Cohousing: Socially and Environmentally Sustaining
Guy Dundas, November 2003
There are many different approaches to building communities that are more socially and environmentally sustainable than the "business-as usual" approach of suburban sub-divisions of homogenous single-family homes.
Two of these approaches are in evidence in developments in South Australia - the largescale, semi-rural Eco-Village concept of Aldinga Arts Eco- Village, and the smaller and more urban Christie Walk EcoCity.
A third approach shares many principles with the projects mentioned above - it is a model known as cohousing that is a well-established housing form in Scandinavia, North America, and (hopefully soon) in Australia.
Christie Walk, in particular, is on a scale that promotes the kind of social community that is the defining characteristic of cohousing. In fact, once Christie Walk's Stage Three common facilities are completed, one might beg the question - what is the difference? The answer is, in my opinion, both a lot and not much.
Having visited 22 cohousing communities in North America between February and May this year, I can confidently say that each and every one of these communities maintains an admirable level of environmental consciousness and concern, and have deliberately built dwellings that minimise their ecological footprint.
Yet this is in spite of the fact that each of these communities maintains a self-image based on their community spirit, rather than their environmental credentials. The communities are intended as great places to grow up, grow old, or grow veges, not as places that are showpieces of environmental design.
The only reason I can give for this parallel selfconception of EcoCities and cohousing communities is that social connection is an essential part of environmental sustainability and vice versa.
The fact that cohousing is born out of a desire for social connection means that it inevitably must sustain a concern with the health of the living environment of the community it creates. Conversely, the passion and shared beliefs that Urban Ecology members have brought to Christie Walk inevitably creates connections that will sustain a real community amongst its state-of-the-art buildings.
In trying to understand the parallels between North American cohousing and Christie Walk, I am hoping that those of us who are concerned with promoting sustainable and innovative housing forms can present a range of options that are diverse and fulfill a range of human needs.
Some of us are inspired by the very best in environmentally friendly design, while others of us desire a place to raise a family, or to retire as part of a community. Any one of these developments need not be all things to all people, but they should complement and reinforce one another.
The fact that many of the people who attended my recent cohousing talks were Urban Ecology members suggests to me that an individual's vision of social and environmental sustainability is a quite personal combination and capable of great variation. The aim should be to fulfill as great a range of these various visions as possible, across a range of similar but diverse communities.
The differing origins of EcoCities and cohousing communities, and their common endpoint of both social and environmental sustainability, need not cause confusion or rivalry. Both approaches are equally legitimate, and their overlap should be synergistic.
As a self-appointed spokesperson for cohousing in SA through my website www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/dundas, I hope this is what occurs - not least because Christie Walk shows the way for those of us who aspire to similar goals.
2007.2.8