‘Commune’ reputation presents a barrier to partnership residency, advocates report, but environmental benefits present a new gateway
Kim Davis
Sun
‘Old-fashioned” neighbourhoods, the best of small-town communities, a new response to social, economic and environmental challenges, these are some of the ways people describe co-housing developments. The setting can be urban, suburban, or rural, and can involve building new homes or using existing structures. Regardless of the locale or form, though, the key premise of co-housing is to combine the privacy of self-contained dwellings with all the benefits of shared facilities. It is a process where a group of people works together to create and maintain a safe and friendly neighbourhood of their own design.
Co-housing is not a new phenomenon. It started in Denmark in the 1960s and migrated to North America in the ’80s. At least six co-housing partnerships exist in B.C.
It wasn’t until recently, however, that the concept really started to take off. In a paper published in Futures Journal, Jo Williams of the University of London’s Bartlett School of Planning says that, in the U.S., the number of households living in “partnership projects,” such as co-housing, has quadrupled in the last decade.
The number of people living in “retrofitted” neighbourhoods has also risen dramatically. Communities where residents form their own version of a co-housing by taking down fences, creating communal facilities and taking on the responsibility for general management and maintenance.
According to Williams, two of the key reasons behind this fairly recent and dramatic rise in interest are the concerns regarding carbon and energy reduction, and the emergence of new development models that are making co-housing more accessible.
“We only have to mention to somebody what we are doing and they are immediately engaged,” says Kevin Ryan of Blue Green Living Communities, in talking about the new co-housing model he and several partners launched a few months ago. “In our field, where I am talking to developers and people in the building industry, people’s eyes light up.”
Traditionally a resident-led process, the time, money and effort required to bring a co-housing development to fruition can be considerable. “Four to eight years of potlucks,” jokes Emmanuel Lavoie of BGLC. Drop-out rates tend to be high, and projects become rather expensive.
In an effort to make this process more reasonable, and a viable alternative to conventional development here in Canada, Blue Green Living Communities has created a hybrid model that combines the organization and framework of traditional, top-down development with the collaborative planning and design approach of co-housing.
“We offer the structure, the process, the facilitation, and the people who can deliver the development with the input of the residents,” says Megan Salhus of BGLC. From helping prospective residents attract other like-minded participants, all the way through to managing construction, BGLC has reduced and/or eliminated many of the challenges that typically thwart the co-housing process.
While BGLC has recrafted and streamlined the process, members say that people’s perception of co-housing does continue to be a bit of a barrier. “The reason we are ‘living communities,’ and not ‘co-housing,’ is because when you start to describe this to people they go ‘Co-ops?’ ‘Communes?'” says Ryan. “We found that with ‘co-housing’ we were always starting on the defensive,” he says. ‘When we mention ‘living communities’ people get excited.”
Co-housing and living communities can be as communal or independent as the residents desire. Everyone has his or her own private four walls, and no secret handshake, or particular political or religious orientation, is associated with participation.
Typically using a strata title ownership model, the community consists of individually owned homes clustered around a “common house” that is equipped with shared amenities such as a kitchen and dining area, children’s playroom, workshops, guest rooms, home office support, arts and crafts area, laundry, etc. The level of social interaction and shared resources can vary considerably among communities, as it is the residents who decide what they want their neighbourhood to look like and how it will be operated and maintained.
Dan Tatham of BGLC says his involvement has been a huge social learning experience for him. “It dawns on you that you can’t ask humans to care about the earth if they don’t care about themselves first.”
Ryan points out that it was from this social aspect that the group’s initial interest arose. While nearly all of the partners were already involved in the green building industry, Ryan says, “so much of green building is about how users interact with buildings. They are an integral part, and if they don’t buy into it, it doesn’t work. This is a beautiful opportunity to bring the user component and buildings together to create a genuine solution.”
While BGLC is focusing on Kelowna and the Interior, members see their living communities as a national initiative. Judging by the response they have received in their first few months, there is certainly no shortage of interest: from church groups looking for the best way to develop underused land to individuals seeking environmentally sensitive and socially interconnected neighbourhoods in which to live.
“The living communities we are creating right now are the seeds for change,” says Ryan. He says that people who like the idea, but until now have been turned off by the “four years of potlucks” will now have a way to get involved.
For more information or to get a tour of a co-housing project near you, visit livingcommunities.ca or co-housing.ca on the Internet.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
