Monday, December 21, 2015
Bay Area Regional Planner - a board game on housing and zoning
While sharing spaces allows existing buildings to house more people, the housing demand in the Bay Area is so great that significant amounts of new construction will be needed as well. In the next 25 years, around 2 million new homes are needed just to keep up with estimated job and population growth, while even more will be needed to bring rents down. Where should it go? Try to figure it out in my latest board game, Bay Area Regional Planner.
-Alfred
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Campus CoLiving closes
Campus CoLiving, the company that master leased large houses and then rented out individual rooms, has announced that it is closing at the end of August. The reason? The business model was not economically viable (it wasn't making money).
I wrote about them in a previous post. Let's revisit their business model: It involved:
- Master leasing houses in high priced neighborhoods
- Charging $1000-2200 for a room (less than what one would pay for a bedroom in a 3-bedroom apartment)
- Providing furniture, hot tub, other amenities, kitchen staples, cleaning services, conflict resolution and social activities.
It's the extras that probably tipped their business model into the unprofitable zone. In most communal living spaces, residents do a few hours of cleaning work every week, pool their own money for food and parties, and furniture and amenities are often from the free section of craigslist.
What is the future of these houses? It is unknown what will happen when the master leases expire. If current residents are willing to put in their own time and money to offset the cleaning goodies that Campus used to provide, one option would be for them to negotiate an extension of the lease with the building owner. On the other hand, maybe the type of people that move there would not live communally without the amenities. We'll know in a few months...
I wrote about them in a previous post. Let's revisit their business model: It involved:
- Master leasing houses in high priced neighborhoods
- Charging $1000-2200 for a room (less than what one would pay for a bedroom in a 3-bedroom apartment)
- Providing furniture, hot tub, other amenities, kitchen staples, cleaning services, conflict resolution and social activities.
It's the extras that probably tipped their business model into the unprofitable zone. In most communal living spaces, residents do a few hours of cleaning work every week, pool their own money for food and parties, and furniture and amenities are often from the free section of craigslist.
What is the future of these houses? It is unknown what will happen when the master leases expire. If current residents are willing to put in their own time and money to offset the cleaning goodies that Campus used to provide, one option would be for them to negotiate an extension of the lease with the building owner. On the other hand, maybe the type of people that move there would not live communally without the amenities. We'll know in a few months...
Sunday, February 15, 2015
A highrise of co-ops
With highrise apartments being common, why I don't live in one? Well,
#1) I can't afford to and #2) with most condos being 1 bedroom or 2
bedroom units, there are no options on the market that offer communal
living.
The sketches below are an idea that blends communal living (loosely based on Loth in Berkeley) and stacks several communities in a single building. Compared to a regular tower, there are twice the number of bedrooms, half the per-bedroom cost, and lots of spaces for social interaction. To address the management issues previous high rise communities of this type faced, this design separates the building into individual communities of 50-90 people: small enough to know everyone, large enough to keep things lively. One of these 2 to 3 story communities could also be made by remodeling a few floors of an office building.
When a region's most beloved streets are done in a quirky Victorian or Craftsperson style, shouldn't its biggest buildings also be something other than a glass box?
Click images to enlarge
Design is based on Loth and also previous Victorian highrise design used in the Hanging Gardens of San Francisco story.
Can it work?
This is a rare but not unprecedented building type. The first batch were built in the 1960s.
In the last decade, this idea has returned. Learning from past mistakes, these new communities divide the building into several communities of manageable size. In addition, the market has changed. Whereas in the mid 20th century, massive investment in public housing and new suburbs kept housing costs low elsewhere, today, the housing market lacks supply in most desirable cities. The green movement has also given living small mainstream appeal. Finally, a rising age of marriage and childbirth means a longer segment of time living single.
As a result, communal living is no longer just for young hippies or a last resort for the urban poor, it now appeals to a large section of the middle class, and has the potential to take on the attributes of middle class housing: socially acceptable, easy to finance, and boring in a good way.
The sketches below are an idea that blends communal living (loosely based on Loth in Berkeley) and stacks several communities in a single building. Compared to a regular tower, there are twice the number of bedrooms, half the per-bedroom cost, and lots of spaces for social interaction. To address the management issues previous high rise communities of this type faced, this design separates the building into individual communities of 50-90 people: small enough to know everyone, large enough to keep things lively. One of these 2 to 3 story communities could also be made by remodeling a few floors of an office building.
When a region's most beloved streets are done in a quirky Victorian or Craftsperson style, shouldn't its biggest buildings also be something other than a glass box?
Click images to enlarge
Design is based on Loth and also previous Victorian highrise design used in the Hanging Gardens of San Francisco story.
Can it work?
This is a rare but not unprecedented building type. The first batch were built in the 1960s.
Anhua Lou, Beijing, China - an urban commune built in the 1960s, had a single dining hall for several hundred people. The common spaces were later divided into regular apartments a changing society led to de-collectivization of living arrangements.
Rochdale College, Toronto, Canada - built in the 1960s as student housing, this 18-story building had management problems that led to a high vacancy rate. It was converted into regular apartments in the late 1970s. In the last decade, this idea has returned. Learning from past mistakes, these new communities divide the building into several communities of manageable size. In addition, the market has changed. Whereas in the mid 20th century, massive investment in public housing and new suburbs kept housing costs low elsewhere, today, the housing market lacks supply in most desirable cities. The green movement has also given living small mainstream appeal. Finally, a rising age of marriage and childbirth means a longer segment of time living single.
As a result, communal living is no longer just for young hippies or a last resort for the urban poor, it now appeals to a large section of the middle class, and has the potential to take on the attributes of middle class housing: socially acceptable, easy to finance, and boring in a good way.
Super Co-op, Austin, Texas - a student housing cooperative, built in the 2000s, that has 3 stacked communities.
1532 Harrison, San Francisco - a proposed CoLiving project in San Francisco's SOMA district. Thursday, February 5, 2015
Campus Coliving - large master-leased houses for communal living
Property management company Campus Coliving master-leases large (most are 5 to 9 bedroom) apartments and houses, and then leases out the rooms individually month-to-month. What makes them different than a typical manager though is the services they provide, which include:
Education and training
To help people new to communal living learn how to do it, they have a Living with Housemates Guide (PDF) that gives suggestions on decision making, chore sharing, food sharing, guest policies, etc. It feels similar to the Berkeley Student Cooperative's Owners' Manual (PDF), with a few notable differences.
Any side effects?
This being the Bay Area, there's been concern on the effects this type of housing might have on housing costs for everyone else, though Campus CEO Tom Currier states that no evictions are taking place when he opens the houses.
So who is this type of housing competing against? Not so much ad hoc communities, who are likely to look for older, cheaper buildings. Most likely, wealthy couples. Most families don't have enough people to need 5 or more bedrooms, but there's a certain prestige in having a nice house. Several working people without children are going to outbid most individuals or couples.
Is senior coliving next?
While right now the main market for this type of housing is people in their 20s, the serviced house model could also be a great way to do senior housing. Senior cohousing, where residents have individual kitchens and bathrooms, already exists. Senior shared houses would be lower cost and also lower the cost of home health care. The UK is ahead of us on this one, with 10-20 room "boutique nursing homes" recently opening, combining the less institutional atmosphere that comes with a small size with the economies of scale of multiple residents.
Closing thoughts on household size
Throughout most of history the typical household has had a size of 10-20 people, and perhaps the nuclear families, couples, and singles of the 20th century are a historical anomaly, when transportation and migration moved faster than society could catch up.
- Roommate matching
- Common space furniture, kitchen appliances, and supplies
- Cleaning service
- Community mentoring services (such as event planning and communication facilitation)
Education and training
To help people new to communal living learn how to do it, they have a Living with Housemates Guide (PDF) that gives suggestions on decision making, chore sharing, food sharing, guest policies, etc. It feels similar to the Berkeley Student Cooperative's Owners' Manual (PDF), with a few notable differences.
- Whereas the BSC has most policies (such as food budgets and hours of housework per week each resident owes) decided already, Campus leaves many up for each house to decide on their own.
- The BSC manual has a section on why co-ops are awesome and the history of cooperatives, while the Campus guide doesn't try to sell the concept - it just dives into the practical stuff.
Any side effects?
This being the Bay Area, there's been concern on the effects this type of housing might have on housing costs for everyone else, though Campus CEO Tom Currier states that no evictions are taking place when he opens the houses.
So who is this type of housing competing against? Not so much ad hoc communities, who are likely to look for older, cheaper buildings. Most likely, wealthy couples. Most families don't have enough people to need 5 or more bedrooms, but there's a certain prestige in having a nice house. Several working people without children are going to outbid most individuals or couples.
Is senior coliving next?
While right now the main market for this type of housing is people in their 20s, the serviced house model could also be a great way to do senior housing. Senior cohousing, where residents have individual kitchens and bathrooms, already exists. Senior shared houses would be lower cost and also lower the cost of home health care. The UK is ahead of us on this one, with 10-20 room "boutique nursing homes" recently opening, combining the less institutional atmosphere that comes with a small size with the economies of scale of multiple residents.
Closing thoughts on household size
Throughout most of history the typical household has had a size of 10-20 people, and perhaps the nuclear families, couples, and singles of the 20th century are a historical anomaly, when transportation and migration moved faster than society could catch up.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
How not to start a co-op: Gentrification at 1040 Folsom Street
One of the unfortunate side effects of the rising popularity of communal living among middle and upper income people is that certain types of housing, once thought to be gentrification-proof, are now on the front lines.
1040 Folsom Street in San Francisco is one such example. Former a SRO (single room occupancy) residential hotel, the three story, 10,000 square foot building was gutted by a fire in 2011, displacing 90 residents. The building, built in 1912, is subject to rent control regulations, which specifies that displaced residents have the right to re-rent their rooms at the original price after repairs are made.
The building owner instead master-leased the property to The Negev, a property management startup that converted the building into a high-end co-op targeted towards tech workers. Rent was doubled from $634 to $1250 for a room. The Negev also reduced the number of rooms to 40, using the additional space for bars, game rooms, theaters, and other recreational facilities.
While The Negev attempted to buy out the former residents, not all of them took the $500 buyout offer. The Negev proceeded to rent out the entire building anyway. About a month after the new residents had moved in, some of the old residents noticed, and filed complaints and lawsuits.
You can look up complaints via San Francisco's Property Information Map - just enter 1040 Folsom Street.
At this point, the situation looks bad all around - not only is the building essentially double-booked, but as the number of bedrooms has decreased, even if it were vacated, it would be impossible to rehouse all the old residents.
Broader Implications
While The Negev and other similar tech co-ops have proven that there is a market for this kind of housing, the displacement of low-income residents is a bad way to do it, and likely to lead to a backlash. Currently, SF has regulations that limit conversion of residential buildings to other uses, I can foresee regulations prohibiting the conversion of bedrooms into non-bedroom space.
McMansions - a potential alternative?
The size of 1040 Folsom is similar to about 2 or 3 McMansions. These types of buildings are quite common throughout suburbia, and a precedent has been established via Cupertino's Rainbow Mansion, a 5,000 square foot house in Silicon Valley.
The conversion of large houses to communal living is already common in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods of the South Bay (just look for streets where the number of parked cars approximate 5-10 per house). However, as zoning currently makes this illegal, and immigrants lack political capital, this model has been kept under the radar. Tech companies, on the other hand, may be more willing and able to take the risks required to disrupt suburbia in a more visible way.
1040 Folsom Street in San Francisco is one such example. Former a SRO (single room occupancy) residential hotel, the three story, 10,000 square foot building was gutted by a fire in 2011, displacing 90 residents. The building, built in 1912, is subject to rent control regulations, which specifies that displaced residents have the right to re-rent their rooms at the original price after repairs are made.
The building owner instead master-leased the property to The Negev, a property management startup that converted the building into a high-end co-op targeted towards tech workers. Rent was doubled from $634 to $1250 for a room. The Negev also reduced the number of rooms to 40, using the additional space for bars, game rooms, theaters, and other recreational facilities.
While The Negev attempted to buy out the former residents, not all of them took the $500 buyout offer. The Negev proceeded to rent out the entire building anyway. About a month after the new residents had moved in, some of the old residents noticed, and filed complaints and lawsuits.
You can look up complaints via San Francisco's Property Information Map - just enter 1040 Folsom Street.
At this point, the situation looks bad all around - not only is the building essentially double-booked, but as the number of bedrooms has decreased, even if it were vacated, it would be impossible to rehouse all the old residents.
Broader Implications
While The Negev and other similar tech co-ops have proven that there is a market for this kind of housing, the displacement of low-income residents is a bad way to do it, and likely to lead to a backlash. Currently, SF has regulations that limit conversion of residential buildings to other uses, I can foresee regulations prohibiting the conversion of bedrooms into non-bedroom space.
McMansions - a potential alternative?
The size of 1040 Folsom is similar to about 2 or 3 McMansions. These types of buildings are quite common throughout suburbia, and a precedent has been established via Cupertino's Rainbow Mansion, a 5,000 square foot house in Silicon Valley.
The conversion of large houses to communal living is already common in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods of the South Bay (just look for streets where the number of parked cars approximate 5-10 per house). However, as zoning currently makes this illegal, and immigrants lack political capital, this model has been kept under the radar. Tech companies, on the other hand, may be more willing and able to take the risks required to disrupt suburbia in a more visible way.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
One of my other projects, the High Speed Rail Board Game
Aside from researching cooperative housing, I've also made a series of rail maps, including the California Rail Map, the Northeast U.S. Rail Map, and the U.S. High Speed Rail Map. Based on the latter is the High Speed Rail Game, a fast, fun, and educational game for 2 to 6 players where players act as politicians and make deals to get their voters connected.
The game's designed to be simple to learn and play, and is fun for both housemates and experienced gamers.
- Only 1 page of rules.
- Sets up in 1 minute: just shuffle the cards and go.
- All math limited to single digit numbers.
- Just four types of tiles.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
34 unit "CoLiving" on Octavia in SF
Build Inc has released plans for its proposed 34-unit CoLiving building on Octavia Boulevard in San Francisco.
174 square foot Residential Suites
The project features 34 residential suites. 28 of them are 174 sf standard units and 6 are 273 sf wheelchair accessible units. The regular units feature:
- a 10'x10' bedroom / living room
- a 9'x3' bathroom with storage above
- a 9' long kitchen
Rooftop and 5th floor common space
The site presently has a community garden, that will be relocated to the roof. Just below it on the 5th floor there will be two common areas (kitchen and dining on one side, living room on the other), each around 700 sf. This is an unusual location for common space, as residents would not pass by the space on their way home. However, the choice to locate it at the top floor does ensure more sunlight and closer access to the garden. It will be interesting to see if residents end up using these 5th floor and roof spaces often, or if they just hang out in cafe and parklet on the ground level.
By the numbers
- The site is 120' long and about 25' deep, for a total area of around 3000 square feet.
- The building appears to have a total of 15,000 square feet. Of this, roughly 2,000 looks like retail and the other 13,000 residential.
- The 34 units provide a total of 6,510 sf rentable space, which at the developer's estimated rent of $1,350 per unit per month, would bring in around $550,000 of rental income per year. As this is classified as group housing, no below market rate units are required.
- 34 residents makes a good community size, many successful communities are about this large.
- Private space is about 50% of total residential area.
- Bedrooms are about 26% of total residential area. This is comparable to similarly sized Berkeley student co-ops, however, Build Inc's project has less common rooms and instead opts to provide each bedroom its own bath and kitchen.
Compared to a traditional apartment building
An identical site next door has a 22-unit apartment building proposed. This one features 10 two-bedroom units (avg 600 sf) and 12 studios (avg. 271 sf), for a total of 32 bedrooms and 9,252 sf rentable space.
As such, the population density of Build Inc's CoLiving project will probably turn out to be similar to that of a traditional apartment building, and possibly less - because in SF, people will use living rooms as bedrooms.
- Assuming that studios will rent for $2000 and two-bedrooms for $3500, and 20% of the units are below market rate units that go for half price, the traditional apartment will bring in around $600,000 of rental income per year.
Different, but not dramatically more profitable or denser
It appears that CoLiving as designed will have slightly less revenue than a traditional building, though the modular suites (to be built offsite) may bring enough time and cost savings to give it comparable profitability. The need to provide all those bathrooms and kitchens eats up a lot of space.
What's next? 10-bedroom full floor apartments?
While a departure from the typical apartment building with it's mix of one and two bedrooms, Build Inc's CoLiving fails to realize significant space efficiencies. Understandably, professionals paying $1,350 a month probably don't want to share bathrooms with 34 people. However, a smaller community size, of perhaps 10 people, might make it more palatable.
A 10-bedroom apartment could easily fit on this size of site, and would be more efficient than either the CoLiving or a traditional apartment as it would not need as many hallways on each floor. The popularity of old Victorian houses for group living suggests this could be a future model.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Are intentional communities the new exclusionary zoning?
In the 20th century, people who were racist or classist would write zoning laws to keep certain other people from moving into their neighborhood. Civil rights legislation has struck down most race-based discrimination, at least on paper, though not entirely in practice. However, zoning codes that mandate minimum lot sizes, maximum densities, or maximum number of occupants continue to exclude people on economic grounds.
Shared housing in theory is a workaround, as a group living together has more buying power. However, at least in the Bay Area, where even shared housing spots are in short supply, the application and interview process done by existing residents can make it even harder for people who are not of a certain social class or culture to get housing.
Unlike an apartment building manager, who is bound by housing laws that apply when separate apartments or SRO's are leased, someone seeking roommates has much greater discretion to choose who they want to live with - understandably.
Housing wanted / housing offered ads often will list things such as
- favorite bands
- where people work
- food preferences
- politics
- emotional traits
Sometimes it's just things such as "Likes quiet" or "No drugs" but occassionally it goes into territory such as "Positively directed" or "World shifters". Some of the highest profile communities such as The Embassy or the Sandbox House have explicit goals to be not just a place to eat and sleep but also a collaborative space for people to share ideas.
In San Francisco, there are about 2 residents per house or apartment. Last year, however, the city gained 10,600 residents but only 1,900 apartments. As most new apartments are 1 or 2 bedroom, most of this increase is being absorbed by people doubling or tripling up.
Will applying for housing eventually be like applying for college?
There is a potential that even as shared housing advocates work to remove exclusionary zoning barriers, they will create new forms of exclusion based on their member application and interview process. I only know of two cases where there is member intake free of judgement by existing residents. One is the Berkeley Student Cooperative, which has over 1,200 members in 20 houses averaging 30-60 people in size. The other was a punk house.
I'm not sure what a solution to this might be, as in a small (under 10 people) community, each person is a critical part. But maybe this is one of those housing problems that is really part of a bigger societal problem, in this case, a widening gap between social classes.
Shared housing in theory is a workaround, as a group living together has more buying power. However, at least in the Bay Area, where even shared housing spots are in short supply, the application and interview process done by existing residents can make it even harder for people who are not of a certain social class or culture to get housing.
Unlike an apartment building manager, who is bound by housing laws that apply when separate apartments or SRO's are leased, someone seeking roommates has much greater discretion to choose who they want to live with - understandably.
Housing wanted / housing offered ads often will list things such as
- favorite bands
- where people work
- food preferences
- politics
- emotional traits
Sometimes it's just things such as "Likes quiet" or "No drugs" but occassionally it goes into territory such as "Positively directed" or "World shifters". Some of the highest profile communities such as The Embassy or the Sandbox House have explicit goals to be not just a place to eat and sleep but also a collaborative space for people to share ideas.
In San Francisco, there are about 2 residents per house or apartment. Last year, however, the city gained 10,600 residents but only 1,900 apartments. As most new apartments are 1 or 2 bedroom, most of this increase is being absorbed by people doubling or tripling up.
Will applying for housing eventually be like applying for college?
There is a potential that even as shared housing advocates work to remove exclusionary zoning barriers, they will create new forms of exclusion based on their member application and interview process. I only know of two cases where there is member intake free of judgement by existing residents. One is the Berkeley Student Cooperative, which has over 1,200 members in 20 houses averaging 30-60 people in size. The other was a punk house.
I'm not sure what a solution to this might be, as in a small (under 10 people) community, each person is a critical part. But maybe this is one of those housing problems that is really part of a bigger societal problem, in this case, a widening gap between social classes.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
The 10,000-apartment tech campus: what if companies provided on-site housing?
what 10,000 apartments on the Google headquarters might look like
Tech workers' impact on housing prices is a hot-button issue in the Bay Area. The issue stems from a shortage of housing in Silicon Valley, which was originally research labs and electronics factories. Now, software is dominant, and a lot more programmers can fit in the same space. In fact, many don't need a desk at all.
This has upended the city planners' calculations for balancing workspace with housing. The Valley lacks housing, especially the hip, trendy type of urban housing that young programmers love. Tech workers to move to San Francisco and Oakland, creating waves of gentrification.
Building more housing is seen as the only long term fix to the housing crisis. How much housing would a major tech company need, and what would it look like?
Let's use Google as an example. Google employs 10,000 at its Mountain View headquarters. Surprisingly, that number of apartments can fit on the parking lots and open spaces of the suburban campus. Most would be in towers of 30 to 50 floors, with the rest in lower blocks lining the site.
note: this is an academic exercise and is not actually being proposed
While this level of development is not allowed under current zoning and would require new infrastructure to even be physically possible, the density is similar to the Rincon Hill in downtown San Francisco. Such a concentration of people would also create the critical mass to attract the trendy services and amenities that currently only San Francisco offers.
This study assumes regular apartments, with an average of 800 square feet per family of 2 (400 square feet per resident). It also assumes very limited parking (presumably folks would walk to work and take the Google Bus elsewhere). Co-op style housing typically can get down to 200 square feet per resident, roughly double the efficiency of apartments. That would still be a lot of housing in one spot though.
While Google does not have any plans for on-site housing that I know about, they have made some small investments in housing in Mountain View, most recently a 51-unit apartment complex. But perhaps one day, an real downtown will be the ultimate tech job amenity...
See more at https://sites.google.com/site/techcampushousing/
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Tech communities - the business case, and potential side effects
Recently, tech communities such as The Embassy Network have been getting lots of press attention. These may well be some of the first instances of modern upscale communal living- a significant development, as it could be the first step of the mainstreaming of communal living.
Once something starts to catch on, a larger number of "early adopters", who might have less wealth to risk but more social connections, spread the word to the majority of the population.
Tech workers are unique in that they actually have abundant cash. However, the tech community has a lot in common with college students, and crucially, many tech workers are recent grads. The "sense of purpose" factor is also important - at tech communities I've visited, there were a lot of startup and founder types, and no so many rank-and-file coders from large companies.
However, our entire system of rent control and fair housing is based on the idea that individuals and families individually lease or buy apartments from developers and landlords in a purely business transaction.
Unlike other groups that currently live communally on a large scale, most tech workers don't have to personally deal with gentrification or housing discrimination, and may lack knowledge on the subtleties of these issues. At one tech community I visited, the residents were all white or Asian, and there were no children or senior citizens. Policy, either at the community or government level, will be needed to avoid entire neighborhoods from turning into equivalent of an exclusive college or social club.
Communal living and the innovation adoption lifecycle
The adoption of new ideas or products often begins with "innovators" - typically people who are young, well educated, wealthy, and willing to take risks. These folks have the cash and the capacity for risk to handle the inevitable challenges and failures of testing out new ideas.Once something starts to catch on, a larger number of "early adopters", who might have less wealth to risk but more social connections, spread the word to the majority of the population.
chart from Wikipedia user Multichill
Tech communities - just for some, or the start of a trend?
Software engineers and other tech workers certainly fit the description of innovators. However, for all the hubbub, it's important to note that they did not invent modern communal living. Students, religious communities, immigrants, queer people, and punks have all formed self-governing residential communities. A few factors that work in their favor include:- Limited economic resources - group living is intrinsically cheaper
- Geographically concentrated employment - it's easier to live together if everyone has reasonable commutes.
- Sense of greater purpose - can help promote unity
- Mostly unmarried population
- Discrimination by larger society - leads to seeking of safety in numbers
| Limited economic resources | Geographically concentrated employment | Sense of greater purpose |
Mostly unmarried population | Discrimination by larger society | |
| Students |
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
| Religious communities |
x |
x |
x |
||
| Immigrants |
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
| Queer people |
x |
x |
x |
||
| Punks |
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
| Tech Workers |
x |
x |
x |
Tech workers are unique in that they actually have abundant cash. However, the tech community has a lot in common with college students, and crucially, many tech workers are recent grads. The "sense of purpose" factor is also important - at tech communities I've visited, there were a lot of startup and founder types, and no so many rank-and-file coders from large companies.
Tech communities - the next sharing app?
Housing's capital-intensive nature has limited the formation of large scale communities. However, here is where the tech industry's capital-light approach could come in. Similar to how startups like AirBnB or Lyft provide large amounts of short-term housing or transportation without having to own any rooms or cars themselves, a communal living startup could get started by master leasing houses and entire floors of apartment buildings.Affordability and inclusivity?
If it does scale up, there are several social issues on the horizon. Currently, except for the Berkeley Student Cooperative, every community (of all types, not just tech communities) I've encountered has an extensive and very competitive application and interview process where existing residents choose new ones.However, our entire system of rent control and fair housing is based on the idea that individuals and families individually lease or buy apartments from developers and landlords in a purely business transaction.
Unlike other groups that currently live communally on a large scale, most tech workers don't have to personally deal with gentrification or housing discrimination, and may lack knowledge on the subtleties of these issues. At one tech community I visited, the residents were all white or Asian, and there were no children or senior citizens. Policy, either at the community or government level, will be needed to avoid entire neighborhoods from turning into equivalent of an exclusive college or social club.
Dunbar's number revisited - why 70-80 people is the max size for a community.
When the question of how big a community should be, a number sometimes given as a maximum is 150. This is Dunbar's number, a suggested limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.
In practice, unless the community is very isolated, 70-80 people is a better limit. Why? In addition to live-in residents, a community will have peripheral members that hang out at the house, such as former housemates, boarders, and residents' friends and romantic partners. These peripheral members effectively double the size of the community.
In the Berkeley student co-ops, houses with 50-70 residents often have the strongest house cultures, while the two houses with 120-150 people are so large that residents don't know all their housemates. This pattern also appears at the Austin co-ops, and may have been an issue at Pacifico in Davis as well.
It is worth noting that Dunbar's number was originally derived from pre-industrial farming villages, where the community involved not just living together, but working together. Members of such a 150-person community would not have outside jobs or social contacts outside of the 150.
In practice, unless the community is very isolated, 70-80 people is a better limit. Why? In addition to live-in residents, a community will have peripheral members that hang out at the house, such as former housemates, boarders, and residents' friends and romantic partners. These peripheral members effectively double the size of the community.
In the Berkeley student co-ops, houses with 50-70 residents often have the strongest house cultures, while the two houses with 120-150 people are so large that residents don't know all their housemates. This pattern also appears at the Austin co-ops, and may have been an issue at Pacifico in Davis as well.
It is worth noting that Dunbar's number was originally derived from pre-industrial farming villages, where the community involved not just living together, but working together. Members of such a 150-person community would not have outside jobs or social contacts outside of the 150.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
400-person group housing complex planned in San Francisco
In the last couple years, "micro-apartments", otherwise known as small studio apartments of around 300 square feet, have been proposed and built in San Francisco. In contrast, a typical small 1-bedroom apartment comes in at about 500-600 square feet and a 2-bedroom apartment is around 800 square feet.
Now, developer Build Inc. is proposing a 400 person group housing complex at 1532 Harrison Street in the South of Market area of San Francisco. The facility layout is as follows:
- 1 or 2 beds in a bedroom suite. Each bedroom suite is like a hotel room, but has a mini-kitchen. The ktichen is a big deal, more on why further down.
- 9 bedroom suites in a "house". (9-18 people per house)
- 10 "houses" in each building. (90-180 people per building)
- 3 buildings (Total of 235-470 people).
Below is an image of a typical "house" from SocketSite.
Interestingly, the wide floorplate of this kind of group housing layout is very similar to that of mid-20th century glass box office towers.
- Group housing such as 1532 Harrison virtually eliminates corridors, which cost money to build but can't be sold/rented.
- The real biggie is parking. Outside of downtown, San Francisco zoning usually requires one parking space per apartment, but requires none for group housing. This is a San Francisco only thing - in places like Oakland and Berkeley, every two bedrooms in a group housing building requires a parking space. Parking spaces take up 300 square feet each - the same size as a studio apartment, but a parking space only rents for $200-400 a month, while a studio apartment can go for $2000.
Under SF zoning, 1532 Harrison isn't group housing though, as SF zoning defines dwelling units as "A room or suite of two or more rooms that is designed for, or is occupied by, one family doing its own cooking therein and having only one kitchen". Those mini-kitchens, though small, are still kitchens. So this is really a building of studio apartments. Nonetheless, it is still an unusual building, and as such, Build Inc. has had to apply for a conditional use permit in order to not provide parking. (edit 12/8/13: parking appears not to be require for this area).
- The big difference between this and the classic residential hotel is the division of the building into "houses" of 9 bedroom suites. This creates communities of manageable size within the larger community.
Kitchens, Parking, and Resident Selection - a summary for most parts of San Francisco:
Individual mini-kitchens + large shared kitchen
December 8, 2013 update: clarification on the parking issue and the potential use as student housing:
- It appears that parking requirements for this particular area allow zero parking spaces even if the building has studio units with kitchens.
- Comments on SocketSite suggest that this building may be marketed as student housing for CCA, Academy of Art, or other nearby colleges that currently have more students than dorm beds. Students have been one of the largest users of shared housing historically, more thoughts on this in a future post.
Now, developer Build Inc. is proposing a 400 person group housing complex at 1532 Harrison Street in the South of Market area of San Francisco. The facility layout is as follows:
- 1 or 2 beds in a bedroom suite. Each bedroom suite is like a hotel room, but has a mini-kitchen. The ktichen is a big deal, more on why further down.
- 9 bedroom suites in a "house". (9-18 people per house)
- 10 "houses" in each building. (90-180 people per building)
- 3 buildings (Total of 235-470 people).
Below is an image of a typical "house" from SocketSite.
A few thoughts on the economics of this project:
- This building is significantly wider than your typical apartment building. Building codes require windows in bedrooms and living rooms. This is significant as often the number of rooms in a building is not limited by the size of the land, but the width of the land.
- Group housing such as 1532 Harrison virtually eliminates corridors, which cost money to build but can't be sold/rented.
- The real biggie is parking. Outside of downtown, San Francisco zoning usually requires one parking space per apartment, but requires none for group housing. This is a San Francisco only thing - in places like Oakland and Berkeley, every two bedrooms in a group housing building requires a parking space. Parking spaces take up 300 square feet each - the same size as a studio apartment, but a parking space only rents for $200-400 a month, while a studio apartment can go for $2000.
Under SF zoning, 1532 Harrison isn't group housing though, as SF zoning defines dwelling units as "A room or suite of two or more rooms that is designed for, or is occupied by, one family doing its own cooking therein and having only one kitchen". Those mini-kitchens, though small, are still kitchens. So this is really a building of studio apartments. Nonetheless, it is still an unusual building, and as such, Build Inc. has had to apply for a conditional use permit
Operational issues, or why kitchens are critical:
- No information so far on how 1532 Harrison will be operated. Will rooms be leased/sold individually, or will each of the 9-room "houses" be leased/sold to a group? Since each bedroom suite has its own mini-kitchen, under fair housing regulations, each is its own housing unit. Unlike 9 people sharing a large single family house, residents of one of these 9-room "houses" would not be able to evict someone in their house if they didn't like them. The big shared living room and kitchen would effectively be treated as an apartment building community room and lobby, even though in reality the role would be different.- The big difference between this and the classic residential hotel is the division of the building into "houses" of 9 bedroom suites. This creates communities of manageable size within the larger community.
Kitchens, Parking, and Resident Selection - a summary for most parts of San Francisco:
Individual mini-kitchens + large shared kitchen
- 1 parking space required per kitchen. (there's some philosophical epiphany here...)
- Anyone can move into a bedroom suite.
- No parking required in San Francisco.
- Residents sharing the kitchen have some discretion over who else lives in a bedroom that is connected to their kitchen.
December 8, 2013 update: clarification on the parking issue and the potential use as student housing:
- It appears that parking requirements for this particular area allow zero parking spaces even if the building has studio units with kitchens.
- Comments on SocketSite suggest that this building may be marketed as student housing for CCA, Academy of Art, or other nearby colleges that currently have more students than dorm beds. Students have been one of the largest users of shared housing historically, more thoughts on this in a future post.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Berkeley/Oakland port and highway air pollution map
"Don't cut corners on the location, as the rest you can fix up later when you have the money." - that was the advice I received from folks who in search of cheap land, had built a cohousing complex next to the BART elevated tracks a few decades ago.
Whereas those treating housing as a commodity can easily trade up to a better neighborhood, when establishing a community find it harder to move. As folks have expressed interest in purchasing or building new housing, transportation access has been mentioned as something not to skimp on.
The flip side to transport is pollution. Oakland is one of the largest container ports in the world and is full of freeways.
Air Pollution Hazards: Cars, Trucks, and Container Ships.
Freeway health risks are well known, with the first block downwind being extremely hazardous and problems persisting for another 700-1500' depending on whether the freeway is elevated.
The effects of port pollution from the container ships is a bit harder to track down, but based on public health asthma and cancer data it appears to be most severe in the first couple of miles, with effects as far as 20 miles away. In areas near the ports, pollution can be over 10 times the regional average.
Ships are basically barely-regulated ocean-going power plants, spewing sulfur dioxide, particulates, and other pollutants in quantities far beyond what is allowed for vehicles registered in the USA.
Click map to enlarge. Heavier lines are elevated freeways.
Fight for cleaner air, but for now, build elsewhere.
Many of these heavily polluted areas in Emeryville, West Oakland, Chinatown, and Downtown already are home to thousands of residents, and port and freeway air pollution have been a major environmental justice issue. In recent years, community activists have demanded and won funding from the Port to upgrade trucks to reduce diesel pollution.
The Port has goals to reduce total pollution by 85%, though it expects to fall short on controlling ship pollution (only a 67% reduction is projected) as Oakland and California have little ability to regulate the international shipping industry.
As a result, even though the pollution has decreased and will continue to decrease, it is still much worse in these areas than the rest of the region. Therefore, in the near term, it would not be prudent to create new housing in this area and subject more people to risk.
Driving further out is not the solution.
While the origins of suburban housing came from an era of even worse industrial pollution, relocating to the suburbs may not necessarily lead to better health as drivers and bus passengers are subject to heavy air pollution while on a freeway. Until shipping gets cleaner, the best plan may be to avoid the areas closest to the docks while remaining near BART stations.
Could Oakland remove its freeways like San Francisco did?
In the 1990s and 2000s, San Francisco removed a couple miles of downtown freeways, clearing up dozens of blocks for housing and making several neighborhoods much more liveable. Mass transit, biking, and trip reduction have made this possible without major traffic problems. Right now, roughly 25% of Oakland is within the downwind zone of a freeway - could it do the same?
More Resources:
- Bay Area Air Quality Management District CARE Program
- Port of Oakland Emissions Inventory
- Port of Oakland Maritime Air Quality Improvement Program
- Pollution, health, and avoidance behavior: Evidence from the Ports of Los Angeles
- Southern California Particle Center
Whereas those treating housing as a commodity can easily trade up to a better neighborhood, when establishing a community find it harder to move. As folks have expressed interest in purchasing or building new housing, transportation access has been mentioned as something not to skimp on.
The flip side to transport is pollution. Oakland is one of the largest container ports in the world and is full of freeways.
Air Pollution Hazards: Cars, Trucks, and Container Ships.
Freeway health risks are well known, with the first block downwind being extremely hazardous and problems persisting for another 700-1500' depending on whether the freeway is elevated.
The effects of port pollution from the container ships is a bit harder to track down, but based on public health asthma and cancer data it appears to be most severe in the first couple of miles, with effects as far as 20 miles away. In areas near the ports, pollution can be over 10 times the regional average.
Ships are basically barely-regulated ocean-going power plants, spewing sulfur dioxide, particulates, and other pollutants in quantities far beyond what is allowed for vehicles registered in the USA.
Fight for cleaner air, but for now, build elsewhere.
Many of these heavily polluted areas in Emeryville, West Oakland, Chinatown, and Downtown already are home to thousands of residents, and port and freeway air pollution have been a major environmental justice issue. In recent years, community activists have demanded and won funding from the Port to upgrade trucks to reduce diesel pollution.
The Port has goals to reduce total pollution by 85%, though it expects to fall short on controlling ship pollution (only a 67% reduction is projected) as Oakland and California have little ability to regulate the international shipping industry.
As a result, even though the pollution has decreased and will continue to decrease, it is still much worse in these areas than the rest of the region. Therefore, in the near term, it would not be prudent to create new housing in this area and subject more people to risk.
Driving further out is not the solution.
While the origins of suburban housing came from an era of even worse industrial pollution, relocating to the suburbs may not necessarily lead to better health as drivers and bus passengers are subject to heavy air pollution while on a freeway. Until shipping gets cleaner, the best plan may be to avoid the areas closest to the docks while remaining near BART stations.
Could Oakland remove its freeways like San Francisco did?
In the 1990s and 2000s, San Francisco removed a couple miles of downtown freeways, clearing up dozens of blocks for housing and making several neighborhoods much more liveable. Mass transit, biking, and trip reduction have made this possible without major traffic problems. Right now, roughly 25% of Oakland is within the downwind zone of a freeway - could it do the same?
More Resources:
- Bay Area Air Quality Management District CARE Program
- Port of Oakland Emissions Inventory
- Port of Oakland Maritime Air Quality Improvement Program
- Pollution, health, and avoidance behavior: Evidence from the Ports of Los Angeles
- Southern California Particle Center
Monday, August 27, 2012
Household size and economies of scale, part 1
A couple years ago while hanging out in the basement of Synergy Co-op in Palo Alto, my friend Xander and I were talking about co-op living. Xander brought up that of various economic indicators, household size is rarely studied. It's an important topic though, as every other aspect of human organization and economic life has seen a trend towards consolidation, whether it be businesses, government, or nonprofit organizations. These businesses and organizations benefit from economies of scale, which provides buying power, insurance against random events, and political power. Why not households?
Some Statistical Background
Currently, the average US household is around 2.6 people. This is actually a bit higher than most industrialized nations. Back in the 1930s it was around 3.7. The Census defines households as follow:
A household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements. (People not living in households are classified as living in group quarters.)
This excludes group quarters, for which US census data is available here (PDF). Currently 8.3 million Americans report living in group quarters. Of these, prisons & jails make up 2.2 million, nursing homes 1.8 million, and college housing 2.4 million. Total of these 3 largest groups = 6.4 million, the remaining1.9 include juvenile halls, homeless shelters, monasteries, barracks, group homes, worker camps, and other institutional housing.
Key elements of the definition of a housing unit:
- Has direct access to outside or a common hall (i.e. you get your own key)
- People within that housing unit eat separately from other people not in that unit.
- In a rooming house or residential hotel without shared meals, each room is a separate housing unit.
- Student co-ops are classified as group housing.
- A non-student co-op house such as Fort Awesome is classified as a single household.
- Cohousing where residents live in separate units is classified as separate households, even if residents eat meals together.
Why this matters - public policy on housing:
Housing goals in public policy are often defined in the number of units (houses or apartments, regardless of size). Incentives are often given to maximize the number of units built. However, what's actually important is the number of bedrooms... or perhaps the number of beds*. It is much cheaper to build a 3-bedroom apartment (1000-1200 square feet) than to build three 1 bedroom apartments (500-600sf each for a total of 1500-1800sf). Likewise the bigger apartment is also cheaper to heat and cool and maintain.
Affordable housing often gets criticized for its high per-unit costs vs. market rate apartments. However, market rate apartments are typically studios, 1 bedrooms, and 2 bedroom units. Affordable housing apartments often have a majority of 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom units. Often funding requires a minimum of the units (20-33% is typical) to be 3 bedroom or larger.
*Xander also mentioned once that the number of mattresses can be correlated to the amount of fascism in the country, as more mattresses means that people aren't sleeping together.
The flip side: Except in college towns like Berkeley where group living in a house is common, most cities such as San Francisco do their zoning by counting kitchens. When an area is said to allow a maximum density of 10 units per acre, it means that at most 10 kitchens are allowed. When the planning code says one parking space is required per unit it means that one parking space per kitchen is required (this actually makes some sense even in the co-op context). Typically 5 bedrooms is the maximum viewed by planning codes as still falling under the category of "dwelling unit" as opposed to "group housing". Example in SF Planning Code.
Architectural Efficiency
Apartment buildings designed to have lots of 5-bedroom apartments would be somewhat different than those made up of mostly studios and 1&2BR's. The building would be the same size as in most urban areas height limits are the main limit to building's size. Less of the building would be hallway or parking, making it a more profitable building. The number of bedrooms (and therefore residents) would be double than that of a building made up of 1-bedrooms. Imagine if the price of housing in SF dropped in half!
While it's true that out in the suburbs there are often 5-bedroom houses with 2 people living in it after the kids move out, this would be a non-issue in a co-op environment, where household size naturally increases to fill all available bedrooms.
Outside of old Victorians with three stacked apartments, I don't know of any examples of apartment buildings with large units. Perhaps I shall sketch one out sometime...
That concludes Part 1. In Part 2, I'll discuss what widespread co-op housing means for food systems and the division of household labor.
Some Statistical Background
Currently, the average US household is around 2.6 people. This is actually a bit higher than most industrialized nations. Back in the 1930s it was around 3.7. The Census defines households as follow:
A household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements. (People not living in households are classified as living in group quarters.)
This excludes group quarters, for which US census data is available here (PDF). Currently 8.3 million Americans report living in group quarters. Of these, prisons & jails make up 2.2 million, nursing homes 1.8 million, and college housing 2.4 million. Total of these 3 largest groups = 6.4 million, the remaining1.9 include juvenile halls, homeless shelters, monasteries, barracks, group homes, worker camps, and other institutional housing.
Key elements of the definition of a housing unit:
- Has direct access to outside or a common hall (i.e. you get your own key)
- People within that housing unit eat separately from other people not in that unit.
- In a rooming house or residential hotel without shared meals, each room is a separate housing unit.
- Student co-ops are classified as group housing.
- A non-student co-op house such as Fort Awesome is classified as a single household.
- Cohousing where residents live in separate units is classified as separate households, even if residents eat meals together.
Why this matters - public policy on housing:
Housing goals in public policy are often defined in the number of units (houses or apartments, regardless of size). Incentives are often given to maximize the number of units built. However, what's actually important is the number of bedrooms... or perhaps the number of beds*. It is much cheaper to build a 3-bedroom apartment (1000-1200 square feet) than to build three 1 bedroom apartments (500-600sf each for a total of 1500-1800sf). Likewise the bigger apartment is also cheaper to heat and cool and maintain.
Affordable housing often gets criticized for its high per-unit costs vs. market rate apartments. However, market rate apartments are typically studios, 1 bedrooms, and 2 bedroom units. Affordable housing apartments often have a majority of 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom units. Often funding requires a minimum of the units (20-33% is typical) to be 3 bedroom or larger.
*Xander also mentioned once that the number of mattresses can be correlated to the amount of fascism in the country, as more mattresses means that people aren't sleeping together.
The flip side: Except in college towns like Berkeley where group living in a house is common, most cities such as San Francisco do their zoning by counting kitchens. When an area is said to allow a maximum density of 10 units per acre, it means that at most 10 kitchens are allowed. When the planning code says one parking space is required per unit it means that one parking space per kitchen is required (this actually makes some sense even in the co-op context). Typically 5 bedrooms is the maximum viewed by planning codes as still falling under the category of "dwelling unit" as opposed to "group housing". Example in SF Planning Code.
Architectural Efficiency
Apartment buildings designed to have lots of 5-bedroom apartments would be somewhat different than those made up of mostly studios and 1&2BR's. The building would be the same size as in most urban areas height limits are the main limit to building's size. Less of the building would be hallway or parking, making it a more profitable building. The number of bedrooms (and therefore residents) would be double than that of a building made up of 1-bedrooms. Imagine if the price of housing in SF dropped in half!
While it's true that out in the suburbs there are often 5-bedroom houses with 2 people living in it after the kids move out, this would be a non-issue in a co-op environment, where household size naturally increases to fill all available bedrooms.
Outside of old Victorians with three stacked apartments, I don't know of any examples of apartment buildings with large units. Perhaps I shall sketch one out sometime...
That concludes Part 1. In Part 2, I'll discuss what widespread co-op housing means for food systems and the division of household labor.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Save the Domes! the book is now available!
The UC Davis Domes, also known as Baggins End, are a community of 26 UCD students living in a village of 14 fiberglass domes. Two people live in each dome. Although each dome has its own kitchen and bathroom, the Domies share meals together a few times a week. It is a great example of a student cohousing community in a low density setting. "Save the Domes!" follows the story of how the Domes almost got shut down in 2011, how the Domies rallied the greater community of co-opers and cohousers to lobby for saving the Domes; and organized hundreds of people to make repairs and renovations. Also inside are photos of life at the domes and information on how the domes are run.
You can read the story online, download a free PDF of the story, photos, and other info, or order a hard copy from Amazon.
Here's some pages from "Save the Domes":
Saturday, July 7, 2012
National Cohousing Conference 2012 Part Two: Temescal Creek and Mariposa Grove
Again, greetings! We pick this post up right where we left off last time, namely my recent East Bay cohousing bus tour. Following our brief sojourn at Berkeley Cohousing, we continued to North Oakland to visit Temescal Creek Cohousing, a prime example of what has been termed "retrofit cohousing." Retrofit cohousing is just a cohousing community that bought pre-existing homes that were next to each other, knocked down a fence or two and voila!! a cohousing community. Here's a picture of Temescal Creek's gate:
Pretty, right? Temescal Creek was started in 1999, when five families came together around the site. Since then a common house has been built and four units added. The common house:
My understanding of the story behind the common house is that each family in the community pitched in 20k and the finished upstairs unit was sold to finance construction. It includes a kitchen, dining room, bathroom and laundry area.
Temescal Creek has plenty of outdoor space for its six kids and four teens to roam around freely. Here are a couple pictures:
Retrofit cohousing is much cheaper than starting from scratch, just as using leftovers is cheaper than making a new meal. But the result, with a little work, is just as delicious! It's also a more viable option in high population density areas such as the Bay Area, since untouched plots of land are uncommon.
Here is Temescal Creek by the numbers:
Site: 1 acre located at 328 45th St, Oakland CA. Right across the street from Oakland Tech High School.
Units: 11 (four duplexes and three single family houses)
Price Range: Units now worth $350-$600k. Originally they were worth $117-$300k.
Residents: There are 30 residents (20 Adults, 6 kids, 4 teens), including two renters.
Governance: Two committees and the rest of the decisions are made by the whole group. Fallback 80% majority.
Meetings: Once a month.
Dinners: Twice a week.
Features: Solar powered hot tub! Also solar panels on roof of the common house and one of the units. Basketball hoop, swing, chickens, rabbits, and kale.
One of my favorite things about Temescal Creek is the number of kids and teenagers who live here. After defeating one of the teens decisively in a game of ping-pong, I asked him what he thought of growing up in a cohousing community. Though stereotypically monosyllabic, he effectively said that it was great, and his friends love coming over because of all the space. Not to mention the solar-powered hot tub!
Mariposa Grove Cohousing
Leaving Temescal Creek, we found ourselves headed north to Emeryville and its Mariposa Grove, presumably named after the grove of giant sequoia trees in the southwest corner of Yosemite. While there exist no sequoias in Emeryville, this Mariposa Grove did have an awesome willow providing shade for a self-built outdoor stage in the middle of the community. A photograph:
By the way, if you've never visited a sequoia grove, you really should stop reading about cohousing and drive out to the Sierras. They are, without question, one of the most spectacular things I've ever been in the presence of. I could rave endlessly about their majesty, golden bark, unparalleled girth and the feeling of being on another planet when next to them. But I won't.
Anywho, there exists a chicken co-op (wordplay alert!) at Mariposa Grove which produces eggs for the community (as chicken co-ops at other cohousing communities and for that matter, all over the world do).
Mariposa Grove is another great example of retrofit cohousing. They started in 1998, with the purchase of three dilapidated buildings and have grown to comprise six condo units, a common house, and a rental house. They also have a nice outdoor space in the middle of the houses where they grow a bunch of vegetables and enjoy sun time.
Here is Mariposa Grove by the numbers:
Site: 1/4 acre located at 828 59th Street Emeryville, Ca.
More History: Redeveloped by Northern California Land Trust (NCLT) as a Limited Equity Low Income Cohousing, meaning that 70 percent of the member households must have an adjusted gross annual income less than 80 percent of Oakland Metro's median based on household size. NCLT aids low income owners to receive deferred payment low-interest loans and grants.
Units: 6 condos, a common house, and a rental house which is currently being renovated into a three-plex with a shared unit, a single family residence and an office space.
Price: In 2008 condo units sold for between $250k and $320k ($50-$100k after subsidies). Rental house is $2100/month divided amongst four adults.
Residents: 18 (14 adults, 4 kids), including four renters.
Governance: As part of a land trust, Mariposa Grove is part of a homeowners association which uses a 2/3rd majority rule. At the community level, they use consensus (minus one vote), and multiple sub-committees and working groups are empowered by the Management Committee.
Meetings: The community meets twice a month and also participates in quarterly homeowners association meetings. There are also twice quarterly work parties for property maintenance and improvement.
Features: Greywater, permaculture, chicken co-op, kids' playroom, other great things.
One of my favorite things that Mariposa Grove had was a big corkboard full of photos of the community members in the common house. Here's a photo of the photos:
Here are some other pix:
And so dear friends, I am saddened to inform that here ends another magical virtual cohousing tour. I too regret our departure, but never fear! Cooperative living is closer at hand in the real world than we oft realize. Let these words and pictures serve as an inspiration to those of us still confined to single-family households, awaiting the day when we too break free and can finally rejoice in the communal hymn, our voices loud and strong, resounding at once in collective harmony!
Until then, keep checkin' back here at "It's a Co-op!", your source for anything and everything co-operawesome!
Pretty, right? Temescal Creek was started in 1999, when five families came together around the site. Since then a common house has been built and four units added. The common house:
My understanding of the story behind the common house is that each family in the community pitched in 20k and the finished upstairs unit was sold to finance construction. It includes a kitchen, dining room, bathroom and laundry area.
 |
| Inside the common house. |
Temescal Creek has plenty of outdoor space for its six kids and four teens to roam around freely. Here are a couple pictures:
 |
| Communal living often grows plants in addition to people. |
 |
| Rabbit cohousing. |
Here is Temescal Creek by the numbers:
Site: 1 acre located at 328 45th St, Oakland CA. Right across the street from Oakland Tech High School.
Units: 11 (four duplexes and three single family houses)
Price Range: Units now worth $350-$600k. Originally they were worth $117-$300k.
Residents: There are 30 residents (20 Adults, 6 kids, 4 teens), including two renters.
Governance: Two committees and the rest of the decisions are made by the whole group. Fallback 80% majority.
Meetings: Once a month.
Dinners: Twice a week.
Features: Solar powered hot tub! Also solar panels on roof of the common house and one of the units. Basketball hoop, swing, chickens, rabbits, and kale.
 | ||
| Inside one of the units. Really quite nice. |
One of my favorite things about Temescal Creek is the number of kids and teenagers who live here. After defeating one of the teens decisively in a game of ping-pong, I asked him what he thought of growing up in a cohousing community. Though stereotypically monosyllabic, he effectively said that it was great, and his friends love coming over because of all the space. Not to mention the solar-powered hot tub!
Mariposa Grove Cohousing
Leaving Temescal Creek, we found ourselves headed north to Emeryville and its Mariposa Grove, presumably named after the grove of giant sequoia trees in the southwest corner of Yosemite. While there exist no sequoias in Emeryville, this Mariposa Grove did have an awesome willow providing shade for a self-built outdoor stage in the middle of the community. A photograph:
By the way, if you've never visited a sequoia grove, you really should stop reading about cohousing and drive out to the Sierras. They are, without question, one of the most spectacular things I've ever been in the presence of. I could rave endlessly about their majesty, golden bark, unparalleled girth and the feeling of being on another planet when next to them. But I won't.
Anywho, there exists a chicken co-op (wordplay alert!) at Mariposa Grove which produces eggs for the community (as chicken co-ops at other cohousing communities and for that matter, all over the world do).
 |
| Let's zoom in on that sign on the upper right, shall we? |
 |
| I, too, strive to be a purveyor of premium poop. |
Mariposa Grove is another great example of retrofit cohousing. They started in 1998, with the purchase of three dilapidated buildings and have grown to comprise six condo units, a common house, and a rental house. They also have a nice outdoor space in the middle of the houses where they grow a bunch of vegetables and enjoy sun time.
Here is Mariposa Grove by the numbers:
Site: 1/4 acre located at 828 59th Street Emeryville, Ca.
More History: Redeveloped by Northern California Land Trust (NCLT) as a Limited Equity Low Income Cohousing, meaning that 70 percent of the member households must have an adjusted gross annual income less than 80 percent of Oakland Metro's median based on household size. NCLT aids low income owners to receive deferred payment low-interest loans and grants.
Units: 6 condos, a common house, and a rental house which is currently being renovated into a three-plex with a shared unit, a single family residence and an office space.
Price: In 2008 condo units sold for between $250k and $320k ($50-$100k after subsidies). Rental house is $2100/month divided amongst four adults.
Residents: 18 (14 adults, 4 kids), including four renters.
Governance: As part of a land trust, Mariposa Grove is part of a homeowners association which uses a 2/3rd majority rule. At the community level, they use consensus (minus one vote), and multiple sub-committees and working groups are empowered by the Management Committee.
Meetings: The community meets twice a month and also participates in quarterly homeowners association meetings. There are also twice quarterly work parties for property maintenance and improvement.
Features: Greywater, permaculture, chicken co-op, kids' playroom, other great things.
One of my favorite things that Mariposa Grove had was a big corkboard full of photos of the community members in the common house. Here's a photo of the photos:
 |
| The heart of community: beautiful people. |
Here are some other pix:
 |
| The entrance alleyway and courtyard area |
 |
| Fun time for the little ones! |
 |
| The all-important mission. |
And so dear friends, I am saddened to inform that here ends another magical virtual cohousing tour. I too regret our departure, but never fear! Cooperative living is closer at hand in the real world than we oft realize. Let these words and pictures serve as an inspiration to those of us still confined to single-family households, awaiting the day when we too break free and can finally rejoice in the communal hymn, our voices loud and strong, resounding at once in collective harmony!
Until then, keep checkin' back here at "It's a Co-op!", your source for anything and everything co-operawesome!
Sunday, June 24, 2012
National Cohousing Conference 2012 Part One: Berkeley Cohousing
Greetings! My name is Elan and I'm the newest contributor here on "It's a Co-op!" Our name reminds me of the fictional radio show "It's a Wise Child" in J.D. Salinger's stories about the precocious Glass children. Hopefully our blog will provide the kind of piercing insight that would make Franny and Zooey proud... Anyway, I bring you my first post and believe it to be a goodie. Last weekend I had the privilege of attending the National Cohousing Conference which was held at Oakland's Marriott Hotel, the first time the annual conference has been in the Yay Area since 2001.
Seeing as this is a cohousing post within a co-op blog, I'll clarify the distinction between the two before I go any further. Our friendly and familiar co-op is a more general term which technically refers to a specific type of legal ownership, but is loosely used to refer to many types of communal living arrangements--often those in which members share all of their food. Cohousing, although occasionally run legally by the definition of a co-op, refers more to a way of life. This way of life is characterized by multiple units which are individually owned or rented (often by families) which together form their own intimate neighborhood, replete with common house, chore contributions, and communal dinners a few nights per week. Cohousing communities vary widely in the number of individual units (and therefore people), ranging from just a few to over a hundred! Most of the cohousing communities I looked at in the East Bay had a dozen or so, and therefore averaged 20-30 people in their community.
Onwards and upwards! The best part of the conference (besides an endless supply of free Marriott pens) was a full-day bus tour of cohousing communities in Oakland and Berkeley. As one man on the tour said "Seeing is believing." I must agree--there's no better way to learn about the wonders of cohousing than visiting the places themselves. That said, I'll do my darndest to give you an impression of what they're like in words and pictures.
Up first was "Berkeley Cohousing," which is technically unnamed and has therefore assumed the name of the town it resides in by default, which originally got its name from George Berkeley, an 18th century philosopher best known for his work on "immaterialism," the notion that nothing exists without being perceived, and since a community must have a name to be perceived (work with me), is a fitting title for an unnamed community. Regardless, I have photographic evidence of this community's existence:
The site for Berkeley Cohousing, at Sacramento and Allston, was purchased in 1994 and subsequently underwent a three year period of development in which a few new units were added, a fence was knocked down, and much renovation was performed on the pre-existing 12 units to create what I considered to be the most aesthetically pleasing cohousing community I visited. Here are Berkeley Cohousing's bare-boned numbers:
Site: Three quarters of an acre.
Units: Fifteen 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units. Detached cottages and duplexes.
Price Range: Original prices: $135,000-275,000. Limited-Equity Condos--meaning that price increases are limited to the Area Median Income (AMI) appreciation plus any capital improvements that have been done to a unit since last sale. Purchasers limited to 120-150% of the AMI. Basically, it costs way less than market to live here. Trouble is, turnover is exceedingly low (~1 unit/10 years).
Style: Homes are aligned along a pathway leading to a beautiful lawn and common house.
# of Residents: 28 Adults: 21 Over 60: 5 Kids (0-12): 6 Teens (13-18): 1 Renters: 2
Governance: Six strong committees: Agenda, Landscape, Maintenance, Finance, Operations (Common House), People. Other ad-hoc committees come and go.
Meetings: Monthly 3-hour HOA meetings with consensus decision-making.
Dinners: 3 nights/week.
Common House: Kitchen, dining area, living room, sun/multipurpose room, kids' room, laundry room.
Features: Permaculture approach to gardening and water systems. Use of recycled material in pathways, sustainably harvested redwood decks, bamboo hardwood floors, shared pick-up truck, parking lot and a piano in the laundry room!
Pictures:
The beautiful common lawn area.
The common house dining room.
The common house kitchen.
The common house living room (featuring people on a tour).
A private residence. Enchanting.
I shall feature other East Bay cohousing communities shortly in "National Cohousing Conference 2012 Part Two." Ciao for now!
Seeing as this is a cohousing post within a co-op blog, I'll clarify the distinction between the two before I go any further. Our friendly and familiar co-op is a more general term which technically refers to a specific type of legal ownership, but is loosely used to refer to many types of communal living arrangements--often those in which members share all of their food. Cohousing, although occasionally run legally by the definition of a co-op, refers more to a way of life. This way of life is characterized by multiple units which are individually owned or rented (often by families) which together form their own intimate neighborhood, replete with common house, chore contributions, and communal dinners a few nights per week. Cohousing communities vary widely in the number of individual units (and therefore people), ranging from just a few to over a hundred! Most of the cohousing communities I looked at in the East Bay had a dozen or so, and therefore averaged 20-30 people in their community.
Onwards and upwards! The best part of the conference (besides an endless supply of free Marriott pens) was a full-day bus tour of cohousing communities in Oakland and Berkeley. As one man on the tour said "Seeing is believing." I must agree--there's no better way to learn about the wonders of cohousing than visiting the places themselves. That said, I'll do my darndest to give you an impression of what they're like in words and pictures.
Up first was "Berkeley Cohousing," which is technically unnamed and has therefore assumed the name of the town it resides in by default, which originally got its name from George Berkeley, an 18th century philosopher best known for his work on "immaterialism," the notion that nothing exists without being perceived, and since a community must have a name to be perceived (work with me), is a fitting title for an unnamed community. Regardless, I have photographic evidence of this community's existence:
The site for Berkeley Cohousing, at Sacramento and Allston, was purchased in 1994 and subsequently underwent a three year period of development in which a few new units were added, a fence was knocked down, and much renovation was performed on the pre-existing 12 units to create what I considered to be the most aesthetically pleasing cohousing community I visited. Here are Berkeley Cohousing's bare-boned numbers:
Site: Three quarters of an acre.
Units: Fifteen 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units. Detached cottages and duplexes.
Price Range: Original prices: $135,000-275,000. Limited-Equity Condos--meaning that price increases are limited to the Area Median Income (AMI) appreciation plus any capital improvements that have been done to a unit since last sale. Purchasers limited to 120-150% of the AMI. Basically, it costs way less than market to live here. Trouble is, turnover is exceedingly low (~1 unit/10 years).
Style: Homes are aligned along a pathway leading to a beautiful lawn and common house.
# of Residents: 28 Adults: 21 Over 60: 5 Kids (0-12): 6 Teens (13-18): 1 Renters: 2
Governance: Six strong committees: Agenda, Landscape, Maintenance, Finance, Operations (Common House), People. Other ad-hoc committees come and go.
Meetings: Monthly 3-hour HOA meetings with consensus decision-making.
Dinners: 3 nights/week.
Common House: Kitchen, dining area, living room, sun/multipurpose room, kids' room, laundry room.
Features: Permaculture approach to gardening and water systems. Use of recycled material in pathways, sustainably harvested redwood decks, bamboo hardwood floors, shared pick-up truck, parking lot and a piano in the laundry room!
Pictures:
I shall feature other East Bay cohousing communities shortly in "National Cohousing Conference 2012 Part Two." Ciao for now!
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Casa Zimbabwe Student Co-op House, Berkeley
The first time I set foot in Casa Zimbabwe, CZ, I was a freshman at UC Berkeley living in the dorms. There was a couch up on a table in the main dining room occupied by two students in a very vocal, flagrant philosophical debate. The kitchen was overflowing with co-opers cutting garlic and talking loudly over the sound of the rock-music. The room we visited had bits of broken cds glued to the walls and a black light. When I moved in a few years later, I got a better look at the murals covering the walls. I slowly got used to the dinner ritual: big pots of food are placed on the central tables and about eighty people crowd around the dishes and elbow their way to the serving spoon. I was spending late nights studying on campus and would come home at 3 am on a Friday night to find a jazz band playing and thirty people dancing the night away. Some people say living in CZ is like living in a night club. While living there, I never found the perfect spot to do yoga and only made about five friends that I am still in contact with. My informant, Hamutahl, had a very different experience.
History:
CZ is the first co-op that was built to be a co-op. It opened in 1966. At the time it was called the “Ridge Project” because it was built on the plot of a co-op named “Ridge”. It was one of the first co-ed student housing options in Berkeley—the men occupied the 10’s wings and the women occupied the 100s wing along with the house mom (room 99). The two wings were offset half a level from one another to make it less dorm-like.
A summary of changes made to the house:
- 1979: forty solar panels are installed on the roof
- 1987: name changed to Casa Zimbabwe
- 2006: the house closed for extensive seismic retrofitting, the brown stucco exterior is painted yellow, and skylights were installed in the common room by a house-improvement manager
- 2010: beehive set up in rose garden
Overview:
- 124 residents (better known as “czars”)
- Single Bedrooms: 32
Double Bedrooms: 28
Triple Bedrooms: 12
Parking Spaces: 15 - Shared living room, dining room, full kitchen facilities, laundry, food, printing and house computers, garden, piano
- 1 main entrance, 2 secondary entrances
- Favorite places for conversation: roofs, study room
- Unfulfilled needs: stairs made out of something softer and safer than cement, communal spaces that aren’t in the center of the house (a comfortable sitting area), different exterior surface
Neighborhood:
CZ is just north of the UC Berkeley campus next to a small hub of shops and restaurants that serve the campus community. Up the hill to the West is a five way intersection with a church on every corner. The czars call this the “Holy hill”. There is also a church directly across the street.
Outdoor space:
Just within CZ’s entry gate is a courtyard with a few painted gargoyle planters and several very full bike racks. This area gets very little direct light. The central courtyard, on the other hand, gets several hours of midday sunshine. The picture below was taken on an overcast February day around 3 pm.
The sectional diagram above gives the sun's approximate orientation during the hours just before noon. The courtyard and common spaces beyond get a good amount of direct sunlight during the middle of the day. The courtyard is only used occasionally for a special event that requires some open air (i.e. a BBQ or a fire-dancing performance). The planters are overgrown and, during my time on garden crew, contained bits of broken glass and beer cans. The gazebo stands above several picnic tables allowing czars to climb from the courtyard to some of the bedrooms in the 20s floor. There is a hot tub in the courtyard. Around the corner from the courtyard is the rose garden (see photo below)—an out of the way nook where several rose plants have been thriving. It is easy to live in CZ and never notice this corner. A few past residents I spoke with confessed that the rose garden was one of their favorite places. The bee boxes are called “the home of unwanted bees” to echo the mural in the main entrance hall that reads: “the home of unwanted children”.
The two roofs get full sun and a good amount of use. The 100s wing roof (see photo below) is also home to the study room. Ambitious garden crews usually grow some food in the planters: currently there are some celery plants and leafy greens—probably enough for 2-3 big vegetable dishes for the 124 residents. While less than 1% of the house food is homegrown, the bee hive produced 5-6 gallons of honey in a year.
The 10s wing roof is home to the enclosed bar room (see photo below), unused furniture, a bit of gardening equipment, and an array of solar panels.
Common Space:
Two primary common spaces connect the two wings. The upstairs common room is a dining room with a sound system, a balcony, a wooden floor, and access to the kitchen. I visited the dining room twice in less than a week and the dining furniture had been rearranged so take the positioning of tables and couches with a grain of salt.
Hamutahl said the dining room is a place to sit with friends. She said it is very social and you can see everything all the time. This space hosts dinner, council, and most parties. It is a great place for parties because there are no hidden nooks for someone to pass out unnoticed.
The balcony overlooks the courtyard and the interior walls of both wings and gets full sun through the middle of the day. The view beyond the courtyard is of a parking lot and the edge of the UC Berkeley campus. Hamutahl said the balcony holds an interesting place in CZ history. It is a place known for smoking, partying, fires, interruptive conversation during council, graffiti, and Alice in Wonderland murals. It is a place where some people spend most of their time and some people rarely set foot.
The kitchen is vibrant, hectic, and a great place to rub elbows with unfamiliar housemates. People in the common room can’t see or interact with people in the kitchen and at dinner time there are traffic jams in the two doorways leading into the kitchen. Czars doing dishes and pots face a blank wall with their backs to the main kitchen area. The pantry is small and dark and one czar named it the “torture chamber”. The skylights and the small window in the door are the only sources of natural light in the kitchen
The downstairs common space is called the “Red room” (the walls are painted red). There is a fireplace, a wheelchair access ramp, a piano, a pool table, an out-of-order bathroom, and at least a couch or two. Before the 2006 renovation, there was a space called “The Den of Iniquity”, filled with curtains, cushions, and a record player.
The hallways, bathrooms, and stairwells act as informal, out-of-the-way common spaces to a minor extent. I remember having a few short interactions with housemates in these in-between spaces, but always had the sense that everyone in the hallway is listening in on the conversation.
The 100s wing:
The 100s wing consists of three stacked double-loaded corridors with a bathroom on each floor. There is an extra stairwell at the far end of the wing that is mainly used for making phone calls or throwing an old mattress. This was originally the female wing and the straight hallways made it easy for the house mom to watch the traffic to and from the rooms. The 200s bathroom has a high level of traffic because it is on the same floor as the main common room and kitchen and because it has the laundry room.
The 10s wings:
This layout of the 10s floors is c-shaped with the bathroom in the center. This was the male wing originally. Hamutahl lived on the 10s floor her first semester and called it the “most social floor ever”. There were only 9 people living on the floor and they would all hang out on the ground in the hallway. The fact that they all applied to be managers the following semester suggests to me that they all became very invested in the community due to their experience together in that tiny 10s floor. There are 4 total floors in the 10s wing; the 10s floor has seven rooms and the 20s, 30s, and 40s have 9 rooms each.
Shared amenities:
- Food, kitchen, eatable garden
- Printing and study room computers
- Sound systems (common room and kitchen)
- Piano
- Hot tub
- 49 cuft meat and cheese/“cook’s frig”, walk in refrigerator, walk in freezer
- Ice machine
- Cold milk dispensers
- Laundry
- Maintenance tools
- Free pile of hand-me-down items
- Common space piano, pool table, projector
Heat:
The 10s floor sits into the ground a bit on the south side and can get pretty cold. Every room has a personal heater that plugs into a central heating system. The kitchen can get really cold—especially when skylights are left open
Privacy:
The rooftops and the rose garden are the only common places in the co-op that offer opportunities for privacy. The courtyard is not a private space because the common space windows and room window look out to it. Noise from the balcony is a constant problem for people with courtyard windows. Courtyard and balcony shown below (outdoor couches proliferate).
The walls between rooms are very thin so residents can easily hear one another. They held Womens’ Meetings at CZ in individual rooms because there was no common space with enough privacy to set the right atmosphere.
Regular layout:
Hamutahl suggested that the regular layout of the rooms may actually increase the chaotic quality of the house. She lived in another co-op, Lothlorien, where the rooms are much more irregular and found the atmosphere to actually be much calmer. In fact, it was only where the regular layout of CZ breaks, on the smaller 10s floor, that she found friendship and community.
Conclusions:
The central courtyard in CZ is not effective at creating a strong community. The privacy of the people with courtyard windows is at jeopardy when the courtyard is in use, and the privacy of the courtyard space is jeopardized by the surrounding windows. The adjacent common space is the red room which is commonly unoccupied. The overhanging balcony is almost always occupied but the socializing rarely makes it all the way down the stairs and into the courtyard.
The lack of smaller, more private common spaces means there are fewer places for conversation.
The long straight hallways in the 100s wing are less effective at creating friendship between floor mates than the C-shaped layout of the 10s wing.
The lack of visual access to the kitchen leads to traffic jams around dinner time and prevents the atmosphere of informal interaction from spilling out into the main common space. There are no windows to the outside and the pot-washing sink, in particular, feels closed off from the outside world. The kitchen facility itself, with the large central island and massive stove top, promotes a lively cooperative spirit.
Despite the shortcomings CZ’s layout, it maintains its sense of humor. While this house may not actually be a “home” for most people who live there, it serves a purpose within the Berkeley Student Cooperative system. The large common spaces and lack of privacy mean great parties. The rooftops are treasured landscapes, places to ponder the chaos below.
Article of interest:
Gross, Rachel. "Keeping Housemates Fed and Green at a Berkeley Student Co-op". The New York Times. 22 February 2010<bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/keeping-housemates-fed-and-green-at-a-berkeley-student-co-op/>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)