In developing a cohousing community, how important is it that prospective members have a chance to participate in the design process?

In November 2023, Housing LIN in the UK published a blog post by Queena Stone to examine this question. Queena is an Associate AIA (American Institute of Architects) member based in Seattle, WA. She is a past member of CohoUS’s Seniors in Cohousing Committee. Housing LIN (Learning and Improvement Network) [https://www.housinglin.org.uk/] is a web-based knowledge hub “connecting people, ideas and resources” for professionals in the housing sphere.

Queena looked at how participation in the design phase of a senior cohousing project impacted residents’ satisfaction with the resulting development. She visited three different communities to research the issue. Her overall finding from this sample was ¾ not surprisingly ¾  that “the more participation the members had during the design phase, the more satisfied they were with the outcome.”

Following is an excerpt of her blog post dated Nov. 16, 2023.

The first project I visited was in Oakland, CA, called Phoenix Commons. The project was funded by a developer with a history of developing senior and assisted living housing developments. His brother is an architect who also designs most of the projects he develops.

One of the highlights of this project is that the community is very active and has various skills and talents that the members bring to the group to provide the level of engagement that is sometimes required in cohousing communities.

For example, a member of Phoenix Commons is a retired civil engineer, and he took on the task of monitoring the levels of energy the Commons was saving with the solar panels that were installed from the beginning. He tracked the amount of energy collected by the panels, followed the amount used by the users, and could report the amount of energy savings the members had per month. This effort was his contribution to the community.

One issue that occurs when the community is not involved in the early stages of the design is that the community members need to be able to share their core values and wishes regarding how they would like to age in place. An example of this is also at Phoenix Commons, where most members are very physically active. Although two elevators are on the property, most members like to use the stairs for exercise. However, given the architect only designed the stairwells for egress, they were not designed with appealing finishes and, therefore, could have provided a better experience while using the stairwell. 

Another cohousing project I visited in Portland, Oregon, was PDX Commons. This project is in a very urban location, with access to public transportation and amenities that allow the community members to not depend on their private vehicles to accomplish daily tasks. The downside of this location is, however, their need for more security that was not planned for during the design phase. [Editor’s note: Due to some break-ins and thefts, the community learned there was more property crime in the neighborhood than they had realized; hence, they needed to install better security measures.]

This cohousing community was very much involved during the design phase, and the benefits were clear. When I visited them this year, my most significant takeaway was that the design of their project facilitated outdoor gatherings and provided opportunities for members to connect visually during the pandemic.

Lastly, I visited a community in Port Townsend, WA. I did so precisely because it was not an urban setting but very much rural, and the architecture reflected that detail. The community, called Quimper Village, was very much the opposite of the urban communities I visited. One blatantly clear element was how car-centric the design was for this community.

When you entered this property, the first element you saw was the row of car garages. The biggest takeaway from this project was that their financing model didn’t impact their design as much, primarily because the land they were able to purchase provided the architect with the freedom to design units that provided a lot of space and also offered room for customization as opposed to the urban projects that needed to standardize the design to keep costs down.

Queena’s findings suggest that factors specific to a community are best considered in the design process. For example:

• At Phoenix Commons, it would have been helpful for the development team to know how active the community members were and how they would like to use the stairwells for exercise.
• At PDX Commons, it would have been helpful to know the level of property crime in its urban neighborhood.
• At Quimper Village, the rural setting and larger property allowed for more flexibility in the design.

Subscribe to E-News by clicking on the “Subscribe to E-News” link at the bottom of the cohousing.org home page.

Find past issues of E-News at the “eNews Archives” link at the bottom of the home page.

Upcoming events

May 10 — The Commons, a free monthly gathering for the cohousing curious and experts, too; 10 a.m. MST; repeats on the 10^th of each month; register here.

May 20 — Seniors in Cohousing Q&A, an informal facilitated conversation for those who are interested in senior cohousing and/or senior living in intergenerational cohousing; 10 a.m. MST; repeats on the 20^th of each month; register here. Once registered, you’ll receive an email before the meeting with a link to join the call on Zoom.

CohoUS offers many live and on-demand courses on a wide range of topic related to cohousing in general. Peruse them here.