Mini-dorms, Group Living Accomodations, and Parking

Co-ops and other shared houses tend to have higher population densities than their neighbors, and this can sometimes cause conflict, especially over parking.  At the last City Council meeting, the City of Berkeley heard legislation to add regulations to rooming houses.  The action was prompted by 2133 Parker Street, a 19-bedroom rooming house six blocks south of UC Berkeley.  The building was once a 3 story duplex with a garage on the first floor and two apartments with a total of six bedrooms on the upper floors.  Two years ago, the building was sold and the new owner expanded and renovated the building with the following notable additions:
- Garage converted into a 3rd unit.
- Attic space expanded into a 4th floor with more bedrooms.


2133 Parker is located in a R2-A low/mid density residential area consisting of houses, duplexes, and small apartment buildings.  See map below. 

Not surprisingly, neighbors were unhappy about the expansion - which violated some zoning regulations - and took their case to the City.  A detailed description of some neighbors' reaction to the project, as well as before and after photos of the building, can be found at the 2133 Parker blog. 

The neighbors' main land use related complaints were:
- Building has too many bedrooms
- Building has insufficient parking, leading to shortage of streetside spaces
- Building is too tall

Once residents moved in, a couple more complaints surfaced:
- Noisy parties
- Recycling and garbage out of control.

 The outcome of the meeting was the following:

1. The property owner had to make 2133 Parker comply with the zoning code by reducing the number of bedrooms from 19 to the code compliant 7.   The zoning code limits the number of bedrooms a building can have based on the size of the piece of land, in this zone, one per 800 square feet.  
2. In R-2 multiple family residential zones, buildings adding bedrooms beyond the 5th to a house or apartment would no longer be eligible for residential parking permit (RPPs).  RPPs are permits sold to residents at a nominal $35 a year to park for unlimited amounts of time in 2-hour zones in their neighborhood.
3. Mini dorms would require an onsite manager to handle noise complaints and deal with recycling.  The city define mini-dorms as follows:
   
   Section 13.42.020.A. is amended to read:
   “A. “Mini-dorm” means any building in a R-2 or R-2A Zoning District in which any Dwelling Unit in the building contains more than five Bedrooms and the Gross Floor Area of that Dwelling Unit devoted to Bedrooms is more than 60% of the total Gross Floor Area. For purposes of this subdivision, the Gross Floor Area of any room, closet or other ancillary space that can be entered only through a Bedroom shall be considered part of the Gross Floor Area of that Bedroom. Permitted and Legal non-conforming Sororities, Fraternities, and Student Co-ops shall not be considered Mini-Dorms, as long as they have a resident manager.”

Let's take a co-op look at all of this...

 The Parking Issue:
The city's zoning code requires 1 space per 5 residents in R-2 zones.  Experience in the student co-op (which are located mostly in R-3 and R-4 zones closer to campus) has been that about 1 in 10 to 1 in 8 residents will keep a car in Berkeley.  (See the article on Lothlorien)  So 1 in 5 is reasonable.  In fact, at non-student co-ops, which are more likely to be in R-2 zones, car ownership is often 1 in 3 or 1 in 4. 

However, requiring more onsite parking might not be the most effective way of making sure there are enough street spaces to go around.  At $35 a year, the permits are underpriced.  Often in the student co-ops, onsite spaces sit empty because residents would rather pay $35 a year to park on the street instead of $500-700 to park in a lot or garage.  Many of these vehicles are used only a few times a month, and raising the parking cost would probably convince a number of their owners to switch to carshare or other transportation.

It remains to be seen what residents in buildings ineligible for parking permits will do.  My guess is they will register their car at a friend's house - something people already do now to park in an area closer to where they want to be.  

The bedroom density issue:
Closely tied to the parking issue.  However, loopholes abound: this could encourage fewer, larger double bedrooms instead of smaller singles.

The Recycling and Garbage and Resident Manager Issue:
Here the problem was more of a management one: building owners not providing enough trash cans, probably since the city charges for garbage pickup by the number of bins.  In a rooming house, where garbage pickup is included in rent, residents may lack incentive to reduce waste. In any case it is unlikely this part of the ordinance will ever take effect, since for a building to have bedrooms account for 60% of floor area would require some very impressive architectural gymnastics.  Apartment buildings average 10-15%.  The typical large student co-op in Berkeley such as Lothlorien is about 20% bedroom.  Even Pacifico, with its ultra-efficient floor plan, is only around 30-40%.  Stairs, bathrooms, kitchens, hallways - these all take up lots of space.  A building that is 60% bedroom would require nested bedrooms that have to be entered via other bedrooms, have insufficient bathrooms, and have almost no common space. 


The noise issue:
 It's true, the more people live in one place, the more likely it's someone's birthday or some other occasion to party.  However, this is more of a management issue as opposed to an architectural one. 

So at the end of the day, it's about parking, as usual
Competition for street parking is the biggest impact a high-density residence tends to have on its neighborhood.  The city could charge more for this scarce resource, but this tends to anger residents who suddenly have to pay more for the same service.  Then there is the privatization approach, where the street parking spaces in front of a house belong to the owner to do whatever they want with it - keep it for themselves, rent it out, or charge the public to park in.  The city could also encourage more cycling and public transit use, but when self-proclaimed environmentalist communities can only get down to 1 car per 4 residents after they are no longer students, some parking will be required in the near future. 

UCSC Trailer/Camper Park, Santa Cruz

October 2011

North of the UCSC campus, the trails through the redwoods are quiet but for the whir of the occasional mountain biking crew. When I stepped off the path, I came across a shelter made of redwood branches, a blue tarp laid over a sleeping pad within. One such path opens onto a small clearing where forty-two trailers are clustered. Vibrantly colored and timelessly silent, there is something quite stunning about happening-upon the trailer park.

History:

The trailer park is located north of Kresge College and west of Heller Drive. It started in the early 1980s during a housing shortage. Students were parking RVs and trailers in campus parking lots and started several trailer parks in the woods. This is the only known trailer park left. There is a long-term plan to use the land for student dormitory housing but no moves have been made yet.

Current camper park lore: pre-university-regulation, seven students lived together in one trailer. The lead singer in Sublime helped get the camper park started.

Overview:

• 42 trailers (with cooking facilities and running water)
• Shared common house: kitchen, laundry, refrigerator, freezer, music/computer/entertainment room, 2 showers, 2 bathrooms
• Bi-weekly pot luck dinners (Wednesday/Sunday)
• Favorite places for conversation: the dish-washing sink, in front of the “free-food fridge”, the community room, bathrooms, walking around the park, by the barbeque and the picnic tables, in the trailers when food is being cooked and a couple people are sitting around
• Challenges: trailers can be cold, not enough privacy for those sharing a trailer, hard to get to the bathroom without running into someone, some trailers don’t have working ovens, hard to cook elaborate meals

Neighborhood/surroundings:

But for the occasional whir of a mountain bicyclist, the trails up through the redwoods hold a steady and also eery silence. There are stories of secret encampments in the redwoods surrounding the trailer park.  At one time, the people living in the encampments were known as "woodsies" and they were often close friends with the parkies. 

On one side of the camper park, there is a university parking lot and a road leading down to campus. Although the camper park feels very far away from campus life, it is a five minute walk to the Kresge dormitory and a ten minute walk to centrally located campus libraries.

The Park:

The 42 trailers that compose the camper park are arranged much like houses in a suburban cul de sac. There are 2 main foot paths and 1 main road leading into the neighborhood. The group of trailers on the loop furthest from the common house are called “the lonely loop.” Trailer 42 is known as “the gate keeper” and the current resident is “Gatekeeper Jeff”. The residents of trailer 14 said their neighborhood loosely spans from trailer 9 to 18. They suggested that a few other neighborhoods exist within the park.

The Common House

October 2011

The common house is located near the center and includes 2 showers, 2 bathrooms, a kitchen, and a common room/study room. Just outside are the common waste bins. Every Sunday and Wednesday, the parkies gather for a potluck meal at the common house. Some people talk about upcoming events and make announcements. The only official meeting was the first meeting of the quarter when campus officials came and chowed down on some chili and ice cream. The kitchen sink and the common room are particularly popular places to stop and talk. Most parkies carry their dishes in milk crates to wash them in the common kitchen. The industrial sinks are much more convenient then their miniature private sinks.  While most parkies are well acquainted with one another, five of the forty-five official residents were only spotted a couple times in the first month. Most conversation happens at the common house or on the street between trailers.

Trailer life:

According to university regulations, all trailers must:

• be manufactured units intended for use as a residence
• meet UC requirements
• be fully operational/DMV registered
• pass inspection
• be less than 28’ in length and less than 12’ in width
• include: cooking facilities and a sink with running water, a 110 volt underground AC electrical system, adequate light/heating/fire extinguisher/smoke detector/carbon monoxide detector/ propane leak detector

Only 5 of 42 trailers have a sewer hook-up (sewers are not required). Below are a few examples of trailers in the park:

Obviously parkies don’t hesitate to make their home their own. Around 7 trailers were painted in a single fall quarter. Some parkies spend a good bit of time keeping up their garden and making their trailer “homey”, while others allow the potted plants to die. Although the oldest parkie has only been around for three years, the outdoor furnishings have been inherited by many parkies. This passing on of sculptures, paintings, plants, and furnishings lends to a sense of continuity.

Some of the best conversations are had between parkies inside the trailers.  One person volunteers to cook and the others sit in the booth or on the bed. One resident reported sharing at least one meal a day with 3-4 people from the trailer park. Many parkies don’t have an oven so they cook in other trailers frequently. When it is someone’s birthday, fifteen or sixteen people cram into a trailer and the space is filled with lively conversation.  Trailer 14 is shown below.

While the dimensions and spatial arrangements vary from trailer to trailer, this trailer illustrates the compact space and the primary components. Most trailers have 1-2 space heaters and a portable fan. One parkie said the cold is the most challenging part about living in a trailer. Trailer 14’s stove/oven is used on a daily basis to prepare breakfast and sometimes lunch and/or dinner. Some trailers don’t have an oven so complex meals are difficult. The bed separates and folds up into two opposing couches and a table can be propped in between. The windows look out to the green canopy of the redwoods. The space in front of the kitchenette and the mini-fridge are where residents do the “trailer shuffle”—a celebrated side shuffle to get out of way of the other person. Storage is tight (even with the non-functional corner-shower) and overflow ends up on the table. They are considering remodeling to replace the kitchen table with a single bench against the wall. The canopy next to the trailer provides an outdoor space where neighbors and visitors stop to chat; the owner of the trailer sometimes sits on the step or stands in the doorway. This trailer also has a back porch where residents read, stretch, and study.

The outdoor space is cluttered with potted plants, both alive and dead. Some trailers have small garden plots that they regularly tend. A live oak tree grows in front of trailer 14.

Shared amenities:

• 2 central bathrooms (only 5/42 trailers have a sewer hook-up)
• 2 central showers
• 2 dishwashing sinks
• 17 cuft refrigerator
• 14 cuft freezer
• Donated food from grocery stores and bakeries (usually expired or not fresh enough for sale)
• 3 common computers
• Wireless internet access
• TV, VHS & DVD player in common room
• Outdoor barbeque
• Central recycling and trash

Ownership:

A student who wants to move into the trailer park puts their name on a 30-80 person waistlist. When a parkie moves out, they sell their trailer to the next person on the waitlist for $3,000-$3,500 and they are the new official owner of the trailer. When they move out, they usually sell it for a few hundred dollars less than they bought it for. Parkies also pay $500 each month (or $556 for those with a sewer connection) in rent which is about $300 cheaper per month than the cheapest dorm.
 

Zoning:

The parkies said clusters of trailers will operate like mini-neighborhoods within the larger community. The residents in these clusters tend to communicate more with one another and spend more time cooking for one another in their trailers. The parkie that lives in trailer number 42 is called “the gatekeeper” because it is close to the primary vehicle entrance.

Storage:

Before UC regulation, what parkies couldn’t store in their trailers, they fit into a variety of outdoor storage units. Two college students with a conservative amount of belongings can make do with the indoor shelves and closet (~14 sqft) and 2 outdoor dressers or storage bins.  Most parkies find the mini-fridge in their trailer to be too small for their needs and the overflow is put in a bag in the central refrigerator.

Conclusions:

The layout of the trailer park provides for the type of coincidental contact that is essential for a strong community. Parkies are motivated to leave their residence to go to the common house to grab food from the refrigerator, prepare food, clean-up after meals, use the bathroom, take a shower, empty the trash, attend the potlucks, use the central computers, or use the television. The interactions that happen as they carry out these daily tasks are the heart of the community. The individual kitchenettes and tight quarters provide smaller, more private places to cook for small gatherings within the community. While this may seem to create unnecessary divisions within the community, it is my hypothesis that it allows more introverted parkies a place to create friendships and feel at home within such a large group of people. Literature on cohousing has already tackled this idea of smaller, divided spaces with two important findings: nooks and smaller spaces allow space for residents to have more private conversations¹ and members of a community on this scale usually really connect with four to five people². The trailers are somewhere between a co-op and a co-housing community: each has a kitchenette but the bathroom facilities are shared. In co-operative houses, shared walls lead to a lack of auditory privacy, some rooms don’t get any direct sunlight, personal kitchen facilities are rare, and most rooms don’t have any personal garden space. The shared walls in co-op houses do help keep the energy cost low. Check back for the energy-use of the trailer park.

¹Franck, Karen and Sherry Ahrentzen. New Households, New Housing. Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY. 1991.

²McCamant, Kathryn and Charles Durrett. Creating Cohousing: Building Sustainable Communities. New Society Publishers. 2011.

Rochdale Village Co-op Apartments, Berkeley

I met Oscar, the President of Rochdale Village Cooperative Apartments and a current resident, in the courtyard (pictured above).

History:

Rochdale Village was constructed in 1971 on the site of the McKinley Continuation School.¹ It was named after the English Town of Rochdale, Greater Manchester, England. It was in this town that the Rochdale Pioneers decided on the Rochdale Principles of Cooperation. The principles were revised by the International Co-operative Alliance in 1966 and are still in use today.²

1. Open, voluntary membership.
2. Democratic governance.
3. Limited return on equity.
4. Surplus belongs to members.
5. Education of members and public in cooperative principles.
6. Cooperation between cooperatives.
7. Concern for community

The project was part of an effort to expand low-cost housing for UCB students. The Berkeley Student Cooperative nonprofit received a low-interest loan from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to carry out the project. Years earlier, Harry Kingman had led co-opers to lobby Congress to make student co-ops eligible for this kind of loan.³ Since the 1970s, solar panels and high-efficiency furnaces and water heaters were added.

Overview:

• 259 residents
• 96 units (studios and 2, 3, and 4 bedroom apartments)
• Rent/month: $719 for a studio, $626 per person in 2 bedroom, $539 per person in 3 bedroom, $482 per person in 4 bedroom
• Parking Spaces: 30 (all in use) and a bike shed
• Shared laundry, garden
• 2 entrances
• Favorite places for conversation: common room, group-reserve room, BSC events
• Challenges: noisy people on Telegraph on weekend nights, interlocking apartments with thin walls, lack of familiarity between residents, safety concerns

Neighborhood:

Rochdale is located in a flat area of the city, a short walk down Telegraph from UC Berkeley campus. The land is owned by the University and leased by the Berkeley Student Co-op non-profit. They renew the lease every ten years. Rochdale has a pretty good relationship with the University and the UCPD. The location is not without its challenges. On the weekend, pedestrians on their way between fraternity houses and bars are too loud for residents who are trying to sleep. The kids at the neighboring schools can also be loud during recess (Oscar was less concerned with this noise). Bikes and laptops were stolen when doors were left unlocked. Homeless people sometimes come into the courtyard and are asked to leave. If a fight breaks out, the UCPD are called.

Outdoor space:

Although Rochdale has quite a bit of outdoor space compared to other Berkeley Student Co-ops, Oscar perceived there to be very little outdoor space. The backyard is home to the “Butterfly garden” that grows less than 1% of the food consumed by the residents. Residents put in 8 hours of work shift toward the garden or other home improvement projects per semester. They used to play a bit of basketball on the court and soccer on the field but that slower down a bit recently. The interior courtyard has seen a few parties over the years, but is primarily a place where residents pass one another as they come and go. Some of the top floor apartments have double-loaded corridors that are open to the weather. These outdoor spaces occasionally host parties that are not well attended and usually get shut down.

Oscar mentioned three different zones where parties are hosted: “the heights”, “the flats”, and a few apartments in building E where some members of the student group “Hermanos Unidos” reside. “The flats” are at ground level and “the heights” are above ground level (the parking garage runs underneath building B). Building C, D, and E are commonly thought to be the noisier buildings.

Common Space:

The most active common spaces are the laundry room, the office, and the common room/pool table room. The common room is used for social events and for making important group decisions every-other-Monday during council meetings. The hot tub was out of order and Oscar told me the computer room was rarely utilized. During my visit, a few residents chatted in the laundry room while they waited on their clothes, residents popped in and out of the office to talk to the amicable staff person, and a study group met up in the common room. Unwanted items are placed in the “free pile” in the laundry room where people meet and fuel midnight-laundry-conversations with vending machine snacks.

Residences:

A variety of apartment configurations make up the 6 buildings. One of the primary arrangements is illustrated below:

The 4 bedroom apartments (yellow & white) interlock with one another so that the upstairs of one apartment is directly above the neighboring apartment. This diagrammatic section illustrates the arrangement:

Oscar lived in one of these interlocking apartments and disliked the design because he was kept awake by the noise of his neighbors moving about their daily tasks. The bedrooms of one apartment are above the living room of the neighboring apartment and vice-versa; there is basically no acoustic privacy between neighbors because the walls are very thin. His apartment was equipped with a stovetop, oven, refrigerator, and freezer. The refrigerators are replaced regularly and work well. Oscar would have liked another half-bath downstairs, a bit more space in general, and thicker walls. He suggested they take down the walls between the living areas so neighbors could get to know each other better.

The hallways are dimly lit and often smell strongly of whatever is being cooked in the apartments.

Shared amenities:

• Common room/game room (couches, pool table, foosball, air hockey)
• Office (considered part of the common space)
• Hot tub (not in service usually)
• Laundry room: 6 commercial washers, 6 commercial dryers
• Organic “Butterfly Garden”
• Computer room with printing (computers are old, rarely use and the printer rarely has toner)

Energy/waste:

During the 2010-2011 school year Rochdale used:

Electricity: ~30,000 and 40,000 kWh/month (winter) & slightly less over summer

Natural gas: ~3,900 therms/month (winter) & ~1,000 therms/month (summer)

Water: ~350 CCF/month (winter) & ~625 therms/month (summer)

Oscar estimated ~50% of apartments use the optional recycling/compost bins

Rochdale vs. Fenwick/student co-op houses:

Many students prefer the Rochdale apartments over the neighboring co-operative apartment, Fenwick. Although Fenwick is much newer, the apartments have larger common living areas, the hot tub is usually functioning and clean, it is more expensive.

Oscar told me what he liked about co-operative houses: eventually you run into housemates getting food or going to the bathroom, they are more cooperative, people hang out in the kitchen, and food is shared. He found the co-op apartments to be attractive because people tend to be more on their own, they are considered cleaner, there is no public association with drug use, there is a greater diversity in culture, and there is more time to “chill” alone. He compared the layout to a dorm.

When Oscar was the President of Rochdale, he knew around 20-30% of the residents by name. Most residents on the same floor are usually at least acquainted. Oscar mentioned that there used to be a central kitchen and he would like to see it come back or have at least a couple communal dinners each week. Without a central kitchen, it is easy to go long periods of time without seeing a friend and it takes a bit of effort to be an active member of the community.

Safety:

16 security cameras were installed as a reaction to a sexual assault incident. Occasionally, someone from the street comes into the courtyard and refuses to leave or causes a fight and the UCPD is called. Those looking for cans don’t cause any trouble and the Rochdale staff help them.

Conclusions:

For most residents, the Rochdale Village co-operative apartment functions like any other apartment complex. The key points of distinction are the laundry room, the office, and the common room where residents have the opportunity to get to know another. Some become involved in the biweekly meetings and social events, but the large majority come and go with a high level of anonymity, passing each other in the courtyard space as strangers. Many co-opers come to Rochdale to “retire” when they want more time on their own and the anonymity works for them.

Acoustic privacy is, in fact, the primary concern of residents. Those living in the interlocking apartments broadcast their every movement through the thin walls and into the ears of their neighbors. Oscar’s idea to take down the walls between the two living rooms of the apartments is interesting because it would give the residents more opportunity to communicate about when they need quiet to sleep or study.

“The flats” and “the heights” are valuable spaces for hosting parties. They are easy to find and open out to the backyard space. The low walls around the entrances provide subtle boundaries that serve as places to lean and converse when the weather is fair.

259 people is a very large co-op. In cohousing, the Danes never built a community for more than 50 adults⁴. Through trial and error, they discovered that 20-50 people is optimum. 259 people may be too many people for a single tight knit co-operative community. A single centralized kitchen and/or shared meals may not be an effective community building strategy for Rochdale. Perhaps several (5-13) larger kitchens throughout the complex would be a more effective design: providing the opportunity for residents to get to know one another a bit better and moving some of the noise out of the individual apartments where people sleep and study. Perhaps residents would be less worried about cooking aromas in the hallways if they could take part in the making and eating of a shared meal.

¹”Berkeley Student Cooperative.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundations, Inc.. 18 Jan 2012. Web. 30 Jan 2012.

²”Rochdale Principles.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundations, Inc.. 28 Jan 2012. Web. 30 Jan 2012.

³”History of the BSC.” Berkeley Student Cooperative. 30 Jan 2012.

⁴McCamant, Kathryn and Charles Durrett. Creating Cohousing: Building Sustainable Communities. New Society Publishers, 2011.

Domes saved! - read and watch all about it!

In 2011, the Davis Domes – a community of 28 students living in fourteen dome-shaped cottages amongst gardens and forests, faced one of the biggest challenges in their 40-year existence.

Threatened with closure, the Domies rallied together and with the help of thousands of volunteers and supporters, they gained the support of other cooperatives, changed the minds of administrators, raised money, and fixed up the Domes.
 Domes Storybook by Alfred

Domes Community Build video by Ashley Woodbury

Signs and Posters, a photo essay

Co-ops tend to have eclectic interior design due to the varying tastes of the residents, though one thing that is unique to this type of residential environment is the large amount of signs.  The following signs are from Lothlorien Co-op, a student co-op with 57 residents and 20+ boarders (people who live elsewhere, but eat their meals at the co-op). 

As the number of residents goes up, the amount of signs increases as more and more communication and self-expression relies on passive mass media. 
3-6 people: a few signs on the fridge
7-12 people: signs around the kitchen and in hallways
13-25 people: the above, plus signs in bathrooms and on bulletin boards
25-80 people: signs throughout common spaces
81+ people: signs everywhere, walls covered in writing and artwork


Let's start with the front door.  When most residents don't have cars, where does one express themselves with witty political slogans?  On the front door!



The kitchen door which is the one most residents use to enter the building, has a more utilitarian function.  It is used to advertise events. 




In contrast, a bulletin board made specifically for advertising events, located in the dining room (a less heavily trafficked area) is barely used. 


There's a bulletin board for official announcements

 There's a board specifically for workshift (Chore assignment)

 Refrigerators are prime sign real estate.  These signs talk about how to reduce waste and where to find recycling bins. 

 This refrigerator, being one of the most heavily used, has a lot of interactive signage, including sign-up sheets for house elections.

Multiple levels of information on the inside of the front door in the foyer: a calendar, photos, an event flyer, and energy use data.  The poster in the back is of a nebula.  There is also an object-specific sign here reminding people not to prop the door. 
 

 More object-specific signage on a pantry window.

 Recycling signs.  With over 12 different categories of recycling ranging from plastics to electronics to hazardous materials, recycling signs are one of the most common.  One reason is that they are often used by visitors to the house, who can't be reached via house email lists. 

When one's room door is one's front door, posters and other decorations sprout on and around the door


Signs are also used as general purpose decoration.





The bathroom is full of signs, as it's a natural place for people to read things.

Sound like information overload?  Not necessarily.  Since the co-op buys food in bulk, there is one place where signs are minimal - the pantry.  Contrast the view below to that of a typical household pantry with its rows of brightly branded food products. 

Merced: From housing bust comes grassroots co-ops!

Article in the Sunday, 11/12 New York Times talks about how empty houses in the Central Valley city of Merced, California have become popular as ad-hoc student co-ops. 

The types of houses being shared are of the McMansion type - suburban houses with 4-5 bedrooms.  Rent is around $1,000 a month, or $200 a person.  The oversupply of housing and high unemployment in the area has led to these unusually low rates - in contrast, a shared house in Berkeley, which has more jobs than housing, costs about $600-700 a room.  As the houses are all new, maintenance costs are minimal as well and amenities are very nice.  Parking is a bit of an issue as these suburban houses are not within walking distance from campus and Merced is a car-centered city, but with a typical 5 bedroom house, the multi-car garage, driveway, and curb in front of the house is more than enough space to accommodate 5 vehicles. 

Strange thing is that UC run dorms cost roughly the same in Merced and Berkeley - roughly $1300 a month per person.  Could Merced be the start of a new co-op movement?  I'm already writing to NASCO, the nationwide association of co-ops, on feasibility of organizing something. 

Domes Community Build

I arrived at the Domes Community Build Friday night just as twilight set in. A few of the Domes were lit from the interior; the drone of hand-held drills found its way out into the cold air. The central open space was occupied by several drummers. Inside the yurt, boxes of fresh Asian pears and apples accompanied the remaining scraps from the communal dinner.

When I returned the following day, I received a nametag, a warm breakfast, and a garden assignment. We excavated the thicket of bermuda grass entangling some sage, comfrey, and a patch of lamb’s ear. Turning the soil, we uncovered some river bed rocks to place around the bed. My companion, Stepan from the Czech Republic, overheard the woman in the patch next to ours speaking Czech and struck up conversation. A few patches over, a young woman told her fellow gardener about her positive experience in the new Davis co-op, Cornucopia. A woman named Leslie answered our questions and ran around adding water to the soil to soften it and choreographing the labor. A tractor showed up around lunchtime and turned out the weeds at ten times the pace of the rest of us.

After lunch we held a meeting and divided up into different labor forces. There were upwards of ten skilled carpenters. I joined a crew of landscapers. We hacked away at a thicket of bamboo that sheltered the outermost dome from the eyes of passer-bys. This dome was now the office with an ADA accessible ramp drying in the sunshine. Soon, I made my way over to the sanding station and spent the rest of the day-lit hours smoothing over the faces of two-by-fours for the loft railings. After sunset, I threw a few shovelfuls of dirt on a path to smooth it out in preparation for a layer of concrete.

photo courtesy of Paul Kitagak, Sacramento Bee

When the Mad Cow String Band played in the yurt, the big group of us took turns eating and dancing. A few local musicians played next, followed by a reggae band from Santa Cruz.

The next day followed the same pattern. Photographers and reporters made their way around. A cleaning crew was formed and a mosaic was carefully arranged. I was continually impressed by the organization and the productivity. The garden was hardly recognizable when I went to spread wood chips on the path. There was probably 100 volunteers working through the middle of the day and when it started to sprinkle, the tools were gathered under a tarp and shelters were propped. Most of the volunteers were past residents or residents of other Davis co-ops. Seventeen Berkeley co-opers joined the Domes Community Build—the largest out-of-town contingent.

Some “ex-domies” (past residents of the Domes) silk screened shirts to read “We Saved the Domes,” and crossed their fingers that it would indeed be true. According to an article in Davis Voice, the UC Davis student housing department is considering making an agreement to allow the Domes to remain for five years under third-party management. See the following articles for more on this story:

McCollough, Laura. The Saving of the Domes at Baggins End. Davis Voice. 2 November 2011.

Sangree, Hudson. UC Davis dome housing gets reprieve, rehabilitation. The Sacramento Bee. 8 November 2011.