Have conscience, will build
Editor's note: This article is excerpted from Superbia! by Dave Wann, an anthology of stories and photographs about daily life in dozens of different cohousing communities. (Fulcrum Books, 2004)
Like a flame draws a moth, cohousing attracts a certain type of house builder. Somewhere in the back of our minds we think we can save the world, our country or at least our hometown from environmental and social degradation through the quality of the housing - and communities - we create. This challenge keeps many of us going in an industry full of political adversity and economic risk.
In 1989, Ed Trunk, a friend, fellow homebuilder and founding member of Nyland Cohousing in Lafayette, CO, approached me with the idea that I might want to help develop Colorado's first cohousing community. He thought cohousing and I would be a nice fit because my company had built several planned communities in Boulder, including the city's first planned community with a homeowners association and common areas.
During the late 1970s and early 80s, we had constructed some innovative solar and energy-efficient housing, collaborating with the U.S. Department of Energy to the tune of $250,000 in solar grants. All of this played well with members of the cohousing community that later became Nyland.
When I met them, the future Nyland community consisted of more than 20 members, mostly pro-active, relatively highly educated individuals in their late 20s to mid 70s, with a wide range of talents and expertise. There were architects, educators, therapists, artisans, business owners, retired military and at least one builder. Collectively they had taken the leap and gathered enough resources to option a 42-acre former farm in eastern Boulder County.
In earlier days, a family with Danish roots, the Nylands, had farmed the land. Since the roots of American cohousing also are in Denmark, I thought this was very appropriate.
I was intrigued when Ed described the concept of cohousing, which includes a strong commitment to green building and sustainable living. I bought and speed-read Katie McCamant and Chuck Durrett's book titled Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves. This idea looked like a breakthrough in developing a market for more environmentally progressive housing.
I was eager to work with the cohousing group to create a method to develop their community. Maybe they could become a model for other, similar communities. The cohousing project was very much resident-driven - basically a group of people who wanted to design and build their own neighborhood, and do a better job than conventional builders.
As a custom builder, I've observed that designing and building one's own house is a monumental endeavor that few people have the energy to attempt. Of those that do, many are tortured for years by the process. The decision-making alone is enough to break up a good marriage.
Designing and building a whole neighborhood of homes seemed like an overwhelming task for a diverse group of households. As I began to work with the Nyland group, I saw the potential power of community to change the way Americans live, moving us in a more sustainable direction.
Rethinking "The American Dream"
Modern housing for the majority of Americans traces its roots to early production models of suburban housing created by the Levitt brothers and other builders after World War II. The mass production mindset, which brought our country so much success in winning the war, evolved naturally to create the prosperity of the 1950s and 60s. What some call "The American Dream" began to blossom. Like most success stories, however, too much of a good thing creates problems.
We began to see long commutes, other traffic issues and the "collision" of automobiles with neighborhoods. It's hard to get to know your neighbor when you're inside a car or she's disappearing into her garage with the door closing behind her like a drawbridge.
Solutions to alleviate the negative impact of automobiles began to emerge in the 70s and the 80s. We've seen more planned developments and communities where open space and common facilities are incorporated into neighborhoods. In the past 10 years, new urbanism has emerged as a strong force in making our developments more livable.
Cohousing adds a whole new dimension. Instead of designing housing that simply offers a more attractive and resource-efficient product, we are co-designing neighborhoods with the people who plan to live there. Future residents help decide where to place the children's playground and what kind of building materials to use. They tap into the synergies that inevitably arise when many creative minds focus on a single project. They make a commitment to live a more sustainable, satisfying lifestyle together, sharing not only common facilities but also their experiences, talents and aspirations.
The Nyland Community debunked this myth when the first buyers chose their homes. A site with the best view of the mountains was chosen first, even though it was located more than 100 yards from parking. In fact, all of the sites with the highest premiums (perceived to be ideal locations) were the furthest distance from the parking lots - so much for conventional suburban expectations!
The Nyland community, like other groups we've worked with since, included several strong-willed interest groups. Among them were avid environmentalists who wanted their future community to be a model for sustainable living.
Other individuals who had much knowledge and interest in building the social aspects of the community spoke passionately about concepts like raising children in a nurturing environment. For many others, affordability of their future homes was foremost. They needed to participate in a program that delivered high quality at prices near the conventional market rates.
Due to their unique nature, the nation's first cohousing communities faced unusual challenges. A nagging perception persisted that cohousing communities were communes. I can't count the number of headlines for newspaper articles that included the words, "communes of the 90s."
Another common belief, which affected the financing of early projects, was that American homebuyers would not accept homes that didn't have attached garages or parking very close to the house. This mix of needs, knowledge and commitment led to a very pragmatic approach for creating a resource-efficient neighborhood. We used many green building methods, including framing techniques that conserved lumber, structural components made with manufactured wood and a variety of water conservation solutions for homes and landscapes.
As a result of our efforts, the Public Service Company of Colorado honored Nyland as the state's most energy-efficient new development.
We also obtained grants from the EPA and the Colorado Office of Energy Conservation that funded tests of the air quality inside Nyland homes. The tests were performed immediately after completion and several months after occupancy. The homes at Nyland showed significantly lower levels of indoor air pollutants than a group of comparable new homes built at the same time.
Innovative, low-cost fresh-air ventilating systems, paints that emitted fewer fumes and carpeting made from recycled materials were contributing factors for the lower pollution levels. One of the most important differences, however, was that Nyland's homes didn't have attached garages, while standard homes experienced significant pollution from automobiles and the chemicals associated with them.
Substances that occupants brought into homes, such as furnishings and household cleaners, caused the most significant rise in indoor air pollutants during the subsequent tests. These results indicated that lifestyle choices, such as the kind of household chemicals a person chooses or whether a car is parked in an attached garage, may be as important as the way the house is built. The cohousing community process influences these lifestyle choices, because households learn from each other and adopt behaviors that become part of their mission and "community culture."
Nyland also implemented an aggressive recycling program and transportation programs that resulted in one-third fewer vehicle trips in and out of the neighborhood than comparable developments, as tested by the City of Lafayette.
These various efforts resulted in an exemplary sustainable neighborhood of quality homes that had been built for only 5 percent above the typical production homebuilding budget.
The community process provides the energy that drives the change. When developing a cohousing community, it helps to work with knowledgeable professionals who are willing to "push the envelope." At Nyland, these professionals ranged from Matt Worswick, the primary designer who brought practical green building experience, to the trades people who took the extra care and learned new, innovative techniques.
Nyland was ahead of its time. Many green building techniques that we used 10 years ago are now common in good quality production housing throughout the Denver area because they make common sense. A group of future neighbors who worked through a functional community consensus process successfully challenged and changed the paradigm. Their commitment to green building energized all of us and made us feel we were a part of the community and its underlying vision.
In the last 15 years of developing cohousing communities, I've seen a very tangible dynamic that occurs when people cooperate to build their community and reach an understanding of how they will live together. If cohousing is, at its core, about "building a better world, one neighborhood at a time," then the world already has been improved by 60 or 70 neighborhoods, with many more on the way.
