this is not my beautiful house: cohousing as an alternative
TRANSCRIPT
This is not my beautiful house: Cohousing as an alternativeAmerican Dream
by C. Mark Three Stars
Bachelor of ArtsBrown University1983
Submitted to the Department of Architecture on January 18, 1991in partial fullfillment of the requirements of the degree of Masterof Architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
February 1991
Signature of the AuthorC. Mark Three Stars
Department of ArchitectureJanuary 18, 1991
Certified byFernando Domeyko
LecturerThesis Supervisor
Accepted byThomas Chastain
Chairman, Departmental committee on Graduate Studies
c C. Mark Three Strs 191
The Author hereby gra to M.I.T. pennision to reprodhee md to ditribute copies of thitheu do:ae m whde or i put ANb^CMSETTS Msr Ir
OF TECHNtOLOGy
FE B 15 1991
Rbtth uimia
Q- 1. ------
This is not my beautiful house: Cohousing as an alternativeAmerican Dream
by C. Mark Three Stars
Submitted to the Department of Architecture on January 18, 1991in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Masterof Architecture
ABSTRACT
This work addresses my hopes and concerns about what a community could be.Somerville housing is made up largely of rental properties. As in any rental housingendeavor the occupants consider themselves lucky if the monthly rent is reasonableand the property is well cared for. They are considered extremely lucky if theirneighbors are amiable and they are able to establish a community of friends in the -
neighborhood. Currently there is little one can do to control rent or improve theprospects of becoming a homeowner, let alone location of friends or the coalescingof a community.
In the past ten to fifteen years the word "cohousing" has been used todescribe a strategy that attempts to redress the problems of rising housing costs,work vs. family time, and community isolation. This idea although it has gainedstrength in Denmark is by no means new. Old models such as the Kibbutz andPueblo Indian dwellings have long made use of the collective efforts of thecommunity to liberate the time and energy of the individual.
The challenge for cohousing in the United States is to address longstandingcultural and societal expectations of the autonomous single-family home. Althoughmany people may yearn for the familiarity that a strong community or neighborhoodbrings this should in no way challenge the privacy of the home. Melding this idea ofautonomy with the making of a community is at once paradoxical yet at the verycenter of what cohousing could be in the United States.
This thesis is an exploration of what a cohousing/cooperative livingcommunity could be in an urban environment. I am also attempting to define therole of an autonomous housing type in a communal setting, and in doing this redressthe expectations of owning a single-family home. This notion of autonomy alsoextends to the layers between a communal entity and the surrounding neighborhood.
Thesis Supervisor: Fernando DomeykoTitle: Lecturer
----------------------------- 3 ----------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Thank you!Fernando Domeyko, I will always enjoy yourenergy for life and architecture.
My rescuers, Shira, Paulo (cojock), Daniel,Allyson, and Roscoe
My office pals, Peter (the brew master), Knute(the waxer), Avigail, and Laura
My thesis buddies
My family, LaVonne, Denny, Jon, and Dallas
To my sweetheart Allyson, None of this wouldhave been as enjoyable without your support andlove.
We Adore Dinosaurs!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract................................................... p. 3
Acknowledgements.................................. p. 4
Introduction............................................. p. 7
Program Description................................. p. 16
Chapter 1: Context and Observations......... p. 17
Chapter 2: Dwellings and Site................ p. 43
Chapter 3: Site Definition...................... p. 85
Conclusion........................................... p. 98
Bibliography......................................... p. 99
Illustrations.............................................. p. 100
--------------------------------------------- 5 -------------- - --- -- - ------------------------------------- ----- --
0
I>
INTRODUCTION
How long befole we ma/ize Mat beso/uons to ourpresentproblems arenot wihn ourpresent realm ofkink-ing.
-Roberd Theopld
How do we define ouselves? Clearlythere is no one parameter by which anyone isdefined; but there are pieces to our lives so basicthat they not only define us but the way we live.The dwelling, home, domicile, or whatever wechoose to call it is one of these pieces. For betteror worse the physical characteristics of ourdwellings also define our lives in subtle and notso subtle ways. The investigation of this thesis isa design based on a reassessment of our currenthousing and community infrastructure and thedefinitions associated with it.
As has often been the case the rate atwhich our societal and social structure changegreatly outpaces our ability to build andaccomodate these changes. The result of thiscondition is that we as a society have begun toshape our lives to fit a home that does not matchour needs. This home is a product of a buildingindustry that since the turn of the century hasbeen building homes primarily for a nuclearfamily. The problem is not that these families donot exist it is that they do not dominate oursocietal landscape as they once did.
As we move into the last decade ofthe twentieth century it is becoming increasinglyapparent that our ability, as a country, to houseourselves is failing short at many levels.Although there was an increase in housing startsthroughout the 1980's this trend was largelyattributed to houses built for homeownerswanting to trade-up to larger and generallyhigher priced properties. What that left was ahousing gap that was characterized by twomajor parameters. One: Very few homes werebeing built with the first-time buyer in mind.Two: Increasing property values and real estatespeculation drove the prices of many existing
single-family dwellings beyond the reach of
most first-time buyers.The resulting housing gap was
filled by an emerging condominium market.
Condominiums were an appealing alternative for
many buyers in the early 1980's. The increasing
number of single parents found low maintenance
relatively safe communities. Many singles and
young couples also flocked to the comparative
affordability of condos. The appeal ofcondominiums may have also been related to thedensities at which these communities were built.
In many cases the density seemed to be an urbanoverlay on suburban spaciousness andregularity.
Despite the provision for communalspaces and facilities very few condominiumdevelopments foster a strong sense ofcommunity. This may be due to the general
emphasis on what is owned as opposed to what
is shared. In trying to satisfy this parameter the
condominium mentality produces feweropportunities for casual interaction within thecondo development which in turn fosters a dis-associ&sve social structure. In defense of
condominiums they have introduced in a
substantial way the notion of housing clusters
and higher density living in suburban areas.
As housing trends progress into the
1990's there seems to be a growingdissatisfaction with the nature how our society is
now defined by its housing. Many families and
young couples are finding that maintaining
current lifestyles requires a paycheck from both
the husband and wife. As housing and apartment
Poverty, Squalor, Intemperance and Crime.
HE neighborhood here shown is a rpro-sentation and true type of hundreds oflocalities which exist all over the face of
this fair land. The scene tells its own story-atale of brutal passion, poverty, base desires,wretchedness and crime.
rental costs have risen these same people arefinding that doubling their efforts in many casesgets them a qualitatively lesser dwelling thantheir parents had.
Another issue that complicates thishousing problem is the desire by many of thepeople seeking housing to become a part of acommunity. People in search of housing are alsolooking for that good neighborhood, nice street,or something they can connect to. This desire fora sense of belonging is of course not new, butthe manifestation of this desire as somethingbuilt is only beginning to take shape.
jOgreat the difference ! Intelligence, M;ned taste antd prosperity are indicatted ini
these beautiful dwellings. There may be 'error committed even here, but whatever imoral-ity, good sense and culture can do to mnike peopile ibetter and happier is to be sought in such homnes: 2
If the shape of how people wish to moldtheir lives and their homes is still unknown, aname for this process has already been given.'Cohousing', a term being used to decribecooperative living communities was coined byKatie McCamant and Charles Durrett in theirbook 'Cohousing: A contemporary approach tohousing ourselves'. McCamant and Durrett areboth trained in the fields of architecture andenvironmental design. They began to look athousing models and alternative communityorganization strategies throughout Europe. Whatthey found was something pleasant in Denmark.
The term Bofaellesskaber is a Danishword which translates to 'living community'.Living in this term is not so much defined as a'living' organism, but more as living in aqualitative sense. In many of the Cohousingcommunities that exist in Denmark todaycooperation is the fundamental fact thatorganizes and defines daily life. Commonhouses within the these communities provide aplace for inhabitants to socialize as acommunity. Much of this socializing takesplace during communal dinners which are
generally held three to four nights a week.Other benefits of these cooperative efforts are
the capacity to provide daycare at community
level, formation of various social clubs, and the
liberation of an individual's time. Initially very
few of these cooperative communities shared
dinners and the ones that did thought that itwould only occur once a week. What they
discovered was that by rotating the cooking
duties to two adults per meal the rest of the
community had the night off; and in a
community of twenty to thirty individuals that
meant only having to cook two or three nights a
month. The result was that community dinnersbecame a strong program element forsubsequent cohousing developments.
To some degree it may be easy to trivializethese dinners: and ask is that all that makes up
cohousing? Despite the simplicity of this
program element these dinners, besides freeingup an individual's time, are a dailysubstantiation of the quality of life in acohousing community. To the degree thatarchitecture influences peoples lives the commonhouse is the manifestation of these people'scommitment to the community and each other.
The notion of community is strong inmany of these cohousing developments, but the
autonomy of the home is also well understood.When people hear of these cooperative living
communities the image of communes and hippie
space farms of the 1960's will undoubtedlycome to mind. The realistic question then comes;
How much will I have to share? Lessons thatwere learned from the sixties are clearly and
formally apparent. Many of the cohousingcommunities cited in McCamant and Durrett'sbook go to great lengths to insure the privacy ofthe home. In most cases what is owned and what
is private are clearly defined and rarely is thisdone with a fence. Besides assuring privacyanother salient feature of these communities isproviding more opportunities for casual contactamong the community members. In designingfor these communities it seems that encouragingcommunal interaction is a priority and thatprivacy while provided for in the design is
something that the individual regulates. Thisdesign for interaction accommodates a basicdesire of the inhabitants, and that is a sense of
belonging and community.
What do the neighborsthink of her children? 9
There's CHARACTER-in S"OAP i? WATER
As was discussed earlier families andindividuals in the United States are trying toaddress some of the same housing and qualityof life issues that Denmark has already begun to
resolve. Although we can look to the Danishmodel of cohousing as a reference and startingpoint we must also come to grips with our owncultural and societal expectations. This does notmean abandoning our cultural and societalexpectations, but trying to understand how wemight modify our housing forms andexpectations to match the times we live in.
Cohousing provides us with anopportunity to reevaluate our current housingcondition while at the same time giving us aspecific strategy to address the concerns raisedby our increasingly frenetic lifestyles. Theorganization of a community and consensusdecisions made by that community are no smallhurdles to be jumped. The benefits associatedwith such a community have only been lightlytouched upon here, but seem well worth theeffort .
In attempting to understand how acohousing community organizes itself and whatthe difficulties were encountered I followed theprogress of The New View Cohousing Group.Although it is too lengthy to be included in thescope of this investigation I will surmise it to
say that the social and communal aspects oforganizing a cohousing community far outstripthe architecture in the nature of its complexity.What struck me most about this group of peoplewa tI-7immitment to each other and to theformation of their community. When I first metthe New View group they consisted of sixcouples, two of which had children, and threesingles. They were actively recruiting in hopesof reaching a total adult population of aroundthirty-five to forty who would be accommodatedin twenty to twenty-five units. Although the ~New View group was looking at sites in moresuburban areas, which differed greatly from myurban site, I used their demographiccharacteristics as a model for my community.This parameter along with some consideration ofgroups cited in McCamant and Durrett's bookgave me a composite client group.14 couples(with @ 12 children)12 singles5 dogs and 10 catsBesides giving me first hand information aboutthe workings of a cohousing group the New
View Group has also given me confidence in theviability of this type of housing. This confidenceis bolstered by the fact that there is already abody of information about cohousing and alarge number of successful and vitalcommunities started with this framework. It isheartening to see that although our society haschanged a great deal we still have the means anddesire to build and depend on a community offamily and friends.
PROGRAM:Site size: 360 ft. x 280ft. @100,800
square feet
16: Party-wall duplexes ranging in sizefrom 960 square feet up 2000 square
feet.
4: Single dwellings ranging in size from640 square feet up to 1120 square feet
Common House:
Dining area: 800 square feetKitchen: 200 square feetLounge: 150 square feetDaycare: 1500 square feetOffice/workspace: 400 square feetMulti-use rooms: 4 @ 200 square feetBathrooms: 100 square feet
Storage: 600 square feetWorkshop: 600 square feet
Total: 5150 square feet
Somerville Food Cooperative:
7000 square feet
F"-
CONTEXT AND OBSERVATIONS
You must be like Mhe dog, he w/ not And #&erabbit f he goes drec*r to the hole. He must ffst findthe scnt then he mwIlget the rabM Ifymugo dkiecyto e hole somewiere the bunnyhe rhqopvng. Youneperge# (on the kmportane ofste anda wntext
anaks/ie-Fernando Dbmeyko
yj '.
The City of Somerville as it stands today
is made-up of large residential tracts brokenby the vestiges of a earlier industrialbuildings. The compactness of this city is
apparent yet difficult to grasp; so it issomewhat surprising to learn that in the late
1970's and early 80's Somerville was the
most densely populated city in the UnitedStates.
Physically the city straddles several hillswhich help to hide the density of its housingstock and more importantly begin to defineneighborhoods and the city. The other majorfeature which also molded the city is the
Mystic river. A source of commerce andindustrial sites the Mystic shaped the earlyorganization of the city and ultimatelydefined the character of the city as a homefor working class families.
Manmade intervention on a city scalecame in the form of a system of roads and therailroad lines. The roads were organized offthe Winter Hill Rd. now Broadway. Usingthis as a spine that runs the length of the citymany smaller roads traverse Somerville viaBroadway. This was also the most directroute across the Neck where Charlestownand Somerville meet.
The rail lines were introduced to facilitatemany of the small manufacturing companies.This added another layer of definition thatwould ultimately be abandoned but laterreactivated for public transportation. Thisreuse is predominantly on the CharlestownBranch and the Arlington and LexingtonBranch.
Map of Railroads: 1835-1875.
M ordr
Of48ISI E.ch CambciF-dp1-
-- ramva Branc
a .r''...... -s - (1870
E.e#bie
Cachid (6
Ca mbr E. Cambrid 7
10
I iM75
93
\ jt N
The diagram on the opposite page showsthe major roads that traverse the city, the raillines, major suqares(squares), parks andplaygrounds(circles), and schools and publicbuildings(diamonds). This was an attempt toget an understanding of the city and how mysite relates to these elements. The site iscalled out by an arrow near Davis Squarebetween Highland Ave. and the defunct railline.
This rail line is abandoned and is usedregularly as a pedestrian path into DavisSquare. The photo on the left shows DavisSquare around 1950 and the rail line isclearly visible. The Somerville Theatre is thelarge building in the fore ground defining thenorthwest side of the square.
Dei SqWua@MF95 8
DaH41.*MnWhgP 1".0 9
My site is located on the edge of DavisSquare along the abandoned B&M rail line.One side is bound by a light industrybuilding that provides a wall as boundary.The other side is defined by a Boston Edisonsubstation. The public side fronts ontoHighland Ave.
The old Arlington/Lexington Branch ofthe Boston & Maine Railroad cuts a diagonalswath across Davis Square. In the square therail line has been occupied by the Redlinesubway station,and as you follow this linenorthwest out of Davis Square it becomes apedestrian park going all the way to theRedline Alewife station 2 miles away.
25
The path along this abandoned rail line isused on Arlington basis by pedestrians towalk to and from Davis Square. Portions ofthis walk are quite park like although noformal landscaping has been done by thecity. The relationship of the houses alongthis path is also quite pleasing and thereseems to be more than enough dimension toprotect residents privacy and define thepublic domain.
B
fprJ r~g JK
-B'
~ PIC_
M l 7- 1-
4eg lam m na e m..m .s s- . w g.. 4,,,. .,;,..; - ... .la ; rm .. ,n ,m. na.m~u ... w.,,n..-e.,...s.- .a als--,,., , .. ,f.... m, . . . - -
-rB
AFIZZ-
C - - -3B
-' 7_ r
- - -- - - -- - - - ---- -- - ~~ - 2 - -a---i .. -- - ---
As this path moves through Davis Squareit crosses over the Redline subway station,and at this point becomes a small plazadefining the central part of the square.Moving through the square and beyond theentry to the subway the beginning of thepedestrian park to the Alewife stationappears.
The previous series of images showed thepath on either side of the site. Image 'B' in thisseries shows how the path becomes a moreformal entry into Davis Square. Image 'C' is theend of the dirt path before it becomes asphalt;also shown is the relationship of residential (onthe left) and the manufacturing buildings (on theright). Image 'A' is the path directly behind thesite (on the left) looking towards Davis Square.
A
30 _ _ . A .;J1 4NA B Z4~-r
4 1
"
In this diagram the site relationship to the
path and Highland Ave. becomes clear. The
site is bound on its longest side by the rail
line/path and on the opposite by Highland
Ave.. The sides of the site are bound by a
hard edge of a light industrial building that
ranges in height from 14 ft. at the street to
20 ft. at the path. It is bound much more
softly by a small residential block and a
Boston Edison substation.
-ii 15 - ~ i I"iij vJ33 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ID A
The street that fronts the site is HighlandAve. a relatively busy road that runs most ofthe length of the city. The street itself isdefined at one end by Davis Square and atthe other by Somerville City Hall.
The area directly across from the site isresidential and slowly changes to commercialas one moves towards the square. The site iscurrently occupied by a gas station and anempty warehouse building.
A w I. wommog -- ---- --
1,
Whipple St. which moves along the south
side of the site is a one-way street whichdefines the small residential block adjacent
to the site. Because most of the traffic on
Whipple is local and the street is only
occupied on one side the roadway oftenbecomes an extension of the minimal frontyards and porches. During the summer it is
not uncommon to see bikes on the roadwayand people working on their cars in thestreet.
of, fg1Past ~Oltas
II
'.I-s s e ill- E z
'Li" ". Ua'. Es I_ '"* 'huhagasms~sl- " 3rI
le~f trssfa.f
Pht
a*~ IRiE'~EM
13a iIEEER3B~
No&oiMao
; Wall
m~ 11s
fir lip I
its
Aw
Looking at a figure ground diagram of thisportion of Somerville we are able to see theincredible regularity of the residential blocks.Also visible is the how the building sizes anddensity changes as we move towards DavisSquare. What also becomes clear is that whenthe site is changed to residential block it swingsthe balance to predominantly housing asopposed to the larger manufacturing buildingsthat currently dominate this block.
MYR-M-0-7 p ,_V7_11 IITT j, , 1% 11 .too ILL
IL
A it
, 1, IAUcl &I
Mali A*,, i$b., K
m m r i i iW,
ILIm K ILI
loo. i;w - I
U71Aa.:. t R.4 I All
The model shown here was used to cometo an understanding of the physical qualitiesof the buildings in this area, the major routesof movement, and how these elements relateto one another.
What also became clear was the proximityof residential (wood) to many industrialbuildings (masonry), and how the rail line
defines this relationship. This was also an
initial pass at placing housing pieces on thesite.
Siemodd
DWELLINGS AND SITE
dust because facs a ignored does notmean that they cease to ast
-Aldous Huxley
O""w, '"Maim-pi . - 6 - dW4wV--WWf M
When I began to think about thedwellings for the site my initial response wasto see what the neighborhood had to offer.As was discussed earlier Somerville issurprising for is population density and to alarge degree this is due to the housing stock.
Without bogging down in a discussion oftypology I would like to show what I tookfrom my observations. The regularity oftypes, entry dimension, and fenestrationorganization can be inescapable within agiven neighborhood. What also occurs withgreat regularity is the spacing between thehousing. This space when viewed from thestreet becomes a continuity of the landscape.Each space provides a glimpse of privateyards and gardens and some relief to theunusually tight edges of the street. For theoccupant this space is a source of light andair and sometimes battles for privacy. By andlarge these spaces are generally positive.
I
ZI
Ln
lit
LLLLLLLL
LL[I&C
7
Unfortunately this space either cannot bemade or is just not planned for. The resultingcrevice often verges on the brink ofridiculous for its inaccessibility to peoplelight, and air.
47
"*NWNWM WSW
This lead me to look at party-walls withthe idea that the six inch space left betweensome buildings might as well be inside thehouse rather than sheltering pigeons.
I found some better examples abroadthan I did in Somerville. These buildingson the right are fine but they lack anytactile sense that there is something thatdivides them in half. There is something alittle more pleasing about having anunderstanding of a building and whatorganizes it. These row houses on theright seem to have that quality.
-
t ?x. -
----------
Li?
--.4,I.
I began to use this idea of a party-wall as
something that would organize the housingand the site. Besides being revealed this
party wall would have to be built in a waythat was clear and understandable. The
reason for this is that many cohousingcommunities offset some of their building
costs by involving the owners in the buildingprocess. Given this condition the foundationand lower portion of the wall will beconcrete and the upper portion will beconcrete block. The idea is to give the anindication of how to expand and what the wall is
made of.
The wall should also allow for some definitionof outdoor spaces that would begin to definepublic and private.
Tj
I - I *1jjjrI~rfr~aha illd(k~iz
The initial modelling of the wall allowedme to see how those outdoor spaces mightbe built. It also showed how the spacebetween units is bound by exterior wallsand the units themselves are further boundby the party-wall.
Herman Hertzberger in his Harlemmerdijkproject used a party-wall define the units,generate outdoor space, define private andpublic, and give the occupants a sense ofwhat they share. I would be pleased toachieve half of that.
55--
Once I had decided on the wallconfiguration I looked at RudolphSchindler's Pueblo Ribera. This exampleseemed appropriate because Schindler usedthe party-walls in this project to organize thesite as well as the public privaterelationships.
With this strategy in hand I began toconfigure party-wall duplexes on the site tosee if this system could help organize theHighland Ave. site.
S& tcymat ofparxwWAs
* I
a
14
7
A
2A
fi
V
a
ki \
EArksketch c/dupmex
After many moves between working atthe site level and working at the dwelling unitsize, I realized no site definition was possibleunless I understood the housing elements.This early sketch was a first grasp for aduplex that satisfied the qualities of tactilityand had a capacity to be understood by itsoccupants. Now I needed to figure out howthe thing was going to be built.
the parry wall
a row of columns .
beam added at the top
.apubl c and private doors
hung cupboards and windows first floor joist . wall to garage and workshop approach by front steps 15
I came upon this small infill house builtand designed by Edward Cullinan. Theelegance and simplicity of the system heemployed seemed well suited this cohousingproject. What was particularly exciting aboutthis system was its accessibility to theoccupant, in both method the of constructionand the understanding of growth potential.
Also incorporated in the building was a gapthat gave this small house a spacious feel.Armed with examples and a dangerous amountof knowledge I proceeded to develop a buildingsystem.
- -- - ------
00ORI0; a
~Is nD
U
di
The roofs of the duplexes are composedof a skeletal frame and covered with stressskin panels.
65
The stair for these houses is an externalelement. This was done to give more space tothe areas within the main body of the house.The stairwell also lets light and air in anddefines the entry to the house. The setbackfor the entry was an attempt to engage thisspace between the units and suggest a sharedspace while delineating privacies.
---------------------- -- --------- 67
The cladding is either shingle orclapboard. This is laid over a standard stick-built infill framing system; most likely of 2x6stock. The floor would also be articulatedwith a break in the siding by a cedar veneerplywood. Again, this system is devised tohelp the owner understand his or her home,and to provide a modicum of tactility to thebuilding.
69 ------------------------------
The frame is made up of 8" x 8" woodcolumns spaced at 8'-4" centers. The floor+joists are 2: 2x8's sandwiched together tocross a 6'-0" span and a 14'-0" span. Abearing wall is replaced by a row of columnssupporting the joists and spaced at the sameinterval as the exterior columns.
Flooring is a 2' thick wood tongue andgroove that rests on the floor joists which areplaced at 4'-0" centers
----------------- - ------- - - ------- ---- -- 71 - - ---- ---- ------ - -- - ----------------
The foundation up to around 18" aboveground is concrete; the party-wall and therest of the foundation are concrete block.Blocks protrude from the wall to providebearing for the floor joists. The finsperpendicular to the party-wall provide achase for plumbing and electrical servicesand give wall lateral stability.
___ __ __ __ ___ __ __ __ ___ __ __ __ __ 73 ---------- --
-- - - ----- -- -- ------------ - --
11w, Fiwvadoplermad
The footprint of one half of the duplex is21' x 42' with an internal dimension of 20' x40' if the entire foundation was built on. Theidea here was to build a complete 21' x 42'foundation for each house and let each ownerdecide on how much he or she could affordto build on.
This is relevant issue for many cohousinggroups. Often times there is a significantdifference in income and space needsamong any given cohousing group. Thissystem would allow a range of use forindividual owners while clarifying howadditions might occur.
Emprukm#gar
F-X PAN510ONPIAGRAM;
as FixFP fkFMEAT5
AN~A o
POSSIBIL l l b
.... ........ .... . .....
______ ____Second Floor
G. .o . " -a . .%
.' .- - --un -lorM--alocupo pln
-- * -
Ground Floor
Second Floor
Medium occupation plan:
Vkw offlmnt tty ddecr&
-. e
-- -Ground Floor~
Second floor
Maximum occupation plan:
Fmwu dceSatIw
Rear devston
- - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - --- ------ ----
SITE DEFINITION
, ..-.......
A
b*
-
&civcdd(kVsil)
In the course of exploring the unit designI was still referring back to the site to let oneinform the other. One of my early concernswas making a connection to the adjacentneighborhood on Whipple.
Another issue that I wanted to push was apath from Highland Ave. to the pedestrianway on the old rail line. The sketch on theopposite page was an attempt to show thepossibilities for that path, particularly alongWhipple down the side of the site.
NI
fA4
Em skle watnifia
These early passes at a site organizationwere still strongly bound to the idea ofmovement across the site from Highland tothe path. I was also experimenting with how
the party-walls might begin to organiza thesite.
These site iterations also gave me a tasteof the bitter fruit of parking. After manystruggles with the parking beast I was saved.I learned that many cohousing groups, whilenot particularly caring for parking lots desireto have their parking adjacent to the commonhouse. The reason for this is that when everpeople are coming or going from thecommunity they will check on the activitiesin the common house.
I also looked at several of the site organizationschemes of communities referenced inMcCamant and Durrett's book. Despite thefeeling of enclave that many of thesecommunities build the parking organization washelpful to look at.
The final organization of the site after allmy deliberation seems very straight forward.The 'L' shaped piece on Highland Ave. hasbecome the public armature for the site. Thisarmature consists of the single housing unitsalong Highland leading up to the SomervilleFood Cooperative which turns the corner alongthe parking lot. The common house is attachedto the coop by a shared passage/loading area.This brings the common house to rest adjacentto the parking and very near the center of thesite.
My path to the pedestrian way survivedall the iterations, and there is even apossibility for the public to walk through thecommunity and not be too disruptive.
fH4 -dAw. &,W~w
r ---- - , - - - -- 71
SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B
Room
Basement level
Second floor plan
,.First floor .
Single dwelling unit
Common House:1. dining2. kitchen3. daycare4. office/workspace5. multi-use rooms6. bathrooms7. storage8. workshop
Somerville Food Cooperative:A. dry goodsB. cash registersC. fruits and vegetables
r 4.
Single dwelling unit..........
First floor plan
AIt it
12 I
B
I, . .
- .. -- - - -- 95
Amu/ mkw ofske
"If we do not succeed then we run the riskof failure"
-Dan Quayle
- - - ---- ---- ----------- 97
CONCLUSIONIt is difficult to evaluate or draw objective conclusions
about one's own work. It is especially difficult when your topicwas chosen with much deliberation and represents your personalconcerns. As my advisor Fernando Domeyko said early in thesemester, "the thesis is not about doing your dream, the thesis isabout understanding and resolving a design problem withmaturity".
With this in mind I considered my semester's work. Myinitial intentions were to reference and diagram other housingprojects that might relate to my cohousing program. This
process was used but not to the extent I had planned. What Iended up concentrating on was understanding the site and howthe housing units engaged site conditions. This understandingwas gained largely through site visits, sketching , and models.The desire to diagram I believe is a heathly result of myeducation here, but in this case diagrams did not seem useful forme. For me the process of understanding the architectural issueswas defined by examining the facts of the site and context; andwith these observations as references begin to make sitedecisions.
In looking at the project I believe the buildings engage thesite in a manner that provides some understanding of the site andthe neighborhood in which it sits. Under Fernando's definition Ibelieve I have produced a thesis; it is not my dream but issueswere resolved and something was learned .
BIBLIOGRAPHYHoll, Steven. Pamphlet Architecture No. 7. Rural andUrban House Types. Princeton Archectural Press, 1982.
Kunda, Shun. Ihle Form of Neigjhborly Clusters., 1990.
LAsdun, Denys. "Edward Cullinan". In Architecture in anAgc of Criticism. Oxford University Press, NY, 1984.
Luchinger, Arnulf, and Haag, Den. Herman Hertzbcrger:1959-1986. Buildings and Projects. 1987.
Markovich, Nicholas. Pueblo Style and RegionalArchitecture. Van Nostand Reinhold. NY, 1988.
McCammet, Katie, and Durrett, Charles. Cohousing. AContemporay Approach to Housing. Ourselv. HabitatPress. Berkeley, CA, 1988.
McCoy, Ester. Five California Architects. PraegerPublishers. NY, 1975.
McCoy, Ester. Vienna to Los Angeles: Two Journevs.Arts and Architectural Press. Santa Monica, CA. 1979.
Wright, Gwendolyn. Building the Dream.FantheonBooks. NY, 1981.
( ), Beyond the Neck: The Architecture andm oLandscape
Research. Somerville, MA, 1990.
- - -99
ILLUSTRATIONS1. Arnulf Luchinger, Herman Hertzberger: 1958-1986
Buildings and Projects. Den Haag, 1987
2. Gwendolyn Wright, Building the Dream. PantheonBooks. NY, 1981
3. G. Wright
4. Katie McCamant & Charles Durrett. Cohousing: AContemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves.Habitat Press. Berkeley, CA. 1988
5. ( ). Beyond The Neck: The Architecture andDevelopment of Somerville Massachusetts.Landscape Research, Somerville, MA. 1990.
6. ( ). Beyond The Neck:
7. ( ). Beyond The Neck:
8. ( ). Beyond The Neck:
9. McCamant & Durrett
10. McCamant & Durrett
11. Steven Holl. Panphlet Architecture No. 7: Ruraland Urban House Tvpcs. Princeton ArchitecturalPress, 1982
12.Steven Holl
13. Arnulf Luchinger
14. Esther McCoy. Vienna to Los An&eles: TwoJoumrnys. Arts and Architectural Press. CA, 1979
15. Denys Lasdun. 'Edward Cullinan' in Architecture in anAge of Skepticism. Oxford University Press, NY, 1984
16. Shun Kanda. The Form of Neighborly Clusters. 1990
17. McCamant & Durrett
101