Shared Space | KU Co-op 2019

SHARED SPACE KU Co-op 2019

GastingerWalker& | Kansas City

Gensler | Chicago | Denver | Detroit | Los Angeles

Today we face a plethora of global problems.

One considerable issue we face is the global housing crisis. At the current, urban housing is unaffordable and individualist.

While the impact of technology & the sharing economy has brought convenience, it has also impacted the way in which we socialize with those around us. As architecture and design industry members, we have the responsibility, knowledge, & opportunity to create positive changes and form effective shared space elements within housing communities.

This research was completed during the August-December 2019 period before the impact of COVID-19 swept the nation. While this pause has impacted the way we view the public realm today, we hope this research provides insight to financial, environmental, and social steps we can take to form more considerate housing options in the urban landscape.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

INTRODUCTION The KU Co-op Our Experiences Research Prompt

6 8 10

2 THE RESEARCH The Sharing Economy Project Focus History The Urban Housing Crisis The Loneliness Impact Problem Statement Driver 1: The Sharing Shift Driver 2: Technology Driver 3: Costs + Demand Driver 4: Negative Perceptions

Initial Hypothesis

14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34

3 METHODOLOGY Research Tools Survey Survey Conclusions Interviews Case Studies Research Conclusion

38 40 42 44 46 58

4

SYNTHESIS & APPROACH Need for New Typology Guiding Principles Design Precedents

62 64 72

5 A NEW TYPOLOGY & IMPLICATIONS A New Typology Within Spaces Between Spaces Across Spaces Next Steps

80 82 86 90 94

6 APPENDIX Bibliography Research Tools Archive Credits

100 102 104

1 INTRODUCTION

The KU Co-op The KU Co-Op is a competitive work/ research program where graduate students from the University of Kansas spend 80% of the week participating in professional work and 20% of the week collaborating on a research project.

The program was established by the University of Kansas in conjunction with the the architecture firms, Gensler and GastingerWalker&. as an option for students to receive professional experience and to provide them with resources and guidance to conduct research. Many students apply to the program, then the offices conduct interviews and extend offers to a limited number of students.

This year, eight students spent the fall 2019 semester working at five Gensler and GastingerWalker& offices across the country, gaining valuable experience in all phases of the profession. Each office provided mentors to meet with us every other week and guide us through our research.

6

THE KU CO-OP 1

Investigating History & Future Trends

Thesis 20%

Exploring Urban Environments Conducting Interviews & Surveys Documenting Findings Developing Design Approaches Programming & Analysis Architectural Documentation Narrative & Conceptual Development Design Competitions Masterplanning & Site Exploration

Project Work 80%

Studio & Office Meetings Consultant Coordination Project Presentations Building Representative Models Building Codes & Zoning Regulations Practice Management Construction Site Visits Client Correspondence

7

1 INTRODUCTION

Our Experiences We believe that when conducting research in the architecture field it is important for team members to bring a diverse range of thought to better conceive foundational ideas that may be successful across many cultures. Although we all share the common ground of being architecture students in our 5th year of the accelerated Master of Architecture program, we each had much more history to bring to this project than the past four years. Our team brought a great amount of diversity from our differing firm locations, as well as our various origins across national and international cities, large and small.

The team members come from Europe, Asia, and North America, with six members originating from six different cities in three U.S. states. These unique experiences helped us to consider different opinions, habits, and cultures, and bring them all together for possible common solutions.

8

OUR EXPERIENCES 1

Rebecca Falk

Melissa Watson

GastingerWalker& Kansas City

GastingerWalker& Kansas City

Jon Lelek

Anastasia Popova

Gensler - Chicago

Gensler - Chicago

Gavin Goga

Shane Kim

Gensler - Denver

Gensler - Detroit

Brad Kreuger

Botao Li

Gensler - Los Angeles

Gensler - Los Angeles

9

1 INTRODUCTION

Research Prompt Each year the students are provided a prompt by firm mentors that relates design and architecture to our rapidly changing world and urban environments. The project prompt provided this year was based on the broad idea of ownership.

The prompt was the following: The sharing economy responds to a convenience-driven generational shift, reduces redundancy in privately owned goods, and supports a more collaborative lifestyle at work and home.

This begins to blur the line between public and private space typologies. Going forward, what types of spaces are truly private, which are public, and what are the opportunities for overlap? How do you change spaces that were historically private and open them up for public use? How do you alter public spaces to allow people to feel ownership?

After initial discussion and research about what the sharing economy is today, we were tasked with narrowing our topic. In the following pages, we present our investigation and findings towards the convenience-driven shift in the architecture discipline.

10

RESEARCH PROMPT 1

The sharing economy responds to a convenience-driven shift and supports a more collaborative lifestyle at work and home.

Going forward, what types of spaces are truly private, which are public, and what are the opportunities for overlap?

“

“

-Co-op Syllabus 2019

11

THE RESEARCH

12

Investigation and translation of the sharing economy to the built environment, definition and analysis of societal challenges faced today, and initial theories to spark dialogue about the future needs of the project focus.

13

2 THE RESEARCH

What is the Sharing Economy?

Before diving into studying the sharing economy impact on a particular aspect in the built environment, we took a step back to study what the sharing economy is and its direct impacts in our daily lives.

Defined as “collaborative consumption,� the sharing economy is the idea in which a flexible network allows people to exchange goods or services with one another. In combination with technology growth and expansion, this concept has sparked development on many applications and platforms, as seen in the right diagram.

The sharing economy makes it easier to exchange resources on demand, thus increasing efficiency. In many cases, it allows one to get by without owning goods or providing needed services, while creating opportunities for others to extract monetary value by providing goods and services. This flexible model allows people to focus more on experiences rather than on ownership of physical objects, and often cuts out the middleman, creating a more efficient model.

Key motivations of the sharing economy vary from user and provider perspectives.

These perspectives can be economically driven, some are social, while environmental consideration also allows users to consume less and become more sustainable.

14

THE SHARING ECONOMY 2

Working Accomodations Storage

Spaces

Ride-Sharing Vehicle-Sharing

Transportation

Money Lending Crowdfunding

Finance

Professional Personal

Skills+Talents

Open Course Peer-to-peer

Education

Used/Unused Products

Loaner Products

Goods

Meals

Food

15

2 THE RESEARCH

Project Focus From general research of various sharing economy classifications, we saw a deficiency of research within the residential sector.

While platforms exist for temporary living settings such as Airbnb, HomeAway, and Couchsurfing, we sought to address a bigger objective - how the sharing economy could impact urban housing in architectural measures to form more successful, collaborative home environments.

The topic of co-housing came to mind. While this global concept dates back in history through several iterations, it has gained newfound popularity in recent years across the world, and has succeeded in many cases to create multi-generational, affordable housing solutions.

Defined as intentional communities consisting of attached or detached private residences surrounding shared spaces such as a common kitchen, recreation space, or outdoor space, collaborative living has great potential to partner with the sharing economy principles to form more thoughtful urban housing for all individuals.

16

PROJECT FOCUS 2

17

2 THE RESEARCH

Timeline BUSH ADMIN

CLINTON ADMIN | Y2K | U.S. MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ

BUSH ADMIN |

15 14 13

9/11

12

UNEMPLO REACHE

NAFTA GOES INTO EFFECT

11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1

WTO CREATED

Y2K PANIC

-2 -3

18

Number of New Cohousing Developments

Source: Cohousing.org

Annual Growth of the real Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. (%)

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce

0 20

02 20

01 20

00 20

199 9

8 199

199 7

199 6

5 199

199 4

3 199

2 199

199 1

199 0

END OF RECESSION OF 1990

TIMELINE 2

The timeline below follows the development on co-housing projects in the United States along with the socio-economic factors during the 1990s-present day. Little correlations are drawn between these two factors, and illustrate that co-housing concepts are conceived independently of these conditions.

WAR AGAINST TERRORISM

OBAMA ADMIN | RISE OF ISIS

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT GOES INTO EFFECT

OYMENT ES 6%

END OF GREAT RECESION

19 20

18 20

17 20

16 20

15 20

14 20

13 20

12 20

11 20

10 20

09 20

08 20

07 20

06 20

05 20

04

START OF GREAT RECESION

20

03

TRUMP ADMIN

19

2 THE RESEARCH

The Urban Housing Crisis We are experiencing a critical moment in our world today in the residential industry. First, it is important to note that during the 20152050 period half of the world’s population growth is expected to be concentrated in nine countries only. This statistic can be treated in several different ways but in our particular case, it is the very reason to focus on shared housing. American culture is suffering from individualism and faces a harder adjustment to strategies like the sharing economy compared to European countries. Nevertheless, its population is rising at a speed that may be hardly controlled in the future which would bring many residents of urban landscapes to the streets.

In addition, statistics say that 40% of the urban areas required by 2030 are not yet built, which means a city the size of New York needs to be constructed globally every month. It is a striking fact - not only do we need to accelerate building process, but we need to understand how to do it more efficiently and in an innovative way, because our past experiences show that urban land is expensive and scarce.

now-2030

1st month

20

2nd month

3rd month

4th month

5th month

6th m

THE URBAN HOUSING CRISIS 2

Uganda

Tanzania

Ethiopia

Congo

Pakistan

United States

Indonesia

the 2015-2050 period, half of the world’s population “ During growth is expected to be concentrated in nine countries

“

40% of the urban areas required by 2030 are not yet built—which means a city the size of New York needs to be constructed globally every month

“

Nigeria

“

India

month

21

2 THE RESEARCH

The Loneliness Epidemic A major problem in our society that has gone largely unnoticed by the general public is loneliness. Loneliness is not necessarily about not having enough friends, but rather a measure of how deep one’s social relationships are. This loneliness epidemic may impact anyone, no matter one’s demographics, but some age groups may be at higher risk due to complications and milestones typically experienced. These ages are the late 20s, mid 50s, and late 80s. According to a study published in the Cambridge Core, loneliness has an equivalent risk factor to ones health as smoking 15 cigarettes a day. This may shorten one’s lifespan by up to eight years.

Architect, Grace Kim says, “Loneliness can be a result of the built environment combined with technology and social media usage.”

We believe designers and architects have an obligation to learn more about the impacts and implications of our creations on the social lives and mental health of our people.

A 2015 report Less In Common, City Observatory surveyed Americans to determine how development patterns have affected our lives in the last several decades. Development patterns are focused on large lots, suburban expansion, and privatization. It’s important to note that this development pattern has overall decreased shared social interactions, therefore creating a society where people have less in common.

22

THE LONLINESS EPIDEMIC 2

1970

Today

Nearly 30% of Americans spend time with their neighbors

Only about 20% spend time with neighbors while 1/3 report no interaction at all

1950

2009

Just 2,500 private, in-ground swimming pools

About 5.2 million private swimming pools in the U.S.

1970 Only 15% of families live either in predominantly poor or affluent neighborhoods

2009 33% of families live either in predominantly poor or affluent neighborhoods

23

2 THE RESEARCH

THE PROBLEM Future urban housing will be limited due to rising costs, population increase, and city growth. This influx, paired with behavioral shifts from technology, will result in unaffordable conditions & an unestablished sense of community.

24

THE PROBLEM 2

DRIVER 1: The Sharing Shift

DRIVER 2: Technology Isolation

DRIVER 3: Cost of Living

DRIVER 4: Negative Perception

25

2 THE RESEARCH

Driver 1: “The Sharing Shift” In recent decades, the world has seen a rapid shift from ownership of most live goods to a sharing lifestyle. People began to find value in easy access to goods and services in a way that almost takes us back to human roots. Sharing and trading goods or services on a daily basis was the culture of much of the world long before industrialization. Now, society has returned to those same basic concepts, with new drivers.

The introduction of technology propelled the sharing economy by supporting and facilitating the idea of access over ownership and creating the most accessible platforms ever. These platforms make it much easier for an owner and customer to connect quickly and communicate and trade more efficiently. Pricewaterhouse Coopers conducted surveys to determine what the common perceived benefits of the sharing economy were. They found that almost half of adult U.S. consumers agreed that owning today feels like a burden.

Sharing of Asset Owner

Seeker

Recommendation

Off er

Market Access

Market Access

q Re

Platform - Renting fee

st ue

Service fee

Renting fee

Business Model Toolbox

26

THE SHARING SHIFT 2

86%

agree it makes life more affordable

76%

agree it’s better for the environment

83%

agree it makes life more convenient and efficient

78%

agree it builds a stronger community

27

Driver 2: Technology The success of the sharing economy is due in part to the efficiency and availability of technology we use daily. While this technology has enabled connectivity on virtual platforms, it has decreased socialness in physical environments. Therefore, as our technology use increases, our social capital (interpersonal relationships & experiences) decreases. Now, more than ever, we have many different avenues to maintain and develop relationships with others.

Within the housing sector, particularly, levels of trust amongst neighbors has gone down. According to the General Social Survey, “nearly a third of Americans report no interactions with neighbors and only 20 percent say they spend time regularly with neighbors.” This can be attributed to many aspects such as recreation activities becoming more privatized, and individuals aren’t making the intentional decision to talk to their neighbors. Rather, many adhere to comfort and would rather stick to communication with those within their social bubble.

136 minutes per day is the average daily social media usage of internet users worldwide in 2018.

-Statista 2019

28 IN LEVELS OF TRUST DECLINE

POPULATION

19

7.67

BILLION

hours of the week is the average amount of time individuals watch TV, compared to about 10 hours in the 1960s.

MOBILE USERS

5.11

BILLION

SOCIAL MEDIA USERS

2.77

BILLION

-Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014

TIME SPENT WITH NEIGHBORS

80

40

“Nearly a third of

70

35

Americans report no interactions

60

lation

lation

2 THE RESEARCH

30

136 minutes per day is the average daily social media usage of internet users worldwide in 2018.

eral Social Survey

hours of the week is the average amount of time individuals watch TV, compared to about 10 hours in the 1960s.

-Statista 2019

-Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014

TI

80

40

70

35

Percent of US Population

Percent of US Population

DECLINE IN LEVELS OF TRUST

60 50 40 30 20

7.67

1o 0

1974

1977

1982

1985

30 25 20 15

SOCIAL MEDIA USE MOBILE USERS Most people can be trusted

POPULATION 1988

BILLION

verage s bout

1990

1993

1996

5.11 2000

2004

BILLION

Year

You can’t be too careful

2008

2012

10

2.77

5 0

BILLION

1

-General Social Survey

TIME SPENT WITH NEIGHBORS Percent of US Population

be trusted careful

19

TECHNOLOGY 2

40

“Near

35

Amer no int with n only 2 they s regula neigh

30 25 20 15 10

Never Daily or Twice Weekly

5 0

1974

1977

1982

1985

1988

1990

1993

Year

1996

2000

2004

2008

2012 -General Social Survey

29

2 THE RESEARCH

Driver 3: Costs + Demands of Living With increasing population rates and rising costs of living, there has been a decrease in the accessibility and inclusivity of our cities.

While housing cost burdens are lessening, renters in urban areas still face a lack of affordable housing options.

According to County Health Ratings, "One in four renters spend more than half of their income on housing costs. Nearly 1 in 2 renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs.� General guidance suggests that housing costs should not exceed 30% of monthly household income.

When too much of a paycheck goes towards rent or mortgage, this can force tenants to choose among paying for other essentials, causing a strain on individuals with low Currently, 55% of household the world’s budgets. popuincomes and lation lives in cities. By 2050, more than 70% will live in urban centers.

PROBLEM 2: Increasin -United Nations 2019

Population 2019

Urban Population

Population 2050

Non-Urban Population

AVERAGE 1 BEDROOM RENT

30 $2,000

Population 2019

Population 2050

4

COSTS+DEMANDS OF LIVING 2

will h milli

Urban Population

Non-Urban Population

AVERAGE 1 BEDROOM RENT g Population and Cost of Living $2,000

40%

$1,500

30%

$1,000

$500

$0 2008

KEY STATEMENT: Increasing population and cost of liv both globally and in the United States has led to a decrease in the accessibility and inclusivity of our cities.

20%

10%

43

DENVER

DETRIOT

80%

LOS ANGELES

2018

Mega cities are expected to exist in 2030, meaning they will have a population of over 10 million people.

-UN 2019

40%

KANSAS CITY

of the global GDP comes from cities,

CHICAGO

-The World Bank 2019

PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN RENTER POP AND RENTAL UNITS 2006-14

“One in 4 ren

spends mor half of their on housing c Nearly 1 in 2 spend more 30% of their on housing

10%

-Huduser Office of PD&R

ATLA

-Huduser Office of PD&R

20%

0

0

As technology becomes more powerfu Renter Populatio people flock to cities, they are becomin for productivity and innovation. Cities w more housing and jobs to support this With population increasing but the spa able decreasing, competition increases

30%

CAGO

PERC UNIT

-County He

ATLANTA Renter Population

DALLAS Available Rental Units

LOS ANGELES

SAN FRANCISCO

CHICAGO -American Community Survey, NYU Furman

31

2 THE RESEARCH

Driver 4: Negative Perception Although in the last few decades the growth of the sharing economy and a cultural shift in ownership has inspired some people to embrace shared living, it still has not caught the attention of the public eye. Co-housing and co-living have been perceived as an invasion of privacy and personal belonging.

Currently, the public perception of coliving means sacrificing private space for communally shared spaces just to save a little bit of money on rent. Simultaneously, the same people are searching for models of living that offer both affordability and the community lifestyle that they desire.

The way we perceive how to live among society is constantly changing whether organically or by economic and cultural forces. Motivators like the 2008 recession, increased cost of living while wages remain stagnant, the rise of college student debt, and/or the desire to be financially stable before getting married or starting a family.

All of which have an impact on how we now perceive co-living and co-housing compared to how it has traditionally been considered.

“So co-living is giving up my private space to live in a “dorm for adults?�

32

NEGATIVE PERCEPTION 2

Young Adult Living Arrangements in 1968 of rent paying adults age 18 - 34

Percentage of the Population

Youngwith Adult Living Arrangements in 1968 a partner 56% of rent paying adults age 18 - 34

with their parents

Percentage of the32% Population

with other kin

4%

alone with a partner

3%

56%

6%

with parents friends with their or strangers with other kin

32%

4%

Young Adult alone Living Arrangements in 2017 3% of rent paying adults age 18 - 34

with friends or strangers

6%

Percentage of the Population

Youngwith Adult Living Arrangements in 2017 a partner 23% of rent paying adults age 18 - 34

with their parents with other kin alone with a partner with parents friends with their or strangers with other kin alone with friends or strangers

36% Percentage of the Population 4% 7%

23% 27%36%

4% Current Population Survey - Pew Research, 2017 7% 27% Current Population Survey - Pew Research, 2017

33

2 THE RESEARCH

34

DRIVER 1: The Sharing Shift

DRIVER 2: Technology Isolation

DRIVER 3: Cost of Living

DRIVER 4: Negative Perception

INITIAL HYPOTHESIS 2

INITIAL HYPOTHESIS Co-housing has the potential to solve the future housing crisis because of its social, sustainable, and affordable qualities that are made possible through different levels of sharing.

35

METHODOLOGY

36

The necessary tools used to understand perceptions surrounding shared living in each respective city – including the combination of qualitative experiences and quantitative information on the project focus.

37

3 METHODOLOGY

Research Tools We proceeded with three main research tools to gain other perspectives. We conducted a survey with our various groups of peers, interviews with people affiliated with different co-housing organizations, and studied projects in our respective cities to learn from housing models and their current structure.

The survey was used to gather data from many demographics about how the general population feels about different levels of sharing in the home environment, and where their priorities and perceptions lie when searching for housing. Each team member sent the survey to their coworkers, family and friends and asked everyone to send it to others.

Interviews were additionally conducted to determine what aspects of co-housing that people who have experienced it first-hand enjoyed most about it, and also what parts they disliked. We aimed to understand what was functional and dysfunctional about the current model of co-housing.

Lastly, in studying housing models across the United States, we compared shared and traditional housing models to understand costs associated with each form of living, and shared amenities provided in collaborative housing spaces.

38

RESEARCH TOOLS 3

01

Survey To understand people’s priorities, perceptions & sharing limits

02

Interviews To recognize aspects of co-housing people value

03

Case Studies To learn from housing models that work in reality

39

3 METHODOLOGY

Survey Introduction The first tool utilized in the continuation of our research was a survey. This was sent to all firm members, peers at the University of Kansas Architecture program, and additional family, friends, and other extracurricular groups. While we realize that this is not a full representation of the general public's opinion of shared living, we sought to gain a basic understanding of perceptions surrounding the topic and familiarity.

Questions varied from gaining a background of surveyors current living conditions to providing scales at which individuals rated particular topics surrounding co-housing such as affordability, amenities, community, and spatial necessities.

A total of 307 people completed the survey, and basic background information such as age and their current living arrangements are shown graphically to the right. A full list of participant questions are located in the appendix on page 103, and results are to follow on the next page.

40

SURVEY INTRODUCTION 3

5.3%

60+

50-59 8.2%

44.7%

40-49 17.4%

19-29

Age Group

30-39 24.3%

Other

1.3%

Stranger 3.8%

Friends 13.2% 30.2% Spouse/Partner

Family

7.9%

Current Living Arrangement

Family with Child 19.8%

30.2% Alone

41

3 METHODOLOGY

Survey Results After collecting responses, we cataloged our data according to various topics ranging from location, gender, income, co-housing qualities, and more. From this categorization, we were able to draw conclusions about shared living from individuals different contextual backgrounds.

To the right are two graphs that highlight attractive and unattractive qualities surrounding the topic of shared living.

Amongst unattractive attributes in which individuals could select more than one quality, we found that privacy was a major concern for surveyors, along with communal duties, and pressured obligations to socialize.

In regard to attractive qualities, affordability was a key component that individuals found valuable in shared living arrangements, along with social connections formed in the residential environment.

These qualities highlight ways in which shared living can be found more attractive and desirable by individuals-privacy and giving tenants more control to share when desired along with affordability are key components to aiding future co-living projects and design development.

42

SURVEY RESULTS 3

Lack of Privacy

88.5%

Communal Duties

Affordability

57.7%

Social Connections

Obligation to Socialize

24.7%

41%

Convenience Space Needs

16.1%

38.7%

Eco-Friendliness Time Commitment

14.8%

Other

Other 8.9%

5%

0

0

20

40

60

80

Least Attractive Qualities of Co-Housing

Affordability

10

100

Most Attractiv

Least Attractive Qualities of Co-housing

88.5%

9.5%

44.7%

7%

Social Connections

24.7%

Convenience

16.1%

Eco-Friendliness

9.5%

Other

5%

0 40

60

80

10

20

30

40

50

100

alities of Co-Housing

Most Attractive Qualities of Co-housing

Most Attractive Qualities of Co-Housing

43

3 METHODOLOGY

Interviews Along with surveying those in our respective cities, we additionally conducted various interviews with individuals that have experienced co-living arrangements firsthand. The three interviews conducted were in Detroit, MI, Denver, CO and Lawrence, KS. These interviews enlightened aspects of co-housing that are successful qualities, and areas to investigate further upon and improve. Each resident, featured to the right, highlighted the wonderful communities formed from shared living arrangements.

Cross-generational interactions and traditional neighborly experiences were each valued greatly among interviewees.

Karin Hoskins, director of the National Co-housing Association, additionally provided great insight into problems cohousing faces today. Two problems she highlighted were diversity in communities and affordability. Both of these components are considerations we wanted to implement into our proposed toolkit of shared living elements.

44

INTERVIEWS 3

Robert Piatek, resident of Mies Detroit

“

“

Karin Hoskins, Director, National Cohousing Association

+

We live in a cross section of society, a realized environment where we are fully integrated, adapt with new times, and remember traditional values.

Rich Minder, resident of Delaware St. Commons

“

“

The two main problems in co-housing today, in my opinion, are diversity and affordability.

“

“

I would never fathom wanting to move away from this wonderful close-knit community that promote local culture and cross generational interactions.

45

3 METHODOLOGY

DENVER, CO

ARIA Co-housing 2861 W. 52nd St. Chaffee Park

28 INDIVIDUAL UNITS

Former Marycrest convent building that has been redeveloped into 28 individual co-housing units. Part of the larger Aria Denver Campus Master Plan that aims to live out the ideals of the sisters of St. Francis.

COHOUSING AMENITIES •Community Kitchen • Community Room • Group Dining Room • Library • Community Gardens • Green Spaces Level of sharing determined by individual but includes group meals, activities, and shared spaces like the communal dining room and kitchen.

46

CASE STUDY 01 3

COMPARING MONTHLY COSTS Case Study

Avg. Apartment Nearby

$2,125 Bed (shared living) 1

1 Bed $1,970

$2,500 Studio (private kitchen)

Studio $2,333

Additional Monthly Fees $190

Additional Monthly Fees $100 Furniture ($3,000 over 2.5 yrs) Utilities $75 $50 Wifi

1 Bed $2,315 TOTAL:

Studio $2,690

1 Bed $2,195 TOTAL:

Studio $2,558

47

3 METHODOLOGY

LOS ANGELES, CA

Treehouse LA 5841 Carlton Way, East Hollywood

5 STORIES RESIDENTIAL

Five-story apartment complex with 60 fully furnished bedrooms organized into 18 suite-like living spaces with shared kitchens and living rooms. The dining hall and amenities on the main level provides space for the entire community to be together.

COHOUSING AMENITIES • Dining Hall • Resident Cafe • Rooftop Event Space • Library • Cleaning Crew • Sunday Dinner Events are encouraged and included within the Community Fee. Residents can enjoy yoga on the roof, Sunday dinners, movie nights, and other creative events held regularly.

48

CASE STUDY 02 3

COMPARING MONTHLY COSTS Case Study

Avg. Apartment Nearby

$2,039 Bed (shared living) 1

1 Bed $2,428

$2,789 Studio (private kitchen)

Studio $2,210

Additional Monthly Fees $210

Additional Monthly Fees $100 Furniture ($3,000 over 2.5 yrs) Utilities $60 $50 Wifi

1 Bed $2,249 TOTAL:

Studio $2,999

1 Bed $2,638 TOTAL:

Studio $2,420

49

3 METHODOLOGY

CHICAGO, IL

Quarters Co-living 171 N Aberdeen St, Chicago, IL

11 STORIES RESIDENTIAL

The building is 11 stories high. Stories 6-10 are residential and 1-5 are co-working spaces. The 11th floor is a rooftop and shared space. Total of 175 units.

COHOUSING AMENITIES •Co-working Spaces • Fitness Center • Bike Room • Outdoor Cinema • On-site utility manager Housing accommodations are fully furnished with beds and desks, while kitchens are fully stocked. In addition, a smart app connects users to the housing community, regular events, and makes living easy.

50

CASE STUDY 03 3

COMPARING MONTHLY COSTS Case Study

Avg. Apartment Nearby

$1,200 Bed (shared living) 1

1 Bed $1,700

$2,009 Studio (private kitchen)

Studio $1,600

Additional Monthly Fees $100

Additional Monthly Fees $100 Furniture ($3,000 over 2.5 yrs) Utilities $60 $50 Wifi

1 Bed $1,200 TOTAL:

Studio $2,009

1 Bed $1,910 TOTAL:

Studio $1,810

51

3 METHODOLOGY

DETROIT, MI

Quonset Huts 4711 16th St. True North, Detroit

8

QUONSET HUTS

True North Detroit is an experimental live/work community comprised of 8 quonset huts, the larger huts containing two units, with a total of 10 units. All units are devoted minimalistic live/work spaces.

COHOUSING AMENITIES •Community Wellness Center • Yoga Studio • Art Gallery • Gourmet Kitchen • Central Courtyard • Event Space These strategically placed huts promote communal interactions and events in the natural outdoor environment, while allowing residents to find inspiration in modern, well-equipped interior spaces.

52

CASE STUDY 04 3

COMPARING MONTHLY COSTS Case Study $1,900 Bed (shared living) 1

Avg. Apartment Nearby

1 Bed $1,546

$1,500 Studio (private kitchen)

Studio $916

Additional Monthly Fees

Additional Monthly Fees

$119

$100 Furniture ($3,000 over 2.5 yrs) Utilities $60 $50 Wifi

1 Bed $2,019 TOTAL:

Studio $ 1,619

1 Bed $1,756 TOTAL:

Studio $1,126

53

3 METHODOLOGY

KANSAS CITY, MO

Two Light 1 1444 Grand Blvd.

Financial District

16 RESIDENTIAL FLOORS

Mixed-use building with 16 residential floors, two co-working levels, and a shared amenity floor that includes a shared kitchen and club room. Each unit has its own living room, dining room, kitchen, and bathroom. Sharing comes in the form of amenity spaces and community events.

COHOUSING AMENITIES • Shared kitchen • Co-working Environment • Club Room • Rooftop event space • Community Events Because Kansas City, MO does not currently have any built urban co-housing projects at this point, we explored this development because of the various shared amenities featured.

However, our research shows urban co-op groups working to form communities & implement housing projects in the future KC landscape.

1

54

CASE STUDY 05 3

COMPARING MONTHLY COSTS Case Study $1,682 Bed (shared living) 1

Avg. Apartment Nearby

1 Bed $1,170

$1,500 Studio (private kitchen)

Studio $910

Additional Monthly Fees

Additional Monthly Fees

$210

$100 Furniture ($3,000 over 2.5 yrs) Utilities $100 Parking $125

1 Bed $1,892 TOTAL:

Studio $1,710

1 Bed $1,495 TOTAL:

Studio $1,235

55

Case Studies

3

Characteristics

ARIA Cohousing

Treehouse

Denver, CO

Los Angeles, CA

Affordability

Social Opportunities

+ Sustainability

+ Convenience

56

3

Quarters Chicago, IL

+

Quonset Huts

Two Light

Detroit, MI

Kansas City, MO

+ +

+

+ +

Great

Good

Moderate

Needs Improvement

57

3 METHODOLOGY

58

RESEARCH CONCLUSION 3

RESEARCH CONCLUSION Although existing cohousing models today can solve environmental and social connectivity issues, a new housing model that is more affordable, diverse, and attractive is needed to become the urban housing model of the future.

59

SYNTHESIS & APPRO

OACH The recognition and development of guiding design principles to form considerate shared-living spaces. Additional exploration of housing projects around the world that emulate admirable design qualities.

4 SYNTHESIS & APPROACH

Need for New Housing Typologies From our research, we identified key concerns that define housing conditions today:

• Unaffordable Costs • Rising Population • Lack of Urban Housing • Co-housing • Privacy Concerns

This vicious cycle summarizes the current state of housing across the United States, and in order to advance, we believe that a new typology must be developed to redefine the housing market today. A typology that considers the sharing economy more greatly within the architectural elements while also remaining affordable, attractive, and adaptable.

In the following pages, we propose guiding design principles to follow, study successful implications within the built environment, and introduce various solutions to reinvent what housing means in this modern, convenience-driven age.

62

NEED FOR NEW HOUSING TYPOLOGIES 4

UNAFFORDABLE HOUSING

RISING POPU LATION

NEW TYPO LOGY

UN

PRIVACY CONCERN

PRIVACY CONCERN LACK OF HOUSING CO-HOUSING SOLUTION?

RISING POPU LATION

NEW TYPO LOGY

UNAFFORDABLE HOUSING

RISING POPU LATION

PRIVACY CONCERN LACK OF HOUSING

LACK OF HOUSING CO-HOUSING SOLUTION?

63

4 SYNTHESIS & APPROACH

Guiding Principles - Spatial Properties From defining the needs of the housing industry today and valued qualities of coliving spaces, three key spatial and social qualities became apparent.

The first of these, diversity, is a crucial component to enable users from all backgrounds to feel comfortable within a residential environment. Varying sizes of units, in conjunction with diverse community spaces, promote user collaboration at differing levels while meeting the needs of tenants.

Dynamism, is the opportunity to create a flexible living space where users can also share at their discretion. Privacy is permitted through the space at all times, but additionally provides opportunities to socialize, market, or collaborate with other tenants.

Lastly, diversified wayfinding can encourage users to meet other tenants rather than traditional, monotonous pathways. This can be achieved through "living" elements that shift and adapt within the housing complex.

Each of these principles are explored in greater depth on pages 82-93.

64

GUIDING PRINCIPLES 4

01

Diversity Unique spaces and experiences that foster collaboration by all users

02

Dynamism Flexible living arrangements that allow users to share at their discretion

03

Wayfinding Spatial opportunities that encourage new spontaneous interactions

65

4 SYNTHESIS & APPROACH

Guiding Principles - Interaction In a successful public place, people from diverse backgrounds will interact naturally and have meaningful and impactful conversation, even if it is short.

When designing a built environment that will be shared by any number of people, it is important to consider some basic characteristics that will make that space truly successful. A beautiful space does not necessarily equate to a functionally successful one.

The Community Toolbox by the Center for Community Health and Development at the University of Kansas has worked with a variety of disciplines to determine four base characteristics that a public space must have in order to foster this meaningful social interaction. We can find these characteristics in many historically successful spaces including plazas, bridges, streets and markets. Examples of these are Charles Bridge in Prague, Pike Place Market in Seattle, and Nyhavn Canal in Copenhagen.

66

INTERACTION 4

Spaces that foster interaction have these four characteristics

1

There has to be a reason for people to go there

2

There has to be a reason for people to want to stay

3

People in the space have to feel safe and comfortable

4

It has to be welcoming and accessible to everyone

67

4 SYNTHESIS & APPROACH

Guiding Principles - Social Design There are various architectural implications that can be made within housing projects to encourage socialness. Simple steps within design and programming such as facing units contrast traditional multi-unit projects and promote neighbor interactions and visible security. In addition, unlike monotonous stacked units, diverse unit configurations can create unique shared outdoor spaces and provide individual spaces with more light.

In terms of user circulation, public pathways are a crucial design aspect that require critical thinking. Public paths should be very pedestrian-oriented and encourage spontaneous interactions along one's journey throughout the building. Shared spaces should also be located along these public passageways and be diverse in size and use. The architecture should truly be adaptable and the question we must ask is not “how do we get people to share more?”

Rather, it is “how can design encourage the freedom to use architecture socially?”

68

SOCIAL DESIGN 4

Spatial Diversity •Breaks away from traditional formats • Units capture more light • Unique layouts encourage new connection

Facing Units •Contrasts traditional design •Neighbor-to-Neighbor connection

Public Pathway Communal Space

•Pedestrian connection •Spontaneous interaction

•Gives people the ability to gather •Socializing in groups reduces loneliness

69

4 SYNTHESIS & APPROACH

Guiding Principles - Tech Influence Technology and architecture have the opportunity to merge at a pivotal intersection. In addition to architectural properties, a phone application can help serve as a guiding hand to the exchange of goods, services, and communication within a collaborative housing community.

This exposure to the sharing shift can promote community and trust amongst residents, encourage on-demand neighorto-neighbor social interactions, and allow goods/services to be shared quickly and effectively through a safe platform.

As technology has made things more readily accessible across other disciplines, an application can connect tenants in various ways. For instance, it can help lead the organization of various groups that share similar interests and goals, promote small businesses that reside there, and provide effective communication through a safe, convenient platform.

70

TECH INFLUENCE 4

"4 musicians live in Village West. Would you like to contact them about their interests and lifestyle?"

"Jason & Alex have two children. They like going to see movies, and are looking for other families for their kids to play with in the community garden."

"The Johnson's are going on vacation for the weekend and are putting their car on the Village West Ride-Share. Are you interested? "

71

4 SYNTHESIS & APPROACH

COMMUNITY

Mehr Als Wohnen

CONTEXT

13

BUILDING LOTS

Zurich, Switzerland 395 dwellings // 1200 residents Futurafrosch & Duplex Architekten

The concept for Mehr Als Wohnen is holistic and democratic; “the vision was to create a part of the city rather than an estate.� The masterplan proposed a series of smaller, independent buildings, which are arranged across thirteen lots.

As a response to the inner-city housing crisis in Zurich, this development is one of the largest and most aspiring co-housing projects in Europe. It is funded by 50 different cooperatives and features 35 retail spaces and shared care/community buildings. A total of 1200 residents and 150 employees live in this district.

HAUS M PARTI

72

Diversity is a key aspect at the forefront of both the architecture & community created here. Ten percent of the apartments are allo-

PRECEDENT ONE - COMMUNITY 4

precedent 01

cated to not-for profits, and government subsidies are offered to low-income earners.

This creates a housing environment that encourages people from all backgrounds to reside in the precinct comfortably.

In addition, from a large scale, this eclectic community is also reflected in the architectural approach. Diverse, mis-matched buildings share similar characteristics, but are distinct to their own. Interior spaces, as seen in the Haus M Parti, foster collaboration amongst neighbors in formal and informal gathering spaces at the heart of the building. Lastly, modest exteriors allow users to customize their respective places and as a result, reflect the diverse character and welcoming neighborhood. This prototype can truly help serve future developments to consider community more thoughtfully in key design features.

AMENITIES • Lower Retail Spaces • Co-working Areas • Community Gardens • Common Rooms • Trailways & Plazas

THE SOCIAL FACTOR • Shared spaces rimmed by groundfloor tenancies - work, retail, and community rooms • 10% are allocated to charities and not for profits • Subsidies offered to low-income users

73

4 SYNTHESIS & APPROACH

MODULARITY

The Coop at River Spreefeld

CONTEXT

3

COMPLEX BUILDINGS

Berlin, Germany 75% private // 25% communal Carpaneto Architeckten

Its mission: to harness its location’s unique potential to create a socially just, economically stable, and environmentally responsible urban building block.

The Coop at River Spreeheld is a cooperative located along the riverside of Berlin, Germany.

Three buildings form this development, and they are distinctly open to one another and the contextual surroundings.

MODULAR FLEXIBILITY PARTI

74

In terms of constructability, the building design consists of straightforward support and construction systems that enable a flexible network of interior spaces to form. A mix of conventional flats and cluster apartments are featured in each of the three buildings, and allow different users to live/share according to their desires and needs.

PRECEDENT TWO - MODULARITY 4

precedent 02

Users can additionally carry out any needed construction work within their units, as seen in the modular parti. This is made possible by the the exchange of required equity capital and allows active participation by all, regardless of income level.

Rent prices are staggered, and start on par with government subsidies. This forms a community that is multi-generational and multi-cultural.

Architecturally, the ground floors are open to public users, and feature a carpentryworkshop, daycare center, catering kitchen, and more.

Additional ‘Option Rooms’ are available and maintain the openness and socialness of the community at the intersection of residential and urban lifestyles.

AMENITIES • Lower Retail Spaces • Co-working Areas • Rooftop Gardens • Music & Youth Rooms • Daycare Center • ‘Option Rooms’ (for non-residents)

THE AFFORDABILITY FACTOR • Housing costs start on par with government subsidies • By providing the necessary credit collateral, the project allowed the participation of people with very little capital

75

4 SYNTHESIS & APPROACH

ADAPTABILITY

Tila Lofts

CONTEXT

1

COMPLEX HOUSING MODEL

Helsinki, Finland 39 units // 5 m high units Talli Architecture & Design

INTERIOR UNITS - VERSATILITY

76

Completed in 2011, the building follows the concept of “open building� and do-it-yourself philosophies, leaving the initial apartments as a loft warehouse style where users customize the space according to their desires and needs.

The inspiration for this project derived from townhouses in the Netherlands and loft housing in New York. It is an individual housing building that works to provide an urban solution to the wish of a single-family home.

Tenants can choose between 50m or 102m unit sizes that merely contain bathrooms and technical connections for kitchen areas.

Otherwise, the spaces are blank canvases for users to then customize according to their living needs, budget, and pace.

PRECEDENT THREE - ADAPTABILITY 4

precedent 03

The exterior of the building is defined by height-expansive balconies and a visible structural frame. The expressive brick material keeps the building in harmony with neighboring buildings, and produces an interior model for users to define and make unique.

CHARACTERISTICS • 50-100 square meters per unit • Expansive ceiling height that allows users to custom-build mezzanine levels • Shared spaces include a community room, sauna, and outdoor terrace on top floor

While this is not a collaborative housing model where individuals share common spaces, this project contains unique design elements such as modularity, interior customization, and flexibility for users as they adapt and grow. This highlights that urban housing can truly consider the changing demands of users and form long-lasting spaces for users to enjoy through time.

THE ADAPTABILITY FACTOR • Structural design emphasis - interior and exterior frame highlights modular concepts • Bathrooms are only enclosed spaces when tenants move in - other spaces are completely up to space needs

77

NEW TYPOLOGY & I

IMPLICATIONS Our final approach synthesized from the initial research and contextual analysis. Resolutions at varying scales show improvements that can be implemented from both micro and macro design perspectives.

5 NEW TYPOLOGY & IMPLICATIONS

A NEW MODEL TRANSFORMATIVE HOUSING

Transformative Housing uses dynamic architecture to give people the choice to share, helping to enhance affordability, social opportunities, convenience, and sustainable life practices on three scales.

80

A NEW MODEL 5

01. Within Spaces

02. Between Spaces

03. Across Spaces

81

5 NEW TYPOLOGY & IMPLICATIONS

SCALE 01 Within Spaces

Within Spaces is the first scale on the transformative housing model. It pertains primarily to the interior elements of a tenant's space, and considers how future architectural elements can provide adaptability and flexibility for users as they transition through time and accommodate to life changes and new needs.

There are two crucial spatial properties that pertain to this scale: 1// Compartmentalization of interior space types and sizes (examplestandardized bedroom, bathroom, kitchen & living spaces) 2// Flexible room attachments that act as shared space for tenants to open and share with surrounding community members or remain a space that is closed for privacy 82

A problem seen in today's traditional urban housing model is how units remain stagnant and unadaptable for changing space needs. This scale, in particular, works to alleviate this issue, and create units that promote modular growth and opportunities for operable, shared spaces.

On the following page, consideration is given to recognizing different tenants singles, roommates, and families, their spatial needs, and the relationships they have to one another to promote connectedness and social routine.

Utilizing key principles from our design precedents, this scale highlights the opportunity for units to regard the sharing economy more greatly in interior elements.

SCALE 01 - WITHIN SPACES 5

+ + 83

5 NEW TYPOLOGY & IMPLICATIONS

SCALE 01 Within Spaces

SPACE ELEMENTS 1 // Unit Adaptability Versatile, multi-use interior spaces Sharing discretion and ample opportunities to socialize

2 // Expansion Opportunities Ability to expand unit according to evolving space needs Modular additions aid in more efficient construction

84

SCALE 01 - WITHIN SPACES 5

? ?

SINGLES SINGLES

? ?

SINGLES SINGLES

? ?

SINGLES UNIT NEEDS SINGLES UNIT NEEDS

? ?

? ?

? ?

ROOMMATES UNIT NEEDS UNIT NEEDS ROOMMATES ROOMMATES UNIT NEEDS UNIT NEEDS ROOMMATES UNIT NEEDS UNIT NEEDS ROOMMATES ROOMMATES

? ?

? ?

UNITFAMILIES NEEDS UNIT NEEDS FAMILIES FAMILIES UNIT NEEDS UNIT NEEDS FAMILIES

? ?

FAMILIES UNIT NEEDS FAMILIES UNIT NEEDS

UNIT NEEDS UNIT NEEDS

SPACE ADJACENCIESSPACE / SIZING ADJACENCIES / SIZING SPACE ADJACENCIES / SIZING

SPACE ADJACENCIESSPACE / SIZING ADJACENCIES / SIZING SPACE ADJACENCIES / SIZING

SPACE ADJACENCIESSPACE / SIZING ADJACENCIES / SIZING SPACE ADJACENCIES / SIZING

SPACE ADJACENCIES / SIZING SPACE ADJACENCIES / SIZING SPACE ADJACENCIES / SIZING

SPACE ADJACENCIES / SIZING SPACE ADJACENCIES / SIZING SPACE ADJACENCIES / SIZING

SPACE ADJACENCIES / SIZING SPACE ADJACENCIES / SIZING SPACE ADJACENCIES / SIZING

UNIT NEEDS UNIT NEEDS

a.

a. Compartmentalized space sizes - modified according to tenant space needs b. Colored spaces are flexible space components - allowing users to share or maintain unit privacy

+

1

+

2

b.

85

5 NEW TYPOLOGY & IMPLICATIONS

SCALE 02 Between Spaces

Between Spaces, the second scale of transformative housing, relates to the space between tenant units. As a critical aspect to socialness in residential spaces, communal areas require great consideration and thought.

Also, in keeping with all of the scales in our proposed transformative housing concepts, units are modular to allow a multitude of configurations to form, while additionally easing on construction costs through pre-fabricated components.

Firstly, as the sharing economy has impacted all aspects of our daily lives, residential units and shared space have great potential to act in partnership to one another to form pop-up marketplaces, gathering areas, and event spaces.

Between Spaces takes the same flexible living space model seen in the Within Spaces scheme to become a forum for the exchange of goods and services - a key aspect of the sharing economy. The marketplace can be easily assembled and utilized at one's porch or front door, driving convenience up for surrounding tenants and the proposed business.

In order to achieve this architecturally, this approach introduces an operable partition component that allows users to sell and market goods at any point, or remain closed for complete privacy traditional to standard housing complexes.

86

This scale shows how residential spaces have potential to combine sharing not only from a social viewpoint, but from economic perspectives as well.

SCALE 02 - BETWEEN SPACES 5

+

+

+ 87

5 NEW TYPOLOGY & IMPLICATIONS

SCALE 02 Between Spaces

SPACE ELEMENTS 1 // Social Marketplace Home as pop-up business

Modular units are flexible/easily expandable

Flexible interface - “log-on” when ready to sell/buy

Prefabrication saves on construction cost & time

2 // Privacy

88

3 // Modular, Pre-fab Unit

4 // Living Courtyard

Tenants can keep units closed to maintain privacy

Dynamic shared spaces within the courtyard

Share only when you wish to

Open your home to the community when desired

encourage spontaneous interaction

SCALE 02 - BETWEEN SPACES 5

a. Diagram showing four spatial components pertain to the assembly of residential spaces in conjunction with community spaces. Mobility, diversity, and connectedness are crucial construction aspects across all spaces.

3

+

+4

+ 2

1

+ a.

89

5 NEW TYPOLOGY & IMPLICATIONS

SCALE 03 Across Spaces

The most radical of the three scales, Across Spaces is the forward-thinking design approach that considers how housing spaces can physically rotate and move, forming new viewpoints, social connections, and activities for tenants.

In consideration of our guiding principles set forth on page 64-65, this proposed scale considers how diversity, dynamism, and spatial wayfinding can impact a set housing project on an architectural level that is continually evolving.

To achieve this, architectural emphasis must go to the formation of a agile structural grid that enables operability and movement. In this proposed design, units can fully rotate and be configured multiple ways for users to meet other tenants frequently and push the bound90

aries of shared living spaces. In addition, this concept relies heavily upon modular design components to maintain consistency across the grid for movement while also creating an affordable housing option for urban residents.

Lastly, as the most extreme approach, this scheme pushes users outside of usual comfort zones to constantly meet new individuals through shared living spaces. Rather than standard social occurrences with neighbors in corridors, this concept centers a shared space around rotating units where tenants then gather. While a concept like this may be uncomfortable to many, this idea can help further the development of spaces that push spatial boundaries in diversity and shared space.

SCALE 03 - ACROSS SPACES 5

+

+ 91

5 NEW TYPOLOGY & IMPLICATIONS

SCALE 03 Across Spaces

SPACE ELEMENTS 1 // Modular Affordability Easily constructable and pre-fabricated

Courtyard offers potential for new interactions each day

Units interlock saving space and smaller building footprint

Altered views provide new exposure to sights, sounds, and interactions to promote better understanding of community

2 // Flexible Grid An organized chaos combining the elements of a navigable grid system Functional, yet immune to stagnation

92

3 // Ever-changing Courtyard

Avoids “clique� behavior and provides sense of openness

SCALE 03 - ACROSS SPACES 5

a.

b.

a. Unit Connection Points - Communal Interiors and Individual Units b. Distinct form enables rotational qualities - tenants can continually interact with new neighbors c. Full spatial assembly including interior and exterior spaces on grid system

+

3

+ 2

1

+ c.

93

5 NEW TYPOLOGY & IMPLICATIONS

Next Steps In summary, our research and design implications show that architecture must begin to address the changes we are experiencing in this new tech age. From reaching our transformative housing model, we further propose a three category "toolkit" that can aid in the implementations of more considerate housing.

FINANCIAL Development of more affordable housing solutions.

This can be architectural through fine-tuning construction methods, interior space layouts, and live goods quantity reduction. Other factors remain in respect to city planning aspects such as government subsidies.

ENVIRONMENTAL Considering the environment can aid in forming more sustainable housing - materiality, structure, prefabrication, and more can all aid in reducing a building's carbon footprint.

LIFESTYLE Contextual considerations including understanding proximity to city centers, public transit, schools, work, commercial/service land use, and social opportunities within the development.

We hope this can help serve architectural solutions in the future to come, and are excited to join the professional world and implement these thoughts within our work.

94

NEXT STEPS 5

RESEARCH

PROBLEM 1:

The Sharing Shift

DRIVER 1:

Convenience

PROBLEM 2:

åÏĚĻŇĮŇďDžƐFžŇĮ±ƒĞŇĻ

DRIVER 2:

PROBLEM 3:

PROBLEM 4:

Cost of Living

Negative Perception

DRIVER 3:

Social Connectedness

DRIVER 4:

ýŇŹÚ±ÆĞĮЃDž

ƣžƒ±ĞĻ±ÆĞĮЃDž

HYPOTHESIS Co-housing has the potential to solve many problems in the housing industry today and become the urban housing model of the future, but due to negative perceptions, is not considered a viable option by many people.

CASE STUDIES Lack of &ǺSVHEFMPMX]

Social Opporunities

SURVEY &ǺSVHEFMPMX] Large Driver

Privacy Concern

INTERVIEWS Negative Perceptions

Pillars of Cohousing

(SRǼMGX Resolution

Lack of Diversity

THESIS Although existing co-housing models today can solve many environmental and social connectivity issues, a new model XLEX MW QSVI EǺSVHEFPI HMZIVWI ERH EXXVEGXMZI MW RIIHIH XS become the urban housing model of the future.

TOOLKIT

FINANCIAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

LIFESTYLE

Construction method

Reducing carbon footprint

Proximity to UPT/City Centers

Government subsidies

Structure

Commercial/service land use

Space layout - Private vs Public

Prefab/Modularity

Proximity to schools/work

Live goods quantity reduction

Materiality

Social opportunities

95

APPENDIX

96

The collection of research references, documentation, & additional process notes that aided our design development and final proposal concept.

97

6 APPENDIX

BIBLIOGRAPHY RESEARCH SOURCES (PDF) The Rise of the Sharing City: Examining Origins and ... (2014, October). Retrieved from https://

www.researchgate.net/publication/308794949_The_Rise_of_the_Sharing_ City_Examining_Origins_and_Futures_of_Urban_Sharing

2019 County Health Rankings Key Findings Report. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.

countyhealthrankings.org/reports/2019-county-health-rankings-key-findings-report

50th Percentile Rent Estimates: HUD USER. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.huduser.gov/portal/

datasets/50per.html

68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN | UN DESA

Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2018, May 16). Retrieved from https://www. un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-

prospects.html

Aria Denver. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ariadenver.com/ Botsman, R. (2013, November 21). The Sharing Economy Lacks A Shared Definition. Retrieved from

https://www.fastcompany.com/3022028/the-sharing-economy-lacks-a-shared-definition

Collaboration in Cities: From Sharing to 'Sharing Economy'. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.

weforum.org/whitepapers/collaboration-in-cities-from-sharing-to-sharing-economy

Community-focused, fully-furnished, flexible lease rooms and apartments in Chicago. (n.d.).

Retrieved from https://global.quarters.com/west-loop/

Cortright, J. (2015, September 6). Less in Common. Retrieved from https://cityobservatory.org/less-

in-common/

Kim, G., & T. (Directors). (2017, August 7). How cohousing can make us happier (and live longer)

[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mguvTfAw4wk

Luxury Apartments in Kansas City. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://twolightkc.com/ Maginn, P., Burton, P., & Legacy, C. (2019, January 7). Disruptive Urbanism? Implications of the

‘Sharing Economy ... Retrieved from https://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08111146.

2018.1555909

Martucci, B. (n.d.). What Is the Sharing Economy – Example Companies, Definition, Pros... Retrieved

from https://www.moneycrashers.com/sharing-economy/

McMaster, J. (n.d.). Mehr als Wohnen - Danish Architecture Center. Retrieved from https://dac.dk/

en/knowledgebase/architecture/mehr-als-wohnen/

Poon, L. (2015, August 19). Why Americans Are Less Likely To Interact With Their Neighbors Than

Ever Before. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-19/why- americans-are-less-likely-to-interact-with-their-neighbors-than-ever-before

Sánchez, D. (2015, January 17). Coop Housing at River Spreefeld / Carpaneto Architekten Fatkoehl

98

BIBLIOGRAPHY 6

Architekten BARarchitekten. Retrieved from https://www.archdaily.com/587590/coop-

housing-project-at-the-river-spreefeld-carpaneto-architekten-fatkoehl-architekten-

bararchitekten

Social media use increases depression and loneliness, study finds. (2018, November 08). Retrieved

from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181108164316.htm

Tila Loft Housing · Finnish Architecture Navigator. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://navi.

finnisharchitecture.fi/tila-loft-housing/

Treehouse Community Living. (2020, March 03). Retrieved from https://treehouse.community/

The Urban Village Project: A Vision for Liveable, Sustainable and Affordable Homes. (2019,

December 15). Retrieved from https://space10.com/project/urban-village-project/

IMAGERY SOURCED IMAGES - CASE STUDIES & PRECEDENTS 005 - True North, Detroit. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.princeconcepts.com/true-north-detroit Aria Denver. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ariadenver.com/ Community-focused, fully-furnished, flexible lease rooms and apartments in Chicago. (n.d.).

Retrieved from https://global.quarters.com/west-loop/

The Cordish Companies Opens Two Light Luxury Apartments in Kansas City Power & Light

District. (2018, June 14). Retrieved from https://www.multifamilybiz.com/news/8367/

the_cordish_companies_opens_two_light_luxury_apart...

Luxury Apartments in Kansas City. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://twolightkc.com/ McMaster, J. (n.d.). Mehr als Wohnen - Danish Architecture Center. Retrieved from https://dac.dk/

en/knowledgebase/architecture/mehr-als-wohnen/

Sánchez, D. (2015, January 17). Coop Housing at River Spreefeld / Carpaneto Architekten Fatkoehl

Architekten BARarchitekten. Retrieved from https://www.archdaily.com/587590/coop-

housing-project-at-the-river-spreefeld-carpaneto-architekten-fatkoehl-architekten-

bararchitekten

Shadouh, D. (2020, May 31). Detroit Quonset Hut Village wins 2017 Best of Design Award. Retrieved

from https://www.steelmasterusa.com/news/detroit-quonset-hut-village-wins-2017-

best-design-award/

Tila Loft Housing · Finnish Architecture Navigator. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://navi.

finnisharchitecture.fi/tila-loft-housing/

Treehouse Community Living. (2020, March 03). Retrieved from https://treehouse.community/

The Urban Village Project: A Vision for Liveable, Sustainable and Affordable Homes. (2019,

December 15). Retrieved from https://space10.com/project/urban-village-project/

99

6 APPENDIX

MEETING MILESTONES SEMESTER GOALS & PROGRESS CHECKPOINTS Below are the checkpoints provided by the syllabus structure for the semester course.

Bi-weekly mentor meetings occurred, while intermediate weeks were for the KU Co-op graduate students to recovene and discuss progress. Students were allotted one full day a week to complete the necessary research, while after hours were used to finish and prepare firm presentations and graphics.

• Week 1-3: Investigate the sharing economy and ownership in cities.

• Week 4-7: Take a stance on ownership in the built environment.

• Week 8-11: Interviews, surveys, diagrams, and synthesis.

• Week 12-16: An Insight and Final Production

RESEARCH TOOLS ARCHIVE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. How do you define co-housing?

2. How did you first learn about ?

3. What are the top four benefits of your cohousing community?

4. How would you describe your relationship with your community members?

5. How much do you share?

6. Do you have common duties? If so, how do you split the duties for common spaces and activities?

7. What are the common misconceptions about cohousing? (if any)

100

MEETING MILESTONES & RESEARCH TOOLS 6

RESEARCH TOOLS ARCHIVE SURVEY QUESTIONS 1. What is your age?

2. What is your gender?

3. Where do you live? (City) 4. If willing to share, what is your approximate annual income?

5. Do you currently live alone?

6. Who do you live with? (Check all that apply.)

- By Myself - Spouse/Partner - Spouse/Partner and children - Relative - Friend (prior to living together) - Stranger (little to no shared history) 7. What type of residence do you live in?

- Single family home - Duplex - Apartment/Multi-Unit (up to 10 units) - Apartment/Multi-Unit (11+ Units) - Mobile Home - Co-living Space - Other 8. On a scale of 1-5, how comfortable would you be sharing a living room or kitchen space with a non-spouse or person related to you?

9. Sharing a front door or foyer space?

10. Sharing a bathroom?

11. Sharing a bedroom?

12. Considering the above definition, have you ever lived in co-housing?

13. On a scale of 1-5, how likely would you be to consider a co-housing space that is fully furnished?

14. If it offered more social opportunities?

15. If you could save on rent/utility costs?

16. If you could live a more eco-friendly lifestyle?

17. Out of the above options, which would be the most attractive reason to live in a cohousing space?

18. Approximately, what is the highest percentage of income you would be willing to pay for rent per month for a shared living unit in your city?

19. What are your potential concerns with co-housing? Choose all that apply.

20. Any negative perceptions about co-housing? (Fill in the blank)

101

6 APPENDIX

age groupTOOLS ARCHIVE RESEARCH SURVEY RESULTS 50

Age Group

age group

5.3%

8.2%

60+

40

50-59

30

40-49

17.4%

60+

44.7%

5.3%

5.3%

8.2%

50-59

8.2%

30-39

60+ 50-59

19-29

40-49

17.4%

17.4% 44.7%

24.3%

44.7%

30-39

5.3%

8.2%

17.4%

60+

24.3%

44.7%

42. 2

32.7

10

19-29

42. 2

20

e

er

on

th e

on

N

er

th

O

Percentage (%)

Percentage Percentage (%) (%)

Male

1

(*Category Other omitted from graph as it would skew data percentage, response was 2 (unlikely)

Willingness to Share Kitchen/Living Room Space (*Category Other omitted from graph as it would skew data percentage, response was 2 (unlikely)

50 50

Percentage Percentage (%) (%)

Percentage (%)

50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0

40 30 Female

20

Female Male Female Male

10 0

s e er ns es nc th io ie O lin ct en nd ne v e r n s s i e e no coen e-fsr on th tlioC eCn ino N O ni dEcl eica onc ve en e oSn er fri ss on ns ce n C h e o C n o t i o in al ie N O ct Ec ci dl en ne en So nv on fri o (EXIKSV] 4XLIV SQMXXIH JVSQ KVETL EW MX [SYPH WOI[ HEXE TIVGIRXEKI VIWTSRWI [EW EǺSVHEFMPMX] C C o al Ec ci So

ilit ab rd yo lAitǺ i ab

d or y AǺ ilit ab rd o AǺ

y

Most Attractive Cohousing Reason

Most Attractive Cohousing Reason

(EXIKSV] 4XLIV SQMXXIH JVSQ KVETL EW MX [SYPH WOI[ HEXE TIVGIRXEKI VIWTSRWI [EW EǺSVHEFMPMX]

102

N

O

l sll esA

Gender Gender Gender Gender Gender

lin

Male

Female Female Male Female Male

Willingness to Share Kitchen/Living Room Space

Male

Gender

nn

ce

Other Other Other Other Female Other Female Other Female Female Male Female Male Female Male

Male

30 25 30 25 20 25 20 15 20 15 10 15 10 5 10 5 0 5 0

2 3 4 5 Scale (1 - Very Unlikely -- 5 - Very Likely) 2 3 4 5 0 1 Scale (1 - Very Unlikely -- 5 - Very Likely) 1 2 to Share3Kitchen/Living 4 5 Willingness Room Space Other omitted from graph as it would skew data percentage, response was 2 (unlikely) Scale (1(*Category - Very Unlikely -- 5 - Very Likely)

0.3%

57.6% 57.6% 57.6% 57.6% 57.6%

Co

Average Age per Reason to Choose Co-Housing

30

0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

57.6%

al

ci

So

Average Age per Reason to Choose Co-Housing

gender gender gender

42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1% 42.1%

Al

Co

Gender

s es nd lin ie nd Fr ie Fr s o- on ns Ec cti tio e ec nn

al

ci C

e ien nc en ie onv

Age Group

oEc

So en nv

0

24.3%

Age Group

32

33

10

Age Group Age Group

40. 2

39

36.7 32.7

0

32

33

Co

19-29

40. 2

39

36.7

40-49 30-39

24.3%

30-39

40 30

40-49

50-59

19-29

20

50

Most Attractive Cohousing Reason (EXIKSV] 4XLIV SQMXXIH JVSQ KVETL EW MX [SYPH WOI[ HEXE TIVGIRXEKI VIWTSRWI [EW EǺSVHEFMPMX]

on N

e

Male

RESEARCH TOOLS 6

CHI 25% DEN 10%

LA 28%

KC 13%

DET 5%

STL 4%

Top city representation in survey responses, other 25% allotted to various cities across the United States

resident resident type type & other & other Living Arrangements 1.3% 1.3%

1.3% 1.3% 2%2% 2%2%

Other Other Townhome Townhome

Other Other

3.8% 3.8%

4.3% 4.3%

Stranger Stranger

13.2% 13.2%

CondosCondos

30.2% 30.2%

FriendsFriends

17.4% 17.4% 39.8% 39.8%

DuplexDuplex

7.9% 7.9%

Family Family Family Family with Children with Children

Multi-Unit Multi-Unit (<11) (<11) Multi-Unit Multi-Unit (11+) (11+)

32.2% 32.2% Single Single Family Family Home Home

Current Current Residence Residence Type Type

19.8% 19.8%

Alone Alone

30.2% 30.2% Spouse/Partner Spouse/Partner

Current Current Living Living Arrangement Arrangement

103

6 APPENDIX

CREDITS Research Compilation & Book Design by Melissa Watson.

Graphics were completed during the semester period and are attributed to all group members during the fall 2019 course.

104