visit functioning EcoVillages, Cohousing and Cooperatives, in Australia and overseas, discussing history, legal structures, processes, learnings and joys - to gain a working knowledge.

Work with potential users

Identify potential land/take option

Build relationships
Financiers, development approval people at local government, State utilities
Identify professional team

Find partners, allies, funds
Investigate State, local government & community agencies and Federal Government project grants, tax deductions or funding. Seek partnerships in housing cooperatives, affordable housing components of estates, aged care, disabled care. Seek funds for addressing sustainability, climate change, carbon or ecological footprint or demonstration of water, soil or biodiversity conservation strategies.

Understand legal structures
DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT LegalStr~CC~PPR.doc

CoHousing’s collective ownership needs non-standard legal structures. These are often still unfamiliar or unwelcome to local estate agents, lawyers, conveyancers, banks or planners.

Recommended for collective ownership:

• Ask for increasing levels of investment as process proceeds (tests motivation & reality check)
• Fully informed purchasers, included early
• Sign-off by purchasers receiving full information & understanding of existing By-laws, levies, community governance structures
• Ensure these are clear, enforceable, fair
• Formal induction process ongoing
• Clear exit structures, non-punitive.

Back to top

Make a comment

Planning

Planning is also critical, especially its inclusive aspects and decisions as to what will be shared, and early establishment of governance structures. Good relations with neighbours and trust building are critical. Governance system selected & in place. Set up history collecting system, photos, newsclips, video etc.

Back to top

Make a comment

Design

Resident & stakeholder-inclusive design charrettes, bioregional integration, lot & neighbourhood layout, cars peripheral, sustainable land use, study groups or similar, common facilities, private territories, passive & active solar, water management, sustainable & local materials, renewables, indigenous plantings, landscaping designed in & built together with buildings, kitchen garden/Permaculture; provision for different age groups. Design in metrics if possible.

Back to top

Make a comment

Construction

May include elements of self-build. Insurance issue if owner builder combined with professionals. Construction materials, designs & technology may be non-standard eg HDPE replacing PVC, mud bricks, rammed earth, double glazing, industrial equipment for common house, landscaping infrastructure with buildings.

Back to top

Make a comment

Lot Creation

Critical to have accurate & full information, preferably a package, and ensure sales agents are well informed. Induction package urgent.

Back to top

Make a comment

Completion

Training of residents for living in community, eg running meetings, nature of Cohousing, other communities & visits, permaculture®, governance etc.

Back to top

Make a comment

• Alexander C, Ishikawa S & Silverstein M et al, 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns . Buildings . Construction, Oxford University Press, New York; Pattern Language for designing housing and neighbourhoods with heart.
• Allen J, 2005. Smart Permaculture Design, New Holland, Sydney.
• Buck J & Villines S 2007. We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy; A Guide to Sociocratic Principles and Methods,  http://www.sociocracy.info/book.html
• Durrett C, 2005. Senior Cohousing: A Community Approach to Independent Living – The Handbook, Habitat Press, Berkeley; Senior Cohousing and the Nielsen Study Group process.
• McCamant K, Durrett C & Hertzman E, 1994. Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves, Second edition, Ten Speed Press, Berkeley California; McC&D’s original Cohousing book 2nd edition.
• Meltzer G, 2000. “Cohousing: Verifying the Importance of Community in the Application of Environmentalism”, Journal of Architectural Planning and Research, 17, 2: 110-32.
• Meltzer G, 2005.  Sustainable Community: Learning from the Cohousing Model, Trafford Publishing, USA. http://www.trafford.com/04-2802/ (print on demand); 10 years of research ‘inexorably’ links Cohousing with ecological sustainability.
• Morrow R, 2005. Earth User’s Guide to Permaculture, 2nd edition, Kangaroo Press, Kenthurst NSW.
• ScottHanson C & ScottHanson K, 2005. The Cohousing Handbook: Building a Place for Community, Revised Edition, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada; excellent handbook for community members.
• Walker L, 2005. EcoVillage at Ithaca: Pioneering a Sustainable Culture, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC.
• Williams DE, Orr DW & Watson D 2007. Sustainable Design: Ecology, Architecture and Planning, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey; ecological design.
• Wrigley DF, 2007. Climate Change Needs Housing Change, Nature & Society Forum, Canberra (+61 (0)2 6288 0760). $15 from www.natsoc.org.au/