COHOUSING

The University of California, Berkeley

Department of Architecture
College of Environmental Design
 INTRODUCTION

The ever increasing mobility of the population and the breakdown of traditional
community ties are placing more and more demands on individual households.These
factors call for us to reexamine the way we house ourselves, the needs of individual
households within the context of community, and our aspirations for an increased
quality of life.
Creating Cohousing: Building Sustainable Communities, K. McCamant and C. Durrett

The following study is the result of a graduate seminar conducted in the

Fall 2014, titled The Study of Communal Housing for the 21st c., in the
Department of Architecture, College of Environmental Design, U.C. Berkeley.
It comes at a time when housing in San Francisco has become unaffordable for
a large percentage of the population and when theres increased interest by
developers to build a contemporary version of collective or cohousing without
clear planning guidelines for this type of development. The students began
by studying the historical context of collective, cooperative and communal
housing throughout the world that ranged from the monastery in Western
Europe, to Shaker dwellings in Massachusetts, to contemporary dormitories
and co-housing developments in Denmark and the Bay area. This research
established a starting point for understanding the program of collective living,
The University of California, Berkeley and defined certain expectations and needs for a contemporary urban form for
cohousing. To test design ideas that evolved from the precedent study, four sites
Department of Architecture
in four neighborhoods across San Francisco were selected. Working in teams,
College of Environmental Design
the students considered various site strategies and building forms for each
Graduate Student Research Team: site, and focused on one scheme per site (presented here) which embodied
Sara Tepfer qualities of its context and expanded formal ideas learned from one or more
Jesus A. Camacho of the precedents studied. The proposals presented here should be seen as
Kelsey Brennan the beginning of a larger discussion regarding the nature of affordable housing,
Hyojin Kim
sustainable development, and how we want to define community in this century.
Seoungjoo You
Philip Panzarella We would like to thank Kanishka Burns, Kate Conner, and Kearstin Dischinger
Alexander Schofield in the SF Planning Department for the generosity of their time and interest in
Miles Stemper our work throughout the semester.

Danelle Guthrie, Adjunct Assoc. Professor of Architecture, UC Berkeley

CONTENTS

COHOUSING PRECEDENTS 8

SPECIFIC PRECEDENTS RELEVANT TO PROPOSALS

BASTYR UNIVERSITY - Kenmore, WA 10

BIKUBEN - Copenhagen, DK 12

SWANS MARKET - Oakland, CA 14

LA TOURETTE - Eveux, France 16

DESIGN PROPOSAL SITES

THE SUNSET 22

HAYES VALLEY 28

MISSION DISTRICT 34

THE DOGPATCH 40

LIST OF FIGURES 46
PRECEDENT PROJECTS The projects below are a sampling of initial
research into communal living spaces from
around the globe.

Bastyr University (2010) - pg. 8 fig. 1 Korean Traditional House (20 c.) fig. 2 Swans Market (2000) - pg. 12 fig. 7 La Tourette (1960) - pg. 14 fig. 8

Vrijburcht (2001) fig. 3 Het Hallehuis (1984) fig. 4 Poor Clare Convent (2011) fig. 9 Doyle Street Housing (1992) fig. 10

State Street Village (date) fig. 5 Bikuben Dorm (2001) - pg. 10 fig. 6 Tolou Collective (1900s / 2008) fig. 11 Shaker Dwelling (1830) fig. 12

8 9
BASTYR UNIVERSITY PRECIDENT 1
Kenmore, Washington - 2010
Ground Floor Plan 2nd Floor Plan

Pr

C
om

irc

or
iva

e
ul
te

at
on

io
n
Interior common study space fig. 13

The goals of the designers as

fig. 15
Architect: Collins Woerman
Units: 12 per cottage (132 total)
Residents: 12
Total unit area: 4,000 ft2
Per person: 333 ft2
Total common area: 1,265 ft2
Common area per person: 105 ft2
Common/private ratio: 0.30
stated by Bastyr University are to
encourage interaction among students,
fit into the campuss natural landscape
and minimize impacts to the local
environment. There are 4 private units
per floor connecting to the common
living, dinning, and studying spaces.
The common spaces face a central
courtyard that is shared by other
cottages and is intended to encourage
interaction among all residents of the
village.

Cohousing living space fig. 14

10 11
BIKUBEN PRECIDENT 2
Copenhagen, Denmark - 2001
Ground Floor Plan 4th Floor Plan 5th Floor Plan

Pr

Se

O
om

irc

or

ut
iva

do
i-P

ul
te

at

or
riv

on

io
at

n
e
Exterior fig. 16

The Bikuben is a 70,000 square

foot dormitory that rethinks
the environment for student life,
providing a framework for a well-
integrated social network. It was the
architects goal to maximize resident
interaction and strengthen the sense
of community within the building.
fig. 18
The form features several roof decks
spiraling around the exterior of the
Architect: AART Architects
building, which provide residents with
Units: 107
direct connection to the buildings
Residents: 107
surroundings, as well as direct
Total unit area: 29,820 ft2
access to light and air. Facilities, and
Per person: 280 ft2
common spaces are oriented inward
Total common area: 58 770 ft2
toward the central courtyard. The
Common area per person: 550 ft2
residences and common spaces of
Common/private ratio: 2
this dormitory surround the atrium.
Communal space fig. 17
12 13
SWANS MARKET PRECIDENT 3
Oakland, California - 2000
Ground Floor Plan 2nd Floor Plan

Pr
Pr ate

C
C m
C m
C m

C
C ula

Pa
Pa king
O rki
O doo
om
om on
om on Co
om er

irc
irc tio

ut ng
ut r
iv
iva

do
ul n
te

m cial

at

or
er

io
cia

n
l
Pr

Pa

O
om

irc

ut
iva

rk
m

do
ul

in
te

at

or
on

er

io
cia

n
l
Entry Courtyard fig. 19

Swans Market was historically

a market place in the center of
Oaklands downtown shopping
district. It was repurposed in the year
Diagram
Diagram
forfor
Bastyr
Bastyr 2000, to integrate a 20-unit cohousing
community with an eclectic mixed-
use program. The project seeks to
Diagram for Bastyr create the sense of being in a small
fig. 21 village contained within the city block.
The majority of the retail space is
Architect: Pyatok Architects street-facing and on the ground
Units: 38 floor. 20 units are organized around
Co-housing: 20 a central, corridor, to create the
Affordable housing units: 18 cohousing community. This acts much
Residents: 50 like a small pedestrianized alleyway
Total project area: 105,000 ft2 that allows residents to gather and
Total common area: 3,458 ft2 socialize outside in addition to the
Common area per person: 230 ft2 shared common dining room and
Common/private ratio: 0.25 facilities.
Co-housing corridor fig. 20
14 15
LA TOURETTE PRECIDENT 4
Eveux, France - 1957
Ground Floor Plan 2nd Floor Plan 3rd Floor Plan

Se

O
om

irc

or

ut
m

do
i-P

ul
m

at

or
riv

on

io
at

n
e
Lower courtyard fig. 22

La Tourette serves as a monastic

precedent for communal housing.
Large communal hallways are
organized to service the daily
rituals of monks and connect
various programmatic components.
The private units are austere and
secluded on the third floor above
more communal programs below on
fig. 24
the ground floor. A central outdoor
courtyard serves as the heart of the
Architect: Le Corbusier
building as programmatic spaces face
Units: 100
inward for visual connectivity and
Residents: 100
light.
Total unit area: 16,500 ft2
Per person: 165 ft2
Total common area: 6,720 ft2
Common area per person: 67.2 ft2
Common/private ratio: 0.42
Circulation corridor fig. 23
16 17
DESIGN PROPOSALS
CASE STUDY SITES
San Francisco, California

1 2 3 4

Outer Sunset Hayes Valley / Market St Mission District The Dogpatch

Judah Street & 42nd Avenue Gough Street & Market Street 14th Street & Capp Street 3rd Street & 23rd Street

20 21
 OUTER SUNSET DESIGN PROPOSAL 1
LINCOLN WAY
WAY Judah Street & 42nd Avenue

33RD AVE
45TH AVE

IRVING ST
NG ST

41ST AVE
SITE:
46TH AVE

42nd + Judah
h
da
JUDAH ST
JUDAH ST
Ju

37TH AVE
38TH AVE
43
40TH AVE rd
44TH AVE
47TH AVE

36TH AVE
39TH AVE
KIRKHAM ST

SUNSET BLVD
43RD AVE

42
PRESIDIO

02 01

nd
04 03
GOLDEN GATE PARK

05 06 07 08

LAWTON ST
13 12 11 10 09
ZONING KEY
single-family residential
42ND AVE

low-density residential mixed

public
MORAGA ST
neighborhood commercial cluster
two-family residential

Zoning plan Site Axon

Design Team:
Jesus A. Camacho
Philip Panzarella

The proposed site is located in a space facing the larger green space.
residential neighborhood in the Inner Units within each house follow the
Sunset extending from 42nd street to typical 25 feet lot width pattern of
43rd street and along the commercial homes in the neighborhood.
corridor of Judah street. Within the
proposed site exists the Francis Scott
Key Annex Building with potential for
reuse. The proposal consists of three
housing clusters at the perimeter
and a large common amenity space
and outdoor recreational area at the
center. Each cluster is made up of
two communal houses and a patio
Street View of proposed site
22 23
OUTER SUNSET DESIGN PROPOSAL 1
Single Cottage Program diagrams
Judah Street & 42nd Avenue First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan

Parking Vertical Circulation Communal Space Residential Public

Pa

Re

Ve

C una atio

Re

Re
om Cir

om

ut
rk

r
ta

sid

sid
tic

do
in

il

m cul

m Cir

en

en
al
g
Retail Communal Circulation Outdoor Space Residential Private

or
un

tia

tia
al ulat

Sp

lP

lP
l

Sp

ac

ub

riv
ac

e
c

lic

at
e

e
n

io
n
Each house is 2 stories high with 8 adjacent home. All homes have
private units per house. The principal access to larger communal amenities
entry to each house is through that include parking, laundry, a day
the main street but can also be care center as well as green space
accessed through the communal and an urban farm.
patio and green space in the interior
of the complex. Each house can
accommodate up to 10 people, with
3 1-bedroom and 1 2-bedroom units
at the ground floor and 2 3-bedroom
and 2 studios on the second level,
each with a private bathroom. Every
house shares a patio space with the

Color-coded axon
24 25
 7

OUTER SUNSET DESIGN PROPOSAL 1

First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
Judah Street & 42nd Avenue Scale: 1 = 1/64 Scale: 1 = 1/64

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 2
2 2 2 2
3 1 3 3 1 3
1 1
7 7 7 7
3 3

4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 1 5

First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan

Typical Unit Circulation First Floor
Scale: Plan
1 = 1/64 Second
Scale: Floor Plan
1 = 1/64
Typical Unit Circulation
Miniumum amount of space outside unit Scale: 1 = 1/64 Scale: 1 = 1/64
Miniumum amount of space outside unit
Little opporutinity for interaction
Little opporutinity for interaction
First Floor Plan Space
1. Common 6. Outdoor Second Floor Plan
Scale:2.1Common
= 1/64 Kitchen 7. Storage Scale: 1 = 1/64 10 30 70
3. Common Living 8. Parking
4. Bathroom
1. Common Space 9. Lobby
6. Outdoor
5. Bedroom
2. Common Kitchen 10. Retail
7. Storage 10 30 70
3. Common Living 8. Parking
4. Bathroom 9. Lobby
5. Bedroom 10. Retail

The main idea for the proposal lies connected to all common spaces
in the clustering of private spaces thereby presenting moments to
around a communal space. In the connect and socialize. This proposal
case of the entire proposed complex, draws from Student Village at Bastyr
the private homes cluster around University as a precedent in which
the central green space and shared the houses cluster around a central
amenities. The same applies to courtyard and within each house, the
each house, with the private units communal areas are ample and airy
surrounding double height ceiling encouraging residents to congregate
communal spaces, which include and socialize.
a kitchen, dining and living spaces,
Clustered Unit Circulation
Clustered Unit Circulation
Balanced amount of space inside/outside unit storage, and lounge areas. The
Balanced amount of space inside/outside unit
Ample opporutinity for interaction main circulation at each house is
Ample opporutinity for interaction

26 27
HAYES VALLEY / MARKET ST DESIGN PROPOSAL 2
Gough Street & Market Street

LAGUNA

SOUT
OAK ST
SITE:

H
Market + Haight
S

VAN
T

ST
T
BUCHAN

AGE ST KE

NESS
P
AR
M
OCTAVIA

AVE
AN ST

Ha
ST
HAIGHT
Mar

igh
BLVD

ST
ket

t
S

ST
TI
O

N
VALENCIA ST

SIO
MCCOPPIN ST

MIS
PRESIDIO

02 01
04 03
GOLDEN GATE PARK

05 06 07 08

13 12 11 10 09
ZONING KEY
moderate-scale neighborhood
ST commercial transit cluster
T
KE residential transit-oriented district
AR DUBOCE AVE public
M
neighborhood commercial transit
cluster
STEVENSON ST

CLINTON PARK
neighborhood commercial district
BROSNAN ST medium-density residential mixed
districts

Zoning plan fig. 25 Site Axon

Design Team:
Sara Tepfer
Seoungjoo You

The Market/Octavia area is a mixed- and open spaces are somewhat

use urban setting that is currently
undergoing large-scale redevelopment
and densification. In this area, the
scale of new construction contrasts
with the existing buildings, with
new developments reaching as
many as nine stories, compared to
the three- and four-story existing
buildings. Ground floor spaces are
typically used for commercial and
light-industrial uses, with offices
and residential spaces above. Parks
limited in this area. The site is at the
intersection of Market and Haight,
across from the 101 off-ramp onto
Octavia Boulevard. This proposal
responds to this context by creating
ground floor retail space with dense
collective housing above and by
integrating roof decks to provide
access to shared outdoor space. The
buildings footprint is irregular in
order to maximize

Street View of proposed site

28 29
 4

HAYES VALLEY / MARKET ST DESIGN PROPOSAL 2 Sixth Floor Plan Seventh Floor Plan
Gough Street & Market Street Scale: 1 = 1/32 Scale: 1 = 1/32

Vertical Circulation Communal Space Residential Public

Re

Ve

O una

Re

Re
om

om

ut
r
ta

sid

sid
tic

do
il

en

en
al
Retail Communal Circulation Outdoor Space

or ace
Residential Private

un

tia

tia
C

al

Sp
irc

lP

lP
lS
C

ac
ul

ub

riv
p
irc
at

lic

at
ul
io

e
at
n

io
n
This seven-floor proposal includes living space, which looks onto the
40 units (33 studios, 7 1-bedroom) larger central common space. These
and ground-floor commercial space. small living spaces (called residential
It is built out to its property lines to public space in the drawing above)
maximize the usable interior space. can open up to the common space.
The proposal aims to provide livable Through these small spaces, each
common spaces while achieving a of the shared units has a visual
high residential density. The units are connection to the central communal
organized around central double- space. Private spaces are placed on
height indoor and outdoor spaces, the outer edge of the building to
which provide common space shared provide access to light and air.
by every two floors. Pairs of studio
units then share a more private, small

Color-coded axon
30 31
 4

HAYES VALLEY / MARKET ST DESIGN PROPOSAL 2 Sixth Floor Plan Seventh Floor Plan
Gough Street & Market Street Scale: 1 = 1/32 Scale: 1 = 1/32

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

3 3 3 3

5 5
2 1 3 3

4 4

6 6

UP

UP
DN

DN
3 3

5 5
4 4

First
Sixth Floor Plan
Floor Plan Second
Seventh FloorFloor
PlanPlan
Scale: 1==1/32
Scale: 1 1/64 Scale:
Scale: 1 =11/32
= 1/64

First Floor Plan Space

1. Common 6. Outdoor Second Floor Plan
Scale:2.1Common
= 1/64 Kitchen 7. Storage Scale: 1 = 1/64 10 30 70
Rotating terraces
Double-height open spaces allow light and air to the common core zones 3. Common Living 8. Parking
4. Bathroom
1. Common Space 9. Lobby
6. Outdoor
5. Bedroom
2. Common Kitchen 10. Retail
7. Storage 10 30 70
3. Common Living 8. Parking
4. Bathroom 9. Lobby
5. Bedroom 10. Retail

To provide residents with access to interaction and continual activation

private open space, as well as light of communal spaces. These central
and air, this proposal includes roof communal spaces include spaces for
decks on every other level of the cooking, lounging, and communal
building. Each roof deck is rotated eating. When desired, the central
in plan from the one directly above spaces can be expanded into the
2nd level or below it. These roof decks are shared spaces in the adjacent units
adjacent to double-height common through movable partitions (similar
1st level
spaces. Access to each unit is directly to Korean Traditional House on Page
off of this central common space. This 6).
allows connection and integration
of circulation and communal spaces,
Shared double-height spaces which serves to encourage resident
Central core zones are shared between two residential levels.

32 33
MISSION DISTRICT DESIGN PROPOSAL 3
14th Street & Capp Street

SITE:
14th + Capp
ST
T
KE 13TH S
T
AR DUBOCE AVE
M

WOODWARD ST

MISSION ST
STEVENSON ST
CLINTON PARK
ROSEMONT PL

BROSNAN ST
DOLORES ST

14TH ST

FOLSOM ST
RAMONA AVE

PRESIDIO

02 01
04 03
GOLDEN GATE PARK

05 06 07 08

15TH ST ZONING KEY

13 12 11 10 09

on
GUERRERO ST

15 ssi
JULIAN AVE

moderate-scale neighborhood
commercial transit cluster
th Mi
residential - three family
residential TOD
public
light industrial
urban mixed use
neighborhood commercial shopping
neighborhood commercial transit

Zoning plan fig. 26 Site Axon

Design Team:
Kelsey Brennan
Miles Stemper

The Mission district cohousing state of flux. It was originally a mixed

proposal is located in the
northernmost part of the
neighborhood (near Market Street)
at 14th and Capp street. This area
is primarily zoned for mixed use
residential and PDR (production,
distribution, retail). The neighborhood
is arguably San Franciscos historic
center: the site of Mission San
Francisco de Asis, the citys original
Spanish settlement. Its also one of
the most culturally diverse areas of
the city and one that is in a constant
Street View of proposed site
34
immigrant community, but became
the primary latino community in
the city after 1950. The 70s brought
a wave of artists to the area and
the 90s brought the first wave
of professional gentrification. The
Mission home to a vast array of
restaurants and retail, but is also
home to extreme wealth and poverty.
The neighborhood remains contested
and culturally important and is
viewed by many as an example of the
changing face of San Francisco.
35
 10 9 10 1

MISSION DISTRICT DESIGN PROPOSAL 3

First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
Scale: 1 = 1/64 Scale: 1 = 1/64
14th Street & Capp Street

Vertical Circulation Communal Space Residential Public

Re

Ve

Re
om

om

ut
r
ta

sid
tic

do
il

en
al
Retail Communal Circulation Outdoor Space

or
un

un

tia
C

al

al

Sp
irc

l
C

Sp

ac
ul

irc

ac
at

e
ul
io

e
at
n

The programmatic organization for
the proposal on this site takes cues
from the Swans Market development
in Oakland which strives to create a
village-like atmosphere. Like Swans
Market, this site is near a major
retail and transportation corridor.
The first floor consists primarily of
street-facing retail along 14th Street.
The first floor units are accessible
via the communitys common room,
which contains essentials such as
the mail room, storage and laundry
io
n
which allow the space to act as a
meeting room for residents. The units
themselves (both first and second
floors) are organized much as they
are in the Swan Market development:
along an outdoor pedestrian street
that can act as a gathering space for
and courtyard for residents.

Color-coded axon
36 37
 10 9 10 1

MISSION DISTRICT DESIGN PROPOSAL 3

First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
Scale: 1 = 1/64 Scale: 1 = 1/64
14th Street & Capp Street
4 4
5 5
1 1
4 4
5 5
4 5 4 5
1 1
4 5 4 5
5 4 5 4
1 6 1
5 4 4
5
4 5 5
4
1 1
4 4
5 5
5 5
1 4 4
1 6
4 4
5 5
4 5 4 5
1 1
5 5
4 4
4 4
5 1 5
1 1
5 6 5
4 4
4 2 4 7
5 5
1 1 10
5 7 5 7
4 7 4 7

10 9 10 1
First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
Scale: 1 = 1/64 Scale: 1 = 1/64
typical circulation corridor First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
First Floor Plan
1. Scale:
Common1 = 1/64
Space 6. Outdoor Second
Scale:Floor Plan
1 = 1/64
Scale:2.1Common
= 1/64 Kitchen 7. Storage Scale: 1 = 1/64 10 30 70
3. Common Living 8. Parking
4. Bathroom
1. Common Space 9. Lobby
6. Outdoor
5. Bedroom
2. Common Kitchen 10. Retail
7. Storage 10 30 70
3. Common Living 8. Parking
4. Bathroom 9. Lobby
5. Bedroom 10. Retail

The primary organizing principle for is interrupted by occupiable alcoves.

this proposal was to figure out a way
to make a street-scale development
more human-scaled in order to
provide more comfortable places
for gathering. The concern was that
if you have a corridor, no matter
how wide it is, it still gets used as
primarily as circulation, rather than
taken advantage of as a usable open
space. As a way to remedy this we
mirrored the units and pushed back
the entrances such that the corridor
This, in effect, creates eddies in the
circulation along the corridor where
people can stop to chat, put plants to
create a small, potted garden, or even
put out a chair or two to spend time
outside. We also made an effort to
put key utilities such as a communal
kitchen, storage, laundry and mail in
or near the common area as a way
to encourage interaction among
residents.

communal circulation corridor

38 39
THE DOGPATCH DESIGN PROPOSAL 4
3rd Street & 23rd Street

MICHIGAN ST
INDIANA ST

MINNESOTA ST

TENNESSEE ST
22ND ST

HUMBOLDT ST

Th
ird
SITE:
23rd + 3rd
23RD ST

PRESIDIO

02 01
MINNESOTA ST

04 03

rd
ILLINOIS ST

GOLDEN GATE PARK

23
05 06 07 08

13 12 11 10 09
ZONING KEY
urban mixed use
three-family residential
public
light industrial
heavy industrial
neighborhood commercial transit

Zoning plan fig. 27 Site Axon

Design Team:
Hyojin Kim
Alexander Schofield

The Dogpatch neighborhood Co urban condition for consideration as

Housing proposal is located on the
corner of 23rd and 3rd street, part
of the Eastern Neighborhoods and
directly east of the Mission. This
particular neighborhood is unique
in that there exists a high density of
Production, Distribution, and Repair
(PDR) zoning. As PDR sites do not
permit housing, the site is zoned
as Urban Mixed Use however it is
surrounded entirely by various PDR
sites. This creates an interesting
the site exists as an oasis in which
to serve an otherwise industrial
neighborhood. The Dogpatch Co-
Housing proposal would most likely
serve a population whom perhaps
works in the surrounding industrial
area, seeks refuge from the higher
density neighborhoods, or seeks
space amongst a neighborhood of
artists and craftsmen.

Street View of proposed site fig. 1

40 41
 2 5

THE DOGPATCH DESIGN PROPOSAL 4

First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
3rd Street & 23rd Street Scale: 1 = 1/64 Scale: 1 = 1/64

Parking Vertical Circulation Communal Space Residential Public

Pa

Re

Ve
C cal

Re

Re
om C

om

ut
rk

rt
ta

sid

sid
do
i
in

il

m ircu

en

en
Retail Communal Circulation Outdoor Space Residential Private

or
un la

un

tia

tia
al tio

al

Sp

lP

lP
C n

Sp

ac

ub

riv
irc

ac

lic

at
ul

at
The programmatic organization of
the Dogpatch Co-Housing proposal
is designed to allow residents the
amenities of a communal oasis
amongst the surrounding industrial
landscape. The ground floor consists
of a lobby, which has direct access to
the Muni train stop on 3rd street, as
well as parking (both car and bicycle).
Additionally, ground floor retail
spaces provide opportunities for
cafes, markets, as well as other pop
up shops to service residents as well
e
io
n
as other local community members.
The upper floors are organized
around a central community
courtyard, tucked away using the
units and other communal spaces
as a buffer from the busy streets.
Residential units are made up of
private one bedroom studios which
connect, in groups of 3-4, to a larger
communal room.

color coded axon

42 43
 2 5

THE DOGPATCH DESIGN PROPOSAL 4

First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan
3rd Street & 23rd Street Scale: 1 = 1/64 Scale: 1 = 1/64

7 1
6

9 2 5
4
3 5

5
4
10 2 5
6 1
8 2 5
4
3 5
10

Small communal space 5

4
2 3 1
in unit scale 4
5
Small communal space 4 4
in unit scale 10 3 5
5 5 5 5 4
Small communal space 2 5
in unit scale
Small communal space
in unit scale

First Floor
First Floor Plan
Plan Second Second
Floor Floor
Plan Plan
Scale: 1
Scale: 1 == 1/64
1/64 Scale: Scale: 1 = 1/64
1 = 1/64

First Floor Plan Space

1. Common 6. Outdoor Second Floor Plan
Scale:2.1Common
= 1/64 Kitchen 7. Storage Scale: 1 = 1/64 10 30 70
3. Common Living 8. Parking
Medium communal space 4. Bathroom
1. Common Space 9. Lobby
6. Outdoor
on floor scale 5. Bedroom
2. Common Kitchen 10. Retail
7. Storage 10 30 70
Medium communal space 3. Common Living 8. Parking
on floor scale 4. Bathroom 9. Lobby
Medium
Medium communal
communal space
space
on floor scale 5. Bedroom 10. Retail
on floor scale
Residents experience three different communal spaces. Finally, semi-private
scales of various communal space. communal spaces provide entrance
The largest communal space is to individual units while servicing
the central courtyard in which all each unit with public utilities such
residential and communal spaces are as cooking, dining, and bathroom.
organized around. Like La Tourette, Such a gradient, from communal/
Large communal space
the central courtyard provides public spaces to private units, fosters
whole unit scale space for community events while community interaction and activity
LargeLarge communal
communal space
space allowing light and visual connectivity. important to the overall feeling of
whole unit scale
whole unit scale
Next, large communal hallways, Co-Housing building typologies.
Large communal space
whole unit scale consisting of alcove and cut outs
for congregation, connect the
central courtyard to various smaller

Principle Diagram
44 45
 Bibliography

Hildner, Claudia. Future Living: Collective Housing in Japan.

Germany: Birkhauser, 2013.

McCamant, Kathryn and Charles Durrett. Cohousing: A Contemporary

Approach to Housing Ourselves. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press, 2nd Edition, 1994.

McCamant, Kathryn and Charles Durrett. Creating Cohousing: Building

Sustainable Communities. Canada: New Society Publishers, 2011.

Scott Hanson, Chris and Kelly. The Cohousing Handbook: Building a Place for
Community. Canada: New Society Publishers, 2005.

List of Figures

Figure 1
CollinsWoerman. Bastyr University Student Village. 2010. Architecture. Bastyr University,
Kenmore, Washington. Available from: ArchDaily http://www.archdaily.com/96482/bastyr-uni-
versity-student-village-collinswoerman/ (accessed December 7, 2014)
Resources
Figure 2
Eagon Company. Traditional Korean House (Remodel). 2013. Architecture. Seoul, Korea.
Available from: http://m.eto.co.kr/news/view.asp?Code=20090512105537687 (accessed
December 2, 2014)

Figure 3
CASA Architects.Vrijburcht. 2007. Architecture. Amsterdam, Netherlands. Available from:
Architetticercasi Edizione 2013http://www.architetticercasi.eu/c/149 (accessed December
11, 2014)

Figure 4
De Graaf, Jan. Het Hallehuis. 1993. Architecture. Het Hallehuis, Amersfoort, Netherlands.
Available from: Het Hallehuis homepage http://www.hallehuis.nl/ (Accessed December 15,
2014)

Figure 5
Jahn, Helmut. State Street Village. 2003. Architecture. Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago,
Illinois. Available from: Art on File http://www.artonfile.com/detail.aspx?cat=architec-
ture&id=ARCXI-03-10-10 (accessed December 8, 2014)

Figure 6
Aart A/S. Bikuben Kollegiet. 2006. Architecture. Copenhagan University, Denmark. Available
from: Danish Architecture Center http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-life/copenhagen-x-gallery/cases/
bikuben-kollegiet/ (accessed December 2, 2014)
List of Figures
Figure 7
Swans Market
Pyatok Architects. Swans Market. 2000. Architecture. Swans Market Cohousing, Oakland,
California. Available from: http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/blog/wp-content/up-
loads/2011/03/Swans-Market-1.png (accessed December 5, 2014)
Figure 8
Le Corbusier. La Tourette Monastery. 1957. Architecture. La Tourette, veux, France.
Available from: The Life of Couch http://lifeofcouch.blogspot.com/2013/10/la-tourette.html
(accessed December 12, 2014)
Figure 9
Piano, Renzo. Poor Clare Convent. 2011. Architecture. Poor Clare Convent, Ronchamp,
France. 2011. Available from: Dezeen http://www.dezeen.com/2011/09/26/ronchamp-to-
morrow-by-renzo-piano/ (accessed December 9, 2014)
Figure 10
McCamant, Kathryn and Charles Durrett. Doyle Street Cohousing. 1992. Architecture.
Emeryville Cohousing, Emeryville, California. Available from: http://www.cohousingco.com/
projects/emeryville-cohousing/ (accessed on December 11, 2014)
Figure 11
Urbanus Architects. Tolou Housing Guangzhou. 2007. Architecture. Guangzhou, China.
Available from: ArchDaily http://www.archdaily.com/24210/tulou-housing-guangzhou-urba-
nus-architects-by-iwan-baan/ (accessed on December 16, 2014)
Figure 12
Unknown. Traditional Shaker Dwelling. 1830. Architecture. East Coast, United States.
Available from: Pitzer, Donald E. Americas Communal Utopias. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1997.
Figure 13
CollinsWoerman. Bastyr University Student Village. 2010. Architecture. Bastyr University,
Kenmore, Washington. Available from: ArchDaily http://www.archdaily.com/96482/bastyr-uni-
versity-student-village-collinswoerman/ (accessed December 7, 2014)
Figure 14
CollinsWoerman. Bastyr University Student Village. 2010. Architecture. Bastyr University,
Kenmore, Washington. Available from: ArchDaily http://www.archdaily.com/96482/bastyr-uni-
versity-student-village-collinswoerman/ (accessed December 7, 2014)
Figure 15
CollinsWoerman. Bastyr University Student Village. 2010. Architecture. Bastyr University,
Kenmore, Washington. Available from: ArchDaily http://www.archdaily.com/96482/bastyr-uni-
versity-student-village-collinswoerman/ (accessed December 7, 2014)
Figure 16
Aart A/S. Bikuben Kollegiet. 2006. Architecture. Copenhagan University, Denmark. Available
from: Art on File http://www.artonfile.com/detail.aspx?cat=&id=Copenhagen-21-06-01
(accessed December 2, 2014)
Figure 17
Aart A/S. Bikuben Kollegiet. 2006. Architecture. Copenhagan University, Denmark. Available
from: Danish Architecture Center http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-life/copenhagen-x-gallery/cases/
bikuben-kollegiet/ (accessed December 2, 2014)
Figure 18
Aart A/S. Bikuben Kollegiet. 2006. Architecture. Copenhagan University, Denmark. Available
from: Danish Architecture Center http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-life/copenhagen-x-gallery/cases/
bikuben-kollegiet/ (accessed December 2, 2014)
Figure 19
Pyatok Architects. Swans Market. 2000. Architecture. Swans Market Cohousing, Oakland,
California. Available from: http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/blog/wp-content/up-
loads/2011/03/Swans-Market-1.png (accessed December 5, 2014)
Figure 20
Pyatok Architects. Swans Market. 2000. Architecture. Swans Market Cohousing, Oakland,
California. Available from: http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/blog/wp-content/up-
loads/2011/03/Swans-Market-1.png (accessed December 5, 2014)
Figure 21
Pyatok Architects. Swans Market. 2000. Architecture. Swans Market Cohousing, Oakland,
California. Available from: http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/blog/wp-content/up-
loads/2011/03/Swans-Market-1.png (accessed December 5, 2014)
Figure 22
Le Corbusier. La Tourette Monastery. 1957. Architecture. La Tourette, veux, France.
Available from: My Architectural Visits http://myarchitecturalvisits.com/2014/07/30/couvent-
de-la-tourette/la-tourette_le-corbusier_9/ (accessed December 12, 2014)
Figure 23
Le Corbusier. La Tourette Monastery. 1957. Architecture. La Tourette, veux, France.
Available from: Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/56408860@N02/6033054214/ (ac-
cessed December 12, 2014)
Figure 24
Le Corbusier. La Tourette Monastery Analysis. 1957. Architecture. La Tourette, veux,
France. Available from: Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/56408860@N02/6033054214/
(accessed December 12, 2014)