|
Quayside Cohousing:
Creating An Environmentally Sustainable Lifestyle
By Graham Meltzer
Pollsters say that about 90 percent of us claim
to be concerned about the state of the environment. And most of us appear to
recognize that high levels of personal consumption contribute decisively to
environmental degradation. Yet very few of us can claim to have modified our
lifestyles accordingly. Why do most of us have such trouble walking our
environmental talk? Author Graham Meltzer provides some answers to that
question, as well as examples of how things can be different. In his book
Sustainable Community – Learning from the Cohousing Model, Meltzer portrays
a cohousing project in Vancouver, British Columbia that is empowering its
residents to live more sustainably.
"The goal of Quayside Village is to have a community
which is diverse in age, background and family type that offers a safe,
friendly, living environment which is affordable, accessible and
environmentally conscious. The emphasis is on quality of life including the
nurture of children, youth and elders." ~Community mission statement
QuaysideVillage Cohousing is characterized by its
diversity. True to its mission statement (above) it enjoys a population of
diverse age, income, ethnicity, spiritual orientation and life stage.
Indeed, its founding members pro-actively sought single, elderly and
disadvantaged residents – those often isolated members of society who most
benefit from close community ties.
The children have been amongst the biggest
beneficiaries. Of the six children under six, four are without siblings, but
as a “tribe,” they enjoy close sibling-like relationships. In order to
include lower-income households, the project incorporated five “affordable”
units (a quarter of the total number), four for sale at 80 percent of market
value and one rental unit. The group received no government subsidy for
these units, but to improve their viability, the City permitted an increased
site density, reduced setbacks and fewer car parks.
The project is located in the resurgent inner city
neighbourhood of Lonsdale, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. It is
15 minutes from downtown Vancouver by ferry and an easy walk to the ocean,
shops, schools, libraries, restaurants and community services. The building
is situated on a corner, flanked to the east by similarly scaled four-storey
apartment buildings and to the west, by detached houses and duplexes. The
somewhat jaunty architecture is richly detailed and brightly painted in
“brick dust”, “old linen” and “tea leaf” colours. Individually expressed two
and three-storey townhouses face the street, above which two levels of
single-storey apartments appear to huddle under a massive gabled roof.
A pre-existing corner store, the Dome Mart, has been
resurrected in the new building and its landmark copper dome reinstated
above the corner. The units are accessed from generous balconies facing into
an intimately scaled, internal courtyard. These offer opportunities for
gardening and informal social interaction. Balustrades support the vertical
landscaping of creepers and edible plants that provide food, shade and
privacy. The common house at Quayside Village is directly accessible from
the street and the internal courtyard. Unconventionally, the entrance and
principal social space are combined, creating an open and welcoming arrival
experience.
A fireplace centrally located within the space
incorporates “memory boxes” for display and a round timber bench for
seating. Through recycled French doors is a generous multi-purpose space
used for common meals, meetings, dancing, yoga etc. It is occasionally let
for activities of the broader community, such as a health and parenting
program for immigrants. A kitchen, office, guest room, bathroom, laundry and
children’s room adjoin. On an upper level, an octagonal domed reading room
with stunning city and mountain views is available for reading, homework,
craft and meditation.
In accordance with its mission statement, the group
has incorporated many environmental strategies and technologies into the
project. Most importantly, it is urban and dense. In this way, it uses
valuable land efficiently and enables residents to work, live and play in
their locality. Six residents don’t own vehicles, preferring to walk, bike
and use public transport. The project has been designed to water and energy
efficiency standards set by the BC Hydro Power Smart and BC Gas Energy
Efficiency programs. A single water meter is deemed sufficient for the whole
community. Their grey water recycling plant costing $230,000 was the first
in Canada to be incorporated in a multiple housing project. Flooring,
leadlight windows and doors were recycled from pre-existing dwellings on the
site. One hundred and sixty cubic yards of construction waste were
voluntarily sorted by members and delivered to various local recycling
facilities. For all of these measures and more, the project won a 1999
Silver Georgie Award from the Canadian Home Builders Association, selected
from 444 entries.
If green technology is the hardware, then the
software of sustainability is also much in evidence at Quayside Village.
Common meals held twice weekly are mostly vegetarian. In summer, they
incorporate fresh organic vegetables from the garden. Organic milk and other
produce are delivered to residents keen to take advantage of the economy of
scale available in cohousing. The waste recycling program is amongst the
most effective in cohousing, with potential to reclaim 90 percent of
household waste. Tools and equipment are readily shared. Computers and
printers move around the building. Kitchenware and garden tools have all
been donated to the community by individual households. Two households
together own a car while others share their vehicles informally. Only one
(disabled) member has a washing machine despite all the units being plumbed
for the purpose. Clothes are passed down the line as children outgrow
them…and passed on by expanding adults to those a size smaller. The
community has its own on-site, licensed childcare centre. All furniture and
toys in the centre have come from thrift shops, garage sales or donations.
Many of these outcomes have been instigated by
individual, environmentally conscious residents who, in the process, have
informed and mentored others. Carol, one of the retired residents, has
scoured thrift shops for hand-towels for the childcare centre, and in the
process acquired toys, furniture and clothing. Brian, said by one resident
to be “a walking model of environmental practice,” administers the recycling
program. He collected unwanted bins from all over town for the recycling
station and circulated a plan of the ideal under-sink layout to each
household. A resident mechanic and computer expert willingly donate their
time and expertise, enabling others to maintain and optimize their
equipment. One grateful member suggests that, “for people who are interested
[in environmental practices but without the knowledge or practical skills,
the impetus and the motivation and the people to encourage you on, is
definitely there.”
Quayside Village offers, in accordance with its
vision statement, considerable practical and social support for
disadvantaged members. The building is fully accessible by wheelchair and
the common areas and rental unit have additional universal design features.
The group deliberately sought to include members with special needs and, as
a result, two intellectually challenged single men have purchased two of the
affordable units. However, their integration into community life has not
been easy. The group had difficulty communicating with their parents who, in
advocating for offspring, were perceived by some to be interfering in
community decision-making.
This is, perhaps, symptomatic of a more general
malaise. Vexed communication and poor social cohesion have been worrisome
from the outset. One resident explains: “The difficulties and divisions we
have experienced are mostly due to people’s knowledge and expectations upon
moving in, that is, what they understood living in community to mean or be
like. We are struggling with a philosophy of unanimity versus individual
needs and expectations”. In part this may be due to literature glowingly
advocating for the project during its development phase, in suggesting that:
“By going through the planning, design and
decision-making processes together, residents form the bonds which are the
basis for ongoing community. Decision-making and responsibilities are shared
by all members and decisions are made using consensus. This puts all members
on an equal footing, avoids power struggles, encourages everyone to
participate by communicating openly and ensures that all aspects of an issue
are considered. Any fears about differences that arise as a result of
diversity are alleviated through effective communication.”
This is an idealized view of the cohousing
development process. A more realistic expectation is put by one of the now
much wiser residents:
“North Americans that are moulded by an
individualistic and private property model have a very romantic conception
of community based on an idealisation of harmony. The idea that a functional
community is one that doesn’t have conflict is pure illusion. Conflict is
not a sign that a community is not working. Conflicts and differences and
disputes are always going to exist.”
With the benefit of this hindsight, the group may
well have applied more effort to improving their decision-making and
conflict resolution procedures. As it was, the enormous challenge of being
the developers and project managers left little time and energy for the
purpose, as one founder member recounts:
“We had a difficult development process, dealing
with the complexities of construction in an efficient and fair way. We had
tax arrears to deal with and problems of a legal and financial nature. A
preoccupation with business led to a neglect of social communication that
lasted for 18 months afterward and has had ongoing social repercussions.”
Indeed, continued financial pressure has placed an
unremitting strain on group cohesion. Costly levies have been introduced to
cover ongoing maintenance and unanticipated, retroactive repairs. Collective
decisions about the distribution of these costs to individuals and families
has necessitated outside facilitation. Some of the difficulty has been
structural. Initially, for the purposes of the development process, the
group was a legally constituted corporation. At move-in, they adopted a
conventional Strata Title but did not formalise an alternative
“cohousing-based” set of bylaws to deal with day-to-day issues. “We always
believed, based on an unspoken understanding, that consensus and
face-to-face negotiation would be enough. We had that level of naiveté,”
admits one resident. “In the progression from Corporation to Strata Title
it’s been difficult to develop a discourse about Strata versus cohousing
versus socially cohesive community.”
A particularly divisive clash developed over usage of
the internal courtyard, said by some to be “kid dominated.” Reverberant
noise quickly became problematic for residents and adjoining neighbours,
alike. A protracted conflict resolution process resulted in guidelines
limiting noise at certain times. However, this is a complex issue that goes
beyond the simple matters of decibels and times of day. It is underpinned by
differences of opinion about child socialization and the dissimilar
lifestyles of families and elderly or single members.
The design of a cooking roster generated another
vexed discussion over demands on members’ time. Like the noise issue, this
dispute results, in part, from the community’s diversity. Some residents
deal daily with a stressful cocktail of work life, child rearing, domestic
responsibility and recreation. One such member comments: “I don’t see
friends in Vancouver because it takes all of my social time to be even
minimally involved in this place. I underestimated the amount of time
involved and over estimated my willingness to give it.” Other members, on
the other hand, are retired, have grown children and enjoy a relaxed
lifestyle. Their approach is, naturally, quite different. “The more involved
I am, the more I get out of community,” suggests one such retiree.
The difficulty experienced with the cooking roster
exemplifies the organisational pressures on smaller cohousing groups.
Quayside Village Cohousing has established 13 committees to deal with the
day-to-day management of the project: Administration and Finance, Community
Building, Building Systems, Maintenance, Landscaping, Parents, Indoor
maintenance, Room Rental, Unit Rental, Parking, Safety and Emergency,
Recycling, Building Restoration. On average, each committee comprises three
members. Therefore, 26 residents (some of whom are inactive) are required to
fill 39 positions so most have to sit on at least two committees. Because
most members have very busy lives, committees sometimes eschew scheduled
meetings. This can be frustrating for others, given that anyone interested
in a particular issue may participate in committee decision-making if they
so wish. “They make decisions on the fly, in the elevator,” suggests one
resident. “Nobody knows where the lines of authority really are.” If the
experience of other cohousing groups is any indication, Quayside Village
Cohousing will rationalize and fine-tune – if not completely overhaul – its
management structure in the years ahead.
The diversity that Quayside Village deliberately
sought is probably its biggest challenge, but it is also its greatest
blessing. Age diversity, for example, is much valued. Children roam freely
throughout the building, visiting a selection of surrogate grandparents. The
elderly, who mostly live alone, treasure the contact in return. “I never
imagined how much I would enjoy the children,” comments one. “It’s been way
beyond my highest expectation.” Ethnic diversity is valued for the
opportunity it offers to participate in, and learn about, non-Western
traditions. Abi, a Nepalese member, annually adorns the common areas with
candles for the festival of Tihar. Jews help celebrate Christmas, and
Christians enjoy Hanukah.
Collectively, the group celebrates birthdays, plays
music and organizes creative opportunities (such as a mask making workshop
said by one resident to be profoundly moving and growthful). Some members
encourage each other in fitness work; going to the gym together and having a
yoga instructor visit once a week. The group collectively walk their dogs
and organize occasional outings. The prospects are bright for this ambitious
group. Their high level of commitment to each other and the project is
almost certainly going to prevail over their early teething problems. This
is generally the experience of other longer-lived groups whose history has
been similar.
Postscript
The above excerpt is based on events which occurred
in the two or three years after move-in in 1998. Jumping ahead now to some
five years on and we find a completely different scenario. “Things are great
at Quayside,” says one very satisfied resident. We were just laughing the
other night about the weird things that happened [back then] that were so
awful at the time and now seem so long ago. Now I feel we've really built a
solid and positive community culture − that will continue whatever future
challenges may come up.”
The resident continued, “And we have finally
established a sort of self-running management structure that has allowed us
to decentralize duties more and avoid the ‘too many cooks’ problem of
dealing with everything in big and long meetings. At last we have systems in
place so a lot of the administrative work is more straightforward.”
In addition to achieving a smoother management
system, the community is finding more time and energy for improvements to
the building and gardens. “Last year we won two garden awards and this year
we are going to be the first ever multi-family dwelling on the North Shore
garden tour. We have also had funds to upgrade the interior of the common
house.” Their recycling system, as good as it always was, has also improved.
“We have reduced our garbage output even more. We are producing between two
and four cans per week − less than most single family homes here!”
It appears that a natural process of “community
maturation” has occurred at Quayside, whereby members learn to live together
more harmoniously over time, develop better group process skills and deepen
their understanding of each other's different needs and wants. A natural
selection process has also occurred. Members who do not integrate into
community life leave and are replaced by others more attracted to the
community's values and practices. The Quayside example should hearten and
encourage other communities who might be experiencing similar kinds of
challenges in their initial few years.
Dr. Graham Meltzer is the author of the
book Sustainable Community: Learning from the
Cohousing Model (Trafford Publishing, 2005), from
which this article was excerpted, with permission, in 2005. He is a leading
expert on cohousing. He is an architect, scholar and architectural
photographer who consults, researches and lectures in environmental and
social architecture, communal housing, and communalism.
|
