Change and evolution are crucial to adaptation of "sustainable living" in the United States. Through the comparison of several foreign examples of this adaptation, we will tell a story of how an eco-village housing project local to the Seattle area reflects and reconnects to the world at large. Understanding the impacts of education in fostering change, we attempt to pass on the findings of our research into the process of implementing these changes through the practice of architecture in the United States..

Undergraduate students Michael Hahn and Noelle Ji Sun Miller, and graduate students Maureen McCafferty and Heidi Spaly, set out to compare and contrast four eco-villages located in four different countries with similar climates. We are four advanced architecture students from the University of Oregon who are currently studying intentional community design in the context of ecologically sound construction practices through a seminar with Professor Nancy Cheng.

The original focus of our case study was 'to determine whether climate response overwhelmingly dictates design patterns or whether varying social, economic, and governmental structures are more important factors influencing architecture. This investigation yields new understanding into how people in different environments with different restrictions can build to realize a shared vision of community and sustainability'. We started by looking at climatic response in the community's design, but we soon realized this was not a primary concern. Social and economic implications took precedence; climate was a secondary factor. Now our study is a comprehensive and comparative analysis of the relationship in the siting of the Duwamish Cohousing project, an environmentally conscious cohousing project located in Seattle, Washington, with the effects of site planning in similar cohousing projects around the world. We came to this conclusion after ten weeks, a forty-five minute class presentation, and a thirty-five page paper. It has been an extensive learning process for us all.

The primary community in this study is Duwamish Cohousing, designed by Arellano/Christofides Architects, in Seattle, Washington. Duwamish Cohousing, completed in June of 2000, is located in the western hills of the Duwamish Industrial District. It is in a medium density residential neighborhood, surrounded by townhouses and single-family homes.

The three projects used in the comparison are Christie Walk in Adelaide, Australia (Paul F. Downton for Ecopolis Pty. Ltd, 2005), Cranberry Commons in Burnaby, British Columbia (Birmingham and Wood Architects and Planners, 2001), and Ibsgaarden in Roskilde, Denmark (Jes Edwards and Helge Christiansen, 1985). These communities, built to meet similar climatic conditions, are approximately the same size. We are interested in how the social structure of the typical cohousing community dictates the physical design and how to use architecture to best establish the essences of community within different contexts. By studying these communities, we hope to combine what is working in the Duwamish community with what we learn from the international cohousing communities to help educate and influence government agencies, interested cohousing communities, and fellow designers in re-defining building codes and design principles.

The importance of interpersonal relationships and ecological improvement is a shared priority of all the cohousing projects. The residents all stress the importance of shared meals, childcare, chores, and celebrations. These activities create important senses of community and sustainable living for the residents. However, the residents of each bring with them to the project unique requirements, and individual cultural expectations often guide developments. Cultural differences between the US and other developed nations also result in a shifting of the priorities considered in the design process, both for construction techniques and for positive living experience.

Regional and national government as well as local organizations, such as the Puget Ridge Community Council (a nearby intentional neighborhood), regulated the creation of Duwamish. As is common with many cohousing projects, the members contributed to the design process by working closely with the architects to ensure that their living spaces would meet their specific needs. Participating families reviewed design proposals and then voted to reach a unanimous consensus before final decisions were made. With city funding assistance, some of the dwelling units in Duwamish are categorized as affordable housing. The three comparative sites, Christie Walk, Cranberry Commons, and Ibsgaarden, all had similar levels of resident input, and existing cohousing groups or government authorities assisted their developments.

Cranberry Commons cohousing is one example of a group of people who created their own neighborhood not only to reap social benefits but also to encourage sustainable construction in western Canada. Cranberry Commons is a city block in an urban area incorporating two existing structures in the design. Twenty-two units surround a courtyard and a small lawn. Additional common spaces include a few gardens, a dining room, and an office. People with homes on the ground floor can access the complex through private yards bordering the street, but a more frequently used main pedestrian entrance through the courtyard provides opportunities for social interaction. Small gardens associated with individual dwelling and niche-like spaces, meant for small gatherings, preserve the need for privacy. However, the primary goal of Cranberry Commons' site organization is to encourage people to gather in the center much more frequently than in single-family housing situations.

The renovation of the existing buildings and siting of additional spaces in the project stemmed from the residents' strong "desire to enjoy community life and know [their] neighbours", with a focus on the happiness and well-being of children.

The basic pattern of the development is an enclosed courtyard with shared gardens and play spaces. The enclosed space is designed not to force people together. The mix of residents, including singles, families with small children, and retired couples, were concerned about different noise level preferences and privacy needs. Features such as two entrances -- one public and the other more private -- to most homes and scattered gathering nodes resolve this problem.

Cranberry Commons resident Ronaye Matthew reports, "I thoroughly enjoy the spontaneous connections [with neighbors]." (Interview, 2005).

Christie Walk in Adelaide, Australia is on one half acre lot with fourteen dwellings. The larger community of Adelaide came together to build and support Christie Walk through the construction of the community house. The straw-bale building was a voluntary, community built project supported by regional government officials, the residents of Christie Walk, the residents of Adelaide, and local businesses.

Each unit in the project has a private balcony or enclosed patio. The project sits on a T-shaped lot. A goal of the community is to establish a gradient in public and private spaces. This is achieved with clear paths that connect the common areas. The approach to the different common spaces in the cohousing community are each different. Unlike Cranberry Commons, in the Christie Walk plan the common spaces are not central to the community and set off from the residential units. The landscaping helps to connect the community to the local context and a community garden helps to foster community with chores supported by each resident.

Cohousing has become a very common lifestyle alternative and housing option in Denmark. Ibsgaarden Cohousing Project is in Roskilde, Denmark, approximately twenty miles west of Copenhagen. The project consists of twenty-one units arranged in a U-shaped plan around a common house. The members built only on half of the one and a half acre site, leaving the rest for a sports field and an organic garden. The entrances to the apartments all directly connect to the inner courtyard.

The main entrances to the central courtyard are from the parking lot on the south end of the site and the neighborhood to the east. There is also a minor connection to the street on the west. Paths divide the courtyard into four sections, and a sidewalk forms a border. The paths and sidewalk lead to individual units or the common house. The circulation resulting from this arrangement allows for visual contact with the entire community; residents can see what is happening in the common spaces and join the activities if they choose. The front entrances to the apartments are located on the courtyard and considered public. Even though there are private patios located in the backs of all the first floor apartments, there is a strong focus on public spaces. The approaches to the courtyard, common house, and open space to the north are very direct. The site plan organization allows for centralized circulation.

The layout fosters community within the cohousing development by allowing open sightlines and communication among all the members. Visual connections are strong, creating a very social atmosphere in the cohousing project. The layout of the original buildings on the Ibsgaarden farm lent themselves well to the successful, traditional cohousing form of a horseshoe, with the housing units wrapping around a courtyard and the common house as the focus.

The linear axis around which Duwamish cohousing community is organized creates an essential core to the community. This linear path arranges the twenty-three living units' front doors in visual proximity to each other and thus facilitates community living and interaction. Common spaces are at a focal point within the complex. The linear plan is reminiscent of a neighborhood street; however, the layout of the community also responds to site restraints, existing infrastructure, and community demands. The site is significantly sloped; with the dwellings arranged to accommodate and take advantage of the hill.

A 5,000 square foot common house provides dining and entertaining facilities and offers space for children to play, allows for adult privacy, and accommodates utilitarian services. A separate shop and art studio augment the community gathering spaces, serving a secondary function as an exercise room. The community area integrates the indoors and outdoors with a strong connection between the common house and a paved terrace. The interstitial space is an elegantly integrated awning with immediate access to the dining room through a rollup door, thus accommodating events in all weather.

Wetlands on about an acre of the property allow for play areas for children within safe proximity for parents. A subtly winding path ends on the boundary of this wild land. The area is a good space for gardening and a teen hangout. The wetlands are not limited to a single clustered space; a course of paths channels and diffuses runoff throughout the site. The central corridor of the community thus becomes an active space through natural processes taking place as well as through human interaction.

Covered outdoor spaces act as porches at the entries of each house. At nine feet deep, they are generous enough for activities to take place but not overwhelming to the community. This brings a human scale into the community, softening an otherwise overwhelming feel of barren walls and exposed front doors, and creates an opportunity for outdoor recreation in inclement weather.

Strong interaction with outer social rings creates an ambiance often devoid in suburban neighborhoods. Social stratification occurs on a small scale, as about half of the residents have younger children. This lends itself to the mentality of shared responsibility to achieve a common good. Architecturally this manifests itself through shared commons spaces with similar functions. However, there is no sense of total segregation. The community boasts a wide variety of residents and has great social diversity.

A collective feeling of safety in numbers allows for greater emotional stability as the interaction of psychological and social aspects of community create an economy of scale in living.

Primary goals for the project included; challenging typical American neighborhoods and the codes derived from them, developing housing concepts to diversify Seattle living situations, improving the character of the neighborhood, and acting as a model for other local housing projects.

Common code restrictions on cohousing communities in the United States include; zoning restrictions on height and bulk limiting increased density that allows for reclaiming space for common use, private space requirements that are counterintuitive to community living, limits to achieving natural shared landscaping, requirements for full street improvements that potentially destroy preserved wetlands, discouraging clustered parking. Challenges to common house integrated amenities include providing childcare in the common house, utilizing the space for home schooling, and opportunities to operate home offices (telecommute) from the common house.

Highly integrated within the physical context and social atmosphere of greater Seattle, Duwamish demonstrates one way in which housing complexes can encourage community interaction. A revision of outdated building codes, eradicating unnecessary limitations, in a development such as Duwamish would allow for even greater levels of interaction. Such progression will serve as the first step in redesigning the conventional American neighborhood for the environmental requisites of twenty-first century architecture.

We conclude from our studies and analysis that the optimal site plan is the Danish model at Ibsgaarden. The traditional U-shaped plan allows for different layers of public to private space that allow residents a connection to the whole cohousing community while at the same time providing a sense of privacy and ownership in their residence. The visual connection provides for spontaneity in interaction of residents as well as provides a choice in the level of participation in social activities. We also learned that closeness in cohousing communities is enhanced through community chores and shared work. This style of interaction, with many shared components of one's life, is culturally accepted in the Danish culture where cohousing has been an option in residential housing since the 1970's. While this model is optimal, the amount of interaction between the members of the community may be more than the culture of the United States is ready for at this time. By applying these principles in our designs for cohousing communities, with the assistance of local government authorities in working with code restrictions, the demand for, comfort level in living conditions, and success of cohousing communities in the United States will increase.

After studying the effects of site plan on the social and community life of the Duwamish cohousing project and comparing it with the site plans of three other cohousing projects around the world and in different cultures, we can draw some conclusions on how to apply lessons learned to new projects in the United States. We understand the importance of the orientation and siting of a project. Site restrictions, climate, and codes often dictate the orientation and siting of a project. While these considerations are important, in the design of a cohousing community as much importance must be placed on the orientation of the buildings to each other and how these relationships enhance and foster relationships within the cohousing community.

I know I live in a community because on a Friday night it takes me forty-five minutes and two beers to get from the parking lot to my front door. -Trudeslund resident (McCamant and Durrett, pg. 21).

Bibliography
Duwamish:
Duwamish Co-housing Organization, "Our Values." Values Information Page (20 January 2005).

Duwamish Co-housing Organization, "The Land." Construction Photo reference Page (24 January 2005).

Sogge, Kirsten. Living in Duwamish. Interview by Michael Hahn. Chance Encounter at Duwamish, Seattle, WA, 23 January 2005.

Arellano | Christofides Architects, "Multi-Family." Multi-Family Photo reference page (24 January 2005).

Dept. of Planning and Development, "Demonstration Program for Innovative Housing." Housing Design Competition page, February 2005)

Collet, Sebastian. Duwamish photos. 2005.

Cranberry Commons:
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, "Residential Intensification Case Studies: Built Projects-Cranberry Commons." (January 2005).

Canadian CoHousing Network, "Canadian CoHousing Network." (January 2005).

City of Burnaby, "Welcome to the City of Burnaby." (January 2005).

Cohousing Development Consulting, "Cranberry Commons Cohousing." 16 October 2004.

EcoSmartT Partnership, "A Case Study: Cranberry Commons." 2004,

(January 2005). Fellowship for Intentional Community and International Communities Data Collective, "Cranberry Commons." (January 2005).

reSource Rethinking Building Inc., "Cranberry Commons Project Details." (January 2005).

Ronaye Matthew. "Cranberry Commons Members Move In!" Cohousing: The Newsletter for Cohousing in Canada Volume 10 (Winter 2002): 6.

Sustainable Region Initiative, "Cranberry Commons Case Study." January 2005).

Ibsgaarden:
Bisschop, Federico. "Ibsgaarden Photos 2003." (26 January, 2005).

Communities Directory. Fellowship for Intentional Community. October 12, 2004. (January 19, 2005).

Fred H Olson. Electronic Interview. (February 2005).

Ibsgaarden Cohousing Project. (January 2005).

Jesper Holck. Electronic Interview. (February 2005).

McCamant, Kathryn, Charles Durrett, and Danette Milman. "Bofaelleskaber to Cohousing". Communities. no. 106, (Spring 2000): 60.