Tag: community housing

  • HPH335 : Designing an intentional community – with Anne Thorne

    HPH335 : Designing an intentional community – with Anne Thorne

    Anne Thorne talks through the architectural design process of Cannock Mill Cohousing community.

    Interview with Anne Thorne

    We first featured Cannock Mill Cohousing in a podcast with Phil McGeevor, the Chair of the group, who explained how the group formed and the process they followed. Another key member of that group, Anne Thorne, is not only the architect who designed the scheme but also a resident of their cohousing community. Anne became an architect at a time when only 5% in that profession were female, and felt that as well as a lack of representation in the studio, there was generally a lack of consultation with women in the design process. She emphasises the importance of consultation, really listening to and understanding people’s ideas and designing in an environmentally conscious way.

    Cohousing is an intentional community

    It is a community where people come to live together, but in their own independent homes. There is a common house where residents can meet, cook, watch TV together, party etc. It also has bedrooms where guests can stay. By sharing lots of facilities, the intention is that residents can have a smaller home of their own.

    Beyond the common house, they also grow produce together and have a travel club for car and lift-sharing.

    Discreet spaces are as important as shared ones

    Each house or flat owner has their own outdoor space, whether that’s a balcony or a small terraced garden. Discreet spaces have also been designed into the community areas, with seating in parts of the garden if people are looking for privacy.

    10 years of looking for a site will see people pull out!

    Searching for a suitable and mutually agreeable site can be a lengthy process, but the point at which they selected the site (10 years on) was actually the point at which several people decided to pull out. Reasons included location, risk and budget.

    “And in fact, eight of us bought the site, eight households that is, which cost 1.2 million. That was a really big step for everybody to put up that money. People got mortgages on their houses, did all sorts of things in order to make that happen, which was a fantastic leap of faith really, and one that lots of people couldn’t make.”

    A particular risk at that time was that only eight households paid for the site: a site which had planning for 23 homes, and would need to be developed with 23 homes.

    A series of sub-groups report to the main board

    These sub-groups included legal, finance and building. They would all report to the main board which was responsible for decision-making.

    Once Anne Thorne Architects had been appointed, Anne distanced herself entirely from the committees and groups that dealt with finance or decision-making around anything that might affect her tenure as the architect. Luckily for her, many people on the building sub-group, which acted as the client, had experience of being clients in big organisations and understood what her role was and the complexities of keeping that separate from her involvement as a member of the community. Both she and the building group for example, were very clear that she wouldn’t be involved in any of the voting around building matters.

    The building group were also insistent that if anyone wanted changes making to their houses, that they raise it with the group and Anne directly, rather than the builders on site. It would have been easy for a member to tell a builder that they didn’t like the flooring, and the builder then to assume that meant the flooring was changing for everyone!

    Developers will be competing to buy the same site

    One of the reasons that the search was protracted, was that as soon as they found a suitably flat and workable site, it would be snapped up by a developer. What held them back as a group was they couldn’t move fast enough with their finances. They also lost out on sites because developers and housing associations already had links with the local authorities.

    They didn’t want an isolated site

    The group’s main criteria for a site was that it should:

    • have planning for between 15 and 30 dwellings
    • be located within an hour and a half from London
    • be well located for local facilities without needing a car

    After 10 years of searching, they found the Cannock Mill site on Right Move. They knew it would have its challenges (it was steep and fairly waterlogged), but it also housed a lovely mill, was a 20 minute walk into Colchester, with countryside walks, village shops and a bus stop at the doorstep.

    The houses were designed to Lifetime Home Standards

    With the original eight households needing to decide what size and layout future members might want, they decided to design the houses to Lifetime Home Standards, and the minimum housing sizes of the Greater London Authority standards.

    This meant that they were more generously sized than developer homes, but perhaps not as generous as if a private client might build for themselves.

    Accessibility was a key consideration and all the three-storey houses have space for a lift to be installed. Bathrooms are large enough to be accessible, with the adaptability of being able to install a hoist if necessary in the future.

    Standardised finishes were used across all the houses

    This meant they all had bamboo flooring, were painted white, and had the same baths/showers, taps and basins. By all agreeing to have the same finishes, they understood it would be a lot cheaper and more sustainable. Members would be free to redecorate if they wanted to afterwards.

    Prices exceeded the contingency sum by 1%

    With such a long time between concept and delivery of the scheme, budgets inevitably changed considerably. Prices on site also went up, not least because building work overran by a year.

    There was also a very steep learning curve with builders and sub-contractors having never worked on a Passivhaus scheme before. In hindsight for example, Anne says that they should have insisted on the suppliers of the triple-glazed windows and doors doing the installation.

    The scheme is on piled foundations

    With spring water and a pond on the site, a lot of work has been undertaken to direct the water. Being so wet and with variable ground conditions, the scheme uses piled foundations over 25 metres deep in places. A concrete slab, insulation and screed sit on top of the foundations.

    The timber frame is faced on both sides with either wood fibre board or plywood. The inner face has an airtight layer of smart ply with newspaper insulation blown through. It is finished with a wood fibre panel and coloured render. With a colour palette to choose from, residents had to negotiate with their neighbour to make sure they didn’t have the same colour!

    The roof construction is designed to absorb almost as much water as the site did before the houses were built. This also means that they have a reduction in their water bills because no water goes into the surface drains from the houses.

    Upside-down living takes advantage of the daylight

    With a steep north-facing slope, everyone had concerns that the living rooms wouldn’t have enough daylight. So, the houses were designed with open plan kitchen / living rooms on the top floor. They all face the communal house too.

    Listed status on the mill prevented it from being a Passivhaus retrofit

    The conservation officer wouldn’t allow any changes of the windows. Instead, they’ve used secondary glazing. The larch timber boarding was removed and insulation fitted between the studs. An airtightness layer was added to allow the structure to breathe, before insulated board was put on top and the cladding returned. The wood burning stove they fitted has been largely redundant, because it’s so well insulated.

    People have invested in the community, not just the scheme

    Because people have been involved from the beginning, they have also been invested in their faith and understanding of each other. They have got to know and trust one another. They have had to develop ways of working together. Although Anne acknowledges, being such a consolidated community can make it slightly harder for newcomers.

    Find out more

    Visit the website of Anne Thorne Architects

    Get information about cohousing from the UK Cohousing Network

    One to check out from our archives: Can a straw bale house reach Passivhaus standard? – with Fran Bradshaw from Anne Thorne Architects

    Transcript

    Other podcasts about cohousing

    The benefits of joining a cohousing development (Marmalade Lane Cohousing)

    How to make a cohousing scheme a reality (Cannock Mill Cohousing)

    Setting up a cohousing scheme (Marmalade Lane Cohousing)

    Low impact living affordable community (LILAC)

    How cohousing helps build a community (Lancaster Cohousing)

    Please connect with us

    Subscribe, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts

    Like our Facebook page

    Follow us on Twitter

  • HPH291 : Having the freedom to build what you want – with Werner Brouwer

    HPH291 : Having the freedom to build what you want – with Werner Brouwer

    Werner Brouwer explains why being able to build a house without restrictions in Oosterwold is also about working together to build a community.

    Interview with Werner Brouwer

    Since its conception 50 years ago, there has been much interest in the Oosterwold development of the Almere area in the Netherlands.

    From the first houses being built around five years ago, there are now around 500 houses, from a total of 15,000 which are expected to be built.

    Werner Brouwer works for the municipality of Almere as Director of Development at Oosterwold.

    “The very special thing is you can choose anything you want, but the difficulty is you have to choose.”

    Without many regulations in place, or indeed a designer or planning officer, decisions need to be made by the residents. While this appears on the face of it to be an exciting prospect, it does leave them with the problem of having to make those decisions, even if they’re difficult to do. For example, with even the road-building needing to be self-organised, it is left for future neighbours to cooperate together.

    “That’s not an easy part because everyone has a different budget, different ideas, and you have to come to one end.”

    The difficulty is not in building the house

    Building the house, or getting someone in to design and build it for you, can actually be relatively easy, in comparison to other aspects of being a homeowner at the Oosterwold site. For most people, it will be the first time they have done something like this, and what they are finding is that it took a lot more time and was considerably more difficult than they thought. As novices, trying to find out how to go about building roads and wastewater treatment systems, and particularly in collaboration with your future neighbours, can be extremely challenging and time-consuming.

    Road building can be a contentious issue

    At Oosterwold, when you buy a plot you will have a drawing that shows where the road will need to go. As you can only start building your house once you have a road, you are dependent on that cooperation with your neighbours for getting the road built. While this can be a chance to bond with them, it can also lead to tensions.

    There are some regulations about the dimensions to ensure it is suitable for emergency vehicle access, but beyond that it is for the neighbours of their particular area to agree on what it is going to be made from, and how to divide the cost. They could decide the percentages will be based on the number of houses, the size of the plot, income, number of cars owned, etc.

    Werner is already involved in a legal procedure where people are in dispute about the road.

    “People choose things that are not common, and you have to fit in with them”

    Plots are allocated in sequence along rows, so when you see a plot you like you have to contact the one there before you. It is the nature of the development that people might want something outside of the norm, but in order to achieve that there has to be collaboration with your new neighbours. For example, if someone wants a circular plot, they will need to find someone that wants a concave plot for next door.

    The freedom to make their own choices means there is a lot of diversity, with houses being built out of straw, car tyres, wood, steel, and shipping containers, all next to each other. With no say about what your neighbour can build, it’s a development that might not suit everyone!

    Community sustainability contributes to the conscience of behaviour

    Sustainability in terms of energy consumption is generally done at an individual level, but a big focus is on developing a sustainable community. As part of this there is an obligation to contribute 50% of each plot to city farming for food production. This could be by way of keeping sheep, planting fruit trees or a vineyard.

    Wastewater and sewerage is also dealt with locally in the development, with residents being responsible for their own treatment systems. One positive that comes out of this is it has meant that individuals at Oosterwold have an awareness of the circularity of water and what their own needs are.

    However, lessons have been learned that it’s actually a very technical solution so they are planning for the government to take back some of the responsibility for the wastewater treatment.

    The process is the same for schools and public transport

    With a development of this size there will need to be community facilities, but these follow the same rules as for the house building. In Holland, there is a financial deal whereby if an initiative and backing are raised to build a school, then the government will have to pay for it. But that initiative, like all the others, will have to take its turn, be involved in the road building for that section, and provide the necessary agricultural space.

    Developers are not allowed!

    Werner accepts that while sometimes developers could do it better or faster, this provides an alternative for people who don’t want to live in a standard home. With a shortfall of one million houses that need to be built in the country, Oosterwold draws on the experience gained from fast development at Almere to offer choice for those that would like to build a house themselves.

    Time needs to be taken to implement lessons learned

    With Oosterwold covering an area of 4,300 hectares, Werner says one of their objectives is about slowing down development. If 1,000 people rush into building, it could mean 1,000 mistakes being made. Better to let it move at a slower pace and have time to respond to issues.

    There is currently an evaluation taking place looking at what has gone well, what has gone wrong and what could be done better.

    Find out more

    Find out more about Oosterwold

    Transcript

    Please connect with me

    Subscribe, rate and review the podcast in iTunes

    Rate and review the podcast on Stitcher

    Like our Facebook page

    Follow us on Twitter