Cohousing Coming of Age

'Intentional Communities' One Answer to an Increasingly Alienated Society

Special to The Chronicle
By Charles Smith

 

In our sprawling, mobile society, the traditional sources of community -- family, friends, church or social groups -- are often scattered over the landscape, physically separated by great distances.

While these far-flung networks suffice for many of us, others yearn for a greater sense of community closer to home.

Cohousing -- a form of "intentional community" developed in Denmark and introduced to the United States by two Berkeley architects 14 years ago -- is one way to achieve that. With 60 cohousing projects completed nationally -- six in the Bay Area, with several more in the pipeline -- the movement is coming of age.

Cohousing combines the typical amenities of a private home with those of a close-knit neighborhood: shared yards and gardens, cooperative child care, and communal meals two or three times a week.

To provide these benefits, co-housing communities group private residences - - typically between 12 and 40 homes -- around a "common house" and shared open space.

At first glance, some cohousing projects may not look that much different from a typical condo development with a community recreation hall and common areas.

Indeed, most cohousing communities are condominiums in the legal sense; residents own their own units, agree to abide by association rules and pay monthly fees for maintaining common areas.

The difference is that with cohousing, you're opting into an "intentional community" -- a group of people who come together by free choice to design and build not only the physical buildings of cohousing but also the social fabric of their community.

At heart, every cohousing group is a small participatory democracy based on the shared ideals of communication and consensus, and creating the kind of community that residents want to live in.

"In cohousing, you get to make your own choices," says Chuck Durrett, who with Katie McCamant founded The Cohousing Company in Berkeley in 1988. "You can have as much privacy or community as you want. In a standard subdivision, you can have as much privacy as you want, or as much privacy as you want. Americans like choice and people like some minimum amount of community."

The husband/wife team brought the concept to America with their book, "Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves" (Paperback, 1993) and as you might expect, live in a cohousing community in Emeryville with their daughter.



MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE

Every form of voluntary participation, from voting to helping with the church bazaar, has both rewards and costs, and cohousing is no exception. While the community meetings, cooperative workdays and weekly shared meals -- everyone takes turns preparing dinner for the entire group -- require a significant investment of time and energy, the rewards are compelling.

For Karen Hester, one of the founding members of the Temescal Creek Cohousing in north Oakland, the benefits far outweigh the few days of participation per month required to manage and maintain the community.

This schedule of Temescal Creek is fairly typical of cohousing communities. The seven households meet twice a month to take care of administration and planning; there is also one "workday" a month on cooperative projects such as gardening. Preparing the communal meals on Wednesday and Sunday is shared equally by the community's adults through a simple rotation; each cooks once a month.

"Cohousing simplifies life in many ways," Hester says. "You can share tools and tasks. You get so much more done when you're working in a group."



SOME EVIDENT SAVINGS

Although cohousing doesn't claim to be more affordable than other housing types in the usual sense of a lower initial cost, cohousing homes are smaller than their suburban counterparts, averaging about 1,200 square feet as opposed to 2,100 square feet, allowing greater density and the obvious savings of heating and cooling less interior space.

One of the reasons smaller houses work well is the large common house (sometimes 4,000 to 5,000 square feet) in effect supplements each home with generous areas for children's play, workshops and entertaining.

The movement's sensitivity to environmental design and the opportunities for conservation offered by medium-density dwellings and the common house means its residents enjoy a significantly lower-cost lifestyle.

Not only are utility bills lower, but studies have found that the number of car trips made is considerably lower in cohousing communities, as neighbors tend to share rides to the market and other typical destinations, eat out less often (as a result of dinners in the common house), and fulfill at least some of their social life in their community.

Residents share not only practicalities such as laundry facilities and tools, but also the pleasures of neighborhood, such as establishing holiday traditions together.

"You come to know a lot about each other," Hester says, "and the simple things neighbors can do for one another just occur naturally."

While many of the advantages mentioned by cohousing residents may seem small in themselves, they mirror what is often lamented as lost in disconnected neighborhoods: someone to feed your cat while you're out of town, a neighbor who will baby-sit on short notice, a backyard play structure for the kids, and grounds that are more than most individuals could maintain on their own.

Tom Prince, who lives with his wife, Mary, and three sons in the nearby Temescal Commons cohousing, observes that sharing the prep of community meals once a month is not only more fun than cooking alone, "but two nights a week you go down to dinner and come home to a clean kitchen."

Temescal Commons residents also share a midday meal on their monthly workday.

Prince, a public school teacher, notes that the Common House, which seats 30 people, serves not just as a gathering place for the community but is also available for residents' other group activities.



SUBTLE SOCIAL BENEFITS

In addition to the meals and workdays, there are other, more subtle social benefits to a cohousing community. Self-described "introvert" Julie Hunn, a midwife who lives with her partner, Mark, and their 10-month-old daughter Indigo in Pleasant Hill Cohousing, notes that "putting yourself out there" for social interaction can still be awkward for some residents.

Being a parent, she says, has increased her social contacts in ways that aren't quite available to singles. "Babies draw people out," she observes. "And since kids are always running around outside, or playing in the kids' room or sandbox, it's easy for parents to get to know one another better."

In the four months since the project's completion, Hunn has observed a steady increase in spontaneous socializing including families and singles alike. "One advantage to a large community is that there is almost always someone who likes the same things you do," she says. "So when someone says, 'Hey, do you want pizza tonight?' or 'I'm showing a movie tonight in the common house,' there's always people who are happy to join in."



ONE MODEL, MANY VARIATIONS

The cohousing model is inherently flexible. Beyond the de rigueur community activities and common house, both the site and the design details are selected by the members. Many groups spend several years after formation working through the design and permit process; this gives them a chance to get acquainted, and to develop a group process.

Others, such as Temescal Creek, are "retrofit cohousing" groups that purchase existing homes or buildings and then retrofit them into a cohousing community. If the group is fortunate enough to locate a suitable site of several adjacent homes or apartments, then it's possible to take occupancy of the property as a "work in progress."

At Temescal Creek, the group was in escrow a mere three months after formation. There are trade-offs, of course, in purchasing existing buildings; the planning and financing of the group's common house is under way, but it will be some months before construction can begin.

Some legal work is also required to create the joint ownership of a common house amid what was once separate house lots.

The "in-fill" model of the nearby Temescal Commons group combined renovation of an existing old farmhouse with new construction to form a 7-unit complex and common house on a compact parcel in north Oakland.

The recently completed 32-unit Pleasant Hill Cohousing community in Contra Costa County is an example of an in-fill project built from scratch on an unused site -- in this case, a triangular 2.2-acre parcel adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail.



FORMING A GROUP

Although cohousing communities form in many ways -- sometimes it's as simple as people responding to a printed invitation to develop a cohousing community -- there is usually a "core group" which starts the ball rolling and then attracts others along the way.

Temescal Commons began with members of the local Methodist Church, while Temescal Creek was formed by Karen Hester and like-minded friends.

Arriving at consensus on the many issues that arise, from site selection to the design program requires "good communicators, a way to work out any conflicts, and some basic shared values," Hester says.

Facilitation and group process are an integral part of Durrett and McCamant's two-day "Getting It Built" workshop, which covers the development process and methods of sustaining community.

According to Durrett, once they've selected a site about 90 percent of the groups they've worked with have gone on to successfully build a project, with an average time line of about two years from purchase of a site to move-in.

"Cohousing is inherently nonhierarchical," he says, "so consensus is how you get the work done. People who aren't good listeners, who don't make room for others' views, tend to drop out."

Judging by the diverse range of residents in Bay Area cohousing communities -- straights, gays, singles, families with young children and retirees -- the appeal of this model cuts across all social lines.



DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION

The process becomes especially challenging when the group must grapple with the complexities of planning, finance and construction.

Tom Lent, one of the original members of the Berkeley Cohousing community in central Berkeley, observes that "Real estate development is risky and difficult under any conditions, and it is especially hard at times for a dozen or more people who are new to the process to maintain the necessary commitment through years of weekly meetings over tough, complex decisions."

Cohousing groups tend to be ambitious in their goals, he notes, which is positive. "It's important to push the envelope, but ambition has to be balanced by practicality," he says, "especially since most cohousing projects are built on a tight budget and time line."

Although Lent brought decades of experience in energy conservation and environmental issues to the project, he says he learned a lot about both "green" building materials options (his Web site describing the group's extensive experience is listed below) and the development/construction process.

"The pay-off can take quite a while," he notes, "so you have to go into it with your eyes wide open and be ready for a long, bumpy road to see it through to completion."



CO-DESIGN OF COHOUSING

While the vast majority of co-housing groups hire architectural firms such as the Cohousing Group, future residents' participation in the planning, design and construction process is akin to building a custom home; this thoroughgoing involvement in the nuts and bolts of their project gives cohousers a unique opportunity to design in ecologically-friendly building methods and materials.

Temescal Commons is a model of environmentally sensitive design. In addition to passive solar techniques such as orienting the buildings to face south and conservation measures such as selecting the most energy-efficient appliances, the community chose to invest in state-of-the-art solar panels which are integrated into the roof material; from the curb, it's difficult to tell that the roofing generates about 70 percent of the group's electricity needs.

Many of the eco-friendly materials are decidedly low-tech; the insulation, for instance, is recycled newspaper, which performs better than the fiberglass batt alternative and requires one-tenth the energy to manufacture.

Prince, who volunteered to research green alternatives such as hydronic floor heating and advanced framing techniques to reduce lumber requirements, says that the group based their design and materials selection on the core value of "being good stewards of Creation, and considering the impact of our choices on future generations."


RESOURCES

-- Cohousing Tours: Saturday Cohousing Tours are led by Karen Hester, a partner in Cohousing Consultants, and Joani Blank, a resident of Swan's Market Cohousing in Oakland. The tour visits cohousing communities in the Bay Area and Davis; $60 to $75 per person; call Karen Hester, (510) 654-6346 for details and registration. Also see www.hesternet.net.

-- The Cohousing Company, 1250 Addison St., Suite 113, Berkeley 94702; (510) 549-9980; www.cohousingco.com.

-- Cohousing Network, 1460 Quince Ave., Suite 102, Boulder, CO 80304; (303) 413-9227; www.cohousing.org. Members of the Cohousing Network receive the biannual magazine Cohousing; back issues are available.

-- "Sustainable, Low-Toxic Materials Use & Design in Berkeley Co-housing" by Tom Lent, tlent.home.igc.org.

-- "So Happy Together" by Richard Paoli, Chronicle Real Estate Editor, Sunday Real Estate section, The Chronicle, July 15, 2001; www.sfgate.com. - C.S.