|
 |
| |
RADAR
FEATURES
COMMENT
| |
| | | |
 |
| |
| |
|
| | RADARBOOKS
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY
LEARNING FROM THE COHOUSING MODEL |
|
Graham Meltzer. Trafford Publishing (Canada), 2005. US$22.50.
This is a book for those who believe that
sustainability is as much social as it is
environmental, for those who despair at the
hype surrounding the quest for both
“sustainability” and “community”, and for
anyone who has ever stared at the backyard
fence and imagined removing it. Cohousing
has its roots in Scandinavian developments
of the 1970s and 80s where preformed
communities of 20–60 households
developed their own housing, incorporating
a range of common facilities including
kitchens, living space, gardens, open space,
childcare, kids rooms, guest rooms,
laundries and workshops (generally around
15 percent of the total). With separate
facilities for each household such
communities are more individualized than
“communes” but more socialized than the
“model communities” so widely marketed
today. Sustainable Community is largely an
account of how such ideas have been
adapted to the more individualized cultures
of North America and Australasia. As most
of the previous literature on cohousing is
based on European examples this is a
welcome addition.
Twelve case studies are presented
together with a survey of residents that
compares and analyzes the benefits and
difficulties of such housing. While the
book is at times a bit evangelical in its
celebration of the community spirit, it is
also objective in its assessment of the
difficulties involved in cohousing, and its
sustainability outcomes. The greatest of
such advantages appear to lie in the
capacities for reduced consumption that
are created by the sharing of facilities
coupled with high levels of social capital.
While cohousing projects clearly attract
people with a desire for more sustainable
lifestyles they also enable reduced
consumption in a broad range of ways.
However, shared use of resources is not
easy, which is where the
social/environmental nexus comes in, and
not all the findings are positive. Despite an
avowed desire for more sustainable living
and lower levels of privacy, the densities
of such communities are generally little
higher than the prevailing norm and car
ownership rates are barely reduced. The
book has a great deal of detail about how
the complicated arrangements for shared
responsibilities are organized, but I was left
wanting more on the design and shared use
of space. Nearly all of these projects
employed architects and there were some
formidable challenges in negotiating with
client groups and reinventing housing
types. The progressive social values of
these communities are strongly reflected in
the floor plans but rarely evident in the
architectural styles, which are commonly
adaptations of the local vernacular. Despite
widespread concerns for social equity and
often-substantial levels of sweat equity,
affordability is not always increased.
This is not to suggest that cohousing fails
in social or environmental terms. On the
contrary, it is one of the more interesting
experiments of the past few decades and
the critique of it is getting serious. The
book articulates the complications and
contradictions and shows that the quest for
both “community” and “sustainability” can
mean much more than the commodified
versions of the same thing that are sold on
the fringes of our cities.
KIM DOVEY
|
PHILIP WEBB
PIONEER OF ARTS & CRAFTS ARCHITECTURE |
|
Sheila Kirk with photographs by Martin Charles. Wiley-Academy, England, 2005. $171.95.
Most architects today, if they know of
Philip Webb at all, know only of the Red
House, designed for his lifelong friend,
William Morris. Many books tracing the
origins of modern architecture start with
this, Webb’s first building commission.
In Sheila Kirk’s new study, the first
since Lethaby’s biography of 1935, we get
closer to the man and his work. Living in
an age when style choice for a job seemed
to be the badge of your professional
contribution, Webb strove for a more
fundamental understanding of the
architect’s relationship to society.
He admired vernacular buildings and
their relationship to “economy and a long
maintenance free life” and “believed
architecture to be a matter of good
building rather than exhibition drawings”.
This led to a deep appreciation of built
heritage and the setting up, with Morris,
of the Society for the Protection of
Ancient Buildings.
The chapter “Alterations and
Enlargements” shows an architect of
refined sensibilities working in harmony
with existing buildings. His works have
their own integrity, not imitating the
original. They do not subscribe to the
current “carbuncle theory” where the ego
of the designer must express the difference
at all costs!
His early tussles with the purveyors of
public taste in the overheated (monetarily
speaking) Royal Borough of Kensington
provide a foretaste of today’s planning
issues. The studio house that came out of
this tussle, and other similar projects
around London, gave rise to a building
language which others later debased into
a style choice and dubbed Queen Anne.
Although not as prolific as many of his
contemporaries, he nonetheless completed
a large body of work, given his insistence
on designing every detail of each
building himself.
Webb’s despairing advice as a committed
socialist working in a capitalist system still
rings true. He told a client who wanted to
build a house speculatively: “the better the
house, the worse the investment … it might
not fetch the cost price if sold.” He went on
to explain that “the popular idea was for
much show at little cost”.
His work was a great inspiration for the
next generation of architects who started
the Arts and Crafts movement. His
contribution to architecture is profound
and the more I learn of Webb, the more I
admire the man.
PS How many of us could survive if we
didn’t bill our clients until a year after
practical completion?
REX ADDISON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright © 2009 Architecture Media Pty Ltd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
