the COHOUSING booklet.

COHOUSING
The University of California, Berkeley
Department of Architecture
College of Environmental Design
INTRODUCTION
“The ever increasing mobility of the population and the breakdown of traditional
community ties are placing more and more demands on individual households.These
factors call for us to reexamine the way we house ourselves, the needs of individual
households within the context of community, and our aspirations for an increased
quality of life.”
Creating Cohousing: Building Sustainable Communities, K. McCamant and C. Durrett
The University of California, Berkeley
Department of Architecture
College of Environmental Design
Graduate Student Research Team:
Sara Tepfer
Jesus A. Camacho
Kelsey Brennan
Hyojin Kim
Seoungjoo You
Philip Panzarella
Alexander Schofield
Miles Stemper
The following study is the result of a graduate seminar conducted in the
Fall 2014, titled “The Study of Communal Housing for the 21st c.”, in the
Department of Architecture, College of Environmental Design, U.C. Berkeley.
It comes at a time when housing in San Francisco has become unaffordable for
a large percentage of the population and when there’s increased interest by
developers to build a contemporary version of collective or cohousing without
clear planning guidelines for this type of development. The students began
by studying the historical context of collective, cooperative and communal
housing throughout the world that ranged from the monastery in Western
Europe, to Shaker dwellings in Massachusetts, to contemporary dormitories
and co-housing developments in Denmark and the Bay area. This research
established a starting point for understanding the program of collective living,
and defined certain expectations and needs for a contemporary urban form for
cohousing. To test design ideas that evolved from the precedent study, four sites
in four neighborhoods across San Francisco were selected. Working in teams,
the students considered various site strategies and building forms for each
site, and focused on one scheme per site (presented here) which embodied
qualities of its context and expanded formal ideas learned from one or more
of the precedents studied. The proposals presented here should be seen as
the beginning of a larger discussion regarding the nature of affordable housing,
sustainable development, and how we want to define community in this century.
We would like to thank Kanishka Burns, Kate Conner, and Kearstin Dischinger
in the SF Planning Department for the generosity of their time and interest in
our work throughout the semester.
Danelle Guthrie, Adjunct Assoc. Professor of Architecture, UC Berkeley
CONTENTS
COHOUSING PRECEDENTS
SPECIFIC PRECEDENTS RELEVANT TO PROPOSALS
BASTYR UNIVERSITY - Kenmore, WA
8
10
BIKUBEN - Copenhagen, DK
SWAN’S MARKET - Oakland, CA
12
16
14
LA TOURETTE - Eveux, France
DESIGN PROPOSAL SITES
THE SUNSET
THE DOGPATCH
40
LIST OF FIGURES
46
HAYES VALLEY
MISSION DISTRICT
22
28
34
PRECEDENT PROJECTS
The projects below are a sampling of initial
research into communal living spaces from
around the globe.
Bastyr University (2010) - pg. 8
fig. 1
Korean Traditional House (20 c.)
fig. 2
Swan’s Market (2000) - pg. 12
fig. 7
La Tourette (1960) - pg. 14
Vrijburcht (2001)
fig. 3
Het Hallehuis (1984)
fig. 4
Poor Clare Convent (2011)
fig. 9
Doyle Street Housing (1992)
State Street Village (date)
fig. 5
Bikuben Dorm (2001) - pg. 10
fig. 6
Tolou Collective (1900’s / 2008)
8
Shaker Dwelling (1830)
fig. 11
9
fig. 8
fig. 10
fig. 12
BASTYR UNIVERSITY
PRECIDENT 1
Kenmore, Washington - 2010
Ground Floor Plan
2nd Floor Plan
C
n
io
at
ul
e
irc
or
C
on
m
te
iva
om
C
Pr
Interior common study space
fig. 13
The goals of the designers as
stated by Bastyr University are “to
encourage interaction among students,
fit into the campus’s natural landscape
and minimize impacts to the local
environment.” There are 4 private units
per floor connecting to the common
living, dinning, and studying spaces.
The common spaces face a central
courtyard that is shared by other
cottages and is intended to encourage
interaction among all residents of the
village.
fig. 15
Architect: Collins Woerman
Units: 12 per cottage (132 total)
Residents: 12
Total unit area: 4,000 ft2
Per person: 333 ft2
Total common area: 1,265 ft2
Common area per person: 105 ft2
Common/private ratio: 0.30
Cohousing living space
fig. 14
10
11
BIKUBEN
PRECIDENT 2
Copenhagen, Denmark - 2001
Ground Floor Plan 4th Floor Plan 5th Floor Plan
or
do
ut
O
n
io
at
ul
e
or
C
irc
C
at
on
riv
m
i-P
m
om
C
Se
te
iva
Pr
e
Exterior
fig. 16
The Bikuben is a 70,000 square
foot dormitory that rethinks
the environment for student life,
providing a framework for a wellintegrated social network. It was the
architects’ goal to maximize resident
interaction and strengthen the sense
of community within the building.
The form features several roof decks
spiraling around the exterior of the
building, which provide residents with
direct connection to the building’s
surroundings, as well as direct
access to light and air. Facilities, and
common spaces are oriented inward
toward the central courtyard. The
residences and common spaces of
this dormitory surround the atrium.
fig. 18
Architect: AART Architects
Units: 107
Residents: 107
Total unit area: 29,820 ft2
Per person: 280 ft2
Total common area: 58 770 ft2
Common area per person: 550 ft2
Common/private ratio: 2
Communal space
fig. 17
12
13
SWAN’S MARKET
PRECIDENT 3
Oakland, California - 2000
Ground Floor Plan
or
do
ut r
O doo
ut ng
O rki
Pa king
r
Pa
Swan’s Market was historically
a market place in the center of
Oakland’s downtown shopping
district. It was repurposed in the year
2000, to integrate a 20-unit cohousing
community with an eclectic mixeduse program. The project seeks to
create the sense of being in a small
village contained within the city block.
The majority of the retail space is
street-facing and on the ground
floor. 20 units are organized around
a central, corridor, to create the
cohousing community. This acts much
like a small pedestrianized alleyway
that allows residents to gather and
socialize outside in addition to the
shared common dining room and
facilities.
Diagram
Diagram
forfor
Bastyr
Bastyr
Diagram for Bastyr
fig. 21
Architect: Pyatok Architects
Units: 38
Co-housing: 20
Affordable housing units: 18
Residents: 50
Total project area: 105,000 ft2
Total common area: 3,458 ft2
Common area per person: 230 ft2
Common/private ratio: 0.25
Co-housing corridor
fig. 20
14
15
or
g
in
fig. 19
do
rk
ut
Pa
O
n
n
io
io
at
at
ul n
ul
irc tio
C ula
irc
C
irc
C
te
iva
Pr
l
cia
l
er
m cial
cia
er
om er
m
C m
m
om on Co
C m
on
om on
m
C m
om
om
C
C
te
iva
Pr ate
iv
Pr
Entry Courtyard
2nd Floor Plan
LA TOURETTE
PRECIDENT 4
Eveux, France - 1957
Ground Floor Plan 2nd Floor Plan 3rd Floor Plan
or
n
io
on
at
do
ut
O
e
or
C
ul
irc
C
m
e
at
riv
i-P
m
om
C
Se
Lower courtyard
fig. 22
La Tourette serves as a monastic
precedent for communal housing.
Large communal hallways are
organized to service the daily
rituals of monks and connect
various programmatic components.
The private units are austere and
secluded on the third floor above
more communal programs below on
the ground floor. A central outdoor
courtyard serves as the heart of the
building as programmatic spaces face
inward for visual connectivity and
light.
fig. 24
Architect: Le Corbusier
Units: 100
Residents: 100
Total unit area: 16,500 ft2
Per person: 165 ft2
Total common area: 6,720 ft2
Common area per person: 67.2 ft2
Common/private ratio: 0.42
Circulation corridor
fig. 23
16
17
DESIGN PROPOSALS
CASE STUDY SITES
San Francisco, California
2
3
1
4
1
2
Hayes Valley / Market St
Gough Street & Market Street
Outer Sunset
Judah Street & 42nd Avenue
20
3
4
Mission District
14th Street & Capp Street
The Dogpatch
3rd Street & 23rd Street
21
Judah Street & 42nd Avenue
DESIGN PROPOSAL 1
LINCOLN WAY
45TH AVE
33RD AVE
OUTER SUNSET
WAY
IRVING ST
SITE:
42nd + Judah
43
rd
SUNSET BLVD
PRESIDIO
04
GOLDEN GATE
LAWTON ST
Ju
36TH AVE
37TH AVE
39TH AVE
40TH AVE
43RD AVE
ZONING KEY
03
42
02 01
nd
PARK
05
06
07
08
13
12
11
10
09
single-family residential
low-density residential mixed
public
neighborhood commercial cluster
two-family residential
42ND AVE
47TH AVE
44TH AVE
KIRKHAM ST
h
da
JUDAH ST
JUDAH ST
38TH AVE
46TH AVE
41ST AVE
NG ST
MORAGA ST
Zoning plan
Site Axon
Design Team:
Jesus A. Camacho
Philip Panzarella
The proposed site is located in a
residential neighborhood in the Inner
Sunset extending from 42nd street to
43rd street and along the commercial
corridor of Judah street. Within the
proposed site exists the Francis Scott
Key Annex Building with potential for
reuse. The proposal consists of three
housing clusters at the perimeter
and a large common amenity space
and outdoor recreational area at the
center. Each cluster is made up of
two communal houses and a patio
space facing the larger green space.
Units within each house follow the
typical 25 feet lot width pattern of
homes in the neighborhood.
Street View of proposed site
22
23
OUTER SUNSET
DESIGN PROPOSAL 1
Judah Street & 42nd Avenue
Single “Cottage” Program diagrams
First Floor Plan
Parking
Vertical Circulation
Communal Space
Residential Public
en
sid
Re
Residential Private
e
at
riv
lP
tia
lic
ub
lP
tia
24
en
Outdoor Space
Each house is 2 stories high with 8
private units per house. The principal
entry to each house is through
the main street but can also be
accessed through the communal
patio and green space in the interior
of the complex. Each house can
accommodate up to 10 people, with
3 1-bedroom and 1 2-bedroom units
at the ground floor and 2 3-bedroom
and 2 studios on the second level,
each with a private bathroom. Every
house shares a patio space with the
Color-coded axon
sid
Communal Circulation
Re
e
ac
Sp
or
do
ut
O
e
ac
n
Sp
io
al ulat
un
c
m Cir
n
l
om
C una atio
m cul
om Cir
al
tic
C
r
Ve
il
ta
Re
g
in
rk
Pa
Retail
Second Floor Plan
adjacent home. All homes have
access to larger communal amenities
that include parking, laundry, a day
care center as well as green space
and an urban farm.
25
7
OUTER SUNSET
DESIGN PROPOSAL 1
Judah Street & 42nd Avenue
First Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
Second Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
1
3
5
4
4
5
5
4
5
2
1
7
3
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
5
2
3
2
1
3
3
7 7
1
4
5
7
4
5
4
5
1
9
6
7
Typical Unit Circulation
Typical Unit Circulation
Miniumum amount of space outside unit
Miniumum amount of space outside unit
Little opporutinity for interaction
Little opporutinity for interaction
First Floor Plan
First Floor
Plan
Scale:
1’ = 1/64”
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
First Floor
Plan Space
1. Common
Scale:2.1’Common
= 1/64” Kitchen
3. Common Living
4. Bathroom
1. Common
Space
5. Bedroom
2. Common
Kitchen
3. Common Living
4. Bathroom
5. Bedroom
Clustered Unit Circulation
Clustered Unit Circulation
Balanced amount of space inside/outside unit
Balanced amount of space inside/outside unit
Ample opporutinity for interaction
Ample opporutinity for interaction
26
Second Floor Plan
Second
Floor Plan
Scale:
1’ = 1/64”
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
6. Outdoor
7. Storage
8. Parking
9. Lobby
6. Outdoor
10. Retail
7. Storage
8. Parking
9. Lobby
10. Retail
Second Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
10
10
The main idea for the proposal lies
in the clustering of private spaces
around a communal space. In the
case of the entire proposed complex,
the private homes cluster around
the central green space and shared
amenities. The same applies to
each house, with the private units
surrounding double height ceiling
communal spaces, which include
a kitchen, dining and living spaces,
storage, and lounge areas. The
main circulation at each house is
30
30
70
70
connected to all common spaces
thereby presenting moments to
connect and socialize. This proposal
draws from Student Village at Bastyr
University as a precedent in which
the houses cluster around a central
courtyard and within each house, the
communal areas are ample and airy
encouraging residents to congregate
and socialize.
27
HAYES VALLEY / MARKET ST
DESIGN PROPOSAL 2
Gough Street & Market Street
H
SOUT
P
AR
VALENCIA ST
O
MCCOPPIN ST
AR
DUBOCE AVE
BROSNAN ST
STEVENSON ST
CLINTON PARK
Mar
ZONING KEY
ST
M
ST
MIS
SIO
N
BLVD
T
KE
S
TI
Zoning plan
t
igh
Ha
ST
AVE
M
OCTAVIA
AN ST
HAIGHT
ST
NESS
BUCHAN
T
KE
AGE ST
VAN
T
SITE:
Market + Haight
ket
ST
S
LAGUNA
OAK ST
PRESIDIO
04
GOLDEN GATE
03
02 01
PARK
05
06
07
08
13
12
11
10
09
moderate-scale neighborhood
commercial transit cluster
residential transit-oriented district
public
neighborhood commercial transit
cluster
neighborhood commercial district
medium-density residential mixed
districts
fig. 25
Site Axon
Design Team:
Sara Tepfer
Seoungjoo You
The Market/Octavia area is a mixeduse urban setting that is currently
undergoing large-scale redevelopment
and densification. In this area, the
scale of new construction contrasts
with the existing buildings, with
new developments reaching as
many as nine stories, compared to
the three- and four-story existing
buildings. Ground floor spaces are
typically used for commercial and
light-industrial uses, with offices
and residential spaces above. Parks
Street View of proposed site
28
and open spaces are somewhat
limited in this area. The site is at the
intersection of Market and Haight,
across from the 101 off-ramp onto
Octavia Boulevard. This proposal
responds to this context by creating
ground floor retail space with dense
collective housing above and by
integrating roof decks to provide
access to shared outdoor space. The
building’s footprint is irregular in
order to maximize
29
4
HAYES VALLEY / MARKET ST
Gough Street & Market Street
DESIGN PROPOSAL 2
Sixth Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/32”
Seventh Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/32”
Vertical Circulation Communal Space
e
at
riv
lP
30
Residential Private
tia
Color-coded axon
en
irc
C
n
io
at
ul
This seven-floor proposal includes
40 units (33 studios, 7 1-bedroom)
and ground-floor commercial space.
It is built out to its property lines to
maximize the usable interior space.
The proposal aims to provide livable
common spaces while achieving a
high residential density. The units are
organized around central doubleheight indoor and outdoor spaces,
which provide common space shared
by every two floors. Pairs of studio
units then share a more private, small
sid
al
irc
C
Communal Circulation Outdoor Space
Re
lic
ub
lP
tia
en
e
sid
ac
Sp
Re
or ace
p
do
lS
ut
O una
m
n
io
at
ul
om
C
un
m
al
tic
om
C
r
Ve
il
ta
Re
Retail
Residential Public
living space, which looks onto the
larger central common space. These
small living spaces (called “residential
public space” in the drawing above)
can open up to the common space.
Through these small spaces, each
of the shared units has a visual
connection to the central communal
space. Private spaces are placed on
the outer edge of the building to
provide access to light and air.
31
4
HAYES VALLEY / MARKET ST
Gough Street & Market Street
DESIGN PROPOSAL 2
Sixth Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/32”
4
Seventh Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/32”
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
3
5
3
1
4
5
5
4
6
UP
UP
DN
DN
3
5
4
First
Plan
Sixth Floor
Floor Plan
Scale:
1’==1/32”
1/64”
Scale: 1’
Shared double-height spaces
Central core zones are shared between two residential levels.
32
First Floor
Plan Space
1. Common
Scale:2.1’Common
= 1/64” Kitchen
3. Common Living
4. Bathroom
1. Common
Space
5. Bedroom
2. Common
Kitchen
3. Common Living
4. Bathroom
5. Bedroom
3
5
4
1st level
5
3
6
2nd level
5
3
4
Rotating terraces
Double-height open spaces allow light and air to the common core zones
4
5
3
3
2
4
Second
Floor
Seventh
Floor
PlanPlan
Scale:
= 1/64”
Scale:
1’ =1’1/32”
6. Outdoor
7. Storage
8. Parking
9. Lobby
6. Outdoor
10. Retail
7. Storage
8. Parking
9. Lobby
10. Retail
To provide residents with access to
private open space, as well as light
and air, this proposal includes roof
decks on every other level of the
building. Each roof deck is rotated
in plan from the one directly above
or below it. These roof decks are
adjacent to double-height common
spaces. Access to each unit is directly
off of this central common space. This
allows connection and integration
of circulation and communal spaces,
which serves to encourage resident
Second Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
10
10
30
30
70
70
interaction and continual activation
of communal spaces. These central
communal spaces include spaces for
cooking, lounging, and communal
eating. When desired, the central
spaces can be expanded into the
shared spaces in the adjacent units
through movable partitions (similar
to Korean Traditional House on Page
6).
33
MISSION DISTRICT
DESIGN PROPOSAL 3
14th Street & Capp Street
T
KE
SITE:
14th + Capp
ST
AR
13TH S
T
DUBOCE AVE
MISSION ST
ROSEMONT PL
FOLSOM ST
14TH ST
RAMONA AVE
DOLORES ST
BROSNAN ST
STEVENSON ST
CLINTON PARK
WOODWARD ST
M
PRESIDIO
04
GOLDEN GATE
ZONING KEY
JULIAN AVE
GUERRERO ST
15TH ST
03
02 01
PARK
05
06
07
08
13
12
11
10
09
n
o
ssi
15
th
moderate-scale neighborhood
commercial transit cluster
residential - three family
residential TOD
public
Mi
light industrial
urban mixed use
neighborhood commercial shopping
neighborhood commercial transit
Zoning plan
fig. 26
Site Axon
Design Team:
Kelsey Brennan
Miles Stemper
Street View of proposed site
The Mission district cohousing
proposal is located in the
northernmost part of the
neighborhood (near Market Street)
at 14th and Capp street. This area
is primarily zoned for mixed use
residential and PDR (production,
distribution, retail). The neighborhood
is arguably San Francisco’s historic
center: the site of Mission San
Francisco de Asis, the city’s original
Spanish settlement. It’s also one of
the most culturally diverse areas of
the city and one that is in a constant
34
state of flux. It was originally a mixed
immigrant community, but became
the primary latino community in
the city after 1950. The 70’s brought
a wave of artists to the area and
the 90’s brought the first wave
of professional gentrification. The
Mission home to a vast array of
restaurants and retail, but is also
home to extreme wealth and poverty.
The neighborhood remains contested
and culturally important and is
viewed by many as an example of the
changing face of San Francisco.
35
10
MISSION DISTRICT
DESIGN PROPOSAL 3
14th Street & Capp Street
9
10
1
First Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
Second Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
Vertical Circulation
Re
l
e
ac
ac
Sp
Sp
al
tia
or
Outdoor Space
en
do
sid
ut
un
m
e
ul
n
io
at
n
io
at
irc
ul
C
irc
al
C
Communal Circulation
Residential Public
O
om
C
al
un
m
il
tic
om
C
r
Ve
ta
Re
Retail
Communal Space
The programmatic organization for
the proposal on this site takes cues
from the Swan’s Market development
in Oakland which strives to create a
“village-like” atmosphere. Like Swan’s
Market, this site is near a major
retail and transportation corridor.
The first floor consists primarily of
street-facing retail along 14th Street.
The first floor units are accessible
via the community’s common room,
which contains essentials such as
the mail room, storage and laundry
Color-coded axon
36
which allow the space to act as a
meeting room for residents. The units
themselves (both first and second
floors) are organized much as they
are in the Swan Market development:
along an outdoor pedestrian “street”
that can act as a gathering space for
and courtyard for residents.
37
10
MISSION DISTRICT
DESIGN PROPOSAL 3
14th Street & Capp Street
9
10
1
First Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
Second Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
4
5
5
4
5
1
4
4
4
5
5
1
1
5
5
5
5
1
4
1
4
4
5
5
4
5
1
1
1
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
5
7
4
10
First Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
9
1’ = 1/64”
First Floor
Plan
1. Scale:
Common
Space
Scale:2.1’Common
= 1/64” Kitchen
3. Common Living
4. Bathroom
1. Common
Space
5. Bedroom
2. Common
Kitchen
3. Common Living
4. Bathroom
5. Bedroom
10
38
1
7
1
Second Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
10
7
7
1
Second Floor Plan
6. Outdoor
7. Storage
8. Parking
9. Lobby
6. Outdoor
10. Retail
7. Storage
8. Parking
9. Lobby
10. Retail
Scale:Floor
1’ = 1/64”
Second
Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
10
10
The primary organizing principle for
this proposal was to figure out a way
to make a street-scale development
more human-scaled in order to
provide more comfortable places
for gathering. The concern was that
if you have a corridor, no matter
how wide it is, it still gets used as
primarily as circulation, rather than
taken advantage of as a usable open
space. As a way to remedy this we
mirrored the units and pushed back
the entrances such that the corridor
communal circulation corridor
5
4
First Floor Plan
typical circulation corridor
5
4
4
2
1
5
4
6
4
4
5
4
1
1
5
4
4
6
5
4
5
4
4
1
4
4
5
1
4
5
4
4
1
1
4
4
5
6
4
4
5
5
30
30
70
70
is interrupted by occupiable alcoves.
This, in effect, creates eddies in the
circulation along the corridor where
people can stop to chat, put plants to
create a small, potted garden, or even
put out a chair or two to spend time
outside. We also made an effort to
put key utilities such as a communal
kitchen, storage, laundry and mail in
or near the common area as a way
to encourage interaction among
residents.
39
THE DOGPATCH
DESIGN PROPOSAL 4
22ND ST
MICHIGAN ST
TENNESSEE ST
MINNESOTA ST
INDIANA ST
3rd Street & 23rd Street
HUMBOLDT ST
Th
ird
SITE:
23rd + 3rd
23RD ST
MINNESOTA ST
PRESIDIO
ILLINOIS ST
04
GOLDEN GATE
ZONING KEY
03
02 01
rd
PARK
05
06
07
08
13
12
11
10
23
09
urban mixed use
three-family residential
public
light industrial
heavy industrial
neighborhood commercial transit
fig. 27
Zoning plan
Site Axon
Design Team:
Hyojin Kim
Alexander Schofield
The Dogpatch neighborhood Co
Housing proposal is located on the
corner of 23rd and 3rd street, part
of the Eastern Neighborhoods and
directly east of the Mission. This
particular neighborhood is unique
in that there exists a high density of
Production, Distribution, and Repair
(PDR) zoning. As PDR sites do not
permit housing, the site is zoned
as Urban Mixed Use however it is
surrounded entirely by various PDR
sites. This creates an interesting
Street View of proposed site
urban condition for consideration as
the site exists as an oasis in which
to serve an otherwise industrial
neighborhood. The Dogpatch CoHousing proposal would most likely
serve a population whom perhaps
works in the surrounding industrial
area, seeks refuge from the higher
density neighborhoods, or seeks
space amongst a neighborhood of
artists and craftsmen.
fig. 1
40
41
5
2
THE DOGPATCH
DESIGN PROPOSAL 4
3rd Street & 23rd Street
First Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
Parking
Second Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
Vertical Circulation
en
Residential Private
e
at
riv
lP
tia
42
sid
Outdoor Space
Re
Communal Circulation
The programmatic organization of
the Dogpatch Co-Housing proposal
is designed to allow residents the
amenities of a communal oasis
amongst the surrounding industrial
landscape. The ground floor consists
of a lobby, which has direct access to
the Muni train stop on 3rd street, as
well as parking (both car and bicycle).
Additionally, ground floor retail
spaces provide opportunities for
cafes, markets, as well as other pop
up shops to service residents as well
color coded axon
Residential Public
lic
ub
lP
tia
en
e
sid
ac
Re
Sp
or
do
ut
O
e
ac
Sp
al
un
m
om
n
C
io
at
ul
irc
C n
al tio
un la
m ircu
om C
C cal
i
rt
Ve
il
ta
Re
g
in
rk
Pa
Retail
Communal Space
as other local community members.
The upper floors are organized
around a central community
courtyard, tucked away using the
units and other communal spaces
as a buffer from the busy streets.
Residential units are made up of
private one bedroom studios which
connect, in groups of 3-4, to a larger
communal room.
43
5
2
THE DOGPATCH
DESIGN PROPOSAL 4
3rd Street & 23rd Street
First Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
Second Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
7
1
6
2
9
4
3
10
1
6
8
2
4
3
10
Small communal space
in unit scale
Small communal space
in unit scale
Small communal space
in unit scale
4
2
2
4
10
5
4
4
1
3
4
5
5
3
5
4
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Small communal space
in unit scale
First Floor
Floor Plan
Plan
First
Scale: 1’
1’ == 1/64”
1/64”
Scale:
First Floor
Plan Space
1. Common
Scale:2.1’Common
= 1/64” Kitchen
3. Common Living
4. Bathroom
1. Common
Space
5. Bedroom
2. Common
Kitchen
3. Common Living
4. Bathroom
5. Bedroom
Medium communal space
on floor scale
Medium communal space
on floor scale
Medium
communal
space
Medium
communal
space
on floor scale
on floor scale
6. Outdoor
7. Storage
8. Parking
9. Lobby
6. Outdoor
10. Retail
7. Storage
8. Parking
9. Lobby
10. Retail
Second Floor Plan
Scale: 1’ = 1/64”
44
10
10
Residents experience three different
scales of various communal space.
The largest communal space is
the central courtyard in which all
residential and communal spaces are
organized around. Like La Tourette,
the central courtyard provides
space for community events while
allowing light and visual connectivity.
Next, large communal hallways,
consisting of alcove and cut outs
for congregation, connect the
central courtyard to various smaller
Large communal space
whole unit scale
communal
space
LargeLarge
communal
space
whole unit scale
whole unit scale
Large communal space
whole unit scale
Principle Diagram
Second
Second
Floor Floor
Plan Plan
1’ = 1/64”
Scale: Scale:
1’ = 1/64”
30
30
70
70
communal spaces. Finally, semi-private
communal spaces provide entrance
to individual units while servicing
each unit with public utilities such
as cooking, dining, and bathroom.
Such a gradient, from communal/
public spaces to private units, fosters
community interaction and activity
important to the overall feeling of
Co-Housing building typologies.
45
Bibliography
Hildner, Claudia. Future Living: Collective Housing in Japan.
Germany: Birkhauser, 2013.
McCamant, Kathryn and Charles Durrett. Cohousing: A Contemporary
Approach to Housing Ourselves. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press, 2nd Edition, 1994.
McCamant, Kathryn and Charles Durrett. Creating Cohousing: Building
Sustainable Communities. Canada: New Society Publishers, 2011.
Scott Hanson, Chris and Kelly. The Cohousing Handbook: Building a Place for
Community. Canada: New Society Publishers, 2005.
List of Figures
Figure 1
Resources
CollinsWoerman. Bastyr University Student Village. 2010. Architecture. Bastyr University,
Kenmore, Washington. Available from: ArchDaily http://www.archdaily.com/96482/bastyr-university-student-village-collinswoerman/ (accessed December 7, 2014)
Figure 2
Eagon Company. Traditional Korean House (Remodel). 2013. Architecture. Seoul, Korea.
Available from: http://m.eto.co.kr/news/view.asp?Code=20090512105537687 (accessed
December 2, 2014)
Figure 3
CASA Architects.Vrijburcht. 2007. Architecture. Amsterdam, Netherlands. Available from:
Architetticercasi Edizione 2013http://www.architetticercasi.eu/c/149 (accessed December
11, 2014)
Figure 4
De Graaf, Jan. Het Hallehuis. 1993. Architecture. Het Hallehuis, Amersfoort, Netherlands.
Available from: Het Hallehuis homepage http://www.hallehuis.nl/ (Accessed December 15,
2014)
Figure 5
Jahn, Helmut. State Street Village. 2003. Architecture. Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago,
Illinois. Available from: Art on File http://www.artonfile.com/detail.aspx?cat=architecture&id=ARCXI-03-10-10 (accessed December 8, 2014)
Figure 6
Aart A/S. Bikuben Kollegiet. 2006. Architecture. Copenhagan University, Denmark. Available
from: Danish Architecture Center http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-life/copenhagen-x-gallery/cases/
bikuben-kollegiet/ (accessed December 2, 2014)
List of Figures
Figure 7
Swan’s Market
Pyatok Architects. Swan’s Market. 2000. Architecture. Swan’s Market Cohousing, Oakland,
California. Available from: http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Swans-Market-1.png (accessed December 5, 2014)
Figure 8
Le Corbusier. La Tourette Monastery. 1957. Architecture. La Tourette, Éveux, France.
Available from: The Life of Couch http://lifeofcouch.blogspot.com/2013/10/la-tourette.html
(accessed December 12, 2014)
Figure 9
Piano, Renzo. Poor Clare Convent. 2011. Architecture. Poor Clare Convent, Ronchamp,
France. 2011. Available from: Dezeen http://www.dezeen.com/2011/09/26/ronchamp-tomorrow-by-renzo-piano/ (accessed December 9, 2014)
Figure 10
McCamant, Kathryn and Charles Durrett. Doyle Street Cohousing. 1992. Architecture.
Emeryville Cohousing, Emeryville, California. Available from: http://www.cohousingco.com/
projects/emeryville-cohousing/ (accessed on December 11, 2014)
Figure 11
Urbanus Architects. Tolou Housing Guangzhou. 2007. Architecture. Guangzhou, China.
Available from: ArchDaily http://www.archdaily.com/24210/tulou-housing-guangzhou-urbanus-architects-by-iwan-baan/ (accessed on December 16, 2014)
Figure 12
Unknown. Traditional Shaker Dwelling. 1830. Architecture. East Coast, United States.
Available from: Pitzer, Donald E. America’s Communal Utopias. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1997.
Figure 13
CollinsWoerman. Bastyr University Student Village. 2010. Architecture. Bastyr University,
Kenmore, Washington. Available from: ArchDaily http://www.archdaily.com/96482/bastyr-university-student-village-collinswoerman/ (accessed December 7, 2014)
Figure 14
CollinsWoerman. Bastyr University Student Village. 2010. Architecture. Bastyr University,
Kenmore, Washington. Available from: ArchDaily http://www.archdaily.com/96482/bastyr-university-student-village-collinswoerman/ (accessed December 7, 2014)
Figure 15
CollinsWoerman. Bastyr University Student Village. 2010. Architecture. Bastyr University,
Kenmore, Washington. Available from: ArchDaily http://www.archdaily.com/96482/bastyr-university-student-village-collinswoerman/ (accessed December 7, 2014)
Figure 16
Aart A/S. Bikuben Kollegiet. 2006. Architecture. Copenhagan University, Denmark. Available
from: Art on File http://www.artonfile.com/detail.aspx?cat=&id=Copenhagen-21-06-01
(accessed December 2, 2014)
Figure 17
Aart A/S. Bikuben Kollegiet. 2006. Architecture. Copenhagan University, Denmark. Available
from: Danish Architecture Center http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-life/copenhagen-x-gallery/cases/
bikuben-kollegiet/ (accessed December 2, 2014)
Figure 18
Aart A/S. Bikuben Kollegiet. 2006. Architecture. Copenhagan University, Denmark. Available
from: Danish Architecture Center http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-life/copenhagen-x-gallery/cases/
bikuben-kollegiet/ (accessed December 2, 2014)
Figure 19
Pyatok Architects. Swan’s Market. 2000. Architecture. Swan’s Market Cohousing, Oakland,
California. Available from: http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Swans-Market-1.png (accessed December 5, 2014)
Figure 20
Pyatok Architects. Swan’s Market. 2000. Architecture. Swan’s Market Cohousing, Oakland,
California. Available from: http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Swans-Market-1.png (accessed December 5, 2014)
Figure 21
Pyatok Architects. Swan’s Market. 2000. Architecture. Swan’s Market Cohousing, Oakland,
California. Available from: http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Swans-Market-1.png (accessed December 5, 2014)
Figure 22
Le Corbusier. La Tourette Monastery. 1957. Architecture. La Tourette, Éveux, France.
Available from: My Architectural Visits http://myarchitecturalvisits.com/2014/07/30/couventde-la-tourette/la-tourette_le-corbusier_9/ (accessed December 12, 2014)
Figure 23
Le Corbusier. La Tourette Monastery. 1957. Architecture. La Tourette, Éveux, France.
Available from: Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/56408860@N02/6033054214/ (accessed December 12, 2014)
Figure 24
Le Corbusier. La Tourette Monastery Analysis. 1957. Architecture. La Tourette, Éveux,
France. Available from: Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/56408860@N02/6033054214/
(accessed December 12, 2014)