project (dis) content-community living for the pursuit of happiness
TRANSCRIPT
1
A thesis submitted to the graduate school of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Master of Architecture: School of Architecture and Interior Design of the College of Design, Art, Architecture, and Planning
by
Committee John Hancock Michael McInturf
Community Living for the Pursuit of Happiness
Kristen Michael Mimms BA in Architecture, University of Kentucky, 2011
p r o j e c t
( d i s ) c o n t e n t
3
Current living situations are not mentally and
physically elevating happiness and wellness levels
within our society. Scholars have identified eight main
points of influence that satisfy our emotional, somatic,
and architectural needs in daily life. I am proposing
a co-housing project, which transcends the well-
known Danish model by adapting to an American urban
situation, and which addresses as many of these happiness
factors as possible through design: (1) relationships,
(2) exercise, (3) nature, (4) contribution, (5)
relaxation, (6) recreation, (7) nutrition, and (8)
spirituality. Although relatively new within the
United States, co-housing, or community-driven housing,
with its shared amenities, has been contributing to
the consistent satisfaction level in Denmark, the
happiest country on earth for more than forty years.
This project is situated within the physical and
mental revitalization of an existing high-density,
urban neighborhood, where co-housing communities are
still rare. Therefore, the design of CoHoPoH, or Co-
Housing for the Pursuit of Happiness addresses unique
needs: (1) physically maximizing and enriching communal
spaces on a tight site, (2) increasing, yet filtering
visual communication between residents and outside
users and observers, (3) protecting the individuality
of residents as homeowners in the high-density setting,
and (4) maintaining and elevating the unique urban
fabric of the neighborhood’s existing architecture,
while projecting a desirable image for the co-housing
movement throughout downtown Cincinnati. In time, the
successful implementation of these goals could influence
and expand the potential of the co-housing model within
the worldwide trend of urbanization, and thus the overall
happiness of people within the city of Cincinnati and
possibly the world.
(273)
ABSTRACT _
Fig. 0.01
5
© 2014
Kristen Michael Mimms
All Rights Reserved
For everyone that has ever experienced unhappiness at home. We deserve the pursuit and the happiness too.
______________________
To my friends and colleagues... You each inspire me everyday.
And to Mommy, Daddy, and Jenniferfor putting up with my fleeting unpleasantness during the process of this happy thesis’ development.
I love you all.
7
Fig. 1.01 Typical Wyoming, Ohio residential street
9
IT BEGAN WITH A BUS RIDE _PREFACE
My first memories of riding on the Cincinnati Metro
Bus system felt like venturing into a whole new world.
I gazed through the window, knees on the seat, moving
further away from the tree and single-family house
lined streets of suburban Wyoming, Ohio, and into the
dense jungle of apartment buildings and row houses of
downtown Cincinnati. I was so amazed by the discrepancy.
My cognitive map told me that my home was twenty minutes
down the street but I could not understand how living
could look so different so nearby. That bus ride further
awakened my design mind.
I had thought that all houses were created equal
despite their different colored facades and other
topical distinctions. The concept of a house had been
simple to me: a big box full of individual compartments,
each dedicated to a specific life necessity. A room for
eating and cooking, a room for bathing, a room for
watching TV, and a couple of rooms for sleeping. This
was how I designed my Barbie houses with cassette-tape
walls and furniture. They had their dream homes; there
were no problems and no codes to follow.
There was a moment, around the age of six, where
I realized that my house, specifically, was different
from that of my friends and classmates. That was when
I understood that design is born from problems. It had
been very important to me to have a longer hallway
in between the stairs and each of the bedrooms, like
the houses I had been to on numerous play dates after
school, but that was not so. I kept asking myself, “Why
would someone build this house in this way? Why is
there a bedroom in the front of the house that can only
be accessed by walking through another bedroom? Didn’t
the builder realize this does not make sense?” It seems
to me, that from that moment on, I was determined
to design better houses so that no other child would
have to grow up wondering why their home functioned so
differently from most others. I would draw my home in
plan hundreds of times after that realization, trying
to solve the puzzle on my own. One may say that it was
a drive to understand but perhaps it was the urge to fit
in with my community.
Even in adolescence, I could tell that the design of
my family’s house dictated the behavior in our home.
With two growing daughters in the house, knocking was
a huge necessity when navigating the second floor. My
father probably knocked on my bedroom doors 6 to 8 times
each morning, just to pass through. The house imposed
an unwanted routine on us that could be irritating to
those involved, which were my sister and myself during
our teenage years. Today I understand that my house was
designed in that way for the original inhabitants of
1912, not for us of the present day. While the front
room was their bedroom, the room that provided access
to it was probably purposed as a dressing room. It has
been through my education that I came to understand
what my childhood mind would not have known. I believe
that my past experience benefits my research due to
my need and desire to create spaces that encourage,
instead of force, behavior on the users. I hope to
encourage necessary behaviors that will ultimately make
for happy and healthy inhabitants in the buildings that
I design.
11
13
CONTENTS _
3 abstract
9 it began with a bus ride
15 creating an understanding
37 developing a language
63 building a lifestyle
88 list of illustrations
91 bibliography
Fig. 2.01 Happy Living
15
CREATING AN UNDERSTANDING _
THE RESEARCH
17 problem
19 happiness
23 pointsofinfluence
Fig. 2.02 East Liberty Street, OTR, Cincinnati, Ohio
17
PROBLEM _
“ The problem of the house is a problem of the epoch. The equilibrium of society depends upon it. Architecture has for its first duty, in this period of renewal, that of bringing about a revision of values, a revision of the constituent elements of the house.”1
LE CORBUSIER, Towards an Architecture _
The focus of this research began with a concern over
residential happiness but has evolved into a journey to
find both health and happiness within the residential
typology. The problem is evident; single-family homes
are not fulfilling the inherent and common requirements
to maintain happy and healthy households in our society.
Many people have proven unable to utilize either the
known suburban or urban dwelling models to maximize
their health and happiness levels and so the tradition
stands: obtain a space to live, reside there to fulfill
the shelter requirement, update and/or decorate as
necessary, and move on once something better comes
along.
Over time society has allowed the residential
condition to simply function as protection: to shelter
its inhabitants from weather, dangerous situations,
and social judgment. In addition to safety, however, we
should be considering health beyond sanitary conditions.
Health is more than just physical well-being but also
known to be extensively mental. So how are we currently
addressing both our physical and mental needs?
We aren’t.
What should we be doing instead?
Identifyingpointsofinfluenceand
designing for implementation.
171 Le Corbusier, Towards An Architecture, (London: Dover Publications, 1986), p. 254.
Fig. 2.03 Happy Houses
19
HAPPINESS _It is generally assumed that happiness is subjective;
that a person’s happiness is self-determined and self-
defined. However, studies show that one’s happiness level
is affected by a combination of factors existing within
three main categories: genetic set point, circumstances,
and intentional activity.
Genetic Set Point _ Studies done by University of
California and University of Missouri scholars
show that 50% of human happiness is predetermined
by genetics, meaning we have absolutely no control
over half of our happiness, as it is programmed
within us from conception. Studies of identical
twins from adolescence to adulthood suggest that
stable happiness is heritable due to comparable
happiness levels over time, while studies of
fraternal twins produced varied results.
Circumstances _ The same study has shown that the
“national, geographical, and cultural region in
which a person resides” affects 10% of a person’s
overall happiness level.2 Where and how you live
matters.
Intentional Activity _ Scholars define this
activity as chosen behavior, driven by self-
empowered effort. “The person has to try to do
the activity; it does not happen by itself.”3
People choose to be happy by participating in
activities or experiencing spatial conditions
that they enjoy. These activities and conditions
will be discussed further in the next chapter, as
points of influence.
2 Sonja Lyubomirsky, Kennon M. Sheldon, and David Schkade, “Pursuing Happiness: The Architec-ture of Sustainable Change,” Educational Publishing Foundation, (2005): accessed August 6, 2013, http://sonjalyubomirsky.com/wp-content/themes/sonjalyubomirsky/papers/LSS2005.pdf, p.117.3 Ibid, p.118.
19
21
THE CITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN A HAPPINESS PROJECT
“Whatever creates or increases happiness or some part of happiness, we ought to do; whatever destroys or hampers happiness, or gives rise to its opposite, we ought not to do.”4
Aristotle, Rhetoric _
Life has always been a journey to find happiness.
There has always been a desire to find comfortable
living; it is what propels our society forward, the
desire for more.
THE ARCHITECTURE OF HAPPINESS
“While an attractive building may on occasion flatter an ascending mood, there will be times when the most congenial of locations will be unable to dislodge our sadness or misanthropy.”5
Alain de Botton, Architecture of Happiness _
A happy building should be more than just something
to stare at and adore; the building should function
as an instigator for happiness within the everyday
patterns of our lives. So how can a building inspire
activity? The people need it, so we will build it.
If it is functional and interesting, they will use
it to live. First we must provide healthy lifestyle
activity through points of influence.
4 Aristotle, Rhetoric, (London: Oxford University Press, 1910-1931), Book I – Chapter 5.5 Alain de Botton, The Architecture of Happiness, (New York: Pantheon Books, 2006), p. 17.
23
POINTS OF INFLUENCE _
The points of influence (POIs) coming from the
research literature on happiness, will act in this
thesis as the guidelines to residential happiness. By
working to implement high levels of these POIs into
one’s life, there should be a heightened opportunity
for happiness within the home. As previously discussed,
happiness is, indeed, subjective but because there are
both biological and genetic requirements, we are able
to discuss the conditions of general happiness, as it
pertains to all people.
In an American Psychologist article about Lifestyle and
Mental Health, Roger Walsh identifies eight therapeutic
lifestyle changes that positively influence physical and
mental well-being.6 These points of influence include:
1 Relationshipscan be fostered within a community by proximity and space provided for gathering. As social creatures, this aspect should accommodate numerous degrees of privacy.
2 Exerciseis easy to come by when living within close proximity to amenities. Residents are more likely to fulfill physical health requirements by walking to and from destinations.
3 Naturehas a therapeutic affect on humans. Not only does it naturally relax us, we know that it also provides us with the elements we need to survive.
4 Contributionto the neighborhood provides a person with great pride and self-esteem. By creating space for the residents to provide to the community, they will be encouraged to utilize the space for the greater good.
6 Roger Walsh, “Lifestyle and Mental Health,” American Psychologist, (2011), http://janebirr.com/amp-ofp-walsh.pdf.
5 Relaxationcan help prolong a person’s life despite the idea that we must work to live. These spaces should not only give the residents a place to separate from others but also provide comfort.
6 Recreationstimulates the minds of the residents through both modern and primitive technology.
7 Nutritioncan be encouraged by providing ample gardening and food preparation spaces for both group and individual utilization and education.
8 Spiritualitywhether religious or not, has a great affect on the happiness of most people. Spaces should allude to something more than the human world without designating a specific origin.
While the CoHoPoH Group (the client for this thesis
design project) intends to influence positive happiness
levels using each of these POIs, they have designated
three as the most significant: relationships, exercise,
and nature. The Group feels that these three POIs will
prove the most influential in their pursuit of happiness
process. While there would be considerably more emphasis
put on these top three POIs, the other POIs will also
have an active presence within the CoHoPoH Group’s
community.
Fig. 2.04
25
1 RELATIONSHIPS _CO-HOUSING
Many members of society, represented in this project
by a hypothetical client group, the “CoHoPoH Group,” are
in need of physical connectedness, civic, recreational
and spiritual presence, as well as social support within
and in close proximity to their home setting. Since it
is commonplace for American nuclear families to live
apart from their relatives, there is a heightened and
natural desire for the presence of community. Typical
neighborhoods do not readily enable families to extend
aid to their neighbors or promote a natural sense of
community due to their physical layouts and traditional
social hierarchies.
The CoHoPoH group identified relationships as the
most important POI within the guidelines because it
validates the social aspect of the co-housing movement.
Co-housing followers have given many testimonies, after
experiencing bouts of isolation and other isolation-
related disadvantages of life, in advocating for
community-driven living.
The American Constitution guarantees its citizens the
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
but provides no indication as to how happiness can be
obtained. Similarly, it is up to the inhabitants of
traditional neighborhoods to obtain their community
enhanced happiness. They must organize their own events
and activities, which may go on unattended by their
non-committal neighbors. Such difficulties illustrate
the importance of presenting a “growing option to
consider for families and individuals seeking relief
from living in isolation.”7 Otherwise this cycle is
doomed to continue. With the publication of magazines
like Dwell: At Home in the Modern World, attempting
to keep non-designers current, we, as a society, can
see that we do not have to maintain all architectural
traditions within the residential typology. We can
accept a new era. Upon the start of a new era, Le
Corbusier states that it is the first obligation of
7 Casey Schacher, “The Good and the Bad of Co-housing,” ALA APA: The Organization for the Advance ment of Library Employees, (2006): accessed 17 Feb 2013, http://ala-apa.org/newsletter/2006/10/17/ the-good-and-the-bad-of-co-housing.
architecture to “bring about a revision of values, a
revision of the constitutive elements of the house.”8 It
is our responsibility, as designers, to create community
within that of the existing through the utilization of
intentional design to obtain not only life and liberty
but also health and happiness.
The Danish founder of the movement, Jan Gudmand-
Hoyer, realized that cooperative living could be the
future of residential architecture. Today, despite
a failed attempt in 1964, “co-housing has become
an international phenomenon with perhaps a hundred
communities built and operating in many countries.”9
It is understood why the concept has been adopted in a
variety of countries due to the relief it provides to
the responsible parties. Many agreed upon tasks help
individual households by dividing up the work that goes
into specific tasks. There are many working parents or
singles that simply do not always have the energy, after
their work, to make dinner daily. Within a co-housing
community, cooking dinner is split up into shifts that
occur every other week, depending on the number of adults
in the community. Besides sharing cooking duties, co-
housing inhabitants distribute gardening and cleaning
work, as well as childcare.
There is a widely publicized Nigerian Igbo proverb
“ora na azu nwa” meaning it takes a village to raise a
child, which helps to assure us that together we can
secure a better environment for our families.10 It has
been said, “motherhood [is] the hardest job in the
world.”11 However, the Nigerian proverb suggests that,
within a true community, all inhabitants inherently
support each other due to strong, trusting relationships,
often substituting as mothers and fathers as necessary.
Interestingly enough, an advocate for Danish co-housing,
Bodil Graae wrote an article entitled “Children Should
8 Le Corbusier, Towards An Architecture. (London: Dover Publications, 1986), p. 254.9 David Holmstrom, “A Brief History of Co-housing,” The Christian Science Monitor (2000): accessed February 17, 2013), http://search.proquest.com/docview/405644731?accountid=2909.10 “It takes a village to raise a child,” Azainia, accessed February 21, 2013, http://www.azania.org/11 Meagan Francis, “’The Hardest Job in the World’? Motherhood’s tough. But let’s not kid ourselves” (2009), accessed February 17, 2013, http://www.babble.com/mom/relationships/motherhood-hard-work-raising-kids-being-a-mom/.
Fig. 2.05 Housing Kit-of-Parts
27
Have One Hundred Parents,” which encouraged “a group of
50 families in creating a housing collective with the
common denominator ‘also for children.’”12 It seems that
both the African proverb and Graae had similar ideas
about the nature of community.
By joining together, the hardest job of conditioning
a child to become an adult could be shared amongst
many instead of putting such a pressure on one or
two people. In fact, a single mother sought out a
Danish co-housing community saying that, “It was a
miracle I found this place. It saved me because I
needed to be surrounded by other grown ups, not just my
children.”13 This Danish mother admitted that co-housing
is greatly responsible for her continued happiness.
This testimony is fully substantiated by the fact that
Denmark “consistently ranks as the Happiest Country on
Earth.”14 It cannot be a mere coincidence that Denmark
not only originated the concept but also “has more of
its population living in co-housing communities than
any other modern, industrialized nation.”15
2 EXERCISE _THE ACTIVE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The second important POI indicated by the CoHoPoH
Group is exercise. In order to understand how exercise
can affect an architectural design, one can study
the findings of the New York City’s Active Design
Guidelines, which promote physical activity and health
within the design of buildings and exterior spaces.
The book is a compilation of works contributed by
urban planners, architects, landscape architects, NYC
Department of Health/Mental Hygiene, and NYC Department
of Transportation. The compilation is a successful
effort towards a healthier and fit community, definitely
12 Danny Millman, “Where it All Began: Co-housing in Denmark,” Co-housing (2011), accessed February 18, 2013, http://www.co-housing.org/cm/article/related_denmark.13 Happy, directed by Roko Belic (2011; San Jose, CA: Emotional Content, 2012), Online Stream, 36:03.14 Ibid, 37:02.15 Ibid, 36:45.
a step in the right direction. By working together,
we are able to pinpoint and understand how each field
is crucial to the cause. Within each section, there
are supportive images and diagrams for the reader to
further understand the concepts.
How often do architects consider health and fitness
when designing the buildings we frequent? Most of our
technology has been invented to make our lives simpler
or easier, which has in turn, made us lazier. This book
is about promoting health and fitness within the built
environment of New York City. Health is a constant and
increasing concern in our culture, as it should be. The
book points out that just as the 19th and 20th centuries
had their cholera and tuberculosis epidemics, we, in
the 21st century, have our obesity and type 2 diabetes;
the United States’ rates are probably the highest of
all countries. We are now realizing the importance
of leading a life, balanced with good nutrition and
sufficient exercise, to maintain our bodies.
By implementing designs with inherent considerations
to bodily wellness, we can further encourage healthy
lifestyles. The Active Design Guidelines discuss
such encouragement on two scales: urban planning and
architecture. By encouraging the whole city to have a
healthier mindset, we are able to influence most people
within our communities. And by designing buildings to
take on and encourage the health we seek, we are able
to reach those that are able to avoid the urban planned
tactics. The guidelines go on to describe how sustainable
design and universal design have the potential to come
together to increase physical activity and improve
health for all kinds of people, present and future.
There are many design elements that the Design
Guidelines urge designers to implement into their
design projects: imageability, enclosure, human scale,
transparency, and complexity.
“A place has high imageability when specific physical elements and their arrangement capture attention, evoke feelings, and create a lasting impression. Enclosure refers to the degree in which streets and other public spaces are visually defined by buildings, walls, trees, and other
29
vertical elements. The human scale of a place references size, texture, and articulation of physical elements that match size and proportions of human stature. Transparency references the degree to which people can see or perceive objects and activity—especially human activity—that occurs beyond the edge of a street. And finally, complexity refers to the visual richness of a physical environment.”16
Chang, Active Design Guidelines _
These elements should be backed up by more specific
building interventions, such as visually connected
spaces, stairs, long corridors, and dedicated exercise
space. While the image of a community building is of
high importance, the internal design of a building must
enhance its functionality by encouraging brief periods
of walking, main access/floor connection through a grand
stair or ramp, and multi-level suites. By supplying
inherent exercise between entry and destination or Task
A and Task B, the people within the building are able to
obtain exercise without putting much thought into the
process. The walking exercise becomes a natural part
of their daily routine without much additional effort.
A residential perspective is definitely lacking when
reading through these guidelines. There is no mention or
suggestion of how the guidelines can affect residential
architecture. Perhaps the contributors have yet to
consider the possibility of using residential communities
to encourage behavior directed towards better health
so this is where these design guidelines fall short.
As a reader and designer, one can understand that the
home is the most personal of all spaces in one’s life
experiences but even that cannot keep designers from
influencing the way people utilize their home space.
Although the residential discussion is missing in this
fight for a better lifestyle, many of the guidelines can
be considered in the design of a residential community.
The utilization of these guidelines to design a
functional co-housing community could potentially aid
in the physical health of the inhabitants within the
project.
16 Irene Chang, et al, Active Design Guidelines: Promoting Physical Activity and Health in Design, (New York: City of New York, 2010).
WALKABLE CITY
Urban Planner Jeff Speck specifies suburban sprawl
as the worst idea that we have ever had.17 While there
seem to be apparent advantages of living outside of the
city, Speck uses his book, Walkable City, to convince
the American people that living within cities that
encourage us to walk more could save the physical and
mental health our children and their children’s children.
After all, “we have the first generation of children, in
America, that are predicted to live shorter lives than
their parents... and the design of the cities lies at
the cure.”18 Simply put, we depend on the car too much;
it has become a crutch. And so it is the responsibility
of both designers and non-designers to allow this shift
to occur. We must design more beneficial communities and
make existing communities more conducive to the active
lifestyle that could save our health and happiness.
Places like this do exist. Portland, Oregon “drives
20% less than the rest of the country” because they
made a decision to invest in being a biking and walking
city.19 Apparently this allows them to spend more money
on both recreation and the upkeep of their homes. Speck
poses the irony behind the common homeowner’s question:
“What can I add to my house to make it better?”
“We’ve changed all our light bulbs to energy-savers, and you should do the same thing, but changing all your light bulbs to energy-savers saves as much energy in a year as moving to a
walkable city does in a week.”20
Jeff Speck, The Walkable City TED Talk _
Exercise + Sustainability = Happier, healthier people
17 “Jeff Speck: The Walkable City,” Video, TED Conferences (2013: TEDCity2.0), 0:52.18 Ibid, 7:05.19 Ibid, 4:00.20 Ibid, 13:02.
31
WALK SCORE
Over-the-Rhine, Cincinnati, Ohio scores a 91 for
walkability on www.walkscore.com, making it a “Walker’s
Paradise, where daily errands do not require a car.21
Even the transit earns a high score of excellent,
validating Over-the-Rhine (OTR) as a good prospective
location for the CoHoPoH Group’s new community.
USEFUL, SAFE, COMFORTABLE, & INTERESTING
21 “Over-the-Rhine Neighborhood, Cincinnati,” Walk Score (2014): accessed March 22, 2014, http://www.walkscore.com/OH/Cincinnati.
Fig. 2.06
Fig. 2.07
In an interview with MSNBC, Speck indicates that in
order for a street to successfully engage the people,
it must be useful, safe, comfortable, and interesting.
It is important to create a balance of each of these
characteristics in order to influence happy experiences
within the city. Speck provided images of what he calls
timeless urbanity in a Metropolis article, titled “Ballet
of the Sidewalk”. The main message that he expresses
is: “walkable cities are better for your soul.”22
“Somewhere, at the intersection of the quality-of-life city, the sustainable city, the equitable city, and the happy city, lies the good city. I don’t doubt that it is also the walkable city, but walkability alone does not get us there.”23
Jeff Speck, Ballet of the Sidewalk _
22 Jeff Speck, “Ballet of the Sidewalk,” Metropolis, February 2014, p. 58.23 Ibid, p. 64.
Fig. 2.08 Sidewalk Dynamics
33
3 NATURE _WALKABLE CITY
Besides walkability, Speck discusses the
implementation of the third significant POI, nature,
and how it can positively affect a city’s streetscape.
As traffic engineers have become more concerned about
vehicular safety over the years, the pedestrian has
become an afterthought. What about the pedestrian
experience strolling down the sidewalk? “Nature deficit
disorder is real, and must be countered with more than
the occasional New Urbanist ‘pocket park.’”24 Bringing
more nature into the city is not simply done by blatant
insertion; these additions must blend seamlessly with
the existing situation. This is what makes the New York
City Highline Park so successful: while the vegetation
flows along the train tracks, there is direct reference to
the rest of the city through materiality and form. This
allows the visitors to easily understand the transition
from city street to city park whilst enjoying the fruits
of a forest condition.
24 Ibid, p. 58.
Fig. 2.09 Highline, NYC
Fig. 2.10 Views to Nature
35
HAPPY CITY
Charles Montgomery uses his book, Happy City, to
help us understand what our daily living is missing.
While the greater social exposure of urban life is to be
desired, Montgomery also expresses how important nature
is to our well-being and future. Without an adequate
amount of visually pleasing natural wildlife, our minds
become flooded with the monotony of urban life.
In a city movement study by University of Waterloo
psychologist Colin Ellard, it was found on a city tour
that “as the urban terrain varied, so did people’s
emotions.”25 For example, happiness levels rose
substantially when entering the M’Finda Kalunga Garden
on the Lower East Side of New York City. These moments
act as refreshers for our minds, revitalizing our mental
state as we trek through our existing concrete jungles.
People that live around more greenery are “happier,
friendlier, and less prone to violence” than those who
live life in sparsely green locations.26
25 Charles Montgomery, Happy City (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013), p. 108.26 Ibid, p. 110.
Fig. 2.11 City Oasis
Fig. 3.01 Happy Environment
37
THE PROJECT
39 meet the clients
43 proposition
45 inspiration
61 projection
DEVELOPING A LANGUAGE _
39
MEET THE CLIENTS _The CoHoPoH Group
Maintaining a successful co-housing community
requires that all adult members are able to come to an
agreement on each aspect of the community’s lifestyle.
It is for this reason that some people are unable to
even consider such an arrangement. Many sources express
that “any population over 50 adults is too much for a
co-housing community because there will be too many
opinions and not enough compromise.”27 That being said,
the ideal clients of a co-housing development would be
a group of families, as well as individuals, that share
the desire to build and sustain a close-knit community.
In some cases, a wealthy patron initiates the development
of a community and will attempt to recruit and persuade
families that living in co-housing is the best lifestyle
for them. Within this process, a family or individual
will make the decision on his or her own after receiving
information from the patron; they would meet with other
interested parties to discuss values and then begin
the search for a site where they can begin to develop
design ideas. Although the CoHoPoH Group has discussed
the possibility of a Public-Private Partnership (P3),
neither this approach nor the patronage model will be
used in the CoHoPoH Project.
As described, the CoHoPoH Group has developed their
community in the original Danish way: through the blood,
sweat, and tears of the intended residents, instead of
being sponsored by a power-holding patron. In 2009, a
group of friends (3 couples and 3 individuals) decided
that they needed more from their living situations.
As active citizens of their respective suburban
communities, they felt that they needed a tighter-knit
neighborhood with greater encouragement to maintain
a healthy lifestyle. None of them knew of a name for
what they were looking for but during one day of Google
searching, they stumbled upon the word, “co-housing”.
The concept stuck with them for a while and they knew it
could help improve the lives of themselves and others.
27 “U.S. Co-housing Communities,” Co-housing Association of the United States, (2013), http://directory.cohousing.org/us_list/all_us.php.
They were grateful to discover a well-established,
international movement that could provide detailed and
sympathetic guidance in line with their ideals.
Sean & Kathy DAVIS We have lived in Mason, Ohio, for ten years while
Sean makes a 40-minute commute to and from work, at his downtown office, I must maintain the home we share with our two children. Over time, we have each grown unhappy with the extended hours we spend alone during commutes, work hours, and even time at home. We hope to find a new home where we can spend more time with each other and getting to know our neighbors.
Jenna & Mike GIBBONS Our family has resided in Mason, Ohio, for
eighteen years until a year ago when Jenna and I retired from our positions at Procter & Gamble, subsequently downsizing our living situation. We’ve raised three children and seen them through college and now we would like to see what the downtown area has to offer. Our current situation just does not give us the close-knit community we are looking for. We need more social interaction between neighbors and neighborhoods. We aren’t that old yet!
Maria MARCOTTA I was born in Rome, Italy, but I have been living
in the state of Ohio for the past 45 years. In that time I’ve lived in many different neighborhoods but I’ve finally decided downtown is the best location to call home. It’s where it all happens. I’d love to be able to walk from place to place, especially to the museums and new restaurants that are popping up. I’m sure the diverse group of neighbors will bring back old times, walking to the grocery store for mother in Rome-the good old days.
Here are their stories:
41
John KAVANAUGH My family currently lives in Finneytown, Ohio,
where we have been for the past four years. After the death of my wife, one year ago, I felt even more alone in our neighborhood. Other than bringing over bereavement baskets, I haven’t received much support from the neighbors. I’m struggling to balance both my career and responsibility, as I am a single parent. I’m hoping that by living in the CoHoPoH, my son and I will gain the support we need to keep moving forward.
Stephen NEVINS I relocated to Covington, Kentucky, from Boston
after landing an opportunity of a lifetime at a downtown firm. Be that as it may, I was not able to find reasonable accommodation in OTR three years ago. I’ve had a difficult time adjusting to the quiet, suburban lifestyle as well as the daily drive across the river. As a bachelor, I feel extremely disconnected from my neighbors and would appreciate a more socially + geographically connected environment.
Casey & Edwin HESS We have dreamed of getting out of Sharonville, Ohio,
and into OTR for years. As high school sweethearts, Edwin and I have only had a taste of city living when visiting New York City for a few days but we would love to experience it within our home state. While we want to live in an environment focused on knowing each other, we are even more interested in helping to revitalize OTR. The plus side is that our talented twins will be in walking distance to their school, the SCPA. That daily commute has been really tough on us.
43
PROPOSITION _
The CoHoPoH Group is on a mission to complete the
design and construction of the promising community they
know is possible.
The ultimate goal: a tight-knit community that
establishes its internal degrees of community and
privacy, and yet also reaches out and connects to those
around them. While the traditional suburban residence
facilitates extreme separation between neighbors and
neighborhood visitors, the CoHoPoH Project should foster
a variety of semi-private buffer zones with designated
space for connection and collaboration.
The residents of the CoHoPoH Project would like to
welcome visitors into designated zones of the CoHoPoH
community so as to share the fruits of the lifestyle and
hopefully influence a trend throughout the neighborhood
of OTR. Daybreak Co-housing Community, in Portland,
Oregon, illustrates a similar spatial dynamic through
this diagram:
While the public space is centralized, residents are
able to navigate through the layers of the building
to the more private spaces that are personal to them.
This system allows for very dynamic yet controlled
environments within socially focused communities.
privatesemi-privatesemi-publicpublic
Fig. 3.02 Layers of Privacy
Fig. 3.03
45
INSPIRATION _
By analyzing precedents relative to the points of
influence, we can more concretely derive a language for
happy living:
1 Relationships
Generation Living on Mühlgrund
The Generation Living on Mühlgrund (GLoM), designed
by ARTEC Architekten, marked the reestablishment of
intently bringing Viennese people of all ages together
in the home setting. This seven level building takes
on a linear shape, which allows each unit to enjoy
southern daylight from their individual balconies and
living spaces. In both plan and section, one can see
that the building is made up of three distinguishable
bars: semi-private exterior space (balcony), private
dwelling (individual households), and semi-public
dwelling (communal hallway). Although the building
mostly consists of residential units, there is square
footage on the ground floor that is dedicated to
workshops, studios, offices, a nursing suite, and a
common area with cooking capabilities.
While the GLoM has been said to “strengthen
intergenerational (social) cohesion, sensitization of
people of different ages and lifestyles and integration
of older people in urban life,” there is no clear
architectural move to distinguish this intent from
many other multi-family housing buildings.28 Perhaps
the spaces that illustrate the innovative utilization
of space are simply not visible by the public, but the
literature does not divulge much information either. It
is interesting that the aspects of the housing that make
it unique are not displayed in publications. Images of
the individual units are also left out of publications;
however, protecting the individual privacy of residents
is nothing new in documentation. Perhaps, the common
spaces are believed to be communally private and so
request the same respect.
28 ”Should I Stay Or Should I Go? Aging in Cities,” The ProtoCity. accessed December 12, 2013, http://theprotocity.com/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go-aging-in-cities/.
The designers attempted to seamlessly collage the
building into the existing neighborhood. While the
facades definitely enforce passive strategies, they do
not coincide with the single-family homes surrounding
them, which have employed brick, stucco, and wood siding
materials on their facades. However, the designers did
utilize the metal roofing seen on many of the other
homes, in both a roof and wall condition. Besides the
ill-matching facades, the scale of the building can be
off-putting because some of its dimensions are irregular
and not at human scale, especially in juxtaposition to
both the small homes and oversized metro railway line.
Similarly, the GLoM building seems to shut out the rest
of the neighborhood instead of gracefully demarcating
the areas of the ground level that are available to
residents and which areas might also be available to
outsiders.
Another challenge is distinguishing individual units
from an exterior location. If a resident is looking at
the apartment building from the ground, it is hard for
them to determine which unit is theirs, unless they have
distinct interior decoration that is easily visible from
the exterior. This does not help with place attachment
or a sense of pride. The institutional façade takes
away from the resident’s sense of individualism, which
can make them feel lost in the crowd and under-valued.
As previously discussed, the GLoM building is broken
up into three different zones, see Figure 4, which
become essential within a community-based design. By
breaking up the building volume, flows of traffic are
controlled in an organized manner. The semi-public
interior space acts as the high traffic zone because
it accommodates the stairs and elevators, which cater
to all residents at high frequency. By contrast, the
private and semi-private zones function at a much slower
pace and are only meant to accommodate a few people at
any given time because they have more limited access.
This communicates and provides a comfortable sense of
order and privacy to all of the residents. Within the
units, breaking down into zones also gives the residents
a sense of security and individual ownership.
47
Brooklyn Co-housing
Far from the success of the Generation Living on
Mühlgrund, a group of people in Brooklyn, New York,
attempted “to create a new type of housing that would
turn apartment living into a more communal experience”
in 2007.29 The aim was to create several co-housing
communities or urban villages, although this attempt
was ultimately squashed after three years of battling
with both the harsh real estate market and the 2008-09
financial crisis. The group planned to renovate abandoned
buildings within Greenwood Heights, Prospect Heights,
and Fort Greene. But even with the investments of
multiple households, there was just not enough revenue
to bring the community to fruition.
Despite its failure, the Brooklyn Co-housing Group
still shows how important the movement is to many
families. They were in search of close-knit community
within their large city and lost a great deal of money
trying to obtain it. It seems that the group members were
certain that the long-term advantages of a co-housing
community would outweigh the short-term disadvantages
of trying to create one in the urban setting. The group
was obviously in need of the good social health that
comes with community. It is unfortunate that they chose
an inconvenient and stressful point in time, during a
recession, to start such a large project.
2 Exercise
Swan’s Market Co-housing
Situated in downtown Oakland, California, the Swan’s
Market residents are exposed to an abundance of people
and commercial institutions just by stepping outside of
their front door. While the residents within the Swan’s
Market CoHo community have a similar social experience
to most other co-housing communities, their urban
location makes many physical dynamics very different
from those of the suburban or rural context. Since
the community is just a few blocks from the city’s
center, they benefit from the many amenities available,
29 Vivian S. Toy, “A Village Down the Block,” The New York Times, (2008), p. RE1.
receiving a walk score of 97 and a designation as a
“walker’s paradise, great for daily errands” without a
car.30
Besides having great walkability between the CoHo
and other parts of the city, the actual site of the
community does a sufficient job of attracting visitors.
The site acts as both a residential community and a
commercial destination, offering retail, restaurants,
professional offices, and even a Museum of Children’s
Art, perpetuating the site’s original function as
a public market, built in 1917. The layout of the
development allows for the residents and visitors to
have an enjoyable walk through and within the site
without intrusion of privacy or obstruction of path.
Egebakken Community Housing
The Egebakken community was started by a group of
people from Nødebo, Denmark, who wanted to ensure
that they would have a great place and organization
to continue aging. After five years of research,
fundraising, designing, and construction, the senior
citizens were able to move into the 29 row houses
and community hall in 2005. This development, in the
heart of Denmark’s most popular vacation destination,
illustrates one of the diverse groups that prefer co-
housing to traditional housing. As senior citizens, they
require, or will require in the future, specific design
30 Downtown Neighborhood, Oakland,” Walk Score (2014): accessed March 31, 2014, http://www.walkscore.com/score/oakland-california.
Fig. 3.04 Passageway
49
intentions to allow for their varied health conditions
and restrictions to help them sustain an independent
lifestyle. Egebakken takes such restrictions into
consideration by design and application, consisting of
high quality yet low maintenance materials. While the
clients are older in age, the “community did not see
their community as typical elderly housing but rather
a universally designed development with integrated
features that were attractive, easy to maintain, easy
to adapt, on a single level and sized right for comfort
and efficiency.”31
The design of the Egebakken Co-housing community
preserves the traditional ideals of co-housing by allowing
the inhabitants to sustain their independent lives and
households while offering space to encourage and maintain
social interaction and support. Even the site plan of
the small village encourages walking to maintain fitness
as the residents continue to age. This acknowledges
the importance for co-housing developments to serve a
variety of people in order to fulfill its potential for
healthful social interaction and sustainability.
3 Nature
Jamaica Plain Co-housing
As one approaches the co-housing community, just
steps from the Orange Line train, they will immediately
experience a calming emotion caused by the tree canopies
above. On the left one sees nothing but trees that act
as a sound buffer between the train tracks beyond and
the residential homes on the right. Just 200 yards
from the first perpendicular road, you begin to see the
exuberantly yellow painted siding of the Jamaica Plain
CoHo. The natural environment does not end there. As a
visitor approaches the main entrance of the community,
two residential buildings frame the view of a bountiful
courtyard with a walking bridge visible above. One is
made aware of the uniqueness of the courtyard feature
31 “Case Category: Egebakken Community Housing,” Institute for Human Centered Design. (Boston: Adaptive Environments), accessed February 21, 2013 http://www.dev.ihcdstore.org/?q=print/141.
just by turning on one’s heel and viewing the property
across the street; a similar space but used as a cold,
paved parking lot. The natural warmth of the Jamaica
Plain CoHo is definitely not mirrored across the street,
but inversed all due to the lack of greenery.
Fig. 3.05 Cold parking lot
Fig. 3.07 Entrance to Jamaica Plain CoHo
Fig. 3.06 Welcoming Courtyard
51
Generation Living on Mühlgrund
Outside of the dwelling, a resident gets the sense of
having a front yard. Although there is hardly a porch,
just a narrow walkway for each resident to share, there is
substantial northern daylight and an extensive, multi-
level hanging garden. Not only do the planter elements
bring a sense of tranquility to the space, they also
give the resident a mellow sense of responsibility.
At the scale of the community, “natural environments
enhance positive behavioral patterns and facilitate
development of gross motor, cognitive, and social
skills. Therefore both indoor and outdoor natural
spaces should be considered.”32 The planters inspire
individual satisfaction as well as general community
activity. The visual stimulation of the natural
element has a non-inhibiting effect on its observers.
The openness of the semi-public zone is undeniable.
The combination of circulation stairs and reception of
ambient daylight makes the space seem endless. Depending
on the plants within the hanging gardens, this space
could be stimulating not only for the visual sense but
the olfactory as well. Stimulation of these senses
each time a person moves through this space, makes
them more likely to commit the experience to memory
32 David Alan Kopec, “The Community and Neighborhood,” Environmental Psychology for Design, Print, p. 195-208.
Fig. 3.08 Fig. 3.09
and easily be able to recall the space later. The fact
that such a space exists within the home setting will
also encourage the person to subconsciously associate
the sensory experiences with home-like comfort. Even
the soft rustling of the plants’ leaves may create
an auditory memory and ultimately affect the mood
they are in whenever they enter this zone. Since the
GLoM building is located directly next to an elevated
railway, it is likely that there is an auditory affect
from the metro system; the semi-public zone was most
likely designed as a buffer between the residential
units and the metro. Utilizing the zone as both buffer
and circulation provides an auditory satisfaction for
the GLoM residents and those to the south of their
location as well. Even the accordion paneling of the
northern façade could be acoustrically contributing to
the sound control of the passing metro train.
Fig. 3.10 Buffer Zone of Natural elements
53
4 Contribution
The architecture of the Ryo Matsui Hair Salon
celebrates the function occurring internally by fully
exposing the salon activity space to the street. This
design feature presents a new dynamic between the
occupants and those on the exterior of the building.
While the occupants take on the responsibility of openly
sharing the function of the space, people passing by
are able to observe and take note of what they have seen
going on within the building. By showcasing function
in such a grand gesture, the observers are more likely
to remember the image and return for further analysis
and exposure.
Fig. 3.11
Unlike the salon, the Jerngarden CoHo in Denmark
closes itself off to the community outside of their
walls. Despite their successful and applauded effort
to transform a junkyard into multiple residential plots
with a centralized green space, they have kept the
outside community completely cut off from the CoHo
activity by designating the exterior public space as
internal program and using the private residential
buildings as a solid barrier from street activity. By
creating this barrier, there is a preconceived notion
of separation and rejection.
Fig. 3.12
55
5 Relaxation
A Leiden townhouse designed by 24H Architects
celebrates the idea of relaxation in the home by creating
an internal oasis of daylight. While the façade of
the home presents an ostentatious Art Nouveau-inspired
compilation of wood and Corten steel, the interior
provides the “canyon that flows through the house and
encloses the stairs... to provide its inhabitants with
maximal daylight.”33
33 “Amazing New Townhouses in Leiden by 24H Architecture,” Design Rulz, (2011), http://www.designrulz.com/design/2013/09/amazing-new-townhouses-in-leiden-by-24h-architecture/.
Fig. 3.13
6 Recreation
There are many buildings designed to provide
entertaining activities for adults and children alike,
however, how many provide this feature within the
residential context? The Cabin in a Loft does just
that. The loft provides a traditional notion of home by
designating a space for cooking and dining; however,
the sleeping spaces are updated through utilization
of bedroom-sized boxes, reminiscent of the common
playhouse.
Fig. 3.14
57
34 “Ama’r Children’s Culture House/Dorte Mandrup,” Arch Daily, (2013), http://www.archdaily.com/388629/ama-r-children-s-culture-house-dorte-mandrup/.
Another space within a building that provides
recreation is the climbing mountain at the Ama’r
Children’s Culture House in Denmark. The design is
meant to be surprising and imaginative because it has
“been proven to enhance children’s creativity and active
participation” without completely defining an age
limit.34
Fig. 3.15
7 Nutrition
From above one can see that the rooftop gardens of
the Sanya Resort in Sanya, Hainan, China, are abundant in
greenery and frequency. The designers, WOHA, express that
the “geometry of the roofs and gardens are inspired by the
rice-paddy fields of Sanya.”35 The physical presence of these
roof gardens represents the dietary history of the region,
as well as provides the opportunity for further nutritional
enrichment to the resort.
35 “InterContinental Sanya Resort/WOHA.” The Super Slice. (2013), http://thesuperslice.com/2012/07/31/ intercontinental-sanya-resort-woha/.
Fig. 3.16
59
8 Spirituality
The Salk Institute, designed by Louis Kahn, represents
all that is mystic and spiritually stimulating in
the field of architecture. Kahn was commissioned to
design an inspiring environment and succeeded through
“the thoughtful making of space revealed through such
simplicity and elegance that it has since its completion
in 1965 been regarded as the most inspirational work
of architecture in the world.”36 One understands the
esteem to which the project is held because of the
expansive view framing the horizon beyond, accompanied
by the seemingly infinite water feature flowing into the
sky. A visitor is humbled by the experience, feeling
that there is more than just this space and this world
beyond the horizon line.
36 “AD Classics: Salk Institute/Louis Kahn.” Arch Daily. (2010), http://www.archdaily.com/61288/ad-classics-salk-institute-louis-kahn/.
Fig. 3.17
Fig. 3.18 Intentional Living
61
The co-housing community design will consist of 12
households, 2 guest suites, and one common house. A
fully detailed site plan will be developed to understand
the juxtapositions of each household to one another,
the existing nature and topography, and the community
outside of the property as well. There will also be
great consideration to universal design for at least
50% of the households to accommodate a diverse group of
people over time.
The specific site is located in Over-the-Rhine,
Downtown Cincinnati, on the southeast corner of East
Liberty Street and Elm Street. This location was
ultimately chosen because it is an up-and-coming area,
situated among OTR’s great amenities, such as Findlay
Market, the newly renovated Washington Park, Music
Hall, the school for the Creative and Performing Arts,
and numerous boutiques and restaurants popping up on
Vine and Main Streets.
The demographic of the location has become more
diverse over the past several years. OTR residents
are open to new typology concepts, so the co-housing
community should be well received and welcomed into
this unique neighborhood. While the neighborhood is
urban, the community will provide a subtle aesthetic
of suburban life to provide the best of both urban and
suburban lifestyles.
PROJECTION _
Fig. 4.01 Urban Happiness
63
BUILDING A LIFESTYLE _
THE DESIGN
65 linking communities
72 programmatic breakdown
77 lines of approach
81 framing an entrance
83 degrees of privacy
86spatialflow
65
LINKING COMMUNITIES _OTR VS. CoHoPoH
The existing community of OTR has a very diverse
demographic in addition to its wide variety of land use.
The Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan has presented a
map to the public illustrating how the plots within OTR
should and will be developed in the future.
With this plan in mind, the CoHoPoH Group can move
forward knowing that the chosen site will remain a
mostly residential area. However, it is important to
note that it will be completely up to the CoHoPoH
Group as the developers to provide a sense of community
outreach, as well as any other point of influence not
provided in the area.
Fig. 4.02
Not only will OTR make conscious effort to balance land
use, the nature point of influence will be followed to
enhance the overall experience of traveling through the
neighborhood. In other words, while OTR and the CoHoPoH
will be linked through physical location, they will
also be linked through ideal living conditions. This
can be seen on OTR’s Comprehensive Plan of Development,
below.
Fig. 4.03
67
In a grand effort to maintain the Italianate architectural
style, the CoHoPoH’s facades will make direct reference
to the existing facades throughout the community of OTR;
maintaining a physical association to its surrounding
architecture. In order to keep in line with the existing
urban fabric, the design of the CoHoPoh follows the New
Construction Guidelines for façade treatment. These
guidelines include the following:
a) physical base, middle and top adorned with
openings which emphasize verticality
b) material considerations of brick, limestone,
sandstone, cast-iron, slate, wood, and sheet metal37
6767
37 Design Build Studio, Center for Community Engagement in Over-the-Rhine, (Oxford: Miami University, 2009), www.muohio.edu/OTR.
Fig. 4.04 Facade Study
Urban revitalization is no stranger to the present
day neighborhood of OTR. In the past few years, there
has been much effort put in by residents and Cincinnati
organizations to make OTR a more enjoyable place to
live and visit.
Kevin Speece facilitated the renovation of the Rosmur
Vue Condos of 410 Reading Road. This architectural
update consisted of implementing contemporary details
but maintaining the traditional brick facade seen on
a majority of the buildings within the urban fabric
of downtown Cincinnati. These new details include:
aluminum storefront windows, minimalist metal balconies
with cable railing, and a celebrated water collection
system. In collaboration, these aspects of the condo
building remind its observers of the neighborhood
history and the perpetual forward movement being made
The renewal extends further than just residential
renovation or development. Jose Garcia is responsible
for the transformation of the Lightborne Communications
headquarters. While most of the renovation consisted
of interior work, the updated building still exudes a
contemporary character to the surrounding OTR context.
Like the Rosmur Vue Condos, Lightborne wears a brick
facade but has had the windows replaced with more
efficient aluminum storefront and detail. The rooftop
addition tops off the project with a modern approach
of materiality and spatial utilization. Both Rosmur
Vue Condos and Lightborne help inform the potential
contribution of the PoH Project. Not only should the
new construction of the co-housing community mesh well
with the context, it should also allude to the progress
in which the city will make.
Fig. 4.05 Rosmur Vue Condos
69
After an in-depth search, the PoH group has decided on
a lot located on a main thoroughfare of OTR, Cincinnati,
Ohio; East Liberty Street & Pleasant Street. One can
see the prominence of the street by glancing at a
neighborhood map, displayed left. Liberty divides OTR
into two parts: NoLi (North of Liberty) and SoLi (South
of Liberty). These short names will help to distinguish
the areas from other portions of the city and help create
an easy visual landmark for any visiting individual.
The chosen lot is currently occupied by a Cricket
Wireless store, which will not be salvaged for the
development of the PoH Project. As seen below, the
site is mostly paved parking that adds absolutely no
positive architectural value the streetscape. From an
architectural stand point, this site acts as a void
between the historical context and that provides the
PoH group with a wonderful opportunity to give back to
the existing community: by making the NoLi/SoLi border
whole.
Fig. 4.06 Lightborne
Fig. 4.07 Existing CoHoPoH Site
23,884 sq ft(0.54 acres)
16,790 SQ FT(0.39 ACRES)
0.16 ACRESSOLD TO 3CDC
Fig. 4.08
71
final site plan
23,884 sq ft(0.54 acres)
23,884 sq ft(0.54 acres)
23,884 sq ft(0.54 acres)
23,884 sq ft(0.54 acres)23,884 sq ft
(0.54 acres)
B
A
Fig. 4.09
PROGRAMMATIC BREAKDOWN _OVERALL
Exterior 15,100 sq ft
Covered bike parking
Car park: 2 spaces + (1) for Zipcar/Shared vehicle
Picnic area
Garde
Natural growth
Garden Storage/Shed
Clotheslines
Chicken house
Meditation space
Covered Patio: preferably a trellis/green roof
Fire pit
Shared w/ Non-residents
Shops
Gathering nodes
Vendor spaces (3)
Common House 11,170 sq ft
Private Dwellings 10,660 sq ft
TOTAL 48,100 sq ft
73
COMMON HOUSE
Characteristics include:
- Two story space
- Warm, homey materials
- Wi-Fi connection/ IT capable
Spaces include:
250 sq ft Mail room
1200 sq ft Kitchen: large island - ample storage
1800 sq ft Dining: multi purpose - large round
tables – fireplace – common meals
1500 sq ft Lounge: open to dining – large, open
space – piano space
600 sq ft Office space: (6) available for
residents to work
400 sq ft Library: visual connection to lounge
+ dining spaces but separate
1000 sq ft Guest Suites: (2) w/ murphy beds for
maximum flexibility
2000 sq ft Playroom/Fitness room
400 sq ft Laundry: day lighting
120 sq ft Unisex bathroom
Shared w/ Non-residents:
400 sq ft Education center
1500 sq ft Café
PRIVATE DWELLING
Characteristics include:
- High efficiency of space
- Same appliances within each unit
- Contemporary finishes
- Ample day lighting
- Tall windows and skylights with views of natural elements
- Ample storage: each bedroom has individual closet
- Individual green space
- Front porch and/or balcony
- Two levels for end units with 2+ bedrooms
Spaces include:
120 sq ft Individual green space/balcony
685 sq ft Studio - $100,000
685 sq ft 1 bedroom - $130,000
1180 sq ft 2 bedroom - $160,000
75
Co-housing is Community Living with a twist!
The People- Usually a group of friends- Similar goals
- Cooperative mindsets- Commit to the lifestyle
The Site- Accommodates individual dwellings + common house- Close proximity to public transit + basic need markets
- Close proximity to existing communities
While co-housing is a often a lifestyle choice for families, many individuals will join a community. The communities thrive on diversity.
RETIREDPARENTS + CHILDRENINDIVIDUALS
The Residents
- Maximum of 50 adults
DWELLINGSPUBLIC TRANSIT COMMON HOUSE GROCERY MARKET
GROCERY
INDIVIDUAL GROUP GROUPW/ MEDIATOR
IDEALGROUP OPINIONS
+ + +
Fig. 4.10
Fig. 4.11
Fig. 4.12
Fig. 4.13 CoHoPoH within Over-the-Rhine
77
LINES OF APPROACH _
As a person approaches the PoH Project’s site, they
should not only see retail storefronts, but also green
space with CoHoPoH residents and visitors interacting.
Passersby will not immediately know that they are
witnessing the benefits of a co-housing community at
play but they will sense that the people of OTR are a
true community. Not only will adults be conversing in
the gardens, while gathering ripe vegetables, there
will be children playing with each other in the grass
on warm spring days. To those who have driven the
dismal streets of OTR in the past ten years, these
spirited scenes will seem foreign but will soon become
van expectation.
The CoHoPoH Group’s goal is to help cheer up and
revitalize all people’s happiness levels within the OTR
community.
APPROACH ITERATIONS _
community set-back
U-shaped a la Liberty
isolated courtyard
allows for community gathering tov be in the front of the building and maximizes views of said activity
creates a more private niche from a high traffic street, designed for community outreach, which can be closed down during designated hours
provides maximum control of the centralized courtyard, minimizing opportunity for community outreach
Fig. 4.14
79
L-shaped
alley cut-thru
U-shaped a la Pleasant
pushes community space to back of the lot, making residential and common house the buffer between the street and the exterior program
provides a passageway to visitors, exposing more of the residents’ internal life to the OTR community, while sharing amenities amongst all
creates niche accessible from low traffic street, which can be left open for longer hours
Fig. 4.15 Entering the CoHoPoH
81
FRAMING AN ENTRANCE _
Clearly delineating entrances will indicate to
residents and visitors how to enter the building. This
will also express to them how they are able to utilize
the entrance respectively. Entryways will be indicated
by translucent openings within the building envelope.
They will allow both physical and visual transference.
This feature will assure that users understand the
functionality of the entrance before they set foot over
the threshold.
Upon entering the building, a visitor will visually
understand the communal space they are allowed to
explore. While this space will be welcoming, there will
be distinct, more opaque physical and visual boundaries
between the resident and visitor programmatic space.
These boundaries will keep the community feeling
connected to its surroundings, yet secure to those
living on the premises; everyone will be at content...
happy.
Fig. 4.16 Visual Connection
83
DEGREES OF PRIVACY _
The CoHoPoH project consists of a series of public
and private spaces assembled together. By understanding
the fleeting dynamics of community and personal space,
the project is able to take on an abundant yet functional
set of degrees of privacy. This allows for the residents
and visitors alike to feel comfortable throughout the
building.
Even during the winter, the CoHoPoH site will breathe
life visibly to the common observer. Translucent and
layered boundaries between interior and exterior will
allow others to view the lively activity held within.
83
VisibilityPrivacyFig. 4.17
85
This series of boxes illustrates the numerous spatial
dynamics that can be accessed through the assemblage
of public and private transparencies and physical
connectedness.
Fig. 4.18
Fig. 4.19
SPATIAL FLOW _
The CoHoPoH building consists
of spaces dedicated to encouraging
the points of influence outlined
in the Creating an Understanding
chapter. While many spaces have
been designed to accommodate
outside community groups, there are
smaller instances, which take on
the same responsibilites outlined
in the points of influence.
Through the successful
implementation of these points
of influence, one can determine
that a home established by health
and happiness guidelines can be
obtained, as the CoHoPoH Group has
attempted the common pursuit for
happiness in a new fashion.
Fig. 4.20
Fig. 4.21
87
SECTION A
SECTION B
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS _
Fig. 0.01 - drawing by author.
it began with a bus ride Fig. 1.01 - https://www.google.com/maps/@39.218346,-84.475104,3a,75y, 222.43h,84.54t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1spF--rlilqECnvPVcqdBDCg!2e0
creating an understanding Fig. 2.01 - collage by author.
Fig. 2.02 - https://www.google.com/maps/place/E+Liberty+St/@39.113002,- 84.518779,3a,75y,11.52h,97.61t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sGZRaVvL1Y5 JV51KCz2BbHg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x8841b3e311cdff23:0xcf3360d18fc95a66
Fig. 2.03 - collage by author.
Fig. 2.04 - diagram by author.
Fig. 2.05 - diagram by author.
Fig. 2.06 - http://www.walkscore.com/OH/Cincinnati Fig. 2.07 - http://www.walkscore.com/OH/Cincinnati
Fig. 2.08 - Klein, William.
Fig. 2.09 - Baan, Iwan.
Fig. 2.10 - Corona, Carlos Diaz. http://www.archdaily.com/272893/ff-house- hernandez-silva-arquitectos/504fe7f628ba0d782d000096_ff-house-’\ hernandez-silva-arquitectos__mg_8554_copy-jpg/ Fig. 2.11 - NWThroughthelens.com
developing a language
Fig. 3.01 - collage by author.
Fig. 3.02 - diagram by author.
Fig. 3.03 - http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/502548 6928ba0d659000008f_multi-generational-living-at-m-hlgrund-artec- architekten_24_c_artec_architekten-1000x685.jpg
Fig. 3.04 - http://www.swansway.com/slideshow/files/swansoutside.jpg
Fig. 3.05 - photo by author. Fig. 3.06 - photo by author. Fig. 3.07 - photo by author.
89
Fig. 3.08 - http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/502548 4c28ba0d6590000081_multi-generational-living-at-m-hlgrund-artec- architekten_04_c_artec_architekten-667x1000.jpg Fig. 3.09 - http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/502548 7528ba0d6590000095_multi-generational-living-at-m-hlgrund-artec- architekten_37_c_artec_architekten-667x1000.jpg Fig. 3.10 - http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/50254a8 328ba0d65900000a3_multi-generational-living-at-m-hlgrund-artec- architekten_urban_situation-1000x513.png Fig. 3.11 - http://www.designboom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ryo-matsui- architects-hair-do-designboom-01.jpg Fig. 3.12 - http://files.cohousing.cz/200000071-f1f5df2ebe/DK_Jerngarden_01.jpg
Fig. 3.13 - http://cdn.designrulz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Townhouses- designrulz-007.jpg
Fig. 3.14 - http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6205/6147127268_14c036c136_z.jpg Fig. 3.15 - Eskerod, Torben.
Fig. 3.16 - Bingham-Hall, Patrick.
Fig. 3.17 - Yusheng, Liao.
Fig. 3.18 - DeBoer K., & T. Hartman
building a lifestyle
Fig. 4.01 - collage by author.
Fig. 4.02 - City of Cincinnati City Planning Department. http://www. plancincinnati.org/sites/default/files/Comm_Plans/2002_otr_ comprehensive_plan.pdf. Fig. 4.03 - City of Cincinnati City Planning Department. http://www. plancincinnati.org/sites/default/files/Comm_Plans/2002_otr_ comprehensive_plan.pdf.
Fig. 4.04 - image by author.
Fig. 4.05 - drawing by author. Fig. 4.06 - drawing by author. Fig. 4.07 - https://www.google.com/maps/@39.112999,-84.518405,3a,75y, 218.01h,94.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_NYVbWJtmikvzjyF08uSRg!2e0 Fig. 4.08 - drawing by author. Fig. 4.09 - drawing by author.
Fig. 4.10 - drawing by author. Fig. 4.11 - drawing by author. Fig. 4.12 - drawing by author.
Fig. 4.13 - drawing by author.
Fig. 4.14 - drawing by author.
Fig. 4.15 - drawing by author. Fig. 4.16 - drawing by author.
Fig. 4.17 - drawing by author. Fig. 4.18 - drawing by author. Fig. 4.19 - drawing by author.
Fig. 4.20 - drawing by author. Fig. 4.21 - drawing by author.
Fig. 4.22 - drawing by author.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS _ continued
91
“AD Classics: Salk Institute/Louis Kahn.” Arch Daily. 2010. http://
www.archdaily.com/61288/ad-classics-salk-institute-louis-kahn/.
“Ama’r Children’s Culture House/Dorte Mandrup.” Arch Daily. 2013.
http://www.archdaily.com/388629/ama-r-children-s-culture-house-
dorte-mandrup/.
“Amazing New Townhouses in Leiden by 24H Architecture.” Design
Rulz. 2011. http://www.designrulz.com/design/2013/09/amazing-
new-townhouses-in-leiden-by-24h-architecture/.
“Americans Will Always Do the Right Thing – After Exhausting All the
Alternatives,” Quote Investigator. Blog. Novermber 11, 2012.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternatives/.
Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. 1924. Ed. W.D. Ross.
London: Oxford University Press, 1910-1931. Print.
“Case Category: Egebakken Community Housing.” Institute for Human
Centered Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments. Accessed February
21, 2013. http://www.dev.ihcdstore.org/?q=print/141.
Chang, Irene, et al. Active Design Guidelines: Promoting Physical
Activity and Health in Design. New York: City of New York, 2010.
City of Cincinnati City Planning Department. The Over-the-Rhine
Comprehensive Plan. Cincinnati: 2002. http://www.plancincinnati.
org/sites/default/files/Comm_Plans/2002_otr_comprehensive_plan.pdf.
Design Build Studio. Center for Community Engagement in Over-the-
Rhine, Oxford: Miami University, 2009. www.muohio.edu/OTR.
de Botton, Alain. The Architecture of Happiness.
New York: Pantheon Books, 2006.
“Downtown Neighborhood, Oakland.” Walk Score. 2014. Accessed March 31,
2014. http://www.walkscore.com/score/oakland-california.
Francis, Meagan. “The Hardest Job in the World’? Motherhood’s tough.
But let’s not kid ourselves.” 2009. Accessed February 17, 2013.
http://www.babble.com/mom/relationships/motherhood-hard-work-
raising-kids-being-a-mom/.
BIBLIOGRAPHY _
Happy. Film. Directed by Roko Belic. 2011. San Jose, CA: Emotional
Content, 2012. Online Stream.
Holmstrom, David. “A Brief History of Co-housing.” The Christian Science
Monitor. 2000. Accessed February 17, 2013. http://search.proquest.
com/docview/405644731?accountid=2909.
“It takes a village to raise a child.” Azainia. Accessed February 21,
2013. http://www.azania.org/.
“Jeff Speck: The Walkable City.” Video. TED Conferences. 2013. ]
TEDCity2.0. Online Stream.
Kopec, David Alan. Environmental Psychology for Design. New York:
Fairchild Publications, Inc., 2006.
Le Corbusier. Towards An Architecture. London: Dover Publications, 1986.
Lyubomirsky, Sonja, Kennon M. Sheldon, and David Schkade. “Pursuing
Happiness: The Architecture of Sustainable Change.” Educational
Publishing Foundation. 2005. Accessed August 6, 2013. http://
sonjalyubomirsky.com/wp-content/themes/sonjalyubomirsky/papers/
LSS2005.pdf.
Millman, Danny. “Where it All Began: Co-housing in Denmark.” Co-
housing. 2011. Accessed February 18, 2013. http://www.co-housing.
org/cm/article/related_denmark.
Montgomery, Charles. Happy City. New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux, 2013.
“Over-the-Rhine Neighborhood, Cincinnati.” Walk Score. 2014.
Accessed March 22, 2014. http://www.walkscore.com/OH/Cincinnati.
Schacher, Casey. “The Good and the Bad of Co-housing.” ALA APA: The
Organization for the Advancement of Library Employees. 2006.
Accessed 17 Feb 2013. http://ala-apa.org/newsletter/2006/10/17/
the-good-and-the-bad-of-co-housing.
”Should I Stay Or Should I Go? Aging in Cities.” The ProtoCity.
Accessed December 12, 2013. http://theprotocity.com/should-i-stay-
or-should-i-go-aging-in-cities/.
Speck, Jeff. “Ballet of the Sidewalk.” Metropolis. February 2014.
BIBLIOGRAPHY _ continued
93
Speck, Jeff. Walkable City. New York: D&M Publishers, Inc., 2012.
“InterContinental Sanya Resort/WOHA.” The Super Slice. 2013. http://
thesuperslice.com/2012/07/31/intercontinental-sanya-resort-woha/.
Toy, Vivian S. “A Village Down the Block.” The New York Times. 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/realestate/30cov
html?pagewanted=all.
“U.S. Co-housing Communities.” Co-housing Association of the United
States. 2013. http://directory.cohousing.org/us_list/all_us.php.
Walsh, Roger. “Lifestyle and Mental Health.” American Psychologist.
2011. http://janebirr.com/amp-ofp-walsh.pdf.
95
“YOU CAN ALWAYS COUNT ON AMERICANS TO DO THE RIGHT THING – AFTER THEY’VE TRIED EVERYTHING ELSE.”38
WINSTON CHURCHILL _
CO-HOUSING
for the
PURSUIT OFHAPPINESS
~ 2014 ~
ESTABLISHED IN OTR
Fig. 4.22
38 “Jeff Speck: The Walkable City,” Video, TED Conferences (2013: TEDCity2.0), 16:22.