Cohousing Development: Is It Sustainable?

The answer is maybe. Most cohousing groups express an interest in addressing environmental concerns in the construction and operation of their community. But translating this interest into practical choices can be tricky, especially when it comes to the effects these choices may have on group members’ budgets and lifestyles. “People are notoriously unreliable,” says Bruce Coldham of the Northeast Cohousing Quarterly , “when it comes to making a choice between an environmentally sound product and 25% more living space.” He believes that most people would go for more space when given the opportunity.

 

For those unfamiliar with the concept, cohousing developments are resident-designed and managed. In addition, they are characterized by some shared living space and a pedestrian, rather than a vehicular orientation. The concept was pioneered in this country by Kate McCamant and Chuck Durett in their book

Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves. Although there are just a few cohousing communities already built and occupied in the U.S. as of this writing, several are under construction, and as many as 200 are planned. The Winslow project, located on an island just west of Seattle, is a good example. The 30-unit development was occupied in Spring, 1992. Shared are a common house, guest house, and garden (see the site plan). Walkways run between units facing each other, while parking is contained in a lot behind the large carriage house. Not obvious from the plan is the fact that the project is located within walking (or biking) distance to village services, including the commuter ferry to downtown Seattle.

The Winslow project was able to include many energy-efficient features through heavy reliance on grants and incentives available from Puget Power, the local utility. Walls were insulated with fiberglass and blown-in batts to R-21, ceilings to R-38, and slabs to R-10. Low-e argon windows and low-e glazing for doors were chosen. All built-in lighting fixtures are hard-wired for

compact fluorescent lamps.

The group installed radiant floor (hydronic) heating systems, with hydronic baseboards on the second floors. A heat recovery ventilation system (unusual in a multi-family situation) and advanced air sealing system were part of the overall energy plan. (The project is being monitored by the Bonneville Power Administration as a residential demonstration project for heat recovery ventilation.) Water-saving technology used in the project includes low-flush toilets, low-flow showerheads, and faucet aerators.

One reason for the project’s success at sniffing out over $90,000 in subsidies for energy-efficient materials and equipment was John Flynn, a full-time energy consultant, former builder, and member of the group. In general, he estimates the units built at the Winslow project exceeded the (1987) Northwest Energy Code by 10% to 20%. (The NWEC is equivalent to the Model Conservation Standard and the 1991 Washington State Energy Code.)

Flynn says the architectural firm the group engaged was unfamiliar with some of the energy features the group wanted, and in some cases did not accommodate these features in the design as effectively as they could have. But, he says, even more difficult was “educating and policing the contractor to make sure things happened the way they were supposed to.” The group used a local multi-family contractor unfamiliar with advanced energy technologies, or environmentally-sensitive concerns. To keep the project on track with the community’s goals, Flynn conducted several inspections during the construction process, including blower-door testing.

The only fireplace in the project is a high-efficiency low-emissions fireplace, located in the Common House. The group decided to forego individual hearths, in order to limit the community’s contribution to air pollution, a major problem in the woodburning Northwest. They also wanted to avoid any possibility of backdrafting combustion gases into individual living units.

In addition to material and system selection, cohousing can provide an opportunity for environmentally sensitive land use. In the case of new construction, the pedestrian, community emphasis lends itself to minimizing building footprints, and maximizing green spaces. At the Winslow site, much of the land is left for community gardens, cultivated fruit trees, and a path through a wooded area.

Some cohousing projects adapt (or plan to adapt) existing structures, avoiding new construction entirely. For example, a 12-unit cohousing community in Emoryville, California occupies a converted city factory. A planned project in Texas hopes to convert a large family ranch into five separate cohousing communities and a multi-use development.

Founding member Chris Hansen stresses that the Winslow community does not have an environmental “ideology,” although it does have a “statement of intent” that includes the commitment to “conserve and protect the natural environment through means including site planning, architectural design, gardening, recycling, and caretaking.”

The group’s general lack of experience with construction- and development-related issues has caused some frustration in its goal of “protecting the natural environment.” In one example, the group wanted to recycle drywall leftover from construction. After discovering that the closest waste processor accepting drywall was nearly 50 miles away, the group decided to use the gypsum as soil sweetener on-site. Their plan included letting rain decompose the drywall, rototilling the material into the soil, letting it winter over, rototilling it once again, and finally, landscaping. After a great deal of effort negotiating with the contractor to stack the drywall on a corner of the site rather than toss it in a dumpster, the group found that recycling the drywall was a nightmare—the drywall was difficult to break up; its presence on the site made the construction process more difficult; and most significant, the drywall’s contents came into question late in the game. Apparently the contractor had specified drywall that included fiberglass reinforcement. In the end, the group decided to carry the now moisture-laden (and heavier) material to the dumpster where it was finally hauled away to the dump.

At least in the Winslow project, most of the difficulties in making sustainable features a reality can be traced back to a need for education. Hansen says that group members were not trained to “think like developers,” and this led to problems such as the drywall decision and other misunderstandings. Flynn’s complaint about the contractor (and the architect as well) also points out the need for education. Hansen now consults with cohousing groups around the country and in Canada (through his company Cohousing Resources). He hopes to help these groups avoid potential development pitfalls. Cohousing groups now in the planning stages have a greater potential for succeeding at sustainable goals, because they can rely on those who’ve tried it before.

 

—Kathleen O’Brien

Resource List

Newsletters

Northeast Cohousing Quarterly

155 Pine St.

Amherst, MA 01002

$15 per year.

Rocky Mountain Cohousing Newsletter

1705 14th St. #317

Boulder, CO 80302

$15 per year. Appears quarterly.

($30 includes membership)

Cohousing Newsletter

Innovative Housing

2169 E. Francisco Blvd. Suite E

San Rafael, CA 94901

$20 per year (three issues)

Books

Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves

by Kate McCamant & Chuck Durett

Collaborative Communities

by Dorit Fromm

Housing as if People Mattered

by Claire Cooper-Marcus