Rethinking the American Dream
A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the
University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Architecture in the School of Architecture and Interior Design in the College of Design, Art, Architecture, and Planning by
Whitney Osborne Bachelor of Science in Architecture, University of Kentucky, 2016
Committee Chair - Michael McInturf Committee Advisor - Terry Boling 2019
1
Abstract
2
When thinking about housing in the United States it is easy to picture the typical suburban home. One that holds a man and his wife, 2.5 kids, and the dog named Spot. This image of the “ideal� family is outdated and quickly changing around the world, and the image of the perfect family home is changing with it. Architecture is responsible for over 60% of energy consumption in the United States, and housing makes up the second largest portion of that energy consumption. It is time for architects to question the standard single-family home and see if there is a better way to design dwelling spaces. I am researching the future of housing in terms of resiliency, sustainability, and connectivity. This thesis project will look at what it would take for a community of people to work together in order to generate a community of homes that are connected, sustainable, and can grow their own food.
The goal of this project is to design a cohousing community that works together to have virtually no environmental impact while being part of a community. By working together, they become more resilient, more sustainable, and less isolated. This will require a group of people (families) to live in a co-housing community that incorporates an urban farm in their own back yard. Some of the community members will work the land, while others work full-time jobs off site. The co-housing units will depend on one another for energy, clean water, food, and social engagement. Cohousing is not a new idea, and communities like this have existed for many years. Case studies for both cohousing and urban farms show promise that this new housing model is attainable in the United States. This typology: cohousing and urban farming is new way of designing homes that could lead towards more prosperous communities.
3
4
5
Acknowledgments
6
for my parents - Andy and Angela thank you for being the loudest and proudest supporters of them all
and Tank for being the most loyal companion
7
Table of Contents
8
Abstract List of Illustrations Introduction
1. The Background Suburban Living Environmental Repercussions Social and Emotional Repercussions Food Deserts and American Obesity
2. The Proposition History of Cohousing Cohousing Communities in the United States Case Studies Sustainable Living
3. The People The Cohousing Community of Avondale
4. The Site Cities in Need: Cohousing + Urban Farm + Semi-Urban Space Cohousing Typology Throughout the US The History of Avondale Avondale Today
5. The Project The Cohousing Units + The Common House The Urban Farm + The Neighborhood Market Community Outreach Creating a Sustainable Community
Conclusion Bibliography Appendix 9
List of Illustrations
The City and Parasite 1.1
“A Different Kind of Architectural Drawing: Léon Krier’s Sketches.” ArchDaily Energy Consumption Breakdown in the United States 1.2
Author’s Own
Chart showing the energy consumption of the top ten energy consuming states in the US 1.3
Author’s Own Energy Consumption Breakdown by type of select states 1.4
Author’s Own Emotional Toll of Living Alone 1.5
Author’s Own Food Deserts in the United States and Ohio 1.6
Author’s Own The Demographics of Obesity 1.7
Author’s Own, data provided by chart from Data, Trends and Maps - Overweight & Obesity - CDC The “Ideal” American Home 2.1
TED TALK Map of cohousing communities in the US 2.2
Author’s Own Precedent Analysis of Cohousing Typologies 2.3
Author’s Own Precedent Analysis of Capitol Hill Urban Cohousing 2.4
Author’s Own
10
2.5 Precedent Analysis of Cully Grove
Author’s Own
2.6 Precedent Analysis of Germantown Commons
Author’s Own
2.7 Environmental Benefit of Cohousing
Author's Own
3.1 The Residents of The Cohousing Community
Author’s Own
4.1 Demographics of Avondale
Author’s Own
4.2 Map of Avondale
Author’s Own
5.1 Massing Diagrams
Author’s Own
5.2 Massing Diagrams
Author’s Own
5.3 Shared Spaces in Cohousing
Author’s Own
5.4 Food cycle of Avondale Cohousing Community
Author’s Own
5.5 Site plan of Avondale Cohousing Community
Author’s Own
5.6 View of Community Outreach Center
Author’s Own
5.7 View of Farm-to-Table Restaurant
Author’s Own
5.8 View of Bus Stop and Bike Storage
Author’s Own
5.9 Sustainability in the Cohousing Community
Author’s Own
11
Introduction
Urban sprawl in the United States encourages suburban development, and neither are benefiting households or our planet. Valuable park space, forested areas, and farmlands are constantly being sold, leveled, and developed into “cookie cutter� neighborhoods. These large parcels of land are extremely pertinent to all life cycles, and as they are being sold, farmland becomes sparse, ecosystems are uprooted, and greenways are disconnected. With the decrease of this green space and the increase of paved surfaces we are beginning to feel the effects of things like heat island effect, large amounts of storm water runoff, and increased number of food deserts. Suburban living has also been linked to the cause of the social isolation thousands of Americans feel each day. These problems can be combated by changing the way we design single-family developments. By creating a community of homes that share some elements of living necessities, we could create a group of people that are completely self-reliant, sustainable, resilient, and connected. These problems can be solved through a co-housing community.
12
The program for this project is a co-housing community with an urban farm that is woven throughout the fabric of the site. Each housing unit will contain: one-four bedrooms, a kitchen, a living room, and a full bathroom. The housing units will also have access to shared spaces like: the common house, bicycle storage, yard space, and park space. All units will have a unique focus on sustainability initiatives and include spaces to generate electricity and treatment of both storm and waste water. By sharing spaces, responsibilities, and everyday life, the people that live in this community will be decreasing their impact on our planet while simultaneously increasing their impact on their neighbors. These people will depend on each other and the success of community living.
The co-housing community is located in the semi-urban neighborhood of Avondale. This block has been selected because the community has a significant need for access to better, healthier food. Over 70% of Avondale is located in a food desert. This means that the families that reside in the area are low income households, do not own a car, and do not live within a half-mile walking distance of quality food.
This site was also selected due to its adjacency to powerful institutions. As the institutions expand, more land that once belonged to the Avondale community is demolished. By incorporating successful housing, valuable urban farmland, and resources to educate and employ local community members, Avondale can proudly display its significance to the area as well. In order to promote sustainable urban development, there must be infill development, and there must be easy access to things like employment, basic services, food, and recreational space. These vacant lots in Avondale meet all of these needs.
This project has led to a deeper evaluation of the impacts that urban sprawl has on our planet and our social well-being. Making a clear connection between the vision people have for their home and how it may be heavily contributing to climate change and social isolation is uncomfortable for many. This thesis project challenges the “American Dream� and proposes a better way to inhabit valuable land.
13
14
1
The Background
Suburban Living It is often believed that suburbs were created by planners in America, but they actually have roots in England. The earliest suburbs were established in the late 18th century outside the city of London. At that time, London was the largest city in Europe, and its international trading industry allowed it to become a huge economic center. As London grew, it quickly became overcrowded, unclean, unsanitary, and ultimately, unbearable. People lived where they worked, and their businesses determined where they lived. The upper-middle class was not above this system. They too lived in the dirty cities simply because that was where their businesses were. However, they had the finical means to seek alternate places to live, and they did exactly that. Robert Fishman, a suburban historian explains how the desire of wealthy merchants to escape the horrors of city life was the driving force behind suburbia. “From its origins, the suburban world of leisure, family life, and union with nature was based on the principle of exclusion.�1 The upper-middle class no longer wanted to live with their dirty, poor, neighbors.
1
Fishman, Robert. Bourgeois Utopias The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. Basic Books Inc., 1987.
15
The suburban model was not well thought out or created by architects and planners. Instead, it was led by an entire class of people that were dissatisfied with their current way of life. They began to move outside the city where land was cheap and undeveloped. The word suburb literally means beyond the city, and this is exactly where the upper-middle class of London moved. Wealthy members of the middle class changed an entire way of life by choosing to leave the city and move to the edge of city. They began to rethink things like commuting to work, family life, and living among people that reflected their same lifestyle. Fishman explains, The emergence of suburbia required a total transformation of urban values: not only a reversal in the meanings of core and periphery, but a separation of work and family life and the creation of new forms of urban space that would be both class-segregated and wholly residential…Suburbia can thus be defined first by what it includes - middle-class residences – and second (perhaps more importantly) by what it excludes: all industry, most commerce except for enterprises that specifically serve a residential area, and all lower-class residents. 2 As this new model of life grew in popularity, it was picked up in America where it expanded at an unprecedented rate. Advancement in transportation and developments of highways helped suburbia spread further. Americans’ dependency on cities diminished, and by the mid-20th century, many Americans abandoned city life and flocked to the suburbs. Suburban sprawl took over American culture and brought inefficiency and an unsustainable lifestyle with it. The American Dream and suburbia became synonymous, and while a single-family home was the goal for most people, it was not beloved by all. The later half of the 20th century brought critics like Leon Krier, a New Urbanist who longed for a return to walkable, efficient, cultural cities.3 Suburbanization created a culture of isolation, incredible consumption, and inefficiency. As the effects of this were felt, architects and planners began to rethink cities, and some of their ideas are Figure 1.1 Leon Krier sketch of the depicted in this body of work.
City and Parasite: criticism on the development of suburbs.
2 Fishman, Robert. Bourgeois Utopias The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. Basic Books Inc., 1987. 3 Comberg, Ella. “A Different Kind of Architectural Drawing: Léon Krier’s Sketches.” ArchDaily, 24 Jan. 2018, 16 www.archdaily.com
Environmental Repercussions As the population increases in the United States, our impact on the environment grows with it. Americans are consuming more water, more petroleum, more food, more materials, more land, and more energy. Not only has our rate of consumption increased within our country, our rate of consumption has also increased per capita, and has surpassed that of every other country. Americans make up only 4.5% of the world’s population but 20% of the world’s total energy consumption and generate 17% of the world’s trash!4 As a country, collectively, we are failing. Energy consumption can be broken down into four major categories: industry, transportation, residential, and commercial. So, if it isn’t architecture that is consuming the energy, it’s the means in which we get to the architecture. The graphic above shows the percentages of each category. The more energy we consume, the more greenhouses gases are released. The more greenhouses gases are released, the more the ozone is depleted. As our ozone layer grows weaker, our planet’s surface temperature will rise. As the temperatures rise we will see more: heat-waves, drought, rising sea levels, intense storms, wildfires, and flooding. So, it is important that we evaluate exactly what is contributing to this cycle. The graphic below illustrates the six areas that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions: transportation, electricity, industry, agriculture, commercial architecture, and residential architecture. US Energy Consumption
&
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Agriculture
28% 28%
5% 6%
22%
Transportation
Commercial
9%
Electricity
Industry Residential
29%
29%
20%
architecture
18%
71%
29%
getting to architecture
Industry
Transportation
Residential
Commercial
Figure 1.2 Energy Consumption Breakdown in the United States
4
“Lifestyle Choices Affect U.S. Impact on the Environment.” Population Reference Bureau, www.prb.org
17
By this point you may be wondering why these numbers are what they are. Well, the answer is simple: our lifestyles. Everything we do in the United States contributes to these problems. From the houses we live in, the neighborhoods we commute from, the cars we drive, and the food we eat, it all waste more energy than necessary. Unfortunately, most of these problems can be contributed to urban sprawl and the infatuation we seem to have with suburban living. John Talbert, director of sustainability at Redefining Progress says the following about urban sprawl, Sprawl culture is probably the most consumptive housing pattern you could come up with…sprawl maximizes consumption of virtually everything. In suburban sprawl patterns, the throughput—or daily flow of energy and water used, packaging, and waste generated to support the lifestyle of people in the house—is much greater than in more compact urban areas.5 The very way we design and inhabit our homes is killing our planet. The Center for Environment and Population found four major flaws in suburban development that are contributing to the decline of our planet: an increase in the rate of land being developed, the amount of farmland that is being converted to nonagricultural uses, the amount of trash we produce, and the increasing density in population that is anchored on the coasts.2 As we continue to spread out, we will continue to exhaust our valuable, limited, resources. Of course, some states are handling this issue better than others. The chart below shows the top ten states for energy consumption (solid line) and compares that number to the state’s population (dotted line). The data was taken from the US Energy Information Administration. As you can see Louisiana is ranked number one (as in the worst) because it uses significantly more energy per capita than states like California and New York.6
Figure 1.3 Chart showing the energy consumption of the top ten energy consuming states in the US
5 “Lifestyle Choices Affect U.S. Impact on the Environment.” Population Reference Bureau, www.prb.org 6 “U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Energy Information Administration, 2016, www.eia.gov/state/rankings
18
Although California has a relatively high rate of energy consumption, they also have the largest population! This means that even though there are a lot of people in California, on average they’re using less energy than someone that lives in Louisiana. Modeling energy use off successful part of the country can help the United States cut down on total energy consumption.
Figure 1.4 Energy Consumption Breakdown by type of select states
The type of energy used also varies from state to state. The pie charts above show the various types of energy that the country uses on average. It is then compared to the states of Ohio, California, Texas, Louisiana, and Oregon. These states, apart from Oregon, were selected based on their standing in the bar chart previously mentioned. Oregon was chosen as a model of success because over 80% of their energy comes from renewable resources.7 If we could convert all energy consumed from coal, natural gas, or nuclear power to greener, renewable resources we could go from being one of the worst energy consumers globally to one of the best. In order to do this, we must re-evaluate most of our lifestyle, starting with our housing developments.
Cohousing is a type of living that has a few critical elements that set it apart from standard suburbs: shared resources, more efficient homes, built-in community, and a better social understanding. These elements are the reason the United States has seen an increase in popularity of this lifestyle since the seventies. People that chose to live in a cohousing community have a better understanding that their way of life has an effect on other people simply because they know their neighbors. In a cohousing community, people work together to make a smaller impact on the planet, and live with the intention of leading a life that is different from most Americans. Cohousing has the potential to solve many of the problems that suburban sprawl has created. 7 “U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.� Energy Information Administration, 2016, www.eia.gov/state/rankings
19
Social and Emotional Repercussions Families have largely occupied single-family homes for several decades now, but in recent years, there has been a significant shift away from this type of living. As our dependency on technology increase, our social interactions have decreased. Studies have shown that Americans are lonely, and the single-family home reinforces this idea. When your home contains everything you’d need, or you have the ability to hop in your car and quickly get something you’re missing, there’s not much reason to interact with your neighbors. This becomes a problem when people don’t have any other community built into their daily lives. Seniors, empty nester, and recent graduates are overwhelmingly lonelier than any other age group for this very reason. A resident of a cohousing community says the following, “People aren’t staying where they grew up anymore, and a huge trend among seniors is that they don’t have their siblings or their kids around them because they’ve gone away to university or moved out of state for a job. Living in a community can help people feel connected,”8 When you’re no longer surrounded by family and friends, its hard to find a natural way to fit into a community. Cohousing is a great way to avoid this. Cohousing communities have been established specifically to eliminate the isolation someone may feel when living alone in a large house. The Urban Ventures LLC in Denver Colorado was founded on that very principle.”2 A group of women that were empty-nesters and single were tired of living in isolation, so they joined together and created a cohousing community. Cohousing communities are also good ways to encourage people to get involved and become part of something larger than themselves. A study done by AARP showed that lack of involvement in outside activities directly correlates to a feeling of isolation. The study reads, “Lonely respondents were less likely to be involved in activities that build social networks, such as attending religious services, volunteering, participating in a community organization or spending time on a hobby.”9 Cohousing communities often share meals several times a week, create hobby groups, and check in on neighbors. The since of community that cohousing provides fights the overwhelming feeling of isolation that people are experiencing when living alone. By living with the intention to truly invest in the people that you share life with, you will feel important, valued, needed, and connected to something larger than yourself. 8 Verde, Tom. “There’s Community and Consensus. But It’s No Commune.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Jan. 2018, www.nytimes.com 9 Anderson, G. Oscar. “Loneliness Among Older Adults: A National Survey of Adults 45 .” AARP, 1 Sept. 2010, www.aarp.org
20
The Standard Single-Family Home
The Cohousing Community of Avondale
Figure 1.5 Emotional Toll of Living Alone - Cohousing creates opportunities for neighbors to get to know each other, check in on one another, and participate in community events.
21
Food Deserts and American Obesity As housing developments spread across our country, and density becomes thinner and thinner, we have seen an increase in food deserts in the United states. The American Nutrition Association says the following about food deserts,
Food deserts are defined as parts of the country vapid of fresh fruit, vegetables, and other healthful whole foods, usually found in impoverished areas. This is largely due to a lack of grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and healthy food providers. This has become a big problem because while food deserts are often short on whole food providers, especially fresh fruits and vegetables, instead, they are heavy on local quickie marts that provide a wealth of processed, sugar, and fat laden foods that are known contributors to our nation’s obesity epidemic.10 Deciding what to eat every day, and choosing a healthy option over a more tempting, nonnutritional meal is made significantly harder when you live in a food desert. The United States Department of Agriculture reported that about 2.3 million people (2.2% of US) lives in a food dessert. Nutrition focused organizations like the Food Empowerment Project have been studying the increasing problem of food deserts in the United states and have learned that food deserts hit low-income communities the hardest. They write, “Studies have found that wealthy districts have three times as many supermarkets as poor ones do,white neighborhoods contain an average of four times as many supermarkets as predominantly black ones do, and that grocery stores in African-American communities are usually smaller with less selection.”11 So, the communities that need access to fresh foods the most, are the same communities that don’t make a lot of money and don’t have a good way to get to the grocery store. In fact, they historically have fewer options to even find healthy food! Ohio does not escape this problem, and neither does Cincinnati. The map below shows the location of food deserts in the United States and in Ohio.
Figure 1.6 Food Deserts in the United
States
and
Ohio 10 11
“USDA Defines Food Deserts.” American Nutrition Association, americannutritionassociation.org “Food Deserts.” Peeling Back the Truth on Bananas | Food Empowerment Project, www.foodispower.org
22
60% 50% 40% 30% 20%
Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black
10%
Non-Hispanic Asian Hispanic
0% Total
Men
Women
Figure 1.7 The Demographics of Obesity; data from Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Unfortunately, as food deserts increase, so too does obesity because the two are directly related. If people don’t have access to quality food, they are less likely to seek it out. If people don’t eat well, they will become obese. Studies have shown that obesity in the United States is steadily increasing with no signs of slowing. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that the number of non-Hispanic white adults in Ohio that are obese is between thirty and thirty-five percent. While that number is alarming, the CDC found that the number of obese non-Hispanic black adults in Ohio is well over thirty-five percent.12 This data is not specific to Ohio. The chart to the above shows the average percentage of men and women that are obese. The numbers are separated first by gender and then by race. As you can see, non-Hispanic black women have the largest percentage of obese adults.
Urban farms, farmers markets, and affordable grocery stores can all help alleviate the problems food deserts are causing. By providing communities of need with adequate, affordable, healthy food, people in low income households will have a better chance of fighting obesity. A simple increase in the number of markets that sell fresh produce will help a large number of people. Studies have proven that introducing children to fresh produce at a young age peaks their interest in foods they may not typically try, and instills in them a desire to chose food that helps them feel better. Farms markets and small neighborhood grocery stores have the ability to educate residents, and create a community of healthy people. 12 “Data, Trends and Maps | Overweight & Obesity | CDC.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cen ters for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/databases.html.
23
24
2
The Proposition
History of Cohousing Communities Cohousing and communal living are not new concepts. In fact, people have been living in community for thousands of years, and it is only recently that we have seen a surge in single family homes. As discussed previously, single-family homes, and suburbia was established as a rejection of unsanitary and over-crowded cities during the late 19th century. As cities have become cleaner, and undeveloped land almost non-existent, people began rethinking the way we live again. The first example of formal cohousing was built in Copenhagen, Denmark in the 1970s.13 Since then, the idea has spread throughout much of Europe, and made its way to the United States. American architects Charles Durrett and Kathryn McCamant learned about these communities while studying in Copenhagen and quickly became enamored with the concept.14 In the early 1990s they designed the very first cohousing community in the United States: Muir Commons. Cohousing communities are about more than just living close to your neighbor. They often share crucial elements of living with each other. Things like: meals, outdoor space, tools and equipment, gardens, maintenance of grounds, and even childcare! 13 “The Cohousing Association.” The Growth of Cohousing in Europe | The Cohousing Association, www. cohousing.org 14 Jakobson, Peter, and Henrik Larsen. “An Alternative for Whom? The Evolution and Socio-Economy of Dan ish Cohousing.” Taylor and Francis Online, 22 Apr. 2018, www.tandfonline.com
25
Cohousing Communities in the US So, what exactly is cohousing? Well, Grace Kim, an architect from Seattle that has dedicated her practice to expanding and normalizing cohousing, gives this definition, “Cohousing is an intentional neighborhood where people know each other and look after one another. In cohousing you have your own home, but you also share significant spaces both indoors and out.”15 Cohousing is a way of life; an intentional deviation from what most Americans in the 21st century would call normal. Cohousing is a way to have private space alongside other families. It is also built in community. An opportunity to lean on others throughout the busyness of life. More and more single-family households are experiencing the social isolation that suburban living brings. Without clear connection to people outside of your home it is easy to feel alone.
Kim, the architect mentioned before has studied this problem. During her TED talk she projected an image of a house and said the following, “Let’s take a look at this house. It’s a nice house. There’s a big yard, picket fence, two car garage. And the home might be in a neighborhood that looks like this. And for many people around the globe, this home, this neighborhood is a dream. And yet, the danger of this dream is a false since of connec-
Figure 2.1 The “Ideal” American Home
tion and an increase in socialization.” Studies have shown that Americans in 2018 are more depressed and anxious now than they ever have been before. Architects across the country believe we play a role in changing this. We have an opportunity to reevaluate the way we design homes, and cohousing could be a solution to this increasing problem. Participating in a community can help residents develop empathy for neighbors that might come from different backgrounds. Community can also help residents feel seen and heard, and some believe it can both improve quality of life and increase a person’s life. As cohousing expands in the US, so too shall social connection.
15 Kim, Grace. “How cohousing can make us happier (and live longer).” TED, 2017, www.ted.com/talks/ grace_kim_how_cohousing_can_make_us_happier_and_live_longer
26
Cohousing has increasingly become popular in the United States during the last thirty years. The American Cohousing Institution has recorded 155 built communities in the United States and another 165 communities that are being built, own land, or are forming as of 2017.16 These cohousing communities have been represented in the illustration below. These communities range and size, and their occupants are diverse. There tend to be three different types of cohousing communities: communities for seniors, multi-generational communities, and communities for young, working professionals.
Figure 2.2 Map of cohousing communities in the US
All three types cater to the specific needs of their occupants. One resident of The Silver Sage Community, located in Boulder Co, explained why he wanted to create this community for seniors. Jim Leach, 77, said, “It’s definitely a good aging-in-place or downsizing model for people in their 50s and early 60s who still have quite a bit of life ahead of them, but want to move out of the old family house because they want less maintenance,”.17 Capitol Hill Urban Cohousing in Seattle best serves to a multi-generational group of people by sharing meals together multiple times a week. The Ollie Cohousing found in New York City was established specifically for young adults that are residing in New York City. 16 “The Cohousing Association.” The Growth of Cohousing in Europe | The Cohousing Association, www. cohousing.org 17 Verde, Tom. “There’s Community and Consensus. But It’s No Commune.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Jan. 2018, www.nytimes.com
27
These young-adult communities are generally found in large cities where housing costs are very expensive. They are meant to cut down on cost of living and to help young people that have recently moved to a large city quickly find community. These cohousing units typically have large shared spaces for recreational uses like shared meals, impromptu concerts, remote office space, and cafes. As housing demands continue to rise in more up-and-coming coastal cities, cohousing is stepping in to fill the void. These three communities, along with supporting imagery and data can be found in the figure below.
Figure 2.3 Precedent Analysis of Cohousing Typologies
Case Studies While there is significant value in all types of cohousing communities, I am focusing my research on the multi-generational groups. Having a diverse group of people live together and share responsibilities means there is more opportunity for people to build on their strengths and depend on others to help them with their weaknesses.
28
Capitol Hill Urban Cohousing
Figure 2.4 Precedent Analysis of Capitol Hill Urban Cohousing
This multi-generational community is located in Seattle, Washington. The group of people that live here range from single adults to small families. Each resident is committed to living a life that is connected to their neighbors, and hopes that by living in community, they will leave a smaller impact on our planet. The cohousing units are stacked on top of one another on a parcel of land that is 0.1 acres in size. There are 9 units in the building, and they fit nicely into the dense urban fabric of the Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood. As housing cost rise in Seattle, The Capitol Hill Urban Cohousing group were able to mitigate expenses by sharing space. The building serves many purposes outside of living space for nine households. The first floor is home to an architecture firm, the rooftop contains a large community garden, and the central courtyard is a space that is shared by all residents. The Common House is also integrated into the building. It is a large room that has an industrial kitchen, seating for all members, and a meeting space.18
18
Capitol Hill Urban Cohousing, capitolhillurbancohousing.org/.
29
Cully Grove
Figure 2.5 Precedent Analysis of Cully Grove
The cohousing community in Cully Grove sits on two acres in Culley Neighborhood of Portland, Oregon. This community is made up of sixteen households that span generations. The homes in this community were designed to reflect the environmental conscience of each of the residents. None of the homes are stand-alone single-family houses, and all are powered by rooftop solar panels. The homes contain in-floor radiant heat, solar hot water, premium building materials, and green landscaping. The cohousing members of Cully Grove also enjoy the perks of local gardening through the many community gardens that are shared in their large “front yard”. Paths lead from each home to their neighbors’ home, and all paths lead to the Common House. The Common House is used as a flex space by the residents. It contains a small, shared kitchen, meeting spaces, and three guest rooms. The Common House is a space that encourages the residents to come together and learn about their neighbors. It provides a space for community engagement.19
19
“Cully Grove.” Cully Grove, cullygrove.org/.
30
Germantown Commons
Figure 2.6 Precedent Analysis of Germantown Commons
This cohousing community is the first of its kind in Tennessee. The community is made up of 25 individually owned condos, and the residents come from diverse backgrounds. There are senior couples, young families, and singles that all call Germantown Commons home. The complex was built with a desire to create environmentally friendly homes. They are energy efficient, utilize rain gardens, and have small community gardens, The Common House is a focal point of the cohousing community. Inside, you’ll find several shared spaces: kitchen, dining room, living room, laundry room, event space, play room, and a screened-in porch. This house also contains three guest rooms that the residents can take turns reserving. Each of the units backs up to a shared courtyard that will lead to the Common House. This space is reserved for group activities, and the residents are able to stay connected with one another through these shared spaces.20
20
“Germantown Commons.� Germantown Commons, www.germantowncohousing.com/.
31
Sustainability in Cohousing Cohousing communities can be used as a means to reduce the harmful environmental impact that typical residential architecture has created. The way the single-family house is designed reinforces the consumption of energy and goods, and this consumptive behavior leads to a large production of waste. Single-family homes have separate utilities and several exterior walls that are exposed to the elements. Water is only used for single purposes, and rainwater is wasted and left to run into city drains. Outdoor spaces, like front yards, are underutilized and many times physical barriers are put up to separate one home from another. These homes also include individual household items that use a lot of energy to perform. Items such as washers and dryers, lawn mowers, power tools, automobiles, and grills are found in each home, but they could easily be shared. Cohousing communities are designed to eliminate these inefficiencies. By living in a community where you know and trust your neighbors, you can share things like lawn mowers and equipment. The Common House is designed to hold communal washers, dryers, kitchen items, and outdoor supplies. By sharing these things, the residents reduce their carbon footprint because they are consuming less energy and producing less waste. Another way the cohousing communities decrease their environmental impact is by sharing utilities. Electricity can be generated by solar panels and distributed to various households. Rainwater can be collected and used for irrigation, and gray water can be recycled. Additional benefits the cohousing community provides includes less building material, minimal development of valuable land, and a decreased dependency on vehicular transportation. The community mentality of cohousing also provides the opportunity to establish an urban farm that can help reduce the harmful impacts of everyday life. Agriculture is another big contributor to environmental decline, and by controlling how their food is grown and where it comes from, the residents are helping the planet. The drawings to the right illustrate the way the design of each housing type effects the environment. The Single-Family homes have exposed exterior walls, limited outdoor space, and separate utilities. The Cohousing Community shares things like exterior walls, outdoor space, and utilities.
32
The Standard Single-Family Home
separate walls
electricity from the grid
limited spaces
separate utilities
non-recycled water
The Cohousing Community of Avondale
shared walls
electricity from the sun
shared outdoor spaces
shared utilities
recycled water
Figure 2.7 Environmental Benefit of Cohousing
33
34
3
The People
The Cohousing Community of Avondale This community was founded by a group of families that wanted to live life differently in Cincinnati. Each family occupies one individual unit, but they work together, alongside their neighbors, to make a better life for each other, the neighborhood of Avondale, and their planet. The families of the Cohousing Community of Avondale chose to live here because they wanted to live in community, they wanted to know where their food was coming from, and they wanted to reduce their carbon footprint. While this lifestyle is not for everyone, the families that live here enjoy sharing their stories and hope to teach people about this alternative lifestyle. The residents of the Cohousing Community of Avondale are made up by a diverse group of people. They range in age, life stage, and size, but all are united by the desire to live an intentional life where they know and care for their neighbors. The residents include small families, retired couples, and even collage students that help out in trade for affordable housing. A description of the families that live in each unit can be found on this chapter. There is also a diagram that explains who lives in which unit and how they help out in the cohousing community.
35
Unit One: The Carters Eddie, Anne, and their two children Trip and Mason love the community that cohousing brings. Anne is an Architect that works downtown, and Eddie helps run the farm. Their children both attend Rockdale Academy.
Unit Two: Dave and Willow Dave and Willow are the newest members of the cohousing community. Dave is a lawyer for the NAACP just down the road, and Willow helps Mr. Baxter and Eddie with the farm. The Jones choose cohousing for its sustainable focus and community.
Unit Three: The Simons Roy and Sarah asked Roy’s parents to join them in the cohousing community because they wanted them to be a large part of their children’s lives. The Simons are active members of their neighborhood church, and Mrs. Simon is one of the managers of the neighborhood market.
36
Units Four & Nine There are eight collage students that live in units four and nine. These students partner with the cohousing community to help wherever possible in trade for affordable housing costs. Most of these students are working at Cincinnati Children’s or part of the farming apprenticeship program.
Unit Five: Sal and Robert Sal and Robert helped create the Cohousing Community of Avondale because they saw a great need for a cohousing community in the area. Neither were ready for retirement homes, but longed for a since of community. They are both retired now, and like to help watch the kids or run the market. Whenever their neighbors need a hand, they call on Sal and Rob.
Unit Six: The McVays Doctor McVay and his wife Alice moved to the cohousing community to be closer to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and to be part of something larger than their family. Both have a huge heart for nutritional education and service. They lead the community outreach program!
37
Unit Seven: Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter was asked to join the cohousing community because of his expertise is sustainable farming and his desire to share the value of knowing how your food was grown. He manages the farm and teaches a handful of apprentices each year. His love of farming and community education plays a huge role in the success of this community.
Unit Eight: The Higgins The Higgins share their home with Darcy’s parents Roy and Sue. Darcy and Howard asked her parents to join them because they want to look after their aging parents. Darcy is a teacher at Rockdale Academy where she works with her mom. Sue leads the Rockdale Food Team; an organization run by the cohousing community that teaches the students about the importance of healthy food.
Unit Ten: The Rays The Rays joined the cohousing community because they wanted to be close to other families. Since they live far from their own children, they recognized they were missing out on community and family bonds. Stan is retired, and Peg manages the store with Rose Simon. The Rays also help coordinate the cohousing community meals each week in the Common House.
38
Figure 3.1 The Residents of The Cohousing Community
39
40
4
The Site
Cities in Need: Cohousing + Urban Farm + Semi-Urban Space The problems discussed in chapter one effect several cities throughout the United States. This thesis explores one way these problems could be solved through an alternative lifestyle and means of living: cohousing plus an urban farm in a semi-urban neighborhood. Cohousing can help bring neighbors closer together and reduce environmental impacts residential architecture. When you introduce food into this equation, cohousing is uniquely positioned to help in more ways. Food is vital to human existence, and the way we grow and consume it not only impacts our bodies, but our planet as well. When a group of people that live together in a cohousing community also work together to produce food for one another, it reduces their collective carbon footprint, while increases their communal bond. This system would be less effective environmentally and socially if the residents relied on their vehicles as much as the average family. So, it is crucial that the cohousing community be located in a semi-urban neighborhood. This will allow the residents to take advantage of infrastructure that is already in place and to share everyday items. Example cities that could benefit from this model have been listed and explained in the following section.
41
Cohousing Typology Throughout the US There are a few unique attributes that make a community particularly well qualified to be considered to house a cohousing community: declining population, low house-hold income, minimal diversity, and available land. Three example cities are listed and explained below.
Middlesboro, Kentucky The city of Middlesboro is located in the Appalachian Region and has a population of 9,872; 28% of the people that live there are below the poverty line. This small town is largely in a food desert, and 34% of adults are obese. Both the median household income and house value are below Kentucky’s state average.21 Detroit, Michigan Detroit is the largest city in Michigan and is home to predominantly families of color (82%). The city’s population decreased with the collapse of the housing and auto industries, and it became a wasteland. Detroit is now the poorest large city, and hundreds of vacant lots are found where large buildings once stood.22 Avondale - Cincinnati, Ohio Avondale
is
one
of Cincinnati’s
poorest
neighborhoods. The high school drop-out rate, unemployment rate, and illiteracy rate are all above Cincinnati’s average. This community doesn’t have a diverse population, and over 70% is in a food desert, and there are several blocks of vacant land throughout the community.23 21 “Middlesborough, Kentucky.” www.city-data.com/city/Middlesborough-Kentucky.html. 22 “Detroit, Michigan Population 2019.” Total Population by Country 2018, worldpopulationreview.com/us-cit ies/detroit-population/. 42 23 Maloney, Michael, and Christopher Auffrey. The Social Areas of Cincinnati, An Analysis of Social Needs. 5th ed., 2013.
The History of Avondale Avondale was not always a predominately low-income, black neighborhood. In fact, it used to be a place were wealthy white families lived. The rolling fills once saw lavish homes and forested areas. It wasn’t until the demolition of the West End that families of color began to migrate to Avondale in the late 1940s.24 By the 1960s, city planners saw the neighborhood was suffering, and if left alone could quickly turn into a slum. Due to the fact that both Avondale was (and still is) next to major institutions such as: The University of Cincinnati, the VA Medical Center, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, the University of Cincinnati Hospital, and the Cincinnati Zoo, the City of Cincinnati could not “afford” to let these areas become completely dilapidated.25 The Avondale-Coryville Plan of 1960 says, “Some communities and even neighborhoods, have roles that are of regional importance”. Although the overall goal of this city plan was to restore a since of pride and beauty into Avondale, the overarching intent was to maintain the successes of the influential institutions, not to help lower income families. When the City of Cincinnati demolished thousands of homes in the West End to make room for a new highway, many families were forced to leave their homes without any help of relocating. The West End housed most of the city’s black community, and when the residents were forced to relocate a large number of them were drawn to Avondale. Avondale contained a large population of families of color and it was easier to receive a loan for the homes in that area. However, these loans often came with unbearably high monthly payments, and in order to offset the financial burden, a lot of families were taking in tenants. Overcrowding and lack of maintenance are the leading causes in the generation of slums, and these two things are exactly what happened in Avondale in the 1960s. The city feared that if the deterioration of the neighborhood progressed, it would harm the institutions that were just down the road. The survival and success for these institutions took precedent over an entire community of people because those organizations were bringing the city way more money than the low-income families were. So, they were pushed to the side, ignored, and overpowered by their wealthy institutional neighbors. These series of events led Avondale to become the neighborhood of today. This cohousing project takes place in Cincinnati neighborhood of Avondale, because Avondale is a community of need. 24 United States. City of Cincinnati. City Planning Commission. Cincinnati Metropolitan Master Plan. Cincinnati, Ohio, 1948. 25 United States. City of Cincinnati. City Planning Commission. Cincinnati Metropolitan Master Plan. Cincinnati, Ohio, 1960.
43
Avondale Today Avondale only makes up about four percent of Cincinnati’s population, but it is home to a large portion of the city’s black community.26 Over seventy percent of the community lives in a food desert27 and are overweight. The neighborhood experiences quite a bit of hardship, and this is largely due the to the lack of investment from both the city and the residents that live there. The graphs below show the demographics of the neighborhood. As you can see, the high school drop-out rate, the unemployment rate, and the illiteracy rate are all above Cincinnati’s average. The Cohousing Community of Avondale could be a way to help the residents overcome some of these set backs. The Urban Farm can partner with schools to teach trades and help local kids develop skills for business, marketing, and even farming! By learning these trades, students are able to become invested in school work, have skills for employment opportunities, improve literacy, and reinvest in their community.
Figure 4.1 Demographics of Avondale
26 Maloney, Michael, and Christopher Auffrey. The Social Areas of Cincinnati, An Analysis of Social Needs. 5th ed., 2013. 44 27 “Go to the Atlas.” USDA ERS - Food Environment Atlas, www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas/.
The map below shows the location of the Cohousing Community, what surrounds it, and part of the neighborhood of Avondale. The Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, and the northern part of the Cincinnati Children’s campus are extremely to the site, as well as Rockdale academy, Fleischmann Gardens, several bus stops. These various items are called out because they each add value to the Cohousing Community. The bus stops insure residents can depend on public transportation and won’t need individual vehicles. The institutions show possible places of employment. The urban farm can partner with Rockdale Academy and the local market to spread education of the importance of healthy eating, and the garden can be a great space for residents to enjoy the outdoors and get to know other members of the Avondale Community.
Figure 4.2 Map of Avondale
45
46
5
The Project
The Cohousing Units + the Common House The focus for this thesis is a cohousing community in Avondale. The entire complex contains cohousing units that are in two buildings, a common house, an urban farm, a neighborhood market, a community outreach center, a farm-to-table restaurant, and a sheltered bus and bike station. The cohousing unit buildings each contain five individual housing units that range from one-four bedrooms. These units have their own kitchens, living rooms, bathrooms, and greenhouses. The greenhouses face the street and are used to act as a buffer between the unites and the busy public street. Floor plans for each can be found in the back of this document. Families occupy their individual units for a majority of their time, but they have the opportunity to interact with their neighbors in the communal spaces. The Common House is the source of communal life amongst the residents. The building is near the cohousing units, and it contains a large kitchen, dining area that seats forty, lounge space, guest rooms, shared laundry, and shared storage. The residents can gather in the common house as much as they please, and can even share meals together three times a week. These meals are optional, but responsibilities are rotated weekly between the residents. The Common House and central
47
courtyard are two formal spaces designed to get residents out of their homes and connecting with their neighbors. For more personal interactions there are small shared spaces between some of the units. Where the homes appear to "overlap" there is a shared courtyard. In this space, people can share a cup of coffee, play in a shaded space, or just say hello. Diagram further explaining these different types communal spaces and how the residents occupy them can be found below.
Move Houses Together - Overlap
Move Houses Together
Remove Areas That Overlap
Shift Pieces Forward
Remove Spaces For Terraces
Add Greenhouses
Outdoor Spaces Face Common Areas
Community Garden To Edge
Figure 5.1 Massing Diagram
Figure 5.2 Massing Diagram
Architect Grace Kim studied the effectiveness of cohousing, and she determined that the more times residents shared a meal together, the stronger their relationships were. She found that “eating together provides opportunities to connect on a deeper and more intentional way,”.28 Architecture has the ability to facilitate these bonds, and the Common House and shared courtyards fosters these unique relationships. 28
Kim, Grace. “How cohousing can make us happier (and live longer).” TED, 2017, www.ted.com/talks/ 48 grace_kim_how_cohousing_can_make_us_happier_and_live_longer
Figure 5.3 Shared Spaces in Cohousing
49
The Urban Farm + the Neighborhood Market The urban farm is crucial to this cohousing community. Over seventy-five percent of Avondale is located in a food desert. The urban farm not only supplies food for the cohousing residents, but it will serve and teach members of the Avondale community too. The goal is to grow enough food to feed all thirty-two residents for most of the year, and to have enough of a surplus to sell at an affordable price. This farm will provide a source of income for five members of the cohousing community. There are also two apprenticeship positions that partner with University of Cincinnati students. On the urban farm you will find: vegetables, fruits, an orchard, honey bees, wild flowers, goats and chickens. Food waste from the resident’s homes and the Common House will be composted and reused for nutrient rich soil. By growing food in their own backyards, and cutting down their waste significantly, the residents are decrease their impact on the planet. You can see the Farm’s layout and location of composting on the site plan to the right. Popular items like fresh eggs, leafy greens, flowers, honey, and home canned goods will be sold at the neighborhood market that is on site. The production, selling, and consumption cycle is illustrated in the diagram below. GROW
HARVEST
SHARE
EAT
COMPOST
FERTILIZE
GROW
Figure 5.4 Food Cycle of Avondale Cohousing Community
There is currently a locally owned and operated community store on the site. I am proposing reinvestment in this store and designing a space for the cohousing community to sell their goods. The market will employ four cohousing residents full time and three of the college students part time. The neighborhood market will be replacing the existing, rundown store, but instead of replacing the existing owner, the residents will partner with the owner to improve the store. Since the housing units and urban farm are privately owned and operated, the market is a space that allows the public to engage with the cohousing community. The market will continue to be open to the public, and it will provide the cohousing community a way to teach people about their alternative lifestyle while selling them necessary, fresh goods.
50
Figure 5.5 Site plan of Avondale Cohousing Community
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/32” = 1’ 0”
51
Community Outreach The cohousing community is located in an area that provides a unique opportunity to be a source of education for the neighborhood of Avondale. Having a community outreach center tied into the market is a great way to provide many resources that this community is lacking. The small community outreach center will have spaces for local households to learn about urban farming, healthy meal options, free monthly cooking lessons, and what it means to live in an environmentally conscience way. The outreach center will be run by the residents and will even partner with Rockdale Academy to teach the students about farming.
Figure 5.6 View of Community Outreach Center
With healthy food so readily available with the addition of an urban farm and neighborhood market, a farm-to-table restaurant is the perfect way to get more people in Avondale eager to try new, healthy foods. This restaurant will not be operated by the residents of the cohousing community, but instead will be rented out, and will employ local residents.
Figure 5.7 View of Farm-to-Table Restaurant
Since public transportation is heavily used in this area, and the cohousing community will be relying on alternative modes of transportation, there will be a small bus and bike shelter on site. The small shelter will act as a bus stop for the public to use. The bike station will be a private storage shed for the residents’ bikes. There will also be a public bike repair station and public, covered bike rack.
Figure 5.8 View of Bus Stop and Bike Storage
52
Creating a Sustainable Community Perhaps the most unique part of the cohousing community project is the shared responsibility to a sustainable lifestyle. The homeowners will be responsible for generating all electricity that is required to power not only their homes, but their shared vehicles as well. The housing units will have the ability to trade/share electricity with neighboring units, and they will all have access to an energy dashboard to see how much energy is being generated and used throughout the entire complex. In addition to energy harvesting, the housing units are also responsible for collecting, and treating all water on the site. Rainwater will be reused for gray water and irrigation needs for the farm. This environmentally conscience group will work together, creating a self-sufficient, resilient community. Information on how exactly the homes are able to achieve this is illustrated in the diagram below.
rooftop solar panels
rainwater collected
composting from food waste
rainwater collected solar panel and used for irrigation array
community compost drop-off location
energy water waste
Figure 5.9 Sustainability in the Cohousing Community
53
54
Conclusion There are three main problems that have been caused by suburbia and urban sprawl: environmental damage, an increase in food deserts, and social isolation. With the increase of development on valuable farmlands, dependency of energy to feed the American consumptive lifestyle, and the weight of feeling excluded from the outside world, the American Dream isn’t really a dream at all. Cohousing is a viable solution to these problems and a means to tackle the negative effects of suburbia. By living in community and sharing with their neighbors, residents of the Cohousing Community of Avondale are reducing their impact on the planet while increasing their impact on their community. They help cut down on material consumption, building materials, waste production, and energy demands. Cohousing eliminates social isolation by providing social engagement and a sense of purpose that so many people are missing in our world today. As cohousing communities are created in the United States, more people will benefit from this new way of life. These communities are great for seniors that aren’t ready for retirement homes, young professionals that can’t afford large mortgages, and neighborhoods that are in need engagement from the community. Cohousing gets people invested in their own homes, their neighbors, and the community that they live in.
55
Bibliography
Anderson, G. Oscar. “Loneliness Among Older Adults: A National Survey of Adults 45 .” AARP, 1
Sept. 2010, www.aarp.org/research/topics/life/info-2014/loneliness_2010.html.
Capitol Hill Urban Cohousing, capitolhillurbancohousing.org/. Comberg, Ella. “A Different Kind of Architectural Drawing: Léon Krier's Sketches.” ArchDaily, 24
Jan. 2018, www.archdaily.com
“Cully Grove.” Cully Grove, cullygrove.org/. “Data, Trends and Maps | Overweight & Obesity | CDC.” Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/obesity/
“Detroit, Michigan Population 2019.” Total Population by Country 2018, worldpopulationreview.
com/us-cities/detroit-population/.
Fishman, Robert. Bourgeois Utopias The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. Basic Books Inc., 1987. “Food Deserts.” Peeling Back the Truth on Bananas | Food Empowerment Project, www.
foodispower.org/food-deserts/.
“Go to the Atlas.” USDA ERS - Food Environment Atlas, www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/
food-access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas/.
“Germantown Commons.” Germantown Commons, www.germantowncohousing.com/. Kim, Grace. “How cohousing can make us happier (and live longer).” TED, 2017, www.ted.com/
talks/grace_kim_how_cohousing_can_make_us_happier_and_live_longer
Jakobson, Peter, and Henrik Larsen. “An Alternative for Whom? The Evolution and Socio-
Economy of Danish Cohousing.” Taylor and Francis Online, 22 Apr. 2018,
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17535069.2018.1465582.
“Lifestyle Choices Affect U.S. Impact on the Environment.” Population Reference Bureau, www.
prb.org/lifestylechoicesaffectusimpactontheenvironment/.
Maloney, Michael, and Christopher Auffrey. The Social Areas of Cincinnati, An Analysis of
Social Needs. 5th ed., 2013.
“Middlesborough, Kentucky.” www.city-data.com/city/Middlesborough-Kentucky.html.
56
“The Cohousing Association.” The Growth of Cohousing in Europe | The Cohousing Association,
www.cohousing.org/what_is_cohousing.
United States. City of Cincinnati. City Planning Commission. Cincinnati Metropolitan Master Plan.
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1948.
United States. City of Cincinnati. City Planning Commission. Cincinnati Metropolitan Master Plan.
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1960.
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” - Energy
Information Administration, 2016, www.eia.gov/state/rankings/?sid=US.
“USDA Defines Food Deserts.” American Nutrition Association, americannutritionassociation.
org/newsletter/usda-defines-food-deserts.
Verde, Tom. “There's Community and Consensus. But It's No Commune.” The New York Times,
The New York Times, 20 Jan. 2018, www.nytimes.com/
57
Appendix
FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/8” = 1’ 0”
First Floor Plan
58
SMALL SCALE: THE UNIT
1 5 MEDIUM SCALE: SHARED SPACES
30
LARGE SCALE: THE COMMON HOUSE
Diagram of Shared Spaces
59
#10 #9 #8 #6
#7
WORKER FARMER MARKET HELPER CHILD
#5
ADULT - FARMER
#4
STUDENT - MARKET
#3
#2
#1
SENIOR - HELPER
Diagram of Residents
60
COHOUSING COMMON HOUSE FARM MARKET RESTAURANT BUS STOP AND BIKE
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Diagram of Program
61
GROW
HARVEST
SHARE
EAT
COMPOST
FERTILIZE
GROW
Diagram of Farming
62
ENERGY
SHARED WALLS
WATER
OUTDOOR SPACE
WASTE
Diagram of Sustainability
63
Diagram of Social Engagement
64
WE TEACH OTHERS
WE COMPOST!
I’M A FARMER
I’M A TEACHER
I HELP HARVEST
WE LEARN ABOUT FARMING
I’M AN APPRENTICE
I’M A PASTOR I'M AN ARCHITECT
WE’RE COLLEGE STUDENTS
I’M A DOCTOR FOR CHILDRENS
I’M A LAWYER FOR THE NAACP
Diagram of Community Impact
65