Elgin Ecohome

I thought I would share some sections and reflections of a recent group assignment to design an Eco-house for a site of our own choosing. As my partner was from the Elgin area we thought we would give ourselves a bit of an extra challenge by selecting a site that sits within the flood plain of the River Lossie, combined with other design criteria which take into account climate change, resource use, a renewable energy & water strategy and the encouragement of sustainable lifestyle for its occupants. There is some cross over with regard to site analysis with my Shrubhill project (density, transport, green spaces), however we did take into a larger area when considering access to local amenities and integrated SEPA’s flood risk maps into our proposal.

 

The project gave us an opportunity to create a couple of Nicol graphs for the site. Nicol graphs show how the ‘comfort temperature’ of occupants varies with the mean outdoor temperature, particularly useful for designing free running buildings, i.e. building that do not require mechanically heated or cooling. I’m not sure exactly how this fits in with Passive house design methodology – perhaps something for further research… In essence ‘comfort temperature’ represents the fact that someone growing up in hot climate such as Saudi Arabia would feel comfortable at higher temperature than someone use to a more temperate climate such as Scotland. This is calculated by taking meteorological data for each month for outdoor maximum, minimum and mean temperatures and applying them to the following equation known as the Humphreys formula:

T_c = 0.53 (T_mean) + 13.8

Using this we created the following graphs for today and for 2050 assuming a 3 degree temperature rise due to climate change. We also combined this with the monthly solar irradiation levels to give an indication of when passive heating or cooling is required. 

Next up was an analysis of occupants and energy loads within the property – although with the scale of the coursework this was only to include electricity use. We created an imaginary family for the property and listed their daily routines, and the number and location of energy consuming equipment for every proposed room in the dwelling, from light bulbs to flat-screen TV’s. After researching energy usage amongst these appliances, we then created graphs of typical daily energy consumption for a standard summer and winter day, and using standard and energy efficient equipment. This was interesting for me, to see how much energy appliances such as a kettle use, and particularly how this is affected by the duration that certain equipment is on for. For example, running a fridge/freezer 24 hours a day, even an A+ rated one, consumes a lot of energy (not to mention the hazardous refrigerants!). Refrigerators seem to be getting larger, even though some products don’t even require cooling.  The temperature required to keep vegetables fresh varies from that required for meat and dairy. Separate compartments or employing greater stratification techniques could perhaps reduce consumption levels or unit size.

When consider the internal room layout of the dwelling, I combined the sun path diagram with the predicted time and duration of use of each room, as well as the standard requirements for connections between rooms. My final diagram is be:

By taking this approach, it’s possible to layout the rooms to match the path of the sun thus managing and maximising the use of natural daylight where possible – in this case the family uses the kitchen together at breakfast (not always the case for evening meals) so it made sense to place this room on the east facing elevation to make use of the morning sun. The flexible office space will be south facing to maximise daylight, though some shading should be provided by trees or external/internal blinds to reduce overheating and glare. The living room will be west facing to make use of the evening light for as long as possible. We constructed the inner compartment of the building (containing the stairwell) of a material with high thermal mass and with maximum exposure to the solar gain. This could be constructed out of concrete, but due to the materials high embodied energy we decided to use rammed earth, as it would be above ground. This solid mass then provides cooling by sucking in the sun’s energy during the day, and releasing it gradually when ambient temperatures drop during the day. 

All of this was work we carried out before getting to the proper renewable and energy efficiency ‘techie’ bit, which involved a water to water source heat pump making use of the nearby River Lossie and high groundwater levels, and an array of solar collectors and PV panels. Obviously location and site surroundings have an impact on the amount of passive systems you can integrate with any home, particularly with retrofit, but I find it encouraging that so many simple, low cost techniques can be employed before spending any big bucks and attaching complex equipment that requires skilled maintenance to your home.

On a final point, we attempted to overcome any flood risk by taking inspiration from some house designs constructed in New Orleans post-Katrina and elevating the building on solid structural members. This would probably have to be concrete but we have eliminated its usage throughout the building to negate its impact. Here is a quick look at the final design.

Eco-services Come to Town

Now that my assignments and exams for the semester are out of the way I can start contributing what I’ve learnt over the past few months to the blog. First off though some good news – my trip to London was not entirely in vain. ShrubhillWorks was awarded overall winner at the IHDC Awards! The Ecosystems Comes to Town conference was an interesting event to attend in general, but coming first was the icing on the cake. There were some really interesting projects on display and it’s reassuring to know there are a few courses encouraging designers to consider ecological and sustainable design principles in their work.

Green Roof Tour
The day began with a tour of some ‘living roofs’ on a couple of multi-storey office blocks in the Broadgate area of London. I use the term ‘living roofs’ rather than ‘green roofs’ as these were not your typical turf laid to provide high-flying occupants with a piece of grass for rooftop schmoozing or lunchtime sunbathing. As our host Dusty Gedge, the president of the Federation European of Green Roofs Association (slight contradiction in terms there), described, these were real approach to adapting for climate change whilst providing a habitat for birds and with a sub-structure deep and varied enough to provide support to various invertebrates whilst retaining storm water and rainwater run-off. The roofs looked more fragile and natural than their green counterparts, as visitors weight were deflected by spongy moss cultures, reed beds and shrubs. The wildlife present was not placed there to provide a typically aesthetically pleasing landscape (although I think it actually did this as well) but to provide support and encouragement for local ecosystems and biodiversity.

Next we headed to the heart of the city of London and to Evergreens offices where they have extended this concept further to include a rooftop vegetable plot with beekeeping facilities. Their living roof used a thinner layering of substructure, showing that additional structural support is not always necessary to provide a flourishing biodiversity rich rooftop. This was particularly reassuring for me to see considering such a rooftop garden was a key element of my Shrubhill Design. Conversely, the building across from Evergreens was fitted with a minimal green roof (i.e. lawn) as part of their BREEAM certification, showing that sometimes such endorsements do not reflect the true intent behind the project. We then headed to the Museum of London, where an ambitious project of ‘living roof’ retrofitting is underway. The even intend on converting areas of pooling on their flat roofs into rooftop ponds providing a larger variety of biodiversity.

Eco-services Conference
The organisers provided a wide variety of speakers with a balanced and perhaps sometimes too pragmatic approach to greening the built environment. Inspirational speeches were provided by Gary Grant (independent ecologist and IHDC judge) and Dr Bob Bloomfield (Head of Special Projects at the National History Museum) who talked about the ways in which biodiversity was already creeping into the built environment and its importance in relation to the United Nations Decade of Biodiversity. For me, the most interesting speech of the day came from an accountancy firm! PWC (PriceWaterhouseCoopers) have been compiling a report into how they can put a financial value on ecosystems and biodiversity as a tool for encouraging their clients to consider their companies actions on the environment. Whilst I don’t fully agree that everything should have a monetary value – I’m acutely aware that this is a viewpoint that is not shared by many decision makers and any tools to highlight the destruction carried out by certain activities has got to be a good thing. I was less impressed by talks given by representatives of Land Securities and Greater London authorities, whose entire focus seemed to be on how many trees they can plant in an area, regardless of their species, necessity or if their surroundings are capable of supporting rainwater run-off. Land Securities showed images of heavily hard-landscaped shopping centres with a scattering of trees which provide their inhabitants with pleasant surroundings in which to eat their lunch. Thankfully this was picked up by some conference goers in the following Q&A session.

Awards Ceremony + Follow-Up
I was really impressed by the work carried out by the other finalist, in particular the Hafod Copperworks scheme in Swansea. It was a very ambitious project, tackling the impact of area starved of long-term investment which many communities today are suffering from. I felt their submission really combined social-economic and environmental issues in a realistic and effective way. I was (along with my parents) spared a last minute announcement and given a heads-up by the organisers about my success in the afternoon. I hadn’t prepared a speech as I didn’t want to jinx my chances; however I had thought enough about winning the previous weeks to be able to conjure something up on the spot. I was a bit disappointed not to receive a comedy-sized cheque, but that perhaps is being a little too trivial. The follow-up so far has been encouraging, with my work being displaced in Architects Journal and Sustain Magazine as well as the through Heriot Watt and local newspapers. I also gave a presentation of my work to SEDA Show & Tell at the Glasgow School of Art. The local council and architects have also been in touch about the possibility of my giving a presentation in the New Year in the hope of persuading the client of the possibilities of integrating biodiversity within the site.

IHDC Awards

Some good news.... my design entry for this years Integrated Habitats Design Competition has been selected as one of three prizewinners. I'm heading down to London next week to attend the Ecosystems Come to Town conference at the Museum of London and for the awards ceremony and exhibition in the evening. In the meantime I though I would post up a couple of images and my statement of design which formed part of my submission. My final submissions should be available to download from the IHDC website in the coming weeks.

ShrubhillWorks

ShrubhillWorks illustrates the renewal of a 5-acre brown-field site in the Leith district of Edinburgh into a new sustainable community. The scheme incorporates suitable green technologies and passive designs, minimising the impact on the surrounding land whilst addressing local housing issues. The site will see the creation of 122 affordable homes, shared communal facilities, a community education centre and a new sustainable transport connection. Urban and natural environments will be linked, turning the site into a new hub of biodiversity.

Todayʼs new housing projects tend to focus on the energy reductions available through technological solutions. Whilst valid, the negative result of this myopic approach is that it encourages energy consumption by facilitating reduced service costs. It is clear that behavioural change to a more sustainable lifestyle needs to be encouraged. By taking a more holistic approach to design and re-establishing the role of community it is possible to stimulate peopleʼs behaviour positively towards the environment and their personal relationships with one another. ShrubhillWorks endeavours to achieve this by combining two major design principles to create an infrastructure for biodiversity and community life to flourish and energy use and resource consumption to fall: Co-housing and Permaculture.

ShrubhillWorks site was once home to Edinburghʻs bus and tram network. Large listed Victorian workshop buildings sit at the northern boundary, most notably a large red brick chimney. To the east lies listed 19th century buildings of a housing type unique to Edinburgh - Colony Housing. This style attempted to develop co-operative affordable housing, avoiding the prevalent tenement block design and providing affordable housing with gardens. To the south lies Shrubhill House, a dilapidated 1960ʼs former council office block with a solid concrete structure that faces Leith Walk, a major retail and transport thoroughfare. All buildings are suitable for refurbishment and retrofitting. Along the western boundary of the site runs a 3-mile railway line due to close in 2015.

Cohousing addresses two key elements of the Edinburgh Local Biodiversity Action Plan: greater community participation and encouraging partnership working. In todayʼs economic climate where many biodiversity conservation projects are suffering cutbacks, individual and community participation is increasingly important. Cohousing inhabitants enjoy increased levels of social interaction created through a sense of neighbourhood with a diverse mix of age groups, families and singles whilst maintaining self-contained accommodation and personal space. The scheme reduces material consumption and individual ownership by providing its residents with access to shared facilities including gardening, food production, laundry, childcare, communal dining space, workshops and guest-rooms. Cohousing creates an environment where the formation of social organisational structures to maintain the shared facilities is essential and encouraged. Community responsibilities could be broadened to include the development, supporting, and monitoring of local endangered species and habitats, linking local action to a global cause.

The redevelopment of the tram buildings to the rear of the site will provide a social link to the wider community, with one building acting as communal facilities for Shrubhillʼs Co-housing, the other functioning as a community and education centre promoting biodiversity, e.g. through school visits and film screenings. The cluster formation adopted in ShrubhillWorks is scaled towards the effective use of ʻgoods and servicesʼ provided by nature, such as clean air, water, food and other materials integral to our wellbeing. The site will take full advantage of the areaʻs high rainwater levels through the widespread deployment of rainwater butts connected to rooftop guttering, collecting water for reuse in soil irrigation or in grey water sanitary products within the dwellings. SUDS and permeable paving will be in place to dispose of any excess water effectively. A wastewater treatment system of large reed ponds will provide suitable grey, water clean enough to be feed into the local Water of Leith waterway.

By incorporating large-scale green spaces, an improvement in air quality will allow natural ventilation to be adopted in the redeveloped Shrubhill House. A ventilated timber wall panel system and passive stack ventilation will provide an efficient air-flow, reducing the need for mechanical extract ventilation. Trees around the site will also provide protection from prevailing winds and noise from nearby traffic. The scheme furthermore aims to minimise car use. Excellent public transport connections will be complemented by a community car club. Minimal car parking will be provided in the peripheral areas of the site, with access for services such as waste collection and maintenance. The removal of cars from the interior of the development will allow biodiversity to mature and provides a safe environment for its younger inhabitants. In addition, the rail track will be transformed into a cycle path linked to the cycle route network and wildlife corridor extension.

A district heating system working in conjunction with a combined heat & power generator will supply the electrical and heating requirements for the new development. Passive Solar gain will be utilised in all apartments through the orientation and incorporation of south facing solar buffers.

By adopting the principles of Permaculture, productive, non-polluting, self-reliant settlements can be created. Permaculture is about collaborating with nature, adding and cultivating soils, cleansing water and creating new habitats for biodiversity, adding rather than subtracting from our natural environment. Priority will be given to this when coordinating the project workflow, allowing the green spaces to ʻbed inʼ before construction works begin. Extending the existing wildlife corridor running parallel to the site creates a wild zone where natural eco-systems can be studied. Habitats for local invertebrates including white snails, slow worms, common dormice and wood-Sage Plum will also be created. Other zones will allow for cultivation of plants on the Scottish Biodiversity List, including heather, marsh violet, wood sage, wax caps and various fungi. The reed ponds will provide suitable environments for great crested newts and water voles. Existing buildings and structures will be adapted to encourage the reintegration of particularly vulnerable species, including large garden bumblebees and bats through the inclusion of rooftop beehives and a bat spiral. Bullfinches, skylarks, swifts and swallows will all benefit from these new habitats and nest-boxes placed around the site.

Green Gone Wrong - Book Review

Here is the sypnosis/review I recently carried out for the book 'Green Gone Wrong: How Our Economy is undermining the Environmental Revolution, Heather Rogers (2010), Scribner Book Company.

This excellent book does not cast a sceptical eye on climate change itself, but rather on the present consumer-led, free market strategy currently being employed to tackle climate change. Rogers challenges the notion of being able to shop our way out of the environmental crisis by researching current sustainable practices in an attempt to determine if such projects really are living up to their environmental proclamations. The results make for a disheartening read, with many ecological solutions stifled by economic and political interests whilst others inflict more damage on the environment they are supposed to support. This is not the case with all though, and the author does attempt to carve out some positives. The book deals with four areas well known to environmentalists:

Organic Farming
By talking with ‘beyond organic’ farmers in New York State, Foster reveals that organic certification is very expensive and increasingly not representative of truly organic produce. She reveals how standards are constantly being watered down by big business as demand for organic products increases. This has led to smaller farmers being put out of business as sellers and distributors demand far larger quantities than they can produce entirely organically. The author also visits several sugar cane plantations in Paraguay, where large areas of deforestation is taking place to create viable farming land for organic produce, highlighting the social and economic devastation this causes. It is also the case that certifiable organic practices are not actually being followed in some of these plantations. In particular monoculture practices, the opposition to which being one of the keystones of organic farming, are being employed.

Eco-Architecture
The author uses the comparison of BedZed in London and Freiburg/Vaubaun in Germany to demonstrate the present barriers to creating fully functioning sustainable communities. Both were designed with green credentials in mind however several elements of BedZed have failed, including the Biomass boiler and water treatment plant. The owners have since struggled to find the expertise required in proper maintenance and repair required for such new technologies. In contrast, Vaubaun produces a far lower ecological and carbon footprint through the removal and penalising of cars on site, solar generation and passivhaus building standards. The author argues this is because of the history of the Freiburg region and their commitment to green lifestyles which has fed through to the regions infrastructure, planning authorities and politics. The area is home of Germany’s Green Party who have maintained a strong present in both local and regional government for many decades. Germany has also embraced renewables in light of its historic objection to Nuclear power. Vaubaun continue to push boundaries with residents aiming to demonstrate the possibility of living in a 2000W life. This section as a whole is very positive – only citing the required political will required to make such improvements mandatory. Foster doesn’t however mention other drawbacks such as rebound effect or give mention to the whole life cost of building products.

Transportation
This section visits Indonesia to witness the devastation of the rainforest to make way for the growing of oil palm plantations. Ethanol (the key production of palm oil) emits less than 20% less CO² than fossil fuels in combustion. However when the production and destruction of ecosystems in developing countries is taken into account some research suggests that biofuels may actually emit more carbon. The author also aims her targets at the American car industry and their obsession with the SUV. It’s interesting to note that the Model T was built with an eye to keeping fuel consumption and cost to a minimum (26mpg) and today Fords best sellers is the F150 which runs at just under 15mpg. Ford have invested a lot in the sustainability of their factory production (obviously cutting costs in the meantime) but have focused on flex-fuel cars rather than hydrogen or plug in gas-electric cars. Their main argument for not implementing eco-cars is that there cost to manufacture is too high (an entire new assembly line would have to be created); they require charging too frequently and only have a range of around 40miles. Apart from the defunct biodiesel argument, many ford owners are actually unaware of the fact that these cars will actually run on biofuels. The author dispels the myth that these technologies are not there, and that effective distribution methods are possible, and gives the example of Chinas drive to build electric cars. However until this electricity is generated by renewable or clean sources we would just be replacing gasoline with coal, i.e. power stations. Indeed the technology does exist; they just don’t know how to make money from it. The internal combustion engine is just too powerful in terms of the profit it returns.

Air Travel & Carbon Offsetting
Here the book focuses first on tree planting and a mango plantation in Bangalore, India by the band Coldplay to offset their world tour – and the firm they employed to plant mango trees in a monsoon country where residents don’t have enough water to drink let alone feed the trees. Foster exposes the large discrepancies in the price firms’ offer for a ‘credit’, equal to one tonne of CO2 emissions. Beyond the lack of regulation and lack of disclosure amongst these firms, the idea of offsetting itself is a weak one. The emissions generated by current consumerism are immediate, whereas absorption takes several decades, deferring emissions for the next generation or two. Planting trees with shorter life spans absorb CO2 quicker, but also obviously die sooner, releasing their entire carbon load. While visiting a large scale biomass plant in Malavalli, India, the author discovers that jobs for local people are few and far between, with many roles going to favourable contacts, family members or external workers. There is also a lack of safety standards, with cobras and other snakes present in the palm leaves that manual labourers shovel by hand into the biomass incinerator. Sick leave is also unpaid. The energy generated from the plant does not go to local villages which lack the necessary electrical connection, instead being exported to the main grid for general consumption. Local people are also forced into buying wood to burn for heat as all the other biomass is taken to the plant – all things missed by certification. Some offset funds are also going to projects that are already built, thus not additional. The start-up of micro-solar generation enterprise companies is one potential plus point to be found in this chapter. These small scale entrepreneurs are good for getting projects off the ground, specifically for homes which currently have no connection to the grid at all. The problem comes when they are installed in homes with a grid connection. The result is that the locals only using the panels when the grid cuts out, which is often, rendering the panels practically redundant. Pricewise the panels struggle to compete with power generated from the grid, and their voltage is considered by many to be too weak.

Conclusion
The author argues that all of these green washed products give us the impression that we can consume our way out of climate change, when in effect the opposite is true. Foster argues that viable green products require a rejigging of our economy, not just in our choices as consumers and she advocates the need to move from an ownership model of consumerism to an access model. When viewed long term cutting emissions and energy use also provides a cut in costs, not an increase. However it is important that these savings are not ploughed back into energy intensive manufacturing or processing by firms. This consequence is also known as the Jevons Paradox, named after a 19th century economist William Stanley Jevons – whereby greater efficiencies lead to greater resource use rather than less.

Unfortunately in her notes on the possible I found that Fosters promoted solutions that were equally a little hazy. Hearing about agro-ecology projects in developing and third world countries is great but by using specific examples she fails to address one thing – that there are several problems with each proposed remedy and each will perhaps have their own individual solution. If anything this book shows that there is no silver bullet to reduce our demands on the environment without impacting our lifestyles, yet the author offers us individual solutions. Although her calls for more accountable certification boards are of merit, this is surely how the existing certification boards started out before being chipped away by big business and government. The description of co-operative farmers was definitely encouraging, where the owners are the ultimate watchdogs. Here the farmers have withdrawn from contracts with supermarkets when they begin using the very factory processes that they oppose. As our governments seek to kick-start economic growth through the will of the markets, it would appear that we are also betting our environment on their ability to create demand. From this book, it would appear futile, and leave us in an even bigger mess than we are now.

Cohousing - A solution to our housing woes?

INTRODUCTION

The UK is currently undergoing the ‘ageing process’. As the baby boomers enter their elderly phase of life, the percentage of population aged over 65 increased from 15% to 16% between 1984 and 2009. This marginal rise of 1% actually represents an increase of 1.7 million people. This demographic shift is even more acute in the over 85’s where numbers have more than doubled to 1.4 million. Figures for both groups are set to rise further, with predictions of 23% for over 65s and 3.5million over 85s by 2034 . Coupled with a decrease in under-16s the elderly face an imbalance that could seriously jeopardise their current access to care, security, welfare and mutual support. Today’s elderly housing is restricted to care homes or sheltered housing, ill-equip at adapting to an increasingly active elderly demography. Housing issues are not only restricted to the elderly. With over 1.7 million currently on the waiting list for social housing, and new house building output in 2009 dropped to 118,000 homes , there are clearly not enough affordable homes to satisfy demand, an issue intensified by the recent economic crisis.

These issues must also be confronted within the context of climate change. With the government committed to reduce CO2 levels by 80% by 2050 , ecological housing projects focus on the energy reductions available through technological solutions. Whilst valid, the negative results of this myopic approach are reflected in the rebound effect, demonstrated by an increase in energy consumption when energy-efficiency improvements facilitate reduced service costs – encouraging more use. Energy use accounts for 17% of the carbon footprint of the average household. With 39% of energy use for travel and food production and higher environmental degradation , it’s clear that behavioural change to a more sustainable lifestyle should be encouraged. The individual lifestyles prevalent in today’s society manifested by materialism and overconsumption expedite both mental and physical health diseases and led to deterioration in community structures. By taking a more holistic approach to design and re-establishing the role of community is it possible to stimulate people’s behaviour positively towards the environment and their personal relationships with one another? Can a shared community context create resilience in the face of these challenges? A radical response to all of the above issues seems evident.

COHOUSING_PRINCIPLES

One such response could be cohousing. Cohousing is a form of intentional community that attempts to bring together individuals and families through shared aims and activities and the integration of communal utilities and facilities, whilst maintaining self-contained accommodation and personal space. Meltzer defines an intentional community is “a group of mostly unrelated people living together and dedicated by intent to specific common values or goals”. Inhabitants of cohousing tend to have a shared common ideology encapsulated in the importance of social interaction and creation of a sense of neighbourhood, with a diverse mix of age groups, families and singles. Cohousing’s origins lie in 1960’s Scandinavian, formed as a response to the breakdown of community. It quickly spread to other European countries such as The Netherlands and Germany before being picked up as far afield as the US, Canada and Australia. Take up within the UK has been particularly slow, making up only 0.6% of the UK’s housing supply, compared with 18% in Sweden, 15% in Norway, 8% in Austria and 6% in Germany .

Forming these communities from scratch allows members to have a greater say in the design and planning stages of the development. The prevailing design characteristics of cohousing are highlighted in the communal facilities. Typical shared amenities include: communal dining space, laundry, guest rooms, workshop, child crèche, and gardening equipment. A collective approach towards energy and food production, waste and water use and transport is adopted. Cohousing site layouts tends to be small clusters with a density of 20-40 residents although larger communities have been formed. Cars are restricted to the outlying areas allowing large outdoor spaces, safe for children and a key encourager of social interaction. More familiar housing design is visible in the individual homes (including kitchen space) with gardens allowing residents to maintain their privacy. Members of cohousing communities take a strong role in the organisation and day-to-day running of shared common facilities, usually achieved through a voluntary rotor system. Other sub-groups are formed with the responsibility of managing specific aspects of the community such as maintenance, facilities, sales, land-use, finance and social activities. Despite such organisational structures, developments are non-hierarchical and have no shared economy. Community decisions are usually made by open consensus, with a well-defined process in place. Although cohousing requires a level of commitment from its residents, the timescale involved in participation is not usually defined. Residents are free to sell up at any time, and new members are welcomed usually with a prerequisite of sharing the same aspirations as the existing community. This is normally facilitated through membership criteria and subscription.

The benefits of cohousing extend beyond the social. The potential for reducing environmental impact and economic savings are also palpable. The process of providing residents with shared access to facilities and services rather than individual ownership has implications on the consumption and living costs. Environmental literacy with regard to energy, water and waste practices noticeably increases through community engagement. Car-pooling, access to communal office space and social activities all act towards a reduction of travel requirements. Shared facilities allow space requirements for accommodation units to reduce and become more affordable. On average cohousing provides a saving of 31% in space, 57% in electricity and 8% in goods. If such a model could be adopted for large-scale housing, would forgoing the intrinsic ‘intentional’ dimension of the model diminish its ability to offer socially cohesive sustainable communities? Or in fact does the intentional aspect of cohousing restrict its ability to be a truly diverse model of housing, allowing access to people who have the money to invest in such developments for their own personal gain and who perhaps are already living quite sustainably.

GOVERNMENT_POLICY & INITIATIVES

Should it be considered a solution to the problems highlighted in the introduction, it would be prudent to identify who is best placed to deliver this model – the public or private sector. Within the UK, government and local authorities to a degree assumes responsibility for social and senior care and housing. The state takes a long-term view of development because they take on the responsibility of managing and maintaining local infrastructure and the public realm. This would appear to suggest that the public sector is more suited to the delivery of sustainable communities through their awareness of the experiences of the ageing population and those reliant on the welfare state.

A strong political consensus is required. Each mainstream political party in the UK recognises the current housing shortage and are committed to building more homes, but currently only the marginalised Green Party mentioned cohousing in their last election manifesto . This contradicts statements made by various commissions and reports by a number of government-funded bodies. The Independent Commission for Co-operative and Mutual Housing states “We call for an aim to be set that by 2030, each town, village and community should be able to offer cooperative and mutual housing options to potential residents”. This is a sentiment repeated by HAPPI and the New Horizons Research Programme . Cohousing could also be heavily incentivised by the creation of new legislation by Government and local authorities. This is already evident in the tightening of building energy standards being phased in currently to reduce the use of CO2 emissions, which already makes cohousing an attractive alternative. Coherent policies on sustainable housing based on creating sustainable lifestyles rather than simply green buildings would aid support this further. Design standards that accommodate change care and support needs allowing future-proofing of homes. Planning legislation could also be geared towards encouraging collaborative developments. Vauban in Germany is an example of alternatives can be taken to bring local communities and local planning departments together.

The current governments ‘Big Society’ ethos aims to provide a shift of power from centralised state to local communities. This devolving of control, funds and services to local social enterprises, charities, co ops, community groups, neighbourhoods and individuals could present an opportunity for proponents of cohousing by the loosening of planning restrictions and increase of funding. Amended planning laws could also allow the adaption of thousands of habitable empty properties and surplus public sector land and buildings for cohousing developments.

Municipal funding mechanisms could come directly in the form of grants and subsides to aid the establishment of new cohousing groups. Indirect funding could take the shape of tax rebates for cooperative networks. Financial support is key to ensuring that affordable cohousing is available to all and not only those with existing personal wealth. Providing access to social rented cohousing, perhaps including a rent-to-buy option or through mutual home ownership, could allow those from low-income backgrounds to benefit from cohousing. Existing social tenants who are new to cohousing could also be encouraged to engage with their new community by offering a 10% equity share in their social rented property. Housing associations also have a key role in developing social cohousing, an example indicated by Hanover who recently worked with three groups to develop and manage the UK’s first cohousing scheme for older people.

Local authorities have a vested interest in advertising attractive living conditions when attempting to entice people and businesses to move to or invest in its constituency. As aspirations of individual home ownership dwindle, greater value is transferred to quality of life and sense of community that cohousing can offer. As a more resilient housing model, the drain on the states resources would also be markedly less, as care services and maintenance could be integrated within the community. This is a viewpoint taken in many other countries, where local authorities are allowed to compete for housing development due to its potential benefits for local services . Cohousing’s relatively small land footprint and increased density also provide councils with savings in terms of land costs and land use, alleviating space that could be made available for other infrastructure projects.

Although demand for social housing is so high, vacancy filling could be problematic, especially when a community seeks residents who conform to established interests and motivations. Cooperative rental tenure can ensure that any applicant is fully aware of their responsibilities before accepting the place. General awareness and availability of information regarding cohousing would also have to be promoted by local authorities in an attempt to combat prejudices surrounding such communities. Even after intense planning, the delivery of the building will be in the hands of the house-builder, who’s positioning within ‘the market’ may require them to restrict supply and optimise sale prices rather than meeting community needs.

DEVELOPER_LED

Could the private sector become the main provider of cohousing? It certainly has some speciality skills in terms of technical and legal competence, and the building of a shared community does not always require a new form of building organisation. The main pitfall associated with developer-led cohousing is the main motivation behind most volume house builder’s developments; market profitability. Over time, volume house builders have concentrated on driving down construction costs rather than creating greater value. When considering all costs involved in construction, it is clear that developer’s burden most if not all of the up-front costs before any completed units are occupied. There is also an element of risk associated with house building should the uptake of units not materialise as witnessed in the recent economic downturn which saw a number of house builders go out of business. On the reverse side, when profitable, this short-term capital growth investment market provides house builders and their investors with substantial returns. Should these companies take a more long-term view, a steady but more modest revenue flow could be achieved, reducing risk but increasing financial stability. By not maintaining a long-term interest in their sites, they have little interest in optimising design beyond any immediate cost implications. The perceived extra cost or loss of potential revenue associated with common areas is one problem highlighted by developers. Hansen & Wachter argues that if an investor considers how much floor space in an ecological house can they obtain for a certain price, the resultant reduction in floor space and therefore savings in building costs can be then used to finance community facilities. This argument becomes more relevant as regulations regarding energy efficiency take hold.

There are a number of incentives for developers to instigate cohousing. The high quality of life achieved and effective land-use with regards to density would be a strong argument when responding to planning guidelines. Costs are also reduced by low occupant turnover and a reduction in maintenance. A large undivided site also presents developers with the economies of scale required for energy efficient technologies. If they are successful in creating cohesive cohousing communities, is there a long-term opportunity to create a brand based on community creation? If developers need an incentive to invest long-term in communities, there may be some rational for the sharing of any capital gains received when units are re-sold to new residents should demand increase and house prices rise.
Property developers are already active in producing ecologically orientated settlements, but as previously stated, with a concentration solely on technical solutions. Traditional housing companies tend to trust only conventional housing solutions, and may take any opportunity to alter designs and endanger the collective nature of cohousing. How can developers be encouraged to pursue more social goals? Presently most housing development is built on a speculative basis; however cohousing requires participants to play an active part in the planning process. Perhaps by working in tandem with established cohousing organisations developers could form a design framework for potential schemes, find prospective residents, thus reducing sales risks and marketing costs. One potential role could be in the education and promotion of cohousing to prospective purchasers about the benefits of cohousing. Currently, projects are abandon the moment it is handed over to the new owner. But by again taking a longer-term role, developers could educate new owners not only in the operation of the new energy-saving technologies, but also aid in the setting up of the local management groups overseeing the day-to-day running of the community or even diversify into estate management. Also, by allowing access of shared facilities to the wider community, better relations can be created with the public and a new revenue stream created. Could developers become community landlords or would this diminish community relations?

NEEDS_BASED

As the demographic evidence suggests, people are indeed living longer, but are also remaining more active. Many people continue to work beyond the state retirement age. In could be argued that those who are still capable of working but chose not to increase the strain on the welfare state. Many elderly desire to remain as independent as possible for as long as possible. One major barrier to this is mental health. The number of people with dementia is set to double to 1.4 million over the next 30 years and the costs to the UK economy will go from £17billion to £50billion . The breakdown of extended family support has led to a reliance on the current system of elderly care homes and sheltered housing, which provides some level of security and care but yet can sometimes neglect the isolation and loneliness felt by their inhabitants. By surrounding elderly people with more elderly people, an out of sight out of mind mentality can prevail – hence why there is a fear of being 'put in a home'. Elderly people benefit considerably from the company of younger people, and from living near and seeing children. Providers of social care are increasingly interested in creating inclusive, non-institutional environments, where residents retain control. A national government strategy calls for “greater innovation from developers and new perspectives on inclusive design for lifetime neighbourhoods”. Cohousing could appeal to older people in particular. The elderly housing panel HAPPI highlighted several examples of cohousing in Europe and recommended that “co-housing models be supported, where a group of households meet their own needs”.

Although there will always be a requirement for high-level care of the elderly with severe physical or mental issues, low birth rates could see a shortage in future generations skilled care workers. A rise in immigration may also be required to deal with this need, itself presenting social cohesion issues. Today’s growing numbers of single parents and one person households underline a need for social support and access to social togetherness.

Could cohousing offer a housing form suited for elderly in need of daily care and provide an opportunity for integration of other isolated segments of society? This has been already put in practice in Munksogaard, Denmark, where young and old have been brought together under one cohousing development . Rather than rely on social care mechanisms to provide a social life for the elderly, a community structure seen in cohousing could provide an informal level of support. Specialist caregivers could also be provided with a home within the community and could play an active part in the planning of any developments. Both child and parent would benefit in the context of cohousing. As single parents attempt to find a work/life balance, on-site crèche facilities could provide necessary support whilst ensure a diverse environment for elderly residents. Cohousing can also be adapted to facilitate individual customs and practices seen in immigrant communities, educating local people and breaking down stereotypes.

The success of inclusive housing depends on how effectively managers can build a sense of community by encouraging residents to attend planning meetings and participate in decision making. This may pose challenges in light of the physical and mental impairment experienced by many elderly residents – therefore it is imperative that all age groups are involved.

CONCLUSION

As our resources dwindle and our materialistic lifestyle become less affordable, greater weight will lie in quality of life standards. With housing this can only be achieved through the creation of places with community rather than purely building greener homes. The long-term rise in fossil fuel prices and tightening of building regulations adds further viability to cohousing, but more coherent planning legislation and financial incentives are required.

Neither the public nor private sectors are ideally placed to provide cohousing, but yet both have a lot to offer in terms of ensuring that cohousing no longer remains a relative luxury that only consciously-minded citizens with strong fiscal backing can afford or that it develops into a new form of gated community. Therefore a partnership between developers, housing associations and local authorities should be encouraged, and the participation of sections of the public who will benefit from these developments is crucial. The Netherlands has already brought the public and private sectors together to deliver a cohousing scheme in Amersfoort . Elements of co-operative use are already beginning to break through in the UK, affecting where we shop, work, bank, and travel, as seen by the popularity of car clubs. This ethos needs to be introduced to mainstream housing provision. Prototype needs-based cohousing models could be rolled out across the UK in an effort to demonstrate the virtues of investing in diverse sustainable communities. For the public sector this would provide an alternative production of personal services, and for developers, a long-term financially stable housing model.

Perhaps the cohousing model requires adaption for 21st century lifestyles and aspirations? With a high percentage of the housing stock requiring retrofitting, can the cohousing model be applied to existing communities where social cohesion has failed? Radicals in the 1960s formed the original cohousing concept – the very age group now reaching their senior years. Can they once again help define progressive agendas for housing?

21.04.11 Feedback

Our last day in Findhorn – quite a melancholy feeling and I'm curious to how my perception of things has changed since being here. Our last council meeting was a sombre but yet heartwarming moment, it really does feel special to be the first to be on this course and to see our lecturers get so much out of all the hard work they put into the course. It was important for us all to give our feedback, but unfortunately I do feel sometimes that feedback can focus too heavily on the parts that didn't work and not enough on the parts that did. These can sometimes seem a little more elusive and it can be harder to acknowledge, but I do believe that in the following days, months and years I will continue to get something more out of what I have learned in the last 3 weeks, and the friendships I have made. Just knowing that I have a connection now with a place like Findhorn is something very special in itself. Something that I can take into my personal and professional life, whenever things do seem difficult, I can always remember the possibilities and the peace that are in abundance here.

20.04.11 Design Charette and Presentations

Another really busy day – getting up at 7am to meet and start work again. I'm really happy about how we are working together; Abdul is doing some really great hand drawn graphics; Meli is researching local materials and compiling images; Jane is coming up with the energy and water strategy while I have been working on some house and site images and the permaculture design. Our hard work has paid too, we managed to get finished an hour before the presentations began which gave us an opportunity to grab some fresh air and visit the beach once again. This really helped us stay calm beforehand and gain some perspective before delivering our work. It was really interesting to see the contrasts between the different groups work. They definitely progressed since the last time, and they took a more conceptial direction that ourselves. They did seem a little disorganised, but they had clearly given a lot of thought into their design concept. It would have been interesting to mix our groups up and see what we would have come up with if we had more time and combined their concepts with our more holistic approach to the site. I found their designs interesting, if a little unpractical and expensive to construct. But as Pano put well, in Findhorn you come up with the ideas first, then how to build them.

I felt our presentation went well – we covered most bases (although ran out of time almost) and we all participated in delivering the project. We all had each others backs though, interacting when we felt that someone had missed something out and dealing with any quesitons thrown at us. I think given the time allocated we did a pretty good job, and it did really feel like a team effort which was important. Having members of the community there really made the project feel a bit more real, and their feedback was very honest. I think everyone felt quite numb afterwards, but our course leaders did an excellent job of re-energising us afterwards. Giving us our marks too was a really great reward, it's good to know quickly that all our efforts have paid off and that in some way we have given the community some ideas to play with in exchange for all the ideas they have given us.